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.

 

Your right to 'Bear Arms'

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ideasarebulletproof
 


You don't need a license to own full autos, that's horse #. They knew they couldn't pass a law restricting ownership of firearms so they passed a law requiring a tax be paid on certain firearms. This will likely be struck down by the SCOTUS anyways, but it is just a tax.

If you live in Montana and buy a montana stamped gun with no intention of taking it out of state, you currently can own a fully auto machine gun with incendiary rounds and not register it with anyone...

Jaden




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by browsey

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by browsey
 





I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.


The US is 5th on the list of firearm related deaths. After such countries as, South Africa (1), Columbia (2), Thailand (3), Guatemala (4). Yes those countries have much higher deaths from firearms, but the US only has 15.2% of it's deaths from guns. 7.07% are homicides. Compare this with the homicide statistics : 4.8 people killed per 100,000 population and really it is a small number that gets capped...compared to population.


*Facepalm*
Please do not use wikipedia as your source for collecting statistics, and also check the year, and if possible when giving facts, statistics etc (As i have not done) please give us the link as for all we know that is mere speculation.

Watch Bowling for Columbine if you have not seen it, if for nothing more than the homicide gun crime rates in the US, being dramatically more.

So we have also concluded that yes explosives (I.e cannons) are allowed, but again WHERE is the line drawn? surely it should be as clear cut as possible? Too much it so say that it is ridiculous that certain weapons can be readily available if you have the funds, shouldnt the whole point of being "equal" (For this instance just for arms' sake) everyone should just be given every weapon that is readily available from bombs to nukes o that nobody has the upper hand and nobody uses them right? No? Well the common answer would be "Oh there too many nutters out there.." well if you can understand that with bombs and nuclear/chemical warfare, relative to the damage they cause, look at the thousands that die to gun crime because they are just 'readily available', i hate the fact that in the US you NEED a gun to be 'safe' and on par with everyone else.

Personally i would not ever live in America, i have visited it, i like the place but due to the ridiculous gun laws, i can't feel the need to feel safe and call a place home that is extremely dangerous, im sorry id much rather live with your friends up north or down south (Canada and South Americas).


I cannot believe that morons still don't accept wikipedia...I also can't believe that you are still doing the *facepalm* thing!
If you have problems with wikipedia, please look at the sources that THEY LIST at the bottom. These #'s are from 2010 junior. *Facepalm*...hehe *shakes head and walks away.


Edit: On second thought you might just not understand simple math...if that is the problem please ask questions and any one of us can help you out sport.

edit on 19-12-2011 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by browsey
 





I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.


The US is 5th on the list of firearm related deaths. After such countries as, South Africa (1), Columbia (2), Thailand (3), Guatemala (4). Yes those countries have much higher deaths from firearms, but the US only has 15.2% of it's deaths from guns. 7.07% are homicides. Compare this with the homicide statistics : 4.8 people killed per 100,000 population and really it is a small number that gets capped...compared to population.


" Where are we in "# of automobile deaths per capita?"
Makes about as much sense in this context...


Wow. What is happening with the quality of the posers...err posters?
This makes sense because this was more info on the OP. If you want to make a thread about automobile deaths per capita, go ahead, I will even help you.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 


I suspect they meant enough arms to combat an established tyranny.


SM2

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by brokedown
reply to post by Darkblade71
 


Technically Cannons are not illegal, however, under the National Firearms Act of 1968 Federal statute requires that a device like this be rendered unserviceable, registered with the ATF by a the legal owner and a annual tax be paid in the amount of $200 dollars.

But,
Here is the catch.

If a private citizen is in possession of a NFA firearm that has never been registered, it is Unlawful for the citizen to register it, and the penalty for possession is 250.000 dollars and/or 10 years in Federal Prison.

Here is the exception.

Muzzleloading cannons not capable of firing fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and replicas thereof are antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the GCA or the NFA.

