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.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Why? Adam Lanza executed the Sandy Hook shooting with handguns.
I thought the point of all of this outrage was because of mass shootings like Sandy Hook.
The semi-auto AR15 was found in his trunk and wasn't used in the shooting. He used the semi-auto handguns to kill people.
That has not been confirmed by officials. The last official word I heard/read was:
NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.
Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
From my understanding (and I have may liberal friends that say the same thing) the gun control logic is that we don't need guns that can rapid fire and kill many people at once when the fact of the matter is death by fully auto machine guns are extremely low and death by even semi-auto rifles are low as well. The bulk of death by guns are by handgun and the large majority of them are gang related and committed by criminals who get their guns illegally anyway (it makes sense because they have absolutely no respect for the law).
So why pursue the argument of banning automatic and semi-automatic rifles when they aren't even the problem?
If your goal is to save people from guns that have potential to be dangerous then logic dictates that you would want to ban ALL guns or at the very least get to the root of the problem to actually make a dent in the 'death by gun' rate.
So let's say full auto and semi-autos were completely gone tomorrow and the decrease in gun death rate is miniscule at best, would you then support a push to ban ALL guns, to get a better desired result in death rate? I know you said you supported the second amendment to bear arms but I don't know, some people change their mind in an instant when they don't get their desired result. I don't know how you would act in that situation, so I'm asking...for clarification.
so in the meantime, we should crack down on the black market sale of guns
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?
WRONG ... the entirety of the Constitution and the BoR applies to the RESTRICTIONS of government concerning the RIGHTs OF THE PEOPLE ... not the other way around.
Originally posted by jsipprell
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.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Straw man? I am asking a simple and direct question and you are either sidestepping or not understanding.
You said. Arms was always meant to mean firearms. So those very recent rulings are hardly substantiating that claim. Again my request. Can you provide something to substantiate the claim? I wasn't doubting you, I was genuinely curious. Now however I am doubting.
Your quote
Arms was what firearms were called, (and still are), when the Bill of Rights was debated and signed.
Not a straw man. It's what you implied.edit on 29-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Honor93
WRONG ... the entirety of the Constitution and the BoR applies to the RESTRICTIONS of government concerning the RIGHTs OF THE PEOPLE ... not the other way around.
Originally posted by jsipprell
Immaterial to the question. We're talking about the second amendment which applies to citizens not to governing organizations.
Nothing in the 2nd delivers "conditions" upon the people except to maintain a well-regulated militia …
one of which the government "shall not infringe", period.edit on 30-1-2013 by Honor93 because: typo
Originally posted by Honor93
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Straw man? I am asking a simple and direct question and you are either sidestepping or not understanding.
You said. Arms was always meant to mean firearms. So those very recent rulings are hardly substantiating that claim. Again my request. Can you provide something to substantiate the claim? I wasn't doubting you, I was genuinely curious. Now however I am doubting.
Your quote
Arms was what firearms were called, (and still are), when the Bill of Rights was debated and signed.
Not a straw man. It's what you implied.edit on 29-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)
No, he and others are stating that firearms have always been considered Arms ... as well as a variety of others.
Arms has never been reduced to any specific munition.
you are horribly confused in both ... then and now.
it applies to the people in the sense that it doesn't mean there shall be no restrictions of government concerning the rights of governmental organizations. That last bit is the important target in the context of whom is the possessor of liberties.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by jsipprell
nice try but that's not what you said.
if you think it is, that'd be the problem right there
it applies directly to the 'governing' organizations.
NOT to the people as you imply.
it restricts the authority of the government to meddle in such affairs, at all.
Liberty is not something you possess, unless we're speaking about a specific Liberty Tool, then we're talking about arms again.
In the context as it was written ... (your statement that is)
you are horribly confused in both … then and now.
it applies to the people in the sense that it doesn't mean there shall be no restrictions of government concerning the rights of governmental organizations. That last bit is the important target in the context of whom is the possessor of liberties.
perhaps you'd care to repeat that with fewer double negatives, so we can understand your double speak a little better ??
however, as it is presented … yes, it does mean the government IS specifically restricted from addressing this issue, unless the people choose otherwise ... as they've done previously.
just exactly whom do you think is the "possessor of liberties" ??
ps ... where is YOUR answer to the "nuke" question ?
if you expect 'exchange' of commentary, put your opinion on the table pleaseedit on 30-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt
Originally posted by Honor93
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?
not only is this an unapplicable question, it's been asked and answered a thousand times, didn't you bother to reveiw my post history ??
or is this merely a knee-jerk reaction to an opinion you find distasteful ??
now, how do you answer the same question ??
and please, in your answer, explain why you don't understand or see the difference between Offensive and Defensive weaponry ??
