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 Logarock
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.
The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.
Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?
The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.
Its not vague. Its clearly a tactical meaning, tactical weapons. And its not about food, hunting and personal protection, its about the tactical capacity of the people.
Originally posted by gladtobehere
In 2011, murders committed with guns accounted for 8,500 deaths in 2011.
Hospitals accounted for the largest number of accidental deaths: 200,000.
Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by beezzer
I wasn't pushing for/against the 2nd here. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of most of the arguments that are put forth. Zero logic.
Originally posted by beezzer
The pro-right advocates simply wish it to remain a right.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by beezzer
The pro-right advocates simply wish it to remain a right.
Well they better get better advocates and arguments that can stand the light of day because right now they are looking foolish.
Originally posted by beezzer
So forgive us or being woefully unprepared to defend the very document that America was founded on. Many of us are still shocked that there is a movement to actually fundamentally transform America.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by beezzer
So forgive us or being woefully unprepared to defend the very document that America was founded on. Many of us are still shocked that there is a movement to actually fundamentally transform America.
Beez, it's been going on since the Constitution was written. That's why there are amendments. Like the 13th. Or should America still have slaves? The country was founded with that. It's time didn't pass?
Originally posted by beezzer
....the conditions that would require the 2nd Amendment remain valid.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by beezzer
....the conditions that would require the 2nd Amendment remain valid.
OK, I'll bite. Like what conditions?
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.
The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.
Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?
The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.
Its not vague. Its clearly a tactical meaning, tactical weapons. And its not about food, hunting and personal protection, its about the tactical capacity of the people.
Tactical capacity against what? Tanks, missiles, jet fighter planes, nuclear bombs? According to your logic, the average person should be able to have access to all these, in order to have "tactical capacity".
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by beezzer
....the conditions that would require the 2nd Amendment remain valid.
OK, I'll bite. Like what conditions?
Protection. From domestic elements...
....from a tyrannical government.
Originally posted by beezzer
Has it ever occurred to you that it is elements within the government that are pushing this effort? This is not a grassroots campaign to abolish something archaic, this is an effort by the government with help from the media to gain control over a right.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by beezzer
So forgive us or being woefully unprepared to defend the very document that America was founded on. Many of us are still shocked that there is a movement to actually fundamentally transform America.
Beez, it's been going on since the Constitution was written. That's why there are amendments. Like the 13th. Or should America still have slaves? The country was founded with that. It's time didn't pass?