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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Bunch of rag tag fighters with basic domestic arms seem to do pretty well against the US government in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, don't they? I'm going to throw out a guess that 50 or so million Americans in the same situation would fare even better on our own soil.




posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
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 If those who are adamant about getting rid of the 2nd because it is "outdated", there are laws in place to admen the the Constitution.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.


I agree, except I'm not advocating getting rid of the 2nd amendment, I am advocating it be revised or clarified to some degree. I actually believe the right to bear arms to prevent potential government tyranny is a wonderful legal right to have! I wouldn't go as far to say I am envious that my country does not permit that right, but it is still a very reasonable and logical right to have. An ultimate safeguard to ensure that if the government becomes tyrannical, they will have a LOT to deal with before they can put that attitude into action.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

No.

It's been "revised" to the point of absurdity over the past few decades. Bad enough that I, a law abiding citizen, has to jump through assorted hoops to own, and carry.

Shall not be infringed. Nothing there needs revision or clarification.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Have you seen my earlier reply in this very thread? (www.abovetopsecret.com...)

If not, I advise you read it just to be sure you understand what my argument is.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Oh, I know. The Constitution is sacrosanct - but will need tweeking or a re-do at some point.

It will be painful and difficult but necessary.

And I am quite aware, at least as much as can be, of the tremendous elements involved in such a tremendous and painful ordeal.

However, if we were to be honest-it just doesn't work for our country for today's American society. I know, much thought and probably almost a revolution for such an act to occur.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
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.


Thank you...



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
If we didn't have the second amendment, you would have a void between the first and third amendments. That would be odd.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Its not only very short sighted, but its also insane to say that just because someone took one of my rights away from me, therefore I wont have a need for it now or at anytime in the future so therefore I dont need it anymore.

This kind of thinking is insane.

Do you realise that in taking this view you are encouraging the people who have/will take/taken this right off you, to take even more rights off you?

Do you now know that impunity breeds greater impudence?



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 03:33 AM
link   
The 2nd amendment was ratified when the feds didn't have much of a bank account.
The 2nd amendment meant that the feds didn't have to buy weapons for what is now the National Guard.


Also, because what rickymouse said.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4/25/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Responding to your Original post (for context on my answer).

1. we have an all volunteer army, if give orders to march against citizens in the US a large chunk of them would promptly take their gear and join the people.

2. invading enemy, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... we have the insurgents wildly outgunned... yet here we still are well over a decade later. The key is not being the best armed in this instance but being able to resist (having weapons) and then having the will to resist.

3. Self protection, when seconds count cops are only minutes away... it does not matter what the crime rates are if having a gun in the house makes the home owner more comfortable and relaxed who am I to tell them they should feel less safe.

4. I live in one of those heavily regulated countries right now... yea they sort of let you hunt, when you pay to store your weapons at a hunt club (you cannot keep the guns in your own home without expensive work done to make a high dollar gun safe part of your home, IE part of the foundation)... oh and god help you if your caught hunting out of their strictly controlled seasons. I have met people in the states that hunt year round to make certain their family eats year round, and yes that is against the law but most game and fish officers look the other way when it is to feed a family.

5. Lastly it is in the constitution... I am loathe to remove anything that is a constitutionally protected right because once that door gets opened how do you close it... I mean look at civil asset forfeiture... this should have been struck down in the courts but it persists and in theory we still have protection under the constitution... could you imagine if the 4th was actually revoked.

Just woke up have not had caffeine yet so thats all I got ...



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I don't see fighting a invading force or the government as the biggest danger.

I see the biggest danger as a nuclear EMP attack or a CME and the lawless that would come after till the government regained control if ever.
But there is a chance that after a EMP or CME that a large force from Mexico could invade the US (drug cartels???)and try to take control or loot before the US government regain control.

Or some group that is not the US government could try to take control of the parts of the US(radical liberal or leftist group???)and operate without the constitution rights we have.
As a oath keeper i would be forced to follow the oath i took when i joined the navy and fight the illegal false government.

read the books One Second After and One Year After by William R. Forstchen



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
There should be a way for Trump to orchestrate a case in SCOTUS that would create a remarkable and spectacular precedent in support of the 2nd amendment. For example by repealing the NFA full-auto ban of 1986 and have some euro-commies start a legal suit against it, in SCOTUS ... The rest we know ... a SCOTUS sentence against the lefties, for the 2nd amendment would be a terrifying blow for the euro-commies.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Tanks can be stopped. I hope the state of the union never enters that phase though. If tanks ever roll into big cities in hostile form, they can be stopped. I shouldn't need to elaborate further, so anyone who can't figure this out, forget about it.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flanker86
There should be a way for Trump to orchestrate a case in SCOTUS that would create a remarkable and spectacular precedent in support of the 2nd amendment. For example by repealing the NFA full-auto ban of 1986 and have some euro-commies start a legal suit against it, in SCOTUS ... The rest we know ... a SCOTUS sentence against the lefties, for the 2nd amendment would be a terrifying blow for the euro-commies.


Except for things like that pesky constitution that limits the powers of the 3 branches of our federal government via a system of checks and balances. This means the Emperor Hair Hat can not just arbitrarily repeal legislation. Not even through his favorite method of governance, the Executive Order. Only congress can pass a bill through both houses at which point the POTUS can sign that into law. So if you feel strongly that this is a rational course of action, then I suggest putting together a coherent proposal and send one copy to your Senator and one to your Representative in the House. Please let us know if they write you back and what their thoughts are.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope


By the way spend a few hours anyway looking into the 2nd. Start at Federalist Papers. Save you from this out loud postulation from ignorance you did in front of everyone.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Tanks can be stopped. I hope the state of the union never enters that phase though. If tanks ever roll into big cities in hostile form, they can be stopped. I shouldn't need to elaborate further, so anyone who can't figure this out, forget about it.



Besides, you never give up a tactical holding......small arms.....just because folks have tanks. Dumbasses have all sorts of things.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The 2nd amendment was ratified when the feds didn't have much of a bank account.
The 2nd amendment meant that the feds didn't have to buy weapons for what is now the National Guard.


Also, because what rickymouse said.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And wow if one looks into the thinking behind the 2nd, the whole shebang, the thing had to be corrupted at the state level i.e. mesh them states into the fed just as tight as you can.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join