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.

 

Second Amendment Rights Are Not Actually Rights (Not All Of Them, At Least)

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

You say "subtle infringements" like it is nothing. Really???? Wow, just just do not have a flipping clue do you? It is like being just a "little pregnant"....there is no gradation of infringement. The 2nd Amendment clearly states, "shall not be infringed". That is like saying, "shall not be pregnant". You either are or are not....there is no "might be" or "just a little".

Try to get that through that thick skull of yours. The 2nd has been under attack for almost 100 years now. Slowly being chipped away, law by law, infringement by infringement. How much more does it take? There is no such thing as 100% safe in this world. Accept it, you will sleep better at night.

edit on 6/22/2016 by Krakatoa because: spelling




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

You see, you, and others want to blame the guns for these killings.

In your minds it's all about the guns.

Poppycock!

The guns do not leap up and start shooting and killing people.

People kill people.

The problem is people.

Remove the reasons for people wanting to kill other people, and you won't have a issue.

Remove guns and the only thing you will accomplish (besides violating our rights and rendering us defenseless, or for some of us our livelyhood) is make it to where killers will simply use a different weapon.

Like pipe bombs.

Which you can make from common ingredients bought in any store.

No license required.

But OH NO!

Much better to trample on law abiding people! Much easier to stay scared in a "safe zone" and beg for Big Brother Government to take care of you.

Seems to me that most Americans have forgotten a couple of facts:

1) Murder is already against the law

and

2) People used to know what personal responsibility was.......I guess now it's all "please Mr. Gubberment! It's a scary world out there! Please take things away! They scare me!"

:shaking my head in disgust:



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

This is pointless. As I said before. Talk to you after the next massacre.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I see, so, you have nothing intelligent to add, nor are informed about how the constitution works. Perhaps you should watch this and get a clue. Are you working for DHS?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

You just repeated my point. I think Guns ARE necessary but there need to be changes. Guns don't kill, people kill and there are a bunch of crazy people with guns. Let's get to the root of the problem and that is the Mental Health issue. What's causing people to be so violent these days? Is it environmental? Is it social? Something in the food? Water?

Attacking me or my ideas isn't going to make things better, it just creates an endless cycle of back and fourth bickering concerning who's right or wrong. We'll never get to a solution from arguing around the issue. This is how people stay divided while politicians continue to rule us unimpeded; we argue and fight over effects and not the causes.
edit on 22-6-2016 by lostbook because: word change



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

But that's just it: you're not addressing the real issue.

Instead you are supporting gun control.

Instead of coming here and tell us that have guns how bad and wrong we are in exercising our 2nd amendment rights, why not instead push for exactly what you just mentioned: Mental Health.

And not the: oh, let's make another list of people that we think are crazy, so we can grab their guns.

Let us talk about REAL mental health issues, and getting that care people can use.

How about we address those that feel the need to run out and kill people in the name of their god? I find that rather crazy thinking myself.

How about those that want to kill people because of their sexuality? Again: that's pretty crazy in my book.

Anyone that wants to kill a lot of people has mental health issues. But trying to get rid of guns is not going to solve those issues.

Not when one can still get behind the wheel of a car and drive it into a crowd.

Or build a pressure cooker bomb.

Or pipe bombs.

Or just yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and watch as people stamped over each other trying to get out.

Gun control is just like saying: Oh look. So many people have been killed by drunk driving! Let's get rid of cars! Or wait, let's get rid of alcohol. Oh wait.....they tried that last one....didn't work out too well. So yah, let's try getting rid of cars!

So if the next mass killing is with a chainsaw......are we not going to be allowed to own chainsaws anymore?

I mean, damn, chainsaw. You can seriously hurt and kill a lot of people with a chainsaw. I know. I use one a lot here on my land..

ETA: ....not on people. Just trees......because the little voice in my head said to.......


edit on 6/22/2016 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

I did mention the mental health issue in another thread, and I just did in this one as well. Some People get too defensive and lock up whenever anything about guns is mentioned, and all they hear is "take all of their guns away....." Gun violence is getting worse every ten years or so. Some use them for defense, some for offense. We need a way to allow protections for those who use for defense without taking away rights. Arguing over the effect(s) of gun violence does nothing to get at the cause(s). I think the Mental Health slant is the best place to start.

