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.

 

American Revolution II: Which is more important - Free Speech or Bear Arms?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Remember when a bunch of people marched on Rumsfelds private house? Or was it Ashcroft? Well anyway, attack helicopters were not deployed! Missles didn't rise ominously from their silos? No napalm was readied! The politician wet himself, and called the cops.


And those villagers didn't even pitchforks and torches.
Next time they should bring them, just for effect.




posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

As far as modern weaponry is concerned, even the most advanced attack helicopter in the world is no match to a tater-gun loaded with dog chains.

Careful twitchy. Soon you'll have them making PVC pipe and barbecue igniters restricted items.


Part of me thinks that the administrators who run our government are aware that they are sitting on the back of a huge bull elephant that is the armed American populace. They would recognize the signs if the elephant gets too irritated and looks like it might throw them off. WyrdeOne is right in that just a few thousand Americans with rifles could make a big time mess in this country. I'm not sure they could win any sort of tangible victory but they could make lots and lots of trouble. I think the administrators know this and if Americans get to unruly, they'll (A) 'distract' us with another large scale terror event on US soil, or (B) move to Canada.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
The 2nd amendment isn't there to help you fill your refridge with food; I'm surprised a "moderator" could make such a stupid statement, but then if this is an OOPs thread, (PUSH THE "IGNORE" button) I think I see the problem.

The founders read Algernon Sidney, studied what Cromwell and the Roundheads did a century before, and made the appropriate laws to help people protect themselves from tyranny.

The revolution of the left is over, their terrorist remnants remain, and post frequently on ATS. Thier understanding of freedom and the religious background it evolved from in English history is non-existant.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
The 2nd amendment isn't there to help you fill your refridge with food; I'm surprised a "moderator" could make such a stupid statement, but then if this is an OOPs thread, (PUSH THE "IGNORE" button) I think I see the problem.


Which "moderator" are you referring too? And what are you terming a "stupid" statement? AT any rate is against the T&C of the to:

2.) You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Please bear that in mind

Thanks



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I refer to Skeptic Overlord's statement on the 1st page of this thread. And I would like to see you point out where i have threatened anyone here!


It may be you have not read the whoole thread. Is not the point here to deny ignorance? How are you helping with that? Perhaps OOPS's insane comments in previous posts about assasinating people and bombing the US fit more into your political outlook; to make a judgement about the wisdom of that is well within ATS guidelines, as is the freedom to observe the absence of critical thinking in others posts... especially yours.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
I refer to Skeptic Overlord's statement on the 1st page of this thread. And I would like to see you point out where i have threatened anyone here!


You called his statements "Stupid" that qualifies as abusive. I never said anything about threatening someone.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
2.) You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, Text, nor attack anyone.

Please bear that in mind

Got it. Stupid is as stupid does.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Realist
You're anything but. Pull your head out of the ideological toilet bowl in which you received your dogmatic swirlie, and let's engage in some meaningful debate.

smallpeeps
I laughed when I read your last post, about don't give them any ideas. It's conceivable that the people could revolt using nothing but strength of numbers and ordinary rocks. If the people are mad enough, no laws will matter anyway.

The problem as I see it though: too many people are apathetic and wholly dependent on the favors of the system. Instead of attacking our oppressors, we take it out on each other. So, in the eyes of the government, everything is going according to plan.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
I refer to Skeptic Overlord's statement on the 1st page of this thread. And I would like to see you point out where i have threatened anyone here!


It may be you have not read the whoole thread. Is not the point here to deny ignorance? How are you helping with that? Perhaps OOPS's insane comments in previous posts about assasinating people and bombing the US fit more into your political outlook; to make a judgement about the wisdom of that is well within ATS guidelines, as is the freedom to observe the absence of critical thinking in others posts... especially yours.


Realist05, I only bring to the table discussions that rarely happen. Just because I bring the discussion doesn't necessarily mean I am promoting everything I am talking about. I am questioning things in our world. Is that ok with you?



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The first ammendment can protect both itself and the 2nd ammendment through voting and other peaceful means
When both are being threatened the 2nd ammendent will be the only one that matters, and when they are coming for your weapons the 2nd ammendment will protect itself



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The 2nd ammendment is the bite in the constitution. It alone set the UNited States apart from the world for many years, that a Government may not disarm the citizens that willingly allow themselves to be governed by their elected representatives.

