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.
Looks like there may be hope after all, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Living documents are susceptible to change, and if the Legislative branch wants to change it, the Supreme Court has a say, as does the President/Governor.
Originally posted by dothedew
Its posts like these that make me glad i live in michigan. Theres way too many gun owners/lovers here to let some rediculous legislation like this ever see the light of day
I find it humorous that there are many people that want the feds out of our lives, but when a state, county or city tries to make laws, certain people are up in arms about it.
Originally posted by dothedew
reply to post by DaTroof
I respectfully disagree. The proper way to go about things would be to repeal/take action against the 2nd amendment, as opposed to pass laws which go directly AGAINST the constitution
Originally posted by lolita64
reply to post by DaTroof
That's exactly the lawful way. To propose bills in the state House and Senate.
It's not lawful.
Read the second amendment again.
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.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Meaning : Don't touch it! AT ALL.
Any ``gun control law`` is an infringment, therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL therefore, NOT LAWFUL.
The only lawful way is to amend the constitution to remove the second amendment. Anything else is unlawful and unconstitutional.
And don't tell me... but but but... back in the founders day, people had CANNONS and armed ships, all legal and in private hands.edit on 6-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
oh go buy some shotguns and sleep with them if it will make you feel better
if you think you need a bushmaster with a high capacity clip to survive wehatever paranoid fantasy you have, you need help
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by kaylaluv
Hiding behind a big gun can be seen as cowardice too.
Who might the coward be?
When the person that wishes the rest of the population to be disarmed... relies on the jack-booted thugs of the government to do the disarming of those people?
Those thugs will still be carrying the same 'assault weapons' that some want to have disappear. In reality, they will carrying actual assault weapons, because they will be carrying weapons that have selective fire capability.
Stop being a coward. Push a gun ban that will have you unarmed sheep collecting the weapons. Or can't you see the folly in asking the population to give up their guns, in order to remain law-abiding?
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by beezzer
Some may choose to have the oppourtunity to hide behind their own weapon.
or
Some may choose to hide behind the security and safety of government's arsenal after weapons have been banned.
And some may choose to live their lives without guns that can kill 100 people in a few seconds. The people that insist on having those kinds of guns are usually cowards who are attempting to cover for some short-coming or insecurity, imho. You know, kind of like the really short guy who has to have the biggest hummer/truck/SUV on the market.
Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Stormdancer777
Well. thats a major city, how do we know that deaths wouldn't go down in less urban cities? I don't believe one cities crime rate increase tells the whole story. It may be a point, but there needs to be more statistical evidence to back that up as being true.
I've never needed a gun to feel safe and I've lived in Chicago and I've lived right outside in its suburbs. So I'm from that neck of the woods and I don't deem it necessary. Just saying.