It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Think the feds are taking your guns? Think again! This just in!

page: 8
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Guns should not be allowed and restricted. We are not living in Wild Wild West anymore, civilised country have no need for weapon for private citizens. Doesn't matter what is said in constitution..it's outdated now and served it's purpose.




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I just had a thought, a passing thought but a thought nonetheless. I've been reading through a lot of the threads regarding current events during the past few weeks.

Russian spies were captured yesterday in the US, US and Israeli military forces have been massing around Iran, North Korea's belligerence, the growing boldness of the drug cartels etc.

MAYBE, just MAYBE... since the US military is outstretched and the NG is deployed around the world, the US Government saw fit to loosen the restrictions on firearm ownership in order to arm the civilian populace in preparation for a possible invasion of the US mainland.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I see this is a good step for the advancement or rather re(advancement) of states rights.

What happens in Arizona will be BIG in determining with the future of gun laws as well as state rights. Things are about to get interesting.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crimson_King
s. Doesn't matter what is said in constitution..it's outdated now and served it's purpose.


This is of course if you are an American Citizen. If the constitution is outdated and has served its purpose, then I guess so has: your freedom of speech, the right to assembly to protest freedom of the press if you decide to publish or write something in the newspaper, the right to protest, and all of the other constitutional rights that the US Constitution gives us. Want a fair trial?? Too bad, fair trials are outdated.

The Constitutuion is like the foundation of a building. You can't pick and choose what you want out of it, it's all or nothing unless there are amendments passed by the courts. Without a stable foundation, the US would crumble even faster, especially with everything going on nowadays.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crimson_King
Guns should not be allowed and restricted. We are not living in Wild Wild West anymore, civilised country have no need for weapon for private citizens. Doesn't matter what is said in constitution..it's outdated now and served it's purpose.


Odd. That was exactly what the Nazi's said before they took everyones guns, then systematically rounded people up and murdered them.

Oh what's this, Mao did the same thing? He managed to slaughter 40-80 MILLION unarmed people. For the greater good no doubt?

Stalin too advised the people of such barbarism as owning weapons.. but he only murdered 23 MILLION innocent people as well.. guns were for armies not mere peasants ..

Pol-Pot? Yup he too favored fun control and made it a capital offense to handle one unless you were in his army. Only 2 million dead there.

Sadam restricted gun ownership, especially to the Kurds and Shia, slaughtering 600k people with gas and fire power while they huddled in ditches over their loved ones.

Tito in Yugoslavia slaughtered some 600k people.. that only ended in 1987.

Every single one of these countries went from relative peace to complete chaos, and every one had their fire arms and weapons removed before they were slaughtered. Would Mao been able to kill tens of millions had they been equally armed? No, his army never would have overcame the people. It's not that this is "the wild west" right now.. it's that, without keeping the Government in check, it could be the wild west tomorrow. Personally, I'd rather die standing up with a gun in my hand, than covering my family helplessly in a ditch as bullets are systematically shot into our heads.

NO ONE is immune to Tyranny.. and there is never a warning, it just happens. At the very least, America can never fall victim to the atrocities the Socialist/Fascist world has experienced.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crunkman919

Originally posted by Crimson_King
s. Doesn't matter what is said in constitution..it's outdated now and served it's purpose.


This is of course if you are an American Citizen. If the constitution is outdated and has served its purpose, then I guess so has: your freedom of speech, the right to assembly to protest freedom of the press if you decide to publish or write something in the newspaper, the right to protest, and all of the other constitutional rights that the US Constitution gives us. Want a fair trial?? Too bad, fair trials are outdated.

The Constitutuion is like the foundation of a building. You can't pick and choose what you want out of it, it's all or nothing unless there are amendments passed by the courts. Without a stable foundation, the US would crumble even faster, especially with everything going on nowadays.



Not Outdated, constantly misread, misquoted, misunderstood by those wanting guns.
It says something like blah blah blah right to bear arms blah
blah blah, blah blah, Blah. Blah Blah Blah what it says.

