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.
bigfatfurrytexan
That only works if you are talking to someone who has similar religious beliefs as you.
One of those rights you take for granted is the 2nd amendment. It was put there so that when it was YOUR turn to defend our nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, you would be able to stand up and do your part.
God isn't in the business of keeping you alive. Quite the opposite. You have been placed on a very dangerous planet with irrational people.
And for what its worth, the tyrant doesn't want your soul or your heart. He wants only your money. And he is happy you acquiesce so easily.
Battleline
reply to post by Bassago
This is very unsettling, these people seem like they will stand their ground and so they should. I guess it had to start somewhere.
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
If...if...
But we didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
macman
reply to post by Gryphon66
Funny, as I don't need a long winded dissertation to explain to me what right the 2nd guarantees me. You might need that, but the right was written so there is no need for such crap to label it as this or that.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed is very very very clear.
Only lawyers, politicians and Progressives could screw this and come up with something other then what is stated.
jimmyx
if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?
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
macman
jimmyx
if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?
I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.
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
jimmyx
macman
reply to post by Gryphon66
Funny, as I don't need a long winded dissertation to explain to me what right the 2nd guarantees me. You might need that, but the right was written so there is no need for such crap to label it as this or that.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed is very very very clear.
Only lawyers, politicians and Progressives could screw this and come up with something other then what is stated.
if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?
vkey08
macman
jimmyx
if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?
I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.
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
A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army. --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
NavyDoc
Except it doesn't. Before our state invented rule by regulation, "well regulated" meant "in good order" and "well equipped."
IE: "A well regulated clock runs smoothly."
A well regulated
nuff said, it actually demands regulation.
macman
reply to post by vkey08
So again, you are a Gun Rights advocate, but are for just a little infringement of said right.
Sounds like a walking contradiction.
macman
jimmyx
if this, in your opinion is an absolute right, under any circumstances, with no caveats. then anyone, can carry any weapon, anywhere, anytime, without fear that they will be shot, arrested, or harmed in any way. does this sum up your stance?
I can't seem to see within the 2nd, that it states certain people or certain arms are forbidden. Here, please show me where in the 2nd it states such things.
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