So, it is best not to put on the World Wide Web information as “my uncle has a cannon…that fires.

The ATF doesn’t take kindly to such weapons being in the hands of the citizenry.


It's not an annual tax, it's a one time tax. It is the BATFE form 2. The same thing to purchase a machine gun, suppressor or "destructive device" such as a SBR (short barreled rifle), sawed off shotgun, mortar, or things even more extreme such a Carl Gustav recoiless rifle etc.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch

Textshould be said that as socialists we are opposed to a situation where only the capitalist state has guns. We are not in favor of disarming working people. However, the issues of what types of guns should be available, what type of safety measures and gun education should be implemented are issues that should be rationally and democratically decided by the people.


Socialists are always sensible.


Yeah, like that Stalin guy and the totally "sensible" 60 million deaths that occurred under his rule. Sensible guy, that Stalin.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The following is a quote by Samuel Adams, a founding father of America and signator of the Declaration of Independence.

It can't get any clearer than this.



The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
-Samuel Adams


edit on 20-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 


The Second ammendement was written extremely vague for a reason.
At the time, every form of armament was acceptable.
Although I would agree with no nukes.
But to anyone who does not care to live in a country with guns, I hear Mexico will take you in, of course men with guns rule that place, as the populace is nice and unarmed.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I don't know if anybody has brought this up yet it's kinda crazy but in WA it's illegal to carry a silenced weapon or fire one, but you can own a silencer and the specific pistol it goes with... Silenced weapons are like a grey area... where I went to buy my first pistol, right across from the pistols they had for sale were thier appropriate silencers and you can buy both at the same time you just can't "fire" them LoL. It's a wierd grey area!



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Wasn't Mooshelle the first to bare arms?

A real rebel she is and rubbing it in!



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 


The founding fathers wrote those words in haste, and pending them actually being free from British rule. They could not have imagined the weaponry that would eventually come about.

True, bear arms could mean a myriad of different devices, but I believe its purpose is more of the right to feel secure in your own environment and to defend your loved ones if accosted. One might argue that atomic weaponry was created and used in defense, but let's be frank. A shotgun by your bedside does not have the potential to decimate an entire town in an instant and cause radioactive fallout



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
People need to learn how to read. A comma is a comma. The gun grabbers remove the commas every time so it reads differently.

It means exactly what it says. Learn to read with commas.


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.

At the time this was written, every man and boy over the age 16 was automatically a part of the militia. As they still are to enforce the constitution and bill of rights. That has never changed.

This is your formal written right to bear arms against enemies, foreign and domestic. Your fully legal and documented right that can not be taken away.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Texan here.

Nobody will be taking my guns away.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
I don't know if anybody has brought this up yet it's kinda crazy but in WA it's illegal to carry a silenced weapon or fire one, but you can own a silencer and the specific pistol it goes with... Silenced weapons are like a grey area... where I went to buy my first pistol, right across from the pistols they had for sale were thier appropriate silencers and you can buy both at the same time you just can't "fire" them LoL. It's a wierd grey area!


Not anymore - the law was revised to allow the use of suppressors in WA as of July 23rd of this year...
209.157.64.201...



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by theovermensch

Textshould be said that as socialists we are opposed to a situation where only the capitalist state has guns. We are not in favor of disarming working people. However, the issues of what types of guns should be available, what type of safety measures and gun education should be implemented are issues that should be rationally and democratically decided by the people.


Socialists are always sensible.


Yeah, like that Stalin guy and the totally "sensible" 60 million deaths that occurred under his rule. Sensible guy, that Stalin.


Most brainwashed Americans tend not to understand the difference between communism and socialism. And I do mean brainwashed. The issue is only this bad in the United States, due to a 50 year long McCarthyist campaign of historical revisionism and disinformation. Nowhere else in the world will you encounter such ignorance.

A simple exercise for Americans: look up "Socialism" on Wikipedia, then look up "Communism". You'll note the two pages are different. Bonus exercise: look up "Stalinism".

