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.
this is already a standard so you are suggesting we continue doing what we ALREADY do ... how does that help at all ?
but if you have a history of violent behavior you should not be afforded the right to own a firearm.
Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by kthxbai
I view abortion as a necessary evil up until the point that there is a heart beat. We have to remember who founded planned parenthood and the racist garbage that evil woman spewed. If you want to use abortion as birth control, do it before there is a heart beating.
Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but a retaliatory argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.edit on 4-1-2013 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)
i could be wrong here but i think all of this happened while the registry was active ... maybe that's why it was eventually abolished ?
because there was NO risk of people shooting up a place with the kinds of firearms Canadians own.
Canada enables export of banned assault weapons to Colombia
Just one day before last month's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn,
- snip -
Canada quietly eased its ban on the export of assault-style weapons to Colombia after Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird recommended an order amending the Automatic Firearms Country Control List (AFCCL).
That opened the door for Canadian gun merchants to sell fully automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines — banned in Canada — to Colombia.
the Constitution restricts government authority and until you can understand that, you will never understand the rest.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It makes complete and utter sense to have a registry for gun owners.
“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold - why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
fair enough and thanks for the courtesy
I make these arguments from a state of ignorance some what. I'm not as informed as I would like to be on the issue and my opinion is colored by decades of media information which is likely false and my own personal experiences
We were receiving those guns from you guys though
they offer a valid opinion.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Honor93
That major problem from what I can gather is the lack of enforcement of current regulation.
At least that's what my pro gun friends in the US have told me.
~Tenth
Originally posted by forgetmenot
reply to post by Vidpci
I have a simple for your abortion problem: If you're so against them, don't get one.
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Sorry, I probably got more upset then I should have. Most people can not even fathom what I went through. It was horrible.
Originally posted by stupid girl
reply to post by Philippines
Would you want the entire world to know you had the clap?
Or herpes?
Those are couple reasons I can think of, right off hand.
Originally posted by Vidpci
Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but an argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.
Just as publishing those who choose to exercise their 2nd amendment right is idiotic.
Originally posted by GArnold
Originally posted by Vidpci
Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but an argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.
Just as publishing those who choose to exercise their 2nd amendment right is idiotic.
Secondly. The Second Amendment never mentions individual gun ownership if you would even take a second to bother to read the actual words. It talks about militas and the the ability for them to have guns. The intent was so a militia could oppose an unjust Government. It was a critical aspect of what allowed the US to break away from the tyranny of the United Kingdom. It does say the right of People to own guns shall not be infringed. The intent was so people could own guns and join militias to fight what they considered to be tyranny. In case you have not noticed... The US is a little different than it was 225 years ago. The framers had no idea that Guns would be used to kill over 9,000 in this Country alone every single year. The Muskets that were available in 1770 took about 25 minutes to reload and fire again.. the framers had no idea you could have guns that would fire 30 rounds a second. That is roughly 25 people a day and one person a hour and that is just people who were murdered. That is not people who die in accidents.. or in shootings that are deemed as legal self defense. The Bill of Rights is what is known as a living document. The words of the Second Amendment have become twisted and used by people who never have actually bothered to know what it says or what it implies or why it was included in the first place.
www.archives.gov...