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: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I would really like to ask a question.

I would really like you to answer it honestly.

When was the last time you were threatened with a gun outside of being in the military or law enforcement?, and besides just seeing someone with one ?.

The only time guns are a threat to anyone is when they don't have one, making all the chicken little scaredy cats who don't have or know how to use one perfect targets to be intimidated and taken advantage of.

I say reopen a market sector and get those people who are obviously unsafe to be on the street back into those looney bins maybe...

Maybe not...




posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




And yet the tyranny continues, unabated and unchallenged by the very same people who want the guns for that reason.


Tyranny is often tolerated for a very long time before a singular event or egregious series of events trigger open revolts.

Declaration Of Independence

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.


Emphasis mine.

It is important to understand what is being said here. Just like it is important to understand the many, many, many instances of historical documents clearly identifying the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

It is also important to understand that no Amendment in the Bill of Rights, nor any clause in the Constitution itself, exists on its own merit. The language is specific and well defined.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Explain to me how the average American walks into their local gun shop and buys a fully automatic machine gun or a tank. As to "assault rifle," these are more often than not simply rifles that look scary. They don't have higher rates of fire than your average hand gun being semi-automatic.

The idea of banning shot in the clip is a sneaky means of gun control in that clips carry a standard number of shots no matter what kind of weapon you are talking about. Taxing ammunition is the same. Requiring firearm insurance is the same.

Making the argument that the Founders were only talking about muskets when they wrote it insults the Founders in that you assume the Founders were too stupid to realize that things, weapons especially, would ever get more powerful. You have only to look at today's science fiction to see how likely WE as a society think it is we'll always be using assault rifles, tanks and machine guns.

So ask yourself, do you honestly think the Founders thought that? If they did, don't you think they might have used the actual word "musket?" Overall, the Founders were pretty good at saying what they meant.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Did you know that around the world, most countries have used some version of the US Constitution as their own?

And nearly EVERY SINGLE ONE has REMOVED "right to bear arms"?

Who didn't ? Mexico.

Who has the highest rate of gun crime in the world? USA and Mexico. To say nothing can be done about gun violence and that gun control doesn't work is ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Your founding fathers also knew that the 2nd and other amendments needed to be adjusted with the times..which I why they made it optional to change it.

I am pretty sure if those guys saw that it made Americans completely dependent on guns basically making them wusses..lol..they would have worded it better.

Sorry but i find people who's entire safety is reliant on a weapon..completely insane and pathetic.

Not too mention a lot of people have these insane what if scenarios...lol. I could never go through life that paranoid. Maybe move from your country if you don't feel safe going out or even in your own home.
edit on 18-10-2015 by lucifershiningone because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-10-2015 by lucifershiningone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: lucifershiningone

And the they made it difficult to amend, meaning they intended for the majority of the people in society to feel it was necessary to change it. Certain things are too important to allow a minority to do or to leave to government alone.

So, if and when a majority of the American populace feel they do not need the right to keep and bear arms, we the people will change it. It ensures that only the majority of us can sign away or assign rights to ourselves.

This is why our government hasn't quite taken everything from us yet even though it is obvious at times .... like Ms. Clinton has said among others, that they would quite like to.


edit on 18-10-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

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.


No, they actually were.

It's lawyers who make things overly complex when trying to finagle ever more power to themselves through the vehicle of the law.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I just saw this...




posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

DRONES have BASES genius,they also require thes things called LOGISTICS.
Of course YOU know all about disrupting logistical chains because YOU know military tactics huh?
If YOU think the Airforce can protect it's bases from men like ME once we know where to hit you need to go to basic military training to learn these MYSTICAL skills.
BUT THEN you must have the testicular function to EXECUTE those skills ...LIKE WE HAVE already.
Of course ,YOU know all that ,don't you?
edit on 18-10-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

There's a solution ... move to country without a that pesky old grandfather. I'm sure you'd love it in a place like Cuba or China or even Somalia ... maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran would suit you better?

For the record, I love my grandfather and plan to keep him. And when it comes to this issue, the majority of the citizens here agree with me. We settled the slavery issue quite some time ago, but it's good to see you keep beating that dead horse as if it still has relevance.

By the way, did you know that grandfather once convinced us to outlaw alcohol too? Yeah, wasn't that a hoot ...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

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 ...


And then he changed his mind! Yaaaaayyyy!!!!



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The 2nd Amendment is apart of the original bill of rights. By law the Government can never infringe upon that right.

The fact of the matter is that the day they try and take away the guns, The United States will no longer exist.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I just saw this...




I don't remember anything saying you could own people, do you? All I can remember is nothing saying you could NOT own people.

Point of fact, they even gave the new Congress the power to ban the slave trade, if I recall correctly.

Might be mistaken though.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

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?

If you didn't inherit granddads O'l Betsy (or family guns passed down generationally) I suppose one would have to take to the meaner street side of things; and become criminals themselves before any were used in something called "actionable" offence (and I don't mean plunking at squirrels).



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The point is clearly mute.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

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



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The point is clearly mute.

Your point?



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

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.


Pretty simple, don't want a gun don't get one. As far as how many times each year is a gun used successfully for defense? Depends on who you believe. If some numbers are accurate then we get about 5 defenses for every death. Whose numbers do you believe?

In general gun control nuts just don't think very well. Are you concerned about overall gun death? If so 60% of gun death is suicide, not homicides, not accidents. Focus should be on suicide outreach. If the problem is homicides then the focus should be criminals, mainly inner cities, a lot of black market purchases. They don't get the publicity but they do get the numbers. Basically no matter what part of gun issues anyone has a problem with, the focus has nothing to do with more laws, the second itself, or the other garbage being pushed. People like that should be ignored. They aren't interested in solutions. If they were they would have a different focus. Banning won't happen so do we want to focus on suicides, or inner cities (I'm sure a heavier police presence will go over well) and other undesirable locations. Possible the smart move would be black market and private sales. If you only focus on more laws and don't address overflow sales to the other areas, again those people aren't focus on solutions and should be ignored.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

No yours and any suggestion that we would alter the amendment.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join