It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


in-a-lien-a-ble: The End of the Gun Debate

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:51 PM
in-a-lien-a-ble adj. that cannot be transferred or taken away

The Oxford Desk Dictionary 1995

Rights given by God is how they've always been thought of. Rights that weren't the governments' to give- or take- away.

My new position on the private gun ownership debate is that it's not a debate at all. If you don't like private citizens right to keep and bear arms, too bad. You can complain about it if you want, but it's none of your business whether I carry or not at the end of the day.

Take it up with God...

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:00 AM
i hope the supreme court agrees...

that will be the decider.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by Gatordone

um...where are you getting that the rights in the secular nation of the USA come from god?

oh, and where does the constitution say the right is inalienable in the first place?

see, this is called not having an argument.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 07:37 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Nope, doesn't look like the word "inalienable" appears in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

But, if you know anything at all about the founding fathers you'd know they believed whole heartedly in "natural law." So when something is said to be from "god" or granted by "god" whatever "god" is is completely moot. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or christians or muslims or any other chanting, praying, tithing or exploding people.

The very fact that you exist at all and have the desire for self-preservation means that you have a "natural" right or "god" given right to preserve the self. No man or government may take your "self" away.

That is a "god" given or "natural" right.

The moment some goofus brings religion into it a entire parade of goofi is not long to follow suit then we somehow end up going from a people functioning on the principles of "natural law" stating in the nations founding document that the fed cannot trample on our basic right to exist and defend that existence and cross into some idiotic tirade about how religion and government and christmas trees on the town green are hurting some person's feelings or offending their personal beliefs. Last time I checked we all have a right to exist but not one of us has some magical right to not have our feelings hurt.

All you fundies need to stop and all of you anti-god folks need to give it a rest as well. What does either one of you have to gain from it? Pissing off some other guy? Seriously?

I only say this because your little

where are you getting that the rights in the secular nation of the USA come from god
bit. I've seen lines like this over and over and over and over and over....... and the mind behind it is always the same. A one track line on course to hate on any presence of "religion" no matter how obscure the reference, how literally or figuratively you have to take it, above all else bash religion. What does it get you?

Never mind, that's an entirely different thread.

No, inalienable doesn't appear in either document but given that the political and philosophical mindset of every one of those involved with the founding of this nation it is safe to assume both documents were written in the spirit of "natural law" and as such the rights (not granted by but specifically protected by) these documents are "inalienable."

Then there's the whole

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
bit that makes the presence or absence of the word "inalienable" rather moot.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:51 AM
Amen, Gatordone!

Due to the media, people have such a negative view towards guns. People ask why I own guns. I say for protection. They get this puzzled look, wonder why, and say that's what the cops are for. But, I ask them how long would it take the cops to arrive? Metro areas would range from 5 minutes to 2 hours! Even at 5 minutes, plenty can happen to you and your family.

Protect your love ones, not your personal belongings.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by guppy

Calling 911 just gives the cops a heads up call the coroner. Police are purely a REACTIONARY force. Powerless to save you or prevent you from being harmed.

Common sense to us. Some people out there really don't understand that. Obviously they've never had to call on the cops for anything.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

alright, i just have to ask something

what are "arms" in this case?

surely you can't believe that arms in this day and age applies in an overarching term for all weapons, can you?
it's not possible that anyone writing the bill at the time would know of the dealers of death we can wield in this day and age...

what would constitute infringement?

would forcing people to register their weapons be an infringement?
forcing them to have a psychological evaluation before purchasing a weapon?
a background check?

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:41 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I said this before and I'll continue to say it:

The 2nd Amendment makes any limitations on which "arms" a citizen may keep and bear unconstitutional as well as any efforts to regulate who may keep and bear arms through background checks, permitting, registration or any such action.

If my neighbor can safely and securely keep a nuclear device without causing undue harm to anyone else (infringing their right to exist) then so be it.

If a state wants to ban "arms" or institute a process of permitting certain individuals and not others this right then they would be best served by removing themselves from the union formed under the Constitution.

