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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Eh...you mean that big ass fire that everybody says was caused by a fuel truck crashing? The one that even the Afghans say they weren't involved in?




posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment.....not needed until it's taken away. And remember military folks take their oath to the Constitution....not Government leaders, and they are those in the military that take the 2nd Amendment damn serious. With it we are Citizens, without it we are subjects.
edit on 24-4-2017 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Why do we need the second amendment?

Anyone that's seen what went on in Ferguson, and more recently UC Berkeley wouldn't ask such a question.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope
Your hypotheticals ignore the Rules of Engagement enforced by our government.

IF a reason to start fighting our government and its military forces happened (and it would take a LOT for there to be an all-out war against our government by our civilians), there are so many rules of engagement that protect civilians and non-combatants that the most probably way for the military to fight 'the resisitance' would be with boots on the ground.

Sure, they have full-auto weapons and other great weapons that they could use by individual Service Members, but to pretend that the government would just start carpet-bombing cities and towns just to stop a few domestic combatants is an ignorant approach (not meant to be insulting, but in a formal way, meaning it isn't taking all information into account).

But, if they did take that approach, I guarantee you that there would be international outcry and possible military action against our own government, because at that point, with the amount of civilians (including women and children) that would be killed in such a "strategy" would be unacceptable.

So, to answer your question directly, the second amendment exists--and is necessary--to provide us with appropriate means of self-protection against any threat to our physical safety or even personal property, and that includes if Service Members attempt to attack us as well.

I do agree, however, that small arms do basically nothing against planes and bombs, but who's to say all that the rebellious forces would have would be small arms--and who is to say that there wouldn't be many, MANY military members who would defect or sabotage efforts to put down a rebellion?


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



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

deadlyhope,

From the perspective of a person living in a country where there are so many checks, balances, and associated costs to gun ownership, that only a relative few ever consider it worth doing, and looking at the US from the historical and contemporary perspective also, it seems to me that the reason the second amendment is still relevant today is as follows.

If the government sought to disarm or enslave the population, they would win any engagement that they entered into with the people, without question. However, with arms of their own, the people (who, let us not forget, are necessary to the function of the Republic) can force the government to kill the resources they seek. Its nearly impossible to capture someone who is determined to die rather than be enslaved, and doubly so if they are well armed. Even if you can outgun them, all you can do with that capacity is kill them, they still control their fate to a greater degree, if they pose the sort of risk which, while unable to defeat your force, makes them impossible to safely capture.

Since human lives are a resource, in the coldest sense, forcing a government to respect that it can only kill, never control that population, will force it to consider the attempt to control the resource unwise and shortsighted.

It is also worth pointing out, that although US armoured vehicles are powerful things, there ARE weaknesses to any system with more than a few working parts, and a bloody great tank is no exception. There are enough people with military experience who are no longer in the forces, that although in general the armed forces, assuming they could be turned against the people, would be in an advantageous position, it is not as if they would be in an unassailable position, especially against a force of persons who have a greater knowledge of local terrain, especially in regions where that terrain is rugged. Armoured columns could be bought to a halt by a range of factors, depending on the environment at play and how well the stage was set by an ambushing force.

Its also worth pointing out, that aircraft can be bought down without the necessity to rely on guided munitions, if those opposing the aircraft have their wits about them. Choppers can be baited into situations where they are operating below the height of the tallest nearby structure, allowing things to be cast down upon them, into the rotor blades, or aimed at the tail rotor particularly, or allowing home made explosives to be deployed, perhaps from a slingshot mechanism, into their general vicinity. A heavy vehicle with a gas powered cannon, could deploy a barbed grapple, designed to penetrate the hull of a chopper and drag it to the ground. There are many ways a resistance could operate successfully, given the motivation and the intelligence necessary to operate at all. It just takes a little imagination, and an absolute determination to see those who follow tyrants damned and dead for their trouble.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
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.


Good to know you consider at least SOME type of restriction to be necessary.


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.


I will admit my own bias here. I have never held a real gun in my life. Maybe I am lucky I have never felt the need to do so at all. I have never felt the compulsion to want to fire a live gun as an adult. It could also be a cultural thing where maybe you were brought up with guns and are more comfortable with them. If I were handed a gun right now, I wouldn't "freak out" but I would be uncomfortable and be nervous about harming somebody because I have zero experience with a real gun of any type.

Perhaps I would be better off getting a little experience with guns for some future time when that knowledge will be handy and I will need that knowledge and "comfort" to act when I need to.

I don't think the number of actual guns in the US is highly correlated with the number of gun murders — if it were, you would probably not have 1/5 of your current population that you do now. So no, I don't have an agenda to ban or restrict guns myself as I'm not even in the US.

What I do have a problem with is people who consider a written piece of legislation that lacks any type of restriction or exception clause to be regarded as untouchable and beyond revisiting, even considering the vastly different context and duration of time from when it was written...those people feeling they are entitled to force that belief on others or prevent others from criticising people in power who hold similar views to theirs. Yeah, people with that sort of mindset are dangerous!

If you are choosing to uphold a right for the mere fact you have that right, how can you say that right is worth upholding?


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



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


The problem with your argument is the government's guns are way bigger than yours.

The founding fathers intended to keep the people on an equal footing. Thats why they added, shall not be "infringed".


in·fringe
inˈfrinj
verb

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach.

