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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Federal Judge obliterates anti-2A laws. Upholds the Constitution.

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am glad my point wasn't lost on you, lol. Many people claim that you cant just change the 2nd amendment. Yet we have supreme court ruling that interpret something that wasn't written into it and people acting like it has always been like that.




posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Wow. Finally, someone who understands the fact that in an insurgency one doesn't play by the other guys rulebook.

You pick and choose your battles 'til the other guy cries Uncle. Then you hit him a little more to make sure it sticks.

Vietnam, anyone? The Soviet Union in Afghanistan, anyone?

The "weaker" side in both of those insurgencies won, remember???



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

...and not one of us would ever dream of taking that away from you. Firearms are simply an extension of that. Why can't you see that?

I'm 53 years old, given the life I've led, I plain don't move like I once did. Not too long ago, I was mugged at knife point, after having been robbed, the asshole tried to stab me anyway, and succeeded. That is a fight I'd just as soon not revisit. I wasn't hurt badly, he was, but it could so easily have gone the other way. Someone smaller, with less experience than I might not have walked, well limped, away from it.

Had I, at the time, had my CC permit? I'd have saved myself a whole lot of pain, and shot the guy the instant I saw that knife, instead of having to deal with him up close and personal.

In ten years? I'm not going to be able to do that hand to hand crap. Simple fact. My CC permit, and my handgun, allow me at least a chance to protect myself. It's not about scaring the govt. It's about being able to feed myself by hunting, and to protect myself from bastards who decide I'm a victim.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a declarative sentence. It does not convey ownership of the militia to the state, nor does it convey any right to the militia.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has but one conditional statement. That the government is not to restrict the right to bear arms. It conveys that the right belongs to the people, and its totality assume the right is preexisting. It does NOT create the right to bear arms, but protects it.

The reason for arms is self defense. There is no other reason as long established legal and moral argument has placed violence in self defense as a natural right inherent to the being in question. There is A LOT of philosophical knowledge and intent that went into that statement. Of which much is recorded and drawn upon for legal guidance in many court cases.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

You really missed my point. Phage got it but it went way over your head.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

I didn't miss your point. I refuted it.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a declarative sentence. It does not convey ownership of the militia to the state, nor does it convey any right to the militia.

That's a phrase. A part of a sentence, not a sentence. Without the remainder of the sentence the phrase doesn't really make any sense. It's sort of like saying, "Since the Earth is round."


Have you seen Article 1, Section 8. In regard to that militia? With that in mind, the 2nd amendment might have been passed to avoid having the federal government having to buy weapons for the militia.

edit on 10/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

My point was that the 2nd amendment we have today isn't what was written.

People think that it has always been the way it is now.

It has changed and will continue to change like everything else.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Article 1 section 8 gives congress authority over organized militia under certain conditions. Today the Organized Militia is the National Guard.

The second amendment does not confer or convey ownership of the militia. Only it states that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

The only condition set in that sentence is the restriction on government to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

The text and meaning of the second amendment as discussed by the founders in correspondence and other communications(The Federalist, for instance) has not changed. The court today is not alone in its rulings on self defense or even the right to arms itself.

The 2nd Amendment did not somehow change its meaning. That is an absurd statement considering it's grammar and syntax is perfectly valid and logical today as it was then.
edit on 23 10 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


My gun is like bear spray for people who don't have respect for life.

One is a non-lethal deterrent, and one can be lethal. Not really the same, might as well compare a piece of paper and a gun.


I never make comparisons with other countries because crime in general is driven by different factors.

Fair enough, I agree that our societies are waaay different even though there is only an imaginary line between us.


But for clarity, remember that we have a nation of 330 million with 1/3 of that in possession of close to 400 million firearms. If guns were a problem, you'd know it.

We do know it. The whole civilized world knows it. I don't know why people keep denying it.

From here.


What the media blows out of proportion is not reality. Some people who carry go their whole lives without ever unholstering the weapon in self defense. That's a good thing. But we don't have fire extinguishers(or bear spray) because we expect bad things to happen to us. No one who carries leaves the house assuming they are about to have the worst day of their lives. We carry in case it is.

I do also agree with you that there are many many many people that don't shoot themselves or someone else. I don't recall anyone ever carrying a fire extinguisher with them down the street in case of a fire, or bear spray in case of a bear attack in the city. Like I said before, I don't know how people can live with that level of fear daily. I sure couldn't.