On the entire document the only words that are read are "right to bear arms"
and all the other words on the Paper are meaningless dribble. But it in fact it
applies a condition to that law, and that condition is Ignored and not enforeced.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by Crunkman919

Originally posted by Crimson_King
s. Doesn't matter what is said in constitution..it's outdated now and served it's purpose.


This is of course if you are an American Citizen. If the constitution is outdated and has served its purpose, then I guess so has: your freedom of speech, the right to assembly to protest freedom of the press if you decide to publish or write something in the newspaper, the right to protest, and all of the other constitutional rights that the US Constitution gives us. Want a fair trial?? Too bad, fair trials are outdated.

The Constitution is like the foundation of a building. You can't pick and choose what you want out of it, it's all or nothing unless there are amendments passed by the courts. Without a stable foundation, the US would crumble even faster, especially with everything going on nowadays.



Not Outdated, constantly misread, misquoted, misunderstood by those wanting guns.
It says something like blah blah blah right to bear arms blah
blah blah, blah blah, Blah. Blah Blah Blah what it says.

On the entire document the only words that are read are "right to bear arms"
and all the other words on the Paper are meaningless dribble. But it in fact it
applies a condition to that law, and that condition is Ignored and not enforced.




Apparently even misread by you as well. If you don't have enough respect to quote in full the part your referencing, of one of this countries most honored documents, then please don't comment on it at all. When you speak such things as "blah blah blah right to bear arms blah blah blah" you look and sound ignorant and probably need a better education on the constitution and bill of rights as well as what the founding fathers had to say about it. Do a little research before you unintelligently bash a topic.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Haven't read any of the other responses, too many of them. If someone has stated this, it's that great minds think alike thing....

Two things.

This will last only until the next restrictive law comes into play and it will take years to settle, again.

This will finally be settled when some disaster happens and the government suspends individual rights and weapons are confiscated by military action. At this time, you have a hard choice, fight and die or be killed later. There is no upside for confiscated weapons.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by hinky

This will last only until the next restrictive law comes into play and it will take years to settle, again.


Yup. It's never over.

This ruling like the DC ruling is far more a loss than a win.

It says they can't have an outright ban. Whoop-de-doo. The same ruling says they can regulate the hell out of it. Making ownership impossible. A de-facto ban is far more sinister than an outright ban.

NYC for example. Handguns arent banned. You can definitely get one legally. As long as you are a politician, friend of a politician, celebrity, or buddies with some of the high ranking police.

Cut a check for a few thousand and you can get one legally.

Or, hand Leroy on the corner $100 and get one illegally.

Average law-abiding guy? Ooops, sorry. You cant have one. But there's technically no ban.

This ruling is a farce. It wont change anything for anyone unless Daley takes a step back from his stupidity pedestal.

I love the quotes from Daley after the ruling. He rails on about "assault weapons." Nothing at all to do with the handgun ban or ruling. He's obviously insane and not entirely aware of his surroundings.


"We'll publicly propose a new ordinance very soon," Daley said at an afternoon press conference concerning the gun ban.

"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

Source: www.nbcchicago.com...


[edit on 29-6-2010 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
On the entire document the only words that are read are "right to bear arms"
and all the other words on the Paper are meaningless dribble. But it in fact it
applies a condition to that law, and that condition is Ignored and not enforeced.


The Supreme Court decided the issue in DC vs Heller. Here's pretty much the only thing that matters:


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


Source



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


i am actually pretty sure (atleast in florida) you don't need any special permits for fully automatic weapons. its more of a bluff than anything, since people think there is a big hassle with getting full auto guns, they just settle with an ar-15 or some other semi-auto quasi-military firearm.


The permit is required by federal law. It has to be obtained from the BATFE. You even have to have the local head of police sign a form saying that he agrees with you owning one in his jurisdiction.

