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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




I am genuinely surprised anyone with a rational mind thinks they'll take yer guns lol


Why do you assume everyone who owns a gun speaks like this?

The implication being that we're all a bunch of slack-jawed hillbillies right?

Those are the ONLY people who own guns in the United States, right?




posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Thanatos0042
I'll take old man Smith on my team before snowflake Chelsea, any day.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




I am genuinely surprised anyone with a rational mind thinks they'll take yer guns lol


Why do you assume everyone who owns a gun speaks like this?

The implication being that we're all a bunch of slack-jawed hillbillies right?

Those are the ONLY people who own guns in the United States, right?

No, and apologies, I didn't mean to upset anyone.
I only post from a genuine point of love, so sorry again.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 12:48 PM
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?



Legally only the government is limited by the amendments. Parenthetically the use of weapons outside of the 2nd expression is not covered by the 2nd anyway. Thats why dumping the 2nd will solve zero problems with guns but only undermine the "we the people" security against threats to same as well established by an examination or the relationship of power and the people under it over the long years of human history.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

you and me both actually LOL



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

You are correct the constitution limits what the government can do, when it comes to certain rights, however, the reality is that the rights that are enshrined in the bill of rights are not limitless. There are limits on each right, where the constitution does not protect.

One can see that in the various rights, that have been debated about, from the freedom of speech, where speech that cause violence is not protected, and some constraints on the Freedom of the Press, even the Freedom of Religion has also been tested and there are some constraints on it.

So what are the limits on the 2nd amendment, where the line is there between what is and is not protected by the constitution.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


I actually answered your question. Murder with a gun is not a 2nd amendment question but pertains to the laws governing the outcome of lethal force laws whatever the method. Almost the entire debate purported and dropped of at the 2nd amendments front door have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment but rather have to do with laws governing capital murder for example.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Thanatos0042
I know why the 2nd amendment was put into the constitution. And the original intention behind it was lost on April 6, 1917.

And funny that you mention about the nuclear weapon, I went and looked specifically in the laws on that topic. While there is no law that states a person cannot own a nuclear weapon, however, there are regulations on the various components of such, would be either heavily regulated or banned by law.

Government cannot infringe on limits, however, rights are not limitless, and have actual limits to what is and is not protected by the constitution. There are some Religious practices that are not protected by the constitution and thus the freedom of religion has a limit. There are some things that the press can not do, and thus that right has a limit. Even the freedom of speech, has a limit.

The 4th amendment has limits, if the officer is sees something out in the open, the suspect can get additional charges in the course of an investigation.

So if those rights have limits, then so too would the 2nd amendment.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Would not having sight be an ability to own firearm? One would think that to fire a firearm that one should be able to see the target clearly.

However in Iowa, those that are legally blind and sight impaired are able to purchase a fire arm, thus ability is not considered a limit.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

you're close to the Holy Grail. It is called Natural law. I highly suggest you look into it. We ALL need to look into it because Natural Law is beyond the U.S constitution. The U.S constitution is based off Natural Law. It is what gives those who are responsible and those who know the law to heart the right to sovereignty.

But this knowledge has been kept hidden on purpose by those in power. They can make all the changes they want to the U.S constitution, but they can never infringe upon our Natural Rights.







However, this principle for it to work, you must apply it in your heart. Become it. It is also a spiritual thing. But I will leave it at that.

S&F

edit on st2018000000Saturdayst000000Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:26:57 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoSat, 31 Mar 2018 15:26:57 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

No you did not answer the question: What are the limits on the 2nd amendment.

The answer you gave only compounds the problem by indirectly stating that there are no limits on any rights, when it has been shown that there are limits on every single right in the bill of rights that apply to the citizens of the country.

All rights have limits on them that line that is what is and is not protected by the constitution.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
www.a-human-right.com...


This site always seemed to sum it up for me. All people have the right to defend themselves from harm by others, often firearms are the equalizer for the weak, the oppressed, persecuted, etc etc



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Yes, you are indeed knowledgeable and well spoken on this subject.

And you're right, no law prohibits owning nuclear weapons, but much like the machine gun (but not exactly like, since if you are wealthy enough you can still get one), it's been regulated so heavily as to make it unrealistic Billy Bob could make or legally get one.

and no, I never said rights are limitless. I've always believed that rights should not be unlimited and should have limitations, but for me, the question has always been where that line should be drawn.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I agree it shouldn't matter but a big problem occurs, these people are MASTERS of PR and manipulation. If it is repealed I can bet the next step will be just to convince the people to hand over their guns in specialized locations. Peaceful takeover is always preferred. Taking the guns by force would probably be the plan B.
Anticipation is key if we are to stop them in the future. We can't make a difference by waiting for them to make a move first.
We must awaken the people as soon as possible!



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

From the article you cited -

"In a properly functioning America..."

We don't have that and haven't for over 100 years. Many here would agree.

The US citizenry need weapons as the US Government has become tyrannical since the early 1900's.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   
humansarefree.com...

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: madenusa

Now that, is an interesting article.

I'm doing my part, I don't order double cheeseburgers.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Why do you think I constantly say the government has no power to take it away, it can only seek to oppress it?

As you say, things like speech, religion, right to self-defense (keep and bear), right to property, etc., those are things we naturally have, so all government can seek to do is oppress us. It has no power to give or take either one.

Once you start to realize and believe that, then you understand.


I disagree that the right to property is a natural right. Speech, religion, and self-defense all come directly from nature and from within ourselves, hence they're natural rights. They are intangibles that no one can truly stop you from exercising; only you can stop yourself from exercising those rights because they truly do come naturally (from nature)-- vocal chords for speech, cognition and imagination for religion, fists and teeth for self-defense.

But not so with property.

Sure, you can use your inalienable right to speech to claim something is your property, your inalienable right to religion to justify your claim, and your inalienable right to self-defense to defend your claim. But someone else can just as easily use their inalienable right to speech to claim it's theirs, their inalienable right to religion to justify their claim, and their inalienable right to self-defense to beat you over the head with a stick and seize your property for themselves.

Property is not a natural right. Only Capitalist propaganda says otherwise.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Talorc

Here is the thing, no man is a ruler of another man. This is an example of human sovereignty. You nor anyone can tell me what to own or not to own. I am a responsible lawful citizen. And anything you say in disagreement to this will not change the fact, that you nor anyone can tell me what I can or cannot own.

if I have a property and you try and steal it. It is my right to defend what is mine. Why? because theft is wrong, and in my eyes (and this is just an example so pretend you're the government a moment) you're a theif trying to steal my property just because you don't feel "safe".

This is just an example analogy to show you what a sovereign individual is.

It means: not a slave.


edit on st2018000000Sundayst000000Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:46:25 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoSun, 01 Apr 2018 00:46:25 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

You cannot repeal the second amendment, per THESE RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The founders knew at some point
someone would try to disarm the population and put that provision in. You cant repeal it without changing the constitution in effect. A lot of red flags should go off if someone wants to do that. The founders knew that the only way to install a tyranny would be to take away the guns. This still applies. We have to find another way to fix the issue. This is NOT the answer.




top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join