Holder: We Want to Explore Gun Tracking Bracelets

vor78
reply to post by HauntWok

 

The only thing you've proven is that there are idiots out there and that some of them own firearms. I think we all know this. But are they representative of the whole? No. I could post stats, but we all know the numbers, its a fraction of a percent that are the cause of the problems. That's not to say that the rest are always acting with the utmost safety, but its clear they're generally doing a good job much more often than not or the numbers for reported injuries and fatalities would be much, much higher given the prevalence of firearms and firearms owners in our society.

YEP!

And I can post Youtube videos of people making explosives, and blowing crap up.

That is a violation of 'federal' law.

Lots of people do stupid things on youtube.

reply to post by Zanti Misfit

Guns don't Kill People , People do .

reply to post by neo96

I have to laugh at people posting youtube videos as some sort of proof to support apparent government fascism.

There is a middle ground you know. GASP, there I go again, middle ground, how dare I right?

Under the false belief, ' People are just too dumb to own them'.

Well, you have to admit, some of these people are pretty stupid, after all some of these people think Obama was born in Kenya and the earth is a little over 6000 years old. So, yea not a lot of intellect here.

I also have to laugh at the quoted comment for the simple fact that for every shooting over 299,999,999 guns where not used to shoot anyone.

And how many nukes does the united states have? A vast majority of those weren't used to kill people either. But two were, and to this day there are still people that are affected by those two bombs.

reply to post by thesaneone

So you think a small percentage of people means most people?
Smh

Did I say that? Please show me where I said that? I don't think I said that. Anyone care to show me where I said that a small percentage of people means most people? I'm not FOX News, I don't go down that road. I'm just saying that there's a middle ground here somewhere between gun nuts loaded up for world war III and taking everyone's guns away.

Since 1982, there have been at least 67 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Thirty of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006. Seven of them took place in 2012, and another five occurred in 2013, including in Santa Monica, California, and at the Washington Navy Yard.

www.motherjones.com...

And y'all are telling me that NOTHING can be done about this? Don't you get it? Mass shootings aren't "pre emptive self defense" people. (btw I think i'm gonna trademark that phrase so that when FOX News gets around to using it I can get some money off the deal)

There's a middle ground. Between this:



and this:



(sorry, for everyone who thinks AJ is a complete idiot, I know he is.)

thesaneone
We'll since some of you are ok with having our rights f'ed with then let's also have it where we have a bracelet to record our conversation so when the government doesn't like what we say they can pick us up and re-educate us.

Idiots.

Why bother to pick us up? If they can remote track and monitor us, they can just add a nice little "shock therapy" mechanism into the package and when we are guilty of "thought crime," they can also remote punish and remote execute, too.

reply to post by HauntWok

There is a middle ground you know. GASP, there I go again, middle ground, how dare I right?

There is no middle ground to be had here.

The constitution is clear.

Well, you have to admit, some of these people are pretty stupid, after all some of these people think Obama was born in Kenya and the earth is a little over 6000 years old. So, yea not a lot of intellect here.

Those shills on capitol hill I watch on the nightly news is more stupid.

And how many nukes does the united states have? A vast majority of those weren't used to kill people either. But two were, and to this day there are still people that are affected by those two bombs

The mark of desperation.

Who the hell brings nukes to a gun fight ?

Oh but the only people to have ever used them is from the same party trying to ban guns.

reply to post by neo96

There is no middle ground to be had here.

The constitution is clear.

So I guess then the government has to have everyone that owns a firearm enlist in the National Guard and go through 6 weeks of Basic Training in order to keep to the letter of the 2nd Amendment right? If you don't want to be part of the National Guard (the militia as it's understood today) then I guess there is middle ground to be found isn't there?

reply to post by HauntWok


So I guess someone is IGNORING

The 1st,4th,5th,6th,7th,9th, and 10th amendments.

As well as the second.

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I missed the part of where it says 'forcing' them to join.

