Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Right to bears Arms?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed

We know that the founders were NOT referring to hunting rifles. The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.



Please state where it defines the type of gun you are allowed to own...please state where it says not hunting rifles..


Also please state where it says you can own multiple weapons?




The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.


I need to see where it states this..
edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
they can always amend the constitution



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WP4YT
they can always amend the constitution


To say rifles and nothing more...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Life calls..may not answer today or tomorrow but I shall answer..



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Nice try but I didn't make that comment about the founding fathers as your reply quote insinuates.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Originally posted by HamrHeed

We know that the founders were NOT referring to hunting rifles. The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.



Please state where it defines the type of gun you are allowed to own...please state where it says not hunting rifles..


Also please state where it says you can own multiple weapons?




The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.


I need to see where it states this..
edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can


Once again, if there is no law making it illegal, it is legal.

The 2nd Amendment places no restrictions on firearm ownership. There have been restrictions on the ownership of certain firearms, see National Firearms Act (NFA), but that is a tax and registration, not a ban. The individual states have the option of passing laws that restrict firearm ownership/purchasing as long as it does not violate the 2nd Amendment. Most states don't pass these laws and most states have some version of the 2nd Amendment in their Constitutions.

If you want to understand the founders intent, I would suggest reading The Federalist Papers. It spells it out in their own words.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Gator

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Originally posted by HamrHeed

We know that the founders were NOT referring to hunting rifles. The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.



Please state where it defines the type of gun you are allowed to own...please state where it says not hunting rifles..


Also please state where it says you can own multiple weapons?




The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.


I need to see where it states this..
edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can


Once again, if there is no law making it illegal, it is legal.

The 2nd Amendment places no restrictions on firearm ownership. There have been restrictions on the ownership of certain firearms, see National Firearms Act (NFA), but that is a tax and registration, not a ban. The individual states have the option of passing laws that restrict firearm ownership/purchasing as long as it does not violate the 2nd Amendment. Most states don't pass these laws and most states have some version of the 2nd Amendment in their Constitutions.

If you want to understand the founders intent, I would suggest reading The Federalist Papers. It spells it out in their own words.


I know a few things about america and this paragraph resonates. Kerazeesicko isn't american at all. You can tell by her posts.
My left walnut has more gravity than her skull, fully loaded
edit on 26-8-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


That's what I assumed, also. My guess would be Eastern European. Very different understanding of liberties and laws.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


Since the 2nd Amendment does not state what type or number of firearms a individual may aquire, then the obvious answer is as many as I want.

The Constitution also gave the States rights to govern themselves as well at a local level. That is where law really matters. At the local level.

And that makes it even simpler. If a State decides that weapons are illegal, I'll move to another State.

If the Feds outlawed weapons, the US would be a third world nation in no time.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Everyone should have the right to Bears Arms.

err. wait was it Arm Bears?



I forget.




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


Since the 2nd Amendment does not state what type or number of firearms a individual may aquire, then the obvious answer is as many as I want.

The Constitution also gave the States rights to govern themselves as well at a local level. That is where law really matters. At the local level.

And that makes it even simpler. If a State decides that weapons are illegal, I'll move to another State.

If the Feds outlawed weapons, the US would be a third world nation in no time.


Lol they try to argue that automatics are highly dangerous and subject to scrutiny by the "living and breathing" constitution of the atheist progressive forefathers' pen, meanwhile automatics have been around and within civilians reach for only less than 50 yrsish.
Progressives have alot of work to do if they plan on disarming western countries. Something tells me they will fight dirty though



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


Bonnie and Clyde had Automatics, and that was more than fifty years ago.


I have no problem with the restrictions placed on automatic/machine guns though. I can't afford the ammo.


And even if I could I still wouldn't get one as it has always been my belief that if you have to "Pray and Spray" to hit something, then you have no business behind the trigger.

The military on the other hand does have a need for such weapons, but I think that at the Soldier level, all weapons should be Semi-Auto only...teach to hit what they aim at, rather than burning through their basic load in minutes.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


Bonnie and Clyde had Automatics, and that was more than fifty years ago.


I have no problem with the restrictions placed on automatic/machine guns though. I can't afford the ammo.


And even if I could I still wouldn't get one as it has always been my belief that if you have to "Pray and Spray" to hit something, then you have no business behind the trigger.

The military on the other hand does have a need for such weapons, but I think that at the Soldier level, all weapons should be Semi-Auto only...teach to hit what they aim at, rather than burning through their basic load in minutes.


sO WHAT THEY WERE PIONEERS
DOESN'T COUNT
If theres anything i've learned in this short time its not to blow your load quick

The whole "lets ban guns that look dangerous" is a slap in the face to liberty. As you said, a semi automatic in the hands of a disciplined man or woman is devastating.
Automatic rifles/pistols may be advantageous in a face to face poker duel for all the "SAWBUX"



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


I win because I do.
I win because I have.
I win because I shall.

You Lose, because it does say so.
The proof is in my gun safe.
Dare you take it (them) away?
have a nice day.

P.S. Love these "chicken or egg" arguments



reply to post by TDawgRex



The military on the other hand does have a need for such weapons, but I think that at the Soldier level, all weapons should be Semi-Auto only...teach to hit what they aim at, rather than burning through their basic load in minutes.

 


The point unarguably is that the citizens always have the right to overthrow a tyrant government.
Hence if the government has pray and spray weapons, I too if I choose, should be able to pray and spray back.

the ultimate responsibility I think is expressed here in
The Serenity Prayer

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

edit on 26-8-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.
In Yeshuas name



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


If it comes to the point of overthrowing the Gov't. Our own military will be supplying us with these types of weapons.

Maybe not initially, but they will nonetheless.

Sometimes ya gotta have faith.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   





posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   





posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
We don't need to show you a goddamn thing.

Our constitution isn't here for your approval. This world doesn't revolve around you.
Evidently you're not even an American so it damn sure doesn't apply to you anyway.






top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join