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.

 

Removal of the Right to Bear Arms

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Andre18,
I believe there was a time when I was that trusting of government. One thing I realized as after experiencing some very eye-opening events was that the ideals I believed in and thought everyone else did too are not as widespread as you might have been taught.

History shows that when citizens lose the right to protect themselves, abuse of citizens often follows. History shows that when governments build networks of internment facilities and make it a policy to torture, even outside their own country, torture and internment of citizens invariably follows. When you study history in school, it can seem so distant and irrepeatable. After living through a few things, I find myself going back to study parts of history with interest.

You seem very pro-authority. I too believe that in a well functioning society, there's a place for authority and enforcement, but the US was founded on the concept that at the top of the heirarchy of authority is the people. Unfortunately, it seems we have been overthrown while we were playing XBox. Some were even asking for it to happen with fear of our neighbors and all the best intentions.

Before you criticize "adults" who would protect your right to keep and bear arms, at least consider with at least a little respect that they may have some experience backing up their beliefs. Hopefully, if you change your mind one day, you will still have rights to protect.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by lifestudent
 


Very well said! Im right with you.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
A couple of interesting points have been raised in this thread.

Firstly, the pro-gun crowd seem to be petrified of their Government. Considering that the USA is supposed to the "beacon of Democracy and Freedom" and yours is "a Government for the People, by the People", this seems contradictory. You don't see tanks and "shock troops" kicking down my door in good ol'Blighty, and we can only own shotguns and air rifles.

Secondly, I've read your Constitution and Bill of Rights and ignoring the rest of the junk in there you guys seem to ignore, it clearly states that the right to own guns is linked to the presence of an organised Militia.


As part of 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/


Seeing as the old time Militia has been turned into the National Guards for each state, there does not appear to be a constitutional allowance for private gun ownership.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


"damned childish" is it? Ask the people who've been victim to forced entry for whatever reason. Ask them if it is "childish" to protect themselves. Hate to break this to ya, but there are bad people out there in the world, and they'll hurt or even kill you for a couple of bucks. Pretending that confiscating guns would somehow erase that problem is "childish".



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Excellent post Stumason. I read it the same way you do. The national guard has a set of standards one must meet in order to be in the guard. They are also trained with the use of fire arms, and swear an oath. Also, as long as the guard is not Federalised (something that's almost a debate now adays with so many of the guard men and women fighting Bush's phony war & Cheney's 6 year long criminal occupation of a country who did not attack us), seems reasonable and prudent that they should be the ones to own the fire arms (beyond the shot gun and bee bee gun).

To implement this, we would need a huge fund to set up arms buy back programs all over the country, then massive trash compactors to crush them all up (remember there are something around 300,000,000 people in the States, and if there are three guns to every head, then we will need something to destroy near 900,000,000 almost a billion of these damn things.

You hear this slogan over here almost constantly, so much so it's revered by some more than the pledge to the flag, and the national anthem, "guns don't kill, people do". That may be so, but if a person who wants to kill with a gun does not have one, she won't be killing with one now will she?

And we get our reason from a bloody Blighty!!! Cheerio mate!



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 



I'll just say good luck with the buy back...mine are not for sale at any price. Much less the pennies on the dollar that any silly buy back would give me.

Nope, I'll depend upon myself to care for what's mine. The gov't? They can't even keep the roads properly repaired and plowed...I'm supposed to depend upon them to make me safe? Whatever.

The second amendment was written when the farmers and shopkeepers constituted the militia. Oddly enough they still do. Whether they're called the National Guard, or local militia. How quickly do you think an armed populous could become organized into a militia, or a resistance? Pretty damned rapidly is my guess.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
The second amendment was written when the farmers and shopkeepers constituted the militia. Oddly enough they still do. Whether they're called the National Guard, or local militia. How quickly do you think an armed populous could become organized into a militia, or a resistance? Pretty damned rapidly is my guess.


Exactly, so the Militia has become the National Guard, so where is the constitutional allowance for private gun ownership, especially all the assault weapons you guys own?

Here in the UK, the Militia and Yeomanry were turned into the Territorial Army, the same as your National Guard. It used to be law that every man had to be part of the Yeomanry and to be trained in firearms usage. Each town had to raise it's own Yeomanry regiment. Nowadays, it's voluntary to join.