The demagogic bubbles just keep coming.

reply to post by neo96


Na neo, here's the thing. Part and parcel to the 2nd Amendment and the reason that a well REGULATED militia is necessary for the security of a free state is the responsibility of the people. That's the founding fathers intent, that's what won us the revolutionary war, not selfish psychopaths off on their own mini wars. But a well regulated militia.

Fact of the matter is, I think that it's a great idea. You want a gun? Fine, show up at this National Guard post for your six weeks of training, and then you'll have to be on base 2 weeks a year, 1 weekend a month. And if there's a national disaster that comes up, guess who gets to do deal with it? That's right YOU!

Why? Because it's the 2nd Amendment and gun nuts like to forget the first half of that all important amendment.

Don't obfuscate the issue with the other amendments you care nothing about. You want your guns neo. I personally think it's reasonable. I think it's patriotic. And I think that it gives people who want to exercise their right to bear arms training they require.

Hard to hold up the constitution as a be all end all if you aren't willing to follow it to the letter right Neo? That would make one a hypocrite.

reply to post by HauntWok

middle ground?
yeah its called don't do wacos, and don't arm cartels and don't take jews guns away and do holocausts
and just maybe
alex jones and his guests, who are also our guests here at ATS AMAs ( did you not notice?) know stuff YOU don't

HauntWok
So I guess then the government has to have everyone that owns a firearm enlist in the National Guard and go through 6 weeks of Basic Training in order to keep to the letter of the 2nd Amendment right? If you don't want to be part of the National Guard (the militia as it's understood today) then I guess there is middle ground to be found isn't there?

You're trying to have it both ways. If you want to accept a modern interpretation of militia, then you also have to accept the modern interpretation of the entire amendment which is that 2A protects an individual right unconnected to the militia. It still doesn't help you, though, because in modern US law, the classification of 'unorganized' militia doesn't require National Guard membership and in the context of determining eligibility for a right, likely would have to include everyone.

reply to post by HauntWok


Dear you are using the same rhetoric that anti gun promoters uses in order to lobby for the end of rights to own guns in the nation.

I own a gun I am my own militia, how about every gun owner are their own militia, see how it goes, that is why the Supreme court can not rule against taking the rights of US citizens to own guns, go ahead and research on supreme court decisions when it comes to guns.

Sorry but you are beating the drum the wrong way.

reply to post by HauntWok

Na neo, here's the thing. Part and parcel to the 2nd Amendment and the reason that a well REGULATED militia is necessary for the security of a free state is the responsibility of the people

Oh so now it's the 'responsibility' of the people ?

And that 'well regulated' that government has done over the last 70 years has made the government, the police, and criminals better armed than the 'people'.

Meanwhile it is one of the worlds largest arms dealers.

What a joke.

Fact of the matter is, I think that it's a great idea. You want a gun? Fine, show up at this National Guard post for your six weeks of training, and then you'll have to be on base 2 weeks a year, 1 weekend a month. And if there's a national disaster that comes up, guess who gets to do deal with it? That's right YOU!

THE FACT OF THE MATTER is Americans have zero conditions on the RIGHT to keep, and bear arms.

IE BUY or own them.

Anyone that says other wise is selling totalitarianism.

reply to post by neo96


Frankly I think it's a great middle ground. It provides both for national defense, and allows for individuals to keep their firearms. It also trains people in the proper use and handling of firearms which is desperately needed in this country IMHO.

Literally everyone wins.

Plus, you get to help your community out in times of a natural disaster! And wouldn't you feel good about doing that?

It's a complete waste of time and money.

There is absolutely no safety or security system that can not be bypassed in some way, shape or form.

Someone steals a gun that has this in it. They'll find away to bypass it.

Hackers or specialist will have a market (black market that is) to bypass it for a certain fee....no questions asked.

