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.

 

Time to take the gun from the American public!

page: 47
48
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

To be honest I would not feel comfortable knowing just about anyone can legally carry any gun they want, wherever they want. I was not brought up that way and would not feel secure.



To be honest, I don't feel very secure knowing there are so many progressives running around trying to find loopholes and pass new laws in an attempt to abrogate my rights. The thing is, life is not all about whether I feel secure or not, nor is it about whether you do.

My right to feel secure ends where a Progressive's right to have independent thought begins, just as your right to "feel secure" does not extend to what I choose to own.

No rights are abridged until an action is taken to endanger the rights of another, meaning what I merely carry, or what a Progressive merely thinks, has no bearing on anyone else's rights at all, either for or against.

What we do with our rights may at some point endanger yours, and it is when that point of actual endangerment is reached that you may curtail my actions, as is your right to defend yourself. Not until then.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yessir, that's my argument exactly, but better worded. The Congress may ratify the treaty, or imposition may be attempted in any number of ways, but if it is in conflict with the Constitution, it cannot stand.

It would be, in effect, annexing a law which is in violation of or opposition to, an already existing law, which creates a conflict of enforcement until resolved, and the constitution takes precedent in such cases.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


What about healthcare? Do you feel the government has a say in that? Do you feel the government should have a say in ANYTHING other than declaring war every 2 years?
Yes I AM a progressive and PROUD of it.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Gun control requires criminal cooperation.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CindiMari
Gun control requires criminal cooperation.


I think it's the fault of the laws and the signs.

They aren't worded strongly enough.

If they were the criminals would surely put their guns down and run away at the mere sight of a "no guns allowed" sign.


In my state when they passed CCW the liberals said it would be like the old west all over again, and to an extent they were right. But the reason thet were is that there were very few shootings in the wild west. And the shootings there were got lots of publicity. Who hasn't heard of the OK Corral, or the dead mans hand.

In truth only one permit holder commited a crime while armed, and since he was drunk he wasn't legally carrying anyway. The legal limit for CCW is .04, anything over voids your permit.

Violent crime rates accellerated their decline and road rage became a distant memory. It's been 6 years since CCW passed and I honestly can't remember the last road rage story. And before CCW it was a weekly if not nightly story on the news.

An armed populace is a polite populace. The saying that Sam Colt made all men equal is very true. A bully will use his size and make a lot of noise to intimidate people. But all that chest puffing and screaming has nothing on seeing a red dot dancing across your chest, or hearing a 12 guage pump racking a shell.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Better to do and ask forgiveness than ask and be denied.

There is nothing wrong with the gun control laws in the US other than the fact they don't work and punish the wrong people, but I digress. Criminals do not care about laws, they are only out for their own personal gain and will use whatever advantage they can to get it.

Even in other countries gun control laws do not work. Some of those countries do not have due process or constitutional protections of the individual. The court proceedings are often decided even before the trial begins and the outcome is prison if they are lucky.

even knowing that people in those countries will still illegally possess a weapon knowing their life is over if they got caught.

What makes people think that tough gun controls laws in the US would work if they dont even work in coutnries who due process is a lot less dainty than ours?

Its like arguing the merits of capital punishment being a deterrent.... again, countries with no due process or protections still have people who will commit crimes knowing full well death could be a result.

Please explain how the gun control position can work in the US when it has no effect on criminals in other countries?

To me the governments argument for gun control is a knee jerk reaction to crime and nothing more. The laws in place are either not enforced fully or target the wrong issue. Since they cant remove the second amendment the next best thing to do is to try and regulate the hell out of it, so much in fact that the process to buy a gun would be so irritating people would just give up. That has occured already in washington DC. The process to get a gun there would cost a few thousand dollars and takes almost a year.

That method is now under review to see if its breaking the law or intent of the Supreme Court rulings on the topic. To me the position of the government towards crime and how to stop it is backwards. Their goal appears to be since they cant effectively stop criminal behavior, the next best thing is to prohibit options for law abiding citizens who are victims of a crime. Remove their ability to defend themselves and the mindset is they dont get hurt and we can try to track the criminal down later when its safer.

Even states with laws that require an individual to retreat from a deadly force encounter they did NOT start is insane to me. It protects the criminals and punishes the people.

Aside from the legal discussion there is nothing left to discuss. The laws are clear when it comes to the UN and domestic law.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 


What about healthcare? Do you feel the government has a say in that? Do you feel the government should have a say in ANYTHING other than declaring war every 2 years?
Yes I AM a progressive and PROUD of it.