Shall not be infringed. There is no wiggle room, no room for semantic interpretation. It is perhaps the most clearly written passage of any of the founding documents.

Shall not be infringed.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:12 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Declaration of Independance, United States of America

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

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.

United States of America Constitution

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm b: a combat branch (as of an army) c: an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2 plural a: the hereditary heraldic devices of a family b: heraldic devices adopted by a government
3 plural a: active hostilities : warfare b: military service
— up in arms: aroused and ready to undertake a fight or conflict

from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Seems pretty obvious to me. All men (men referring to people) are endowed (inherently in possession of) certain rights by their Creator (God, Jehovah, Allah, the Crepe Myrtle of Supreme Creation, etc.).

The Right of the people (not the congress, not the police, the people) to keep (be in possession of) and bear (transport or carry opemly) arms (weapons, of all kinds) shall not be infringed (encroached upon).

I know it's a major problem allowing just anyone to have freedom, but there's a simple way to fix it. Change the Constitution. Read Article V, it shows how to do just that.

Then it will say just what you want it to say...


posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:03 PM
All the other amendments in the bill of rights speaks to individual rights - it galls me to hear others continually attempting to claim the 2nd means "state" or "government" rather than an individual right like all the rest.

Back in the day the militia was the people (individuals) who were expected to take up the common defence in time of need. Well regulated is something I take to mean in modern terms well trained and lead, it took much training and practice to volly fire in a group effectively.

Further because comma's separate the statements it's not hard for me to see that the militia, individuals and non-infringement were three separate items covered in the 2nd.

Being neccessary to a free state - a militia for common defence
Individuals - that can form militia to maintain a free state
Non-infringement - prevents tyrannical government, refer Declaration of Independance language.

With a felonious conviction an individual gives up these rights, so the crime fighting excuse should not even be an issue in this matter.

So whats the problem? - whats the underpinning of fear around this issue?

Could it be that those pushing a socialist or tyrannical agenda know deep down that an armed populance could indeed invoke the DofI once again to remove the shackles of tyranny and decare freedom once more?

Removing the arms from the many has been done time after time in history in order to control a populance.

Political expediency is our enemy leading to un-intended consequences - or that could be the plan after-all.


posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

declaration of independence has absolutely no weight to a discussion of governance as it is not a governing document

so i have the right to keep and use anthrax, sarine gas, nukes, small pox, and other weapons of mass destruction?
i somehow have a right not extended to nations?

and... this law seems a bit outdated. it appeared at a time when weapons that a civilian could posses stopped at a simple rifle.
these days the weapons we use are a bit more... dangerous

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

ok, i'll be sure to hand a gun to a guy convicted of several counts of attempted murder...
or a delusional psychopath

i'll even give them a few tactical bunker-busters.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Be my guest. Maybe you could start up a non-profit to help get more guns into their hands. Myself and a few others are working on setting one up to get guns in the hands of more children, to get them into clubs and competitions, to get them out hunting.

The number of sane civilized individuals far exceeds the number of psychotics so by all means arm them all.

The caveat is getting the undermining abilities of politics, bureaucrats and law enforcement out of the way.

Nobody ever claimed freedom was safe or even comfortable. In fact, honest freedom and true liberty are inherently quite the opposite. If I knew my neighborhood was truly free I wouldn't be concerned with break-in's, rapes, theft, drugs because I know without a shadow of a doubt the first clown to pull suck a thing would not get the luxury of police protection followed up by 3 squares and a cot all the while hanging out with his buddies learning to become a better criminal.

There wouldn't be repeat offenders convicted of attempted murder to hand guns out to. Nor would not handing a gun to a man hell bent on killing someone prevent him from murder.

Have you ever heard of a murder prevented by a restraining order?

I know if I was a murdering psychopath not having a gun or being told by a judge to remain 300 yards away from my target would totally stop me. Yup. Gee, I don't have a gun so I guess I'll just go carve a roast with this knife, play ball with this bat, tie a hammock with this rope, or go for a Sunday drive not on the sidewalk or through a park or over any person I might be trying to kill. What? I can't be within 300 yards of a person I want to kill? Well, shucks. I guess I can't kill them now.

