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 history of the second amendment in American culture.

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Good luck with your thread man. Unfortunately there is no winning or compromise when it comes to the pro-gun rally. Everything you say will be twisted to say you are trying to ban all guns (this is already clearly on display in the thread) and nothing you will say will counter this mentality. To them, restriction == ban. So because of that leap in logic it permits them to make the slippery slope fallacy that a mere gun restriction will eventually result in a ban.

This is a topic I've been loath to enter for quite some time now because of this mentality. It actually kind of pre-dates Trump in the obnoxiousness department even. I also see it as kind of a driver/template for the rest of conservative rhetoric and behavior. Yet, since these mass shootings just. Never. End. We get to have these conversations over and over again. Unfortunately nothing will change because the pro-gun group shouts down any discussion with insults, massive generalizations and illogical conspiracy theories that play both sides of the debate.
edit on 26-2-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Remember all the Wild West towns that banned guns City limits??


If the second amendment was about private citizensright to guns “cannot be infringed “ then it couldn’t be limited at all...

It doesn’t say “cannot be infringed, except automatic weapons and tanks and such..”

It says cannot be infringed , period..

Arms do not = guns.. they equal warships and cannons and everything else between a rock and an icbm..


NONE OF THAT MEANS THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE OK WITH DISARMAMENT!!



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Absolutely.. the funny part to me is how recent it is!!!!

I would have never guess it was started by the black panthers in the 1960s



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Look, man, you need to just stop with this nonsense.

You found a half-assed podcast with which you agree--neat-o.

But the fact of the matter is that the Founding Fathers had been addressing the "why" behind the 2nd Amendment since before it was written (obviously), and we have that recorded by many of them for all people, including you, to read.

So, no, the Black Panther Party was not the first to talk about how it applied to individual citizens--that's the silliest, least-educated claim that I've seen in a while in this gun debate, and there have been some really uneducated claims thus far.

As for SCOTUS rulings, do you understand that, just because a SCOTUS ruling happens, doesn't mean that their ruling wasn't the way that it has always been? The difference is that now it is written down because someone (states, for the most part) wanted to infringe upon a right that "shall not be infringed," and the people who actually knew what it meant were adjudicated as being correct.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yeah I was kind of aware myself, but the dates specifically I was off on. The 2008 ruling was one I knew about though. The NRA went from an organization where people can get together and celebrate their hobby while also promoting responsible usage and application of said hobby to practically militant pro-gun rhetoric pretty much overnight.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
The Supreme court is inconsistent.

They say not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

Then they turn around and say EVERYONE has the Right to get married.

Two issues one stone.


Those used to go hand and hand years ago, when Billy-Bob knocked-up 14 year old Betty-Joe.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: BlueAjah

Remember all the Wild West towns that banned guns City limits??


If the second amendment was about private citizensright to guns “cannot be infringed “ then it couldn’t be limited at all...

It doesn’t say “cannot be infringed, except automatic weapons and tanks and such..”

It says cannot be infringed , period..

Arms do not = guns.. they equal warships and cannons and everything else between a rock and an icbm..


NONE OF THAT MEANS THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE OK WITH DISARMAMENT!!




You do know your posts are filled with complete disinformation don’t you?

Wild West? You need to do legitimate research not watch movies before making assertions. Very few towns actually restricted guns and only in certain areas. And even at that it was a different situation and it doesn’t move me whatsoever.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the 2nd is about private citizens being able to be armed. All of your discussion about warships and cannons is deflection. You are always welcome to submit your opinions. Just don’t make like they are facts.

Want some facts? Read this

Read this


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I know how its working now. I was talking about the way it was set up, originally.
I wasn't contesting what else you mentioned.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot


You do know your posts are filled with complete disinformation don’t you?

Poster was spot on. The ability to defend ones home, homeland and person from enemies without and within. An armed populace is the teeth behind the Republic, the only thing the gubment fears.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Unbiased, LOL. Ok I didn't listen to it, but if you have represented it accurately they most certainly are biased (and flat out lying). Here is a writing from 1803 (this man became a judge just a few years later):

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty..


Furthermore, in 1890 the only supreme court ruling on the 2nd amendment was that the federal government couldn't infringe, but states could. Say buh bye to federal background checks! But even better, the defendant in that case wasn't part of a militia and therefore the supreme court could have denied his claim that texas' gun law prohibiting carry was illegal by simply saying he wasn't part of the militia, yet they didn't go that route.

Then, a few years later there was another case that referenced the 2nd. Here's what the court said then:

to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons


This obviously references an individual right. Not a militia right.

Then there was William Rawle who literally wrote the text book on the constitution for west point in 1829. Here's what he said:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.


And since your source seems to want to only cherry pick supreme court justices, here is justice story's (1833) take on the 2nd:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.


So yes, your source was very biased if they didn't include these in their arguments, which it sounds like they didn't. and they flat out lied about 2008 being the year they decided it applied to citizens. It has always been about citizens, never "the militia" as defined by the left.

BONUS:
Here is Tench Coxe's remarks in 1789 after the bill of rights was submitted to congress:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.


The militia was everyone. The militia still is, everyone. But you know what, I'll join or start an organized militia if somehow you guys win and say I have to be part of one to own guns. Is that what you really want? A bunch of militia's armed to the teeth, organized, ready to fight people who betray our constitution?
edit on 27-2-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whywhynot

Please provide one quote from an elected official saying they want to ban all the guns....


Well let’s just deal with that subterfuge. Just introduced legislation called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. The name is phony as it prohibits hundreds of rifle and hand gun models. This is exactly why gun owners don’t listen to the anti gun bs. This is a huge step one to the obvious step 2 which would be a total ban. Try all you like but we are not buying it and never will.

NOT EVER GETTING MY GUNS. JUST STOP it!



Let's Be Honest, The Latest Gun Control Bill Is Pretty Much A Total Ban On Firearms




townhall.com...




House Democrats have introduced a bill banning semi-automatic firearms in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said.



Just one Joshua? How about 150?

The Bill



edit on 27-2-2018 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2018 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)







 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join