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.

 

Why It Shouldn’t Matter If We Repeal The Second Amendment

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

Nobody knows if Yamamoto coined the phrase " a gun behind every blade of grass," or not, but our government knows it's true. We have a civilian army of 120 million men. Nobody will come for our guns.




posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: visitedbythem

Nobody knows if Yamamoto coined the phrase " a gun behind every blade of grass," or not, but our government knows it's true. We have a civilian army of 120 million men. Nobody will come for our guns.


We will give them the bullets first



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I thought that this was a discussion about the 2nd amendment.

No right in the bill of rights are without limits. So the question is fair, what are the limits to the 2nd amendment?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
Its moot at this point. There are over 300 million fire arms in private ownership in the US and more coming off the assembly line as I write this. No amount of enforcement could remove that. Think what you want...like it or not doesn't matter.

Edit to say: the internet agreed so hard it had to restate it so everyone was clear.


That's what people don't understand when they say "the gov has missiles and tanks, so your Colt .45, 12 gauge pump, and AR 15 won't help you against that, so the gov tyranny argument is BS you guys just love your guns!"

By FORCING them to resort to war weapons, we win. Because they won't do that. Not in today's world. They would be condemned by every nation if they started blowing up houses of people who are doing nothing except possessing firearms, and the rest of the nation would be organized in resistance, there's just no way unless we hand them over peacefully.

And ever since 9/11, faith in government institutions, almost globally, is at a low. So, that will not happen either. If they had proven that they could be trusted, then some gun owners might have been fooled. But, the people who find their way into the halls of governmental power just cannot seem to stop themselves, from stealing, lying, and just screwing the BLANK out of people left and right in general.

So, no. I'm sorry but I wouldn't even trust you gov azzhowles with a ballpoint pen, let alone my firearms. I don't have any firearms but that's what I would be like if I did.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470
Does anyone seriously think the US government is going to try to grab the millions of firearms in private ownership?
I'm in the UK but even from over here that seems like a ridiculous and unlikely scenario. There would be chaos and carnage, from old man Smith types holding out at their ranch, to more organised militia types.
I am genuinely surprised anyone with a rational mind thinks they'll take yer guns lol



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

We have to be unruly so the government doesnt forget



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Freedom of the Press is actually an individual right and not a collective right expressly for newspapers and book publishers. It is your right to print and distribute the written word that expresses your ideas to other. No different than standing on a soapbox in the public square or even performing a play in a theater.

It is by misunderstanding and manipulation that journalists with recognized press credentials have gained some exclusive perks such as access to the President. You could receive the same style of vetting and access, but more than likely they would not take you seriously if all you have is a self published blog or pamphlet.

But actually a written repeal of the second would either be worded as making militias illegal or a stripping of personal ownership except for gun rental at a range. One is feasible but the other is regulating not just property but free use of income (which is also property and was part of the basis of the original outlawing of income tax by the SCOTUS).



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: ketsuko

I thought that this was a discussion about the 2nd amendment.

No right in the bill of rights are without limits. So the question is fair, what are the limits to the 2nd amendment?


Ability is the limit.
If one has the ability to responsibly make or carry an arm then they have the right to do so.
The responsibility can only be regulated by the militia.
The militia is made up of armed citizens.


The only real question i see is do we have the right to cooperate our individual rights in the militia in order to bear larger arms together?
I say yes that a group of militia members can indeed own a aircraft carrier if they can operate it and maintain it in accordance with responsible needs of said arm.


edit on 31-3-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

We have to be unruly so the government doesnt forget

Lol, I get ya.
A more likely scenario is stopping or restricting sales, but the ones already in existence are going nowhere fast.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: mysterioustranger

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I like the way you seem to be thinking, good OP, cheers, inspired some thinking in my head.


...only bit I don't buy is god given rights, I only recognise human rights, but obvs if god turned up at my house giving it the large omnipotent thing I'd change my tune!


Unless you're American...you've no clue..... Anyway it was to fight off the BRITS and THEIR GUNS in the late 1700's.. trying to make us bend. We did not. UK lost... Now you don't GET IT or our Constitution... Or Bill of Rights.

You won't get us too now either. The Constitution stands... Jealous over the pond now aren't we? Too bad... Call your police and their Billy clubs..... !!

Gosh you seem bitter and angry.
I totally get the history, and if I was alive back then I'd have been fighting the redcoats.
I'm jealous of # all to be honest, and I support the 2nd.

EDIT
And on the cop note, it is pretty cool to live in a country where when a cop is being a prick you can call him a prick and all he has is a lame extendable baton to be angry with. They have to be friendly here, even though it ain't the 'official' land of the free LMAO!

EDIT
The old truncheons were worse in my opinion, the skinny ass steel batons just sting a bit.