I would like to point out that both George Orwell and Albert Einstein were socialists. Einstein explained why in his essay "Why Socialism".
edit on 20-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by browsey
 


It's not vague. "Arms" back when the Constitution was written meant guns. Thus every American has the right to own guns. It only seems vague when one doesn't think to look at what a word meant in a document when it was written.


Like 3/5ths of all other people?

Yeah, a plain text reading of the constitution is not a good idea. If we want to go to a technicality though since the constitution dos not specifically allow the feds to determine what type of arms, then its reserved for the states.

Good luck Illinois and DC.

As far as nuts go - Gun control does not work, being criminals gain that title for a reason. An armed population are citizens, an unarmed population are subjects. As I stated in another thread on the same topic civilians owning guns makes my job very difficult, however I would never support any ban on civilians owning guns. Even if the end result of that position is my death on a traffic stop.
edit on 20-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Another academic socialist who thinks that will somehow translate into the real world.

Here's an exercise for you: Go ahead and construct your utopia - or dystopia, depending on whether it's on paper or on the ground - but keep it over there.

It's bad enough that there's already a mad push for it scheduled over here in the upcoming year. We don't need any more dystopians here. There's already going to be enough blood in the streets when they try to make the shove.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Another academic socialist who thinks that will somehow translate into the real world.



It has. Take Sweden and Norway, for example.

But that wasn't the point. The point was that Americans don't understand nor wish to inform themselves about the differences between Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Leninism, Marxism, and so on and so forth, mainly due to the relentless McCarthyist propaganda war waged since the fifties. Compounding the problem is a epidemic of laziness, ignorance, stupidity and ideological rigidity.

Say about socialism whatever you wish. That's for another debate. As long as you acknowledge the FACT that socialism is not communism, and that there are many socialist parties in Europe who not only functioned very well within the Democratic system, but were in fact the main champions and defenders of justice, liberty, equality, privacy, individual freedom and sane economic policies, in spite of the continuous assault on those same principles by right wing totalitarians, which continues today. Obama is a tool of Wall Street. His cabinet, among them Timothy Geithner (Former president of the NYC FED) and staff William Daley (former JP Morgan exec) prove that. His campaign sponsors JP Morgan Chase, Google and Microsoft prove that. His blatant subservience to Wall Street proves that. Obama is a right wing capitalist. Your arms, civil liberties and freedoms are being taken away by right wing capitalists.

Pinch me. There is not a socialist in sight, except the imaginary scarecrows hurled at you on the propaganda TV channels, talk radio stations, and in a litany of books written by authors who quote other authors who quote other authors... who .... just pull "facts" out of their ass.

Sleep well. Ron Paul, who won't be allowed to make it anyway, isn't going to save you. If you believe that, you're as foolish as the sheeple who believed in Obama. I suggest you judge a candidate on his actions after assuming the presidency, not his promises before.

And inculcate yourself with some knowledge gleaned from books not revised by the Texas Board of Education. There is a world out there; it's bigger than the United States, Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

And don't insult my intelligence with this reflexive McCarthyist automatron drivel.
edit on 20-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Implicit in the second amendment is that every citizen of able body should know his or her place in battlefield and be prepared with such equiptment as neccessary to perform his or her task.

Professional standing armies cost money, and always pose a risk to the general population by userpation of the power of the government. Militia's are a two-fer. They are cheaper and less able to oppress than a professional permanent standing army.

The second amendment was meant to reassure the states that there would be no Federal army with loyalty only to the Federal government.

It was meant to make people sign on to the Constitution.

To sell the constitution to the voters that is
edit on 20-12-2011 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2011 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Reply to post by clintdelicious
 


It has nothing to do with morality. Cost is cost.

If you're wealthy enough to manufacture and store one outright then you're wealthy enough to acquire one illegally.

Besides, in the world over plenty of extremely wealthy people support terrorists. The whole family of Saud for instance.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join