It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Ex_CT2
Also, keep in mind the Small Arms Treaty that Hillary has been working so hard on for so long. You DO realize that international treaties take precedence over internal laws? It's not like the 2nd Amendment has to be actually rescinded or erased to become just a quaint, antiquated concept....
Originally posted by GeistMelange
I have heard this repeatedly, but so far i have seen no evidence posted that anyone is coming after anyone's guns. What i do see is a bunch of people who believe that their opinion of what someone is going to do is fact. This country has a militant gun culture, and i do mean militant, that would make it difficult for anyone to "come and take your guns". i don't know what good they will do you or me. You can use them to defend yourself against criminals sure, but against an invading army or your own army, you will lose. The potentially real threats in this world are highly trained professionals ,not a bunch of people who buy army surplus camo and pretend they are soldiers. It's all about exerting power. People want someone to try to take something from them so they can prove to themselves that they are more powerful that the world, that they alone control their own destiny. If you want to try to flex your muscles,fine, but holding a hammer does not make a man a carpenter. As far as "ordinary folk" are concerned, I wouldn't trust most of them with a squirt gun, let alone a firearm.
In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).
The fact is that a provision in the resolution’s preamble – included at the request of the U.S. – explicitly recognizes the right of nations to regulate gun sales and ownership within their borders, including through their constitutions:
UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…
Originally posted by jude11
Originally posted by windword
What good are guns in a fight against the WMDs that our gov't have to use on us? I can't see the gov't being afraid of common folk owning guns.
Where does this recent uproar over Obama wanting to kill the 2nd Amendment come from? Excuse my ignorance, but I really don't know, can someone explain it to me like I'm an 8 year old.
What do you mean by recent uproar? I'm not clear on this.