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.
DJW001
I think you need to calm down and read the Constitution. The law in question does not infringe your right to participate in a well organized militia.
jimmyx
after looking at the original document, this is a not a "confiscation order of all guns"....it is specifically about assault weapons, and hi-capacity ammo magazines. you have the options of selling them to a licensed dealer, or taking them out of the state. other rifles, shotguns and handguns are not included. you still have "arms" to defend yourself and your property. my impression of what you want, are weapons that will take less time to kill more people.
vor78
jimmyx
other rifles, shotguns and handguns are not included. you still have "arms" to defend yourself and your property.
Sure. Right up until the point that some legislator applies your thinking to those 'other rifles, shotguns and handguns.' How long afterward will that be? 5 years? 10? We all know where the end game is here.
The fact is, handguns are used in about 80% of all homicides. If those so called 'assault rifles' are such a threat to society, and can be banned on that basis, what does it say for the continued legality handguns, in particular, but also shotguns, both of which are used more frequently to commit violent crime? If you can justify banning and confiscating a class of weapons in common use, but that represent perhaps 1-2% of firearms used in all homicides, the rest will soon follow.
tanka418
DJW001
How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?
You really did say that! Absolutely amazing!!!
How about giving us a "law" that ISN'T illegal itself. What part of "violation of the Constitution" is NOT understood here?
The "supreme" law of the United States; states very clearly; "shall not be infringed". Yet we should follow these traitors when they attempt to infringe on our rights....Tell ya what...when they have a "real law", you know one that is actually supported by the primary guidelines of this great nation; the Constitution; I'll be one of the first to publicly support it.
Until then; IF they want my guns they can either do it right, or not at all.
By the way; I'm a Texan with a Winchester and an itchy right index finger.
DJW001
oblvion
DJW001
oblvion
DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.
Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?
Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."
How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?
It was in compliance with "the law" to put the Jews in camps and kill them.
"the law" is not legal if it goes against the constitution for this very reason. "the law" made by tyrants doesnt mean it i just.
"the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"......is this law an infringement? Than it is not a just law, thus, not a law at all, but a try at tyranny.
Are you an American? If so, I would have thought you would understand this. If not, than I pity you for not being born free, and protected by such a system of laws that allow you to make up your own mind as to what is right and just and what is complete and total tyrannical attempt to take your rights away from you, in contravention of the law that they swore to uphold and protect.
I took an oath, it didnt have an expiration date, I intend to fulfill my oath as long as I draw breath.
Molan Labe
I think you need to calm down and read the Constitution. The law in question does not infringe your right to participate in a well organized militia.
DJW001
I think you need to calm down and read the Constitution. The law in question does not infringe your right to participate in a well organized militia.
DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.
stirling
By hook or by crook you ALL will be disarmed or destroyed soon enough.......its not very bright to stand on the tracks when a train is coming....and the facts show that the disarming of Americans, is top priority for their government.....no matter who is running things....
The only defense is to blow the tracks.....before the train arrives....
vor78
DJW001
I think you need to calm down and read the Constitution. The law in question does not infringe your right to participate in a well organized militia.
Actually, I'd say quite the opposite is true. The primary justification for banning these firearms is that they supposedly have 'military features.' But if that's the case, doesn't that make them more applicable to usage in your well regulated militia? You can't have it both ways.
Of course, I must also point out two Supreme Court decisions that have bearing here:
1) Miller v United States upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns because they viewed it had no military/militia application.
2) DC v Heller found that the individual right to arms in 2A existed unconnected to militia membership.
DJW001
oblvion
DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.
Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?
Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."
How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?
ketsuko
vor78
DJW001
I think you need to calm down and read the Constitution. The law in question does not infringe your right to participate in a well organized militia.
Actually, I'd say quite the opposite is true. The primary justification for banning these firearms is that they supposedly have 'military features.' But if that's the case, doesn't that make them more applicable to usage in your well regulated militia? You can't have it both ways.
Of course, I must also point out two Supreme Court decisions that have bearing here:
1) Miller v United States upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns because they viewed it had no military/militia application.
2) DC v Heller found that the individual right to arms in 2A existed unconnected to militia membership.
There was also some after decision commentary from the justices that reveal how they view the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, they view the AR15 and similar as a legitimate weapon for private ownership because they feel civilians should have access to weaponry that gives them a chance against the standard military issue of the day, and the AR15 and others like it, they feel, is roughly comparable. In other words, they view the real purpose of the 2nd as a safeguard against tyrannical government for the people.
That might explain what they meant about short-barreled shotguns having no military application.
When the questioner in the commentary I read mentioned that the rationale might include fully automatics, the justice only shrugged and said no one had yet brought that challenge up.
Now, I wouldn't say that all the justices on the court agree with this rationale.
bigfatfurrytexan
DJW001
oblvion
DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
This is exactly the sort of anger management issue that makes people want to ban guns.
Yes because putting someone who is not violent or criminal into a place that forces them either be a criminal or violet means they did somthing wrong or deserving of justice?
Sounds more like "the ends justify the means to me."
How about just complying with the law? Why does that not seem to be an option here?
Because it is an unjust law, and anyone who is a patriot has a duty to himself, his country, and his family to disobey that law.
F# the law. I am a free man. I don't need a stuffed suit telling me how to live as a free man.
bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by oblvion
The "Obamacare Tax" decision ruined my faith in them. I think Roberts has dirt, and Obama or someone is holding the dust pan.