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.

 

1791... Time for a change?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Lagomorphe


Eta: stated differently...its only been 70 years and yall have forgotten?



This is most poignant.

Catalonia and Spain anyone?




posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lagomorphe


Do you see school shootings on such a regular basis in other countries around the world?

Kindest respects

Lags





I would say that if and when school shootings become a regular occurrence here in the US then the people will seek to change the ammendment according to the path set up in the constitution.

But in the present where school shootings are only affecting less then 0.001% of the population (ie not occurring on a regular basis) not enough people are willing to give up their right.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

hi lags. i will try to help.

the constitution does not contain laws, so much as it contains laws about laws. it describes the framework of the government, and the context
within which 'regular laws' are made.

it is true that the bill of rights have the appearance of 'regular laws'. so here you have 10 'regular laws' in a book of 'laws about laws'. clearly, the men who wrote this document felt that these very specific points needed to be laid out into the very framework of the government. so the bill of rights are not 'regular laws' after all! they are very very special laws.

it is SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult to to amend the constitution than any other aspect of our government. the very hardest. this is why Narcoleptic Buddha said that the country would have to be falling apart in order to change the 2nd amendment. he is not kidding. we would have to be in civil war for such an amendment to take place.

finally, i hope you can understand now why any american reading your proposal is rolling their eyes and being dismissive of you. i think their behavior is poor.... but at the same time, your proposal is pretty laughable.

have a great day.

dkp



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:26 AM
link   
We'll do that when you rip up that old dirty Magna Carta and go back to living in Feudal England and being Serfs.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: tgidkp

Excellently stated.

In fact, the bill of rights was not originally included because the original framers felt that government was hamstrung enough already with the original document.

Some obviously smart fellas with foresight believed otherwise and ensured we have the bill of rights

As we see....the original constitution was absolutely not adequate to defend our basic rights. Not even as it involves slavery...but in more contemporary times.....we see that even the bill of rights has not always gone far enough in restricting government.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: tgidkp
a reply to: Lagomorphe

hi lags. i will try to help.

the constitution does not contain laws, so much as it contains laws about laws. it describes the framework of the government, and the context
within which 'regular laws' are made.

it is true that the bill of rights have the appearance of 'regular laws'. so here you have 10 'regular laws' in a book of 'laws about laws'. clearly, the men who wrote this document felt that these very specific points needed to be laid out into the very framework of the government. so the bill of rights are not 'regular laws' after all! they are very very special laws.

it is SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult to to amend the constitution than any other aspect of our government. the very hardest. this is why Narcoleptic Buddha said that the country would have to be falling apart in order to change the 2nd amendment. he is not kidding. we would have to be in civil war for such an amendment to take place.

finally, i hope you can understand now why any american reading your proposal is rolling their eyes and being dismissive of you. i think their behavior is poor.... but at the same time, your proposal is pretty laughable.

have a great day.

dkp


Tg.

I really appreciate you having giving your answer which I must admit is of great help and clarifies things in comparison to some of the posts here.

I sure can understand and respect that certain USA members may roll their eyes concerning my question... however I would be more tolerant to those USA members if they were asking a similar sort of question concerning my country.

But that is just me I guess.

Kindest respects

Lags



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

You have to remember context of the times

Its a raw nerve for folks. And this thread is in the mudpit.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I think that whatever your views on gun ownership in the US...It is way beyond the stage of being able to put that cat back in the bag.
There is no way you are going to get all the guns of crims now even if you somehow got a law through...That would leave the vast majority of law abiding Americans at a huge risk.
We can get away without all being armed in the UK and such places because the low level crims don't use guns.
Someone breaks into your house at 2 AM you got a good chance with a hammer and your dog here. Someone with a gun breaks into your house, you have no chance.

and then there is the whole question of an armed population limiting how far the state might go with stupid laws and curtailing freedoms..There isn't any hard evidence so far, but I would think all those guns in voter's hands play on the minds of the more authoritarian politicians from time to time.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: tgidkp
a reply to: Lagomorphe

hi lags. i will try to help.

the constitution does not contain laws, so much as it contains laws about laws. it describes the framework of the government, and the context
within which 'regular laws' are made.

it is true that the bill of rights have the appearance of 'regular laws'. so here you have 10 'regular laws' in a book of 'laws about laws'. clearly, the men who wrote this document felt that these very specific points needed to be laid out into the very framework of the government. so the bill of rights are not 'regular laws' after all! they are very very special laws.

it is SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult to to amend the constitution than any other aspect of our government. the very hardest. this is why Narcoleptic Buddha said that the country would have to be falling apart in order to change the 2nd amendment. he is not kidding. we would have to be in civil war for such an amendment to take place.

finally, i hope you can understand now why any american reading your proposal is rolling their eyes and being dismissive of you. i think their behavior is poor.... but at the same time, your proposal is pretty laughable.

have a great day.

dkp


Tg.

