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.

 

Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The insurrectionists won the Revolutionary War.

TheRedneck


True, but the Revolutionary War was fought on foreign soil, as far as England was concerned. We are talking about citizen's defending themselves against their own corrupt government with 2nd Amendment remedies, today, in this day and age.

Most Americans are cool with people that they disagree with, or don't like. leaving the country, and having a go at their politics somewhere else.

Personally, I don't have much faith in 2nd Amendment remedies working in the USA, if and when they should be needed to protect us against our own government. Technologically, we're past that, in my opinion. From here on out, we must rely on our faith in humanity, and hope our military won't agree to be used against us. Because, TPTB won't bat an eye.




posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Actually, the 13 colonies were a part of England. There were English troops stationed here. It wasn't like they were going to a foreign country, any more than our troops would be on foreign soil if they were stationed in Hawaii or Alaska.

With every technological advantage, the weaknesses in that technology multiply for those who know how to take advantage of them. Consider today's computers versus computers from the computers of 30 years ago. They're faster, more powerful, more advanced... and more susceptible to virii. One simple program can destroy them. So it is with all technology.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




With every technological advantage, the weaknesses in that technology multiply for those who know how to take advantage of them. Consider today's computers versus computers from the computers of 30 years ago. They're faster, more powerful, more advanced... and more susceptible to virii. One simple program can destroy them. So it is with all technology.


Okay, but now we're out of the realm of 2nd Amendment remedies.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Actually, the 13 colonies were a part of England. There were English troops stationed here. It wasn't like they were going to a foreign country, any more than our troops would be on foreign soil if they were stationed in Hawaii or Alaska.

With every technological advantage, the weaknesses in that technology multiply for those who know how to take advantage of them. Consider today's computers versus computers from the computers of 30 years ago. They're faster, more powerful, more advanced... and more susceptible to virii. One simple program can destroy them. So it is with all technology.

TheRedneck


Funny thing about those who think the armed population could never defeat the American military: when discussing the American military in another context, many of these same folks will gleefully remind you that the American military couldn't defeat the North Vietnamese.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not really. America's military progress over the last century has been based more on technology than anything else. Those 'unbeatable weapons' are all high-tech. Soldiers still operate the same way they did back in the Civil War, except for the weapons they carry.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I've noticed that quite often, too.

As TheRedneck says below, it's not so much the soldiers, though they are among the best trained in the world, as it is the technology they carry into battle.

As when steel and iron conquered bronze, better technology usually tells...but when the ones you're fighting can also use it, or maybe more importantly spoof it?? Ah, then it's another tale altogether.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Do you believe that military grade weapons should be available to civilians, under the 2nd Amendment, as"A well regulated militia?

Otherwise, it seems to me, what you're imagining is a coup, in which able citizens and military personnel hack into and take over the military, its weaponry, bases, power grids, etc.. It's debatable if that's a protected act, under the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I believe that the 2nd Amendment as written requires that citizens be able to purchase any weapons.... and yes, that includes tanks, bazookas, Patriot missiles, and even nukes.

I also believe that in order to preserve the integrity of the Constitution and also protect ourselves as a society, the Constitution should be amended so that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to all weapons. My preferred wording is "any weapon which has the capability and expectation of killing more than 5 people with a single discharge, or which is designed to automatically expel ammunition in a continuous fashion without any additional movement on the part of the user, is not considered to be an 'arm' as per the intent of the 2nd Amendment and may be regulated by the Federal government."

Those weapons are not needed in the hands of the people in the event of a forced coup. If that happens, I'll take such weapons as I need off the bodies.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I believe that the 2nd Amendment as written requires that citizens be able to purchase any weapons.... and yes, that includes tanks, bazookas, Patriot missiles, and even nukes.

I also believe that in order to preserve the integrity of the Constitution and also protect ourselves as a society, the Constitution should be amended so that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to all weapons. My preferred wording is "any weapon which has the capability and expectation of killing more than 5 people with a single discharge, or which is designed to automatically expel ammunition in a continuous fashion without any additional movement on the part of the user, is not considered to be an 'arm' as per the intent of the 2nd Amendment and may be regulated by the Federal government."

Those weapons are not needed in the hands of the people in the event of a forced coup. If that happens, I'll take such weapons as I need off the bodies.

TheRedneck


This is the only proper way to do it too, is with an Amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, people would rather try to cheat with unconstitutional laws and activist judges.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think something like that could actually make it through the Amendment process, but it would also open the gate for bad things to happen. I think that is too risky of a thing to do, so we need to leave the 2nd alone.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

There is certainly a major risk every time one starts a Constitutional Convention. You'll notice the wording I used is very precise with no 'wiggle room' for over-interpretation.I highly doubt that, even if a Constituti0onal Convention were called, that such precise language would be adopted. So I certainly understand your concern.

That said, there is no other way to legally accomplish any type of weapon control in the US.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Both sides of the 2nd argument agree with that, though many would deny it.

An amendment might not be what either side wants for themselves, so it'll never happen. They'll keep reinterpreting it to mean what they want it to mean, hoping to accomplish what they want without running the risk of an amendment.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think something like that could actually make it through the Amendment process, but it would also open the gate for bad things to happen. I think that is too risky of a thing to do, so we need to leave the 2nd alone.



I actually don't think it would make it because it's not restrictive enough. For the gun ban nuts, nothing short of repealing the 2nd would do, and there's more of them than they like to admit. Most of them know not to come out and say that and instead are just trying to chip away at it ala California.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I think people might be surprised how many on the Left own and use guns. The debate is more of a tool to keep us divided and arguing than an indicator of who wants to ban guns. Yes the Left wants more gun laws, but I highly doubt they have the votes to actually repeal anything.

Truth be told, the idea the Left wants to take everyone's guns is just propaganda. A small part of them do.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: face23785

I think people might be surprised how many on the Left own and use guns. The debate is more of a tool to keep us divided and arguing than an indicator of who wants to ban guns. Yes the Left wants more gun laws, but I highly doubt they have the votes to actually repeal anything.

Truth be told, the idea the Left wants to take everyone's guns is just propaganda. A small part of them do.


Oh I never meant to insinuate that everyone on the left does. I personally know some liberals who own guns. But the ones that are hardcore for gun control, very few of them will be happy without a full on ban or something really close to it. Their "common sense gun reform" nonsense is just meant to make you think they're reasonable. They want every state to be California/Hawaii/Maryland.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I think a larger issue is the Lefts move away from Liberalism toward Socialism. It opens the door to things like relieving us of our guns to protect themselves as the government removes personal freedoms.



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: face23785

I think a larger issue is the Lefts move away from Liberalism toward Socialism. It opens the door to things like relieving us of our guns to protect themselves as the government removes personal freedoms.


I'd agree. The gun issue is just a symptom of a (much) larger problem.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

That's it in its entirety. A liberal in its classic sense is what you and I are. Equal rights for all, irregardless of race, creed, etc... Everyone treated equally. That's not what's going on today on the left...



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Blaine91555

That's it in its entirety. A liberal in its classic sense is what you and I are. Equal rights for all, irregardless of race, creed, etc... Everyone treated equally. That's not what's going on today on the left...


They're becoming more and more authoritarian. It's no coincidence they secretly admire China. Google won't work with the Pentagon but they're helping China.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Exactly.

...and it may be safely said that China isn't exactly a shining example of liberal thought in action.




top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join