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.

 

Protect Gun Rights - But rewrite the constitution

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The gun debate is often approached from a very narrow viewpoint. I wanted to create this thread to remind everyone WHY we were granted the right to bear arms in the first place.

One reason to protect gun rights is for the citizens to protect themselves from each other. This is the only example that reaches the media. The entire gun debate seems to focus soley on citizen crime.

It is easy to forget that our founding fathers had more reasons than this when giving us the right to bear arms. If the only concern is citizen on citizen crime then it makes since to consider giving up our guns.

But citizen crime is a poor argument against guns. The following reasons are why a population should never give up their right to arm themselves.

Citizens have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from unjust government control. People who give up their rights to bear arms will serve those who took them. We are a government of the people with the right to protect ourselves against political and military traitors to the US constitution.

The last reason, and possibly the most important is to protect against external threats, such as a military invasion, or a fascist coup d'état

It is my opinion that nations who do not allow thier citizens to remain armed run an exponential risk of outside attacks and internal military and political coup d'état. I also believe that such attacks would be significantly more debilitating to an unarmed nation.

I am a constitutionalist but I think our technology has surpassed the wording found in the constitution.

The constitution puts no limit on what type of arms someone can possess. So in theory we should be able to own surface to air missiles if we can afford them. However, I don't think we want surface to air missiles in the hands of the citizens.

We need to properly classify our weapons and ensure proper training for each level. The training required for a handgun for personal safety should be a little different than the requirement to own an Assult Riffle.

If citizens want military grade weapons they should be expected to go through military grade training. I am not suggesting anyone needs to join the military to own military grade arms, but military training should be a requirement.

I think it is imperative that we maintain a well armed civilian militia to protect us from both external and internal injustice. But I want a well armed and well trained civilian militia.

Where should we draw the line in personal safety? At what point do we say, this is the most lethal weapon a citizen can possess?

These are things we need to agree on. We need to have the courage to tear up the old law and replace it with a constitution that protects the bill of rights and defines them for a new generation, the technological age.

We have entered into an entire new age of humanity. We need to rewrite our constitution to reflect the things that have changed in the last 200 years.

This needs to be done collectively, by the people and for the people.
edit on 25-6-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Nope.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I see what you are getting at.

Out of all the inalienable rights, the second amendment is, and always has been the last straw.

The ability of the Everyman, to take take responsibility for protecting themselves, has always countered the belief that the government can do it better for you.
edit on 25-6-2015 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
No. I am not willing to give up my rights or have them limited by you or our Government.

People also aren't willing to negotiate their abortion rights, marriage rights and free speech rights. Simply because you don't like some of the rights people have doesn't give you the right to modify or limit them. I will never have an abortion or a gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I can limit other citizens rights to do so. I don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand. Stop trying to tell other people how to live their lives.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Your OP seems somewhat contradictory.

On the one hand, you want the right to bear arms because you take the need to protect oneself from the tyranny of government seriously. I respect that.

But you then go on to say that one should not be allowed a surface to air missile, even though that is the sort of weapon you take on a government with!



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
Do you think civilians should own surface to air weapons?
I think (as like you as a non American observer) that the OP makes a very good point. The 2nd is as far as I know the only right that directly mentions a form of technology and is therefore subject to change by its very nature.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Um... Actually, the second amendment refers to arms. It does not refer to firearms specifically, or indeed to any other specific bit of technology, just arms in general.

Now, personally speaking, I believe that a nations people should be its power. I believe that a society in which the only concentration of battle gear, is in the control of the government is always at risk of being oppressed, and that the only measure against that is to ensure that the people always have more power, both politically, and in terms of their ability to defend themselves from unreasonable government actions, than the government have. Numbers are not enough.

If the government must have these insanely powerful weapons, then either the people must also have them, OR the people must be allowed a means by which they can take direct, democratic control of the military to force the government to behave in a manner which suits the people. It's either install a measure such as this, or free people to bear arms of whatever scale is necessary to make effective resistance against a runaway or corrupt government possible. Personally, the idea of a SAM site on the back yard of A.N. Other citizen freaks me out intensely, and so I would favour the approach which would see a method of gaining direct citizen control of the military, and having professionals use the gear to defend the people from the government, if it ever came to it.

Its a tricky one.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
All arms are technology from a simple club to an nuclear weapon. (unless you want to make the old right to wear short sleave shirts joke).
I am glad you agree that there have to be restrictions on what weapons people can legally own. The fundamental problem then as the OP points out is that the 2nd uses a vague term which can interpreted to cover just about anything.
As for the second point we already have democratic control over the military in the USA and UK. I struggle to imagine a mechanism that would make control direct. Can you plausibly imagine a government suspending elections but still allowing some form of referendum on who runs the military?
The only practical guard against a corrupt government is real constitution that is properly enforced. In this respect the US is several centuries ahead of us.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

The constitution was a document ahead of its time, in terms of its sheer reach and effect on lives at the time of its institution into law.

