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.

 

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 8% on the previous year. Other key findings include:


This article is from 2010 so by last year they mean 2009.

www.guardian.co.uk...




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer
 





The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 8% on the previous year. Other key findings include:


This article is from 2010 so by last year they mean 2009.

www.guardian.co.uk...


Thank you.


So removing/regulating guns does not stop criminals from using them.

The only other explanation has to be that government doesn't want people armed.

QED



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer
 





The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 8% on the previous year. Other key findings include:


This article is from 2010 so by last year they mean 2009.

www.guardian.co.uk...


Thank you.


So removing/regulating guns does not stop criminals from using them.

The only other explanation has to be that government doesn't want people armed.

QED


NO...enemies of America don't want the People Armed. if the People are not Armed, the Government has no Army.

Why would the Government do that to itself? It wouldn't!

But an enemy would work in a way to make it look like Government policy. when it makes no sense for the Government to want such a thing.

if the people have no arms, the government has no military or police.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 
We're going to have to stop electing our enemies to our government then.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 

The issue of Gun Control is a passionate one for all sides. It is especially a political issue among proponents of big government (gun control as a means to people control) after a tragedy like in Aurora, CO. On the other hand it is a consistent issue among those who understand and support the frame of reference of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments enumerating individual rights). The rationale of the Second Amendment ("the right to keep and bear arms") is not about "sporting" purposes (shooting or hunting) it is about protecting the citizenry from the very government it elects to keep it in check so that it does not grow to be a tyranny like the government of King George towards the colonists in America. Lexington and Concord ("the shot heard 'round the world") which started the Revolutionary War was the result, in fact, of the British "coming to take the guns" (and ammunition; black powder and musket balls). The issue is even more serious for those who understand history and the close correlation of gun control to genocide (Russia, Germany, China, etc). In fact the (US) Gun Control Act of 1968 is modeled (almost verbatim) on the Nazi's Gun Control Act. It is even more inflammed with the hard to believe notion that the tragedy was the result of a deliberate false flag attack to further a political agenda (gun control). Remember for these people (especially the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes) it is the words from Machiavelli (The Prince) that is their unofficial motto; "The Ends Justifies The Means."



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


I for one would say the government is on the verge of being our enemy, with today's technology, we truly are working towards a 1984 scenario. Which could not come about if the people are well armed.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 

We have traitors in our government. They desire a Communistic Plus (elements of Fascism to facilitate control to a central power that channels the power of business to make up the lack of revenues from a lowered class structure) One World Government. The United Nations is to be the One World Government and they need to Disarm not only the armies of the world but also the American people. The Second Amendment stands in their way. Any member of the US Government who tries to destroy it is an enemy of the Constitution and should be treated like a potential traitor.

edit on 29-7-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by michaelbrux
 
We're going to have to stop electing our enemies to our government then.



that seems impossible...as the most dangerous ones are in the Congress, come from Congress and some of the districts they are elected from are strongholds for voters that give succor and comfort to foreign beliefs and politics. many voters in this land have probably never even met an American face to face...

people immigrate to this land from many places and they have deeply embedded tendencies, formed over thousands of years, to prefer tyrannical social constructs.

Freedom is foreign to them and they understand it not, so its easy for them to vote for policies and politicians that will willingly support laws that are antithetical to freedom, such as gun control.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by michaelbrux
 

We have traitors in our government. They desire a Communistic Plus (elements of Fascism to facilitate control to a central power that channels the power of business to make up the lack of revenues from a lowered class structure) One World Government. The United Nations is to be the One World Government and they need to Disarm not only the armies of the world but also the American people. The Second Amendment stands in their way. Any member of the US Government who tries to destroy it is an enemy of the Constitution and should be treated like a potential traitor.

edit on 29-7-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)


you are correct that our Constitution is standing in their way.

and until they confront it directly...they will not be successful anyway.

no amount of time is going to be enough if the UN is waiting for that meaningless piece of paper to be signed...i hope they hold their breath while waiting.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


Ok, so why can't I buy a nuclear weapon? You can't infringe on my right to arm myself right?

As for the militia, you seem to forget there are two views on that. Some proclaim militia refers to every citizen. Either way, as long as that word exists in the amendment you are going to have issues. Remove the word if you wish to remove those issues.
edit on 29-7-2012 by antonia because: opps


Personally i don't think that anyone should have nukes .....but if you have a couple of billion to burn have at it.

The national guard used to be the milita, but Bush changed all that didn't he.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


Ok, so why can't I buy a nuclear weapon? You can't infringe on my right to arm myself right?

As for the militia, you seem to forget there are two views on that. Some proclaim militia refers to every citizen. Either way, as long as that word exists in the amendment you are going to have issues. Remove the word if you wish to remove those issues.
edit on 29-7-2012 by antonia because: opps


Personally i don't think that anyone should have nukes .....but if you have a couple of billion to burn have at it.