The only difference between a well equiped AR-15 and an M4 or M16 is really the auto-fire option. You can load your AR up with bipods, optics, ligths, laser sights, and folding stocks. You can even get them in better calibers. I have seen ARs outfitted to fire 7.62x39.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Crunkman919
 





You can't pick and choose what you want out of it, it's all or nothing unless there are amendments passed by the courts.


Not to nitpick here but the constitution is not amended by the courts but by the congress.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
to the OP's original post:

yay! i heard this yesterday while driving to work listening to NPR. amazing!
i instantly thought of ATS when i heard it.
amazing gain. gotta love it.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LurkingSleipner
 


It is actually quite hard to find the original text and it's entirety.

But the main phrase is
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State

The key word being and, it does not say or

Meaning you need both conditions to be met to have that right.
If it had said or they you would be entitled to live like
the Wild Wild West, without question.

So carrying a Magnum into McDonalds you are not defending yourself
and the state. And you can't be defending the State if the
State is not at War.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


When a small airprot near the lake wouldn't sell out so he could build a park Mr. Mayor sent in his own crew with bulldozers to cut Xs in the run way. It wasn't long before they sold out.

On topic: From what I've heard they are considerring requiring classes, a tax, proof of marksmanship, and possibly even ballistics testing. The city isn't going to change how it handles things. They are going to do the same thing that DC did. Then we will get another round of lawsuits.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
Not Outdated, constantly misread, misquoted, misunderstood by those wanting guns.
It says something like blah blah blah right to bear arms blah
blah blah, blah blah, Blah. Blah Blah Blah what it says.

On the entire document the only words that are read are "right to bear arms"
and all the other words on the Paper are meaningless dribble. But it in fact it
applies a condition to that law, and that condition is Ignored and not enforeced.


Perfect example of a Straw man argument

You are the one who has "misread, misquoted or misunderstood," the 2nd amendment.

Here let me give you the exact, entire quote to the official US 2nd amendment (try to keep up, as it is only one sentence long, 27 words that even a simpleton could understand; so you won't have any problem, correct?):

Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You articulately stated...: "blah blah blah right to bear arms blah blah blah, blah blah, Blah. Blah Blah Blah what it says."

Tell me where it reads "Blah Blah Blah" etc.? It does not.

One can only conclude that you can not intelligently counter, attack or better your agenda against the 2nd amendment as it is written; so you sadly regress to straw man arguments and child like nonsense. That is, unless "Blah Blah" is some sort of English word used these days during intelligent discussions? (rhetorical)

Take special note to "shall not be infringed." This simple but extremely important phrase can not be twisted, spun or re-defined to fit some legal gray area. Our forefathers/framers were genii and chose these words wisely, in order to stand the test of time and as a beacon for future generation when gun grabbers/freedom haters once again tried to take the teeth out of our Constitution.

Without the 2nd amendment, the final truth is that our Constitution becomes a nothing more than a parchment shield.


..


[edit on 29-6-2010 by kneverr]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
It is actually quite hard to find the original text and it's entirety.

But the main phrase is
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State


Its also completely irrelevant. In reality, that is not the version that was actually ratified by the states and the states are not bound by it.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


As Vor said that doesn't matter.

However, the state is at war. War is being waged in two countries and has been claimed against everything from drugs to poverty. America is in a constant state of war.

Does that mean that some rouge Afghani is going to jump from behind a tree and open fire? I wouldn't bet on it. What it does is invalidate your argument.

Your argument is false on both fronts.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Not to nitpick here but the constitution is not amended by the courts but by the congress.


Not to nitpick here but the constitution is not amended by congress, but by proposals put forth by either congress or a constitutional convention, which are then ratified by the individual states.

Congress exists legally subordinate to the constitution.




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by apocalypsesound
I'm confused about how you all interpret the second amendment. It's pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms is in reference to a well-regulated militia, and only that. Unless we are each part of a "well-regulated" (and who does the regulating?) militia, then no rights are bestowed.


According to our founding fathers, all adult males were considered part of the militia.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join