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.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by EssenSieMich
In the wake of such tragedies it is hard for advocates of gun control to be rational (unless their raison d'etre or rationale is to forward an anti gun agenda). We dont here proponents of car safety go "ballistic" everytime there is a multi-car, multiple death car/truck accident on the highway (one's odds of being killed inside a motor vehicle is greater by several magnitude than from being killed by a bullet fired from a gun). However, that being said, it is important to keep the mentally incompetent from getting their hands on any firearm (whether it fires 1 shot or 30 and looks scary [ie,black furniture, flash hider, bayonet lug, tactical rails, etc) or is made of pink plastic. Needless to say strong laws should be enforced for keeping guns away from career criminals (especially those apt to use them in the commission of crimes against persons). It is a balancing act between "collective safety" and "individual rights" but we must not forget the language of the 2nd Amendment which says that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. If we are to err then we must err on the side of allowing individuals to own firearms like we take our chances on the highway (which is populated by drunks, drivers with no or a revoked license, etc). Like Einstein's bent space and time we start out with individual rights to firearm ownership but in the end it ends up being for the collective safety also. How is that? Look at the intent of the founders in drafting the 2nd A. It is to protect the republic (collective) from a despotical dictator from seizing and exercising tyrannical control over our country. Not that anyone in our government has such designs but it has happened throughout history (to wit: Hitler's Germany; Stalin's Russia and Mao's China). As Santaanna said, "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by EssenSieMich
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest anti-Second Amendment group.
How do they even allow a group that is opposed to the constitution?
Shouldn't they be classed as criminals and be arrested?
Are they not in fact terrorists according to DHS rulings?
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by backinblack
That's oversimplifying it a bit.
First, let's be realistic and face it...the founding fathers didn't envision a country this large with automatic weapons available online or virtual arsenals in every (or even most) homes.
Originally posted by lewman
reply to post by mileslong54
if the police came and raided your house and took your guns, do you really think your neighbours are going to start firing at them.
anyway background checks can not be a bad thing even if they stop only one murder.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Gun control does not necessarily equate to gun grabbing. There's clearly a problem or two in this country with illegal and automatic weapons and the like and clearly some of our citizens have some very real concerns. Shutting down any and all debate about it doesn't do the country as a whole any good.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by backinblack
That's oversimplifying it a bit.
First, let's be realistic and face it...the founding fathers didn't envision a country this large with automatic weapons available online or virtual arsenals in every (or even most) homes.
Where do you get this crap? Directly from the "Brady Bunch" web site? Why don't you try to buy an automatic weapon online, and when you get internet privileges at whatever prison they put you in, let us hear from you. They also didn't envision cars and cellphones (both of which are responsible for more deaths than guns), but I bet you have one or more of both, and you don't even HAVE a Constitutional right to EITHER of those.
Second, there are steps we can take to make things easier to find the illegal guns or from people to get them. Things like standardizing the laws from state to state regarding licensing. Inspecting more shipments. Waiting periods. Tracing ammo. Required safety courses.
All this stuff exists under federal laws already on the books!
All I'm saying is that there's clearly some room for discussion and debate and maybe even some sane control here. People are concerned and rightly so. And if we don't do it now, we will in the future.
Why don't we put the same controls on automobiles that we ALREADY have on guns? That would take about three fourths of cars off the road and allay our worries about "global warming" (as I type this, it is now 8 degrees with a wind chill of minus 15) for a few more years. Cars kill and maim far more people than guns do, but I certainly have never heard of "Car Control Inc,"! Have you?