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.

 

Gun Rights and Four More Years

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
So Bush is a dictator with a Patriot ACT II that allows for a police state and some of you believe there will be a draft. Does this change any of your views on gun ownership? Have the events of the past four years led you to believe that domestic enemies could exist and that the mantra of "that can't happen in America" now rings hollow? I'm just curious because many of you believe Bush is essentially a "domestic" enemy - and I'd say that's an understatement! It seems logical to me that in the face of this danger gun ownership would begin to look better to some that previously saw no need for it.

This is a serious question.




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Good question, PistolPete. I've been wondering the same myself, what with all this talk of a civil war you hear from some on the left. I think its funny, actually. Most who claim to support the 2nd hail from the right, but it is the same right liberals would fight against. No one sees the real reason behind the second until they themselves feel wronged.


Love the avatar BTW.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
One of the greatest movies ever.


I was just about to re-pose this question cavscout, I think it's a pretty valid one. Is there anyone that previously held the belief that we should have stricter gun control now see why "gun nuts" don't want to give up their guns? With words like dictatorship, Hitler and police state getting thrown around someone has to have changed their thinking.

And if you're someone that's concerned about PAII, "King George", a police state and draft, yet continue to believe that guns should be controlled, why? Why is the state being invasive and dictatorial in some aspects okay while others so bad?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
The Founding Fathers believed in an armed populace for one reason: so people could protect themselves from the government encroaching on their liberties. Some quotes:

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
--George Washington

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
--George Washington

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.
--James Madison

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--Thomas Jefferson

And finally:
When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.
--Thomas Jefferson



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX

When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.
--Thomas Jefferson


Excellent quotes m8, excellent!



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I don't think you'll find anyone that "changed their mind" because I don't know of anyone that wanted to "take away your guns" in the first place.

That would be a right wing lie.

Sure, several support restrictions like the misnomered assault weapons ban, but that would include Bush and just about any politician that has to answer to police unions or has constituents in the real world.

I know this is the "right's" favorite conspiracy theory and argument to have, but has anyone every noticed nobody cares if you have guns? Nobody even argues over gun "rights" until someone takes it to the extreme of saying there should be no restrictions, no waiting periods, no background checks...if I want a tank I should be able to get one on the Internet. And that's just baiting for a fight. Idelogical fantasy. Not remotely serious.

So be happy! You have guns. Nobody cares. Let's never discuss it again.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT


I know this is the "right's" favorite conspiracy theory and argument to have, but has anyone every noticed nobody cares if you have guns? Nobody even argues over gun "rights" until someone takes it to the extreme of saying there should be no restrictions, no waiting periods, no background checks...if I want a tank I should be able to get one on the Internet. And that's just baiting for a fight. Idelogical fantasy. Not remotely serious.



Except for the fact that that is exactly the way the founders of the US and writers of the constitution wanted it RANT. So tell me, given that what you consider to be an extreme vewpont is the vewpoint those who wrote the constitution and bill of rights intended, how can you justify any gun control?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
So be happy! You have guns. Nobody cares. Let's never discuss it again.


Tell that to people living in New York City, where you can't own a gun.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Except for the fact that that is exactly the way the founders of the US and writers of the constitution wanted it RANT.


Since I'm not privy to your special insight that says the founders of the US wanted you to own personal nukes and carry firearms on airplanes, I guess I'll just have to live in this century where blacks aren't slaves and women can vote and the majority think you hold extremist views.

And Sic if people in NYC can't own guns (though it's news to me) I guess they like it that way. Does this affect you somehow? If it does, can you not move? Merely a rhetorical question, since I don't care about continuing this BS ideological fantasy debate.

Nobody cares if you're armed. I know that saddens right wing martrys to no end that nobody is out to get them. But nobody is. There's also no homosexual agenda to recruit your young. No communist conspiracy in state education. And Christians have it pretty damn good despite their neverending persecution complex.

People coming to take your guns. :shk:



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Rant those who wrote the US constitution and bill of rights explicitly stated that they did so in order to insure the populace retained the abillity to revolt against thier government. Whle in the 1700 it was possible to do so with a rifle it no longer is. For the citizenry to retain that ability we must have access to the same weapons the military does. Anything that contradicts this is in violation of the writings and the expressly defined wishes of those who wrote the constitution. Since the 2nd has not been repealed all gun control laws contravene the constitution. Slavery is a totally different matter. The right to own slaves was not a part of the documents our legal system is based on. Certain rights were guaranteed. And RANT, while the dems may not be activly trying to take away my guns, they are attempting to stop me from buying one in the first place which is the same thing.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

I don't know of anyone that wanted to "take away your guns" in the first place.