I get your point. However, the weapon of choice these days is a gun so I think we should start there.


edit on 22-6-2016 by lostbook because: word add



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

No. The internet has been deemed to be part of "Freedom of speech," but to use it you need a device to access it and a connection, neither of which are freely provided in most cases. Does that mean there is a privilege, not a right?

Oh, and your comparisons to fair trials and punishment are moot as well... public defenders do not have the track record high dollar attourneys do in court. Many is the poor man sitting in prison for actions wealthy men easily get off scott free for thanks to their high dollar lawyers and connections.

In essence, what you're saying is Americans' rights in general are an illusion and this country is falling to SNIP. (an argument I'd agree 100% with.)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

But see: you just contradicted yourself.

You agree it's a mental health issue.

Then you say it's a gun issue.


Which is it?

If you have a person that wants to kill people, it won't mater if you take their gun away or access to guns. They'll just find another way to kill people. And, it looks like there are people out there that are quite dedicated to finding away to kill people.

Not to sound condescending, but, gun control advocates want to punish everyone. Not just the person to did it.

It's like that Facebook meme that is going around. It shows a picture of the Orlando killer. It says: Okay, he does not represent all Muslims (fact as far as I'm concerned), but he some how does represent all gun owners?

We go through this all the time. It's like a classroom, where one kid acted up and got in trouble, so the teacher decides to punish everyone.

It's been like this since 1934. OMG! All those gangs killing each other over territory (never mind that we helped make that situation by prohibiting the sale of alcohol), let's ban automatic weapons!

Then the 1968 gun control act. That happened because of JFK being killed.

Then 5 more things since then.......and still is not stopping.

Something happens = go after the gun owners.

That butt head in Orlando could have used a pipe bomb, and we would STILL have someone screaming "gun control!"

It's not about compromise. We (gun owners) have been compromising ever since 1934, and each time our 2nd amendment rights gets eaten away even more.

It's about control. It's ALL about control. And we've had enough of it.

The problem is the reasoning of the person committing the crimes. Not the gun itself. Placing a gun in someone's hands is not going to turn them into a killer.

Brain washing someone by convincing them that killing is the only way to solve something, or because their religion demands it, is the problem.
Hate is the problem. Hating people because they are different, so much that you want to kill them is the problem.

Trying to score points with their voters is also the problem. People cheering on the politicians because they got a gun act or law passed......not realizing that what they are cheering on is the erosion of their constitutional rights.

Yah big government!

Take those guns away! Who needs that pesky 2nd amendment?

Yay big government!

Start putting more people on lists and punish them, because, you know, who needs that pesky 5th amendment?

Let's get rid of that 4th one too! I don't feel safe, and won't feel safe unless the government can just go in to someone's house whenever they hell they want and search the place! I'm sure they had a good reason too. No need for stupid warrants and crap. I mean, we gave up our 2nd and 5th rights, who needs the fourth one?

Oh, and for goodness sake, will someone please get rid of that 1st one? I'm getting SO offended by some of the things people are saying!

You give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Every time.

I once handed the government a blank check with my life. I took an oath and swore to defend the Constitution with my life if need be.

I may not like your opinion, or what you say, but I'm glad that you can say it.

But my oath didn't just cover the 1st amendment, or a select few. It covered the whole document. My oath didn't cover the actual government. They can go screw themselves.

But your rights? Yah, I'm there. I got your back, or will try too.

Kind of hard though when the people who's rights I want to protect just want to give them up......sort of like a drowning person fighting the life guard.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

shall not be infringed.




That is the part that I am having trouble figuring out where people do not understand, what part of that is unclear?

"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."

Taking to account the verbiage here we gather a few things, lets start with well regulated militia shall we? That does not mean military or national guard, there is a difference between a militia and a military. Military are in service of the state or federal governments and not as such operating in a civilian capacity. Where a militia is a armed and regulated/organized civilian group. (not sure about some states but in Texas only an elected sheriff or the Governor can mobilize a militia) Now this group cannot very well function if the civilians are not armed now can it?

