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 the infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I think the United States Constitution is pretty clear in what it says. It is pretty clear what the 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I can name at least five major gun regulation laws.

Why when politicians take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States do they think they can support gun legislation? Why do people live in America if they dont support the 2nd Amendment?

On a planet and country based and formed around war I would think more people would appreciate what the 2nd amendment offers its citizens. The ability for the militia to defend their State. The ability for you yourself to defend your family. To defend yourself from foreign armies.

I cant see the point in not allowing "assault rifles", "sniper rifles", and machine guns. These arent weapons that are going to defeat a foreign army. I can see the point in regulating destructive devices such as explosves and missiles, but not anything else.

The National Guard isnt even in control of the States anymore. Which is another infringement on our 2nd Amendment.

I just dont understand where people come from. Diluting people's respect for the 2nd Amendment will only hurt us when SHTF, as seen in New Orleans. If America was more militant, law and order would of been restored when Hurricane Katrina hit.

But they had to wait for the National Guard (specifically the Federal government) until their law and order arrived. Normally LA could of deployed their entire National Guard if they needed it, but not anymore.

I know its crazy to have everyone armed, but so is the fact that there is war and famine.




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
I think the United States Constitution is pretty clear in what it says. It is pretty clear what the 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".



I could of sworn it said more than that. Something about 'well regulated', I think it mentioned a militia. It is a long sentence, I guess you can't cram it all in.


I can name at least five major gun regulation laws.


Sounds pretty 'well-regulated' to me. Personally, I think we need more regulation. If someone wants to defend their family, they have a right to, within reason. If a car is involved in car crash, you can track down the car and owner. A gun in a crime?

Like I said, I think people have a right to defend their homes and family, but in the US we have to do it in a smarter way, with some accountability, and we should stop distorting the 2nd Amendment to make a point. You want a gun. Fine, but with great power comes great responsibility. Some people aren't mature enough to handle the responsibility, we need a vetting system, and away to keep track of them.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
"A well regualted militia being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Im pretty sure I know what "shall not be infringed" means.

Or was that too long for you to understand? Maybe English is not your first language.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
Or was that too long for you to understand? Maybe English is not your first language.


Not in the mood for this. Stop.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
YaYo, the same people who are afraid of Guns and want them banned, are the same people who keep screaming about how we are loosing all of our freedoms.. its kinda funny.

Just buy all the guns you can while you can, if/when the day comes they try and take them, be ready to use them.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by C0le]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
YaYo, the same people who are afraid of Guns and want them banned, are the same people who keep screaming about how we are loosing all of our freedoms.. its kinda funny.


Bush himself said he supported not letting the assault weapons ban expire (obviously not really meaning it as he didn't have to, but was just straddling the fence), but shrubbed it off on Congress and let it die.

Sooooo, unless you mean Bush and cops and firefighters and emergency response personnel all publicly for not being shot at are screaming about how we keep losing all our freedoms....

No, I don't see anything funny.

I'm not debating the gun thing. I like guns just fine and this will go slug fest if people turn it into that, but the question posed is...

Why are politicians (LIKE BUSH) anti second amendment since they support any restrictions at all? Right?

The answer is most people want them to. Overwhelmingly. Like 70% support last I checked. And that's what you need to get elected. So unless democracy is a conspiracy........


[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Why are politicians (LIKE BUSH) anti second amendment since they support any restrictions at all? Right?


We know what a wonderful supporter of the Constitution Bush is


What shocks me is that anyone would claim Bush is a Conservative, he is to the left of Hillary....LOL



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
you all better think about this, all the ones crying about how bad bush is are the same ones who want to get rid of guns, what the hell are you going to do if bush just decided to send the national guard to your town and put you under martial law? How are you going to stop them? are you going to be like the chinese and throw rocks at tanks?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rikimaru
you all better think about this, all the ones crying about how bad bush is are the same ones who want to get rid of guns,


I think Bush is an Idiot and FULLY support the second admendment.

The second admendement is not to protect our hunting rights, its to protect us from the Government, which is why the whole "assualt rifles arent for hunting" is a bogus arguement



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
So true Amuk.


On this...


Originally posted by Rikimaru
you all better think about this, all the ones crying about how bad bush is are the same ones who want to get rid of guns, what the hell are you going to do if bush just decided to send the national guard to your town and put you under martial law? How are you going to stop them? are you going to be like the chinese and throw rocks at tanks?


