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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Are you implying that America is under some sort of foriegn (or internal) seige? While I understand the reasons for the implication of the second amendment, I also believe that that reason is all but lost today.

Do you expect that were the government to declare "martial law" on America that armed civilians could overthrow this force... or even that a state of martial law could occur at all with the current structure of America's government?

With these topics in mind I ask what good the ownership of a so-called "assault rifle" (a term that was coined by the military at the start of Vietnam) would do the average citizan? For the creation of a militia to fight off invaders? While crime rates haven't diminished since the ban of these now-illegal weapons, this could mearly be used to show further social decay... In fact crime rates have risen.

To close my arguement, I must say that my previous post had everything to do with the second ammendment. The original question asked was why have our second amendment rights been infringed upon, and i responded by stating that this infringment is needed due to "societal decay" within America.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by kholdstare]




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Where are your crime statistics. Like crimes compared with the Census. I thought crime was getting lower.

Assault weapons are not illegal anymore, the Assault Weapons Ban expired. I am talking about the 1986 Firearms Protection Act, the law that made modern machine guns illegal. And I am talking about the 1934 National Firearms Act which brought to the table gun registration and the definition of destructive device's.

If someone wants to decide I am not responsible enough to own arms, then those are violation of my rights.

We should get rid of arms control, open up the arms market.

Just give business's the option of discriminating who they want to sell their arms too, else you have to build it yoursel. Just have "safey regulation" so people cant store explosives in large degree and cant produce WMD's.

What if a hijacked airplane is heading towards my home? I cant buy RADAR to see it, I cant buy gun exmplacements, SAM Missiles, and fire control systems to shoot it down.

And as evidenced on 9/11, the government wouldnt shoot it down either.

Which is wrong when I have the 2nd Amendment that is infringed.

If ever faced with a desperate situation in my life where I have lost everything including my hope for success in my life my goal would be fighting the government to restore my constititional rights.

It just bothers me.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by kholdstare
and i responded by stating that this infringment is needed due to "societal decay" within America.


This logic is like driving in reverse away from the problem.

We shouldn't need the government to take everything dangerous away from us so that we can't hurt one another.

We should work together to reach a point where we hurt one another far less often, leaving intact our rights, which we someday may need.

Taking away all gun rights will do nothing to solve the issue of societal decay. In fact, the lack of trust apparent in such a fear-based action could only be classfied as an extreme example of said decay.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I know assault rifles are legal (in most parts of the US)
Also, I appoligize. If my memory holds fast, I recall that while most misdameanor offences are down, violent crime has risen from census taken 5 years ago (give me time for a link... It is 2 am here, and I am Googeling as you read this)

As for the topic on the ownership of SAMs, RADAR, etc. I think that is streaching this a little too far... It is the military/ government's responsibility to handle jobs on that scale (and had the government known of the 9/11 attacks, I could almost assure you that they would have shot the plane down... The only thing worse than a terrorist attack on home soil, is a terrorist attack that YOU let happen on camera...) If you had access to a SAM site, that would mean that Joe down the street could have one too. And little Suzey. And anyone else who would have the means to purchase one. To be honest, the thought of a large percent of the population owning SAMs doesn't make me feel much safer... ( nor should it you)

As for the "modern automatic weapons pact" and "destructable devices" decussion go, again, looking back at my previous post, why would americans need an OICW or LAW in their living rooms? To prevent some hostile take over? In a very skew and somewhat small way, I can see your point... I just don't think it is a very good one. In this age we all have the desire to feel safer (tying back into the whole societal decay thing i was aiming at before
), I just don't think owning a SAM is the proper way to go about it... If you want home security, Remington makes a fine line of shotguns that will most likly fit the bill just fine.

EDIT: Quango, I agree with you whole heartedly. However, I also believe that we are too far gone to rely on trust with weapons. I woudn't trust Joe down the street with a suitcase nuke, and I woudln't expect him to trust me with one either...(perhaps i took that analogy a little too far.... But it explains my point so i'm keeping it in the post.)

I wouldn't expect the government to take from us the things that are dangerous (if that were the case, cars and beer bottles would have been gone long ago lol) But it is the government's position to serve us. I think that, as the population grows, the government will need to "assisst" us more and more, because with such a diverse group of people spanning such a wide area, there is no way we could rely on good natured instincts and trust alone to pull us through. And by governmental assists, I mean the loss of freedom, and the increase of government control. But in the end, it will have been the people who will have provided the excuse/ cause for the colapse of the democratic process as we currently know/ enjoy it.

