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 Bear Arms Is A Volatile Issue We Face Daily...

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blissful

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blissful

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blissful
Without guns bombs would be used. Maybe not by many, but it's still the most absolute alternative for all those angsty teens.

I can see a very angry 9 year old building something lethal out of lego's nerf balls and silly string.
I made napalm at 12. My friends had made bombs for humorous, non-violent reasons. Gasoline bombs are capable of incinerating lots of people, easy to make, too.

The Boston Marathon pressure cooker bomb seemed to be pretty effective too. It's easy to find a way to kill lots of people.

I said "I CANNOT see a 13 year old"...bombs as humorous and for peaceful purpose (how does that work)?
Pyromania's pretty common. It's humorous because "*POW* HAHAHAHAHA, did you see how far those sticks went?!"

One of my chemistry professors was a self-proclaimed pyromaniac. He said he liked fire and to watch things burn.

Anyway, I can't see young teens using it for violent reasons either. Older teens with issues, on the other hand, or schizophrenic young adults, oh yeah.

Instead of teaching chemistry to small children; he should have joined the armed forces and applied his knowledge in a more forward motion; as he discovered FIRE (liked to watch things burn).
edit on 16-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: Man invents fire and it is a chemistry professor




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Any one with a section of thick walled steel pipe and an oxy-acetylene torch has all the ingredients necessary to improvise a cannon within an hour. No gun powder needed.
The guy with a metal fabrication shop is potentially way more dangerous than a run of mill gun owner.
I made one when I was a kid that launched a head of cabbage out of sight.
It was cool as all heck.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23
I don't understand the motivation; to what purpose? Building a better piñata, one strike kills all of the party goers (SURPRISE)!

edit on 17-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: they will not be sold at Walmart
edit on 17-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I never understand what you type.. Ever, can you elaborate more please!!



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: skunkape23
I don't understand the motivation; to what purpose? Building a better piñata, one strike kills all of the party goers (SURPRISE)!

edit on 17-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: they will not be sold at Walmart

My motivation was to make something cool that went "Boom!" real loud and launched a head of cabbage.

Pongo't entender su pregunta entender de la metanza de la gente en un fiesta con un pinata? extra DIV



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   
The second amendment wasn't about self defense, it was about the citizens keeping the government in check. The reason it was written as "bear arms" and not "bear muskets" is that they fully intended the law to stay and evolve no matter the technology and no matter how deadly the weapons were.

In fact, today's gun laws are far too strict. There's no way citizens, even in the states where you can own an "assault rifle" are any match for the government's tanks, explosives, jets, body armor, etc. The second amendment intended citizens to own the same weapons the government owned.

We don't.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: WP4YT



The second amendment intended citizens to own the same weapons the government owned. We don't.


I want a Raptor!
Dammit!
Hell, I don't even have a M1A2!


edit on 10/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WP4YT



The second amendment intended citizens to own the same weapons the government owned. We don't.


I want a Raptor!
Dammit!
Hell, I don't even have a M1A2!


I want an AA12 to mow the lawn with.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

first off to be scared of death so much that you strip away everyone's freedom makes you worse than even the most evil dictators, and the most selfish person in the world, and a coward.

second, i will hand my guns over the very moment all military and law enforcement turn in theirs...

and then i will finally get that final push of motivation to put that metal shop ive always wanted in my garage


edit on 17-10-2015 by DOCHOLIDAZE1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1



second, i will hand my guns over the very moment all military and law enforcement turn in theirs...


But...but...how will you feed your family if you do that?
How will you defend them against criminals?

BTW, in case you didn't get it, I'm calling BS. It ain't because of the military or the law that you own weapons.

edit on 10/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   


The best 7 minutes of gun control speech!



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WP4YT



The second amendment intended citizens to own the same weapons the government owned. We don't.


I want a Raptor!
Dammit!
Hell, I don't even have a M1A2!



