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.

 

State Considers Law to Bypass Gun Permits

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
"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".

the second amendment is not to protect peoples right to bear arms but to protect a militia's ability to be armed for the security of the state.

people conveniently ignore the first half of the amendment.

so unless you're in a militia, ready to defend your country, you have no right to a firearm.


edit on 10-2-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)


I remember going to the post office when I turned 18 to register...We all are in a militia whether you like it or not.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The Supreme Court has already given Congress permission to regulate firearms meaning that it is Constitutional. This topic died in 1996.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I have been to Atlanta. The crime in that city is unbelievable. The only people who you can count on to have a gun are the people who are robbing you. A move such as this can not be viewed as anything other than a good thing.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
"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".

the second amendment is not to protect peoples right to bear arms but to protect a militia's ability to be armed for the security of the state.

people conveniently ignore the first half of the amendment.

so unless you're in a militia, ready to defend your country, you have no right to a firearm.


edit on 10-2-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Actually it doesn't state that you have to be in a militia to have a gun, it just states that a militia is required for a free state.Then it states that to support it's first argument, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Ark005
 


You'll notice it does not say "any and all arms," however.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kenrichaed
 





You'll notice it does not say "any and all arms," however.


I actually need my RPG launcher for purple squirrel hunting.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
"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".

the second amendment is not to protect peoples right to bear arms but to protect a militia's ability to be armed for the security of the state.

people conveniently ignore the first half of the amendment.

so unless you're in a militia, ready to defend your country, you have no right to a firearm.


edit on 10-2-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

seriously
You need to look up the definition of a militia under the British in the colonies just before the revolution as its a whole different ball game and what the constitution was based on not the later definitions that have been made up to screw with the 2ed amendment.

The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations.These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd,[1] a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader. The latter developed into the militia, and was usually embodied by a royal warrant.[2] Obviously, service in each organisation involved different levels of preparedness.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

This was the militias that the writers of the constitution served in before they kicked the British out.
and this is what they were talking about when they wrote the constitution.

And the earliest British militias were not armed with firearms but were bowmen this shows that as weapons progressed so did the weapons in the militias.
edit on 10-2-2012 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Right on! Just the way it was intended by our founders, government get out of our lives, seems sad that we have to pass a law to allow a right?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by texas thinker
 


The Constitution was written to give the Federal Government more power not less.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

This should go national. Why have an limit on rights. I live in CA and our laws are out of control.
I am going to whitehouse.gov right now!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Good to see. It was tried here in Colorado, twice I believe, and it didn't make it either time. You still have to pay the "coat tax" to conceal carry.

Why is the 2nd Amendment the only one we have to ask permission to use?
edit on 2/10/2012 by DelMar because:



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kenrichaed
reply to post by texas thinker
 


The Constitution was written to give the Federal Government more power not less.

Duh?
The constitution assures us that the states themselves get all residual powers...in other words the states will become the power not the Phoney feds
This means that anything new in the legislation business is the property of the states to make law upon, and NOT the feds



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
gun permits are a farce and against the constitution. every state should do a background check and you're good to go, no license, no permit required and once you're cleared in one state it should be valid for all.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


The at first half of the law regarding militias is profoundly understood in literal terms. Do you not see that the militias were comprised of American Citizens back then. Hence the law being in place to protect and preserve the right in the case where it may need to be deployed?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kenrichaed
reply to post by Ark005
 


You'll notice it does not say "any and all arms," however.

By limiting which 'arms' you can or cannot have you are infringing on the rights.
The way they worded it means simply that. Then again back then they didn't have assault weapons.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


There is no Constitution .... gone, kaput, dead from a bankrupt nation.

Mark these words: THIS BILL WILL NEVER PASS NOR STAND. And if it does the Feds will not abide by it and will lock you up.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
"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".

the second amendment is not to protect peoples right to bear arms but to protect a militia's ability to be armed for the security of the state.

people conveniently ignore the first half of the amendment.

so unless you're in a militia, ready to defend your country, you have no right to a firearm.


edit on 10-2-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)


The Bill of Rights was written to protect the citizenry from governmental tyranny. Adding an amendment to protect only a sub-group of the citizenry, while not protecting the whole, is not something James Madison, James Mason, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, or John Adams would have done. The Second Amendment's wording is inclusive of "the people", which is the entire body of the citizenry, not just the militia.

/TOA



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Kennesaw is one of the last places that has a law requiring all residents to own a gun on the books. It is never actually enforced but it is there. Living in GA myself and a current CCW holder I would be all in favor of this. Good to hear we are continuing to push the efforts for law abiding citizens to be able to carry....wonder how this will work with the reciprocity of other states. I would assume that a CCW would still be needed if carrying into another state that has a reciprocal law.

Nice post!

You are right. Florida says they can't be reciprocal with Vermont, since Vermont don't require or issue CCW permits.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


While this may seem like a good idea to some, it does have a few down-sides. Concealed carry is better than open carry for a number of reasons. Telegraphing that one is armed is never a good idea as those who are bigger, stronger, faster can soon possess said firearm. A permit system may be awkward but it should be implemented so as to make sure that the person carrying a gun is able to use it, understands when they can use it, and is aware of the responsibilities of carrying a weapon. It also acts as a final check on the person carrying as it better determines their qualifications for legal carry than being a law-abiding citizen.
If Georgia is smart, they will not pass this legslation.

Your argument is riddle with false assumptions.

You assume having a license makes you competent. Have you observed any drivers lately?

You assume only law abiding citizens will be able to get a weapon? Read a newspaper lately?

Anyone willing to exchange liberty for safety will not end up with either. - Ben Franklin paraphrased



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
Your argument is riddle with false assumptions.

You assume having a license makes you competent. Have you observed any drivers lately?

You assume only law abiding citizens will be able to get a weapon? Read a newspaper lately?

Anyone willing to exchange liberty for safety will not end up with either. - Ben Franklin paraphrased


Drivers with licenses passed a minimal competency test. Do you think people who carry deadly weapons should also pass some sort of competency test?
Those bad guys who want weapons will have a much easier time of getting one if all the wannabe cowboys are walking around with guns on their hips. Children will also want to play with the real thing and hurt themselves and others. Read a newspaper lately?
There is also the matter of responsibility. In an actual gunfight, little goes as planned. Adrenaline flows. It is difficult for the common man to hit someone trying to shoot him. Everyone is trying to clear out in one piece. If you are involved and you fire a weapon and hit a bystander, you will be jailed. No amount of paper punching can prepare you for someone running through your sight picture just as you fire.
Ask yourself what situation would cause you to fire a weapon. Self defense is surely legitimate. Stopping a robbery isn't, unless you are defending an innocent life. Even this would be subject to interpretation and you may end up with some serious civil penalties. Fistfights between armed opponents could get interesting, especially for those in the general vicinity.

The obvious solution to your arguments is to require a firearms safety course, including legal requirements and limitations, followed by a competency test before carry permits are granted. This is a matter of protecting the general public and the individual with the firearm. Not everyone is amenable to walking around in an armed camp and not all may wish to be armed. Those that carry had better be aware of the limits that the law permits or they may find themselves cuffed and in the squad car along with the bad guys. Carrying a firearm while drunk should carry at least the penalties of drunk driving.

Responsibility does not end with a background check. Liberty is a responsible liberty that does not endanger others or tread on their liberties. Liberty and safety are not mutuallly exclusive.




top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join