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.

 

The Right of the People to Own Weapons Cant be Expunged From The Debate.

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I never said the militia was obsolete. You make that assumption. In fact, I think someday it might be needed to help defend this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. But, to make that possible, the people must have the ability to form those militias when called upon to do so....and to train to be well regulated.



(post by elysiumfire removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




But, to make that possible, the people must have the ability to form those militias when called upon to do so....and to train to be well regulated.
But that's not what the Constitution says.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


edit on 10/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa




So, in closing, a "well regulated militia" means an orderly group of citizens, well trained in the handling of firearms.


What do you think about what Article I (you know, the part before the Bill of Rights) says about what the militia is? Do you think the 2nd Amendment stands alone from the rest of the Constitution?


No, it's all additive. At that time, people owned their own firearms because they needed to eat, they needed to protect themselves and families against bad people (yes, there were bad people back then too). See, in 1775, King George III sent a standing army of British regulars (there is that word again meaning well trained soldiers) to the Massachusetts Bay Colony to confiscate all the arms, powder, and cannon. We know it now as the Battles of Lexington and Concord. This is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment. It is a direct result of those actions by King George III to disarm the population in an attempt to squash a growing rebellion. The founders were well aware of that, and created the 2nd Amendment to assure that our own fledgling government would be able to be challenged if they got too "uppity" and overbearing trying to control the citizens.

They also feared a standing army too, and preferred a citizen militia. In order to do that they needed to assure they were well regulated (trained). Ever wonder why so many towns and cities in the east have "town commons" or "town greens"? The purpose was to provide a place for required monthly training and drilling of the town militia to assure they were well regulated.

Over time, we eventually did create our own standing army. Then the state National Guard. But, each of those is controlled by the government (like the British Regulars were controlled by King George III). So, it applies now more than ever, since we have American Regulars right here, everywhere, in our midst. The 2nd provides the lowly citizen the ability to keep and bear arms to effect a defense against our own "uppity government" that the founders feared.

Now, the argument about machine guns, tanks, missiles, nukes comes in.

Nukes: Well, does anyone honestly think the U.S. government would actually use a nuke on its own citizens? Hardly. Take that off the table.

Tanks & Missiles: If it ever came to that, I assure you many, a majority in fact, of the regular soldiers would refuse to fire upon American citizens in that manner. They pledged an oath to uphold the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. And many of those soldiers take that oath to heart. And for those that didn't, a guerilla warfare approach will make the fight too expensive to maintain, while the big fish countries around the world provided aid to the rebellion in order to make the USA fail (like the French did during the American revolution). Take that off the table.

Machine-guns: Here, we have a valid debate. So, the citizens of the 18th Century were allowed to keep and use firearms that were equally deadly as the British army, which included cannons. Today, we do NOT have that same equality since the 1930's. Yet, we continue to give small allowances over time. Slowly eating away at that amendment.
Slowly stripping the lawful citizens from their right, without due process.




A lot of the reasons and arguments for the 2nd, which you set out above, are no longer valid today IMO.

Armed citizens aren't going to fight the British.

Police have no problem killing citizens. You say the army would not fire on civilians but police forces do often.

Any armed uprising against the government would be crushed by police forces. Seriously no one is going to stand up to government tyranny today with their guns, they would be crushed in 2 seconds.

The only valid reasons for guns today would be self defense, hunting, sports. It is not the 1700s anymore.


That is your opinion, and the 1st Amendment protects your right to say that without fear of government censure. However, it is an opinion I do not agree with at all. It is very relevant, at all times. See my other post for reasons why.


edit on 10/6/2017 by Krakatoa because: spelling



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa




But, to make that possible, the people must have the ability to form those militias when called upon to do so....and to train to be well regulated.
But that's not what the Constitution says.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



And who constitutes the membership of that militia as set forth by the 2nd Amendment? The "people", ie. the American citizenry. So, to be called upon, they need to have the ability to keep and bear arms sufficient enough to serve effectively in that role.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I think the US government and it's police and armed forces would take on any opposition foreign or domestic, including any kind of rebellion or uprising or insurrection. Any armed citizen militia would be largely irrelevant. And probably no more than a rabble with no effective leadership.
I wonder if the founding fathers could see the US today, with all of it's military power being a global superpower, what would they think?
No longer a colony under threat from the British empire but a powerful nation capable of standing on it's own. Is the 2nd still relevant today?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Good question. There have been arguments about that going on for a while now.

