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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
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?




Oh heavens NO. The constitution is a set of rules that was set in place by the group of men who fought for our freedom. These men created this country. If the federal govt. decides to no longer follow these rules, then we are no longer the United States of America. If our govt. changes or voids one of these rules, then we can no longer call ourselfs a free country. It is our responsibility to make sure they never do this. These are the rules that our government have to follow no ifs ands or buts about it.



It really upsets me that so many people who live in this great country are ignorant about this, after so many people lost their lives so we could live free.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by mrsdudara]




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Late to the party, but just wanted to throw my voice in as a strong anti-Bush person (he's the worst President ever, IMO) that fully understands and agrees with the fundamental meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Period.

I didn't read every single post here, but if it hasn't been said yet:

According to the Constitution, all free citizens that are male (apologies to women: I didn't write the thing) and of weapon bearing age and capability are in the militia. So by any interpretation of this amendment, men at least are guaranteed the right to bear arms.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
No, you didn't read every post, and yes, it has been stated, and no, political statements are not allowed in ATS. Take your politics to PTS, our sister board.

Astronomer68, the "Confederacy", as in Articles of Confederation, were used as the base upon which the Republic was built. The Republic was more than a loose confederacy of states. While you're close to the traget, you missed the X.
The international community laughed at the A.ofC. as the newly formed America had huge debts, but the Articles gave no means by which to raise revenue to pay off the bills we owed everyone, including Great Britain!



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
TC I stipulate the confederacy was more than a loose confederacy of the states, but the articles clearly intended for the various states to be the fount of law, except for interstate and international matters. Why else would they so clearly state that the federal government would only have those rights and powers specifically granteed to it in the constitution. The drafters/adopters were afraid of a centralized government and went out of their way to curtail it's powers.

Didn't do much good though, did it?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Didn't do much good though, did it?


Not yet. Those in power are pretty sneaky and it's going to take some time before we need to physically protect ourselves from the government as discussed here, but the time is very likely coming.

And TC, this is PTS...
I think this is where we can still have strong political opinions, am I right? We can even do that in ATS as far as I understand, as long as we don't throw around political slurs and attack people with political agenda...

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure you will



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The national guard not now nor has it ever been the militia. This is a deliberate misconstruction for the purpose of politics by those in politics to push their political agendas. In short is is political whoredom on the expense of the public.
What is not known is that many states have militias organized and trained by public citizens. This can be looked up on the web. I know that Deleware has one and so does Missouri. New Jersy was at one time working on one. These militias were private citizens arming and training themselves totally within the framework of the Law and not under the control of the state governors. This knowlege and information is not made public for obvious political reasons. The states dont like it but can do nothing short of outright harrassment to stop them as they are operating within the framework of the State Laws. This has been going on in some states for over 15 years now. These people are not under the authority of the state governors.
Militia was and is just a bunch of armed citizens ...organizing for their own purposes not the Governments purposes. This is the deliberate lie and falsification that Government promotes for political purposes and we buy carte blanche because we have been educated in public schools under a public curriculum. It was designed to keep people only thinking in certain boxes, much of it not true. Governments , State and Federal do not want people to know about this...at all. Yet I have known about this for over 10 years now. Why Tinkleflower have you not known about this and have only the standard party line.???? I would like to know this and I am very curious as to why this is so???

I agree with one of the previous posters... the assault rifle ban is bogus and is there to protect the government from the public. All governments have historically feared a armed public. This is not what you will be taught in public school.
Also agree with Thomas Crowne ..gun control means hitting your target. Gun control is not running around barefoot..unarmed by politicians so that you are subject to every nutcase out there. I do not trust politicians to take care of me..ever. I see enough of them at the defense plant where I work. Most of them are a huge dissappointment . You only see them at election time..shaking hands. The rest of the time you never see them.
I carry a gun with me every day and have done so for over 7 years. I do not run around shooting people or looking for trouble. I do not live under constant fear or fear tactics every day. I do not appreciate politician of any type using such tactics on me. Many citizens of this country do exactly as do I carry daily. They do not look for trouble. The concept that a armed citizen is a troublemaker or one in waiting is bogus. The statistics of fear when the concealed carry laws went into effect make this clear. The worst fears didnt happen. Politicians ..Wow!! Even Ohio which was staunchly anti gun...now has a concealed carry law in effect...its about time!! Amazing how downplayed this was in the news media.
You will not see politicians in Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama when the very hard difficult work is going on..any of them. You will see them at the ribbon cutting ceremonies when it is over. Photo Ops. Wow!!!!!!
Gun control issues are not the most important thing happening in America as far as rights. I own guns but consider unlawful search and seizure more important. Not that gun ownership is not important but more has been lost in the fourth amendment than others. Same now with the fifth amendment. Bearing witness against ones self. This one too has been weakened recently.
Nevertheless this notion that the militia is the national guard is a bogus and false idea promoted on a unwary public by a political machine for political purposes. People ought to know better.
Be ready for this 2nd amendment issue to slip backwards with the next liberal administration to take office..either by legislation or emergency measures. They were obviously working on it in the Clinton Administration. Bewarned.