I really appreciate you having giving your answer which I must admit is of great help and clarifies things in comparison to some of the posts here.

I sure can understand and respect that certain USA members may roll their eyes concerning my question... however I would be more tolerant to those USA members if they were asking a similar sort of question concerning my country.

But that is just me I guess.

Kindest respects

Lags

Well that's because you are that extra special king of tollerant and respectful that us poor American's can only aspire to be. Maybe some day, WE WILL ACHIEVE! YES WE CAN!

Respectfully, with total kindness and regards

edit on 3 26 2018 by DigginFoTroof because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I think that whatever your views on gun ownership in the US...It is way beyond the stage of being able to put that cat back in the bag.
There is no way you are going to get all the guns of crims now even if you somehow got a law through...That would leave the vast majority of law abiding Americans at a huge risk.
We can get away without all being armed in the UK and such places because the low level crims don't use guns.
Someone breaks into your house at 2 AM you got a good chance with a hammer and your dog here. Someone with a gun breaks into your house, you have no chance.

and then there is the whole question of an armed population limiting how far the state might go with stupid laws and curtailing freedoms..There isn't any hard evidence so far, but I would think all those guns in voter's hands play on the minds of the more authoritarian politicians from time to time.


It was certainly a consideration for Isoroku Yamamoto, if that quote was real.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: tgidkp
a reply to: Lagomorphe

hi lags. i will try to help.

the constitution does not contain laws, so much as it contains laws about laws. it describes the framework of the government, and the context
within which 'regular laws' are made.

it is true that the bill of rights have the appearance of 'regular laws'. so here you have 10 'regular laws' in a book of 'laws about laws'. clearly, the men who wrote this document felt that these very specific points needed to be laid out into the very framework of the government. so the bill of rights are not 'regular laws' after all! they are very very special laws.

it is SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult to to amend the constitution than any other aspect of our government. the very hardest. this is why Narcoleptic Buddha said that the country would have to be falling apart in order to change the 2nd amendment. he is not kidding. we would have to be in civil war for such an amendment to take place.

finally, i hope you can understand now why any american reading your proposal is rolling their eyes and being dismissive of you. i think their behavior is poor.... but at the same time, your proposal is pretty laughable.

have a great day.

dkp


Tg.

I really appreciate you having giving your answer which I must admit is of great help and clarifies things in comparison to some of the posts here.

I sure can understand and respect that certain USA members may roll their eyes concerning my question... however I would be more tolerant to those USA members if they were asking a similar sort of question concerning my country.

But that is just me I guess.

Kindest respects

Lags

Well that's because you are that extra special king of tollerant and respectful that us poor American's can only aspire to be. Maybe some day, WE WILL ACHIEVE! YES WE CAN!

Respectfully, with total kindness and regards


If you say so.

Have a nice day.

Kindest respects

Lags



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

One thing you should consider that many who do not reside in the US (and it's become very apparent that this includes many that DO live in the US), is what the US Constitution is for:

It's to structure and control the government.....not it's people.

The whole idea behind the American Revolution was to fight for freedom against a tyranical government. That when won, people here could live free.

Free to be who they wanted, own what they wanted, say what they wanted, do what they wanted and not be screwed with by some government.

The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments in the Constitution) was set up to make sure that people who are citizens here have rights that can not be taken away. They are rights that every citizen has and can not be taken away by any government.

This is why it's quite difficult for our government to amend that document, though through other laws that have been enacted, we have been seeing a slow erosion of those rights, all in the name of making people feel "safe".

The last time the Constitution was used to control people, was the 18th amendment, Prohibition, which banned the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol in the US.

It was a disaster. It made average citizens into criminals and helped make organized crime even more organized. And it took 14 years to correct that mistake.

Too many think that the US is suppose to be just like any other country, and the answer is: no, we're not. At least that's not how it's suppose to be.

The whole idea was: You could come to America and be free. Free to say what you want, worship whom you wanted, owned what you wanted, and do what you wanted. To be truly free.

Unfortunately, slowly, over time, that idea has slowly been eroded away. People think now: your government is what makes and keeps you free, but you have to do what they say.

Our ancestors that fought for being free and the framers that helped form the constitution would be shocked and dismayed at just how much power we've allowed the government to control us with. Everything from taxes to yes, Gun Control Laws.