Either way at the end of the day, the Constitution of these United States of America and the Bill of Rights ARE the letter of the law, 2A is a right. Tough luck pal.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

It's a Mental Health issue but people act out their issues with guns; in today's world, it's the weapon of choice...Crazy people will use whatever is at their disposal and right now with guns so accessible to everyone, they can easily get one to commit their act(s).

Everyone shouldn't get punished because of a corrupt few; that's agreed upon. What do you think if guns were banned in cities since most gun crime(s) happen in cities and not in rural areas...? That way people in rural areas who use guns to hunt wouldn't feel threatened by our Government.
edit on 22-6-2016 by lostbook because: word add



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

That is still unconstitutional since you are infringing upon the rights of EVERYONE in the city, even people that are innocent of any felony crimes. How is that acceptable or fair?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: sycomix


That is the part that I am having trouble figuring out where people do not understand, what part of that is unclear?

Not infringed, not encroached upon, not legislated away bit by bit which is exactly what they are / been doing.

The law makers are not even to begin to infringe upon the right of private citizens to keep and carry arms.

Keeping them at home and carrying them about is the only way to guarantee ones safety in say ohhh, like what happened at that club, school room, movie theatre or college or mall or… (the next one).



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sycomix


That is the part that I am having trouble figuring out where people do not understand, what part of that is unclear?

Not infringed, not encroached upon, not legislated away bit by bit which is exactly what they are / been doing.

The law makers are not even to begin to infringe upon the right of private citizens to keep and carry arms.

Keeping them at home and carrying them about is the only way to guarantee ones safety in say ohhh, like what happened at that club, school room, movie theatre or college or mall or… (the next one).


Well said



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
In a broader term individuals hold the God-given right to defend themselves from others, including a tyrannical government.

As firearms are the most effective way to defend one's self, they have been explicitly mentioned by our founders.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Where, in any statute the word "granted" is appears, it is not a right but a privilege. Why is this so? A right cannot be taken away, a privilege is discretionary and can be withdrawn.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Where, in any statute the word "granted" is appears, it is not a right but a privilege. Why is this so? A right cannot be taken away, a privilege is discretionary and can be withdrawn.


The word granted doesn't appear in the second amendment. It is a right guaranteed in the bill of "rights".


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.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Where, in any statute the word "granted" is appears, it is not a right but a privilege. Why is this so? A right cannot be taken away, a privilege is discretionary and can be withdrawn.

I guess you have never actually read the Declaration of Independence then. If you did you would have your answer in the first few paragraphs of the preamble. There, it clearly outlines them as RIGHTS....not privileges. Here is a snippet, that addresses your post:


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


It is a great read, I suggest you do so and become familiar with that in which you attempt to disparage.

edit on 6/23/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The difference between free speech and the 2nd is that free speech is independent of the internet. The internet is a huge amplifier, but you're still able to speak freely without it. With your mouth, for instance. The 2nd isn't independent of firearms/their equivalent, and you must pay to exercise it. To try and explain it in a nice fashion, if free speech worked like the second amendment then you would only be able to speak freely using paid-for items like megaphones. In which case, it would be privilege and not a right, because you would need to spend money to access it.

I noted that, stating "most trials are unfair anyway, just not as unfair as they could be."

Oh, yes, all the constitutional rights are most certainly illusions. I've tried to argue before that the Constitution holds no actual power beyond emboldening the people and focusing their will, but people weren't having it. However, I do believe it is ridiculous to call something that you must legally pay for to exercise a right, hence this topic.

I'm actually anti-gun-control for the US, anyway. This rant is mostly an observation.
edit on 24/6/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I guess you have never actually read the Declaration of Independence - No I havent and I am unliley to ever do a) because I far too much reading to do as it is and b)because I am not an Americian. I live on the other side of the world and my post on right and grants was informing people about some that is very important.

Funny how some people feel the need to be aggressive when they reply to something on this forum and frankly I wonder why the mods accept it. Attacking the speaker and not the thought is the most shallow form of discussion there is.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join