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.

 

What is the second Amendment for?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I hear people posting about how we don't need 50 cals to hunt with or full auto weapons to hunt deer and I agree with you we don't.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

The Second Amendment is not in place for deer hunters. It is in place so that we can have arms suitable to fight off any Government Foreign or Domestic that tries to curtail our freedom.

That includes ours.

You say the only need for armor piercing bullets is to take out Cops or soldiers and my reply is that is indeed what they are meant for.

And that is why the Bill of Rights protects us having them. You can make a better argument that we should be allowed Rocket Launchers than you can we should be only allowed single shot 22s

My hands are hurting pretty bad so my responses will be spotty for a couple days but I am looking forward to hearing them.




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
To quote the 2nd amendment...



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.


Are all gun owners members of a militia?

Anyway, this ammendment was made in 1790 if I remember correctly. don't you think it's a little oudated? It needs to be modernized some way, but that's an entire other debate.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by sensfan]

p.s. Kudos for starting this thread...the other thread was just getting way off topic.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by sensfan]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
True. It isn't for hunting, but by those rules I should be able to own a nuke. I should be able to own a jet, a tank, a missle launcher, a gatling gun, so forth.

Edit. I support guns, hell, just a few topics down is my gungrabbers topic. But I still don't see why you need a .50 caliber, or nuke, or missle launcher, or tank.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by James the Lesser]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
True. It isn't for hunting, but by those rules I should be able to own a nuke. I should be able to own a jet, a tank, a missle launcher, a gatling gun, so forth.


True. I have no problem with you having them




Edit. I support guns, hell, just a few topics down is my gungrabbers topic. But I still don't see why you need a .50 caliber, or nuke, or missle launcher, or tank.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by James the Lesser]


what does the Government need them for? My entire point is that the Second Admendent is NOT for hunting. You need the TOW for the TANKS


How many quickie mart robbers use a Machine Gun anyhow?

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
I support guns, hell, just a few topics down is my gungrabbers topic. But I still don't see why you need a .50 caliber, or nuke, or missle launcher, or tank.


Wait 4 years and see if the 2nd Amendment may have been true forsight on the founding fathers part. I'd put a smiley in here but this isn't funny.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
Are all gun owners members of a militia?


Yes. Every able bodied American is a member of the very same militia the 2nd speaks of, even criminals and those "adjudicated mentally defective."



Anyway, this ammendment was made in 1790 if I remember correctly. don't you think it's a little oudated? It needs to be modernized some way, but that's an entire other debate.


Outdated how? The intent was that no government that could come into power would be able to outgun, and therefore enslave, the common man. Nothing has changed since then, other then the fact that we are less free then the colonists were under British rule.

Keep in mind the mindset of those men. They had just won their independence by a fluke, a freak accident; their domestic riffles just happened to be more accurate then those of the British. If not for that, they probably would not have won. They understood this, and stated as much; this was their reason for including the 2nd, so that the citizenry would always outgun any army congress could raise. We know this is no longer the case today, and we live or die at the mercy of our government.

No, the second is just as important today as it was back then. You may find your self thinking "well, they didn’t have machine guns back then," but you are cheating yourself out of a logical answer to that dilemma. Who has the most machine guns, the most missiles and tanks? The government. For the second to work like it is supposed to, this must change. For the second to work like it was intended to, we must be allowed to have tanks, howitzers, and shoulder fired, laser guided anti-aircraft rockets. For the second to work like it is supposed to, we must have access to the same biological, nuclear and chemical weapons the government does. Scary, huh? I think so too, but the answer is not to outlaw civilians from having these things, but to outlaw the government from having these. Of course, NBC weapons were not originally protected by the second. They became protected by it, however, as soon as they were developed into weapons that could be used against us. Don’t want your next door neighbor storing anthrax in his kitchen? Then don’t let the government store it, either.

Remember, the terrible weapons soldiers use to kill each other may change with the times, but the spirit and intent of the second never will. In 200 years, if government troopers have access to lite sabers and laser guns, then these will become the birthright of the militia, the birthright of every American.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Cav, anthrax? Well, damn, that is true, if you follow the 2nd by word, anthrax or ebola should be allowed to be owned by the common man.

Anyways, I don't need a freaking .50 caliber. Well, except for the douchebag who flies his freaking plane at tree top level, ILLEGAL! Aren't even any airports here so IDK where the hell the plane is kept. Of course, he flies so low I could take it out with a 9mm. Anyways, more citizens then soilders. Say 1 out of 100 citizens fires a bullet and 99% miss, guess what? Army still slaughtered.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser

Anyways, I don't need a freaking .50 caliber.


James, you need a .50 for the same reason the Army needs the .50; to kill. Remember, a government that outguns you owns you.


To everyone else: The government is the people, right? By saying government agents need to operate without fear of the people, you agree that the government is no longer the people.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
the right to bear arms states a basic Liberty. and basically means that people should be able to wield power in whatever manners. scary thought. equally as scary as freedon of speech, which basically means the freedom of expression.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
If you dont have the right to protect your self from ANYONE, mugger, cop or solider what rights do you have? The rest are meaningless if the other man is the only one armed.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Also, for people who say the 2nd amendment is old, out of date, fine, I guess the 1st one is to. And the 3rd, and 4th, so forth. So saying it is a antique law is wrong.

Also, thr army is the people, do you really think they will kill their own people? Hell, most are complaining about going to Iraq and killing civillians, what do you think they would tell the gov. if they were ordered to kill USA civillians? I highly doubt, no matter what they signed saying they would do whatever, that they would kill USA civillians. So unless a bunch of republican senators and Dick Cheney take up arms, no real need to worry about the gov. Love to see that, hell, only what, 2 republicans actually fought in a war? John McCain and Powell. The rest used daddies money and power to get out of them, doubt they will start fighting now.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Also, thr army is the people, do you really think they will kill their own people? Hell, most are complaining about going to Iraq and killing civilians, what do you think they would tell the gov. if they were ordered to kill USA civilians? I highly doubt, no matter what they signed saying they would do whatever, that they would kill USA civilians.


