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 xedocodex
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
There are already restrictions and bans on certain types of firearms.
So according to your logic, the line has already been passed, the precedant is already there...and you have lived this long with the current bans and look...you can still own a gun.
It's a flawed and ignorant argument.
Originally posted by xedocodex
I swear, sometimes I think Conservatives are by far the worst enemy to freedom we have in this nation.
You would like to see the second amendment abolished, plain and simple. It is in your own words, and it is the cornerstone of any progressive movement.
He is still a reporter. EEK!
He did nothing threatening to the mayor, yet they followed him for blocks.... after the mayor was gone.
You are a sheep. Hopefully you don't find yourself kneeling at the edge of a ditch someday..... with a friendly govt employee standing behind you with a pistol in his hand.
That can't happen, you say?
I bet that all the Jews executed by the (insert one of many groups that have executed Jews) didn't think so either. .. or they wouldn't have let themselves get into that predicament.
Yes there are... And that proves his point - not yours. His statement was that the line needs to be set here - in kind of a "this is as far as you go" vein. And nobody is arguing that we won't be able to buy any guns at this point. The argument is against creeping gradualism and the intent of the 2nd amendment.
The pro 2nd Amendment arguments put forward take into account an implicit understanding that the citizenry is already legislated to an inferior level of firepower. To let TPTB undermine that position further is a strategic and tactical mistake. And don't be naive or ignorant enough to argue that we have no need to protect ourselves from TPTB and that despotism just couldn't happen here in our enlightened, western, quasi socialist, utopian society.
Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
Originally posted by xedocodex
I swear, sometimes I think Conservatives are by far the worst enemy to freedom we have in this nation.
Just as Conservatives think you Liberals are by far the worst enemy... See a logical problem here? You took the ideological bait - chose a side blindly - and will defend your decision regardless of how stupid it is. The same is true of the majority of Conservatives. Become an independent thinker...
Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by JimmyNeutron
You can't set a line of "We aren't going to allow any gun regulations" when there are already plenty of gun regulations. You have surrendered any legal authority to do so.
You may not like new gun regulations, but there is nothing you can do about it. You can't cry "Unconstitutional" because there are already regulations in place. But good luck trying.
Oh noes...the scary evil TPTB.
If you plan on wanting people to take you serious, you should maybe stop using ridiculous paranoid conspiracy theory terms.
I would suggest that people with your thinking would benefit more by seeking professional therapy instead of going out to buy more guns. Guns aren't going to help your paranoid delusions, but maybe therapy will and then people won't be so crazy over their pacifiers of guns.
Originally posted by xedocodex
Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
Originally posted by xedocodex
I swear, sometimes I think Conservatives are by far the worst enemy to freedom we have in this nation.
Just as Conservatives think you Liberals are by far the worst enemy... See a logical problem here? You took the ideological bait - chose a side blindly - and will defend your decision regardless of how stupid it is. The same is true of the majority of Conservatives. Become an independent thinker...
No, I will stand by my view.
It isn't the label of Conservatives that is the problem, it is there philosophy and views.
There is nothing wrong with identifying a view that is counter to your own and possibly threatening to everything you hold dear.
To me, Conservatives are that to America...not 1950s America that they want to return to, but America as it is today...diverse, accepting, and yes...progressive.
Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Majiq1
You would like to see the second amendment abolished, plain and simple. It is in your own words, and it is the cornerstone of any progressive movement.
No, I would just like to see it very well regulated.
National gun registries, national ammo registries, national registry of homes with guns, ammo purchase limitations, weapon type limitations, full background checks on all sales of guns and ammo, longer waiting periods for guns and ammo purchases, and no guns allowed in homes with people that have mental health issues.
Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.[1] The term describes characteristics or factors which cannot be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
The mayors’ report is correct in identifying holes in the system but in its call on the federal government to provide clear guidance as to “which mental health and drug abuse should be submitted to NICS,” falls woefully short of addressing one of the most important factors responsible for confusion among the states. Federal law speaks in terms of individuals “adjudicated mentally defective” a term that is not only highly offensive, but has no practical meaning. Likewise, terms in the law such as “civilly committed” require practical definition. In 2007, NAMI testified before Congress, explaining how current definitions in the law are vague, leading to holes in compliance and enforcement. To date, there has been no effort in Congress to change the law—thoughtfully and carefully—in a way that is not only overly broad, but also avoids unfair, damaging discrimination. One paramount concern is to avoid creating a situation where people are in fact discouraged from getting help when they need it because of speculative fear over stigma.
Originally posted by wolfbitch
*sigh*
Look. We Americans love cars. Most of us have cars. Most of us drive cars.
But cars can kill people, or at least injure them. Cars can cause property damage.
So all cars are registered and, at least where I live, required to be insured. Those who drive them are required to have a license, which can be removed for cause. Those who cause personal or property damage with their cars are required to fix that damage. At any moment, the governor of my state can call up a list of every single car registered in Massachusetts.
Now, one can see being allowed to drive as a somewhat natural outgrowth of our constitutional right to freedom of assembly. (And I have heard people argue that it is.) But what you don't see are a bunch of people protesting these driving/car owning limitations (except maybe for the outrageous insurance costs). Even though there are certain kinds of cars we're not allowed to drive on the streets -- racing vehicles or vehicles that don't meet federal standards of safety.
And there's no outrage over this.
If gun owners had the same sensible outlook toward their guns as they do toward their cars/trucks/motorcycles, this could be a much calmer debate.
Yes...Anyone whose day job it is to talk to Millions of folks and give opinions, needs security...cuz statistically a portion of those they reach are wacko and own guns.
Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
There's a simple difference... The intent for keeping and bearing automobiles was not in any way tied to limiting government authority. Whereas the 2nd amendment was included to expressly dissuade a tyrannical regime from infringing upon the natural rights of man.
Take that to its logical conclusion - a tyrannical regime would like nothing better than to either disarm outright or barring that so tilt the balance of firepower in their direction that resistance becomes futile. Although the United States may or may not be at that point, giving our current government the means to collect information that a future despotic regime would find indispensable would be certain stupidity on our part.
I will say that the car analogy is pretty good though. Look at our right to bear arms as a minor insurance policy of last resort against tyranny. Hopefully never to be used.edit on 1/28/2013 by JimmyNeutron because: Initial post incomplete...