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 ravenshadow13
Why is it that people get mad when states get their rights taken away and replaced by federal control with it comes to the amendments about most things, but when it comes to gun control, it's not okay for the states to decide?
I mean, I don't think she's right about this. I'm just making a general observation. Don't most people (not me) want MORE state control and less federal control?
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Free speech doesn't kill innocent people.
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by contemplator
All i have in response to that , is if you think for one millisecond that the patriots who fight and die for the freedom and well being of this country , would turn its arms, or allow the government to turn its arms, on its own countrymen you are dead wrong. I know alot of people dont have faith in this, but i have served in the military, and i know our men and women in uniform.
They would not turn the barrels of their guns on their own country, on their own brothers and sisters and their own fathers and mothers.
Anyone who gave the word to do so would find out quick, fast and in a hurry just how badly they misjudged the repercussions of that order.
you want to talk about shock and awe....imagine having thousands of soldiers, The Marines, NAVY SEALS, and other pissed off special forces on your hind end.
[edit on 29-5-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]
The only problem would be the guy who had the gun to stop people like this from killing them would be less able to do so and this especially holds true for a woman as she would most likely not have the strength to fight off an attacker with a knife as well as her male counterpart could.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
It seems I got the attention of some devoted individuals.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
My opinion stands (context is everything).
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Talk to me when you are more aware of more relevant 'weapons'...you can start with the implication that the following well researched topics in the 60's have for [url=modern day affectations on the human mind and experience.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Shoot an ideal...Shoot propaganda...Shoot a lack of education (or manipulated medias).
You can't and the idea of defending oneself is more than securing your physical interaction with a physical offender...which is what the 2nd amendment was designed for.
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...(1) the usofa was not founded on or under xtian principles - because - theres no such thing, since all xtian principles are merely adaptations of other religious and/or cultural concepts...
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...(2) the framers of the constitution didnt give anyone anything except the hope of possibly establishing a non-tryannical republic...
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...(3) your freedom of religion definition has no basis in reality - because - not all americans had the right to follow whatever religion they wanted to follow... the federal government continued to outlaw many indigenous sacred practices until the early 1970s - hardly ancient history...
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...(4) you can claim any religious persuasion (or lack thereof) that you wish but, fact is, you jumped on my jest about the word "commandment" like a starving duck on a junebug and that strongly conveys (whispering) an agenda, lol...
Originally posted by Kevinquisitor
................
I am a strong gun advocate and believe what the constitution states should not be infringed upon by anyone, ever. I would also like to see a psych test mandated for every future purchase of firearms to ensure those who are purchasing them are in the right mind to own one.
.............
The question turns on an arcane but vitally important constitutional dispute: whether the 14th Amendment, adopted following the Civil War, "incorporates" Bill of Rights protections against state governments. Many constitutional scholars and lawyers (including me) believe the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the "privileges or immunities" of citizens incorporated all of the Bill of Rights. But in a display of muddled thinking, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a doctrine of "selective incorporation"--only "fundamental" rights are protected (as if anything important enough to list in the Bill of Rights is not fundamental).
Again we find that Obama is going against every promise he has made. Now he nominates to the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor, who ruled in january of this year in the Maloney v. Cuomo case that "the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."
The United State's duty is to obey the Constitution and treat us right.
but this still does not change the fact that the foundations of the Republic are based on Christian principles.
Ok, for illustrative purposes, I am a crackhead and I need money. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.... So, since you see guns as an irrelevant weapon, I am curious as to what your "relevant weapon" of choice would be to prevent this tragedy?