It will result in law suit after law suit. Some being about it's unconstitutionality, to class action suits brought forth because a hunter was mauled by a bear because the gun he picked up off the ground wasn't his and would not fire. Or a woman is raped and killed because she couldn't use her husband's gun while he was away and someone broke into the house.

If it's a safety feature that gun owners would like to have in order to help keep someone from using their gun other than them (IE their kids......or it's stolen, but again, look above about that), then it should be a CHOICE or OPTION for them.

Not something SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS.

Oh wait......yah, we already had something else shoved down our throats recently..... :rolling eye emote that doesn't exist:

So what about all the existing fire arms that are already out there?

What about all those fire arms that are already out there an in the hands of those who would use them to commit (or have already committed a crime) with?

How is this going to change anything?

It's not. Not one bit.

reply to post by HauntWok


So in other words you are happy with anything that allow big government to be able to track citizens for their own good and that of national security.

So I guess tagging humans like cattle and pets is ok.

I got it, I guess I can not argue with that one.

HauntWok
Frankly I think it's a great middle ground. It provides both for national defense, and allows for individuals to keep their firearms. It also trains people in the proper use and handling of firearms which is desperately needed in this country IMHO.

Literally everyone wins.

Plus, you get to help your community out in times of a natural disaster! And wouldn't you feel good about doing that?

I doubt even the government would go for it. Do you have any cost estimates for training, housing and feeding this hundred million man militia while you're training it? The direct cost would be hideous, let alone the economic cost of pulling many thousands of people out of the economy for each session.

And there lies another problem. Its not practical. You could never come close to catching up. If you could train 100,000 at a time in a six week course, a figure which is highly optimistic, you could train less than 900,000 people per year. With a 100 million person backlog, some of those people would have to wait over 100 years. No, I don't think that's gonna work.

reply to post by vor78



Did I missed something here? we went from tagging with bracelets gun owners to training militia, I guess I fell asleep some where in between.

He,he.

marg6043
reply to post by vor78

 

Did I missed something here? we went from tagging with bracelets gun owners to training militia, I guess I fell asleep some where in between.

He,he.

He wants to argue that everyone who owns a gun should have to join the National Guard or have six weeks of militia training. I just thought I'd point out how incredibly impractical that suggestion really is.

reply to post by marg6043


I'm simply trying to find a middle ground here. It's obvious to anyone that tracking bracelets like Holder is proposing is stupid, unconstitutional, and would never ever work.

I think the idea is sound, it actually works for other countries in the world too. Many many countries in the world require a two year stint in the military. I'm not proposing that, I'm just proposing being a part of your state militia, the national guard. It has many many benefits to it, you get the training in firearm safety, physical fitness (which my god this country needs) and it would weed out the REALLY dangerous people.

And it's a part of the US Constitution, so it's constitutional to boot.

It would also scare the piss out of other countries that might want to think about invading the US (im looking at you Canada!)

Now, not only do potential invaders have to worry about the regular military, but an entire nation that is well armed, well disciplined, organized, and heavily armed. Cooter the inbred redneck from Alabama who's married to his sister, not only knows how to use his hand cannon, but is well trained in the art of war.

All the way around this idea works. Better than Holder's idea of tagging every gun owner in the nation like a criminal. Not only would you NOT be a criminal, but in fact would be looked upon as LESS of a threat. Why? Because you have passed not only background checks, safety classes, instructions, and are now a card carrying member of the greatest national defense idea our founding fathers ever thought of.

We could actually disband our military for the first time in who knows how long. The way it was supposed to be done in the first place. We were supposed to only fund a federal military for two years at a time and only in the event of war.

reply to post by vor78


It is impractical actually silly, but you know how anti gun advocates like to beat the drum when it comes to the meaning of the second amendment.

I finally went back and read where the militia issue started, I even posted back I guess I forgot.

reply to post by HauntWok



Thanks for taking the time to explain, I actually agree with a lot of the points you are expressing in that last post, I guess I will have to go back and read again, you posts because I most have missed or misinterpreted most of it.