Not bitter at all. I exercise my right to own, buy and legally carry a firearm in defense of and because of the 2nd Amendment.

And I hope.. along with millions of carriers and owners in America... I never have to draw on anyone.. ever.

Thanks for the reply



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

No worries mate, I back you and the second.
It is actually easy enough to buy an illegal firearm here but expensive. Most of our shootings are between gangs, not civilians, and even then it is more point a gun in the face and frighten rather than actually shoot. Illegal rounds are expensive as #, so I'm told.
More guns in the UK countryside than cities, don't screw farmers over for sure, get buried in Dartmoor or eaten by pigs lol
EDIT
We tend to knife each other to death in the UK though, or bludgeon with coshes, maglite flashlights are popular because their main purpose is to provide light, the cops can't pull the carrying offensive weapon line. Especially with recent cutbacks where local streetlights are turned off after 2am I think, proper dark if it's a cloudy night. I've tripped loads of times, but being drunk probably didn't help.

EDIT
Most guns I hear are rented by the day though, and the owner doesn't want it tainted with actual murder, they just want to make money.
Young girl in London got accidentally shot and killed by a rented gun a few years ago, he handed himself in within days, he broke the rules. It is massively different in the UK compared to the US
edit on 31-3-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You say that, but I don't think you realize how they would do it.

They would start small, by say, making it nigh on impossible to own a specific type of firearm, say, fully automatic machine guns. after all, no one except the military needs these deadly arms when all you're doing is hunting with them. Everyone knows a machine gun won't help save you from a REAL military force...

But hey, we won't ban them...we'll just make them REALLY difficult to get...and let the free market made them so expensive regular people can't afford them.

oohhhh now we better ban anything that can be used to increase the fire rate of a semi-automatic...

what? you can use a belt-loop or your finger to increase the fire to machine gun speeds? well, perhaps we need to regulate semi-autos just like we did with fully automatics...we won't ban them...just limit them since they can be so easily turned int machine guns...

and don't worry, we're not coming for your guns...but we are going to implement these new laws on mental health and public safety, after all if you are behind in child support payments, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun until you are paid up, if you are on any kind of anti-depression, anti-anxiety, anti-whatever medication, then we will need to need to temporarily confiscate your weapons until you can get a clean bill of health oh and we're expanding criminal codes so that any violent act of any kind will mean a suspension of your gun right. Poor health due to weak eyesight? seizures or muscle spasms? diabetes? Well, your poor health means you could accidentally have an accident with a loaded firearm and you need to lose your gun rights to protect yourself and the public health...after all, we just want to protect you and protect the children. Think of the children....

See how easy and sneaky that is? My point is, going door to door to collect guns is an act of the desperate and an act of people who are just being dumb. It could happen, especially in smaller towns and some very left-leaning cities. But no, for the majority of people they will just slowly, step-by-step, legislate our ability to own almost any kind of gun away...by degrees. And lately it seems like this plan has been sped up.

...don't worry, your black powder guns are safe...after all, they were what was in mind when the Constitution was written. Though we are going to be introducing some new anti-lead legislation, because it greatly harms the environment, so you may need to turn in all that lead ammunition...oh and gunpowder is bad for the ozone layer...sooooo...

Yeah. Baby steps will be used when they can't take the larger ones. There's a big chunk of government people at all levels that want the American populace disarmed, both here and across the world...and if you don't see that then you simply are refusing to pay attention, naive or entirely distracted by the man behind the curtain.

...after all, we're a civilized country, no one really needs guns in a civilized country...

I've watched our rights vanish of my brief lifetime, from the 70's until now. Heck, apparently parents can get their children taken from them for letting the play unsupervised out in their neighborhoods...when I was a kid we walked semi-dangerous creek trails and ran all over our neighborhood and surrounding ones unsupervised...Now they are making laws to protect 'free-range parenting'. My point here is, the world has gone crazy and it's doing it's best to drag everyone with it.

Once TPTB try to make a law to cover every possible situation...to enshrine what is legal to do and illegal to do, free society is done for.
edit on 31-3-2018 by Thanatos0042 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: visitedbythem

Nobody knows if Yamamoto coined the phrase " a gun behind every blade of grass," or not, but our government knows it's true. We have a civilian army of 120 million men. Nobody will come for our guns.


so how many will just turn them in when faced with the choice of being a criminal and losing jobor continuing to abide by the law if any changes come to laws that would require that choice.

imo most would turn them in if givin the option to keep some other type like bolt actions and such



here come the new kids on the block



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Thanatos0042
Fantastic reply, thanks for the very interesting read

I reckon you are safe though, old man Smith in his ranch will see to that.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Ability is not a limit. There are many who should not carry a fire arm, and some make sense, yet there is no common sense in such. And there are many who are able to get ahold of fire arms, who should not, so ability is not a limit.

