It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And yet the tyranny continues, unabated and unchallenged by the very same people who want the guns for that reason.
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.
Overall, the Founders were pretty good at saying what they meant.
originally posted by: babybunnies
Overall, the Founders were pretty good at saying what they meant.
No, they weren't. Which is why we have Supreme Court decisions on Constitutional law all the time.
They couldn't even lay out what "Natural Born Citizen" meant.
Much of the language in the Constitution is vague and leaves much to interpretation.
originally posted by: ketsuko
By the way, did you know that grandfather once convinced us to outlaw alcohol too? Yeah, wasn't that a hoot ...
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I just saw this...
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Which ALSO explains WHY it won't happen, as it CLEARLY infringes on the rtght to HAVE them, now, doesn't it?
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: mikegrouchy
mikegrouchy: Can someone explain why gangs are allowed to roam free and not be charged as domestic terrorist.
Its not a federal crime to kill those living in another neighborhood/with a differing gang esthetic; unless a RICO violation is involved. That is murder and the states problem to try/prosecute/incarcerate.
edit on 17-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: Individuals within gangs have rights; unless convicted of a state felony charge (then lose them).
Actually under the NDAA the cryps and bloods could b e labeled terrorist and become fair game for extermination legally.
Let the Latin Kings have that problem (using Machiavellian methods). Fast and Furious, .gov supplied the Sinaloa cartel with 1500 fully auto weapons; letting them (ostensibly) to take out all of the competing cartels. Leaving only one to have to manage or negotiate terms. extra DIV
originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
The right to bear arms is a volatile issue we face daily. There are those that argue criminals will get them no matter what legislation is invoked or enforced. Every citizen should have the right to defend themselves and their families regardless. Not a day goes by that we are dealing with a mass shooting or a child getting their hands on a gun and "accidentally" killing another child or shooting an adult with a gun they think is a play toy.
This video has a chilling start, but it makes a great point about the 2nd Amendment
The Second Amendment is more than 220 years old. When it was written, the world did not have machine guns, assault rifles, or tanks, instead relying on clunky muskets that were a pain to reload.
Yet as a video from States United to Prevent Gun Violence points out, America's lax gun laws are often based on a reading of the Second Amendment that makes it hard to pass restrictive gun laws, even as our weapons get much, much deadlier.
There are 2 videos to watch, both are very short. The first one shows what it would be like to try and commit murder with the use of a musket and then scroll down the page and the second one shows some statistics that were very interesting.
You have to go to the link to see them as these were not youtube versions.
This is an amendment that is constantly being used in a literal sense, when in reality, the wording was written over 200 years ago with a very different intention than the one being used today.
Just curious to know how keeping a gun for safety is justified when a child can get their hands on it. How can a gun in your possession, but locked up for safety come in use when it is needed? Most people are not not even capable of pulling the trigger if they have to, the criminals can, but the average citizen that decides to own a gun...they are not equipped mentally to pull that trigger.
There are instances when someone defends themselves and their family from harm and manage to take down a criminal, but those instances are far and wide, most of the time they just make matters worse and actually end up getting people and themselves killed or injured in the process.
Assault weapons with fully loaded magazines are the biggest problem and those are usually in the hands of deranged individuals with no inclination to care about who they shoot at, they just want to kill, but the individual robbing you for your possessions most of the time, would rather just not get caught or shoot anyone, but they have a gun for their own protection, if confronted by an unarmed individual will most likely run or tie you up, on the off chance you are armed, then who gets shot first?
I don't think the 2nd amendment was written for today and the government is to blame for allowing the manufacturing of assault weapons to occur, essentially creating a Pandora's Box where on one hand they want to confiscate them and on the other hand they have no one to blame but themselves for creating the mess.
The Constitution of the United States
The Bill of Rights & All Amendments
Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Where does it end? Sure you have the right to self defense, but should you be allowed to own assault weapons? Even so, from what I have seen all guns do is kill, they don't defend anything, does this mean you should not defend yourself at all, of course not, but sometimes the best defense is doing nothing. It is a difficult concept to accept, but it is often the best way to not escalate something into a worse situation.
Yeah, I know, but what if you could have done something to stop it and you didn't, that is where you cross the line from hero to scapegoat or victim. There is no way of knowing what intent is there on the behalf of a criminal. No one knows what they are going to do when confronted by that situation, unless and even then, they are experienced enough to react. The average citizen would most likely crap their pants when the time came to shoot another person.
The law and order community has not been able to handle themselves properly in many recent cases involving citizens and yet they are more qualified to handle a weapon. This is a fundamental breakdown in policy. They are trained to react a certain way when it comes to the use of deadly force or when they perceive a threat that is a possible danger to themselves or the community. Many of these cases are viewed in public from hindsight and nobody can possibly know what it was like to be in that moment.
Still we expect better from the police than the average citizen. I would like to see more restraint involved and the use of less lethal means to subdue criminals.