Personally, it seems to me that the pro-gun lobby is highly paranoid. Be it foreign invasion, "UN troops", the "evil" Government you elected or those pesky "Blacks", you are always clammering for an enemy to point your gun at. Why is that? You don't get that in any other industrialised nation.

I've never owned a real gun in my life, yet have never had a need to own one in the first place. I've never been burgled, robbed or otherwise, or threatened with a gun myself. I certainly don;t feel the "constant threat" of home invasion or other violence you guys seem to be certain is round the corner every day.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Hi Stumason,
Interesting recharacterization. As I read it, the people concerned about losing this "right" are expressing wariness, not petrification.

As far as the US being a beacon for freedom, very few in the US would say that is true today. We used to lead by example, our current administration seems to primarily lead by force. Our system used to be the envy of almost everyone. Now, people worldwide have concern for whether or not we will regain the greatness we had such a short time ago. A great many people outside the US do not believe so.

I grew up believing in the lasting foundation of the US, freedom and a government by the people for the people, all anchored by our constitution and bill of rights. During the past 7 years, I have seen a US presidential election stolen while people watched American Idol. I have seen a tragedy of incredible proportions exploited and distorted for political gain. I have seen good people destroyed by the media overnight for nothing more than an innocent gesture. But most of all, I have seen an assault on the very integrity of this country and the rights of its people that I have never experienced before or ever thought I would.

When the first pictures started leaking from Abu Ghraib, I was ashamed to have people in our government who could even stand by allowing it to happen in the name of the United States of America. Many people were. In the subsequent months and years after much lying and denying, we find that the POTUS himself was aware of and condoned such torture. In the eyes of our government, the real criminals were those who would expose the government's despicable, inhuman acts. What others have occurred that have not been exposed by this most secret of administrations? Now, our goverment debates whether torture is good while our candidates compare it to different styles of swimming.

I would not say we are petrified, maybe some are, but IMO, those are the people hiding in their homes turning over their guns and sometimes their children to the visiting police in Boston while they pray that the authorities will protect them from the evils of the world. People of the world may have fear, but relinquishing your right to defend yourself on any scale can tend to make you more fearful when you are threatened, not less.

Regarding the argument of the "well regulated militia", the intent of that ammendment as I believe and understand it was to explcitly preserve the "PEOPLE's" uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, regardless of the state of government at any point in time. That the government now controls what used to be the militia and with the MCA and more recent acts have divorced this militia from the people's influence in no way should result in that right being infringed. As long as the people of the US have the 2nd amendment, there is an inactive militia, and it is not the National Guard. Let's hope that if it is ever time for it to become active, we did not do away with "by the people, for the people" as we slept.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Right on, lifestudent, star for you. This country is not at all what it was 100 years ago, and people are downright naive nowadays.

Every American has the right to hear this : the National Guard is not the people's militia. They have been militarized and will follow the same orders as any shock-troop when it comes to civil unrest.


There is no people's military anymore - it USED to be that the Army was ours. The National Guard was ours. Now these things belong to 'homeland security' and in the event that Bush declares martial law (which he has given himself the ability to do) the LAST people we should expect to stand up for our rights is the national guard etc.

I feel a little guilty saying this because I have friends in the National Guard. At the same time, I know that they are being militarized to think of civilians as enemies - guilty until proven innocent - even my own friend would not hesitate to shoot another American if he was ordered to do so. This is the situation we are in. We do not have a peoples militia and the military no longer belongs to us.

Personal ownership of fire-arms is our last defense. That's why taking that right away is not a joke.




[edit on 13-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   
You asked about why this paranoia exists here out of all the other industrialized nations...well aside from Australia who has a touch of it...the History of USA is interesting, because if you look how it was originally settled and then the Pioneers who headed out west on horse and wagon to settle the land etc...it's a country with a history of John Wayne go it alone rugged individualism. Americans don't like to be cooperative on much of anything. I think this is why we have the worst health care system in the entire industrialized world...we pay more for our medical care, and get a lower quality....something around 50,000,000 or so with no coverage whatsoever...and yet you couldn't tempt them to through out the greedy capitalist insurance companies and big pharma who has all of us (Americans) covered or no, bent over the coffee table in the doctor's waiting room, or at the soup kitchen which ever...and everywhere else (Canada, Britain, France, even Cuba) all have universal coverage that is far more effective, more efficient, and there is still choice, and no lines being reported, plus if you get sick or fall down, you don't end up having to sell your farm, and take out bankruptcy just to pay for your medical bills.

