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 2nd Amendment was created with flintlock muzzleloaders in mind.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Because that's all the government had.

Now they got drone tanks and invisibility cloaks. We still shooting muzzleloaders, relatively speaking.

The second amendment was created to assure we have access to the same firepower and military training as our government. The only reason anyone should give up their guns is if they are trading them in for coward tanks and coward bombers. But then you lose your manhood and the only pride worth having. What kind of [snipped] refuses to see the man they are killing? Not worth it. So stick with your guns. And ignore all unconstitutional "laws". Local police depts should be suing the military for equal access. Your local militia will be lead by local law enforcement, and is the only hope you'll have against the coming cyborg army.

Where's my nukes to protect me against the nut in the white house with his finger on his button? North Korea is standing in for the American people I suppose?


edit on 14-1-2018 by AdKiller because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Jan 14 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: Terms and Conditions



+4 more 
posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AdKiller

I am 1000% in favor of 2nd amendment rights.

However, your interpretation, is sincerely lacking.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   
first off they had puckle guns


they had cannons, hand grenades, mortars and so forth.

should be covered by 2nd



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AdKiller

Really, no antimatter planet-killer bombs?

How 1700's of them.




posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The Founding Fathers had the future in mind when creating the Constitution so I doubt they were ignorant to the likely future advancement of firearms. This is a tired argument and ignores that mentally unstable people are the problem. If they don't have a gun then they will use another means, a car for example.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Does this mean Indians are only allowed to have bows and arrows?



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AdKiller

Arms is arms, current tech of the day, then or now.

To remain at least as well armed as the authorities lest they try to oppress the people and deprive them of their life, liberty and happiness.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   
What a spectacular fool. Next in line...
a reply to: AdKiller



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AdKiller

The second amendment had no restrictions.

And there was more than mussel loaders at the time.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AdKiller

Incorrect.

They also had cannon, swords, primitive bombs, and ships with many cannon aboard.

You are welcome, I enjoy denying ignorance.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AdKiller
The American citizen has the legal access to drones and tanks. There are quite a few citizens that own tracked armored vehicles, and many more thay own drones. If you want to weaponize them, well you could, but I won't be going there. Just saying you have legal access to all the tools to match and confront storm troopers if that day ever comes for you. I have a great time with free movement without being harassed in my life though, so I certainly feel no need to go such lengths.

Lifes good man! Everything you desire can be quietly and discreetly stockpiled for the future though if that is what you are trying to get at.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: AdKiller

The second amendment had no restrictions.

And there was more than mussel loaders at the time.


You have the right to bear arms.

You have two of them. A right arm, and a left arm.

You can roll up your sleeves and bear these arms wherever thou goest.

That's your right.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   
The 2nd Amendment need be adjudicated with just the sort of "common sense balance" that we see with all constitutional law.

One thing I'd impress upon people, the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee you - personally - anything. You don't have a personal right to bear arms, at least not the way you have a personal right to free speech, or religion, or to be free of unreasonable searches and seizure, against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

If you commit a felony, you lose your 2nd Amendment rights, for life. True, some people can petition and get their right to own/possess a gun back. But, as a general matter you lose your run to own/possess a gun.

If you commit a felony, and have served your entire sentence, including probation, you have full 1st Amendment rights, full 4th Amendment rights, you haven't waved your right to unfair searches or seizures for the rest of your life, you still have your 5th, 8th and 14th Amendment rights.

Those rights, the ones you retain even if you have a felony on your record, are personal constitutional rights that flow to you personally. The 2nd Amendment restrains government behavior in passing laws applicable to you, but you don't have a personal 2nd Amendment right like the true personal rights.

Just is that way. You can argue where they ought to come down on a million different scenarios, just don't claim it is a personal right to own firearms.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
How then, in your opinion, does the "well-regulated" part fit in?



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: AdKiller

The second amendment had no restrictions.

And there was more than mussel loaders at the time.


You have the right to bear arms.

You have two of them. A right arm, and a left arm.

You can roll up your sleeves and bear these arms wherever thou goest.

That's your right.





I look forward to your interp of the 2nd.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scrubdog

If you commit a felony, you lose your 2nd Amendment rights, for life.


I guess they never heard of the "3D printed gun" ?

No background check required.

All rights restored.

Technology is an amazing thing, it restores all rights to individuals, and in such a way that nobody can ever take them away again.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

The problem with loosing your 2nd amendment rights isn't getting a gun, anyone can get one if they want it bad enough.

The problem is that if you get caught with it then you will be standing tall before the man.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Founding Fathers had the future in mind when creating the Constitution so I doubt they were ignorant to the likely future advancement of firearms. This is a tired argument and ignores that mentally unstable people are the problem. If they don't have a gun then they will use another means, a car for example.


but the founding fathers didn`t give us our rights, according to the founding fathers themselves , our rights were given to us by god himself and are inalienable so I`m just wondering, did we have the "right" to bear arms before firearms were even invented?



why would god give us the right to own material goods before those goods were even invented?

did human beings who were alive before firearms were invented have the right to own material items,such as firearms,that weren`t invented yet and wouldn`t be invented until after they were dead?

why would god give us the right to even own material goods of any kind? that kind of goes against what the bible says.



edit on 14-1-2018 by bluechevytree because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2018 by bluechevytree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
How then, in your opinion, does the "well-regulated" part fit in?


Are you asking how I'd interpret it?

I'm not a big gun person, so I'd be in favor of fairly strict regulation as to what a person can carry outside the home.

As for well-regulated militia? I'd say that it's interpreted as "The rights of citizens to be armed is important for national or local defense, and thus the right shall not be unreasonably infringed" - - that's the most sensible in my opinion.

I'm not a big gun owner (though I own 4) or "thinker" or regulator. I just wish it wasn't so closely associated with so many people's stick size. If one wants better home protection for your family, get a big loving dog that can hear, see, smell 2x as good as you, bark loudly 10x as good as you, and bite 100x better than you, unlike a gun, your dog can prevent the bad guy from even considering you as a victim, and can never be turned on you, nor can you turn your dog on yourself in a crises.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Hahahahaha



The 2nd Amendment was created with flintlock muzzleloaders in mind.


The 2nd Amendment was created with the future of it's citizens in mind

Abort , Retry , Fail ?




new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join