Government has a right to exercise oversight for health care in conjunction with the states. The same applies to insurance companies. The goal to insure people is a good one, but not reasonable nor practical with how our system works.

What the Government does NOT have a right to do is force its citizens to purchase something.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 


What about healthcare? Do you feel the government has a say in that?



Not merely no, but HELL NO! Great big capital letters with an exclamation point! None of the government's god-damned business how, when, or if I choose to take care of my own health.



Do you feel the government should have a say in ANYTHING other than declaring war every 2 years?



No, that's about it.


You'll have to specify which government you mean, but until then I'll assume you mean the federal government.; Their job is mediating disputes between states, and between this collection of states (the FEDERAL - i.e. a 'federation' - Republic) as a unit, and foreign powers. Their job internally is not micromanagement, it's mediation.

Their job in no way involves interfering to steal from one individual to give to another. If that were their job, they would be called "Robin Hood", not the Federal Government.



Yes I AM a progressive and PROUD of it.



I'm sorry. There are probably professionals that could help you shed that.

A cold hard look at reality, or the development of a desire for freedom would go a long way in shedding it for you.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yessir, that's my argument exactly, but better worded. The Congress may ratify the treaty, or imposition may be attempted in any number of ways, but if it is in conflict with the Constitution, it cannot stand.

It would be, in effect, annexing a law which is in violation of or opposition to, an already existing law, which creates a conflict of enforcement until resolved, and the constitution takes precedent in such cases.



Yeah, but here's the scary part...it's been a LONG TIME since the Constitution was followed even a little bit. It didn't matter at Waco. It didn't matter at the Occupy Protests all last year. It didn't matter for the Japanese Internment camps. It doesn't matter for Bradely Manning. Hell...it didn't even matter when [i[Kennedy was shot.

I am so incredibly in favor of the 2nd amendment it's ridiculous...however it's just naive to think that the federal, state, or local governments and the corporations which bribe them will spontaneously become law abiding save for a peasant rebellion turning the power structure upside down.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Valid concerns however I think they are a bit off imo...

The last case the Supreme court ruled on was in 2010. That ruling applied the 2nd amendment to the individuals and came on the heels of the DC ruling.

The argument about the government and corruption is an interesting one. The reason I say that is people have a tendency to use the term government as all inclusive, when its anything but. What is the possibility that every single members of the Federal government (all 3 branches including the military and Federal Law Enforcement), all members of the State governments (all 3 branches including state law enforcement and state guard units) as well as all county / local governments and their respective law enforcement agencies are all going to just agree and go along with any plans that shred the constitution?

That doesn't even cover the amount og citizens who would find issue with that, not counting the fact they are armed as well. I find comfort in the level of scrutiny / irritation / contempt / support for the government in this country. It very clearly reminds us that the rights people like to claim are stripped are in fact present and as strong as ever.

I wont go so far as to say it can never happen here... However I think the chances are extremely extremely close to 0.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Here's the thing - for a right to mean anything at all, it must be claimed and exercised. The government will NOT do that for you, and as far as I know they never have, in any country. Governments exist to regulate you, and they will always, always attempt to disparage your rights while claiming to uphold them. The key is, uprising or not, to claim your rights and exercise them. Now, to be sure, that will be seen by a government as an "uprising among the peasants", but that may not be an objective view, skewed as it is towards a predisposition to disparage those rights to begin with.

Waco was an absolute abrogation of rights. They killed those kids to save them, which seems not to be a particularly sane way to govern a country to me. There are other issues with Waco as well, such as the breach of Possee Comitatus and the like. A saner government, and a nearly sane AG, would have snatched up Koresh as he was running in the mornings, which he did every morning at 0730, or they would have snatched him on the way into town - they would NOT have assaulted an entire compound of men, women and children and laid siege to it. Sieges are acts of war, not acts of Law Enforcement. Some years ago I saw the list of items taken from the compound and entered into evidence, but I believe it has been suppressed since then. There was not an illegal weapon on the list, which is why I believe it was suppressed. I've seen reports of "illegal weapons seized", but they were not on the official list of seizures.

I'm not aware of any constitutional violations at the Occupy rallies, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen - it just means I never heard about them if they did. I'd be interested to hear what constitutional violations you believe Bradley Manning has undergone. To be frank, I've not followed that case very much, and have not heard of such allegations before.