All of the evidence in the world that Americans are getting screwed, and that it could be so much better if they just cooperated and created universal coverage fro all, is not enough to convince them. Of course it didn't help that the insurance companies, the pharmacological industry, and the medical care establishment all got together and with billions of dollars spread a massive propaganda campaign, with a willing media ready to cash the checks, to defeat a recent attempt at universal coverage back in the 1990's.

I think a similar thing is in place with the gun issue in America. It's big money. Arms dealers, Arms manufacturers, the gun lobby...all of it...it's big money and they have the people over hear completely brain washed, paralyzed with fear, and full of delusion. Of course big religion (a whole nother story LOL) looks the other way while it all goes on!



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

man......I really feel sorry for people who think the police or better yet the military, are going to come along if guns are banned and take control over the citizens....



And I feel sorry for anyone who is naive enough to think that the militarized police WON'T come along and take control of the populace. That is their JOB.

I don't mean to call you personally naive, but have you any idea what the history of government is? People set it up: lose control of it: then are either murdered/oppressed indefinitely by the state. Who do you think does the killing? The police and the military.

This isn't wild conjecture, it isn't paranoid fantasy, it isn't something that we 'think' might happen. It's historical fact.

We are already losing control of our country. In fact - we have no control at this point. The President is a dictator and law prevents us from taking back control of our country. So that is step 2 of 3 - the citizens lose control. Take away our guns, and we will be in the thick of step 3 - mass oppression and death at the hands of the state.

You speak about police and the military abusing citizens as if it's an outlandish idea? That my friend : scares me. The worst atrocities committed in war-time are by the military and by the police. In the face of a national crisis you are going to have tens of thousands of well-armed bullies who won't hesitate to kill you on order. There are alot of good people in service, but I know people in the military, in the guard etc. and they have told me the type of people being trained right now - criminals and gang-members, and lots of them. They would not hesitate to take advantage of an un-armed populace, ESPECIALLY when that is their order.
It sucks but it's true.

Don't get me started on world-police. International troops that are being set up in America to man-handle the populace in the event of an emergency. If you think angry russian soldiers who were beaten since childhood and taught that life is of no value will treat Americans with ANY sort of restraint - than I really have to use the word naive.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

[edit on 13-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow

I think a similar thing is in place with the gun issue in America. It's big money. Arms dealers, Arms manufacturers, the gun lobby...all of it...it's big money and they have the people over hear completely brain washed, paralyzed with fear, and full of delusion.



No. We don't need our guns because we are brainwashed into wanting them. We need them because its a fundamental aspect of maintaining our control of the country - and our LIVES.

I hate to say it, as a self-professed liberal, the liberal propaganda campaign has done an excellent job of convincing people that we don't need guns. Guns are mis-used all the time -BUT WE NEED THEM!

If you want to talk about big money, look at Haliburton. Look at the industrial military complex. This is where the trillions of dollars of taxpayers money goes. This is where the military designs weapons to burn a large crowd of people with microwave guns.

Eisenhower did not warn us to look out for small arms dealers. He told us that our country was being high-jacked by the industrial military complex. Look at the people running this nation now and tell me that isn't true. They are all CEO's or business partners with the I.M.C and NONE of them give a SNOT about the few hundred dollars a citizen drops on personal firearms. They are in it for the billions upon billions of tax money.

I'm getting too worked up in this thread
Time to put my mind on some lighter issues.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   
It's an issue that is easy to get worked up over, that's for sure. I can't exactly make my mind entirely on the issue. On the one hand we have way to many accidental shootings, and nut cases who have access to guns and ammo running around shooting up things...also gangs and criminal elements to the point in some areas of major cities they have had to put up huge walls around school yards just to keep the stray bullets out. On the other hand, as you say, it helps us remain protected against, perhaps, run away tyranny. I don't however, think it's quite as bad as you say it is, nor do I think we Americans (if your not an American, I am not so amero-centric I can't see beyond...but for right now I'm addressing this as an American issue) are completely without any control. We can still participate in the system. when we have elections we are lucky to even get a 50% turn out, we need more participation, less OPrah, Idol, and Xbox, and start really getting involved and curb the corruption, and not put in CEO's of big Oil and Military....but we have to start with ignoring the propaganda put out by big religion and the corporate machine now in power. Look at the last debates...the republicans were tripping over one another to talk about their religion....while the democrats are lucky to get a third of the air time to talk about real issues that effect us all.