Thanks,Orangetom



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Why Tinkleflower have you not known about this and have only the standard party line.???? I would like to know this and I am very curious as to why this is so???



Probably because, as a noncitizen (and previous gun-owner, which may surprise some of you; I had my permit to carry before I actually had my greencard. That actually worried me, initially...the ease at which I was legally able to procure one before the other), this hasn't really been at the forefront of my concerns.

As noted earlier, I'm English, though I've lived in the States for some time.

As I'm currently considering citizenship, the subject has arisen once or thrice in conversation; moreover though, I'm interested in the legal interpretation(s) of the Constitution and the decisions made therein.

That's all, really


(does this answer your question at all?)



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

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?


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.


Every man who can control a firearm [thus any man over 18 must own a rifle [assault] to defend his Nation. It's one of the main reasons as to why Hitler's Germany never invaded Switzerland.

At the present moment their are between 5million and 6million out of the 8million people in Switzerland that own firearms. They have a mandatory service [for men] and a 6month period in the education system where for 1hour a week they learn about firearms.

This has resulted in only 171murders in 1997, over half of these done by non-residentials to Switzerland [primarily Russian gangs who go their to settle the score].

So a murder rate of I do believe only 74 in that year. With 8million people...pretty amazing. [That's total murder if I remember correctly not just gun-related crime].



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Thank you for clarifying my question. I did not know that you are English. I have no problems with you owning a gun or a permit. Peoples are allowed to join the United States Military services and not be citizens and learn firearms training. Why shouldnt they be able to responsibly own a firearm. Responsibility is my number one concern with anyone in firearms ownership. I have been around what I consider irresponsible people at the local firing range and in the field ..I give them plenty of space and leave.
Congratulations in having a permit also. I would like to see concealed carry permits nationwide...like drivers licences reciprocal agreements. I do not think they should be carried on airplanes. I have no problems with this ban.

Also the poster who followed you Tinkeflower...I dont think firearms ownership is why Hitlers Forces did not invade Switzerland. But that would be another story.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Thank you for clarifying my question. I did not know that you are English.


No prob
Glad to clarify.

I don't have any issue with non-citizens owning guns or having permits...my concern, ironically, was because I wasn't technically even a legal resident at that point.

Yet, because I could offer proof that I simply applied for (but had not yet received) a social security card, that was fine. In view of 9/11 etc, I do find that a little worrisome - the fact that all I needed was photo ID (not a driver's license), proof of residence (utility bill) and proof that I'd applied for a social security number.

These things alone do not prove that one is a legal resident of this country...I think that's what concerned me then (and still does).

Anyway, we digress



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Also the poster who followed you Tinkeflower...I dont think firearms ownership is why Hitlers Forces did not invade Switzerland. But that would be another story.

Thanks,
Orangetom


Why not then?

Look at it from a common-sense perspective.

Hitler had the choice of invading a Nation wtih 4million armed citizen's, about 2million of which had gone through military training. While at war with all those other Nation's. He couldn't give the troops up for such a large level war against a more disciplined force.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I dont know if you have ever noticed the actual status of events politically in this world. Actually verses what is fed to us politically and in propaganda which often passes for education.

Switzerland is like a neutral zone. One can cheat anywhere in the world, take what is not yours, Lie, kill , murder and maim. Flee to Switzerland and bank your money and you are home free. Switzerland is like passing "Go" in Monopoly. YOu get your two hundred dollars and dont write books or draw attention to yourself and you are good to go. The locals dont ask questions or answer any either. Write books and draw attention to yourself and you may get a pine box.
Internation crooks and felons need a safety zone..a neutral zone..and Switzerland is it. This is where they take their earnings and retire.

