A social issue causing civil unrest, or a deep seeded diabolical agenda?

Gun Control...
Versus
The Second Amendment, aka our gun rights, ie firearms.

These are not negotiable rights, these are restrictions against the federal government stopping it from tyranny.

To think and or believe otherwise, is wrong literally & legally.
Prove me wrong, even one attempt to do so will show you I'm not. I don't want you to take my word for it, I dare you to prove me wrong. Take the be smart challenge.

Feelings are not warranted in a logical world. Yeah that sucks but we can't let feelings dictate our lives decisions, that's what children do, not adults. Hard decisions have to be made. That's a fact of life the truth hurts, get over it is too.

I'm here to discuss facts, not feelings please leave those at the door. Bring your Vulcan logic A game when you're on ATS, because any less is not your best. So here goes.

Don't like what you see happening in politics or aren't interested, become more active, because politics sure is interested in you...

Our Constitutional rights are guaranteed, no exceptions.
Don't like them, fine you don't have to exercise them.

Those of us who are honorable law abiding legal citizens, can and do exercise these rights every day. Some longer than most flakes have been alive. With zero incidents.

Criminals break laws, criminals won't follow more laws.
Any disregard to that fact, is denial of reality.

These rights are not granted by any government body, it is an understood. Our second amendment is the key to National sovereignty, don't confuse my usage for sovereign citizen, I referred to "National" not individual. That's another issue.

Our rights to self defense are not locked into a National Constitution, these too are also ensured in our State Constitution. Search it, find it and learn it then live it. Our State dictates our local laws. Not the federal government.

The gun rights debate was settled way back in the 1700s, due to a foreign government interfering with our elections.

Think about it, England wanted control and the Colonies wanted their own means of a more local control, not one half way across the world. Out of touch... self indulged etc..

These quotes say enough in the matter, that the weight should still measure up today.



Simple, direct and to the point.



Well said!



Exactly.



Precisely.

These words they didn't leave behind as expendable nothings, these are our lanterns lighting the way.

Either you agree and together we stand, or you disagree.
For those who disagree, I leave these words;

If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

One must stand for some thing, or they will fall for anything.


United We Stand, The Rest Is, Not An Option!

Logically, why would the government want to take anyones guns?

A populace armed with small arms isn't a threat to modern government. This isn't the Vietnam days when a guerrilla force could pose a threat. Any group of people hiding in the woods ready to strike can be thermally scanned and have a rocket put in the middle of them from a drone before they even hear it. It isn't even a contest in this day and age. It's 2019.

If anything, letting people keep regulated guns gives the government an "in" into everyones lives. It gives them a reason to watch you. To put your name on a list. To classify you as "dangerous", even though you pose no danger to them at all. It gives politicians political capital, in that they can now use the idea of the same government they work for coming to take your guns. So now they can play the role of the "savior". As long as you keep sending them money and keep voting to keep them in power.

The government will never ban guns, regardless of who is in office. Because through banning guns they'd be giving up a control system they are used to wielding over people.

a reply to: underwerks
Because they know what will happen when the People find out all the shady # they've done!

a reply to: PurpleFox

You're late to the party if you're just now figuring that out.

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: underwerks
Because they know what will happen when the People find out all the shady # they've done!

Yeah, what are the people going to do. Order a pizza, roll another one and change the channel?

originally posted by: ADVISOR

These are not negotiable rights, these are restrictions against the federal government stopping it from tyranny.

That, imho, is the worst argument a person could possibly make, when defending the 2nd amendment. It just has absolutely no relevance in modern western society and is actually more likely to portray responsible gun owners as just crazy anti-government conspiracy theorists, than to convince anyone of the importance of gun rights in the US.

On the other hand, claiming the 2nd is important, because in a truly free society, a person should not be denied the right to protect themselves, home or family... now that's a solid rational argument.

I agree, and furthermore I declare the rules of the road circa 1792 are all the guidance we need in todays traffic!

Can we not be trusted with right of way? Are we mere slaves to rules created by others?
Do we really need to be belittled and belayed by these traffic lights?
Besides, everybody knows going over 30mph will cause the human body to explode, so no need for speedlimits.

