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 Right To Bare (Bear) Arms?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
The Right To Bare (Bear) Arms

When the founding fathers of this country drafted the bill of rights they gave us a fundamental right to defend ourselves with the use of arms.

Does this actually mean guns? Why do we interpret this to mean that we have the right to have guns?

The right to bare (bear) arms could mean that we have the right to defend ourselves, but it does not implicitly specify guns anywhere in this constitutional decree.

The right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:
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.[25]

en.wikipedia.org...

Nowhere in the above passage does it state the right to own guns is guaranteed.

So, where did we get this notion that we have this right to own guns for the purpose of killing other humans?

Okay, you can have your gun, but do the bullets have to exist? And do the bullets have to be made to kill?

I am sure the argument will be made that if criminals have the guns with bullets, then law abiding people must have the same weapons to defend themselves and unfortunately this is true.

How many times have you heard about a police officer killing someone that was innocent? Instead of bullets why not use tranquilizer's? At least that way, the person doesn't die and when they find out they "tranquilized" an innocent person they won't have the same shame or the need to explain away a death.

I am saddened and deeply disturbed by this occurence for so many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to a free will decision being made that could be different. Guns are just one method of killing that is senseless and all of these methods involve free will choices.

If your goal is to defend yourself or your family from harm there could be a much better way to do so than owning a gun with bullets. Buy a tranquilizer gun and put the the offending party to sleep (animal or human). That way you won't have to deal with the decision you made to take another life.

There are consequences for your actions. You may feel justified and be vindicated by a court of law for your actions, but if you believe as I do that your "Karmic" decisions do not end in this life, then you will continue to pay for the free will choices you made in this one.

The taking of another life has far reaching consequences, whether you do it by a gun or any other means. People that have evil intentions will do what they do regardless of which weapons they decide to use.

Whenever I start to write about something like this my mind just keeps going and going...the more I write the more I want to say...one thing leads to another...

What I really want is for humans to think about the consequences of their actions before they do something, not after. The impact free will choices have on the lives of others is infinite. The life you take may be the life that would have saved you or humanity.




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Tranq guns do NOT immediately stop or subdue an attacker, I do not suggest using a tranq gun as a means of protection against a threat.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree



Okay, you can have your gun, but do the bullets have to exist? And do the bullets have to be made to kill? 

Yep, I'm going to hunt deer with rubber bullets next fall.
Sarcasm off.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Its the american interpretation of the word arms .. the term also covers but is not limited to swords.. axes .. pikes .. maces .. flails .. bows and arrows.. etc .. i.e weapons .. for most the only thing that comes to mind is guns / firearms... yet far more than that is actually covered by the term arms .. technically it means you could own tanks.. fighter jets.. icbms or any weapons system ( provided you could afford them and that the local authorities had the brainpower to fully comprehend the term arms )
edit on 5/4/15 by Expat888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

any creature that refuses to defend itself when attacked is headed for extinction.

arms = weapons i.e. guns, knives, bombs, drones, etc. whatever it takes

you are advocating submission and suicide here,
probably out of an IMPLANTED irrational fear

it's true 'murica is full of gun worshiping freaks*, but these doofuses will always be the 1st to be taken out.


*

[i guess the brutals are "ferriners" especially brown ones]

bottom line is: you will need BIGGOV and its GUNS to FORCE compliance here
ergo, you're arguing for the citizenry to become defenseless thralls controlled by gun toting legalized criminals.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I am more concerned with why you felt the need to put the mis spelt word in brackets. If people don't understand the correct spelling then it is their loss, let them go back to school. We certainly shouldn't encourage them to write things online, their views are worthless if they have a difficulty telling the difference between bare and bear!!



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: biggilo

Both spellings are correct ways of spelling two different words.

Bear is the correct word that is found in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
It means to carry them on one's person.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Expat888

Yep , not only do I own several firearms , but a lot of the other , more fun stuff that you mentioned. Somehow I think a better option than a firearm up close would be one of my maces or my 4' replica of King Arthur's sword.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The right to Bare Arms isn't in the Second Amendment, though some may say it falls under the First (freedom of speech/expression). The right to bear (as in carry) armaments is in the 2nd though people debate the meaning of "well regulated militia" in that sentence and how it affects the words "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is certainly no law regarding the right to bear arms while having bare arms. Rambo did it with style... As far as I know, bear arms are still only for bears, and are not called arms but front legs. Sorry. Couldn't resist. I cringe every time someone says "bare" when they mean "bear."



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
If your goal is to defend yourself or your family from harm there could be a much better way to do so than owning a gun with bullets. Buy a tranquilizer gun and put the the offending party to sleep (animal or human).


Right. Do you have one of these magic tranquilizer guns that have more than one shot and work instantly?