I have a fire alarm in my house. If it detects smoke it makes a sound. Then if the company cannot get a hold of me, they call people that are properly trained. I hope the analogy doesn't get lost...

As I have said before, I don't know why people make such a big stink about this issue when there are far more pressing issues needing attention. Is it the fear that if they regulate the guns more, then what gets regulated next?

edit on 23-10-2016 by superman2012 because: knifes can be lethal too! bahahaha
my stupid mistake



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


originally posted by: WAstateMosin


Ahhh, the elusive and oft-scoffed at quindecuple post... you have found it!

I applaud you sir!




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

www.theguardian.com... seems australia is having to do another amnesty and possible buy back due to the increasing ammount of illegal guns that keep coming in despite their gun control intitative from years ago

State and federal ministers have requested a gun amnesty after an increase in violent, gun-related crime, particularly in Victoria. Shootings have become a weekly occurrence in Melbourne and gun-related crime has doubled since 2011, according to reports. There have been three national gun amnesties since 1988, according to Philip Alpers and Amélie Rossetti, from the Sydney School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. The Turnbull government will also introduce legislation to parliament this week to double the maximum penalties for gun smuggling to 20 years in prison, and for mandatory minimum sentencing of five years for those who are convicted of gun smuggling. The Coalition has tried to introduce five-year mandatory minimum sentences for gun smuggling in the past but its attempts have been blocked by Labor. The increased penalties will honour an election commitment.
so if they have been having that many gun "incidents" since 2011 and 3 amnestys and whatnot and they still haven't solved gun crimes what makes you think it would work in a nation with roughly 10 times the population and waaaaaaaaay more guns in circulation?

www.abc.net.au... did cut suicides by guns at least by a bit though, this one covers two recent studies that were done with some what conflicting results but i THINK links to both papers are there

gunsuicide drops occured(drastic ones) but this appears to have lead to more hangings www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... so the old where there is a will there is a way so to speak

en.wikipedia.org... wikis take on suicide rates by country with them ranked but this covers it by all methods not just guns

crimeresearch.org... here is one for countries that does various types of graphs to track and monitor the situation using a variety of methods often coming to different results and could be of interest to you

mises.org... done by australia


Much of the political thinking about violence in the United States comes from unfavorable comparisons between the United States and a series of cherry-picked countries with lower murder rates and with fewer guns per capita. We’ve all seen it many times. The United States, with a murder rate of approximately 5 per 100,000 is compared to a variety of Western and Central European countries (also sometimes Japan) with murder rates often below 1 per 100,000. This is, in turn, supposed to fill Americans with a sense of shame and illustrate that the United States should be regarded as some sort of pariah nation because of its murder rate. Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan. Prejudice about the "Developed World" vs "the Third World" But these are the only countries the US shall be compared to, we are told, because the US shall only be compared to “developed” countries when analyzing its murder rate and gun ownership. And yet, no reason for this is ever given. What is the criteria for deciding that the United States shall be compared to Luxembourg but not to Mexico, which has far more in common with the US than Luxembourg in terms of size, history, ethnic diversity, and geography? Much of this stems from outdated preconceived and evidence-free notions about the "third world." As Hans Rosling has shown, there is this idea of "we" vs. "them." "We" are the special "developed" countries were people are happy healthy, and live long lives. "Them" is the third world where people live in war-torn squalor and lives there are nasty, brutish, and short. In this mode of thinking there is a bright shiny line between the "developed" world and everyone else, who might as well be considered as a different species. [RELATED: "Gun Control Fails: What Happened in England, Ireland, and Canada"] In truth, there is no dividing line between the alleged "developed" world and everyone else. There is, in fact, only gradual change that takes place as one looks at Belgium, then the US, then Chile, and Turkey, and China, and Mexico. Most countries, as Rosling illustrates here, are in the middle, and this is freely exhibited by a variety of metrics including the UN's human development index.


people.howstuffworks.com... and finally from how stuff works which to my knowlege has no political leaning that i am aware of.
its a multipage article so i wont copy paste much of it if at all but could also be informative
edit on 23-10-2016 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


so if they have been having that many gun "incidents" since 2011 and 3 amnestys and whatnot and they still haven't solved gun crimes what makes you think it would work in a nation with roughly 10 times the population and waaaaaaaaay more guns in circulation?

I don't think anyone has the correct answer for this, but I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. At least they are trying...



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
Interesting article added on!