Do you think the 2nd Amendment means any citizen who wants to can bear any arms they want to?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock



I wonder if the founding fathers could see the US today, with all of it's military power being a global superpower, what would they think?

After WW2? I would think they would see the tyranny. It would prove their point.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Do you think the 2nd Amendment means any citizen who wants to can bear any arms they want to?

Yep.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Krakatoa:

...and the 2nd Amendment protects your right to say that without fear of government censure.


No it doesn't, it is the first amendment that protects free speech.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Krakatoa

I think the US government and it's police and armed forces would take on any opposition foreign or domestic, including any kind of rebellion or uprising or insurrection. Any armed citizen militia would be largely irrelevant. And probably no more than a rabble with no effective leadership.
I wonder if the founding fathers could see the US today, with all of it's military power being a global superpower, what would they think?
No longer a colony under threat from the British empire but a powerful nation capable of standing on it's own. Is the 2nd still relevant today?


Oh, like the poorly outfitted North Vietnamese couldn't vanquish this great superpower. Or, the cave dwelling terrorists in the Middle East today? How long has this fight been going on now? 20+ years? What about the former Soviet Union (USSR). A global superpower defeated by the Mujahdin. You make it sound like there is nothing that could stop or affect a global superpower. Well, history proves you wrong. History shows when conflicts such as those arise, other countries support, arm, and train them in order to destabilize that superpower.

Mongolian Empire
Ottoman Empire
Egyptian Empire
Roman Empire
British Empire
...

Who is next on that list? I dunno, but no country is all powerful. None that will last.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Krakatoa:

...and the 2nd Amendment protects your right to say that without fear of government censure.


No it doesn't, it is the first amendment that protects free speech.


Yeah that was a typo I corrected. I accidentally typed "2s", instead of "1st".




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock

Any armed uprising against the government would be crushed by police forces. Seriously no one is going to stand up to government tyranny today with their guns, they would be crushed in 2 seconds.



I think you don't appreciate the idea of asymmetrical warfare. You don't just announce, "Meet me at City Hall, bring your best stuff." The first thing you do is find out where the police and their families live, where they get their food, water, weapons, etc. Guns are the last thing you bring to a battle, but you still need to bring them.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Deaf Alien :

Yep.


Methinks you replied too hastily, and did not fully comprehend Phage's question? He asked about 'any' arms.
edit on 6/10/17 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   
O for heavens sake the time for the second amendment was 16 years ago,this is all much ado about nothing you are not going to loose your second amendment rights because the Government knows that its only ever going to be used by citizens to shoot each other,if they considered it a threat it would be long gone,what you are going to get however is security,scanners and gunther surveillance up the wazoo.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Krakatoa:

Yeah that was a typo I corrected. I accidentally typed "2s", instead of "1st".


No worries.
My trigger finger somehow posted the same post 3 times. Never happened before.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Deaf Alien :

Yep.


Methinks you replied to hastily, and did not fully comprehend Phage's question? He asked about 'any' arms.

I understood.
So called slippery slope towards nuclear arms.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
randomtangentsrme:

The amendment says: ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. . ."
Arms are plural, "a gun" is singular.


Ludicrously pompous pedantic ass! Deliberately misunderstanding. Do you understand grammar? The reason why it says arms, is because of the predicate 'people', the plural of person. It doesn't state multiple arms for each person, that is not its meaning, and what I inferred was the minimum, not the maximum.


To bear arms, is not just to show them but to use them.


To 'bear', when used as in this instance as an adjective, its meaning refers to 'carry', not use.


Nor does it say one per person.

Right. . . Carry but not use. Works well in combat. . . Said no one ever.

Sir or Lady (or Them, Other, or preferred pronoun of your choice). I am not the one deliberately misunderstanding.
Again, give yourself some time, and we can discuss this once you've had a chance to calm down.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Good question. There have been arguments about that going on for a while now.

Do you think the 2nd Amendment means any citizen who wants to can bear any arms they want to?




Define arms




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join