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 frazzle
reply to post by kaylaluv
I believe that while the government is often times incompetent, and self-serving, they are genuinely trying to stop unnecessary deaths in this case.
Ah yes, that's why they gave us NDAA and kill lists, to allow for only necessary deaths and indefinite imprisonment of citizens they arbitrarily choose to strip of constitutional rights.
And of course congress can limit who may or may not be armed using the " general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses of the Constitution. After all, its necessary and proper for only government officials to be armed in this dangerous time when people are starting to think its THEIR country.
Well, I'm not a big fan of NDAA, but I'm not sure how arbitrary it is. Different topic for a different thread though.
I have yet to see any laws that only allow government officials to be armed
Originally posted by beezzer
For all of those that lean left, do you want to keep the 2nd Amendment as a "right" or have it changed to a "privilege"?
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by kaylaluv
Well, I'm not a big fan of NDAA, but I'm not sure how arbitrary it is. Different topic for a different thread though.
Arbitrary = can be jailed without charges or a trial or even a defense attorney. How is that not arbitrary? And how is being defenseless against it not a part of this conversation?
I have yet to see any laws that only allow government officials to be armed
Incrementalism. The frogs will never notice the water's getting hotter until they're cooked.
Law abiding taxpayers bought all those weapons for government officials they don't know or trust who then try to make weapons individuals buy for themselves with whatever money they have left over, illegal. You have no problem with that?
Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Obviously guns are the main focus. Why would anyone not wonder about the motive given the facts. Banning rifles that killed less than 400 people in 2011 is not conducive to solving the real problem.
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by kaylaluv
Well, I'm not a big fan of NDAA, but I'm not sure how arbitrary it is. Different topic for a different thread though.
Arbitrary = can be jailed without charges or a trial or even a defense attorney. How is that not arbitrary? And how is being defenseless against it not a part of this conversation?
I have yet to see any laws that only allow government officials to be armed
Incrementalism. The frogs will never notice the water's getting hotter until they're cooked.
Why does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need to be armed?
Why does the Social Security Administration need to be armed?
Why does the EPA need to be armed?
Why does Health and Human Services need to be armed?
Why does the frikkin' Department of Education need to be armed?
They all are, you know. And more. Law abiding taxpayers bought all those weapons for government officials they don't know or trust who then try to make weapons individuals buy for themselves with whatever money they have left over, illegal. You have no problem with that?
Provide me a list of individuals who were detained through NDAA who had no background or connection to terrorism. That's what I meant by not arbitrary.
Regarding incrementalism -- if/when the government enacts laws that take away all rights to bear arms, then you have a point. Otherwise, it's just paranoid conjecture. Trying to predict the future isn't a good argument.
Originally posted by neo96
Let's card everyone who votes,run federal background checks, and make them get permission to vote.
SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse.
HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation.
EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Obviously guns are the main focus. Why would anyone not wonder about the motive given the facts. Banning rifles that killed less than 400 people in 2011 is not conducive to solving the real problem.
And it's been found that not one "assault rifle" was used at Sandy Hook, it was 4 handguns.
edit on 26-1-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by jimmiec
I agree. I do not agree with an "assault rifle" ban. See my comments about quelling fear in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by BubbaJoe
SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse.
HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation.
EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials.
So they do their own arrests these days? They don't need armed law enforcement officers to make the apprehensions anymore? They can just go around pointing guns at people?
Whoa!
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Yeah right they also run NCIS at the same time.
they also make them pay a $200 federal stamp tax to vote as well
and make the voter pay licensing fees etc. yeah every voter needs to be licensed!
edit on 26-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by BubbaJoe
SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse.
HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation.
EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials.
So they do their own arrests these days? They don't need armed law enforcement officers to make the apprehensions anymore? They can just go around pointing guns at people?
Whoa!
I did not say they were making arrests, used the word prosecute, it is perhaps during an investigation that they could potentially be placed in harms way, I would guess they all have there own armed security teams that are possibly used at times, I am sure in other cases they work with other LE agencies. You didn't show the number of arms obtained by each agency, and I am not of the inclination to do the research on a pretty much unrelated topic.
Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by BubbaJoe
SSA prosecutes fraud and abuse.
HHS, removing children from a dangerous situation.
EPA, dealing with illegal dumpers of hazardous materials.
So they do their own arrests these days? They don't need armed law enforcement officers to make the apprehensions anymore? They can just go around pointing guns at people?
Whoa!
I did not say they were making arrests, used the word prosecute, it is perhaps during an investigation that they could potentially be placed in harms way, I would guess they all have there own armed security teams that are possibly used at times, I am sure in other cases they work with other LE agencies. You didn't show the number of arms obtained by each agency, and I am not of the inclination to do the research on a pretty much unrelated topic.
"It is perhaps ... could be potentially ... I would guess ... are possibly ...I am not of the inclination to do the research."
Have a nice day, bubba.