However, I believe that in terms of methods by which the people could take direct control of the military away from the government, it would have to be done by changing the allegiance oaths of soldiers, so that it refers to the people of the United States as the commander in chief, rather than the president. That would be a start. This would mean that the military were sworn to protect and act on behalf of the people, not the government. This would put them in a situation where they were unable to refuse a request for aid against the government, from the people of the country. Such representation could be made by way of written letters, the delivery of signed petitions, and so on and so forth.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

No, the constitution should no be touched as it is, now, is something call amendments and I am sure that congress will think twice before amending the rights to guns, why? because no "constitutional" citizens that knows what our government is trying to do, will allow the government to rewrite the constitution, I believe the supreme court will no allow that either

Now the congress can pass gun restrictions, still all those laws could always be debated in the supreme court.


edit on 25-6-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
Well in the US the military oath is already to protect the constitution. The idea I believe in swearing loyalty to the president is that he is a civilian and the representative of the people so keeps control out of the military hierarchy.
I really cant imagine how the idea you present would work in practise. How many signatures on a petition does it take for the military to overthrow a government? You really think giving a constitutional mechanism for the military to undertake a coup protects us better? History to me suggests that democracy is best served by the smallest involvement of the military.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Your thoughts on the issue strikes as well thought out and 'reasonable'.

There is a sense of balance in what you propose which is what is needed in much of our problems.

Therefore, it won't happen.


First, the intentions of the founding fathers are obvious. Yet, the current motivation is based on fear. Fear of those that possess guns, vs. fear of not having guns to protect oneself-from any source-that could harm one or one's family.

Those 'fears' buttons are pushed by both sides almost non-stop.

Second, the Constitution is flat out unfixable and totally obsolete, in this current environment. This should be obvious, but many hang onto the old days as a last straw type solution. (it is the harshest reality to face, IMO, as it takes almost any fix out of the equation and forces the conclusion that this whole civilization is going down no matter what well meaning individuals try to do to prevent it.)

Once again, my hat's off for your attempt..



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

"Military grade" weapons are very costly to obtain and the regulations on them are substantial. There aren't mass shootings with "Military grade" weapons.

"Military style" firearms are easy enough to obtain, but function no differently than any other firearm. It simply looks scary, nothing more.

And you really get my Goat when you mention 'assault rifles" and claim you're pro firearm. WTH is an assault rifle. An AR15? Stop with the whole "assault rifle" and 'military style" argument. It's unneeded.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9
I think you are misunderstanding (or I am) the OPs point. The US constitution does not specify any limit on what arms are, therefore the restrictions you mention could easily be seen as unconstitutional.
Sane people recognise that there have to be limits on what kind of weapons people can own therefore would it not be better if the constitution was clearer?



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Thanks for posting this OP. This thread is bringing-out the very issues I have been talking about for quite some time.

The 2nd amendment does not define arms in any form. This lack of clarity opens up a debate as to what can be defined as 'arms'. No one can agree. Even people within the pro-2nd group cannot come to a clear consensus. I have said in the past that we do need to revise the 2nd amendment and clearly define our right. Otherwise, we leave it up to politicians to further define it. If that's the case, our right is no good whatsoever.

But that will never happen because the pro-2nd group is their own worst enemy.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Well, he specifically said that the training for a handgun should be different than the training for an assault rifle. While that sounds good on paper to the uninformed, it's maddening to the informed, as it's simply buzz words to enact "feel good" measures.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus



No. I am not willing to give up my rights or have them limited by you or our Government.


You already have. Your right is already limited because the 2nd amendment does not clearly define your right. That has allowed states and politicians to further define it as they see fit. They have already limited what firearms you can possess, correct?

This is the problem I have with the pro-2nd crowd. They have already given up their rights and they fail to see it. They refuse to revise the 2nd amendment in a way to further protect and define their right, but they just stand there and say "shall not infringe!". They have already infringed and you guys just let them continue doing it. You let them further define our right because you will not open your mind to the realty that the 2nd needs to be changed.

I really get angry when I hear the pro-2nd crowd say "we don't need more laws, just enforce the existing laws". What they are saying is "you have already infringed on my right to bear arms, but that's ok as long as you don't infringe any more".

The pro-2nd crowd are more of a risk to my 2nd amendment right than anyone else.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

My advice to every American, never give a politicians the right or your okay to rewrite your constitution. The old saying 'Give them an inch and they take a mile' is more like 'Give them an inch and they take your rights away'. They will remove almost everything and will put in gun laws anyway. David Cameron is hoping to write our own human rights laws and it scares the beans out of me.

Trusting a politician is like trusting a dog alone with a large chicken in front of it. You hope for the best but know the outcome.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9
Assault rifle is term in popular usage and defined in the dictionary. It was also I believe popularly used with the arms industry up to the point when talk started about banning them. I agree that it probably does not have a strict enough technical meaning to be used in any restrictions and can be used as a buzz word however I think most people probably get what is meant.
None of which either enhances or detracts from the main point that the 2nd is too vague to be useful.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Please explain how my rights are infringed on what types of firearms I can possess. The only people that think our rights are infringed are the completely uninformed.

I can own any firearm I want, please show me where I can't.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join