There are more guns than muricans.....dont look like much control to me. And i got six. I aint worried bout it.

originally posted by: ADVISOR


These quotes say enough in the matter, that the weight should still measure up today.

Simple, direct and to the point.

Well said!

for the first quote:

"Here’s the accurate version of Washington said:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

for your second quote:

This statement is not something Jefferson wrote, but rather comes from a passage he included in his "Legal Commonplace Book."

The Federal Government has nukes, A-10 Warthogs, missile capable drones, blah, blah, blah.

10,000 men armed with nothing more than level action .22’s properly placed can engage multiple targets as distraction and main targets and force the military to operate under COG protocols.

A team of 30 men without any guns whatsoever can directly impact everyone East of the Mississippi in a timeframe of about five days that would make things difficult for 5-7 years.

The purpose of the Second has always been to be the Sword of Damocles to the Federal Government. Anyone wishing to remove that should be viewed as needing it all the more and with closer scrutiny.

originally posted by: ADVISOR
Gun Control...
Versus
The Second Amendment, aka our gun rights, ie firearms.

These are not negotiable rights, these are restrictions against the federal government stopping it from tyranny.

People on the right are so delusional and just don't think through what they are saying. First, no matter what guns you have you will not be able to compete with the governments jets and tanks. The government simply does not fear any type of gun you may own since the time of revolutionary war muskets. So you can stomp your chest all you want and throw dirt up the air like an enrage ape but you can't change the fact the government has ridiculously more fire power than you will ever have.

Second, where do you draw the line? People cannot buy by law any stinger missiles and M134 Miniguns. If Stinger Missiles were legal we would see a commercial jet be shot out of the sky every other day. And criminals would use an M134 to shred police cars into the ground. I doubt anyone needs to be able to fire 2000-6000 rounds per minute while hunting deer.

Freedom to do whatever you want is great. But so is public safety. Where do you draw the line? Do you let private citizens buy tanks with real ammunition. What happens when the guy who owns the tank gets mad at his cheating wife and decides to drive the tank into town and give her and her lover a package of love!

You have the right to bear regulated militia armaments. Do do NOT have the right NOT to be regulated.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I commented on your Touchdown Jesus. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think a lot of people forget that active duty members of the armed forces are discouraged from taking part in "war crimes". The average citizen won't be held to that standard. So while the military might have better gear, in a full on insurrection they won't have it for long. In the military if you get caught punching a prisoner for intel you can be charged. A civilian could "de-glove" a captured soldier to get whatever they want.

That's a big difference. Then through in pissed off Vets, angry "Weekend Rambo's", and local law enforcement that will side with the communities that they live in and nope the military's advantage goes down very fast. As soon as a military force secures any city and kills the people in that town, hell breaks loose for any and everyone in the government. It isn't even a point of "trash talk from a basement bandit", but rather actions of people that fear being subjugated and killed by an oppressive government.

Back to the topic at hand, I often wonder if the real reason many people are talking and pushing restricting the 2-A has anything to do with protections of the populace, but rather is that the people pushing these agendas are afraid that they might have these 2-A people rise up against them if they step over the legal line. If people can ban something that most people have, then it would make that group criminals in the eye's of their laws. A simple move like the "Red-Flag Laws" allows a people to be held against their will without a warrant. It doesn't matter if the person has any weapons or not, that's not what those laws are about.

I have a few friends in law enforcement and they were telling me that there is no provision in the law (in Washington State at least) to check if the person even has a firearm before they go and deal with the issue. They were told to assume that the person has a firearm if they are told that the person does. The concern is that "Red-Flagging" someone might be the newest form of "SWATing". Sure the law might save a few people, but in the end public education about being aware of their situation and allowing more people to carry a firearm would go a lot longer in prevention.

The idea of "Gun Control" is nothing more then a quick fix comment by a politician to have the appearance of doing something when in reality it does nothing to stop a person for doing anything except protect ones self. This is why you don't see any of them going to Detroit or Chicago and talk about placing restrictions on handguns. Instead you get them going to a manufactured mass shooting and cry about removing "black-guns" from the public.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You don’t think the Second was meant to allow the people to have a level of control over their government as to be the ultimate check and balance?