I do think about that. Well kinda. I want some guns. A lot. Like mounted on the crime fighting, spike strip avoiding motorcycle I'm working on in my spare time. Which could be used to rob banks, but that's not the point.

I think the point is nobody is trying to stop me from buying those guns. At least I don't think they are. People may talk about it, but it won't happen. Not sure why I'm not that worried about it. Maybe I'm just too trusting. Yeah, that's probably it.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I think Bush is an Idiot and FULLY support the second admendment.


Woo-Hoo!


Yes, it's a mistaken stereotype to think that all 'liberals' or 'Democrats' or pink people or Bush critics think we should get rid of the guns. Some of us (myself, for example) like to think for ourselves and realize that the educated, trained and responsible ownership of firearms is actually a very good thing for a society.

More and more (and I hope more) people are thinking more critically about going along with the masses and instead deciding to form an independent point of view that doesn't necessarily follow a party line.


(Amuk, I proposed to RANT once but having seen your picture yesterday, I'm going to have to break it off and pursue you...
)



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
(Amuk, I proposed to RANT once but having seen your picture yesterday, I'm going to have to break it off and pursue you...
)


Thats understandable.....there is a reason he has a bag over his head....


Some people just cant understand the world is not always Republican/Democrat a lot of us are Libertarians


[edit on 4-9-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
(Amuk, I proposed to RANT once but having seen your picture yesterday, I'm going to have to break it off and pursue you...
)


Always the last to know.

Amuk's right though. The bag is there to sanitize ATS for your protection not mine.


Back on topic though: Guns! Woohoo! Liberals with guns! YIPPE KAYE AYE!!!



I want my own battlestar frankly.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
This is a good issue for my daily rant.

In the great UPL state of Texas the best defense is a gun. But I agree there must be some limitations. So to help the politicians, I’ll offer these thoughts:

We don’t want anyone walking into a courtroom with a loaded weapon. So the state will place the weapon on the table where the defendant will be sitting. As the defendant enters the courtroom, one bullet is placed in his pocket.

If at any time he takes the bullet from his pocket, he is saying, let’s get back to a search for truth so we can have a least some justice.
If he places the bullet in the chamber: second warning, at least try to be believable.
If he has to use the weapon, he has two primary targets. His counsel and opposing counsel, who both wear bulls-eyes.

He can shoot defense counsel if counsel is asleep, inattentive, has a member of the opposite sex sitting on his lap, is talking on his cell phone during the judicial process, or is looking at his watch. If defendant is currently incarcerated and counsel meets him at the door, he gets one extra bullet. These we call free shots, meaning there is no penalty involved.

He can shoot opposing counsel if said counsel is hypothesizing to a degree passed possible. For example, counsel says, “We know a cow jumped over the moon and struck the little green man along the left lateral temporal region causing loss of consciousness and the ship to fall into the paddle boat where the old couple had been stuck in Lake Erie since last December. And knowing these FACTS, the defendant clearly saw opportunity to drive to Memphis, take a flight to back to Cleveland, rent a car using an assumed name, pick up the prostitute named Wanda who was standing on the corner of First and Main holding a chainsaw, and with clear intent, hr then robbed the Fast Stop of all $13.12 in the register.”

This is an extra bullet free shot, no penalty involved: counsel can’t be certain of the amount taken to the penny.

State prosecutors or opposing counsel are allowed to use their cell phones at all times. However, they are not allowed to throw chewed gum or wrappers at the jury, or make dates with anyone other than the defendant without the immediate enforcement of the free shot penalty.

State prosecutors or opposing counsel cannot be shot for having members of either sex sitting on his lap, chewing gum, or tapping a pencil unless it disturbs the defendants sleeping.

The judge is a special case. He will be fitted with glasses displaying a bulls-eye between the eyes, on a target no less than six inches in diameter. The judge falls under the extra bullet free shot, no penalty clause if he is sleeping, has a member of the opposite sex sitting on his lap, asks for a date of any member of the audience, jury, witness, or either opposing counsel, refuses reasonable request by the defendant to go to the bathroom, is talking on his cell phone, is rushing the process because of tee time at the local golf course, or is looking at his watch.