Is this a joke thread? Sometimes the naiveté of people astounds me.




edit on 5-4-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

And bare arms is a correct term too. It means go sleeveless.
If we take legal guns away from honest citizens then only the criminals will be armed. Not exactly ideal.
No we don't own guns but we feel that if you want one and are smart and responsible then go right ahead. If you're a short tempered yokel then better not.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Meanwhile the thug who has broken into your house is packing a real gun...with real bullets.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Meanwhile the thug who has broken into your house is packing a real gun...with real bullets.




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Actually (feel bit silly) one is wrong in this case, it should be 'bear arms'. The other refers to a state of dress. Honestly peeps struggling with this shouldn't have guns, well maybe bb guns.

Just my feeling that all law abiding Americans should have the ability to defend their homes, it is only fair.
edit on 5-4-2015 by biggilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
The Right To Bare (Bear) Arms

When the founding fathers of this country drafted the bill of rights they gave us a fundamental right to defend ourselves with the use of arms.

Does this actually mean guns? Why do we interpret this to mean that we have the right to have guns? .


Because that is what the law defines 'arms' to be as stated in the 2nd amendment.
The Law Dictionary: Arms


This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms. English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 170, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154




The right to bare (bear) arms could mean that we have the right to defend ourselves, but it does not implicitly specify guns anywhere in this constitutional decree.

Yes it does implicitly state that 'arms' are firearms, read the legal definition above.



Nowhere in the above passage does it state the right to own guns is guaranteed.

Yes, it does. Just because you don't want to believe it does NOT make it so.



So, where did we get this notion that we have this right to own guns for the purpose of killing other humans?


The 2nd amendment, as shown above. Your 'for the purpose of killing other humans' comment is just sensationalist drivel.



Okay, you can have your gun, but do the bullets have to exist? And do the bullets have to be made to kill?

This is just silly. Is this what anti gun reasoning is resorting to now? Try to keep this based in reality.



How many times have you heard about a police officer killing someone that was innocent? Instead of bullets why not use tranquilizer's? At least that way, the person doesn't die and when they find out they "tranquilized" an innocent person they won't have the same shame or the need to explain away a death.

More unrealistic silliness. It is getting harder to take you serious. Think it through.



There are consequences for your actions. You may feel justified and be vindicated by a court of law for your actions, but if you believe as I do that your "Karmic" decisions do not end in this life, then you will continue to pay for the free will choices you made in this one.

I don't believe in Karma or re-incarnation. If I do something against the law I expect to be punished by the law.
Having a firearm is NOT against the law in the US.



The taking of another life has far reaching consequences, whether you do it by a gun or any other means. People that have evil intentions will do what they do regardless of which weapons they decide to use.


Exactly, so what is the reasoning behind your anti-gun rant? The gun is a tool, it can not be evil. If a person has evil intent the tool of choice is irrelevant. This statement by you disarms the rest of your argument.



Whenever I start to write about something like this my mind just keeps going and going...the more I write the more I want to say...one thing leads to another...

I can see that. Maybe you would be better off calming down and thinking about what point you are trying to make.
Your first point was shown false through the legal definition then your own statement contradicts your overall point.



What I really want is for humans to think about the consequences of their actions before they do something, not after. The impact free will choices have on the lives of others is infinite. The life you take may be the life that would have saved you or humanity.

I also wish people would think about consequences of their actions. However, for those that do not I am armed to ensure that bad choice makers do NOT inflict their consequences on me or my loved ones. The life I save may be the life of my wife or son.


(post by Enochstask removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: biggilo
a reply to: butcherguy

Actually (feel bit silly) one is wrong in this case, it should be 'bear arms'. The other refers to a state of dress. Honestly peeps struggling with this shouldn't have guns, well maybe bb guns.

Just my feeling that all law abiding Americans should have the ability to defend their homes, it is only fair.


when I saw the title, I thought of furry bare arms. Or bare bear arms....



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: biggilo

I don't think you should feel silly.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
There are consequences for your actions.


Whomever is breaking into my home and threatens my loved ones will learn the full measure of that logic. As a matter of fact, it may be the very last thing they'd learn.


You may feel justified and be vindicated by a court of law for your actions


Those laws were put in place by We the People.....



if you believe as I do that your "Karmic" decisions do not end in this life, then you will continue to pay for the free will choices you made in this one.


The intruder who threatens the life and liberty of another law abiding citizen will meet with Karmic justice in this life. He can ponder all the wrongs he committed in this life in the next.

Courtesy of Smith & Wesson
edit on 5-4-2015 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Let's test this out. Walk through the bad areas of Chicago, Detroit, or any place like that and see how you come out. I don't think you'd be very healthy.
I'd rather have a gun around because if somebody gets it in his head to break into my place and he has a gun while all I have is a knife, well, that won't work. I want to be able to defend myself.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join