That would be a right wing lie.

Sure, several support restrictions like the misnomered assault weapons ban


Handgun-Free America “A non-profit organization dedicated to the ban of private handgun ownership in the U.S.” www.handgunfree.org...

but that would include Bush and just about any politician that has to answer to police unions or has constituents in the real world.


Everyone that that posted before you (except Ed) was a Libertarian and as such they probably understand (except Ed) that Bush is not a defender of the 2nd, regardless of the front he puts on. I’m sure you probably were aware of that, however, with your “constituents in the real world” remark.


...if I want a tank I should be able to get one on the Internet. And that's just baiting for a fight. Idelogical fantasy. Not remotely serious.


I am very serious about it, not just baiting for a fight. Of course, I probably don’t count because you already think I am “crazy” and that I long for a return to the “wild-west,” as you put it in the past.


Since I'm not privy to your special insight that says the founders of the US wanted you to own personal nukes and carry firearms on airplanes


Oh but you are privy to that insight. See, when I explained it to you, in the founders own words (spent a long time doing the research on it for you, BTW) you didn’t respond back. I assumed it was because you had no good argument, but now it looks more like you would prefer to be able to say the above and pretend you didn’t read evidence to the contrary.



Does this affect you somehow?
It does, and it affects you as well. When any law contradictory to the constitution is allowed to stand, it sets a precedent for breaking the constitution. Not just victim disarmament laws, BTW, but ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION. Remember, it wouldn’t be that hard to turn the “the funding fathers didn’t mean tanks and nukes, they meant muskets” logic around and say “when they said freedom of speech, they had no way to envision T.V. and internet.”


I guess I'll just have to live in this century where blacks aren't slaves and women can vote
Know who says that? People with no logical argument.


There's also no homosexual agenda to recruit your young.
Who was that directed at?


No communist conspiracy in state education.
Who here said there was?



And Christians have it pretty damn good despite their neverending persecution complex.
Are you directing all your comment at one member? If you are, let me know so I can save the typing please.


People coming to take your guns.
It happens quite often, actually.


since I don't care about continuing this BS ideological fantasy debate.
You know, you sure do seem to get emotional about it for someone who made the above comment.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Good point Cavscout. My intended critique of the prevalent themes of martyrdom and false persecution frequently extended to gun control debates was directed at Republicans, not Libertarians.

I keep forgetting you guys don't matter. What did you get like 0.32% of the vote from people that share your extreme views?

390 thousand out of 120 million? That's super.
I can see why you need someone willing to volunteer to be your straw man for debate, but what's in it for me? Practice? I'd just as soon argue with passing gad flys or institutionalized schitzophrenics equally as devoid from reality.

Even out of 5 million NRA members (not exactly anything to brag about either) 99.2% of your own people don't even agree with the Libertarians apparently!

Just because everyone in Internet fantasy land is a "Libertarian" or really a libertarian even though they vote Republican
doesn't amount to an umbrella in a hurricane when it comes right down to it.

All I can do is assure you I don't want your guns. I'm also pretty sure Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton don't give a # either.

You probably should be concerned with the Republican scare tactics I'm talking about though (like irrational assertions that Kerry wants your guns) because they're the ones stealing Libertarian votes, then not supporting gun rights like you say. They're all talk and you know it.

But if you want to keep making "liberals" the enemy here I'm sure the NeoCons like that idea just fine and will appreciate all the Libertarian votes for Jeb they get next time as a result.

I'm really not angry or emotional here, but you're right we've had this discussion before. And what good did it do? You think you should be able to destroy the government on a whim, I just wish someone would.

In all seriousness though it just makes no sense to me that real Libertarians and big gvernment, moral authoritarian Republicans enjoy this unqiue relationship of support and mutual liberal bashing when common sense tells you you're mortal enemies or should be. I recognize Pete asked a serious question about wouldn't liberals worrying about lack of due process from the Patriot Act make libs want guns? And I tried to answer seriously myself. Of course. And PS when didn't we want guns? In an attempt to point out the straw man. Then it has to turn into this whole libertarian ideological fantasy thing. Sorry, that's what it is. Even if you are "right" and should get to have ICBMs in your backyard (God what a pointless argument) shouldn't you be yelling at George Bush and the Republican majority about that? Or any of the last half dozen Republican Presidents? Or Rush Limbaugh...or somebody? I mean somebody lied to you, and it wasn't me.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
In all seriousness though it just makes no sense to me that real Libertarians and big gvernment, moral authoritarian Republicans enjoy this unqiue relationship of support and mutual liberal bashing when common sense tells you you're mortal enemies or should be.


