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 Xen0m0rpH
Do you apply the same thing to vehicles? Do you not want highschoolers to have Nissan 350Z's?
It's illegal to deprive a person of life, their property, or freedom; No matter the tools used to do so.
I don't see people advocating that they give up their freedom of choice of the foods they eat since they're so fat.
Was it a violent felony?
And what mental illnesses are we going to base restrictions on? Depression is a mental illness.
When you turn a right into a privilege though, that's when I have concerns.
Originally posted by Honor93
point is, neither a 'license' or a 'law' prevents ppl from exercising their natural rights, period.
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by Bluesma
I was just thinking- for those who feel firearms should be allowed any and all without controls,
How then do you feel about drivers licenses?
Do you feel that there shouldn't be any tests, or age requirements, or permits? That anyone should have the right to drive whenever they want to?
Originally posted by Honor93
the part you are missing is "travel" is a right and no law that infringes that right is lawful.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't care what high schoolers have, as long as it's legal to have on the road (another limit). I'd like to drive our Arctic Cat ATV everywhere, but it's illegal because it's dangerous. As long as the kids don't intrude on others' rights, I don't care. But I DO want certain limits on the liberty:
1. I them to have a license.
2. I want them to have taken some training and passed a basic test.
3. I want them to be 16 or older. I don't want 5-year-olds driving anything on the roads.
4. I want them to obey the laws of the road. (more limits)
There are limits.
When you get arrested, you're being deprived of your freedom. When a mother grounds her 15-year-old, she's depriving her of her freedom. I can't drive my ATV up to Albertsons. I'm being deprived of my freedom. I can give you a hundred examples of people legally being deprived of their freedom, for the betterment and safety of society.
The law actually does limit what we consume. Sometimes stupidly (IMO), but sometimes for the betterment of and safety of society.
Yes. He committed a violent felony (he killed his neighbor) and served his time. Now he's out, he hates you, he's been eyeing your daughter and he wants a tank. Are you going to advocate for him?
Just to get it out of the way, I know the term "assault weapon" is meaningless. I disagree with the use of the term and the category. But I do think there should be limits on which firearms and magazines the general public can legally own. I know there already are limits and I agree with them. But we can do better. I have also said that an "assault weapons" ban is meaningless. It won't change anything, if it even passes, which I don't think it will. The Democrats are doing this to make their voter base feel safer and to maintain their support in order to take the house back in 2014. But I advocate for many of the reasonable limits being proposed.
NONE of our rights are without limits. If you don't act responsibly, the right (to vote, own a firearm, to move freely) can be revoked. Our society has proven that we are not responsible enough to exercise our second amendment rights responsibly. I hate blanket laws or restrictions, but in some cases, there is no viable option. The law encroaches into our lives too much in some areas (personal) and not enough in others (societal), IMO. But we are millions of individuals and if we have laws that limit our rights so we can live in some kind of harmony and safety, someone is not going to be happy.
Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
We should try to help these people instead of just saying "oh, they broke the rules. Go to the corner."
Look at this picture and tell me if that still makes sense
TYPE OF WEAPON OR CAUSE OF DEATH
Total firearms. . . . . . . . . . . .9,203
Handguns. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,503
Rifles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .352
Shotguns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .424
Other not specified or
type unknown. . . . . . . . . . .. .96
Firearms, type not stated. . . .1,828
Knives or cutting
instruments. . . . . . . . . . . .1,836
Blunt objects *1. . . . . . . . . . . .623
Personal weapons *2. . . . . . . .815
Poison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Explosives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Narcotics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Drowning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Strangulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Asphyxiation. . . . . . . . . . . . .84
All other 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .905
*1 Refers to club, hammer, etc.
*2 Hands, fists, feet, pushed, etc.
You're advocating: You can eat ho-ho's, but not ding-dongs, you don't need/have to have/(insert reason here) those.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO VOTE.
Does the government need to limit Free Speech?
1.1 Incitement
1.2 False statements of fact
1.3 Obscenity
1.4 Child pornography
1.5 Fighting words and offensive speech
1.6 Threats
1.7 Speech owned by others
1.8 Commercial speech
Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
ARE YOU GOING TO BLAME ALCOHOL OR PEOPLE!?
If you blame alcohol, then alcohol gets people drunk instead of people choosing to get drunk.
If you blame people, then punish those responsible! Not people who have nothing to do with it!
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ManFromEurope
I will tell you...European Cops could use a few Guns. Riots in Europe always get out of hand and such riots are few and far between in the states because our Cops would never allow it.
Split Infinity
Yes, I do. 1. The ninth amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 2. The Supreme Court has ruled that it's implicit in the Constitution. 3. The 26th Amendment talks about the right to vote.