And you mentioned the militia, is a militia needed if the country has a large standing military? Would not the US military and all that goes along with it, supersede the need for any standing militia’s? Is not the standing mandate of the military to protect the country, and its citizens and the laws there in?
And in the event of an insurrection, could the militia withstand and win against the full might of the US military?

Funny that you mentioned about an aircraft carrier, while yes it is possible to purchase an aircraft carrier, the reality is that it would just be a floating structure. None of the main components would be in the structure, parts of the propulsion would be gone, the systems that would allow for the carrier to monitor and operate as such would be removed, as those are regulated and not for sale to the civilian market. So while it is possible to own such, the reality is that without the systems would it be worth it to own a hunk of metal on the water?


So ability is not a limit, what are the limits on the 2nd amendment?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




Ability is not a limit


lolers

It is not just a limit but a god givin limit

i will thank him for you



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment


As long as we have a lot of old men Smith's and their ranches, we have pretty good odds for now.

I hope that by the times those odds shift, I'll not be around to have to deal with it.

Like Roger Murtaugh is so fond of saying..."I'm to old for this shi..." lol.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Thanatos0042

Lol, I reckon your old man Smith's protecting their ranch are the people who stop gubment overstepping it's mark.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: howtonhawky
And you mentioned the militia, is a militia needed if the country has a large standing military? Would not the US military and all that goes along with it, supersede the need for any standing militia’s? Is not the standing mandate of the military to protect the country, and its citizens and the laws there in?
And in the event of an insurrection, could the militia withstand and win against the full might of the US military?

what are the limits on the 2nd amendment?


I just want to comment on a couple of points, aside from the fact it might be cool to own an air craft carrier...lol

According to supporting documents and quotes from the Founding Fathers, essentially the militia was meant to be every able bodied man or boy who could use a weapon in a time of need. They were the last line of defense in the event the standing army failed and America was invaded OR if our own government became a tyrannical power and turned against it's citizens.

Everyone back then learned how to handle a weapon, so apparently they didn't see a time when people wouldn't be doing that. Whoops, their mistake. So no, the military doesn't supersede the militia, they are separate entities and generally to serve two different purposes.

Concerning an insurrection. So there have been theoretical scenarioes on this and the general agreeance is that a small portion of the police and military would not stand on the government's side, they would side with the oppressed people. They would take their expertise and not a small amount of arms and armors with them as well.

The Government would never be able to turn it's whole might on it's rebelling citizens. If they did the world would not sit idly by and allow that to happen, inevitably someone would interject themselves in our crazy fight and more than likely help out the citizenry. If the government leveled cities, they would likely turn their own loyalists against them and inspire more to take up arms against them.

Like it or not, these crazy patriots that exist in the fringes of our society today would become leaders of the guerrilla war that would be happening. They would teach other people and spread the strategy and tactics of it, add in the police and regular military who didn't side with the government and you'd have a situation where the government couldn't know who to trust and who not to.

Lets look at countries today where guerrilla warfare hasn't been quashed despite the involvement of local and even sympathizing governments. Iraq? Afghanistan? even Vietnam. There are plenty of both successful and unsuccessful guerrilla campaigns throughout history, so standing up against a government, even one backed by powerful allies isn't at all impossible. Especially when they can't level their entire might against you.

Apparently SCOTUS gets to decide what those limits are, despite the Constitution saying, "Shall not be infringed." apparently those words mean something different to legal scholars than they do to regular folk. There's plenty of existing evidence that out Founding Fathers fully meant for citizens to have the ability to use whatever the current arms of the day were. They were perfectly aware of people owning cannons, explosives/bombs/grenades, multiple firearms, the existence of (precursor) machine guns, etc. They had the opportunity to lock it down and limit it and they did not.

You can also find plenty of supporting documentation of the day and age where it was expected people would be armed, even when out and about and that some laws were specifically enacted to make sure blacks couldn't be armed (inevitably this backfired was one of the things that got people in general, disarmed). Over time the original intent seemed to get lost and had to be redefined, which is what's happen now...and a lot of it is happening now. It seems if it's not specifically spelled out in law as you having the right to it, that right can be curtailed, removed or just plain old outlawed. The way it used to be written was the opposite. Somewhere along the way things got twisted, which is what people do to stuff by their nature.

Most people don't disagree that there should be some regulation or limit on rights, it's the line at which those rights are placed, that no one can really agree with, save in obvious instances, because who want's Billy Joe to be able to arm his nuclear warhead in his leaky basement and visit Sammy Ray next door to see how his open-air Ebola lab is going.

Like any system, people end up corrupting it, so we face more and more limitations on our rights and give up more and more, sometimes without even realizing it.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Yeah, to some degree that is true...

But there aren't an unlimited number of them and they aren't able to stop all of it, just some.




top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join