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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well d'uh. And that's why everyone needs a gun. Uh huh. I'm not talking about a segment of society. As you said it's a "right" for all.

I would contend that anything that can be taken away isn't even a right.




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
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.



Some of my fellow Americans should be ashamed. This British man gets it far better than a lot of my own countrymen. Bravo, sir. I could not have said it any better myself.

For all of those that say a small arms cannot possibly stand against a modern army, I'd like you all to read this quote from a short article I'd saved some time back, but if you'd like to read the whole thing it's been around the internet a few times.

from "What Good Can A Handgun Do Against An Army?" by Mike Vanderboegh




A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly innaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well d'uh. And that's why everyone needs a gun. Uh huh. I'm not talking about a segment of society. As you said it's a "right" for all.


Which is why I said the argument is an exercise in arguing just for the sake of arguing. There can be no means testing for something clearly identified as an inalienable right of US citizens.


I would contend that anything that can be taken away isn't even a right.



Expand on this. I'm not sure which direction you're going with the statement.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well d'uh. And that's why everyone needs a gun. Uh huh. I'm not talking about a segment of society. As you said it's a "right" for all.


Which is why I said the argument is an exercise in arguing just for the sake of arguing. There can be no means testing for something clearly identified as an inalienable right of US citizens.


I would contend that anything that can be taken away isn't even a right.



Expand on this. I'm not sure which direction you're going with the statement.


It's quite plain. If it's a right, not a privilege, it can't be taken away. If it can it's not a right.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

By that definition, there are no rights, period.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: intrepid

By that definition, there are no rights, period.


Pretty much, in the abstract. Your right to life ends if someone kills you. But we're talking about guns here.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

We don't shoot at tanks with guns we use thermite.
I guess your rants are not too educated.
NO, we got it covered.
Planes land and a squad of scouts CAN kill their lines pretty easily,logistic beasts like armor and aviation are simple kills on their support..Guerrilla combat 101.
The Dems just want you to be mentally defeated to require their caring hands.
The armed people say "Like hell"
AND a another nut kills so we can have these pointless discussions of fear of guns and why they should take them from us.
NOT once will you hear of a NATIONAL mental health system,just guns.
edit on 3-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: intrepid

By that definition, there are no rights, period.


Pretty much, in the abstract. Your right to life ends if someone kills you. But we're talking about guns here.


Not entirely. If your argument is "if something can be taken from you, it's no longer a right" then you're argument is about a hell of a lot more than firearms. I can cut your vocal cords and crush your hands, taking your right of free speech from you. A law could be passed tomorrow outlawing religion, there goes your right to free exercise of religion. Soldier could be housed in your home in peacetime. The cops can search you on demand for no reason. Polls could refuse to count the votes of anyone who isn't a white male land owner... oh, wait... these things can't be done unfettered because they are in the Constitutional Bill of Rights for the USA. Now, stop and think for a moment, *why* are so many Americans so aggressive about revering that document as being an untouchable, unerring cornerstone of the nation? Might it be because without it, there simply are no rights that are sacred? There's the answer to this entire thread in a nutshell... Americans don't have to demonstrate a need to embrace any particular Constitutional right, we simply have to demonstrate the balls to embrace them all and tell anyone who doesn't "go screw."



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: intrepid

By that definition, there are no rights, period.


Pretty much, in the abstract. Your right to life ends if someone kills you. But we're talking about guns here.


Not entirely. If your argument is "if something can be taken from you, it's no longer a right" then you're argument is about a hell of a lot more than firearms.


I came to that realization about 10 minutes ago when I went out for a smoke. Rights god damn it. For many decency, even life itself, take second place to the rights. Which don't really exist.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
burdman30ott6:

supporting the full exercise of this nation's most important and most unique God given right of self defense and firearm ownership, and usage.


What an utterly absurd statement! Where and when did God give Americans the right to own firearms? Your mindset is one aspect of the problem that America's 'gun culture' throws up. It is also why gun atrocities occur, because those who own guns are in denial about being part of the cause of multiple gun shootings.

I get it that you all want to defend against violence upon yourself and your family in a manner that equalises or gives advantage to you in the fight, but do not lie about where the right comes from, not God, but men of like mind. God neither wrote or instructed the following...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
...a group of men wrote it who were preparing to separate from Britain, and of course they needed the people to be armed under their own means, so they could be called on at a moment's notice and gather together as a militia in defence of their fledgling country, and their self-appointed rights and liberties for which the cost of obtaining was war.

Obviously, times have changed since those tumultuous times, but even as a person opposed morally and ethically and philosophically to gun ownership, I believe the right still holds today. I used to think that the amendment was part of the issue, but now I know that it is not. I now view it as a pragmatic example for the idea of maintaining freedoms and liberties hard fought for. From a philosophical stance, I agree with it. The people should have a right to bear arms when the need requires them to do so, but only to fulfil the amendment's purpose.

However, the amendment's purpose has been largely set aside, and has been substituted with personal self-defence, rather than that of defence of one's country against 'enemies foreign and domestic'. This is where the 'right to bear arms' has gone completely out of control, with an equally skewed mindset to support the continued chaos.

From a personal point of view, I'd like to see new and updated laws and regulations introduced that limits one gun (registered) to one household for non-military people, and with a limited set of ammunition, to be stored safely away in a wall safe or locked cabinet where only the husband and wife each have a key or combination to unlock it. Both the husband and wife should also undergo training for the use and safe storage of the weapon. This fulfils both personal safety, and the purpose of the amendment, and does not infringe its right.