A plaintiff cannot be killed; he has no control over the actors in the courtroom. The plaintiff can be wounded slightly if he hands his wallet, checkbook, or credit card to his counsel, makes raspberries, or begins dancing on his chair.

In cases of the blind, deaf, disabled, those felons who aren’t allowed to have weapons, the aged, and those missing the trigger finger, we institute a designated shooter rule.

Now with these rules in place, the jury, witnesses, and audience should be safe. However, if harm comes to any of these, the penalty is automatic execution. Both counsels and the judge are immediately taken out and hanged.

We must do everything in our power to ensure the justice system works for justice. These courts may not be pretty, but in the end, our judges and lawyers will learn to do it the way the Constitution says, or they won’t do it long. A few messes will give us better courts. It should also keep things interesting causing more citizens to attend a trial, and become more aware of the difference between what is said to happen and what happens.

Oh, and if the defendant shoots himself, the janitor gets paid overtime.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I can't believe the anti-gun people screaming that guns kill a lot of kids. Didn't they know that swimming pools are more dangerous?


Now take Switzerland. I think you're required to have a gun in your household; at any rate, I think just about everyone there has a gun. And the crime rate is very low.

I'd like to see the anti-gun crowd explain that one.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Bozos.
Gun control is a good thing.
Without gun control, you wouldn't be able to hit the side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!
Think about it!!!!!!

Huh? You mean take away your guns type gun control? What an absolutley moronic idea. That's the kind of idea power-grubbing politician-types and girlie-men would like!

As Yayo says, I'm sure I comprehend the meaning of "infringed", and I fully understand they have violated the second amendment, some places have all but erased it.

Remember, though, it is still there for those who are free citizens; sovereign men on the land; the constitutional encroachments only apply to those people who are attached to the District of Columbia. Question we have to ask ourselves is, "Are we free, or are we owned by D.C.?"



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I'd like to see the anti-gun crowd explain that one.


I'd like to see this "anti-gun crowd" of which you speak.

They don't appear to be in this thread.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Amethyst
I'd like to see the anti-gun crowd explain that one.


I'd like to see this "anti-gun crowd" of which you speak.

They don't appear to be in this thread.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]


I think you know what I mean.
I didn't mean that I saw any anti-gun people in this thread...I'm talking about the ones out there in society.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I think you know what I mean.
I didn't mean that I saw any anti-gun people in this thread...I'm talking about the ones out there in society.


Oh, "them."


Like the PC thought police, anti-capitalists and the Marxist Association of Dedicated Elites Undermining Patriotism.

Yeah, I hate those guys.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Why? Simple.

It starts with the people. A large enough part of the population in this country feel that guns are dangerous and scary, and they want them gone. Politicians see this group of people as a way to get elected.

If everyone in this country supported our constitution, there wouldn't be any of this.

But since there are two sides, and the anti-gun side wins some elections, they push thier agenda as much as they can (just as pro-gun crowd push thier agenda when given the chance).

What outrages me is how the wording of the constitution has been perverted. As Amuk already touched on, the 2nd amendment is there to inforce our ability as the people to combat any government - INCLUDING our own - if WE THE PEOPLE see fit.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The problem is in the words "well regulated militia". Especially at the forfront is the word "regulated". According to my Websters dictionary, there are the following definitions:

1) a: To govern or direct according to rule
b(1): To bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2): To make regulations for or concerning the industry of a country
2) To bring order, method, or uniformity to an institution, group of people, or ones habits

So the question becomes, do you use definition b(1) or 2? Well, since it is clear to ANYONE who has studied the constitution and the thoughts of our founding fathers that the 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from governments both foriegn and domestic, b(1) simply is NOT an option because it allows a domestic government to control the law which acts as it's balance of power. In the case of definition 2, it makes perfect sense in the context used and in relation to the wishes of our founding fathers. They wanted a real threat to the government by the people. They wanted the peoples power to be a rival of the military. Thus having a well ordered and unified militia WOULD be EXACTLY what they were talking about.

In fact, the second amendment is the fail safe amendment, designed to protect the others. And the more regulations you put on what you may and may not possess that threatens the power of the government, the more you willingly put yourself at a disadvantage against the government. The government should be in fear and awe of the people, not restricting thier ability to eventually combat the government.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join