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.

 

47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

page: 20
245
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL

Registrations, restrictions etc, they are all in fact unconstitutional,


Not true...

The SCOTUS decided in 2010 that putting restrictions upon Article 2, and putting conditions on what people can buy does NOT violate the spirit or the Constitutionality of the Second Amendment. Sorry.... They said if the government wants to say no more town killing guns capable of mowing down a city block in 5 seconds, then they can, as long as they don't take away the right to at least have a handgun..




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


I don't really care what the supreme court said in 2010 to be honest. The infringement cat had been out of the bag for a long time prior, it's moot. Doesn't mean it's constitutional at all, just means that people have been led to believe that it is OK, so that is how the ruling went. It would be a very different story if it had been ruled on 100 years ago.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma

However, I am in the minority, otherwise someone like Obama would never been allowed to run for office let alone be our President and most of Congress and the House of Representatives would be on trial for Treason and other High Crimes.



Couldn't agree more.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Which is why I am to believe these new ideas won't affect the citizens right away, if at all for that matter.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by TKDRL

Registrations, restrictions etc, they are all in fact unconstitutional,


Not true...

The SCOTUS decided in 2010 that putting restrictions upon Article 2, and putting conditions on what people can buy does NOT violate the spirit or the Constitutionality of the Second Amendment. Sorry.... They said if the government wants to say no more town killing guns capable of mowing down a city block in 5 seconds, then they can, as long as they don't take away the right to at least have a handgun..



It is interesting that you mention the Supreme Court; the same court that slipped Obamacare through.

Nevertheless, what you have written is not what the what the Supreme Court wrote; here is what the Supreme Court actually said in their 2010 Decision in the face of the Constitution they all are sworn to uphold and not allow to be circumvented:

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.

The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

A 5 to 4 vote is a clear indication we have many traitors in control of our country and in my opinion, know the Devil Personally. Think I am kidding? Explain what business Chef Justice John Roberts (who swore Obama in and fudged the oath) had flying to the Isle of Malta the day after he slipped his swing vote in to shove Obamacare down the throats of all Americans?

No,I am not going to flame-on but please don't expect to wrap the Supreme Court Rope around our necks without complaint, they are not there to attack our Constitution, they are suppose to be there to defend it..which they do very poorly.


edit on 18-1-2013 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I think we as human beings will have to learn to accept the tragedies that are adhered to our rights. With our right to bare arms people will die. Yes, even children sometimes. But if assault rifles were banned when the tragedies of Sandy Hook or Aurora or Tucson happened, would they have still happened ? Only if they truly happened according what we are supposed to believe about each incident.

SnF OP
edit on 18-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by EL1A5
 


Prettymuch. If people in the cities want to disarm, I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when the federal antigunners think they can come in and pass sweeping bans etc, that it seems city people are fine with, but does nothing for the country folks like me, but make us less safe. Antigun people would be upset if we were trying to legislate our way of life on them as well. We don't do that though.

That would be trying to pass laws that every dwelling must have a gun, in working order, and a minimum amount of ammo. Said gun would have to be taken to a range, at least once a month, inspected, and shot a minimum of 200 rounds. Stuff like that would certainly upset the antigun people I am sure.

Towns like mine have no police force by choice, it is a waste of funds. We have a nice comfy office, where 2 RCMP get to hang out in, on the off chance there is a call for help. They are not allowed to patrol, and harass our youth, or set up speed traps to hand out tickets, etc. We take personal responsibility seriously, we take care of our own and each other. We have zero real crime, a bit of fake crime like pot smokers, that harm no one, so should not be enforced anyway. So it is not here. It's very common to go into the smoking box outside the bar, and some green stuff that we cannot discuss being passed around. Basically it comes down to very minimal laws, common law, as long as you are not harming another person, or their property, there is no problem. Literally more guns than people, backyard shooting ranges, and no violence outside the occasional fisticuffs outside the bar. No one is arrested for it, unless it is a oneway assault, and not a fight.

This is my preferred way of life, and I will be damned if I will allow some idiots to legislate that away.

Ok, that is my speech



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorKarma
 


Actually you are both kinda wrong...The court ruling applies to the DC gun Ban...DC isn't a state, so the state's right to arms or regulation is still undecided..and while the court did rule to over-turn the DC gun Ban...they also ruled that regulation was OK..



Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
You're protests won't change anything no matter how many people turn up......we had those here in Australia as well. The next thing you can expect is a national televised debate during prime time between the pro and anti gun lobbies, mark my words. But that won't change anything either... gun laws are coming.....

After they are passed expect a slow implementation of laws to protect everyone from themselves, you'll all be wrapped up in cotton wool so you "can't hurt each other or yourself"...but really it's all about controlling you, the people, wether you like it or not.

And for those going to these protests, your faces will be scanned into a database somewhere, your names will be added to a list, and your phones tapped... Our phone was tapped after we went to one of the pro gun rallies in Australia, so please take care.
edit on 18-1-2013 by haveblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I'm on either side of the fence on this issue. Yes, it is our right to bare arms.No doubt about that. However, our forefathers never had assault weapons when our constitution was written up. Their idea of baring arms was for protection purposes. Not how many rounds can be fired at once. It's an overkill. You don't hunt with assault weapons unless you're hunting people. If you're being robbed, you don't reach over and grab an assault weapon.
There is no logical reason to have assault weapons other then military purposes. Absolutely none(unless "having fun" constitutes a logical reason).