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:59 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

have you ever heard of someone protected by a gun?
i'm sure you haven't because a gun can only do two things: wound or kill

we shouldn't need weapons in this day and age. we should have grown out of such idiotic primitive behavior by now.

and there is clearly an alternative to such idiocy, as we can see with nations like norway and sweden, which have lower crime rates and lower gun ownership rates...

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 05:38 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

and there is clearly an alternative to such idiocy, as we can see with nations like norway and sweden, which have lower crime rates and lower gun ownership rates...


Must contradict your above comment re; Sweden

Google "swedish gun ownership" and you'll find it has one of the highest rates of ownership while having one of the lowest crime rates - hmmm, maybe there's a connection there.


posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 07:15 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Have I ever heard of some one protected by a gun?

About every 13 seconds or so.

Trouble is there is still overcrowding in the prisons. Clearly they are not being used enough.

Firearms used in self-defence:

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 07:50 AM
reply to post by Phoenix

Everybody loves Sweden.

Don't forget about Kennesaw, GA

The anti "more guns = less crime" people like to claim that towns that allow "more guns" with looser control laws are inadvertently contributing to gun crime in cities further away. You know, like the crackhead who buys a gun in West Virginia and uses it in New York.

Well, guess why the crackhead went with his gun to New York?

If you were a criminal would you want to go mug somebody in Kennesaw or would you want to mug somebody in San Fransisco? In one of these places the mugger is more likely to be killed rather than simply arrested. Guess which place?

If madness wants to go around unarmed by all means he can. Maybe he'd like to wear a t-shirt proclaiming his lack of a firearm? Maybe he'd like to put a big 'ol sign up in the front yard stating "Occupants do not have firearms nor do they wish to use them."

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

you missed my point... you can't protect with a gun
it harms
that's all it does.
someone has to either be injured severely or die (which is not that uncommon with the use of guns in self-defense)

the problem isn't overcrowding in prisons, the problem is that our culture is corrosive.
we need a society without guns, not because they aren't available, but because nobody sees a need for them.

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Well, good luck with that. What you're asking is nothing short of impossible. You'll have to get people to stop inflicting harm on each other. Lets say we wake up tomorrow and magically all firearms have just disappeared, all who know basic manufacturing have forgotten how to create a firearm, all chemists have forgotten about combustion etc...

You think murder will stop?

Those religious folk which you seem to have a propensity for disliking have it in their minds mortal sin (thou shalt not kill) will set their soul ablaze in eternal damnation. Christians still kill.

What could you possibly do to get people to stop harming each other? Socialize everything, free Xbox's and healthcare for everyone? That wont stop jilted lovers from going nuts. Guaranteed hot chick for everyone?

Promise a killer everything and anything and he'll still kill. Destroy all the guns and he'll still kill. Melt the knives, crush the rocks, burn the rope... he'll still kill.

I don't mind you having magical fantasies about unicorns but I certainly take offense to attempts to use law and government to force me to believe in unicorns.

And I didn't miss your point. My disbelief in unicorns prevented me from dignifying your point with an answer of a like spirit.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

you may say i'm a dreamer
but i'm not the only one
i hope someday you will join us
and the world will live as one

imagine, john lennon

...i never said it would happen right away.
just look to the world, stop confining yourself to your own borders...
how about norway? how'd they achieve the lowest murder rate in the world when their police don't carry guns?

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:37 PM
What a joke. Ban guns like the did in England and Austrailia? Oh what's this now they're trying to ban knives cause people still kill? I guess that shoots up your theory that banning guns will stop crime.

Anyways, break into my fortress and answer to my .45 Break into my neighbors house and answer to his... yapping chiuaha?(Those little rat dog things however its spelled, you know the Taco Bell dog, the kind that have a nice spiral when you punt them)

new topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in