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 All Seeing Eye
while freedom is restricted as a matter of political convenience.
Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice FOR ALL.
Can anyone else remember reciting this every morning in school?
Originally posted by JamesLimelight
Freedoms are being taken away as we speak...they have been for years upon decades.
I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice FOR ALL.
Can anyone else remember reciting this every morning in school?
Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
He cannot take a legitimate protest out on the streets in view of the President and assembled media.
Originally posted by Estragon
He cannot openly call for the boycott of Israeli products.
He has less choice about where to send his children to be educated.
Originally posted by William
Which freedom is it that you're concerned has been restricted?
(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
Originally posted by K_OSNow it may be true that I really have no need to have a gun that holds over 10 rounds, but that isn't the point. The point is that my father had a rifle that would hold 15 rounds, as did his father, that I cannot have, Therefore it may be a minute detail but it is a restriction of rights.
Originally posted by William
Is it really?
The right to bear arms was conceived by our inspired forefathers as a means to maintain an armed militia that could prevent a government from getting out of control and imposing military rule. In that era, leading technology was muskets and canons... and enough people with muskets could overpower canoniers reasonably quick.
Today, there's no way a private citizen can hope to maintain armament capable of maintaining the type of citizen militia as a preventative measure envisioned by Franklin and Jefferson.
So do then, does the number of bullets in your magazine really amount to a restriction of personal freedom? Is not the core reason for the "right to bear" arms outdated and archaic?
Originally posted by William
Today, there's no way a private citizen can hope to maintain armament capable of maintaining the type of citizen militia as a preventative measure envisioned by Franklin and Jefferson.
So do then, does the number of bullets in your magazine really amount to a restriction of personal freedom? Is not the core reason for the "right to bear" arms outdated and archaic?
Originally posted by 29MV29If it came down to you, your house and your gun and a small battalion of militia, terrorists or gang members would you rather have 15 shots or 10 before reloading? So yeah, it's an infringement on my right to life and protect myself. We are granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness...
Originally posted by K_OS I should be able to own tanks, fighter planes and even nuclear weapons... but I am not.
Why not? The Gov't does it all the time, why not me?
posted by William...Unless this has happened to you, it's a strawman arguement. You can't theorize that your rights are restricted against some fictitious future event.
You still have your firearm.
Why is it that many American's equate freedom with the rate-of-fire of your firearms?
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Well, then how about all the little laws that restrict our lives? Seatbelt laws, the entire DHS, innumerable anti-discrimination laws, etcetcetc.