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.

 

This ain't rocket science

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
No but your chances of being jumped or robbed without a weapon are alot higher. I have actually had criminals pull guns on me. If I wasn't 17 and allowed to have a concealed weapon, I would of been able to shoot them. Luckily I did'nt get shot, robbed, or beaten.

Do you honestly think that the chances of being held up would lessen if guns were readily available?

What is your logic in that thinking?



The Constitution limits and highlights the power of the federal government. The rest of the powers are reserved to the State's. The federal government in the present has encroached on the State's rights by becoming the cheif law maker. Federal Law pretty much encompass's everything imaginable from crime to the environment. Those are State rights.

Again, read a history book.
This was done on PURPOSE! The constitution was written exactly for this purpose. The way you're suggesting didn't work before the constitution and it sure wouldn't work now.



y State of Rhode Island doesnt have a militia. We have a few unorganized militia that are just citizens who call themselves a militia. We have no State Defense Forces or State Militia or anything of the sort. We have the Rhode Island National Guard (which the Federal government controls).

Do you have any proof the federal government controls the Rhode Island National Guard or are you just saying that?
And if you have just unorganized militia...who's fault is that? It's you alls. There's nothing stopping your from being more organized?



What does being white and being rich have anything to do with the points I made?

lol, you just said you wanted the country back to the way it was before 1900!!
Who beside white rich males were able to do anything??


You're racist and a troll.

Are you joking?
You're the one advocating the violent overthrow of our government and I'm the troll? LOL!!
(I've been here how long? You've been here how long?)

You're the one advocating we go back to a time where blacks and other minorities were less than second class citizens and I'm the racist??
You can't possibly be serious




Perhaps it's best if you just wait until you're grown and realize how the real world works before you starting posting about stuff you have no clue about....




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Do you honestly think that the chances of being held up would lessen if guns were readily available?

What is your logic in that thinking?


Yes I honestly beleive that carrying personal arms will lessen crime. It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit, except in some States they are harder to get.

There are thousands of stories on the internet of people deterring crime with the guns they were legally allowed to carry.

You probably did not even know it was legal for people to carry guns. Some States even allow you to sling a rifle on your back and a pistol on your side (Vermont is one of them).



Again, read a history book.
This was done on PURPOSE! The constitution was written exactly for this purpose. The way you're suggesting didn't work before the constitution and it sure wouldn't work now.


The Constitution is essentially the same as it is now as it was then. WHat point are you trying to make? Your posts really are misinformed, do you live in the UNited States? You don't seem to be too hip on how this country operates.

The only thing different today is that the Federal government sort of does the work for the State's by making laws that encompass what normally each State would have to make.

I don't think your post has any intelligence behind it because I don't understand what you are saying.



Do you have any proof the federal government controls the Rhode Island National Guard or are you just saying that?
And if you have just unorganized militia...who's fault is that? It's you alls. There's nothing stopping your from being more organized?


Again I don't think you know a thing about the country you live in.

The DICK Act which was passed in the 1930's?? made each State Militia the "National Guard". They were put under the control of the Federal Government and were setup as a reserve force for the enlisted army.



lol, you just said you wanted the country back to the way it was before 1900!!
Who beside white rich males were able to do anything??

I said as far as legislation I wanted to see the o#ry the way it was before 1900. Slavery was illegal in 1900, and there was plenty of rich people in the US that weren't white in that timeperiod.

I'm starting to think I'm debating with a 14 year old because you don't seem to really be that intelligent.



Are you joking?
You're the one advocating the violent overthrow of our government and I'm the troll? LOL!!
(I've been here how long? You've been here how long?)

You're the one advocating we go back to a time where blacks and other minorities were less than second class citizens and I'm the racist??
You can't possibly be serious


I never advocated the overthrow of the government. Minorities were second class citizens in 1900? Only because people were racist, not because the "law" was holding them down. In case you forgot the Civil War was faught long before 1900.




Perhaps it's best if you just wait until you're grown and realize how the real world works before you starting posting about stuff you have no clue about....


I think you should take your own advice.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Without wishing to appear a 'party-pooper' can I humbly suggest that you take a look at some other of shot messenger's posting before you start taking him too seriously.

On more than one occasion he has started something, promising earth shattering revelations, only to leave the thread to die a death after he has made his controversial statement.

When reviewing his contributions, sadly, I only see a litany of loose ends.

I only wish he really were able to come up with evidence he claims to have, and which he also claims could put his life inperil if he shares it with us, but alas I think he has been reading too much Dan Brown.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
You probably did not even know it was legal for people to carry guns.

lol
wtf?
1. What does this have to do with anything?
2. How would I not know that?

Name one state where there's no crime?
You can't name one.
What does that tell you? It tells you that even in the states where you're allowed to carry guns, crime doesn't stop. These criminals have the same access to guns, so why would they be scared of anyone?



The Constitution is essentially the same as it is now as it was then. WHat point are you trying to make? Your posts really are misinformed, do you live in the UNited States? You don't seem to be too hip on how this country operates.


It's you who have no clue as to how this country and the constitution works.
Tell me, why was the Constitution written? Why didn't they just use what they had before?


I don't think your post has any intelligence behind it because I don't understand what you are saying.

lol, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. But thank you for admitting you don't understand. That's ok. You're still young. You'll hopefully learn this stuff later.




Again I don't think you know a thing about the country you live in.

The DICK Act which was passed in the 1930's?? made each State Militia the "National Guard". They were put under the control of the Federal Government and were setup as a reserve force for the enlisted army.

???
The National Guard was created in 1903 with the Militia act. What are you talking about? (lol and you claim I don't know what I'm talking about. How pathetic)
And the Army National Guard is under STATE control. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Here's how it works, there's the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard- each state has one and it's under state control
Then there's the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve. These are all seperate components.
Here's some quick info I just looked up
en.wikipedia.org...

In most respects, the Army National Guard and Air National Guard are very similar to the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve, respectively. The primary difference lies in the level of government to which they are subordinated. The Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve are subordinated to the federal government while the National Guards are subordinated to the various state governments, except when called into federal service by the President of the United States or as provided for by law. For example, the Washington Army National Guard and Washington Air National Guard are subordinated to the state of Washington and report to the governor of Washington as their commander-in-chief.

This unique relationship descends from the colonial and state militias that served as a balance against a standing federal army, which many Americans feared would threaten states’ rights. The militias were organized into the present National Guard system with the Militia Act of 1903. Consequently, it is generally held that the term “militia” as used in the United States Constitution (including the amendments) refers to the current Army and Air National Guards.


Now what were you saying?



I said as far as legislation I wanted to see the o#ry the way it was before 1900. Slavery was illegal in 1900,

So what! Blacks (and women) still couldn't vote, go to real schools, or anything!


and there was plenty of rich people in the US that weren't white in that timeperiod.

Such as?




Minorities were second class citizens in 1900? Only because people were racist, not because the "law" was holding them down. In case you forgot the Civil War was faught long before 1900.

LMAO!!!
Wow!
No, I shouldn't be laughing. I should be crying. You think just because the civil war was over everything was A-OK?
What do you think the civil rights movement was for???? Just for fun? No!
The law WAS holding them down. Nothing changed until the '50s and '60s!


Please! I'm begging you! Read a history book or something!!



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join