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.

 

Why do we need the second amendment?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:05 AM
link   
To protect ourselves against the government

I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of it to begin with, right?

Why need high capacity magazines? To protect against the government.

I'm pretty sure the wording in the constitution even promotes 'overthrowing' the government if the need arises. And that was a document written by the government (more or less, at the time).

No other country allows its citizens to be armed for the purpose of fighting the government itself, let alone actively promote it like the USA, let's ya know that your country is a great one.

If anyone WANTS to ensure the population can NOT defend itself against government tyranny (which is an inevitability, FACT) then that makes them a 'f##kwit' .




posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Posted in the mud pit because this is random banter off the top of my head. I'd like to first say that I am pro gun rights, and against over regulation and bans.. That being said, what does this do for us now, anyways?

To defend against a tyrannical government or invading enemy?


Boy... what terrible reasons to have access to a firearm! I honestly can't think of a better reason to own one aside from subsistence hunting.


How many rounds are you going to unload on a tank or take pointless shots at a plane or other military grade vehicle before realizing you're way over your head, how many shots are you going to take at a Missile before realizing its useless and you're going to be pancake batter before you can count to one if it's close enough to shoot at?


What this really means, is that despite not thinking the Second Amendment has any place in 21st Century America. You don't a tuLly have a valid or rational argument of your own to put forth so you instead resort to creating a spiffy new straw man argument. Seriously, who the hell even knows a missile or bomb is incoming until it's too late, let alone attempt to shoot it down with a semiautomatic rifle? You've certainly never served or spent time with anyone actually trained on various weapons platforms.

With that said, you're obviously not a student of history either. Just a few examples off the top of my head in the last 85 years or so...In WWII we saw what the French Resistance was able to do to the Germans, Ukrainian Partisans likewise mounted successful guerilla resistance against the Germans. First the French and thenn the greatest military on the history of the planet, and both with vastly superior firepower, were brought to a stand still by mostly farmers in pajamas using borrowed Soviet and Chinese arms under the leadership of Vo Nguyen Giap who learned everything from, literally, the man who write the book on guerilla warfare, Mao Zedong ( he wrote 'On Guerilla Warfare while fighting against Chang Kai Shek). I seem to recall that the bloodiest period of the second Iraq War, was AFTER Bush had declared victory and we had radicalized many of the people we imprisoned who soon became the biggest thorns in the US militaries side and eventually led to the formation of Daesh. Just a few years ago, we had the Arab Spring. Should I continue?



It seriously does not protect us against an enemy in war, nor against our own government in the case our government goes treasonous and turns the military against us ( assuming military cooperation)


Any astute student of history knows that inevitably, another foreign power will attempt to seize the opportunity to ark insurgencies because they see some long term benefits from destabilizing the country dealing with the insurgency. As we learned during Americas own War of infependance, you don't need all the fancy toys to start an insurgence. You just need enough arms and ammunition to hold out until someone else tries to take advantage of the situation and supplies you with arms (France did so during the Revolutionary War and the US did so in Afghanistan during the 80's in an effort to force the Russians out. It was successful btw).


We can talk about safety and protection, but honestly I've never seen the statistics showing that people in other countries are being robbed and killed at rates far higher than Americans because they don't sleep with a gun under their pillow...


Ahhh... American gun owners are paranoid but jobs who sleep with a .50 cal under their pillow. riggghhhhhtttttt... looks like the straw man is a permanent fixture in this rant. Let me give you an example. I live in a pretty rural area. I've got a bunch of land behind my house and then there's several hundred acres of Forrest beyond that. I've got young kids. A few years ago, all 3 were playing outside when the oldest ran into the house to tell me there were people with guns in the back yard walking towards the house. I don't know these people, they came out of the woods. I dont know if they're moronic hunters who got lost or if they have something g else in mind. I called the other 2 kids in, called 911, went to my safe and retrieved the tools I would need and proceeded outside to wait for the sheriffs deputy to show up. Because of the vantage point I had from my house, I knew I could flank them unnoticed and did so. They were promptly relieved of their firearms and I proceeded to the driveway to wait another 17 minutes( it had been 6 min. since I made the call)
for the deputy to decide to show up. And that was for a report of armed trespassers scaring my kids half to death. It turned out they were just morons who got turned around in the woods while hunting and were just trying to find the road and thus their vehicle. What if I had not been prepared and they were not lost idiots? Am I supposed to wait over 20 minutes for the police to decide to get off their asses and do some work? No thank you, I will take care of my own. The phrase "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" has some basis in fact.



Hunting is a legitimate argument still, and one that is allowed in some countries with otherwise strict gun laws...


So which is it? You're pro gun and against regulation? Or you think that people should only be able to own a single shot 12 gauge because some other random country with no statistics or citations allegedly makes do just fine that way? Because that there is a whole lot of regulation and restriction. And who determines what is an acceptable firearm for hunting with? A bureaucrat who has never fired a gun in their life? The entire proposition seeks rather disingenuous given your assertion at the beginning of the OP


Valid question, though - what is this amendment for now days?