I think that in the end, the way to truly fight infringments against the second amendment would start with the people who live in America, and not the government that oversees them.



[edit on 5-9-2005 by kholdstare]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Trust the federal government?

What about the jumbo jet that flew hundreds of miles off course and slammed into the worlds largest city? Werent those people relying on the government to provide them their 2nd Amendment? What about the people in the second tower? How about the workers in the Pentagon?

We should trust the air traffic control to warn us of numerous jumbo jets heading hundreds of miles off course? Then we should trust the government to shoot them down?

Obviously that didnt work.

We shoud trust the government to provide us missile defense? They cant even hit a jumbo jet
nevermind an ICBM or cruise missile.

Trust the government? What about the hundred of thousand of people who were waiting for government assistance in New Orleans? I mean armed gangs took control because America has a soft mentality and none of them were armed to protect themselves. Your saying thats the governments job to protect us from armed thugs. But that doesnt work, only public awareness and their access and training in weapons would of helped in the new orleans situation.

I just dont agree with trusting the government with anything. Including the water I drink, the food I eat, and the implements of war that protect myself and my family.

History has proven that this will backfire.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
Trust the federal government?
What about the jumbo jet that flew hundreds of miles off course and slammed into the worlds largest city?


All I ask is that if we're going to debate, we at least get our facts straight first, ok?

New York is not and was not the world's largest city. I appreciate the sentiment, but it seems to be an attempt at emotional manipulation - and it's inaccurate.

For what it's worth, I'm not American. I live in the US, and have done since 1996; but I'm not a citizen. The Constitution doesn't actually afford me, personally, many rights at all when all's said and done - this is why it's interesting for me to see this entire discussion going in the direction that it's going.

As for the "legal" comments, Thomas - we could sit and bicker all day about that one, couldn't we? Do we believe the justices, the lawyers and the like? Should we instead simply believe the detractors? Is there actually any truth to their stance? Where does the burden of proof lie? Upon which side?

Does it boil down to this: Who will I choose to believe? Those who actually spend years interpreting and trying to verify those Constitutional points, or those who argue against them?




I just dont agree with trusting the government with anything. Including the water I drink, the food I eat, and the implements of war that protect myself and my family.


Are we to assume then you drink non-US sourced/bottled water, and food that's butchered, manufactured and/or packaged outside of the US?

No, I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious on this one.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
How about purifying your own water from land you own. And how about growing your own food. All I need is wheat to make pasta and tomatoes and some spices and m good for life (Yes I like pasta that much).

And now I understand why you didnt know that each and every citizen of a certain agegroup is already in the militia.

New York is one of the largest cities, you get the point.

But now that I know your not American, I doubt you would understand anything I would try to debate with you anyways.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Amethyst
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?


Come on. That's a lousy analogy and you know it



Can I ask why this is a lousy analogy?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
But now that I know your not American, I doubt you would understand anything I would try to debate with you anyways.


And with that, you've just shown the greatest reason why you're finding it difficult to debate this logically.



If that's all you can do to rebuke someone's points...what else is there to say?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Can I ask why this is a lousy analogy?


Surely


A gun requires physical manipulation by a second party in order to make it work, and thus, make it a lethal instrument. A swimming pool requires no inherent second or third party action; but furthermore, the intended use of a swimming pool is not to cause harm and/or damage to anyone. A gun's intended use is to cause harm and/or damage.

Maybe I'm not phrasing this correctly - sorry if that's the case - it's just comparing apples to...well...amanita mushrooms. To me, at least



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
You made an argument about MY CONSTITUTION and specifically about MY NATIONAL GUARD. And then when I correct your mistake about your assumption about the structure of MY armed forces, you say I dont use logic.

Can I ask you what country you are a citizen of?

You should respect the citizens of the country that are so hospitable to let you be a part of us.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
A gun requires physical manipulation by a second party in order to make it work, and thus, make it a lethal instrument. A swimming pool requires no inherent second or third party action;


I don't really get the difference, still. A gun and a pool are simply benign objects until a person (child, in this case) misuses them. The pool doesn't reach out and kill people any more than the gun does. A person must interact with the gun or the pool to cause harm. Same with a car or a sword or a rock.

