Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A question for the anti-gun people.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Yes, precedent has already been set, regulating fire arms is perfectly legal.

Since there has already been a precendent set, further regulation is also legal.


Around 1800 the term regulated was not used to say guns need to be limited or have a federal registration, and more importantly they didn't do any of that for 150 plus years...


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.


So well regulated is saying "well equiped and fit" one that can match forces in the security of a free state.

The term militia is a civilian army, our military at state or federal level are not called a militia. A militia is form from the civilian population and not connected to the military....

The term the people throughout the Constitution, Federalist Papers and others is the term they used to describe the "individual"...

The word "infringed" is rather easy... You do not limit, violate, break, transgress, invalidate, exceed the limit of, obsolete to defeat, encroach on a right or privilege of these freedoms of the individual to bear arms.

You and others can spin all day, but when you look at just what our forefather's true objective of the 2nd Amendment was all that spin just doesn't make sense.

Here are some questions....

Why are representatives pushing a bill based on a gun's looks?

With less than 50 murders due to ARs out of the 9000 per year due to all guns why is the AR the point here? 800 are from shotguns and they are ok..well except for the few that "look" evil.

Why do people argue the meaning of words to allow for "infringement" of the people's rights and not just push to have the Amendment changed, or have a new Amendment? If the vast majority of the people speak then it should happen.

Why do people feel that we are past any critical point of a tyrannical Government when it is still happening throughout the world.

Why didn't the anti-gun crowd go ape crazy when Bush and now Obama trampled the 4th Amendment?

Germany marched across Europe with little or no resistance....how would 50 million Chinese fair today if they tried to marched across America compared to a scenario where all guns are out of the hands of the civilian population. I can tell you being in the military for 30 years and 10 of it during the cold war, our 300 million civilian guns was and still is a big deterrent to the idea of invasion of a foreign force.

If anyone says it is stupid that our civilian force would even think they could match up with a military... I would need to say it happens all the time and does well, and the second part is if you feel this way then why are you not concerned that our right has already been infringed on to cause this?

With the last ban, there was no reduction in the murder rate...what are we trying to do this time? And once again we are talking 50 murders out of 9000...

By all your logic of what "infringe" means why not just outlaw all guns but the BB gun and say well that meets the intent of the 2nd Amendment....


edit on 27-1-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by narwahl
 


"well regulated" means well equipted. The signers of the Constitution believed that a permanent standing army would lead to tyranny-- everytime. The militia needs to have state of the art arms, never the government exclusively.


Oh boy....
I will grant you that if you *really* start twisting you can read "well-regulated" that way.

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

But that still leaves you with "militia" and "state"


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

Any other meaning for regulated makes the 2nd amendment oxymoronic. As in

"You are subject to control of the militia and can use arms when so ordered"

That is the only other way to interpret it.


Militia means non-professional, ad hoc, to be used only in emergencies.

The phrase, free state, does not mean that the state government is free, it means that the state is composed of free people, and note the state is used in a general case and not in the United States Government alone case.

A standing, or professional, army costs alot of money and can be used to oppress the people. Some argued that a professional army will always be used against the people, eventually.

Hence the need for a strong, privately funded, armed force. The Militia.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot
The problem isn't guns.

The problem is Americans worship them.


I would be in favor of a law penalizing people who make such ignorant, emotionally driven hyperbolic drivel as above with retroactive abortion, to help save the planet.
edit on 27-1-2013 by JuniorBeauchamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by narwahl
 


"well regulated" means well equipted. The signers of the Constitution believed that a permanent standing army would lead to tyranny-- everytime. The militia needs to have state of the art arms, never the government exclusively.


Oh boy....
I will grant you that if you *really* start twisting you can read "well-regulated" that way.

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

But that still leaves you with "militia" and "state"


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

Any other meaning for regulated makes the 2nd amendment oxymoronic. As in

"You are subject to control of the militia and can use arms when so ordered"

That is the only other way to interpret it.