The WII Japanese internment camps were another egregious violation without a doubt, but it was a catch-22. What could the citizens rounded up do? Revolt and prove that the internment was warranted by giving the impression that they were as much at war with the US as the Japanese Empire?



edit on 2012/4/6 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Not just anybody can LEGALLY carry, thats the problem, recognizing the difference. To a person whom ILLEGALLY carries....its probably not a big deal to them as they are probably gonna do something more felonous with it anyway. SO you shouldn't concern yourself with that.

Whether they are legal or otherwise doesn't matter to a crook.

In the old west, we had a very polite society.....everyone had guns, and we made crooks swing from the gallows in public display...the way it should be.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I'd say the odds are a wee higher, all this country needs is another self created pompous emergency that over blows public opinion. Then the media will edit, re-edit, over exaggerate, and whatever it has to so that people agree......because most people are stupid and will do whatever they are told because they will be scared into submission.

This really is a country of tards, and that scares me more than everyone having guns personally.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BooKrackers
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I'd say the odds are a wee higher, all this country needs is another self created pompous emergency that over blows public opinion. Then the media will edit, re-edit, over exaggerate, and whatever it has to so that people agree......because most people are stupid and will do whatever they are told because they will be scared into submission.

This really is a country of tards, and that scares me more than everyone having guns personally.


I might have agreed with that a few years back however I see a noticable change in the public. From the Martin - Zimmerman incident where people are galvanized on both sides and both sides are taking the media to task for the way they are reporting it to our government (all levels) coming under more of a microscope with regards to behavior and money controls.

I would wager that maybe a few years ago the government and media might have been able to get away with distracting the people in order to screw them over but not now. Not with everything going on with the economy, the way our government acts... I think the government and media may have gone a bit to far and misread the publics irritation level.

All we need to do is look at the case of the Marine Sgt who is about to be drummed out of the corp for openly expressing his frustrations and dislike of Obama. He went about relaying that feeling in the wrong manner which is what got him in trouble.

However I think that feeling is much more prevailent than whats let on. Do we honestly belive the military is going to, without questions, accept the orders to secure and disarm american citizens if those orders come from Obama?

There is absolutely no way to pull that off without it getting out to the public. You would need to place military and law enforcement at every single residence and then some in the US and have them all open order 66 at the same time (order 66 is from Starwars III for those not familiar).

As much as people on this site hate / dislike the police the one thing they never take into account is there actions when it comes to something like collecting guns.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree. It's just not logistically feasible.

Assume for the moment that they brought EVERY soldier home from overseas. Assume further that EVERY one of those was willing to turn his gun on fellow Americans. Assume, even further, that EVERY police officer, from federal level to local, were also willing to just go ape # on the citizenry.

Now assume that they mobilized every single one of them, including cooks, clerks, and dispatchers, for the Great Gun Roundup. Even at that, they would not have enough personnel to get it done.

Due to two converging factors, they could not spread out. The attacker/ defender ratio, in combination with the doctrine of amassing overwhelming force on any assault point, would dictate that they would have to bunch up for successful completion at any one target. Given the multiplicity of targets, and the relative paucity (in relation to the sheer number of target points) of potential attackers, they simply would not have enough personnel to cover everywhere at once.

It doesn't matter if they tried to clear up individual dwellings, or entire areas - while they are at point A, skirmish lines will be forming to oppose them at points B, C, D, and E, whether that was individual dwelling A or entire area A. Points B,C,D,and E would have to be unguarded, because of the necessity of concentrating force on target points.

It's just not logistically feasible to accomplish it by brute force. They can't get every place at once, and if they don't the rest will be warned and in motion.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I do have a theory on how it might be possible... There was an article about a week go that talked about the Navy and a contract they are taking bids on. They have stated laser technology has advanced to the point they are going to start placing laser weapons on naval vessels.

The airforce has them on some of their aircraft...

Its only a matter of time before the army / marines deploy them for land based unit use.

The next legal challenge is going to be whats considered a weapon? At the the time of the 2nd amendments inception a weapon specifically meant physical projectile.

What will a laser be classified as? What happens if a laser is not covered by the 2nd amendment? Eventually we are going to reach a point where businesses leave the old tech behind in favor of the latest and greatest.

We as individuals have a right to own and bear arms... What happens when the "gun" industry moves on?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by lacrimaererum
 





posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Interesting poster however it completely misses the point of what our Government is and its responsibilities.
Why do people think its the governments responsibility to take care of the individual?

Whatever happened to personal accountability?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I am pretty sure they said "bear Arms" on purpose, instead of "Own Guns". I could be wrong of course, but I think they said it that way to cover any future weapons as well as guns.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Indoctrination through the idiotbox, and schools prettymuch.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join