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.

 

...the security of a free state...

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I am not really following your argument that just because something has not happened does not mean it will not happen.


Is that not the definition of fear?




posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
You didn't know obama is a tyrant hell bent on destroying America?
Don't worry, some one will be along shortly to show you.
You might even get a meme


This is not a thread about Obama or his politics, it is an overview of the prevailing sentiments when the Second Amendment was written.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Is that not the definition of fear?


Not necessarily, many events can transpire and preparing or being vigilant for them is not always, nor need be, a sign of fearfulness.

I know there are those who like to proclaim the end is nigh and the government is about to ship them off to FEMA camps but I do not think that to be the case. Do I think the government is about to implode? No. Do I think that it could not happen? I watch the news and see it with some regularity across the globe. We are just people and people do not always make the right choices, even the ones running the country.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What of the necessity of our standing army? Are they not a body of the people? Are they not well regulated? What need of a militia of the citizenry when we have our own military? Furthermore, we have our National Guard. Do they not protect the interests of their respective states?

I feel, in the modern era, we have less and less need of individuals to carry and own firearms for any purpose other than sport and survival.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
What of the necessity of our standing army? Are they not a body of the people?


The Framers did not want a standing army as it is in direct control of the Federal Government answerable only to the President.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And yet...here we are. Where are the demands to disband the military? Why is that not on the Sunday talk shows and the radio airwaves? The framers didn't want it that way! Why do we insist on pouring trillions into it when we're so deep in debt?

The framers wanted no standing army but everyone to have a firearm. That is your premise. How can you reconcile the idea that we should follow what the framers wanted (an armed populace) and yet...not (a standing army)?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
How can you reconcile the idea that we should follow what the framers wanted (an armed populace) and yet...not (a standing army)?


Because the idea of an armed populace predated all these other developments. That should be quite clear.




edit on 21-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You just told me the framers didn't want a standing army yet they wanted an armed populace. One idea couldn't have predated the other by very much, could it?

I'm fine with people owning guns, with certain limitations. I'm not ok with the argument that 'the framers wanted ABC but not XYZ. However, we can have both. Since the framers wanted ABC, we have to accept ABC.'

The framers also wanted the states to have more power than the federal government, yet they were forced to write the constitution to give the federal government more power.

This idea that we have to accept guns and gun culture because the framers said so is unacceptable. I offer the Jefferson quote in my signature as an example. I, and many other Americans, feel we've progressed beyond the need for an armed citizenry for the purpose of protection from tyranny.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
You just told me the framers didn't want a standing army yet they wanted an armed populace. One idea couldn't have predated the other by very much, could it?


By about a decade or two at most. The permanent standing army was a creation of the Federalists under the Adams administration and driven mainly by Hamilton.

I'm fine with people owning guns, with certain limitations. I'm not ok with the argument that 'the framers wanted ABC but not XYZ. However, we can have both. Since the framers wanted ABC, we have to accept ABC.'


I am not following, can you expand on what you are trying to say by 'certain limitations'?

The framers also wanted the states to have more power than the federal government, yet they were forced to write the constitution to give the federal government more power.


The Federal Government has also taken more power unto itself since that time. Too much in my opinion.

This idea that we have to accept guns and gun culture because the framers said so is unacceptable. I offer the Jefferson quote in my signature as an example. I, and many other Americans, feel we've progressed beyond the need for an armed citizenry for the purpose of protection from tyranny.


Jefferson also wrote that one must read the Constitution in the spirit in which it was written.

How would one defend themselves from a tyrannical government without weapons? What was the first thing the British tried to seize during the Revolution?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


One of the grievances from the Declaration of Independence:

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."

"He" being, the King of Great Britain.

While I agree with everything you've written, AugustusMasonicus, in modern terms, the "civil power" is so outdistanced by the military these days that the 2nd Amendment is practically moot. Our "King" now is our own government, and if they deem it needful, they can annihilate any "civil power" remotely using a weaponized drone and a low-ranking airman with a laptop.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Limitations like...required to have a permit or license to own a firearm. Requirement to secure weapons when not in use. Background checks when transferring ownership. Simple stuff.

