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.

 

Pen and Teller explain the Second Amendment...

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: TinySickTears

Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks that the age of consent should be 12 years old.



It was, when she was growing up.





posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
Technically speaking if you take the 2nd amendment literally, then a 2 year old can have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or a cannon.


I guess we should have thought of that before we built those things, huh? Kind of late now. But look on the bright side. You wouldn't trust a 2 year old with a nuclear weapon but Donald Trump has a whole bunch of them. Frankly, I think it would be easier to teach a 2 year old not to shoot people than it is to teach a government not to shoot people.

I had a shotgun when I was 12. I never shot anybody. Or anything other than milk jugs and tree stumps.
edit on 3-3-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 04:31 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Eshel

Because at that point in history the British militia were the enforcement arm of the crown, Second Amendment acknowledges the need for the people to own arms both to maintain a militia and for private use as well.



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Eshel

Because at that point in history the British militia were the enforcement arm of the crown, Second Amendment acknowledges the need for the people to own arms both to maintain a militia and for private use as well.


The term Militia was used in the south, they were groups of armed white men who were sent out to capture runaway slaves.
The British sent Military forces not a militia.

Link
edit on 4-3-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

but youre so very wrong tho



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen


But it's you that's wrong, the British Militia was in Britain and not in America!!!! It was the Army who fought to try and take back the "Americas", you should try reading the link you posted!!




Following the restoration of Charles II in 1660, parliament passed several acts empowering the Lord Lieutenant of each county to appoint officers and raise men for a militia force. Although the king commanded the forces, they were not centrally funded. The burden of supplying men and equipment fell on property owners, in proportion to their income from land or their property value. The militia could be called out for local police actions, to keep the peace, and in the event of a national emergency. It played a role in coastal defence during the second and third Anglo-Dutch Wars between 1665 and 1674, and contributed to the defeat of the Duke of Monmouth in 1685




Although overseas service was excluded from the militia's duties


link




edit on 4-3-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

militia

The militia could not be compelled to serve overseas, but it was seen as a training reserve for the army, as bounties were offered to men who opted to 'exchange' from the militia to the regular army.


the militia was the reserve of the British 'regular' army.
they would be exchanged into regular service as you can see from the above link.
even so. this does not detract from the constitutional right to bear arms



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Also lest ye forget the rebels were also fighting loyalist militia regiments of tories



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen


It wasn't a reserve for the Army either, you were wrong, simple as!! It even says that in the quote you used. "It was "seen" as a "training" reserve for the Army." They had to be bribed to join the Army and fight abroad. They never fought in America as a militia.



edit on 4-3-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Kurokage

Also lest ye forget the rebels were also fighting loyalist militia regiments of tories


We can both at least agree on this comment!!



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Huzzah!
can we also agree it used to be totally legal to own a frigate Laden with cannons and mortars?



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Kurokage

Huzzah!
can we also agree it used to be totally legal to own a frigate Laden with cannons and mortars?


If you were rich enough yes, but that's were it gets dark. The rich at the this time were slave owners who needed militia to "protect" their "property". Britain wasn't innocent in it's past but it sometimes get tiring when Americans talk about their freedom, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and forget that that "freedom" has links to slavery and a darker side of history.


edit on 4-3-2018 by Kurokage because: spelling!!



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

What are you going on about. And women couldn't vote either. Hands off my guns!



posted on Mar, 5 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: dashen


It wasn't a reserve for the Army either, you were wrong, simple as!! It even says that in the quote you used. "It was "seen" as a "training" reserve for the Army." They had to be bribed to join the Army and fight abroad. They never fought in America as a militia.




It was an Army, made up of British professional soldiers, British conscripts, foreign mercenaries. loyalist colonial militiamen and freed slaves.

This is easily verifiable so why is this even a point of contention?



new topics




 
29
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join