Anyway, my point is, and I think has been, that 1) we are not the same America we were back in the 1700's. 2) if the military or police want to come and get you, they will one way or the other, with or without your arms and 3) These issues are very profitable, and are extremely effective and scaring the bajeeebies (I wish I could use the other word on here for impact LOL) out of us and thus control us through that fear. 4) I haven't settle on what four or five should be yet LOL

Good discussion everyone. I really enjoy seeing both sides of the issue, and it get's one really thinking about it. I think we do need some sort of regulation on these things though...the trick is how to keep our freedom (freedom of religion, press, and guns) while weeding out the abuse. Too much regulation and where is the freedom; not enough and where is it???



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Ok, now I have been thinking on my point number 4). Some of the discussion has revolved around the "militia" issue. I think the amendment is clear that the militia should be able to be armed. Ok, so now it becomes a discussion of interpretation of the term "militia". If what some of you have said on here, that the militia is not the guard (as the guard is no longer "of the people" so to speak) but rather consists of the common people who are in effect, an inactive militia, then I think the 2nd amendment stands and the people get to own guns. However, there should be strict standards put in place such as cooling off periods, background checks etc... If a police officer isn't allowed to own an automatic machine gun to protect him/her self on the job against the criminals who do have them, then why should any of us be able to go get one. I mean where does one draw the line? maybe we all should be able to own surface to air missiles or small nukes....somewhere, obviously a line must be drawn. The problem now is, that yes we want to be able to defend ourselves, but we should also be able to be safe to walk down the street or wherever in public without being sprayed by bullets from someones gun who is having an emotional breakdown or under the influence of something or both....and if people own guns and have children, those guns need to be locked away in a cabinet away from the children. I grew up in the country, and we had guns, but I was not allowed access to them, and they were locked away in a cabinet. When I got older, I was taught gun safety and how to properly handle one. I suspect this is more the exception than the rule, and what few times I have been out hunting, I noticed my hunting partners were kind of lax on their training and that's the primary reason I don't hunt is because I've been around too many people who don't know how to properly handle a gun ( I can't tell you how many times I have had to say "for god sakes man, be careful where you point that"....when they are moving their riffle for example, they might carelessly point it at you in the process) and then I had to finally ask myslelf why I needed to go shooting things anyway?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
There is no logical reason anyone needs a gun.


I don't think you really know what you're talking about. Maybe you're fortunate enough to live in a nice area where there is very low crime, if any? And you're not aware that other parts of the world may be different?

I live in the country in Tennessee. We need guns for many different reasons. Here are some:

- to protect our livestock from predators. If a mountain lion goes after my horse, you better believe I'd shoot it, but there's no way to protect my horse if I don't have a gun. Some people eke out a livelihood from their livestock, such as goats, chickens, etc. They would be wiped out if they didn't have a gun.

- to protect yourself from home invasion, rape, murder, etc. I lived as a single woman for 25 years. If a guy came in to my home with evil intentions, there's no way I could defend myself from him, he could easily overpower me.

- many people here are really poor. They survive because they have a gun and can hunt to put food on the table for their families. Some people use bows, but they're not nearly as efficient as a gun, it could take you forever to bag a deer with a bow.

- in an area just 15 min. from here, the police simply don't go into that area. Period. You have no protection from the police and you're on your own. Hence, you need a gun for protection.

And before you start thinking I'm a redneck from Tennessee who loves my guns, let me tell you that I lived in California almost my whole life and just moved here 2 years ago. I never had a gun in my life, but shortly after moving here, I realized how necessary a gun here is, so we bought a shotgun. I've never had to use it (yet) and hope I never will have to, but having a gun, I feel like I at least have some way to protect myself, especially when my husband is out of town.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


There may be much to what you say as to the militarization of the NG, or not so much.