The amendment is for the same thing today as it was in the late 18th century when George Mason wrote it. It means that as Americans, we still have the right to self determination, the right to feed ourselves and our family and the right to protect ourselves from anyone threatening ourselves or our families with harm and violence. The beautiful thing about it though is that while we have the Constitutional Roght to own guns here, there is no legal mandate (except for one town in Georgia) requiring you to own one. This, you don't have to purchase one, handle one, fire one or be in the vicinity if one of you so choose.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

No the 2nd Amendment is for when some coward solider tells you and your children to get on the bus to the camps.
Dont believe me go find an older jewish person or a vietnemese person or any other german russain chinese ect..
who tryed to stand up against the government. But 2nd amendment is for when they tell you to get n the trucks.
Any other questions.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MegaScorp20

You wrote my thoughts.
I am afraid of guns-just no experience but guns are so centuries old compared to today's technology. If you want to hunt or protect against an intruder; well, ok.

But American citizens are not allowed the real powerful weaponry so this point is just about moot.

At some point, the Constitution, and I know we just love it; needs to be updated and fluid and that will be battle of it's own.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   
What anti gun people miss I their straw man argument that we cannot fight against our government, is that our government is made up of the people. Our military are sworn to protect the "Constitution ". Yes there may be those who will fight for tyranny, but many will not and will fight for the people . If there is ever a fight with our government over tyranny, those fancy weapons systems will exists on both sides. Then throw in the fact that there are four times more trained vets than there are active duty soldiers and you can see it might be more than a walk in the park for the government. Now include the armed citizens, and it might be an uphill battle indeed.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: MegaScorp20

You wrote my thoughts.
I am afraid of guns-just no experience but guns are so centuries old compared to today's technology. If you want to hunt or protect against an intruder; well, ok.

But American citizens are not allowed the real powerful weaponry so this point is just about moot.

At some point, the Constitution, and I know we just love it; needs to be updated and fluid and that will be battle of it's own.


So I guess a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan armed with handmade Lee Enfield rifles shouldn't have been able to coerce the Soviets into leaving their country without fulfullung the objectives that thwy came with?
And the US won in Viet Nam... right?



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
To defend against a tyrannical government or invading enemy?

How many rounds are you going to unload on a tank or take pointless shots at a plane or other military grade vehicle before realizing you're way over your head, how many shots are you going to take at a Missile before realizing its useless and you're going to be pancake batter before you can count to one if it's close enough to shoot at?

well i doubt the framers of the constitution could predict modern weapon development...



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Sconnie77




Are you trying to bait an argument?


I see that in most of his threads



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   
There should be a law against shooting someone.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Justso



needs to be updated and fluid and that will be battle of it's own.


Its not a simple matter of updating it...there are procedures to follow

wiki


Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Boy. Two pages in and your attempt at flag and star farming doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, does it?

Ouch.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The problem with your argument is the government's guns are way bigger than yours. The OP's argument is what's the point if the guns are so completely ineffective. Unless you make 50-caliber machine guns, bazookas, and stinger missiles legal to own what chance does an armed citizenry have again the US military under a tyrant's control?

There probably quad copters capable of detecting ever gun within building. I think citizenry power is at all time low right now. The proponents of tyranny are not concerned about any gun the common Joe may have.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: MegaScorp20

You wrote my thoughts.
I am afraid of guns-just no experience but guns are so centuries old compared to today's technology. If you want to hunt or protect against an intruder; well, ok.

But American citizens are not allowed the real powerful weaponry so this point is just about moot.

At some point, the Constitution, and I know we just love it; needs to be updated and fluid and that will be battle of it's own.


So I guess a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan armed with handmade Lee Enfield rifles shouldn't have been able to coerce the Soviets into leaving their country without fulfullung the objectives that thwy came with?
And the US won in Viet Nam... right?


The goat herders with their Lee Enfield rifles did not coerce anyone, heavy weapons supplied from outside did.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope


Why do we need the second amendment?


Because the US government is even dodgier than Hillary - and that's as dodgy AF!!!



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: WeowWix

Really? They read minds, do they?

My gun isn't locked up. Nor in a purse, or the male equivalent.

Got it in one.

Should that "armed force" who ever it may be--assuming it ever happens, what in the world makes you think I'd be so stupid as to fight 'em in the street? Or from the front, for that matter.

From behind in a dark alley at night, from as far away as I can manage. In other words? Cheat.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:52 AM
link   
We let the Iraqis keep their Ak's. Every home was allowed 1 AK-47 per male in the house hold even as we were fighting the war... Most of the time we would horde them into a room while conducting searches and allow them to keep them after we left, usually with no problems. Their Ak's were full auto we as Americans need all kinds of special things to have one of those, they just have them and we allowed them to. Wish they used them against their current threats to their way of life against ISIS.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Because if you give up your second or any, there is reason to believe eventually you will give all of them away, for the right price of course....

but it's the value people put on matters these days is what troubles me.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Oh, please.

Any high tech can be spoofed with a little thought.

Do you honestly believe that an insurgency is helpless against a modern military? Explain to me then, if you will, Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Those insurgencies were outgunned, and out teched... Yet either won, or are at worst, holding their own...certainly not defeated.

Rule Number One: Don't fight by their rules. Cheat.

Rule Number Two: Refer back to rule number one.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I've wondered that a time or fifty, myself.

Does anyone ever explain that? I can't recall ever having seen/read any...



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   
To defend against a tyrannical government or invading enemy?
This only covers part of it.

We already have invading enemies.
Mexican drug gangs, MS13, middle east terrorist, ECT ECT

As for fighting tanks that is easy its snipers and artillery that are the hard part.

And as to the part To defend against a tyrannical government
You have to class that as "defend the constitution" as a real tyrannical government would have to repeal the constitution to operate. And they would start with the second amendment.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join