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.

 

Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

page: 10
53
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I certainly can't defend my home from a squad of SWAT or even one well-trained infantry soldier. These people have bigger, more powerful guns, better body armor, better training.

We've already lost, so using that logic is a loosing proposition. Hand guns and rifles are toys compared to the real tools of war that can enslave us by the people that wield the real power. I doubt those in the government who would subjugate us are fearful of your .357 and 12 gauge shotgun.

Weapons like that are for us "kids", and the oppressive forces within the government are all to happy to let us peons run around with our toys, slaughtering one another. As long as we're distracted stealing crap from one another and killing one another in "self defense" -- we'll keep our eyes off the ever growing drone army and the draconian police state laws that are actual clear and present threats to our freedoms.
edit on 2-10-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: MystikMushroom

My last post for the evening:

The very fact that the founding fathers could not foresee what breakthroughs would come is evident in the very wording of the 2nd Amendment. It's the only amendment written in a way that was supposed to be as broad and all encompassing as it gets. That they wrote "shall not be infringed" is evidence in itself that they expected technological breakthroughs. They did not want to see government be on a pedestal so high as to be un-checkable by ordinary citizenry. Rather, they anticipated such technology.

They wanted this particular amendment to be beyond reproach.



No. They wanted an armed militia to combat a potential outside enemy. Not internal. They were right. See the War of 1812. Britain was damn near unbeatable at the time. THAT is what the FF were talking about.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
My guess is that another Manchurian Candidate was conveniently activated to divert attention away from the news of the day: Putin's bombing of terrorists in Syria. The same ones the Obama cabal is directly or indirectly arming.
edit on 2/10/2015 by Matrix1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Helious

No, no, Neo, What they want is to make it very, very easy to slap that tag on as many people as they can to make them ineligible. Don't be conned into thinking that only people with legitimate mental health issues will be affected. Maybe at first then it will become people who have the potential to be mental health "issues".
...


Eventually the gun grabbers will go like this. "What, you can't deal with stress and need to take an aspirin because all the stress gave you a headache? Then you can't own a firearm because you can't deal with stress without medication..."

BTW, didn't anyone notice that the supposed shooter was identified as "Republican" yet he was against all established religions?... Before he started shooting people supposedly he asked them if they were religious, and then shot them... Who in the world believes that crap?...



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Wrong again!
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

You have no concept of what our rights and duties are as citizens.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: MystikMushroom

My last post for the evening:

The very fact that the founding fathers could not foresee what breakthroughs would come is evident in the very wording of the 2nd Amendment. It's the only amendment written in a way that was supposed to be as broad and all encompassing as it gets. That they wrote "shall not be infringed" is evidence in itself that they expected technological breakthroughs. They did not want to see government be on a pedestal so high as to be un-checkable by ordinary citizenry. Rather, they anticipated such technology.

They wanted this particular amendment to be beyond reproach.



They also could not foresee the internet, globalization, international commerce, space travel -- a ton of other things. The constitution has ways for it to be changed as times change and the needs of its people change. The constitution was never meant to be treated as a static document like the Old Testament, it's not a "dead document".

In someone like Jefferson's shoes, change in the world came very slowly. Technology evolved at a pretty slow rate, not the huge leaps and bounds we've seen in the last 200 years. When these founders looked at the past, then turned and pondered the future, they most assuredly assumed the world of today would look a lot more like their world in 1776. There is no way they could foretell airplanes, submarines, nuclear weapons...

Heck, they probably assumed we'd still be riding horses since humans had been riding them for centuries prior!



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You may give up if you like. I will not. I served and have some training and I am not afraid.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It was never intended to have a standing army!


While this may be fundamentally true, in 1776 most other powerful nations didn't have any standing armies powerful enough to transport to the Americas quickly enough to defeat us.

