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.
Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
... all rational minded people would see the need to own smalls arms, carried by hand, in the defense of oneself.
And Obama and Congress agree with you. So do I. What's the issue? This ad starts of with Obama and Congress wanting to take away our guns. That's not even happening! It's irrational, illogical and a fantasy.
And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".
It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That ad could be interpreted as a threat to the president. That's one reason I can think of. Sounds like "fighting words".
Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Logarock
Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".
And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".
It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.
So yes...we can regulate the sale and ownership requirements for guns without even having to talk about the 2nd.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Indigo5
really ???
you post someone else's interpretation of what you failed to review ??
typical ... hey, believe what you will, i've read it.edit on 12-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt
Yes...I trust the dozens of independant researchers and fact checkers that have each thoroughly researched the issue over the idealogically addled opinion of an anonymous ATS poster.
Your claim is known bunk...agendized propaganda...BS
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That ad could be interpreted as a threat to the president. That's one reason I can think of. Sounds like "fighting words".
Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Logarock
Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".
And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".
It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.
So yes...we can regulate the sale and ownership requirements for guns without even having to talk about the 2nd.
actually, if you look closely ... no, the government can't.
what they can and should do is PROVIDE arms to us at their expense, not ours ... that is what it says, (well-regulated militia) even though you wouldn't like it.
Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Honor93
actually, if you look closely ... no, the government can't.
what they can and should do is PROVIDE arms to us at their expense, not ours ... that is what it says, (well-regulated militia) even though you wouldn't like it.
They do, it's called the National Guard...go join it. That is the official State militia.
not quite but you are free to 'think so'.
and if they are ... tell me then why they assaulted unarmed students at Kent State, years ago.
also, if you would, explain what was their role in Wounded Knee ??
do tell, which Free State were they defending ??
I support the message of the commercial 100% (a response to a threat is called a defense, folks, not a threat. This is a direct response to a threat from the feds, NOT an aggressive statement of threat against them.)
Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by burdman30ott6
I support the message of the commercial 100% (a response to a threat is called a defense, folks, not a threat. This is a direct response to a threat from the feds, NOT an aggressive statement of threat against them.)
Please provide a source that shows Obama threatening to take away your guns.
The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.
Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Logarock
Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".
And like BH pointed out...the 2nd fails to mention anything about ownership...just "keep" and "bear".
It also says nothing about the sale of guns and the regulations behind that, which the government absolutely has the power to control.
So yes...we can regulate the sale and ownership requirements for guns without even having to talk about the 2nd.