My little brother is in the NG, Oregon to be precise, he no more views normal civilians as the enemy than I do. Nor do the members of the NG that I know. The national guard is the military, or rather a part of it. The most American of the military if you will, the direct descendants of those farmers and shop owners.

Just because I, as a gun owner, don't belong to a militia, doesn't mean that I am not part of a group that will at least attempt to protect our country should some unforeseen event take place. I submit that we, as citizens of this country, are part of a militia. Duty bound to help in the defence of our nation against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

We are as bound to that oath, though unspoken, as any member of armed forces. Unstated true, but there nevertheless. Agree with me or not, it's how I feel. My possession of firearms is part of that. All the amendments are in place to protect us from the gov't. becoming too overbearing.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I do not own an "assault" weapon, I own at last count a SW .38 special revolver, a couple of hunting rifles, and two shotguns, not much of an arsenal of democracy as these things go
. I am very good with them, however.

Most of us are not terribly paranoid about home invasion, at least I am not, I am prepared. Being prepared is not quite the same as paranoid. I'm not terribly worried about the gov't declaring some form of marial law or what ever. I am concerned about the lack of participation by my fellow citizens in public affairs; voting, town meetings etc... Make that very concerned. This lack of involvement could lead to the very thing that some fear most, which is a gov't of...by...and for itself, and not the people it purports to serve. I see signs of this quite constantly, in the lack of responce to citizen complaints, or to disasters, etc...

We as citizens of the United States must be willing to protect our freedoms by any means that are neccessary. Preferably peacefully, but violently as neccessary. It worked for our ancestors, it'll work for us too. Firearms are part of that protection, not the most important part, but a part.





[edit on 13-12-2007 by seagull]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
[edit on 13-12-2007 by skyshow]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
I’m not talking about anything but guns..........

See this is the moronic attitude people have towards defending your home....
This idea that you've got to defend your home with guns because there is always going to be someone going to rob you is so damn childish....

Let’s say defending your home is but one reason.....a bad one at that.....besides that......that's it........you think you need guns for that one reason....

The main reason i hear, "we need guns to defend against people with guns," you take away the guns, there's no need to defend yourself against people with guns, because there's no guns to defend yourself against.....

And it's true guns can be accessible like drugs.....but there's still less deaths and shootings caused by guns, if it was illegal.


FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan go Japan...

54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States WTF...........

www.ichv.org...

www.gun-control-network.org...

[edit on 12-12-2007 by andre18]


Yeah ok, you have 57 deaths a year in Australia...

OK now do some more research & tell me how many Home invasion related Rapes & murders there are in Australia per year.

Australia has been largly disarmed since 1984 & the number of Violent crimes against people in their own homes is increasing every year.

I have experienced a violent break-in, myself & my GF was raped during that incident & we could do nothing about it because we had nothing to fight back with.

So what you are saying is, that this is acceptable. We are not supposed to protect ourselves & let the attackers have their way, "IT WAS ONLY RAPE & nobody died", whereas if I had had a gun & shot them, "someone would have died"..lol

Your a Moron mate!!!

Tell me mr High & mighty, what should people do when someone invades their home?

C'mon Dude, you seem to have all the answers..!!

Hell I already know your answer... "go with the flow & worry about it after they leave & if you are still alive, just call the police". By that time mate, it's waay too late. the damage is done!!

If I'd had a gun in my house that night, I "Would have Killed the bastards", without a 2nd thaught. But instead, I must go through life watching my Woman go into fits of pure terror at the sound of every bump in the night. I'm the one woh has to watch her at the door shaking like a leaf, while she tries to muster the courage to go out to the mail box.

You don;t want to protect yourself, fine, then don't, but don't you dictate to others thay they shouldn't have the same rights also!!

Think yourself lucky that you still live in a country where the people are allowed to protect themselves.



[edit on 12/13/2007 by Ironclad]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 


Wow, just wow. I can't even begin to imagine...and to be perfectly honest I don't want to.

That is one of the reasons, not the only one, but the main one, that I have firearms. Your story makes my concerns rather petty. I'm sorry you and your GF had to go through that.

I'm doubting he'll respond.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join