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.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
45 pages of back and forth arguing. "Ban guns altogether" says one side, and then "I want total liberty with guns" says the other side. What happened to the middle ground?
When faced with total opposites I will say "I want total liberty with guns" simply because you can't trust a backstabbing government run by corporations and influenced by the devil.
The day people give up their guns will be the day tyranny is completed.
Voting means nothing, free speach by msm is becoming more rare than diamonds, and the judicial system can't make a correct decision if it contemplated for years.
Originally posted by SM2
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
45 pages of back and forth arguing. "Ban guns altogether" says one side, and then "I want total liberty with guns" says the other side. What happened to the middle ground?
When faced with total opposites I will say "I want total liberty with guns" simply because you can't trust a backstabbing government run by corporations and influenced by the devil.
The day people give up their guns will be the day tyranny is completed.
Voting means nothing, free speach by msm is becoming more rare than diamonds, and the judicial system can't make a correct decision if it contemplated for years.
There should not be a middle ground, as it is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The second amendment does not say anything about a middle ground it specifically states shall not be infringed, it is all ready infringed, there is all ready a compromise, that many think it too slanted to the no guns people.
No one would agree to a middle ground compromise to free speech, or voting rights or any other right int he bill of rights so why this one? Because you do not like it? Well, that's why it is constitutionally guaranteed, so people that dont like it wont try to take away or weaken our rights.edit on 6-4-2012 by SM2 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by disfugured
Take the guns away from the Military/Police and Global Elites as well and I might consider it!
2nd line
Sick of people preaching to others.
Originally posted by 1pi314
Don't forget that "first-person shooters" are teaching/brainwashing the youth to kill. As long as violence is cool, it will happen. That's the main stream media for you!
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by SM2
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
45 pages of back and forth arguing. "Ban guns altogether" says one side, and then "I want total liberty with guns" says the other side. What happened to the middle ground?
When faced with total opposites I will say "I want total liberty with guns" simply because you can't trust a backstabbing government run by corporations and influenced by the devil.
The day people give up their guns will be the day tyranny is completed.
Voting means nothing, free speach by msm is becoming more rare than diamonds, and the judicial system can't make a correct decision if it contemplated for years.
There should not be a middle ground, as it is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The second amendment does not say anything about a middle ground it specifically states shall not be infringed, it is all ready infringed, there is all ready a compromise, that many think it too slanted to the no guns people.
No one would agree to a middle ground compromise to free speech, or voting rights or any other right int he bill of rights so why this one? Because you do not like it? Well, that's why it is constitutionally guaranteed, so people that dont like it wont try to take away or weaken our rights.edit on 6-4-2012 by SM2 because: (no reason given)
I respect your biased opinion, like I respect many opinions, but guns are a special breed of tools. Freedom of speech means you can insult someone, although with political correctness it is becoming increasingly difficult. Voting for the wrong candidate means nothing other than a worse of multiple evils.
The only thing approaching *the be all and end all* of guns is the judicial system. One bad decision and someone ends up in a coffin while the other person ends up in jail. I think there should be some limitations to the type of guns owned and who should carry them assuming the government is capable of making such decisions.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think there should be some limitations to the type of guns owned and who should carry them assuming the government is capable of making such decisions.
Originally posted by andersensrm
Problem is people read statisitics and see causation. But anyone who's actually taken a stat course knows that no matter how strong the correlation is, you can never define causation.
Originally posted by andersensrm
This is just more people using statistics in misleading and uninformed way. Not to say that the end result is wrong. It might certainly be that the US has more gun deaths than in any other country, but as of now, I have yet to see any convincing statistics on this.
Originally posted by andersensrm
I have been trying to look up, and failed, in figuring out out of all firearm deaths in America, lets say for 2011, how many firearm deaths were with registered firearms, and how many were without. If most firearm deaths, or assaults, are with unregistered firearms, then having stricter gun control laws would be essentially useless. However if most are done with registered firearms, then perhaps there needs to be stricter qualifications in order to own a gun.
Originally posted by queenofswords
reply to post by nenothtu
I will need to research the suggestions contained in the below link, but I hope what it postulates is wrong:
www.ammoland.com...
Originally posted by libertytoall
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think there should be some limitations to the type of guns owned and who should carry them assuming the government is capable of making such decisions.
I'm shocked you think the public should have limits on what weapons they can have when criminals do not.
The public is already outgunned far too much and any limits placed on gun ownership doesn't effect the criminals. The criminal, who's going to use a weapon in a crime, doesn't go buy it at a store and register it.. How ignorant to think laws are going to make any changes to crime? In fact the only thing a law like that would provide is a guarantee you will be outgunned every time by criminals.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by queenofswords
The head money case is where to start in determining how foreign treaties are integrated into US law. SCOTUS in that case ruled foreign treaties are subordinate to the constitution. It also noted that no foreign treaties can remove or bestow any authority that is not specifically granted / prohibited by the Constitution.
As far as the second amendment goes -
District of Columbia v. Heller
and
McDonald v. Chicago
The second amendment is applied to the individual. The only way that guns are going away would be to remove / edit the 2nd amendment and I dont see that happening at all at any point in the foreseeable future.
Any foreign treaty the US signs makes that treaty a part of the Federal body of law. Because of that those treaties can be defined by the courts / congress in terms of legality and constitutionality.
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]
Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[8] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.
In Goldwater v. Carter,[9] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[10]