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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: vethumanbeing

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

I am interested; why? You and I can do nothing to change an amendment but air your reasons.




posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah, it was in there... remember the 3/5ths of a person part?



Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, be uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate. In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

source

They were pretty careful not to explicitly use the word "slave" though, but it's pretty obvious...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Defence on all tiers.
MY BUTT will be one that gets shot when they try something stupid.
Whom ever,where ever.
2nd Gen military so I HAVE a tad more insight on firearms than most.
They haven't been an issue until this NUT got elected and their use in crime is dropping as less gun free zones exist.
MOST intelligent people can easily figure out abberant people are the problem.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Defence on all tiers.
MY BUTT will be one that gets shot when they try something stupid.
Whom ever,where ever.
2nd Gen military so I HAVE a tad more insight on firearms than most.
They haven't been an issue until this NUT got elected and their use in crime is dropping as less gun free zones exist.
MOST intelligent people can easily figure out abberant people are the problem.

We are able to arm ourselves for a reason (against a potential threat) FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. This is the reason for the second amendment (the right to bear arms). Our Forefathers had the foresight and wisdom to recognize what the future may bring.
edit on 19-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: constitutional law rules



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The second allows us to protect ourselves from all enemies foreign an d domestic not just th e government.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I do remember that, yes. My point was that nowhere in the document does it say "white folks can own slaves."

It DOES say citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

One is at best tacit approval but I would say it's more like ignoring it. The other is a pretty explicit statement.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Let's put the same restrictions on the 1st Amendment as people want on the 2nd. I'm sure that'd go over well. (sarcasm)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Yeah, it was in there... remember the 3/5ths of a person part?


You do know the actual rationale behind that agreement, right?

It was not an advocacy for owning slaves.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Yeah, it was in there... remember the 3/5ths of a person part?


You do know the actual rationale behind that agreement, right?

It was not an advocacy for owning slaves.


I think Mystik does, but I think it's also the "rationale" being seized on.

"Well by golly the 3/5 compromise is on there so let's use that and equate it to the 2nd amendment!"



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Let's put the same restrictions on the 1st Amendment as people want on the 2nd. I'm sure that'd go over well. (sarcasm)

No free speech, no freedom to worship, right of a free press, ability to assemble peacefully? Tie the first to the second; and eliminate both; what a disaster, resulting in communism/dictatorship/totalitarianism. Sounds hopeful.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Quick questions for those patriotic souls who value the lives of Americans so much that they need to bear arms:

What instances do you believe necessitate the use of deadly force?

How many crimes do you think should carry a capital sentence?

How many crimes actually carry a capital sentence (in your state)?

How is your list different?

If your list differs, advise the 'right' you have to impose a sentence beyond the law?

Do you live in a state that once had slavery?

Does that state have a National Guard?

Do you believe that there should be standing army?

Yes, there are a few in there that are trying to make you think.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I've always seen the 2nd as the fact that since technically theres no standing army you are going to need a lot of people proficient with firearms and also the distance between places as if the Royal Navy rocked up with a few hundred ships you can't spend a few days on a horse and cart to drag back a load of powder and shot so it was in the interest to keep everyone reasonably armed and also that ability to have so many people armed would keep the politicians honest as they'd be afraid of the obvious but one has worked since 1812 but the other is sadly lacking



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I've always seen the 2nd as the fact that since technically theres no standing army you are going to need a lot of people proficient with firearms and also the distance between places as if the Royal Navy rocked up with a few hundred ships you can't spend a few days on a horse and cart to drag back a load of powder and shot so it was in the interest to keep everyone reasonably armed and also that ability to have so many people armed would keep the politicians honest as they'd be afraid of the obvious but one has worked since 1812 but the other is sadly lacking


Somewhat. James Madison made the case for not having a standing army, but rather having State led citizens on an on-call status. With the advent of the National Guard, and then a standing army the likes of which has never been seen, this is not only unnecessary, but completely unworkable.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Badgered1
Quick questions for those patriotic souls who value the lives of Americans so much that they need to bear arms:

What instances do you believe necessitate the use of deadly force?

How many crimes do you think should carry a capital sentence?

How many crimes actually carry a capital sentence (in your state)?

How is your list different?

If your list differs, advise the 'right' you have to impose a sentence beyond the law?

Do you live in a state that once had slavery?

Does that state have a National Guard?

Do you believe that there should be standing army?

Yes, there are a few in there that are trying to make you think.