I agree with Rant on this one. I fear the Republican party WAY more than the Democrats, because they take votes away from us by LYING to the people and claiming to be small government advocates when they are as bad or in some cases WORSE than the Democrats.

If the Patriot act and most of the other laws and programs being pushed through congress were from Democrats the Republicans would be screaming for blood.

The Democrats represent the "other" side, which is necessary to keep the country in Balance that Republicans on the other hand claim to represent MY SIDE and have conned an awful lot of people into believing that they are the Party of personal freedom and small government.

Can you tell me ONE THING they have done to back this lie?

[edit on 23-2-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I think New Yorkers should be able to sue the police/city for every violent crime because of the gun ban. It is normally the police's job to enforce the laws. Therefore they respond to crime more than prevent it. It is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves. If the police do not allow for self defence then they should be liable for violent crimes. Strange logic I know. But they chose to violate the constitution.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Reaganwasourgreatest, I agree with you in principle. I don't know if suing the police for crime is reasonable, but you are right in your reasons behind your argument. People should be allowed access to means of protection. I think everyone here knows how long it takes for law enforcement to reach your house if you call them. How is this protecting the person who was mugged or raped? How is this protecting the person who's house was burglarized? To deny gun ownership is to infringe on a person's right to life, liberty, and property.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX I don't know if suing the police for crime is reasonable, but you are right in your reasons behind your argument.


The supreme court has ruled that the Police are NOT RESPONSIBLE for protecting you.

They are there to catch the criminal AFTER the fact, protecting yourself is YOUR problem



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Yes, but denying people the means to protect themselves is wrong (for example, forbidding the ownership of guns).



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX
Yes, but denying people the means to protect themselves is wrong (for example, forbidding the ownership of guns).


the people denied THEMSELVES the means to protect themselves. The Constitution gives you the right but many choose to give it to someone else therebye making themselves a victim



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Actually Amuk the patriot act was orgianlly titled the ant-terrorism omnibus act, which was proposed and wrtten by democratic lawmakers during Clintons term, and blocked by republicans. They simply dusted it off and renamed it the patriot act.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by mwm1331]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

In all seriousness though it just makes no sense to me that real Libertarians and big gvernment, moral authoritarian Republicans enjoy this unqiue relationship of support and mutual liberal bashing when common sense tells you you're mortal enemies or should be.


Most Libertarians are former Republicans, and are used to bashing liberals. Most claiming to be Libertarian also go back to the Republican party fairly quickly when they realize that if the party sees it's goals reached, it will not be any time soon.

I do agree with you on this point about "big government Republicans." I don’t see a huge difference in Republicans and Democrats, to tell the truth. It is the difference between speeding toward socialism at 100mph or 75mph, the end result will be the same.

You know what I really think? I think this country will eventually split three ways. While the thought is sad, in a way it is comforting as well. I don’t think anyone should be forced into a society they do not want to be in, and if in a democracy people want to ban (or restrict) gun ownership, they should be able to. I don’t think crapping on the constitution is the correct way to do it, however. I hope there is no civil war over it, I can see a peaceful "parting of ways" happening in the not-so-near future. Like I said, both sad and comforting. Along those lines, I am glad that you, RANT, are so vocal about your love of victim disarmament laws. I may not agree with you, I may think your logic simplistic and view it as a knee-jerk emotional response, but I am glad a portion of the voters are taking a stance for what they believe and not showing so much complacency. I hope everything in this nation gets resolved; however I fear that we may both get someday get what we want.

So far as the private nuke ownership issue goes, I don’t think anyone should own them, nation or man. I don’t think the second amendment protects the citizen’s right to own any weapon, just any weapon that can be used against him. If every nation, to include our own, would destroy all WMDs, then of course no citizen would have a need or right to own one. Maybe instead of saying citizens should not have nukes (since none of us do) you should say NO ONE SHOULD HAVE NUKES.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join