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.

 

It's the Guns

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
gizmodo.com...

Common sense eludes the American public.

In a Democracy (or Republic or whatever you want to call it), if you have to raise arms against a tyrannical government, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.


Except that is exactly how America became independent and free FROM tyranny and WON it's freedom using those arms against the old British Crown.

So your edict has been proven wrong and incorrect.




posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Are we banning cars next since it's also a tool that when operated incorrectly or illegally kills millions a year?


You have to be individually licensed to drive a car legally and there are all sorts of safety requirements to reduce the road toll.

Yet people can purchase arms anonymously, in most cases, and carry them in public.

I believe it is only fair that something dangerous to the general public should be registered, and those who carry, licensed to do so (i.e: they must be trained in safety pertaining to the weapon and comply with safety rules).



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
gizmodo.com...

Common sense eludes the American public.

In a Democracy (or Republic or whatever you want to call it), if you have to raise arms against a tyrannical government, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.


Except that is exactly how America became independent and free FROM tyranny and WON it's freedom using those arms against the old British Crown.

So your edict has been proven wrong and incorrect.


Many countries escaped colonialism without bloodshed:

List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would think that fighting and dying for something that you could have gotten for free isn't particularly something to crow about.



Here's a question; do you think you had less freedom before the war of independence?

The war changed the people in your government but the British Common Law was still the basis of your legal system. The US doesn't even have statutes for some things we'd assume are part of US law (like the right to the presumption of innocence in legal cases) because those things are enshrined instead in British law and nobody has ever gotten around to writing up and passing a statute.

edit on 20/9/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

In a Democracy (or Republic or whatever you want to call it), if you have to raise arms against a tyrannical government, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.


Wrong.

It's how you can tell that you're about to start WINNING!

third line.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

The American public has common sense. Guns protect our freedom.

Your enemy wants you to lay down your gun and give up. Just roll over and die.

Seems like you lack common sense.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Roadway deaths dwarf gun deaths. Come on.

You can fall down the stairs and die.

Give it a break. Guns aren't going anywhere. And as soon as laser guns are available everybody in America will get one.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   
"A well regulated militia"

Well regulated in this context means maintained, trained, functional. Militia, per SCOTUS interpretation means all able bodied citizens of the United States.

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

This is the second part of that statement. Meaning in current language, the well regulated militia is a necessity to ensure the the security of a free state. Free state meaning free from tyranny.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This part actually means that Congress is not to institute any laws that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Arms is short for armament. Armament is literally "weapons" by definition. The definition does not specify muskets, bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, automatic rifles, swords, knives, throwing stars, grenades, flame throwers, rocket launchers, Reaper drones armed with Hellfires, etc.

This is two parts to one amendment which are meant to work together. All able bodied citizens are meant to be armed to protect this nation from tyranny.

The way the Bill of Rights is written, it states these are certain inalienable rights endowed by our creator. Religious people may see that as saying God-given rights. Some others may see it as simply see them as birthrights as humans. Either way, the text is quite literal. It just takes a little bit of reading comprehension to understand it. I never saw it as anything too complicated to understand.

I also swore an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, in 1998 when I joined the Marine Corps. I left the military in 2003 when my contract expired, but that does not mean the oath I swore expired. You can bet that I will still give my life to protect the Constitution. Keep in mind also, those same people that want to take your guns, are not only protected by an entourage carrying guns, but some of them also carry and own guns themselves. Alyssa Milano, who is a staunch gun grabber admitted to keeping 2 in her home. Diane Feinstein also used to carry a concealed weapon, and may still carry one, even if she no longer has the permit.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom


They don't (or at least they did not in my day) train the military to make opposing forces surrender, what BS is that. "Ere Sarge, why has that target on the range got two hands up in the air?" "Just wing it son, we don't want to hurt anyone"

I was trained to kill, if I had to. My first duty was the preservation of life, although to preserve lives I might have to kill. I carried my rules on opening fire and I had a responsibility to ensure I followed them. I was specifically trained not to injure, always the kill shot. Every month of every year I served I had to undergo testing on the specific weapons I was trained to use.