I'd hate to think what America would look like (or wouldn't look like) if we didn't have a standing army. You do realize that all the other powerful nations of the world have standing armies, and if America didn't we would have been conquered a very long time ago.
edit on 2-10-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

No. They wanted an armed militia to combat a potential outside enemy. Not internal. They were right. See the War of 1812. Britain was damn near unbeatable at the time. THAT is what the FF were talking about.


Wrong... The second amendment wasn't in specific to arm Americans to fight just foreign invaders, but also in case the government became tyrannical...

In the Declaration of Independence they made it clear...


...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...

www.ushistory.org...

The FF knew that tyrannical governments always tried to take the weapons from the people. The English tried that in the first gun control attempt in the American colonies.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You may give up if you like. I will not. I served and have some training and I am not afraid.


You can be the best Navy Seal out there, but it won't save you from a pack of UCAV's with thermal cameras and hellfire missiles.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Times change, tech changes, people do not change. The constitution was written for people not tech. I for one think they did a pretty good job writing it. I welcome any chance to vote on changes to the constitution. I have no doubt it would remain intact.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Blah, blah, blah:


originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The FF knew that tyrannical governments always tried to take the weapons from the people. The English tried that in the first gun control attempt in the American colonies.


Thanks for making my point. Exactly.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Well, the tyranical government of the USA has already essentially taken our weapons away.

The guns they sell at the gun stores are just toys compared to what the military is using. To put it in perspective, we would be like farmers with pitchforks and scythes against trained swordsmen with armor and shields. They don't need to take our pitchforks, we've been horribly outclassed since before the Civil War.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: intrepid

Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot,and Idi Amin all relieved their citizens of their guns ask those who survived how that worked out.


You can add to that list the castro brothers. They also relieved the people of their firearms. There was just one firearm (Russian Mossin Nagent), with one bullet which the nightwatch used to have to patrol the neighborhood. My mother who studied to be a nurse, alongside my father who was a teacher and also worked with my grandfather in the bodega had to do such patrols once in a while. Of course now that doesn't happens since most of those weapons got too old. Now the only people with guns in Cuba are the military, and a few police officers. Criminals in Cuba get their weapons by stealing it from police officers. The regular citizens cannot have a firearm.
edit on 2-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Times change, tech changes, people do not change. The constitution was written for people not tech. I for one think they did a pretty good job writing it. I welcome any chance to vote on changes to the constitution. I have no doubt it would remain intact.


People certainly do change. Just 250 years ago we owned slaves in this country and it was fairly normal for people to consider a black person "less of a person".

Women got the right to vote, and interracial couples can now marry. People's attitudes on these issues have changed, people's morals and beliefs have changed.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Never said i was a navy seal never said I was the best. I have a pretty good idea what is out there and I realize the futility of a single person fighting alone, that said I will stand for my rights.

Alot of people have died recently due to gun violence and that is tragic. Many, many more have died securing our rights and keeping our rights. I will not vote to erode my rights that so many have died to give me.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Blah, blah, blah:


originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The FF knew that tyrannical governments always tried to take the weapons from the people. The English tried that in the first gun control attempt in the American colonies.


Thanks for making my point. Exactly.


Really?... Back then the men and women of the American colonies identified themselves as British at first... There was even resistance at first to the idea of creating a new nation... They were fighting their own government, and not a foreign government...



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

Well, the tyranical government of the USA has already essentially taken our weapons away.

The guns they sell at the gun stores are just toys compared to what the military is using. To put it in perspective, we would be like farmers with pitchforks and scythes against trained swordsmen with armor and shields. They don't need to take our pitchforks, we've been horribly outclassed since before the Civil War.


Is that a reason to restrict even more firearms? Not really.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Just because you dont know doesnt mean everyone else doesnt know. The "tyranical government of the USA" hasnt taken our weapons away yet or the President wouldnt have made a speech today. Never underestimate american ingenuity.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

There were bad people in the 1700's just like today. They had the same debate we are having today. People dont change there will always be bad people. How we choose to deal with them is what changes.

We have made many human rights advances in the last 200+ years. There are still bad people. Take guns away and there will still be bad people.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join