Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Listen to this argument for more gun control and please tell me how you can be against it..

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


Show me where an imaginary sky fairy gave you the right to bare arms? Bible in one hand... gun in the other... the image is completely laughable!

*Sigh*

IRM




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Think of what you are saying. Logically, if that was true, then the first amendment would only apply to quill pens, voice, and manual printing presses and would not apply to TV, radio, internet, e-books, computers, telegraph, and telephone.


We have to interpret how it would apply, as the founding fathers had no knowledge of mass media.

My point is, you can't take what the founding fathers said literally, because our world and everything in it has changed so much. It requires interpretation. And we can interpret that some weapons are just too dangerous to be in the hands of the public, because they cause more harm than good.


The Constitution is what is known as a 'living document'.




In United States constitutional law, the Living Constitution, also known as loose constructionism, permits the Constitution as a static document to have an interpretation that shifts over time as the cultural context changes. The opposing view, originalism, holds that the original intent or meaning of the writers of the Constitution should guide its interpretation.


Via wikipedia




Living Constitution is a term used to describe the Constitution's ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.


Via definitions.uslegal.com

This means it's interpretation does change over time with no need of producing a new rewording for every age.
Keeping with the Original Intent or the Living Document view doesn't matter as either is interpreted through the two lines of text in the Constitution.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court is not a very good source of interpretation of these words as they have adapted it to a certain political view and added to it's wording through meanings they have added in their own interpretations.
This does not mean what they have said isn't law, merely they are wrong.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
This means that a militia is the protector of the security of a free state. However,

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

occludes the view that only a militia need these rights. Stating the right of the people to keep and bear arms means that anyone has a right to keep and bear arms, arms meaning weapons of any sort, not merely muskets, canons, or a flintlock pistols, but any weaponry.

"shall not be infringed."

Infringe
Verb
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
See also:broken

Says right there, no limits on how many guns, no limits on how or why they're used, no limits at all.
Any anti-gun law, or gun 'regulation' is by definition from the Constitution un-constitutional.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


You can't prove God exists, let alone gave you any rights.


Nobody has to prove God exists, it is in our Declaration of Independence. We were "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights...."

It does not matter who or what you believe is the "Creator," whether it is an anthropomorphic deity or the machinations of nature...both would be powers greater than any mortal.

If we were "endowed" by a power greater than us, how could anyone of us take that endowment away from another? We couldn't, unless they allowed us too.

It became the basis for the law in the United States.
edit on 18-12-2012 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by bjax9er
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of that do you commies not understand?


Back then, "arms" meant muskets. So, yeah, you can have all the muskets you want. Oh, I suppose you could have a cannon, but it would be hard to "bear" a cannon - kinda heavy.

What's that? You think the constitution should be re-interpreted to include the arms we have today? That's cheating, but if you want to re-interpret, then we can re-interpret to mean any kind of arms we want, and we can exclude any kinds of arms we want -- as long as you have muskets, you'll be following the constitution. Anything else, and you are using personal interpretation of the term "arms".
the founders were not stupid. They knew as time went on, weapons would change. There's a reason they said "arms" (implying all current and future weapons). If this wasn't their intent, they would have worded it a "right to bear muskets."

the point of the second amendment was to keep the citizens armed to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy from taking over. Not for self defense, or to protect the borders from invading forces. The founders left the word "arms" vague for a reason. If their intent was for citizens to only have pea shooters for hunting rabbits, the second amendment would have been worded "citizens have a right to only bear arms weaker than the weapons the government and military have."

Would bet if the founders were still around, they wild probably support all citizens having tanks and missile launchers too.
edit on 18-12-2012 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-12-2012 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


Show me where an imaginary sky fairy gave you the right to bare arms? Bible in one hand... gun in the other... the image is completely laughable!

*Sigh*

IRM


If you are offended by religion, I'm terribly sorry that babby's feewings were hurt.

In the Constitution it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Whoever your creator is, or whether or not you believe in a creator, is not of great concern.
The word 'Creator' here is used in the sense that it is self evident, that as a part of life, no one can take those things away from you.
That from birth you are granted these rights.