The Right To Vote The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members. Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to. Thanks to Roy Neale for the idea and to Brian Shaprio for some clarifications.
Yes. If a person speaking freely causes danger or harm to others, it is limited. 1.1 Incitement 1.2 False statements of fact 1.3 Obscenity 1.4 Child pornography 1.5 Fighting words and offensive speech 1.6 Threats 1.7 Speech owned by others 1.8 Commercial speech Free Speech Exceptions
Regarding the third silly picture, it's AGAINST THE LAW to drink and drive. I blame the person, not the alcohol or the car. But I do not advocate letting just anyone drink or own and drive a car.
Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Alright, so let's have at it shall we?
First off, I'd like to say I live in America and I have no problem with people having firearms.
The military and police carry firearms all the time and we trust them do we not? The people in the military and police are just like you and me. Some are flawed. Most trustworthy.
Why then would you not want your average citizen to not be armed to protect themselves, or execute their right to own a firearm for whatever reason?
And no, I don't agree that limitations are needed, whether they are reasonable or not.
The Second Amendment has many functions, the most important of which would be to take the country back, or to defend the country and constitution from foreign powers.
Part of the freedom we enjoy is the freedom of choice. And the Constitution wasn't built on 'wants' and 'needs', it was built on choice and freedom. The freedom to choose for yourself what is adequate for your situation is important, no matter the topic, and the right to own what you want is what is at stake if you disagree.
By dictating what 'guns' someone can own, you give the government the power to dictate anything else you can and cannot own. Which, it already has done so.edit on 29-1-2013 by Xen0m0rpH because: Punctuation, grammar, etc corrections
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
ARE YOU GOING TO BLAME ALCOHOL OR PEOPLE!?
If you blame alcohol, then alcohol gets people drunk instead of people choosing to get drunk.
If you blame people, then punish those responsible! Not people who have nothing to do with it!
There are laws limiting people's rights to drive while intoxicated. That's a form of control. And the analogous argument to limited gun control is less control over what drivers feel they want to put in their body before they get in a car.
I used to live in the country and it would have been a great help to me if drink driving was legal. But I can see why it's not.
Originally posted by Witness2008
U.S citizens tend to be rational when weighing laws that benefit society at large. We all get that driving a funny car or farm equipment to do errands is not practical.
When weighing proposed gun laws with the fact that we now live under a fascist philosophy and un-constitutional reach into state sovereignty and individual privacy and rights I find it very rational and wise to protect our right to bear arms.
My favorite Jefferson quote:
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
edit on 30-1-2013 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)edit on 30-1-2013 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)
“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
But I don't want EVERY weapon to be available to EVERY person. I think there's a middle ground. There are reasonable limits on all of our rights and I support them in our complex society.
So, you're OK with your felon neighbor who hates you owning an XM8 tank and an arsenal of fully-automatic weapons?
If we were going to "take the country back" don't you think we would have done it by now? I mean, do you think WE run the country (as it was meant to be)? If "we, the people" aren't running this country, then why haven't we "taken it back"? Think about the practicality instead of the romanticism of your statement.
Consider that the state of maximum individual freedom (without limits) is known as anarchy and the fact is that humans aren't evolved enough to operate in a complex social environment under the structure of anarchy. (I actually support the idea of anarchy, but KNOW that our society cannot be trusted to function under it.)
If people had confidence that their argument was right why did some make stuff up to support it ?
Why do I support limiting LCMs? Mass shootings. LCMs are designed to kill more people more quickly. The picture is silly. If they are going to limit the size of magazines, they have to pick a number. Instead of silly and inaccurate pictures, how about we use actual data, instead, for this rational discussion?
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Bluesma
how does the 'power to harm others' figure into this conversation ?
are you supposing i couldn't propel an object while walking ?
or are you suggesting that a horse couldn't possibly get out of control and stampede a market or something ??
seriously ... you're really reaching with that angle.
who said anything about 'cops letting' anyone do anything ?
i mentioned something about them 'getting caught' or did you exclude that from comprehension on purpose ?
children don't have 'legal authority' to drive until they succumb to the illegal contract forced upon them by their state
however, the addition of a presumed legal requirement does not EVER remove/restrict their RIGHT to travel as necessary.
]now, you are presuming that every child who has had this experience has been caught and that'd be a mistake.
point is, neither a 'license' or a 'law' prevents ppl from exercising their natural rights, period.
btw, without derailing this topic, do you know why the first 'driver license' was issued ??
it had NOTHING to do with ability or skill.
*** it was a 'legal permit' to (be noisy) disrupt the peace of the neighborhoods in which they transversed ... hence, the license was specific permission to 'break existing laws', get it ??