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.

 

Zogby Poll:Americans Support the impeachment of Bush for Wiretapping

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Does not specify? That's not a very good argument, West Point. When the 2nd amendment was written, there was no such thing as an automatic assault rifle.


Not a good argument? So If I told you that since E-mails and Phone calls are not specifically mentioned under the 4th amendment, and since there was no such thing as E-mail or Cell Phones when the founding fathers wrote it they should not be private. Would you say that was a good argument?


We're talking about assault rifles, not emails. If the founding fathers had any idea what kind of weapons we would create, they probably would have been a bit more restrictive. Who knows? They were, afterall, rather elitist in their view of the unwashed masses.



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...


emails and phone calls fall under "effects and papers."





[edit on 1/14/06 by EastCoastKid]




posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
If the founding fathers had any idea what kind of weapons we would create, they probably would have been a bit more restrictive.


I doubt it, it's kind of hard to have a revolution versus a corrupt government, when all you have is handguns and semi-automatic rifles.

- Attero



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Here is what the second amendment says:


The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and ratified by the States, reads:
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.


Source

Do you mean to tell me that Assault Weapons do not fall under arms?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

So I ask again why do you support restrictions on some amendments and not on others?

[edit on 14-1-2006 by WestPoint23]


Then what is your point again? Westpoint23 I kind of lost it when you don't care what kind of weapons I got in my home.

Actually I know what kind of weapons I got in my home.

Assault military weapons is not one of them and I agree they should banned.

Taking in consideration that the constitution was written when the only guns were ancient ones I guess it was not necessary to specified which ones were the right ones because it was Not a variety of them unless your regular home type cannon was included.

Again what is your point.

Don't you think we have enough violence in the street with criminals arming themselves better than the authorities.


[edit on 14-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita

I doubt it, it's kind of hard to have a revolution versus a corrupt government, when all you have is handguns and semi-automatic rifles.

- Attero


No to worry the government always have their smart weapons to take any Insurgency and terrorist in our nation.


I doubt that any type of military weapons that could be bought in E-bay will be a tread to the military in US.


BTW does rocket launchers are part of the military type of weapons



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Marg, I think a Bazooka is the most practical.


I wonder if i can get one or will i be red flagged because of my internet activities on ATS?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Marge I’m asking you if you agree with the notion that if the government deems it necessary to restrict a certain amendment, then they should. Do you agree with that notion? If you say no, then why do you support restriction upon the second amendment?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Marge I’m asking you if you agree with the notion that if the government deems it necessary to restrict a certain amendment,


Yes I do, base on the fact that through the centuries weapons has become sophisticated and certain weapons are a danger in the hands of common criminals when authorities do not have them to defend themselves.

I believe any law abiding citizen has the right to bear arms, but that doesn't meant that criminals should have the chance to get what a law abiding citizen will not get because he or she has not agendas.

Criminals do.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Yes I do


Ok so would you support restrictions upon the 4th amendment?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Yes I do


Ok so would you support restrictions upon the 4th amendment?


Actually not I don't westpoint because when it comes to the constitution it should be left alone.

That will open the door to other problems that may affect law abiding citizens that have the right to carrry weapons.

But putting a ban again some type of assault weapons will do just fine with me.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Assault military weapons is not one of them and I agree they should banned.


Let's assume, like every other government in known history, that the USA becomes corrupt and no longer free. Tell me, how are you going to overthrow that government when you don't have the necessary firepower.

- Attero


[edit on 14-1-2006 by Attero Auctorita]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita
Let's assume, like every other government in known history, that the USA becomes corrupt and no longer free. Tell me, how are you going to overthrow that government when you don't have the necessary firepower

- Attero


That is the problem weapons are out there of any kind illegally.

You bet that if the government gets to frisky in power those weapon will be available everywhere.

Beside taking in consideration that the President have his branch to used at request from the military who is to tell that he will not succeed in taking any insurgency or terrorist in the name of the safety of the nation.

Under the tread of national security the President can attack his own country to stop terrorist withing the country.

Executive power gives that right in order to protect the nation.

BTW is just an assumption.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Putting a ban again some type of assault weapons will do just fine with me.


Yes but maybe another law abiding citizen wants to own an Assault Weapon, it should be his choice to decide whether or not to own one.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Yes but maybe another law abiding citizen wants to own an Assault Weapon, it should be his choice to decide whether or not to own one.


That is true if the law abiding citizen feels that he can not trust his government for any reason.

Is that what is going on right now with the government?

It is something that we most fear about Bush?

I don't fear Bush what I fear is the consequences of his legacy as a president for other presidents to follow in the powers he is granting because he is doing it for the "Safety of our nation"

So why do I need an assault weapon for. Right?
if something happen in the future I bet I can find one with not problem at all.

But will it help me against the military forces? I don't think so.
but I can die trying. Right?

I probably sound now like an Iraqi insurgent, he knows that he can not fight the military forces in Iraq but he can die trying and die as a martyr for his nation. Right?


[edit on 14-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Marge someone could just want an assault rifle so they can put it up on display and stare at it all day long for all I care. And if I personally wanted to get an assault rifle it would not be because I feel one day I might have to fight the military



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And if I personally wanted to get an assault rifle it would not be because I feel one day I might have to fight the military


I guess is personal preferences, so you will not be fighting the "Marines"


Now if you can get an assault rifle now that you can . . . what kind will you get.

They are quite expensive.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Taking in consideration that the constitution was written when the only guns were ancient ones I guess it was not necessary to specified which ones were the right ones because it was Not a variety of them unless your regular home type cannon was included.


Marg, you crack me up!


Glad to see someone knows what I'm sayin.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I really hate to break this up, but we've gotten way off topic, which was a bunch of posts earlier about Zogby's poll about Bush impeachment.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I really hate to break this up, but we've gotten way off topic, which was a bunch of posts earlier about Zogby's poll about Bush impeachment.


I was wondering how long it would take to bust up the party.


Whuzzup DToM?


If the media actually covered what was going on in real America, impeachment would be a burning posibility. As it is though, Americans are so trained to move lockstep to the issues the media presents, it isn't likely to happen. At least not any time soon.

The Bush administration has no fear of reprisal from the American people. Hopefully, that will wind up being their downfall.



new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join