And if you were to remove the Second Amendment, you would believe that no one was meant to have weapons.
Whether you truly believe that or not is not of concern either because your decisions are applied to this document as these words were meant.
It's not easy to amend the Constitution for a reason. These are your RIGHTS, things that everyone possesses and are more valuable than any earthly thing because they are intangible.

Once you acknowledge that we 'have no reason to own weapons' you acknowledge that no one was meant to have weapons, as if you were your own god.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er
If we can limit guns, then we can limit the press.

No more CNN NBC mslsd abc.

Only fox will be allowed rights under the first amendment.

Sound good commies?


Judging by the aggression, irrationality & confrontational behaviour you display in your posts, you exemplify the exact type of person that should NOT be allowed to own a firearm.

IRM :shk:



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


You realize that we do not have to prove to you that it is our right to carry weapons?

We can just do it?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by bjax9er
If we can limit guns, then we can limit the press.

No more CNN NBC mslsd abc.

Only fox will be allowed rights under the first amendment.

Sound good commies?


Judging by the aggression, irrationality & confrontational behaviour you display in your posts, you exemplify the exact type of person that should NOT be allowed to own a firearm.

IRM :shk:


I find it offensive that you would infer upon yourself the right to judge anyone on whether or not they should have access to firearms.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
 



I find it offensive that you would infer upon yourself the right to judge anyone on whether or not they should have access to firearms.


That seems to be the problem.

The anti-gun people seem to believe they have god-like powers.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


Show me where an imaginary sky fairy gave you the right to bare arms? Bible in one hand... gun in the other... the image is completely laughable!

*Sigh*

IRM


If you are offended by religion, I'm terribly sorry that babby's feewings were hurt.


Actually, you are the one carrying on like a baby... Hell... You can't even spell a small, grade school word correctly and that speaks volumes. If I want intelligent debate, I'll clearly look elsewhere. In the mean time, keep hiding behind a constitution that is as equally outdated as the bible.

IRM



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Aside from infringing upon my God given rights and the Rights afforded to me by the US Constitution:


He's obviously speaking more from PERSONAL opinion than from factual based evidence. And clearly the stats he cites are from anti-gun sources. This guy is a "Doctor" yet he refuses to use a scientific method of gathering facts? His credibility with me is NILL.


HERE'S a FACT for you: There are nearly TRIPLE the amount of deaths related to "DOCTOR NEGLIGENCE" than gun related deaths. There's a stat for ya Doc.

And his claim about "kids": Here's another FACT Doc: Children have 3 times more deaths per year playing FOOTBALL than they do from guns.

The facts speak for themselves.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Really. You're going to attack them over a misspelling (which wasn't a misspelling by the way, it was mocking you for being baby-ish in your attitude)?

Because bad grammar automatically means everything you say is wrong.

Edit: But you're in Australia, which means you don't have a say in what we as Americans do. So I would suggest you go back to your wallabies, because the fact you're from another country negates any value of your opinions.

edit on 18-12-2012 by ManjushriPrajna because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-12-2012 by ManjushriPrajna because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightCraft

HERE'S a FACT for you: There are nearly TRIPLE the amount of deaths related to "DOCTOR NEGLIGENCE" than gun related deaths. There's a stat for ya Doc.

And his claim about "kids": Here's another FACT Doc: Children have 3 times more deaths per year playing FOOTBALL than they do from guns.

The facts speak for themselves.


No.. They are transparent, strawman arguments that say more about you and your lack of a leg to stand on than anything else.

IRM



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


Show me where an imaginary sky fairy gave you the right to bare arms? Bible in one hand... gun in the other... the image is completely laughable!

*Sigh*

IRM


If you are offended by religion, I'm terribly sorry that babby's feewings were hurt.


Actually, you are the one carrying on like a baby... Hell... You can't even spell a small, grade school word correctly and that speaks volumes. If I want intelligent debate, I'll clearly look elsewhere. In the mean time, keep hiding behind a constitution that is as equally outdated as the bible.

IRM


While I'll take your ad hominem in stride, declaring yourself the intelligent one and removing yourself from the conversation shows you know when you are defeated.