Nukes = Offensive
Arms = Defensive
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by BubbaJoe
then you would be presenting a facetious argument to discount the obvious ... background checks do NOT work.
I am honestly having a hard time believing that any responsible 2nd amendment backer is in favor of no background checks, it sounds as if you are perfectly willing to place firearms in the hands of every violent felon and mentally ill individual in the US. Believe it or not, that is a ridiculous concept in the eyes of many that would back your agenda otherwise
how many background checks have KEPT guns out of the hands of those who couldn't pass one ??
sure, they PROTECT the gun dealers from selling to criminals, but they do not stop or prevent any one who wants one from getting them.
and that's the only fact that counts.
I fully understand that, if I want to buy drugs, I can, whether they are illegal or not. They are a step to keep guns out of the hands of one, who in a fit of anger, decides to buy one, especially the mentally ill. We will never keep guns out of the hands of those that truly desire to have one. I realize for responsible gun owners, that this is a pain in the butt, but it does give others a sense, albeit false, of security and rational thought. It is a compromise that a majority of the country wants, and the 2nd Backers that keep fighting it, look more and more irrational to some that might fully support the rest of your agenda.
With a quick check, the FBI indicates that 78,211 denials were issued in 2011.
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by jsipprell
How did you get this: “So that means that at this point your position is "Yes, there should be limitations on the second amendment but I refuse to elucidate on the exact nature of said limitations."?
From this: “You probably should make an assertion of where you “stand” regarding the second amendment before expecting any feedback. Failing to make your own position known while shrilly demanding answers from others is disingenuous and I, for one, do not feel beholden to respond further to them.”
If that wasn’t an attempt to put words in my mouth, it was a reasonably good facsimile of it. Its no wonder that you can’t read the simple words in the second amendment and understand its meaning.
You also said: “Perhaps I am interested in exploring the boundaries of the issue in hopes of having a robust and maximally cogent opinion?”
Okay, so here’s my robust and cogent opinion: there are already thousands of federal, State and local laws on the books limiting gun ownership. That’s what lawyers do: they take a perfectly understandable phrase and fracture it into thousands of tiny pieces until it means thousands of different things to thousands of different people in thousands of different places.
Criminals, OTOH, prefer the KISS method. They don’t give two hoots about legal double speak. If you are unarmed and one of them comes for you, when seconds make the difference between you living or dying the police are minutes away. They’ll come and mop up the mess afterwards, but you’ll be deader than a hammer. And that’s your decision to make, its not a word game.
Swat. OTOH, may simply get the street numbers wrong and then you’re probably SOL either way since they wear Kevlar undies because they don’t trust the inhabitants not to shoot back. That's the boundaries, they’re looking out for number one which makes you number two on their serve and protect list.
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by jsipprell
This is so stupid. It doesn’t matter what I beeeleeeeve, it doesn’t matter what you beeeeleeeeve, thousands of laws limiting the second amendment already exist and more are being written as we speak. I didn’t write them, I didn’t get to vote on them and I can’t change them.
But if you’re paying the slightest amount of attention, all those laws aren’t stopping crime. Matter of fact, gun free zones and areas with the strictest gun restrictions are where the lion’s share of violent crimes occur. If you can't extrapolate from there I can’t help you. Nobody can.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And had you read Heller you would have noticed the court declared that "arms" in the 2A referred to firearms. And it doesn't matter if the rulings were recent or not, for the simple fact that our 2nd Amendment rights were not challenged for some 200 years. Now they have been attacked and the court has ruled.
hardly.
You're using the word "apply" in a different context than I was.
We're talking about the second amendment which applies to citizens not to governing organizations
using the exact same word and the same context as your original statement.
the entirety of the Constitution and the BoR applies to the RESTRICTIONS of government concerning the RIGHTs OF THE PEOPLE ... not the other way around.
your persistent double negatives make as much sense now as they did then.
is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to protect governmental organizations from restrictions on possession of arms.
ummmm, they already DO ... where have you been for the last 50yrs or so ??
Obviously we cannot let private people possess nuclear weapons