THIS is why we need the guns, just to have a reasonable method of fighting back. If civil war DID break out it would be long and bloody just like the last one. But us being armed lets the Government know we mean Business and would make the Soldiers make a choice on where they stand, a choice an unarmed population would not present



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Again, what choice? "Ok, we are ordering you to kill your family and freinds. Why? Because they won't pay the taxes we raised on them but cut for our rich buddies." Sure, like the guy is really gonna follow orders. The army is made up OF the people, they aren't machines that follow orders no question asked. Now if they were machines, then I better save up money and but that .50 caliber.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I'd like to weigh in on this topic.

First, I do own and use firearms and so does the rest of my family. We are not hunters, but do like to go target shooting. I also keep firearms for the defense of my family and myself. Last, we have taken training courses on what we own and practice regularly.

As a strong believer in maintaing my 2nd amendment rights, I will resist any attempt to undermine those rights. This is where the concept of a "slippery slope" comes in. While I have no personal need for a .50 cal rifle, for example, I'm concerned that a ban on those weapons opens the door to banning others. And once you've set foot on that 'slippery slope', how do you keep it from becoming a mad, downhill rush to ban everything? The same arguments can be used for free speech and abortion rights. Once you allow a little censorship to take place, how do you keep it from becoming a lot of censorship as each special interest group rushes to have their own view of 'problem speech' outlawed?

In my opinion, much better to allow what the Constitution allows and leave it to education, common sense, morality, and the marketplace to govern what should and should not be allowed.

[edit on 1/24/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I personally don't care if some lifetime subscriber to Thongs And Ammo sits in a concrete bunker surrounded by tanks, flamethrowers and howitzers. Sure. It's his "right" to be a nut and maintain his steadfast belief that GopherHole, Wyoming is stop #1 of Commie infiltration or governmental oppression.


But some red staters have no clue...NONE...what life in a city with rampant guns is like. And your adamant zero tolerance for restriction at the national level is responsible for atrocities bordering on genocide.

I've lived across the street from an all hours hip hop club. When you have, talk to me about the right to own assault weapons. There's no protection I could have bought that would have defended me from those strays. It's madness.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT.
I've lived across the street from an all hours hip hop club. When you have, talk to me about the right to own assault weapons. There's no protection I could have bought that would have defended me from those strays. It's madness.


Then shouldn't the Government concentrate on putting those shooting each other in the Bar in Jail?

How will disarming you help?

Did you not having a gun make their bullets not hurt you?

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Then shouldn't the Government concentrate on putting those shooting each other in the Bar in Jail?

How will disarming you help?

Did you not having a gun make their bullets not hurt you?


Well I wasn't offering a solution Amuk, just adding perspective. In many regards there are two very different Americas trying to impose differing values on each other.

If it's wrong one way, it's wrong both ways.

Even doing something about assault weapons would have done little to stop these kids from pulling handguns damn near nightly (though you can get used to those shots, but not automatic rifle fire yards from your bedroom). Owning my own would have been pointless as well. And more than likely got me in trouble.

Point is I wouldn't object to gun free zones at all in situations like that while letting others have whatever they want. But that's impossible to enforce I know.

I guess I remain pro-choice on guns as a whole, but I don't have to like it. I just wish some would understand what these "rights" they hold so dear put others through daily in very real and relevant ways.

Not like some pro-lifer that can't sleep because a lady she never met chooses to have an abortion 1,000 miles away. I'm talking about a person's child being gunned down in an Atlanta, NY or Chicago street because someone in East Egypt, Mississippi wants to be able to buy macho toys.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I'm talking about a person's child being gunned down in an Atlanta, NY or Chicago street because someone in East Egypt, Mississippi wants to be able to buy macho toys.


But what does one have to do with the other? More than likely the person gunning down the child had a long police record and the gun was stolen. The controls need to be on the CRIMINALS not you or me.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
But what does one have to do with the other?


I'm not necessarily one of those people yet, but some people want to ban all guns. That's what it has to do with.

From a more measured perspective, the NRA/gun lobby is not remotely reasonable Amuk so it does all relate.

They would/will/have opposed every small measure of safety restrictions, waiting periods, criminal background checks (more measures than I can name I'm sure) which affects urban centers to exponentially greater degrees than their own base of support.

Their continued profits require the unquestioned and absolute support of people that don't give a damn what happens in cities. That's why it relates.

But it's not like I'm trying to change any minds or take away any rights. Just explain a perspective some deem so foreign as to be unimaginable or the product of some advanced liberal brainwashing. Hogwash. There's something wrong with the people that saw Columbine on the news and still insist we need more guns in this country, not less. Something terribly wrong.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I personally don't care if some lifetime subscriber to Thongs And Ammo sits in a concrete bunker surrounded by tanks, flamethrowers and howitzers. Sure. It's his "right" to be a nut and maintain his steadfast belief that GopherHole, Wyoming is stop #1 of Commie infiltration or governmental oppression.


But some red staters have no clue...NONE...what life in a city with rampant guns is like. And your adamant zero tolerance for restriction at the national level is responsible for atrocities bordering on genocide.

I've lived across the street from an all hours hip hop club. When you have, talk to me about the right to own assault weapons. There's no protection I could have bought that would have defended me from those strays. It's madness.


And I'd bet that none of the weapons you are describing were obtained legally. How about we enforce the laws we already have instead of adding new ones



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join