Switzerland is a place where governments who dont get along anywhere else do buisness daily. As I recall one of the Dulles brothers was the Laison during the second world war with other nations including Germany.
Germany and the United States both had certain banking intrests taking place in Switzerland during the second world war. Still happening today.
I cant remember the name of this guy who was pardoned by Bill Clinton just before he stepped down from office. He was under indictment for tax evasion but fled to Switzerland with his winnings. The news reported that his wife made significant contributions to the Democratic Party or was it the Clinton Library. His pardon did not convince him to return to the USA but he still operates out of Switzerland. Very intresting to me what happened. Denise something was his wifes name. I think it was Rich..Mark and Denise Rich
While it may be true what you claim about so many Swiss having firearms but I dont believe that is totally it. It is much more..primarily the banking intrests and the "Go " factor I explained.
Geography itself may play a factor but not today ..with so many machines available to make up the difference. To me it must be politics ..international politics.


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I'm a politics major.

I've done minors in History as well. In fact I have 9months worth on the Korean and Vietnam war after two years focused on WW2.

The idea that Hitler wouldn't because of the bankers is laughable at best.

The simple fact is, Hitler was funded by some freemason's and was willing to kill masons.

He was funded by some "Jewish" people and had high-ranking Jewish officers in his army, yet was willing to kill them.

So the logic of the bankers, doesn't hold up.

In fact the amount of wealth going through Switzerland and raids launched by the Allied powers from Switzerland could have resulted in a massive blow to us if it was lost.

If you think about it, 4million armed people.

Germany only lost 5million soldiers.

Come on, you can do the math, Locked up in urban warfare against that many?

Hitler would have been screwed.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
TC I stipulate the confederacy was more than a loose confederacy of the states, but the articles clearly intended for the various states to be the fount of law, except for interstate and international matters. Why else would they so clearly state that the federal government would only have those rights and powers specifically granteed to it in the constitution. The drafters/adopters were afraid of a centralized government and went out of their way to curtail it's powers.

Didn't do much good though, did it?


The rights outlined, as well as the rights not outlined, were for the citizens of the several states, that is absolutely correct, meaning that they did not apply to those in DC, federal territories and properly seated federal property. That is to say, if there is a gun law, it applies to the Feds, not us. At least, that is to say, if "us" is not attached to the Feds in some manner.
As it stands, we are attached to the District of Columbia six ways from Sunday, through Social Security, birth certificate, and even tags, permits and licenses issued by your state government (Example, State of Alabama is not the same thing as Alabama state) such as driver's license, concealed weapons permits and motor vehicle tags.
This usurpation of power by the those who want total control of the nation have rendered the 10th amendment dead, and we are blind to what has happened to our nation.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
"As it stands, we are attached to the District of Columbia six ways from Sunday, through Social Security, birth certificate, and even tags, permits and licenses issued by your state government...such as driver's license, concealed weapons permits and motor vehicle tags.
This usurpation of power by the those who want total control of the nation have rendered the 10th amendment dead, and we are blind to what has happened to our nation."

One of the most pervasive and insidious attachments to the feds is the use of the Zip Code and two-letter state abbreviations. To use these codes on postage is to grant the concession that the addresses shown (including the required return address) are federal territories, as opposed to territories owned by the sovereign California state or, heaven forbid, the land owned by a sovereign individual unaffiliated with a federal or state corporate franchise.

ARTICLE THE SECOND
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.

Despite any court's stated or interpreted opinion, the Constitution still stands as the Supreme Law in the Land. The language is clear. Individuals have the right to own and bear arms so that they may join together to defend the security of a free state. This right shall not be infringed. The interesting thing about US v. Miller is the suggestion that the arms referred to be of military utility, which is one area that I think the court has some jurisdiction over.

Does this mean that an individual could own an F-16 TomCat with full missile complement? Damn straight it does. Should individuals fear such a state of affairs? Probably not. If your asshole neighbor down the street could own some military grade jet, then you must live in a pretty exclusive neighborhood. The two of you probably have a lot more in common than you realize. Invite him or her over for dinner or cocktails and discuss the security of your free state, and what the two of you should responsibly do should the need to form a militia arise. Maybe he or she will offer to give you a ride in it!

One thing is certain, in that scenario, you have an opportunity that we lack now, and that lack should scare you. Because none of us now has any way at all of, over a pleasant meal, reasoning face-to-face with anyone over how and why and where a modern fighter jet will be used.