The national guard used to be the milita, but Bush changed all that didn't he.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


I'm not saying that you are for gun restriction. All I said is that you're taking one word out of context and that it doesn't fit the definition you've ascribed to it.
edit on 29-7-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The problem with banning and/or restricting the military style weapons like the AR and AK rifles is that it violates the 2nd Amendment. Our Founders knew that one day "We the People" might need to fight for our Right to Freedom, again. The Founders knew that a Tyrant or Dictator will use the military or Paramilitary force against their people to enslave them. However, as long as those in power know that there are more than 100 million guns, in the hands of it's citizens, they will have second thoughts about trying to rule us. This is The United States of America, we don't bow to Tyranny and we will not go down without a fight.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


Ok, so why can't I buy a nuclear weapon? You can't infringe on my right to arm myself right?

As for the militia, you seem to forget there are two views on that. Some proclaim militia refers to every citizen. Either way, as long as that word exists in the amendment you are going to have issues. Remove the word if you wish to remove those issues.
edit on 29-7-2012 by antonia because: opps


Personally i don't think that anyone should have nukes .....but if you have a couple of billion to burn have at it.

The national guard used to be the milita, but Bush changed all that didn't he.


the national guard was never the militia.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 

There is a deterrent for a nation to not use Nukes. That is one reason why we have not used them since WW2 when other countries have developed them in the meantime. There is no deterrent for a suicide bomber(s) to carry out the ultimate act of terror - a nuclear strike. Hence at that level there has to be a restriction on the proliferation of such arms.

edit on 29-7-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
Furthermore, the right to Keep and Bear Arms is not limited to guns and/or small arms.

the Constitution probably never envisioned the existence of Nuclear Powered Subs and Aircraft Carriers or Ballistic Missiles but they are arms and the people have the right to bear them.

the military is under civilian control anyway and anyone trying to change that isn't going to have a very good career in American politics.


Scalia said today that the word "bear" meant whatever weapon could be carried. That is a ceiling point.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 

WHAT? I am not entitled to a Giant Ballista because I cant carry it?
What about "bearing" by beasts of burden?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
www.nationaljournal.com...

This is from a link in the article barry's three step plan to take guns.


Lets see them try.


1. Allow law-enforcement agencies to confiscate more assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle used in the Aurora shootings by reinstituting a tighter definition of “sporting purposes” when inspecting assault weapons for import. President George H.W. Bush did this in 1989 to ban the import of assault weapons, using powers under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which stipulated that legal rifles had to be “suitable for sporting purposes.” Bush acted after a serial criminal killed five schoolchildren and wounded 29 others with an AK-47 assault rifle on Jan. 27, 1989, in Stockton, Calif. President Clinton expanded that action with a second executive order in 1998 banning firearm imports and ammunition from China. The elder Bush watched his son, President George W. Bush, preside over the persistent watering down of the “sporting purposes” filter to block assault-weapons imports—a policy Obama has perpetuated. Fifty-three members of Congress wrote Obama on Feb. 12, 2009, urging him to tighten the ban on assault-weapon imports. Obama has ignored such requests. “This continues to be a problem,” said Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Something happened under the second Bush administration, and that has essentially continued under Obama.” 2. Expand Obama’s new requirement issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that gun shops in border states report customers who purchase two or more domestically made assault weapons within five business days. The courts have upheld the reporting requirement, and it could be expanded nationwide without congressional action. Gun-control advocates credit Obama for taking the initial step on tracking multiple sales in border states (where Mexican cartel violence has risen), but a national system could help make multiple assault-weapon purchases more visible and traceable. 3. Toughen licensing requirements on gun dealers to secure their inventories. Advocates say that Obama could easily take three basic steps: Require dealers to better secure firearms from possible theft, mandate background checks of gun-shop employees, and eliminate the “fire sale” loophole that allows gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked to sell off their inventory without compulsory background checks on those sales. Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., has written to Obama asking for this administrative-enforcement change. Obama already has used some executive power to expand the reach of criminal background checks for firearm purchases, which he touted in New Orleans, calling them “more thorough and complete.”

edit on 29-7-2012 by mytheroy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


if he's gonna play that game.

carried by what?

doesn't really matter...their are 8 other Judges that he'll have to convince of his definition.

good thing for me and my family that he's an old person anyway...so it won't matter how he defines anything.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pistolerooo
The problem with banning and/or restricting the military style weapons like the AR and AK rifles is that it violates the 2nd Amendment. Our Founders knew that one day "We the People" might need to fight for our Right to Freedom, again. The Founders knew that a Tyrant or Dictator will use the military or Paramilitary force against their people to enslave them. However, as long as those in power know that there are more than 100 million guns, in the hands of it's citizens, they will have second thoughts about trying to rule us. This is The United States of America, we don't bow to Tyranny and we will not go down without a fight.


The common citizen, if needed to fight against the tyrant federal government, must have an equal fight footing. Whatever weapon a common soldier can carry (bear arms) is what the common citizen must and shall be allowed to possess and use.

The big stuff like artillery, and ships (air and sea) back in 18th century and today can be had by that common citizen by armed insurgency if the CARRIED weaponry is equal to the tyrants militia. It won't be easy and losses high but it would mean there is a revolution in progress and they are always costly and messy. Only a majority of focused, strong willed, wide-spread citizenry would be able to pull it off. Not some SEIU or ACORN branch in Chcago.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join