Militia means non-professional, ad hoc, to be used only in emergencies.

The phrase, free state, does not mean that the state government is free, it means that the state is composed of free people, and note the state is used in a general case and not in the United States Government alone case.

A standing, or professional, army costs alot of money and can be used to oppress the people. Some argued that a professional army will always be used against the people, eventually.

Hence the need for a strong, privately funded, armed force. The Militia.


Militias are citizen militias, part of the First Branch of government, ie-"We the People", that are comprised of a citizenry that is well armed(regulated), who "keep and bear arms", meaning that they have them at the ready at all times.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


the Constitution does NOT grant any such authority ... the people did, but it's not likely they'll make the same mistake again.

Constitution already grants the government authority to regulate guns.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

IT should be noted; however, that the original intent of gun regulation in the National Firearms Act was to counter organized crime not to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
it should be noted that the PRIMARY intent was to TAX the weaponry, period.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

IT should be noted; however, that the original intent of gun regulation in the National Firearms Act was to counter organized crime not to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
it should be noted that the PRIMARY intent was to TAX the weaponry, period.



Only those involved in InterState Commerce giving the govt. authority under the Commerce Clause.

Stewart-vs-US was a convicted felon who got caught with home made machine guns. California's 9th Circuit Court found him innocent. He could legally possess the machine guns he made himself.

He was imprisoned for the couple of firearms with serial numbers that he did not make himself.....those were made by Gun Makers and traveled state lines....giving him years in a Federal Pen.

You can legally make your own machine gun if you reside in one of the States that allow them. You can legally make your own gun in all 50 States and US Territories.

It's actually cheaper now to make Directed Energy weapons than a firearm. Learn about electronics and how to use a soldering iron. Direct "E" is the new thing.....its what the rich people all have now.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
i live in a country where the people do not have guns. Some criminals may have them , yes. They will always have them probably. But our society is not gun-mad like the USA. Criminals refrain from actually using them because they will be prosecuted anyway.

Violence breeds violence. We've never had a shooting of the sorts that happens all 6 weeks in America, just as today. It happens to America because many of you people (not all thank god I know many Americans who oppose this, but on this forum, nay) think that the only answer to a gun is another gun. Your American society will always have a gun violence problem as long as you folks think its OK to have a gun. Simple logic.

And stop the constitution 2nd amendment blablabla. Societies evolve. They should at least, if they don't then its a sign that stupidity has taken over.
edit on 16-9-2013 by animalfarm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by animalfarm
 


Well as long as the "Constitution blah blah blah" is the supreme law of the land, the only way to legally rid us of guns is to amend the supreme law of the land.

Or don't you believe in following the law?

I have nothing against an Amendment to the constitution.... It will never pass, but if it does at least it will be legal and will follow the standards set by the supreme law of the land. Until that day I am a firm gun nut.

But hey! How about you just stay in your Country (wherever that is), let it "Evolve" into whatever it is you think "evolution" of a society is and let us do the same for our own nation...



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
You wonder why Hitler never invaded Switzerland?? Almost the exact same reason why the US will never be invaded. Except every able body citizen in Switzerland is REQUIRED to own and maintain a military assault rifle to defend the country if ever needed. I really wish the US would follow their example to the T.




posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GuidedKill
 


That's not entirely accurate.

Every able-bodied citizen is required to join the Swiss army and be trained on how to handle a weapon, among other things. They don't all have to keep their weapons, they have strict rules on where and when they can carry their weapons.

So if you want the United States to be more like Switzerland, I'm all for it. That means;
*No concealed carry
*Mandatory military service
*Mandatory psychiatric evaluations
*Mandatory annual training if you decide to keep your weapon
*Restrictions on where your weapon is kept (the local armory in most cases)
*One semi-automatic weapon per person



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Can someone please tell me what's wrong with background checks? Which was the one concrete change that was suggested?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


I am a firm believer in background checks. I believe 100% that every individual should be cleared to purchase a firearm prior to any sale (no exceptions).

