Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

not sure if you are attempting to confuse me or yourself


you say ...

I question the infallibility of the source, not the definition

after you said this ...

I think gun ownership should be a privilege instead.

then, perhaps you should relocate to a region that shares your opinion and supports your desire, eh ??




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I am not sure what you're arguing or why with me.

Any hoot.

Like I said I support US citizens owning and carrying any gun. So long as they have a background check, register the weapon, and have it revoked (for a time) after any unlawful violent act. This obviously puts me in an interesting position between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds. And please for the love of the God you believe in, don't mention the right versus privilege thing.

Can you at least give me some credit for supporting the idea of people being allowed to own fully automatics? Especially considering how 'left' I am.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

not only are you unable to articulate what you DO want, but you don't seem capable of honoring the foundation laid before you.

the 2nd doesn't come with conditions.

So long as they have a background check, register the weapon, and have it revoked (for a time) after any unlawful violent act.
what does ANY of this do to minimize gun homicides, gun violence or gun deaths in general ???

we've been doing all of those things since 1934, how's it working out ??

i guess i should also point out that for the 150+yrs getting to 1934, with guns in every household, we didn't endure the gun violence we do today.
edit on 28-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
not sure if you are attempting to confuse me or yourself

Sigh.

I understand what the US Constitution is. I understand what a Right is. I understand how a privilege is not the same thing as a Right. I understand that if I support it being a privilege it's in violation of the Amendment. Got it?


then, perhaps you should relocate to a region that shares your opinion and supports your desire, eh ??

So after being punished for my speech I am to be exiled


I reside in the home of the gay tree-hugging heathens. The great land of California. I plan on staying here and infecting as many people with my thoughts as I can. Thanks for the concern though.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



what does ANY of this do to minimize gun homicides, gun violence or gun deaths in general ???

If a background check reveals said person has a violent history?


i should also point out that for the 150+yrs getting to 1934, with guns in every household, we didn't endure the gun violence we do today.

*facepalm*

Why are you pointing that out to a person who very clearly multiple times has said he supports gun ownership...of any gun. I am not opposed to a gun in households. I encourage it. So what point are you trying to make for me with this?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

who is punishing you for your speech ??
exiled isn't the same as suggesting you find compatible company.

CA ?? aaaaah, your time is short, enjoy.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



If a background check reveals said person has a violent history?
yeah so, what if it does ??
it happened some 70,000 times in 2011.
didn't stop any of the consumers from getting guns.
that's the point.

supposedly, it happened to Lanza and we saw how that worked out, right?

then, there's that ambush on the firemen committed by someone who got guns even though they couldn't pass a background check.

why are you obfuscating the obvious ??
Background checks DO NOT WQRK as marketed.

because we are discussing the "conditions" you propose, not your opinion of gun ownership.

you know, those same 'conditions' that didn't exist when we had a more armed and polite society in general.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



who is punishing you for your speech ??

Someone, according to you. You said it, not me.

Any ways saying a citizen should be punished for having opinions is rather tyrannical!! Slightly ironic considering tyranny is what many of you tout you need guns for.

~If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.~
-Washington.

You deemed me "anti-American" and that I should "suffer consequence" and should leave the country all because I have beliefs and am expressing them. So some of them suggest fundamental changes. I hardly think that discussion should be discouraged let alone forbidden....

Your attitude is not conducive to freedom.


CA ?? aaaaah, your time is short, enjoy.


Thank you I will do my best.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





I am not sure what you're arguing or why with me.


I'm not arguing with you. Just interjecting really. All good.

