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 rickymouse
Well, maybe some people need more than 10 shells in their gun but I don't. Maybe people just need to learn to aim better before pulling the trigger.
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, maybe some people need more than 10 shells in their gun but I don't. Maybe people just need to learn to aim better before pulling the trigger.
Not sure if you've ever been in an emergency situation all of a sudden and tried to hit something but its not that easy.
I got jumped by a badger once and was so busy dodging and running around that I couldn't hit it with a single shot. Luckily my dad dropped it before it got a hold of me.
You often don't have time to aim and fire off a round.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by blamethegreys
You (as a citizen) are already outgunned and outmatched by the government. To try and make the connection between Hamilton's viewpoint and the modern weapons of today is feeble at best and would've been better argued 100+ years ago. The SCOTUS has already upheld the idea that the government can restrict what types of weapons you can have (United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939)).
I can fully agree on the need for the second amendment if we didn't already have state and federal militaries. We have no need for an armed citizenry, thus no need for a "right" to bear arms. To argue that the second amendment is meant only for the defense of oneself against the state is tenuous at best. It's been ruled time and time again that the second amendment was included for defense of the state. To take your argument would be to include the addendum that eliminating the US military is paramount to inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms.
This is not the argument you're making though. The government has the right to restrict high capacity magazines and most citizens have very little to no use for them.
Ultimately I feel that all this protectionist gun talk is manufactured. The gun industry wants you to be upset at the idea of strengthening already existing laws and creating useful laws when it comes to gun ownership. If you honestly believe the NRA has your best interests in mind and not the millions of dollars they make from the manufacturing, sale and increased membership dues that arguments like these have then you're blind to the truth.
Originally posted by rickymouse
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, maybe some people need more than 10 shells in their gun but I don't. Maybe people just need to learn to aim better before pulling the trigger.
Not sure if you've ever been in an emergency situation all of a sudden and tried to hit something but its not that easy.
I got jumped by a badger once and was so busy dodging and running around that I couldn't hit it with a single shot. Luckily my dad dropped it before it got a hold of me.
You often don't have time to aim and fire off a round.
So your dad probably got it with one shot? Confidence and overcoming the fight and flight systems of the mind is the clue. You need to become one with the gun.
Originally posted by rival
Very nice.
It's good to see a sane man with solid reasoning defend the right to defend one's self and one's country.
If you have the time could you "stand in" for Alex Jones next time he debates Piers Morgan?
It would be greatly appreciated.
The defence forces of the United States are reported to have 3,054,5533 firearms Compare Number of Law Enforcement Firearms Police in the United States are reported to have 897,4004 firearms
Number of Privately Owned Firearms The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 Compare Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people