I do find it very funny how they say the US shouldn't be compared to any other developed civilized countries but then the article "RELATED: "Gun Control Fails: What Happened in England, Ireland, and Canada" " presumably,uses that very basis to make a point about why it won't/can't work in the US.
I only say presumably because I couldn't find it and it does have the word "RELATED". I might be wrong.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

think that has to do more with the fact that we are constantly compared to those nations but it did give me a giggle as well ,to be blunt we are the most heavily armed nation on the planet and if gun violence was as bad as some sources claim it would be like the purge but daily not annually how the movie portrays it ,forget the source for it but i think its often used as an example when deer hunters in new Hampshire go hunting each year they end up composing something like the 2nd or 3rd largest standing army on the planet(based on numbers and the fact they are armed) the posters talking about how in a USA s government theory often over look (other members did point this out though) that it would not be feild battles of civllians vs military,but be more like Vietnam with soft targets and what would amount to terror attacks on bases and installations.

to use stereotypes it wouldn't all be "hillbilly's"/rednecks" vs tanks and AFV's but drone operators having their kids kidnapped and murdered or hung from street posts ,truck bombs hitting bases and runways and suicide bombings on hostile population centers and soft targets. and if some of the more nutty "we gonna fight the government" types have their way attacks on nuclear plants fuel infrastructure and things that keep cities running like the power grid or the pumps that keep NYC and Louisiana above the water table for example and perhaps even chemical weapons strikes

poisoning the food growing potential of California for example would have long lasting implications or taking out a major water supply source w toxins/chemicals,these actions would force the government to either divert combat/logistical resources to protect these sites or abandon population centers which could in theory raise the number of angry civilians .and unlike alot of the countries that have resisted us in guerrilla warfare most (not all) Americans have access to more tools to make weapons of higher quality then say the Vietnamese or Iraqis (this would be mostly a generalization but the Vietnamese sure didn't have 3d printing) further (mostly insane but would be effective) tactics could include starting massive Forrest fires to limit the ability of aircraft to be used to full potential and disrupting infrastructure,destroying dams and levies and sabotaging ports. civilians outnumber police and military by close to 100 to 1 ratio(terrible at math so could be higher) so even as well armed and connected/informed they are it would be nothing any one would want to actually deal with if it were to occur

disclaimer i would not nor am i advocating those things, just things i have heard from other members here and terrifyingly enough some people i actually know in real life. and it is more posted to illustrate that it would not just be army vs army of civilians but what would amount to a pretty crappy situation over all if that makes sense?

TLDR nobody wants a civil war of this scale,nobody



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
All points made in regards to a very hypothetical civil war part II are well made, by everyone on here. I do understand that the civilian population would come together (not to the level of the military, but they would band together) and cause some havoc.
That being said, the government runs or owns most of everything we need. If they don't own it or control it, they could quite easily.

Natural gas, highways, water treatment, waste water treatment, hospitals, schools, power, telecommunications, internet, etc, etc. Not to mention the employees. Who is going to quit working their job in exchange for fighting nasty government? Things aren't like the old days anymore, we as a population have forgotten(or never learned) how to take care of ourselves. It would be like the old castle sieges where they would surround them and wait them out. Who among us would let their children starve? Die from a simple infected cut? Etc.

If they really wanted to take control of a population, it wouldn't be easy, but long term they could.

I don't wish this scenario either. Ever. I just can't understand the armchair rambos that believe they would overcome no matter what.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012




All points made in regards to a very hypothetical civil war part II are well made, by everyone on here.

I'm not clear.
Is it a civil war or a revolution which is being discussed? Are they the same thing?

Because in "part I", there were a lot of people fighting on the side of the US. A lot of resources too. Would this hypothetical "part II" be different?
edit on 10/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012




All points made in regards to a very hypothetical civil war part II are well made, by everyone on here.

I'm not clear.
Is it a civil war or a revolution which is being discussed? Are they the same thing?

Because in "part I", there were a lot of people fighting on the side of the North. A lot of resources too. Would this hypothetical "part II" be different?

I meant it in the way it was presented in the post before mine, as civilians vs military, and the very literal meaning of the term.


Sure they would have resources, but for how long? What happens when the power goes out in the winter up North?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012
So, the assumption is it would be everybody against the military. Seems unlikely to me.


Sure they would have resources, but for how long? What happens when the power goes out in the winter up North?
So, the rebels will cut power to civilians for their cause? That's not nice.




top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join