Anyway, this is a great thread, and my first post.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No, you didn't read every post, and yes, it has been stated, and no, political statements are not allowed in ATS. Take your politics to PTS, our sister board.


No, I did not read every post, what part of that did you not understand?

And it is for sure NO ONE else has ever said anything that might have ever been mentioned earlier!
(Since you seem to have an understanding problem, that is sarcasm.)

And my 'political statement' is no more political than others in this very same thread. And this is PTS. You got some kind of problem with me?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Yes, it was covered. AS you cannot seem to understand the condescending attitude directed at the icecream truck-chaser who states something wasn't covered eve nthough he admits he didn't read the thread, I'll speak slowly for you:

Y e s, i t w a s co v e r e d !

Try a bit of sacrasm when you aren't wrong six ways from Sunday, Pal.

without-prejudiced, that was an extremely good opening volley here at ATS! Many kudos to that post!


[edit on 6-9-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I'll speak slowly for you:

Y e s, i t w a s co v e r e d !

Try a bit of sacrasm when you aren't wrong six ways from Sunday, Pal.
...
here at ATS!


So, Thomas Crowne, you're still insisting this is ATS? Okie dokey.


I know this little spat between the 2 of you is none of my business and I'll probably get some kind of reprimand for even getting involved, but the guy said he was being sarcastic. In other words, he didn't say it wasn't covered, he said it often happens that people repeat stuff.

He wasn't wrong about anything, pal. I think you're just so angry that you're not getting it.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Switzerland is obviously a relief valve..where moneys can play through in spite of how it is acquirred. Just bring your money and keep your mouth shut. They will try to put leverage on banks in the Islands but do you ever see them putting to much leverage on banks in Switzerland or do they just pay lip service to it. Even the United States Government doesnt mess with them much. They obviously have some kind of charter to play through unhindered.

You posted about invading Switzerland:

"Come on, you can do the math, Locked up in urban warfare against that many?"

You are joking about this right?? Its ok to invade Russia across thousands of miles of land..and get bogged down in Stalingrad after retreating from the outskirts of Moscow. Russians have tanks and planes...did the Swiss??? Geography??? How about Russian Geography combined with weather.? Urban warefare. Lol lol ..think it through!!!
The main thing about Switzerland verses Russia is that there is really nothing of importance there verses the Russian oil fields in the Caucus. That is what they went for in Russia. The fields originally developed by the Nobel family. If Switzerland had any oil they would have taken Switzerland just like they went into Romania then on to Russia. In Poland it was Geography the Corridor at the Danzig. Russia oil...Switzerland ..nothing of value to the Germans.

Nevertheless no one messes with Switzerland. They get a free pass...It is valuable as a relief valve for the worlds moneys to play through.

One more thing ..the Aryan Cross..the Swastika is a masonic symbol out of India. Under the right conditions masons have no problem killing other masons. Or even non masons too. It has been done before. Same with Jews. Who are also talmudic..which is also what masons are ..talmudic. They are both the same and will kill each other when necessary. In our ignorance we often tend to think they are different. Not so.
While we are on this topic..the uniform of the lodge is a tuxedo, top hat,and gloves. Watch closely the surrender on the battleship Missouri to General McAurthur. Not the Japanese Generals and Admirals..but the civilian representatives.
I live close to the McAurthur Memorial in Norfolk, Virginia. Very intresting.

WW 1..the King of England...Order of the Garter. known as the SS in symbology. Kaiser William...Grand Orient lodge. Czar Nicholas..Knights of Malta. All cousins ,going back to Queen Victoria, all masons. Very intresting to me. Was this a family quarrel. Or were these people under a higher authority.??

I am not a history major..just a reader.
We are getting off topic a bit..as I recall this is a second amendment post.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Actually Switzerland has a few things of importants.

You have the natural resources of timber and salt, which not enough people bother to think about.

Also...the amount of Gold that is within Switzerland would have been of use and could of helped deal a blow to the Allied forces. As well as the fact it was being used as a stageing ground.

As for problems guerilla war can course? Look at Iraq. The Insurgents do not have tanks or aeroplanes, however they are dealing damage to the American's.

Now if the insurgents had millions of armed people [who had spent their school life being educated to defend their nation as well as military service] it really is clear as to why nobody bothered attacking them.

[I don't deny the banks had something to do with it, however the logistics of invading it would have kept a large part of the German Army busy for a small piece of land. One that is very hard to invade.]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join