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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
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.


You would be one in a proper mindset and, I am assuming, trained then.

Guerrilla Warfare is a great tactic; it is not just as simple as it used to be in, say, Revolutionary times.

Technology has changed greatly; I think we can agree on that.

ETA: Especially if this were a war on American Soil; not the jungles of Vietnam.
edit on 24-4-2017 by WeowWix because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sconnie77
With all due respect, we do not need to justify it any more than it is clearly stated in the Constitution, and by the writings of our fore fathers.


Are you sure about that? Correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution does not specify any real restrictions in its expression of the right to bear arms? That might seem like a wonderful thing, IF you don't consider the consequences that is...



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Sconnie77
With all due respect, we do not need to justify it any more than it is clearly stated in the Constitution, and by the writings of our fore fathers.


Are you sure about that? Correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution does not specify any real restrictions in its expression of the right to bear arms? That might seem like a wonderful thing, IF you don't consider the consequences that is...


What more is there to justify? It is our unalienable right to be armed. Your feelings don't trump my rights, period. NO argument matters.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sconnie77

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Sconnie77
With all due respect, we do not need to justify it any more than it is clearly stated in the Constitution, and by the writings of our fore fathers.


Are you sure about that? Correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution does not specify any real restrictions in its expression of the right to bear arms? That might seem like a wonderful thing, IF you don't consider the consequences that is...


What more is there to justify? It is our unalienable right to be armed. Your feelings don't trump my rights, period. NO argument matters.


If there were true, then why can't people legally buy bazookas, 50-caliber machine guns, and stinger missiles?

How can you protect yourself from the government if you do not have an arsenal that can handle it?



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sconnie77
What more is there to justify? It is our unalienable right to be armed. Your feelings don't trump my rights, period. NO argument matters.


Not my "feelings" buddy, it's my sense of logic and reason. But you know what? Maybe I am wrong. Why not just have no restrictions in place!

No age limit check, no mental health check, no criminal history check, no safety guidelines or recommendations, no explanation from the customer why they want the gun. All good?

But hey, if you are willing to endorse all the above, I suppose "logic and reason" usually don't ever enter your mind before you act.


edit on 24/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

The gun control debate has gone on for a very long time. Here's the 1971 argument from Archie Bunker:

www.youtube.com...

It's the same argument everyone makes today.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

The gun control debate has gone on for a very long time. Here's the 1971 argument from Archie Bunker:

www.youtube.com...

It's the same argument everyone makes today. "He ain't gunna dare pull no rod."
edit on 24-4-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If there were true, then why can't people legally buy bazookas, 50-caliber machine guns, and stinger missiles?


You can buy .50 caliber machine guns and 'bazookas' (anti-armor weapons).



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I would venture to say that we have more than enough restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that if anything we should roll some of those restrictions back. For example the NFA act of 1934 is out dated and should be scraped probably same for the 1984 Machine gun ban. Those laws never really prevented criminals from obtaining said weapons which were hardly used in any crime in the first place.

I guess the question I have is what laws do you want to add to make us "SAFER"? and Do you believe that murder by firearms are increasing at an epidemic level?



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Leave the 2nd Amendment alone as it is. No changes are needed. If you really are questioning why we need the 2nd Amendment, you have some serious issues and need to ask yourself why you still live in America instead.

Either you support the Amendments 100 % or you are against the United States in all which it was founded. Simple as that.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If there were true, then why can't people legally buy bazookas, 50-caliber machine guns, and stinger missiles?


You can buy .50 caliber machine guns and 'bazookas' (anti-armor weapons).


You are right! Who would have thought something so dangerous would be legal. California is the only state where 50 caliber weapons are illegal.

What about stinger missiles? How can the citizenry defend themselves against fighter jets?



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: 4N0M4LY

Many people think the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional. What do you think about the 13th amendment?



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
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.


Exactly. I don't think some people understand how an armed resistance would be waged if, for instance, there were a foreign invasion. They're not going to stand and fight a professional military head to head, but they're instead going to pick around the edges of it and harass them, and, as seen in several real-world examples, it can be at least somewhat successful. Ultimately, they're going to be hard pressed to drive them off and win, but the invading force is not going to find it quite the cake walk that some want to believe.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: 4N0M4LY

Many people think the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional. What do you think about the 13th amendment?


13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. There was some controversy regarding the abuse of it when it talks about the usage of the policy toward a crime. I don't see the issue, also to add this is how this amendment made a way to introduce sex trafficking laws on the books.

What is the problem exactly are you referring to?
edit on 24-4-2017 by 4N0M4LY because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Again our military are made up of the people (our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers), who are sworn to protect the Constitution. Sure if tyranny broke out and we ever had to fight, there will always people who will fight for the Government but there will also be soldiers that will fight with the people. So yes those fighters jets and tanks will be fighting on both sides. If anything the government will be handicapped because they will probably be outnumbered. In a prolonged internal warfare they have a good chance of being whittled down by their own defectors and the armed citizenry.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
What about stinger missiles? How can the citizenry defend themselves against fighter jets?


Theoretically you can legally own them with the correct paperwork. But the question is would the manufacturer sell you one and open themselves up for controversy.





edit on 24-4-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
I guess the question I have is what laws do you want to add to make us "SAFER"? and Do you believe that murder by firearms are increasing at an epidemic level?


Ignoring your second question which really has no relevance to what I was asking before, here is an answer to your first question:

An age limit check, a mental health check, a criminal history check, safety guidelines and recommendations provided, and request an explanation from the customer as to why they want the gun and for what purposes they intend to use it. If they pass all of the above, they get a licence to OWN a gun and STORE their gun inside their OWN private homes that is well hidden and secured. Allow them to purchase ANY gun they want (hand gun, assault rifle, shotgun, machine gun etc.) as long as it is kept on their private property and not moved outside.

Then forbid average citizens from carrying those guns in public areas (no concealed carry BS). If the idea is really to protect yourselves from government tyranny, do you really think at the point it reaches for you to be rounded up you will still be out strolling in the streets, working at your job, cheering in the sports stadium etc. ? This "if one of the victims were armed they would have stopped the mass shooter sooner" BS argument is ridiculous.

So, would the NRA agree to the above restrictions, or does the USA want to continually be looked at with such pity in regard to holding on to a "right" that should have been better clarified over 100 years ago?


edit on 24/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Sure, I'll quit carrying my firearms off my property for protection, just as soon as criminals stop doing the same.

Also, I don't need a license ( permission ) to exercise a right.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost




An age limit check, a mental health check, a criminal history check


The current NIC check already does this and it works. The only improvement that it may need is a better way of reporting cases of mental health.




Then forbid average citizens from carrying those guns in public areas


Why is there a current epidemic that requires this. A firearm is use for self protection and what good is it if we cannot have it with us. Even the liberal estimate from National Crime and Victimization Survey estimate that there are more than 200k Defensive Gun Use every year, that's may time more than murders with firearms. The only problem here is that you have a fear of firearms and that you do not trust other around you with them.

edit on 24-4-2017 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

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.

History tells us that the Soviets were not the first. Before that, the Afghan tribesmen sent the British packing and before that, there is a list of empires that occupied, but never controlled the Afghans.

Check out the Salang tunnels incidents. A lot of Soviet soldiers died in those tunnels at the cost of a few RPG rounds fired in the front and back of the columns that were in the tunnels.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join