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.
It is always a good place to start.
Another line of thought is that Congress has both the authority to call forth the militia and the responsibility to provide arms, ammo, training, command and other needful provisions such as food, clothing and shelter.... which is another old definition for "well regulated"--equipped and ready to go would be a more modern word usage.
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: superman2012
The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.
Yes.... the US military beat the poorly trained Viet Cong... right?
The Soviets beat the poorly trained Afghans... right?
and that was in countries where the well trained and armed soldiers had an enemy that did not consist of their own friends and relatives.
Try again.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: superman2012
That is how I see it.
I would have the same reaction if the govt wanted to change who got a jury trial or who needed warrants to search a home.
I think the limits on govt power that were established, were done so with specific examples in mind. Things that were done in England at the time, or in the colonies at the time that the founders did not agree with.
I do think the founders intended for the general population to be armed(if they chose to be) as the ultimate check to a tyrannical govt. They had firsthand knowledge of what the govt could do to an average citizen in England, and they wanted lives less constricted by govt.
originally posted by: EternalShadow
originally posted by: superman2012
originally posted by: EternalShadow
originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: EternalShadow
If it really were to oppose a tyrannical government, what chance do you think the public has against a trained army?
I believe that people use that wording as an excuse. If they started going door to door collecting weapons, who is going to say no when they have a group of soldiers in front of them and their family behind them?
The Rambo mentality will not last in the face of reality. The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.
My God, you sound just like the opposition to breaking away from King George.
History really does repeat itself. Wow.
When are people going to address the post instead of the poster? My God, that is a major reason I don't participate in many of these threads.
You do know what weapons they had in the revolutionary war, right? And that we are living now, not then?
It seems like you're implying that most Americans are cowardly knee benders. I personally take offense to that notion considering how most Americans are good people who WANT to do good things for their families and others. It's the corrupt policies and agendas of the few that's causing so much division and turmoil in our lives. Then this chick and others like her want the People to turn over their rights?? For what? A failed economy and government hand outs? More wars overseas and quite possibly here? A judicial system that's a complete mockery of justice? A failing infrastructure no one is addressing? A laughable educational system? Shall I go on????
originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: superman2012
That's a big part of what I don't understand. Something needs to change, but no one wants change.
The change that needs to happen is the LAWS already on the books need to be enforced with extreme prejudice.
If you are not going to enforce the laws on the books, then don’t start talking about implementing new laws.
originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!
Use your brain not a gun.
All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?
I said all the guns.
I love you
Harry
'Take all the guns.'
Do tell who would be doing the 'taking'.
You would be a good citizen and comply with the unarmed Peace officer when the amendment is repealed.
originally posted by: EternalShadow
originally posted by: uncommitted
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody
Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.
The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.
Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?
What part of "bear arms" confuses you??
Geezus.
originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: uncommitted
Ever heard of the Federalist Papers?
If you never took history in high school, they are articles written mostly to explain the meanings and intent of specific parts of the Constitution to help it get ratified by the states. The fore fathers specifically talked about how the right to own guns was intended for the average citizen.
The first ten amendments, often referred to as the Bill of Rights, were included in the Constitution BEFORE ratification. Also in the federalist papers is the reason for the BOR is to REITERATE what are already God-given rights, specifically rights required to overthrow a corrupt government. Not just the second amendment, but all ten of the Bill of Rights are needed to do this. These rights are unalienable.
It was a major debate to include them because they could give the impression that only rights written in the Constitution were protected. When you read the federalist papers it is clear Americans have freedom to do whatever they want except those DIRECTLY PROHIBITED by law.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: introvert
Disarmed completely? Not as yet. Limited to what is legal to own? Yes. Many times. Clinton's AWB for example. California, New York and Illinois are three states that have limitations on firearms. Ironically many of those limitations are in conjunction with cosmetic features. Yet some interfere with Federal Firearms License holders for Curios and Relics like the M1 Garand.
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."