I'm really not trying to argue, (I don't see the point in arguing about guns - or maybe I've had my fill of arguing about it elsewhere) I just wondered what you meant by your original statement that the analogy was lame. Beacuse I see a pool and a gun as possibly dangerous 'tools' when in the wrong hands or unsupervised. Same with a car or a bat. The misuse of any one can result in death.



but furthermore, the intended use of a swimming pool is not to cause harm and/or damage to anyone. A gun's intended use is to cause harm and/or damage.


What difference does the intended use of an object make when it's misused and results in death? An object has no intent. The intent comes from the user. If I intended to kill someone, I could just as well use a pool as a gun or my knuckles.

If I had a gun, the intended use would be to protect myself. Not to cause harm or damage, but to prevent it. The intent comes from the user, not the object.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
You made an argument about MY CONSTITUTION and specifically about MY NATIONAL GUARD. And then when I correct your mistake about your assumption about the structure of MY armed forces, you say I dont use logic.


That's not quite what happened....you corrected no mistakes, but simply made the same statements refuting - often without a good reason - the interpretations upheld by many legal decisions. Which mistakes are you correcting, out of interest?

I live here, and was married to a citizen for 8 years. That does give me some right to question, where I feel it's appropriate, the statements made by someone whose interpretation differs greatly to that of accepted interpretations made by people with far greater knowledge and experience than either of us.

So - are you're saying that only fellow Americans can question the Constitution?



Can I ask you what country you are a citizen of?


Sure. I was born and raised in England.

You might have heard of it. Small country, really, off the coast of France..





You should respect the citizens of the country that are so hospitable to let you be a part of us.


And in turn, you should respect the citizens of the country which gave birth to yours. We both know such statements are futile and irrelevant - so why make them?

Besides - you know who lets me stay here legally? The government! The government you don't want to trust. You don't "let" me stay here - the government lets me stay here. But that's not really the point, is it? You've decided instead to focus on my citizenship, rather than the arguments/questions presented.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
You just made me formulate a plan to destroy this place you call England. Maybe next time you should be more careful in what you say.

You made a statement that only the militia had the right to the 2nd Amendment. You specifically said the National Guard. I stated that the militia is comprised of all male citizens aged 18-49.

Maybe you should not question my constitution and stick to being a wife from England. You are after all a citizen of this strange far away land, maybe you can be my consul on the working of England and I can be your consul to the United States of America and its workings. Else you may displease the foreigners you live amongst by preaching about something that you have no business preaching about, especially to those whom the thing you are preaching about belongs to.



[edit on 5-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
You just made me formulate a plan to destroy this place you call England. Maybe next time you should be more careful in what you say.




That's us, preparing for your threatened destruction.

It seems you're unable to continue this without resorting to threats and/or insults; to which I can only say "toodle pip", and perhaps a hearty "cheerio". I am sorry I seem to have offended your sense of patriotism; I'm not entirely sure how, but there we go.

Perhaps in future discussions we should focus more on what's being said, rather than the nationality of the speaker?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
It is not just our right to own guns, it is our responsibility. It is the responsibility of the citizens to protect our country from all enemies. I say all enemies meaning other countries as well as our very own government. I think a lot of people assume that we can not be invaded. They assume wrong. For instance, there is this thing called an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) bomb. Here is how it works. You take a nuke (the one N.K. claims to have) strap it to a missle that detonates via remote (the one Iran has and has been testing) put it on a boat and float it anywhere near the U.S.. They then fire it and detonate it in the air over the U.S. This will kill all electronics in the U.S. It is like a lightning strike. it wont kill people directly, but it will fry ALL electronics and ALL the power plants in the United States. Everyone in the country including the military will be blind and deaf. It would take several months with a good possibility of several years to rebuild. At that time, any country could and probably would invade. That is why it is our responsibility to own guns. It is our only chance of survival. The leaders of our military have come out and said that this is the one way a country of any size could bring us down. They also said that there is a very good chance it will happen. We cant patroll all the waters. It could be on any boat, and as soon as they shoot it up in the air, there isnt a darn thing we can do.

This is just one of the many examples of why every person in the United States needs to have the right to bear arms.

As far as the state millitia is concerned, very few states have them. They are not the National Guard. They can call the national guard what ever they want, but they are in no way a state millitia. I believe every state should have a millitia. I believe that people should be able to be a part of that millitia with out being looked down upon. Members of the millitias are usually looked at as radicals. Millitias are supposed to be in place for many reasons. The most important of those reasons is to protect the constitution from the federal govt. The federal govt is run by humans. Humans are not perfect, and they can be corrupt, and power hungry. The millitia just makes sure that the govt does not try to make the U.S. something the people do not want it to be. Also, yes if there was a state millitia set up in LA, things would have moved a lot faster. Not to mention, the problem probably would not have come up in the first place.