Automatic rifles, shotguns, etc, should be banned completely...no exception. No one should be able to amass a small (or large) arsenal of guns and ammunition, and I don't care if that statement offends anyone. Gun rampages are too costly to accept. Stephen Paddock didn't need all the guns he had for personal safety, he needed only one. I would be suspicious of anyone having more than one gun in their house. It displays a mindset skewed by paranoia. One other form of strict gun control I would like to see legislated is the banning of carrying a gun on a public street. If caught carrying a gun on the street, the weapon should be confiscated and the owner banned from firearm ownership for a period of time, and to pay a fine. Multiple transgressions will ultimately lead to a lifetime ban of gun ownership.

Obviously, gun manufacturers and gun lobbyists will do whatever they can, by any means necessary to insure their profitability remains in tact. They will spread fear and outrage inside communities, and raise hue and cry to persuade you that the amendment is under attack, that your rights are under attack, but they won't be. Correct strict gun control will support the amendment and its purpose, not dilute it. Above all, it will reduce gun-related deaths.
edit on 3/10/17 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
burdman30ott6:

supporting the full exercise of this nation's most important and most unique God given right of self defense and firearm ownership, and usage.


What an utterly absurd statement! Where and when did God give Americans the right to own firearms? Your mindset is one aspect of the problem that America's 'gun culture' throws up. It is also why gun atrocities occur, because those who own guns are in denial about being part of the cause of multiple gun shootings.

I get it that you all want to defend against violence upon yourself and your family in a manner that equalises or gives advantage to you in the fight, but do not lie about where the right comes from, not God, but men of like mind. God neither wrote or instructed the following...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
...a group of men wrote it who were preparing to separate from Britain, and of course they needed the people to be armed under their own means, so they could be called on at a moment's notice and gather together as a militia in defence of their fledgling country, and their self-appointed rights and liberties for which the cost of obtaining was war.


The American Revolution ended on September 3, 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. The US Constitution wasn't composed until September 17, 1787 and the Bill of Rights wasn't written until 1789. Pray tell, why would the Founding Fathers have written the document under the auspices of "preparing to separate from Britain" when that proceeding had already occurred 6 years prior?

I wholeheartedly believe in Divine Providence. I believe the United States of America was, and can be again, the manifest destiny of the world. The leap required to progress from feudal rule to representative republic was so great that there is no way I can believe anything other than the hand of God was guiding the hearts and minds of the men who laid the framework of this nation, including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights... the third most valuable gift God graced mankind with beyond only the life of His Son for our sins and our own lives through the creation of mankind. In fact, it could be argued, as the 2nd is what has defended all other gifts God has granted to man beyond His own Son's life, that the 2nd Amendment is actually the second greatest gift from God... worth more than our own lives in so much as it is what defends our lives from the barbarians and provides us our food to nourish the physical body.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
You see, the gun-violence problem…is part of the gang problem…and gangs are a necessary…part of the drug business…and the drug business…must never be interrupted…because it makes a lot of money…for a lot of people…important people....
Then there was a CIA project to build munitions factories in Arkansas, which Bill green lighted.
The Agency thought it would be easier to make their own guns rather than trade coc aine for them....But that’s old history. in the 90s

I think just about everyone reaches an age where it becomes pretty obvious that the deck is stacked.
Keeping most people comfortable enough to avoid a revolution is the balancing act that maintains the status.
No matter what gun laws are passed in America there will always be a gun around every corner
Gun stocks have gone up since the shooting......



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
burdman30ott6:

Pray tell, why would the Founding Fathers have written the document under the auspices of "preparing to separate from Britain" when that proceeding had already occurred 6 years prior?


The 'Bill of Rights' is a document relating to amendments to the original Constitution. The men who made these amendments were the Founding Fathers. The amendments were made for political and legislative reasons on the demands made by other states. When I state 'preparing to separate from Britain' I meant it as a backward looking glance at history, the Declaration of Independence carried the sympathies of the rights in the amendments that became the Bill of Rights. The context of my statement is well placed.

God does not exist. Your personal opinion that He does, notwithstanding. On this issue, you should read my signature, it is you to a capital 'T', as believers of a religion commit both acts.
edit on 3/10/17 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

LOL! You amuse me.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86

I have to point out, that the shooter in this case was not an immigrant, legal or otherwise, nor a criminally prodigious individual as far as anyone can thus far tell, nor was he any of the other scapegoat classes of people that are routinely blamed for the downfall of civilisation, as some see it.

He was an apparently successful, well off beneficiary of the capitalist system, but....

Someone, somewhere knew that this man was unwell. Someone, somewhere knew that this man had something going on with him, that made him a danger to himself and/or others. There is no way it could be otherwise, because NO ONE who has EVER done anything which even slightly resembles what Paddock did, has spent their whole life failing to have unusual reactions to stimulus. Someone will have witnessed him totally over react, or act in a very sinister fashion, or be violent, or utter some statement which indicates a devolution of his moral compass.

This issue, particularly, has nothing to do with immigration, and if you look into the numbers of incidents total, then compare that number to the number of these incidents carried out by immigrants of ANY kind, leave alone illegal ones, then you come to the understanding that illegal immigrants are far LESS likely to be involved in any kind of mass murder, than ANY other demographic within society in America, statistically speaking, so immigration status and race have NOTHING to do with the matter.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: netwarrior

That would be the FP-45 Liberator, correct?

Its a gun, that was, as you say, designed from the get go, to be used in order to kill a Nazi soldier and steal his gear.




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join