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: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
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.


You using one of those newfangled "bump-stock" keyboards? Better be careful, they might outlaw them soon. It will keep people from quickly posting differing opinions that make people upset and makes them need their safe spaces





posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

So in case of an invasion or civil war... you need armed civilians. OK.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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


From a post of mine a page or so back, taken form a dictionary from 1780.






posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   
It was great having this intellectual debate here, and refreshing to have it devoid of name calling. But, time for my sleepy time. I'll catch up with this thread tomorrow. Besides, I want to watch the end of "The Dirty Dozen" now.

See y'all folks.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:12 AM
link   
randomtangentsrme:

Works well in combat. . . Said no one ever.


Truly, utterly, irrelevant rhetoric.


I am not the one deliberately misunderstanding.


So it's natural ignorance then is it, if you're not deliberately misunderstanding me?


Again, give yourself some time, and we can discuss this once you've had a chance to calm down.


Oh please. Are you always as slow as you imply?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Devices which can be used as weaponry.

Slings, arrows, flintlocks, Bowie knives, slingshots, Gatling guns, rocket launchers, ad infinitum.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

From a post of mine a page or so back, taken form a dictionary from 1780.






Arms is considered what one person can controlled use, something like a cannon is not arms



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

Devices which can be used as weaponry.

Slings, arrows, flintlocks, Bowie knives, slingshots, Gatling guns, rocket launchers, ad infinitum.


Would you agree a weapon one person can use, or what is considered one person weapon?




edit on 6-10-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

In context of the 2nd that would seem not to be implied or explicitly stated. People is plural.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

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.


Personally I think the idea of asymmetric warfare happening in the US is highly improbable.
And if there ever was the prospect of mass invasion or civil war guns could be given out. The idea that citizens need to be armed just in case I don't see as very convincing.

Again how quickly do you think the US governemnt would put down any insurrection on US soil, it would stand no chance IMO.
Through legal democratic political means would be far more effective than any gun or armed milita. My 2c.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You CAN buy a tank, but YOU HAVE to only fire slug ammunition ,the cannon must be registered as an AOW firearm.
RICH kids toys.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

In context of the 2nd that would seem not to be implied or explicitly stated. People is plural.


But what is it to Bear arms... I think that is the key. To bear arms is typically seen as to carry firearm in the sense of our forefathers. I don't think all weapons are considered arms, such as your Bowie knife or nuke.

To bear arms is singular event, but all the people have the right.



edit on 6-10-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


I don't think all weapons are considered arms, such as your Bowie knife or nuke.

I didn't mention nukes, but since you did:
www.ducksters.com...
www.amnh.org...
www.history.com...



To bear arms is typically seen as to carry firearm in the sense of our forefathers.

Archaic usage of the term? We've seen a definition of firearms from the time, but the amendment doesn't say firearms. Did they exclude the keeping of cannon? You may want to reread that definition of the verb arm.




To bear arms is singular event, but all the people have the right.

Are felons not "the People"? Does the Constitution provide for that or do you want to leave convicted felons out of the discussion?

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



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

WHOM will the ARMY back?
Vets are ONLY constitutionalists after all.
I think you are functioning on limited data.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Valid point. Which I already answered. Police seem to have no trouble killing citizens, the military probably wouldn't be needed.
And then there's the US civil war where US armies fought each other...

Basically I think citizens right to bear arms today is for self defense, hunting, sports. Other reasons are not valid today as perhaps they were in the 1700s. Disagree fine that's my position.
edit on 6-10-2017 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

Ever hear about the Battle of Athens which CLEARLY depicts what we have guns for?

en.wikipedia.org...(1946)
The VETS attacked because the rights of a black mans rights to vote were halted.
DO YOU KNOW what an American Scout or Infantry sqaud can do with small arms?
A flightline in the USAF is a JOKE compared to sneaking into armor command posts in the field,I used to steal enemy CO's helmets for my Colonel.
edit on 6-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Did they actually kill any cops though? If they did they would hang for it. Did they really need guns for that though, couldn't they have done something more peaceful and legal. A protest and some lawyers probably would've got a result without any guns.

Today media attention, bad publicity and lawyers are probably far more effective than guns. And cameras.
edit on 6-10-2017 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Archaic usage of the term? We've seen a definition of firearms from the time, but the amendment doesn't say firearms. Did they exclude the keeping of cannon? You may want to reread that definition of the verb arm.


What is to bear?


SCALIA: We’ll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to keep and bear. So, it doesn’t apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be — it will have to be decided.


It is a hand carried weapon, BUT to have a tort called affrighting that is considered wrong. We as a society need to figure out what that would be for our times. One part would be to bear arms somewhat equal to that the federal militia would carry, so semi would be close, but to say just muskets like back in the old days doesn't allow for "the people" to keep up with the times.




Are felons not "the People"? Does the Constitution provide for that or do you want to leave convicted felons out of the discussion?


Felons have lost some rights due to their status, but at the state level they can elect to give those rights back, might talk to the United States Supreme Court upheld the disenfranchise in 1974.t



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

What is to bear?
It's not difficult to take issue with Scalia's parsing of the term. A pregnant woman ("bearing child") is not hand-carrying a fetus in her hands, for example.

But he was a Justice, and they do decide what is Constitutional. And they have decided that the 2nd amendment does not state, or imply, unfettered access to "arms."


Felons have lost some rights due to their status, but at the state level they can elect to give those rights back,
Yes. If full civil rights as a citizen are restored (which takes special dispensation for a state felon), they can also be granted the right to possess weapons. Of course, if you are convicted of a federal felony, no dice.
edit on 10/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

Guns already backed off the feds with a few hundred camping in their way.Police and agents can't fight soldiers worth a damn, they instinctively shoot to wound,accept for SWAT units.
MY POLICE here in Springs are cool.
I shoot and move to close and kill if I have to shoot .
edit on 6-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join