We can certainly read the constitution in the spirit it was written...we could also change it.

It's not about 'how would one', it's about how we all would. We do it with our National Guard, we do it with our local sheriff's and police. It's not about the individual, it's about the collective, the citizenry as a whole.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I am not really following your argument that just because something has not happened does not mean it will not happen.


Is that not the definition of fear?


Not really.

I can assume from this that you go golfing in thunderstorms, never wear your seatbelt, have no problem swimming in areas where sharks are known to be while bleeding, never take precautions against ticks, frequently engage in unprotected sex with complete strangers and other such behaviors. After all, the odds that any one of them will directly lead to anything bad that particular time aren't very great. So why worry? If you did take precautions, that would be fear right?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Stuyvesant
Like they conquered Afghanistan and Iraq?
Moot? I think not.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stuyvesant
Our "King" now is our own government, and if they deem it needful, they can annihilate any "civil power" remotely using a weaponized drone and a low-ranking airman with a laptop.


Then why did we not do this in both Afghanistan and Iraq? If we do not have the fortitude to destroy our enemies entirely why would anyone think it would happen here?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
Limitations like...required to have a permit or license to own a firearm.


I have this.


Requirement to secure weapons when not in use.


There are laws in my state requiring weapons to have certain precautions when children are in the home.


Background checks when transferring ownership. Simple stuff.


I passed a background check when I obtained my firearms id card. Why should I get a background check every time I purchase a weapon?


We can certainly read the constitution in the spirit it was written...we could also change it.


Agreed, but that is a rather intentionally cumbersome process and unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.


It's not about 'how would one', it's about how we all would. We do it with our National Guard, we do it with our local sheriff's and police. It's not about the individual, it's about the collective, the citizenry as a whole.


I agree, the citizenry as a whole is the 'security of a free state' the Framers spoke of.


edit on 21-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
The state of fear is what government uses to keep a population in line. Keeping them afraid of everything and coercing trust. Like silicone breast implants being deemed no good for human use, only to be returned because the saline implants were wrecking havoc.
And the odds and probability of tyrany is odd. Like flip a coin. 50% right. Every time. But the odds of 100 straight would be much lower. Truth be told the reason tyrants don't take hold is because people care. Our forefathers even warned against majority tyrany. But a small group of powerful men can't overtake national policy if the populace is vigilant and cares. They care because they are well informed.

Well believe what you will but if you haven't do read platos republic.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Background checks when transferring ownership. Simple stuff.

I passed a background check when I obtained my firearms id card. Why should I get a background check every time I purchase a weapon?
I agree, the citizenry as a whole is the 'security of a free state' the Framers spoke of.


As to the background question; because I don't know if you're still capable or allowed to own a firearm. Just because you passed it once doesn't mean you're going to be responsible for the rest of your life.

As for the other part, we have police and military that are comprised of the citizenry. I see no individual need for a firearm.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
As to the background question; because I don't know if you're still capable or allowed to own a firearm. Just because you passed it once doesn't mean you're going to be responsible for the rest of your life.


It is $60 for a background check. Why should I continually pay $60 every time I want to exercise my Constitutional right? Do you have to pay to exercise any of your other rights?

As for the other part, we have police and military that are comprised of the citizenry. I see no individual need for a firearm.


The citizens also need weapons to protect themselves from police and military in the unlikely event that they become tyrannical.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: links234




As to the background question; because I don't know if you're still capable or allowed to own a firearm. Just because you passed it once doesn't mean you're going to be responsible for the rest of your life.


That is none of your concern. The only thing you should be concerned with is that he is capable of protecting his family and property if need be. If it concerns you than I suggest you train and make yourself capable from withstanding such an attack, if you feel that he is not capable or inept.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: txinfidel

" The People, the armed People, are the only security to the free state. "

Is America Still considered a " Free State " ? If not , then an Armed Populace is the ONLY Thing keeping an Out Of Control Federal Government from Declaring this Country to be Now a Police State , and we All know what that means , Tyranny .



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join