I can handle background checks but registration ? Neg.
edit on 28-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

is this comprehension block on purpose or accidental ?
i suggested equal 'conditions' resulting in consequences for your exercise of said right ... why do you perceive a conflict ?

didn't mention anything about being punished for having an opinion just for exercising it outside of 'social norms' ... same as you are suggesting regarding the 2nd.

so, your tyranny should be accepted and mine should be shunned, why ?

ohhh, so now you want to tout the FFs as what exactly ??
didn't you say you questioned the infallibility of the source ??
or something similar ?

so, what is it with you ?
why is ok to limit some 'rights', just not the ones you like ??

yes, i deemed your commentary and suggestions as Anti-American.
so? are you saying i was wrong ?

no, i didn't say you should leave the country
.
i did suggest you find a region more suitable to your desires ... which is something most 18yrs olds are told at some point after graduation ... why do you claim i said something different ?

and yes, if we were to follow your suggestions, that would lead to direct punishments for exercising actions protected under the 1st.

like i said previously, this assumption/opinion is unapplicable.

Your attitude is not conducive to freedom
and acutally, my attitude is conducive to freedom for ALL, not a select group that meet your requirements.

geeez, just typing that sentence felt sooooo Nazi-ish

yuk, shame on you for even suggesting such a thing



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I am done.

Congratulations on your victory and getting last word.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



I can handle background checks but registration ? Neg.


Can you summate your reasons for opposing registration?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I see no purpose that is to my benefit. I only agree to car registration because I could get my car back after it's been stolen. Tho you will have to pay fees to get it out of impound, which amounts to punishment for having your car stolen. When in my mind it should be free, or whatever state picks up the fee. The point is when a gun gets stolen you can forget it. And the only thing those numbers might do for you in that case, is help the cops pin a homicide on you're ass...
edit on 28-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

the 2nd doesn't come with conditions


So you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by Honor93

the 2nd doesn't come with conditions


So you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?


My Mother in law replaced her broom with one.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by Honor93

the 2nd doesn't come with conditions


So you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?


Better question: should the federal government be allowed to own nuclear weapons? Have they demonstrated that they're responsible enough to have access to such powerful weapons? Have the people with their finger on the nuclear trigger been examined by shrinks to make sure they're not insane? Does the IAEA demand regular inspections of US nuclear facilities like, say Iran which has not threatened to harm anyone?

If you want to end mass murder, how about you start with those who think mass murdering defenseless people is perfectly legal if those people happen to have valuable resources like oil and opium poppies. Find THAT in article 1, section 8.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by Honor93

the 2nd doesn't come with conditions


So you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?


Better question: should the federal government be allowed to own nuclear weapons?


Immaterial to the question. We're talking about the second amendment which applies to citizens not to governing organizations.

I reiterate: Do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 



Immaterial to the question. We're talking about the second amendment which applies to citizens not to governing organizations.

I reiterate: Do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?


I don’t know where you got the idea that you have the authority to frame the terms of the debate, but let’s go there for a moment, just for the sake of argument.

Arms, as defined in the 2nd Amendment, are weapons to be owned BY THE PEOPLE for defense purposes, not for offensive actions, which is the only purpose of nuclear weapons. That’s why they call it MAD, the proponents are Mutant Amoral Dead-enders. And they’re as mad as any hatter.

There are millions of normal rational human beings in the US who demand their natural right to own sufficient tools with which to defend themselves and their loved ones from enemies both foreign and domestic. Most of them, if they could get their hands on the nuclear weapons that the MIC has built and hoarded to make bombastic threats of pre-emptive and offensive wars against other nations, would happily decommission them all and turn them all into plow shares or other constructive tools. There are probably billions of rational people around the globe who would concur.

So the second definition that fits this discussion is rational vs. irrational and its just too damn sad that rational people don’t run the joint. Sometimes the questioners don't sound all that rational, either.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



Arms, as defined in the 2nd Amendment, are weapons to be owned BY THE PEOPLE for defense purposes, not for offensive actions


So in your view all weapons outside of guns are strictly offensive? I am asking, not assuming.

I think the point he was making was that some people here are saying it's a Right without conditions...but when 'push come to shove' conditions arise as part of their belief. I am not sure how to circumvent this confliction, save for dividing them into 'defensive' and 'offensive' categories. That's interesting to me...don't have much to add to it though.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 


Red herring argument. No one is talking about nuclear weapons, the 2nd amendment protects our liberty to own and bear firearms.






top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join