Now, I say defeated because you treat this like a battle to be won, rather than a discussion to learn from.
Which clearly you still have some learning to do, as do we all.

And if something becomes 'outdated' just because it is old, I'm surprised you support any form of government or words at all.

Clearly we must move forward and create new ways to communicate, because talking to each other is so antiquated. I'm sure you're one of the people who equate the Republicans, which I assure you I am neither Republican nor Democrat, with those who are 'slowing progress'.

Especially on things that do not need progressing.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Really. You're going to attack them over a misspelling (which wasn't a misspelling by the way, it was mocking you for being baby-ish in your attitude)?

Because bad grammar automatically means everything you say is wrong.

Edit: But you're in Australia, which means you don't have a say in what we as Americans do. So I would suggest you go back to your wallabies, because the fact you're from another country negates any value of your opinions.

edit on 18-12-2012 by ManjushriPrajna because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-12-2012 by ManjushriPrajna because: (no reason given)


Pay him no mind, as I wish I could do so.

But his flagrant attitude of always having the high ground and defending it will never lend him to any intelligence or constructive thoughts, for he allows himself none.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ManjushriPrajna
 


I can only surmise that you subconsciously (or consciously) believed I was winning the debate and the other guy needed you to jump in and save him... lol

IRM



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


If you are American you better youtube the JFK murder because the world as you know it is changing,this murder has been solved in large part and you--if you are American--better pull your head out of the sand.Your government may have suffered a coup de tat,and that alone is enough to fight any level of new gun control.

The internet has changed the world and there is no going back now,dont ignore the world you live in.

You need to decide if you believe PEOPLE like yourself or your government representatives,and to make that decision without excercising blind faith you will need to inform yourself and watch and listen to REAL PEOPLE telling you the TRUTH about the world you live in,mainstream media is owned and the news you see is DICTATED and CENSORED by the people who own the media outlets,the internet is FREE AND REAL and cannot be CENSORED.

Gun control means you are powerless to defend yourself and your family,partial gun control is the same as total gun control,it is just one more step in that direction.


Everyone knows that people kill people,NOT GUNS,25 dollars-ten feet of chain,a match and 2 bucks worth of gasoline and hundreds would have been dead,wake up and smell the coffe and do not allow yourself to be manipulated by mainstream and manipulated media.Grandma and Grandpa are dead and the olde days are OVER--we know who controls the media and we know how and we are now beginning to learn exactly why,so dont surrender your weapons quite yet.Unless you want to ban hardware stores ,matches,and gas stations you need to take a deep breath and youtube the JFK murder so you can learn who might be asking you to surrender your weapons.

All the data you need to become informed is available online just go to youtube and spend a few hours,you will be shocked and awed.And you may change your opinions.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by LightCraft

HERE'S a FACT for you: There are nearly TRIPLE the amount of deaths related to "DOCTOR NEGLIGENCE" than gun related deaths. There's a stat for ya Doc.

And his claim about "kids": Here's another FACT Doc: Children have 3 times more deaths per year playing FOOTBALL than they do from guns.

The facts speak for themselves.


No.. They are transparent, strawman arguments that say more about you and your lack of a leg to stand on than anything else.

IRM


What are you talking about "strawman arguments"? I have no clue as to what you're talking about.

And again, I cited FACTS. You seem to hate being presented factual evidence.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Not really. I just have a pet peeve for people in debates who are losing badly, and immediately resort to criticizing grammar and insulting religion.

That would be you, by the way.
edit on 18-12-2012 by ManjushriPrajna because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightCraft

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by LightCraft

HERE'S a FACT for you: There are nearly TRIPLE the amount of deaths related to "DOCTOR NEGLIGENCE" than gun related deaths. There's a stat for ya Doc.

And his claim about "kids": Here's another FACT Doc: Children have 3 times more deaths per year playing FOOTBALL than they do from guns.

The facts speak for themselves.


No.. They are transparent, strawman arguments that say more about you and your lack of a leg to stand on than anything else.

IRM


What are you talking about "strawman arguments"? I have no clue as to what you're talking about.


You don't do you!

IRM





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join