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.

 

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   


"well regulated" does not mean "a lot of gun control laws", it means "expert in the use of"


So that's obviously not the same as "any idiot or loser with a pulse". You guys can't even follow your own interpretation?!




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: avgguy
So you're mad the the NRA doesn't have the full quote inscribed at its offices? And how does that equate them "changing the second amendment"?

I also assume that you're against abortion as well? Considering it takes millions of American lives per year because of "rights, revisionist history and lobbying"


I'm mad?

Another who can't stay on topic. Sigh....

Then why respond to the off topic posts? You are as guilty as the rest of us.


Because I'm yearning for some sort of discussion on the topic. But I don't hold out much hope. I think all I'm going to get is assumptions about me and parroting of the thoughts pounded into so many heads that they believe it's the only reality.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I answered your question, how is that off topic?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

The problem is lucidity that when you are trying to debate opinions is a bit more difficult to keep on track as every body tends to have one of their own.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



"well regulated" does not mean "a lot of gun control laws", it means "expert in the use of"


So that's obviously not the same as "any idiot or loser with a pulse". You guys can't even follow your own interpretation?!


It would seem obvious to the casual reader that the statement does NOT require "only highly trained users" can have firearms. It DOES imply that if firearm ownership is restricted, the militia will not be trained in their use, therefore, no restriction is permitted.

You will also note that it does not require anyone to be forced into training.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: DAVID64

In my personal opinion is that the goal of todays corporate government is to ban guns completely out of the hands of citizens regardless if they are fit or not to have them as the established laws guidelines.



Okay. So this is more on topic, what about the The NRA Industrial Complex?

So is the NRA in lock-step with the corporate government? One of the corporate owners.

Why Gun Makers and the NRA are Driving the Militarizatin of the Police Even More Than the Pentagon

The NRA vs. America



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: avgguy
So you're mad the the NRA doesn't have the full quote inscribed at its offices? And how does that equate them "changing the second amendment"?

I also assume that you're against abortion as well? Considering it takes millions of American lives per year because of "rights, revisionist history and lobbying"


I'm mad?

Another who can't stay on topic. Sigh....

Then why respond to the off topic posts? You are as guilty as the rest of us.


Because I'm yearning for some sort of discussion on the topic. But I don't hold out much hope. I think all I'm going to get is assumptions about me and parroting of the thoughts pounded into so many heads that they believe it's the only reality.

Sounds like thread fail happening there, bud.
Maybe post a thread about how Americans need more freedoms, rather than less? That might be thread success!



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I'm trying to learn here if the points in the OP article is correct. Either they are stating facts (examples would be quotes out of context) or they are not. Those would not be opinions. They would be debates where it would be proven that something they stated was correct or incorrect.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: avgguy
So you're mad the the NRA doesn't have the full quote inscribed at its offices? And how does that equate them "changing the second amendment"?

I also assume that you're against abortion as well? Considering it takes millions of American lives per year because of "rights, revisionist history and lobbying"


I'm mad?

Another who can't stay on topic. Sigh....

Then why respond to the off topic posts? You are as guilty as the rest of us.


Because I'm yearning for some sort of discussion on the topic. But I don't hold out much hope. I think all I'm going to get is assumptions about me and parroting of the thoughts pounded into so many heads that they believe it's the only reality.

Sounds like thread fail happening there, bud.
Maybe post a thread about how Americans need more freedoms, rather than less? That might be thread success!


Thread fail in the respect that we will learn nothing or uncover nothing new here? Yep. I couldn't agree more.

And on another level it didn't fail...at all.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Because I'm yearning for some sort of discussion on the topic.


Or are you yearning for agreement with your viewpoint, whatever that might be?

Discussion doesn't imply assent. I'm quite sure most won't agree with ME. That doesn't mean it's not discussion.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam





The definition is fairly simple. YOU are the militia. "Well regulated" means "expert in the use of" or "highly trained


All being said, it didn't stop The British from burning The White House to the ground in 1812.

Where were the militia that were supposed to be defending Washington DC , i ask ?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes, the NRA is not what used to be is now pared up with the gun manufactures and gun sellers multibillion dollar complex.

Is more to it, the NRA has sold their soul, but remember the members of the NRA are all for enforcing gun rules, but the lobbyist in Washington are not behind what the members wants they are behind what gun manufacturers wants.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

Where were the militia that were supposed to be defending Washington DC , i ask ?


Seems a bit of a non sequitur.

I do recall, however, that the Brits packed it in in 1783 at the Treaty of Paris.

eta: I would think "The World Turn'd Upside Down" would be a theme song for you, Cornwallis supposedly played it when he got his butt kicked.

edit on 6-10-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I answered your question, how is that off topic?


My question was rhetorical and also logical, and by the way you didn't "answer" it either.

It was also in response to another off-topic post, which was partly my bad, and partly an opportunity for you to spew the same old rhetoric spewed in many threads here, rhetoric of which I am well aware.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




the Brits packed it in in 1783


Then changed their minds and came back for a replay in 1812.




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Because I'm yearning for some sort of discussion on the topic.


Or are you yearning for agreement with your viewpoint, whatever that might be?

Discussion doesn't imply assent. I'm quite sure most won't agree with ME. That doesn't mean it's not discussion.


Are you #ing kidding me? How is me asking for a discussion of points in an article yearning for agreement with my viewpoint?

I #ing DARE you to tell me what my "viewpoint" even is.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Oh, yes is an agenda behind the gun manufacturing business, remember their job is make and sell guns. The sad thing is how the NRA is backing them up in order to make money, no the members but those that runs the NRA.

They have become corrupted by money and power, occurs they will be behind making sure that the second amendment stands in their favor.


edit on 6-10-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Yeah. So a clever, well played plan maybe?

And yes, I do remember that. It's when I was a member. I'm not anymore.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

I #ing DARE you to tell me what my "viewpoint" even is.


Since I said "whatever that might be", it's obviously not that clear.

However, you seem to not care for anything that's not up to some arbitrary standard of being a "discussion". If you want to restrict it to a handful of points, you're going to be gravely disappointed, as no one is bound to do what you'd like. That, too, doesn't invalidate it as a discussion.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

I #ing DARE you to tell me what my "viewpoint" even is.


Since I said "whatever that might be", it's obviously not that clear.

However, you seem to not care for anything that's not up to some arbitrary standard of being a "discussion". If you want to restrict it to a handful of points, you're going to be gravely disappointed, as no one is bound to do what you'd like. That, too, doesn't invalidate it as a discussion.


"Whatever that might be" happens to be to find out if this article is accurate. If the NRA did what it claims it did. It appears so to me. But the story is not the whole story and history is interpretable, subjective. And I'm not that great at remembering times I didn't live through. I don't want to swallow what the article says whole. But no one appears to be able to add too much to it...they appear to, for the most part, just want to regurgitate the same old stuff.




top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join