Like or not your military is trained to kill, the hope is that they never have to.

edit on 20-9-2019 by Tortuga because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Generation9
a reply to: chr0naut

Roadway deaths dwarf gun deaths. Come on.

You can fall down the stairs and die.

Give it a break. Guns aren't going anywhere. And as soon as laser guns are available everybody in America will get one.




Oh good because we all know guns don't kill people, people kill people.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN




Common sense eludes the American public.


nah, we're just adults that can handle the consequences of living in a free society. sorry we don't want to government to nerf the world to save us from ourselves.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



You have to be individually licensed to drive a car legally and there are all sorts of safety requirements to reduce the road toll. Yet people can purchase arms anonymously, in most cases, and carry them in public.

there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to have a car



I believe

also not in OUR constitution

not that you understand or give a crap



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Tortuga
yeah a lot of us here served
there is that whole "lawful" order bit to consider



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Im not arguing to remove guns, but that law was written in 1791. That's 228 years ago. Times change and laws sometimes have to change along with it.

It's just silly to hold on to a 228 year old law as if it is infallible to the rest of time.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

It's not silly, and it's not out of date.
It's still necessary for any tyrant government regulations, also for the security of a free State.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN



just like Wal-mart and others banning open carry from their stores.



Not correct....

www.businessinsider.com.au...


If shoppers openly carry guns into Walmart stores going forward, store managers may ask the shopper to leave and safely secure their gun in their vehicle before returning to the store. The policies will vary by location, however, and shoppers who are openly carrying guns may not always be asked to leave the store, a Walmart spokesman said.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: shooterbrody

Im not arguing to remove guns, but that law was written in 1791. That's 228 years ago. Times change and laws sometimes have to change along with it.

It's just silly to hold on to a 228 year old law as if it is infallible to the rest of time.

do you think the same of free speech or free religion?
searches without warrants?
I wager not.

seems some are ok 228 years later and some are not?





It's just silly to hold on to a 228 year old law as if it is infallible to the rest of time.

it is silly you seem not to understand the amendment has been challenged

District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008


"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


that is why it is important to have scotus justices that appreciate the founders intent
228 years later imo



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Im saying it's silly that it's sometimes treated like the law came from God. Maybe it needs to be re-written for a modern world. Maybe not.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Interesting and one can certainly argue for it. My point was that founders were not perfect and maybe tgeir intent doesn't always fit into modern situations.

I just think saying "but the second amendment!" Is a cheap cop-out in gun debates sometimes.

In any case, im not arguing for gun confiscation or bans.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Serdgiam

It was a wake up call for me after the drama and issues in Charleston a few years ago when I defended the nazis right to free speech. On this site I was branded a nazi sympathizer because I defended their 1st amendment right.


Its a problem.

We are dealing with people that not only personally identify with what is essentially corporate and media propaganda, they believe everyone else does the same.

Defending someones rights (Rights!) who they disagree with is not something they find acceptable or even understandable. Their beliefs are literally derived from what gets the most clicks. Think about that..

This is the result of things like media, and their readers, going after clicks. Not only do they want that outrage, look into how they buy clicks to prop up their business. They buy views on youtube as well. Ad revenue is a big driver nowadays and unsurprisingly, we are starting to see actions from places like youtube not just propping up trash information vectors.. They are smashing individual creators down.

The social engineers didnt really know what they were doing, they just knew the "how," and now we are seeing the consequences. They have a responsibility to at least attempt to stop the momentum. Its possible, but only through the same vectors they disseminated the propaganda.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Your arguement against the 2nd amendment is...
1. guns not people cause violence (try telling anyone stabbed to death it wasn't violent, nor caused by a person)
2. If the guns are used for protection against systematic abuse by our government, it's moot because the government will win?

THATS YOUR ARGUEMENT??????

Besides being full of statitisics that frame this in manipulative context to prove a false narrative, you believe it's simply beyond the people to rise above the control of the currupt if needed? That's... dark.

a reply to: ErEhWoN




top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join