Rule of Law is still important in any society, even one that was suppose to be free people who rule themselves, hence the structure set up in the US Constitution and each state's constitution. Murder, stealing, rape, treason, etc, all those still needed laws against them, as any civilized society should have.

But that main idea that you could have those laws and still be free to live you life "in the pursuit of happiness" was what the US Constitution was suppose to be for.

Not a document to control and rule the people.

A document meant to control the government.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Lagomorphe

One thing you should consider that many who do not reside in the US (and it's become very apparent that this includes many that DO live in the US), is what the US Constitution is for:

It's to structure and control the government.....not it's people.

The whole idea behind the American Revolution was to fight for freedom against a tyranical government. That when won, people here could live free.

Free to be who they wanted, own what they wanted, say what they wanted, do what they wanted and not be screwed with by some government.

The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments in the Constitution) was set up to make sure that people who are citizens here have rights that can not be taken away. They are rights that every citizen has and can not be taken away by any government.

This is why it's quite difficult for our government to amend that document, though through other laws that have been enacted, we have been seeing a slow erosion of those rights, all in the name of making people feel "safe".

The last time the Constitution was used to control people, was the 18th amendment, Prohibition, which banned the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol in the US.

It was a disaster. It made average citizens into criminals and helped make organized crime even more organized. And it took 14 years to correct that mistake.

Too many think that the US is suppose to be just like any other country, and the answer is: no, we're not. At least that's not how it's suppose to be.

The whole idea was: You could come to America and be free. Free to say what you want, worship whom you wanted, owned what you wanted, and do what you wanted. To be truly free.

Unfortunately, slowly, over time, that idea has slowly been eroded away. People think now: your government is what makes and keeps you free, but you have to do what they say.

Our ancestors that fought for being free and the framers that helped form the constitution would be shocked and dismayed at just how much power we've allowed the government to control us with. Everything from taxes to yes, Gun Control Laws.

Rule of Law is still important in any society, even one that was suppose to be free people who rule themselves, hence the structure set up in the US Constitution and each state's constitution. Murder, stealing, rape, treason, etc, all those still needed laws against them, as any civilized society should have.

But that main idea that you could have those laws and still be free to live you life "in the pursuit of happiness" was what the US Constitution was suppose to be for.

Not a document to control and rule the people.

A document meant to control the government.




Thanks Eric, your input is much appreciated too in order to understand better.

Kindest respects

Lags



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 07:38 AM
link   
In some countries, the military and school are in the same building.



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lagomorphe



The majority of those kids dont even know what they are protesting about and just agree that something needs to be done. Im more concerned with the MSMs take on it and these corrupt politicians using children as political weapons to do exactly what you suggested in the OP.





I disagree and agree at the same time.

Those kids know why they are on the streets... they are our kids and future parents of our grand-kids etc etc...

Some of those kids saw their classmates mowed down by a hail of lead...

They are not as stupid as you would like to think.

However, I for one totally disagree with kids being used by corrupt political parties...

Kindest respects

Lags


Of coure you disagree with it, that’s the plan of the Left. Based on where you started out and where you’re living now, I’d think you’d be a bit more aware of history around there. Such as:

”The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” Adolph Hitler, Mein Kamph



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Sorry Lags but you're wrong
You don't strip the rights of American citizens because of something someone else did. America isn't supposed to work that way!



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

Hiya Martin.

I am wrong about what?

Maybe I worded my initial post wrong which may have caused confusion but basically I was just asking a simple question.

Kindest respects

Lags



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
a reply to: Martin75

Hiya Martin.

I am wrong about what?

Maybe I worded my initial post wrong which may have caused confusion but basically I was just asking a simple question.

Kindest respects

Lags



In short, Martin75 is saying that in the United States, you cannot strip a right from all citizens due to the actions of others without due process. That means, if personXYZ shoots up a school, my right to keep and bear arms cannot be stripped from me due to the actions of personXYZ because I personally did not break the law.


edit on 3/26/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
a reply to: Martin75

Hiya Martin.

I am wrong about what?

Maybe I worded my initial post wrong which may have caused confusion but basically I was just asking a simple question.

Kindest respects

Lags



In short, Martin75 is saying that in the United States, you cannot strip a right from all citizens due to the actions of others without due process. That means, if personXYZ shoots up a school, my right to keep and bear arms cannot be stripped from me due to the actions of personXYZ because I personally did not break the law.



Thanks for clearing that up Krak, I'm having a "duhhh" moment right now and methinks it's time to hit the coffee machine!

Kindest respects

Lags



posted on Mar, 26 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa
Thanks Krakatoa
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Lags
Yeah Krak summed it up nicely.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join