Which ones are supposed to make "us" think?

Perhaps you should open your own thread since you have so many questions rather than trying to hijack one that's more or less dead.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Do you know why it was in there?

How are Representatives for the House of Representatives apportioned to the states? Keep in mind that this was back before they had capped the number. Yep. It was one Representative for every 435,000 people or something like it. So, if you count every slave (or non-free person) as a person for the purposes of legal representation when none of those people will be allowed to vote for that representation ... unless you are under the impression that Southern slave owners intended to let the slaves vote along with counting them as people for the purposes of gaining more political representation in Congress ... all the South was planning to do was gain political advantage to keep spreading slavery on the backs of slaves.

In order to prove that the 3/5 clause was targeted specifically at blacks, you need to do some things:

1.) Prove that all slaves were black and only black (no other ethnicities could be non-free).
2.) Prove that that free blacks were treated exactly the same way as non-free blacks, even the few black slave owners.

Until then, the clause is what it is. Ugly, but not quite the racially targeted bit people want it to be. Instead, it is a political move designed to restrain the wholesale spread of slavery enabled by political domination through the duplicitous political use of slaves.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I've always seen the 2nd as the fact that since technically theres no standing army you are going to need a lot of people proficient with firearms and also the distance between places as if the Royal Navy rocked up with a few hundred ships you can't spend a few days on a horse and cart to drag back a load of powder and shot so it was in the interest to keep everyone reasonably armed and also that ability to have so many people armed would keep the politicians honest as they'd be afraid of the obvious but one has worked since 1812 but the other is sadly lacking

Two hundred years ago this country was populated by perhaps 10 million people. The laws then were written for a much smaller population. I am not sure the same laws apply now considering the number of people living here in the US. In support of your post: we have a standing army we as tax payers are paying for; (yet are being paid to sit on their hands). We are somewhat armed if one counts law enforcement. The rest of us reasonable folks that have guns must hide this fact because BATFE is on the move to take those precious items away from you/bypassing state laws and imposing (logic unwritten by their justices) federal laws that have no jurisdiction over the State (steam rolling States rights) to try or convict by vague Federal law what the State says IS NOT deemed criminal activity. BATFE is manufacturing ways to raid your house and take your guns; one is using the "concerned neighbor" scenario (cannot produce that witness in court as never existed) saying you might own something 'illegal' (you wont be arrested on the spot, but your guns will be ceased none the less never to be seen again). Its a strange way to disarm American citizens but its working one family or business at a time.
edit on 19-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Then WHY did you ask?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The right to wield death-dealing weapons =/= the right to turn society into a latent war zone.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Yeah, it was in there... remember the 3/5ths of a person part?


You do know the actual rationale behind that agreement, right?

It was not an advocacy for owning slaves.


Well, the Southern states had slaves, and lower white populations. If the representation was going to be based on population, the South wanted their slaves to be somehow counted towards their representation.

Straight from Wikipedia:



The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes.

Wikipedia

So, it doesn't advocate (aka: horray, own a bunch of slaves! DO IT!) -- but it does protect, and allow the continuing practice of slavery in early American history.

The founding fathers were more concerned with uniting the colonies, and slavery was a contentious issue. In order to get everyone on board, slavery was sort of ignored and concessions were made to "look the other way" in the interest of uniting the colonies together.



Despite initial disagreements over slavery at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founders once again demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives.

Britanica

We can sit here and paint over history, but the fact of the matter is that slavery was an important economic part of early American history.

Heck, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, James Madison and George Washington all owned slaves. In fact there were more slave owning "founding fathers" than non-slave owning founding fathers. And these same founding fathers drafted and approved the Constitution, which included the 2nd Amendment.

Today we realize that owning slaves isn't something we should do, so we abolished slavery in this country. Does this not mean that as society changes and we socially evolve our founding documents should be carried along with us? Or do we want to remain irrevocably chained to our past?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
So, it doesn't advocate (aka: horray, own a bunch of slaves! DO IT!) -- but it does protect, and allow the continuing practice of slavery in early American history.


I am not sure why you think it protects slavery which was institutionalized at that point and did not need protecting. It was an effort to minimize the slave owners of the south buttering their racists biscuits on both sides by having theor slaves count as part of the populace without them benefit of having them being able to vote.

The northern states would have preferred a no-fifth compromise where slaves did not factor into the census and to have further minimized the spread of slavery into other territories.




edit on 19-10-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



new topics




 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join