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on


Erosion is a good word too. Slowly, surely, steadily make the gubment apparatus more powerful than the peoples ability to resist. The gubment is supposed to be subservient to the people, not ruling over them.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost




What I do have a problem with is people who consider a written piece of legislation that lacks any type of restriction or exception clause to be regarded as untouchable and beyond revisiting, even considering the vastly different context and duration of time from when it was written...those people feeling they are entitled to force that belief on others or prevent others from criticising people in power who hold similar views to theirs. Yeah, people with that sort of mindset are dangerous!

If you are choosing to uphold a right for the mere fact you have that right, how can you say that right is worth upholding?


I believe that people can criticize whatever they want, but in the US, the right to own firearms is not being force on to anyone. If you do not feel the need to own one, do not get one ... simple. If those who are adamant about getting rid of the 2nd because it is "outdated", there are laws in place to admen the the Constitution. But looking back at the "Prohibition", it might not be a great idea to change anything. To those of us who believe in the 2nd, we realize that even though times has changed the thinking behind the 2nd is as valid today as the day it was inked.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Thank you for your level headed reply, brit.

Too many others think I'm attacking the second amendment, while I am actually very for it - I'm more libertarian and believe less government control over our daily lives is necessary for freedom to be the best it can be.

Thanks for always being a great presence on these forums.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: intrptr

So we are under the impression that our siblings, parents, community members could be weaponized against us?

Government tyranny is almost the rule, not the exception, use of force wouldn't even surprise me a little... But our own family and friends? That's paranoia, to me, but I guess I am not deeming it an invalid thought process.


Really? Dont believe in the family and friends thing huh? Even with all the political heat these last few years?

Dont think it can happen?

Ask Germany Circa 1940s



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope




while I am actually very for it - I'm more libertarian and believe less government control over our daily lives is necessary for freedom to be the best it can be.


Then wouldnt that Naturally mean leaving our fire arms alone along with the second instead of the alternative? just a question



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Why do we need the second amendment?

Anyone that's seen what went on in ... UC Berkeley wouldn't ask such a question.


I'm sorry, that made me laugh, because do you know how difficult it can be to own, and especially to legally carry, a firearm in the state of California?

Luckily, my dad has a carry permit, but only because he lives in Kern County and they have a sheriff there who is concealed-carry friendly, but it is NOT a "shall issue" state when it comes to carry permits, and it is generally VERY difficult to get an application approved.

Even with that, remember that UC Berkeley is a 'gun-free zone,' and you'll begin to consider why I chuckled at your comment--hell, a civilian can't even own a stun gun in the entire city of Berkeley. The second amendment doesn't mean much in some states and places.

California bans concealed handguns on college, school campuses

It seems to me that the California legislature would do well to read op-ed pieces like this one, which makes many good points on why lawful carry of a firearm should not be banned on public school campuses.

Anyhoo, UC Berkeley is the poster child for a lot of things wrong with some aspects of society--gun control is just one of them.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
"Why do we need the 2nd amendment"? I'd ask you, Why do "we" need laws? The amendments are the "law". Not the law that government gives you. But is the "law" the "people" gave to the "government", to obey. You ask this question, so I ask, ..if the government said you have/need to wear a gold star? You'd do it? If you're as ignorant as you sound? You're not asking to get an answer. Like that saying, "no such thing as a stupid question ". That's BS! Ignorant questions are like, ignorant answers. They do society no good.
We needed, "need it", because "law" doesn't even agree with itself.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
2A is about the need for well-regulated militias as justified by the right to bear arms.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
In actuality it does not do what it was intended to anymore. It was originally there to protect against our own government if need be. Thus it was intended to allow the people to be equally armed as the government (i.e. if the gov can have tanks, then so can the people). The government has managed to whither that down over the years.

However, what it does still allow is effective guerrilla campaigns which can lead to a more equal fight (much as the revolutionary war was fought.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
We need the Second Amendment because we need the Second Amendment.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
How is a tyrant going to recruit a army to fight a armed citizenry.

I was in the military and i swore a oath to protect the constitution of the US.

i still stand by that oath.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: WeowWix

Have you been out on American soil lately? There's a whole lot of it. Technology can cover some of it, maybe in the future, most of it...maybe. Yet technology is not, in any way, foolproof...it's designed after all by humans, built by humans, and utilized by humans--hardly foolproof
.

Anything built by man, can and will be, at some point, spoofed by man. Those drones that everyone seems to think are the cats meow are marvelous machines, yet they have home bases, those bases have supply lines, and any number of potential points of weakness--including hacking the controls.

There are going to be, on both sides, folks whose jobs prior to hostilities involved high-tech stuff.

No, it wouldn't be easy. I'd be the last to say that. But doable...oh, yes, very much so.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

A weapon like a bazooka is only as dangerous as the guy/gal behind it.

As for the jet fighter defense? Don't allow yourself to be targeted, they aren't omniscient. Using ones brain can mitigate a lot of the problem of being targeted.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope


Yes as has been said here you must understand the historical photograph say James Madison and his peers as well as other before them in Europe were drawing on to develop the concept to "Keep and Bear Arms". We see in our society the "people" well armed and yet still submit to civil law and civil authority. My friend its a phenomena.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join