That said, I do think this is just the beginning of an underlying agenda to confiscate all guns from US citizens.
Unfortunately because of the fraud and pure evilness the US govern ment has shown in the last hundred years or more, I don't believe one word that comes out of theirs mouths.
Many Ameri cans(and people all around the world) share the same feelings and
I believe the govern ment is well aware of this.
I don't think the assault weapons ban has anything to do with the tragedies that have occurred
over the last 15 years.

If the govern ment was truly concerned about the school tragedies, they would have investigated the links between the perpetrators and their use of psychotropic drugs. there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that most(if not all) of the shooters all had used or where on some kind of psychotropic drugs.

Unfortunately this will never be investigated because the pharmaceutical companies
have an incredible amount of influence and power of the govern ment. It's that simple.

Wanting to preserve the constitution should be every Ameri cans duty. That is real patriotism. However all the people screaming about the assault weapons ban should go take a look and read over the "Patriot Act".
THAT is a real assault on our constitution.
When I bring this up to gun lovers, they don't really seem to get it.
They always go back to "2nd Amendment, bla bla bla".
(which makes me think they've been sucked into Faux news propaganda and their real hatred doesn't really have to with the constitution at all but that's a whole different topic in itself).

Personally, I don't think the government will EVER be able to take our guns away.
A revolution will unfold.
However, that's not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion.
In fact, I believe it's crucial and the only way to take this country back.
Just my two cents



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by KEMIK
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


Ok, you made absolutely no sense. If they qualified with their duty weapon...trusted to uphold the law...trusted to protect the public... ????

Forgot to add the qualifying scores (since I went through it myself):

1 - 18/18
2 - 22/24
2 - 26/28

100% accountability. Which means you must hit the target. If one round is not on target you fail.



edit on 18-1-2013 by KEMIK because: (no reason given)


If they can't hit a target from 20 feet, they don't need to be carrying a gun



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pluginkid
 


Talk to me when you have had to face down a group of coyote/timberwolf hybrids that are attacking your lifestock or kids, and tell me again assault rifles have no use other than hunting humans, and that high capacity mags are not needed.

Not to mention bears. And those bobcats, they are frikken fast.

edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:36:59 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


The forefathers didn't give you the right to assault rifles.
GOD did. The right to self-defense is GOD-Given. It is GOVERNMENTS that try to take away these rights.


No, if God had given the right to assault rifles, you would have been born with one. You weren't, so it's not a god-given right.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


If god gave you the right to protest, you would have been born with a picket sign. See how ridiculous that sounds? The right that was given is self defense, a gun is a tool used. Just as the right to speech and protest are inherant, and a picket sign is just a tool.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Why do people need military style rifles in the first place?
Why do they need high capacity ammo clips?
Why are they so afraid of having "real" background checks to purchase a gun?



Two of the requirements are :
No felonies
No illegal use of drugs

I have no problem whatsoever with either of those. Why do so many of the people shouting about it have such a problem with them? That's where the answer is.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by pluginkid
 


Talk to me when you have had to face down a group of coyote/timberwolf hybrids that are attacking your lifestock or kids, and tell me again assault rifles have no use other than hunting humans, and that high capacity mags are not needed.

Not to mention bears. And those bobcats, they are frikken fast.

edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:36:59 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


All it took was one shot to take off the.. well you get the picture, of the guy that tried to ......

You don't need an assault rifle if you are a good enough shot. Our ancestors got by fine without them, we can too. I've never needed more than one shot, and as long as you make it count, that's all that matters. fast or not..

Yes I'm not anti-gun, in case you were wondering...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by pluginkid
 


Talk to me when you have had to face down a group of coyote/timberwolf hybrids that are attacking your lifestock or kids, and tell me again assault rifles have no use other than hunting humans, and that high capacity mags are not needed.

Not to mention bears. And those bobcats, they are frikken fast.

edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:36:59 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


I've said it before and I have to say it here. What ever weapon a man can be made to carry and die with in war.
He has a right to own in peace. A real man has a right to have the very best he can choose. When it comes to protecting this.



Strength and honor !
edit on 18-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


One shot against mutliple aggressive pack animals? That I would love to see. Basically, when a pack of animals gets cocky enough to come onto human occupied land to snatch livestock, they need to be put down. It is not wise to wait until they have gotten brave enough to go after a kid playing in the yard.

I would rather not take my chances, having too many bullets, and the ability to send them at your targets fast to me, is way better than being caught with not enough, or not being able to get those shots off fast enough.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by pluginkid
 


Talk to me when you have had to face down a group of coyote/timberwolf hybrids that are attacking your lifestock or kids, and tell me again assault rifles have no use other than hunting humans, and that high capacity mags are not needed.



Your children were attacked by a pack of coyote/timberwolf hybrids?...do tell...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


or being a crappy shot. At least with a lot of bullets in one place your guaranteed. Remember ATS friends... ALWAYS DOUBLE TAP...



new topics




 
245
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join