I read references to the Musket not being comparative to todays firearms. A blunderbluss was the portable cannon of the times. We have nothing to compare today. You filled the blunderbluss with a load of powder, and then dropped in about a pound of pennies, nails, glass, piano wire welded to lead weights, old silverware, rocks, whatever you could find or carry with you.
When you discharged the blunderbluss you killed or maimed up to as many people as were standing in the way, 10-20-30, whatever. It was the shoulder carried anti personel weapon of the day. Our ancestors had some fearsome weapony to deal with, just as we do today.

They believed more that each right The citizen had was inalienable. The Constitution does NOT grant any right, nor does it pretend to. This is a common misconception.
The Constitution recognizes, and enumerates them. The underlying Logic is a Government that grants rights can take them away. Therefore it is encumbant upon the people to maintain, fight, and never allow their rights to be reduced, or chipped away. The Constitution is the mechanism to accomplish this. If it is not possible to maintain the rights of the Citizen through the Constitution, then it is encumbant that the Citizen fight for the Nation, and the rights of his descendants.

This is the Blood that Thomas Jefferson spoke of, that every few generations blood must be spilled to insure and maintain the rights of the citizen.

This being said, i find it reassuring that when Nixon resigned, not a single Tank, soldier, or fighter could be seen anywhere around the seat of this nations seat of Political Power. The Nation believed in the Mechanism of the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
That was brilliantly said.

In the olden days, the blunderbuss was a kickin' tool. Today though it is sadly different. Psychological warfare is the threat of today.

The words they attack us with bring the masses down. We cannot compete. Our words are useless.

The didn't have planes and tanks around the whitehouse when Nixon resigned not because the people believed in the constitution, but because the government is an exterior entity to the people in which the people fear it's sheer size and power.

I would love to agree to those passionate poetic patriotic words you wrote. I would have if I had read them in a a book when I wsa 16 as I often read at the PLU library. But...naitvity wears thing with age and truth sinks in.

The US cannot be defeated with words by the people unless they are backed by the gun. For this reason I support that opinion that in a Second U.S. Revolution, The Sword will Be Mightier Than The Pen



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The Bill of Rights is a package deal. They are all essential comoponents of liberty and were necessary for the ratification of the Constitution. However, the Second Amendment stands as a guarantee to the people that they can protect their freedoms from oppressors.

What's liberty like in Communist China these days? I have a Rossi .38Spl sitting about one foot from my chair and a Ruger P-89 9mm just a few feet away. How many Chinese civilians or American ex-patriots living in China can say that?



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
toolmaker:

The Constitution does grant rights.

This is why they call it "The Bill of Rights".

Your wrong, and if you think any other way why dont you post your name and address. A misconception to thinkt he Constitution doesnt grant rights? Ok thats like saying your an American, which is obviously a lie.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Chill out

Got it



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual
Your wrong,

Actual, he's completely correct. The COnstitution recognizes inalienable god given rights. The initial debate over having what became the bill of rights, enumeration of rights, was that, the rights exists, and don't need to be spelled out, and that spelling them out might not, however thorough, be complete for all situations.

So it was recognized that the rights the constitution enumerates existed before the constitution was ratified.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The Bill of Rights is a package deal. They are all essential comoponents of liberty and were necessary for the ratification of the Constitution. However, the Second Amendment stands as a guarantee to the people that they can protect their freedoms from oppressors.

What's liberty like in Communist China these days? I have a Rossi .38Spl sitting about one foot from my chair and a Ruger P-89 9mm just a few feet away. How many Chinese civilians or American ex-patriots living in China can say that?


Grady Phillpot I am beginning to think you.... an. You always bring the fact I'm in China up in my posts? Does it please you? It's off topic and not needed. Do you like to discriminate against Authorities? Why do you constantly do it when I have asked you to stop? What's liberty like in Communist China? Why don't you get off your high rocker and come over here and taste it. You wouldn't believe how wrong your ethnocentric view is.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by 00PS]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
The 2nd amendment isn't there to help you fill your refridge with food; I'm surprised a "moderator" could make such a stupid statement, but then if this is an OOPs thread, (PUSH THE "IGNORE" button) I think I see the problem.

The founders read Algernon Sidney, studied what Cromwell and the Roundheads did a century before, and made the appropriate laws to help people protect themselves from tyranny.

The revolution of the left is over, their terrorist remnants remain, and post frequently on ATS. Thier understanding of freedom and the religious background it evolved from in English history is non-existant.


Hey join the list of ATSers that like to tell people to ignore me and then they said they did but they still come in to my posts and respond to me...liars...

You just like to get people on your side because you know I have a point but don't want to admit it now do you?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join