You joke, and yes it sounds unrealistic. But this is what the founders intended.

The second amendment was about being able to overthrow an oppressive government.

If tomorrow, the government told you you couldn't leave your home any more, took your car, and put your children into slavery, would you fight back? If so, so you think your shotgun would be any match for an air to surface missile aimed at your house?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: WP4YT




But this is what the founders intended.

Must be nice to be able to read the minds of men 200 years dead.



If so, so you think your shotgun would be any match for an air to surface missile aimed at your house?
Nope. Which makes your claim moot.

edit on 10/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WP4YT




But this is what the founders intended.

Must be nice to be able to read the minds of men 200 years dead.



If so, so you think your shotgun would be any match for an air to surface missile aimed at your house?
Nope. Which makes your claim moot.


You can get in their head by reading some of their own writings.

You can start here
www.thefederalistpapers.org...

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" - Tenche Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress

Any contextual study of the Second Amendment and the men who authored it may only come to one rational conclusion: the Founding Fathers of these United States meant for citizens to be armed with small arms of military utility, without technological limitations.

These men knew war.

They saw and understood technological advances would take place, having personally witnessed huge leaps in firepower from the musket (3-4 shots/minute), to the Ferguson Rifle (10-12 shots/minute), to the Giradoni air rifle (22 “suppressed” shots/minute), just over the course of the American Revolution.

The knew hand grenades and daggers, swords and pivot guns, and desired for each of us to be armed with “every terrible implement of war.”

Today, that would clearly mean selective fire assault rifles and machine guns, and would quite probably mean include RPGs as well as weapons of the individual solider.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
All I hear is bitching

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: WP4YT



Any contextual study of the Second Amendment and the men who authored it may only come to one rational conclusion: the Founding Fathers of these United States meant for citizens to be armed with small arms of military utility, without technological limitations.

You need to be more careful about your external quotes. Yours came from here:
bearingarms.com...

Sorry, no. That is an opinion, and not even your own. All you provided was plagiarized propaganda.



edit on 10/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WP4YT



Any contextual study of the Second Amendment and the men who authored it may only come to one rational conclusion: the Founding Fathers of these United States meant for citizens to be armed with small arms of military utility, without technological limitations.

You need to be more careful about your external quotes. Yours came from here:
bearingarms.com...

Sorry, no. That is an opinion, and not even your own. All you provided was plagiarized propaganda.




These quotes are from the founding fathers. Which site I got them from doesn't change the founders opinions.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Do you have a problem with hunters, my family and my wife's has always used hunting to supplement our meats. Many families across the country do it as well...

Some need to do it for survival reasons.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Must be nice to be able to read the minds of men 200 years dead.


It is nice. It is also very easy to do. You see, many people wrote down their thoughts just so we would know them. Lines like 'The Blood of Patriots and Tyrants,' is one that easily springs to mind.

The Protection provided by the Second does not stand starkly alone. It has friends


Like where the entire US Military are sworn to protect the Constitution and the fact that they will not therefore, threaten We The People.

Therefore, that missile is more likely to me aimed at a Tyrant's butt.

P



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: WP4YT



These quotes are from the founding fathers.

No. Not these. You stole these:

Any contextual study of the Second Amendment and the men who authored it may only come to one rational conclusion: the Founding Fathers of these United States meant for citizens to be armed with small arms of military utility, without technological limitations.

These men knew war.

They saw and understood technological advances would take place, having personally witnessed huge leaps in firepower from the musket (3-4 shots/minute), to the Ferguson Rifle (10-12 shots/minute), to the Giradoni air rifle (22 “suppressed” shots/minute), just over the course of the American Revolution.

The knew hand grenades and daggers, swords and pivot guns, and desired for each of us to be armed with “every terrible implement of war.”

Today, that would clearly mean selective fire assault rifles and machine guns, and would quite probably mean include RPGs as well as weapons of the individual solider.

bearingarms.com...



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join