[edit on 5-9-2005 by mrsdudara]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Tinkle, you want to take the position of those who need to interpret the constitution for you, fine. I need no interpretation as I've studied it for decades. The judges, by the way, are to rule in accordance to it, not "interpret" it. What, does it look like a new language? I have given you the infoprmation to begin understanding the history behind it and why it is there, now it is up to you whether or not to pursue a better understanding.

Khold, think about tyour "argument" for a moment. You want to assert that you support the second amendment while at the same time attack it's actual role. You believe that you are smart enough to own weapons, but others should be regulated because they aren't capable and would cause bloody chaos. Becaue you haven't the internal fortitude or desire to take part in what might need to be done one day, you claim that we poor citizens could never stand against the government. I have no doubt what your position would have been had you been around in the 1700's colonial America. Your argument is based on no facts but poor assumptions and convoluted thinking. Talk to Tinkle for a while, I think you two would agree, but at least Tinkle isn't trying to sound like a proponent while attacking it.


[edit on 5-9-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
TC, isn't the very nature of our constitution that of a living, breathing, document? One that changes with the mores of the country it represents? I mean, it was written exclusively for white men. It slowly changed, was interpreted, to include women and people of color, as our country changed to no longer look upon them as property.

Couldn't the 2nd amendment be another antiquated and quaint idea that needs a modern interpretation?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
No, it isn't a "living" document to be changed with the sickness of humanity.
Yes, as we grew to understand that we are ALL equal in the eyes of God (He is no respector of man, regardless of color), law changed as well.

However, please tell me how man's heart has changed that would prevent those in power to not want more power? Are men no longer evil, are the greedy no longer greedy? Of course not. Are we still responsible for the state of the union? Yes, yes we are, and we have been doing a lousy job. We have failed to insure that every able-bodied man have a proper firearm and be capable of properly using it, and, as Khold accidentally pointed out, we have allowed "them" to lead our nation into the slow, spiraling societal decay that will certainly end in an amoral society, capable of thinking only of their own self-interests with "them" in total control. Then, it'll change even more for the worse.

Curme, you don't have to study the constitution and the relating history for periods of years, I just have no other decent hobby; but I would ask you to give it a few weeks of your life. Look at what was supposed to be our nation, look at how the government was supposed to be out of your way, and then compare that to how our nation and our government is today. We're in a lousy, sad predicament, and it isn't because the Constitution is not living with the nation, it is because both the nation (the people) and the governent have been influenced by groups of powerful and wealthy men who wish to use the country, as well as the rest of the world, as their own property.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Seems like everyone always misconstrues or misunderstands the intent of the 2nd ammendment. In the context of the time of the ammendments drafting and adoption "free state" meant exactly that. America was formed as a confederation of "free states" and everyone (just about anyway) was worried about the potential power of the federal government as opposed to the power of the state government. You see this thinking throughout the entire constitution. The 2nd ammendment was designed to insure the states could remain free. Most people seem to equate "free state" with the federal government, but that was most definitely not its intent.

I suppose one could argue nowdays that the U.S. has evolved so far from a confederation of "free states" that the 2nd ammendment is really no longer applicable. However, we the people have decided that "free state" now pertains to the federal government and thus the ammendment is still applicable. It's kind of funny how things get a little out of whack over time but we don't bother changing them to reflect the "new" real world. The feds clearly won the never declared, but always waged war with the states and the 2nd ammendment (which was supposed to prevent just that from happening) was never even used.

Oh, we did have this thing called a "Civil War" over the issue, but over the years the rationale for that war has been changed to be solely about slavery and not about states rights. Granted slavery was wrong and needed to be abolished, but way back then it was felt to be pretty important to the economy of the "South." The southern states felt that as "free states" they could continue the practice of slavery if they wanted to, while the "North" felt otherwise. We all know how that turned out, but the point is, with the inception of the Civil War the concept of "free state" went by the boards. President Lincoln is regarded as almost a saintly figure nowdays--and rightfully so--but back then he destroyed the entire foundation of the country and put the intrests of the federal government above all the states--where it has stayed to this day.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by Astronomer68]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join