Or you don’t think that a fiery death by lightning strike was an ironically funny end to an awful representation of Jesus made from fiberglass and styrofoam?

If the first, get this a read and really ponder the meaning behind it.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If it is the second, maybe listen to some George Carlin to exercise that sense of humor?

This whole take back the government with an armed militia scenario is just ludicrous.
What needs to happen for the US government to instruct the armed forces to turn on their own people, and they do it?
It's beyond common sense. It's a fantasy, pure fiction. A bad eighties movie. A joke

The proposal that our choice is between supporting the Second Amendment (and the Constitution) and supporting gun control is a logical fallacy.

Every right in the Bill of Rights is limited by the exercise of same causing harm to other citizens. You do not have a right to speech that causes harm to others, you cannot use your religion as an excuse to commit crimes, you cannot assemble into a violent gang committing organized crime, etc. etc.

All of our individual rights are limited by each other's individual rights.

The idea that all "gun control" is antagonistic to the Second is mere propaganda. The first gun control laws went into effect even before the Constitution was ratified in the colonies. Black citizens were prohibited at times from owning firearms from the 1700s into the 20th century. Even though the SCOTUS decision in Heller denied the idea that the Second's right only applied to the early need for a citizen's militia, that had been the interpretation for decades that impacted many State and Federal laws.

Post-Heller, there is zero doubt that Americans have the right to own and carry firearms and this is sacrosanct at all levels of government.

BUT,

That does not mean that there can be no restrictions on what types of firearms are available for purchase which descends to the Federal through the Commerce Clause and to State and local governments through the Tenth Amendment.

Other limitations and requirements are Constitutionally dicey in my opinion, but that's another story.

originally posted by: Jubei42
This whole take back the government with an armed militia scenario is just ludicrous.
What needs to happen for the US government to instruct the armed forces to turn on their own people, and they do it?
It's beyond common sense. It's a fantasy, pure fiction. A bad eighties movie. A joke

I agree, but frankly, that makes zero difference in the argument.

The Second Amendment reflects centuries of English Common Law. The idea that a 12-gauge stands up against a Hellfire missle from five miles away does not negate the very clear Constitutional right to own and carry firearms. I would even go as far as to say that is fundamental to the American way of life.

a reply to: Jubei42

Government leaders don't live on military bases.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I agree, but frankly, that makes zero difference in the argument.

The Second Amendment reflects centuries of English Common Law. The idea that a 12-gauge stands up against a Hellfire missle from five miles away does not negate the very clear Constitutional right to own and carry firearms. I would even go as far as to say that is fundamental to the American way of life.

I have no problems with fire-arms, it's the people carrying them. Lots and lots of people carrying lots and lots of guns. Ofcourse the majority are stable geniuses, but statistics guarantee that some mentally unstable individual is going to go on a killing spree taking other lives.
Ofcourse people can kill themselves and others any way they want, but you have to realize that a fire arm is one of, if not the most deadly tool any hand can wield and carry.

But the biggest killer is ofcourse the carrier killing themself. Mental disorder in combination with widespread availability of fire-arms make for a deadly combination.
Most gunfatalities are people who are depressed and have it so bad that taking their own life seems like the best option. But that's just how it can feel at that very moment and having access to a fire-arm can turn that temporary feeling into a permanent death. And that is the real shame.

originally posted by: Jubei42
But the biggest killer is ofcourse the carrier killing themself. Mental disorder in combination with widespread availability of fire-arms make for a deadly combination.
Most gunfatalities are people who are depressed and have it so bad that taking their own life seems like the best option. But that's just how it can feel at that very moment and having access to a fire-arm can turn that temporary feeling into a permanent death. And that is the real shame.

I don't understand this argument in a nation that utilizes Roe vs Wade "Right to Choose" as the law of the land. If someone wants to off themselves, that seems to be the ultimate example of "their body, their choice" and is frankly no one else's business nor concern.