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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Yes, it does mean a right to firearms. That was the whole point, considering a well-regulated militia without firearms is essentially useless. The use of ammunition goes hand-in-hand with firearms as well. It is all about the INTENT of the amendment, which was to ensure that the civilian population had a means to defend themselves from their own government.
What some people forget is that all the rights given to the people were hard-won, and much blood had to be spilled to acquire them, and that the Founding Fathers realized they could either rely on the goodwill of the politicians to ensure that the rights of the people were maintained, or they could allow the citizenry to be armed, meaning that if their own government attempted to tread on the rights of the populace then that populace had a means to be heard. This was what the entire American Revolution was built upon- a people who felt their rights were being violated, so of course they realized that measures needed to be taken to ensure that the people could always force change when it was not possible any other way. It is as simple as that really. Because there is absolutely nothing the citizenry can do if their government attempts to take their rights away, short of using force. The government is the body with the military and all of the resources, and if enough people are willing to risk their lives for change, then that change is very likely to be necessary, since the majority will not take such measures for transient reasons. If that were the case, the majority would have risen up at the first sign of their rights disappearing. And rights have been slowly disintegrating over time.

I firmly believe that the use of force is absolutely necessary for maintaining a democratic state. People will argue that there are safeguards in place to ensure against despotism, but this is an utter lie. Just look at things like the bank bailouts, the NSA spying program, among all of the other times the rights of the people have been infringed upon. Where are these supposed safeguards that make the use of force (firearms) obsolete? It has been proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that our government of the people and by the people is not for the people. There are many in positions of power who have no qualms when it comes to infringing on our rights for their own personal benefit, or for the benefit of others who are in power. This should be quite obvious to all. I also believe that the people would firmly be within their right to rise up against the government with the goal of restoring any rights that have been lost. As I've said, there have already been times when our essential freedoms have been infringed upon, and I think our Founding Fathers would have wanted the people to do something about it, rather than just to accept these measures.

It was in this same spirit that Franklin said "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." For God's sake people, if you would just read all the written materials from our Founding Fathers, both the official and personal documents, which gives us the opportunity of getting inside their thought process when it comes to our nation, what I say would be completely obvious. Those who disagree with the right to bear arms completely disregard or ignore the intent of the amendment. These people say that there is no longer a need for having a safeguard against the government, etc... But people have not changed at all, and there are still those who are taking our freedoms and liberties away as we speak. And it will continue. The only reason that the people haven't had to rely on firearms in an effort to suppress the utterly rampant disregard for our rights is for two reasons: first, the majority of the population does not care that their rights are being infringed upon, and second, things have not gotten bad enough yet. When the everyday lives of the majority are amply affected, then the majority will be very glad that they still have the right to bear arms. And the notion of defending your home, or anything else aside from holding the government accountable through the use of force, has no bearing on the amendment in question. Thus those who argue against the right to bear arms by using those types of reasons are completely missing the point.
edit on 4/5/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/5/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Expat888
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 )


G,day Pat me bethinks the poster has a mind like a steel bloody trap lol
free men own fire ARMS slaves dont
say a mate wants me to help him do some scrub clearing. Toy wise yer got a couple of claymores lol



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I will personally buy and ship to you, a tranquilizer gun, with as many darts as you can carry, if you will walk through Burnside, Chicago after 9 pm.
You may want to carry some kind of card that lists your next of kin.

No? But why not? I mean, you've figured it all out, right? If this idea of your's is so great, put your money where your mouth is.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:35 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). That way you won't have to deal with the decision you made to take another life.



Maybe you don't realize that those darts have a measured dosage depending on the type of animal, weight and gender. When you see them apparently tranquilizing random animals for tagging and whatnot, it's not random at all. They pick an animal that most closely matches the dosage they have prepared.

If someone breaks into your house, I seriously doubt that they will wait while you weigh them and prepare a dosage that won't kill them.



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join