With that being said:

It is the INDIVIDUAL that is being given a background check. That should entail two things
1) Full name
2) Social Security Number

What is not required (but is currently needed):
3) Address
4) Weapon Make
5) Weapon Model
6) Weapon Serial Number
7) Weapon Capacity (including magazines with weapon)

This is what is known as a national firearms registry.

EDIT - Nobody argues against background checks. that is a fallacy. Everyone with common sense argues against a national registry.
edit on 18-9-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

xedocodex
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Yes, precedent has already been set, regulating fire arms is perfectly legal.

Since there has already been a precendent set, further regulation is also legal.

There are limits to the First Amendment also.
The precedent has been set there, so you would be okay with sweeping restrictions on the right to free speech, I suppose.

The 2nd Amendment is the means of the people to enforce the inalienable rights put forth in the Constitution. If you read the writings of the framers of the Constitution, it is quite clear why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 




*Mandatory psychiatric evaluations
*

If those worked, police officers would be less likely to shoot themselves and their families.

Currently, they are more likely to do so.... according to statistics.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   
In some parts of the shooting fraternity, fully automatics are known as 'brass factories' I think the name speaks for itself.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   

animalfarm
i live in a country where the people do not have guns. Some criminals may have them , yes. They will always have them probably. But our society is not gun-mad like the USA. Criminals refrain from actually using them because they will be prosecuted anyway.

Violence breeds violence. We've never had a shooting of the sorts that happens all 6 weeks in America, just as today. It happens to America because many of you people (not all thank god I know many Americans who oppose this, but on this forum, nay) think that the only answer to a gun is another gun. Your American society will always have a gun violence problem as long as you folks think its OK to have a gun. Simple logic.

And stop the constitution 2nd amendment blablabla. Societies evolve. They should at least, if they don't then its a sign that stupidity has taken over.
edit on 16-9-2013 by animalfarm because: (no reason given)



When Australia had their gun ban, in the first full year of the ban, gun crime went up 44%, the complete report is now buried too deep in my archives to find quickly.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

animalfarm
i live in a country where the people do not have guns. Some criminals may have them , yes. They will always have them probably. But our society is not gun-mad like the USA. Criminals refrain from actually using them because they will be prosecuted anyway.

Violence breeds violence. We've never had a shooting of the sorts that happens all 6 weeks in America, just as today. It happens to America because many of you people (not all thank god I know many Americans who oppose this, but on this forum, nay) think that the only answer to a gun is another gun. Your American society will always have a gun violence problem as long as you folks think its OK to have a gun. Simple logic.

And stop the constitution 2nd amendment blablabla. Societies evolve. They should at least, if they don't then its a sign that stupidity has taken over.


To add to the response above in a different way: The US is in a far more unique (and unfortunate) position than even Australia: We already have many large, organized factions within our borders that use guns daily. Some of these groups make their living off of moving more illegal guns through our southern border. These illegal guns aren't going to stop. These guns aren't going to make it into "nice folks" hands. Taking away legal weapons form the populace would be a disaster, and loss of innocent life would skyrocket.

Imagine the Mexican Cartels pushing into Texas now. What if they knew that no one had a gun in their house to defend themselves? How many more beheadings do you think we would see on U.S. streets?
What about Chicago? Imagine the increase in the already tragic murder rate.

If our government was serious about gun safety, they would be securing this border and eradicating illegal weapons (and be sure, an overwhelming majority of gun violence comes from illegal weapons)

And finally, FBI statistics (the link is in this thread) show that of those gun murders, a vast majority are from handguns, not long guns. Of the long guns, a majority are from shotguns versus rifles. There are no statistics, but of those couple hundred rifle murders, only a percentage of those are 'military style' semi-automatic rifles. There's no "public safety" in the goals of the anti-gun forces.
edit on 20-9-2013 by blamethegreys because: ETA Link





new topics




 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join