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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Agreed, but though the Constitution says its okay, let's remember they kind of had to say that. After all, they had just done the same thing. It's kind of like getting a disease. Before you found out you had it, you didn't really care about it. Now that you've discovered you contracted it, you become very interested in lobbying for a cure.

You can try to overthrow the government now, but you'll probably just end up in jail. Perhaps they won't get you on the whole revolution thing, but they'll find something else. Say, breaking federal firearms laws




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


This is amusing.......because I’m 18, you think I’m small minded and all.....

This is basically my mentality.....if one country has nukes then another country feels the need to have nukes to defend themselves against that country. Then the threat goes further more countries build nukes to defend themselves from the threat of the other countries having nukes......

One person has a gun, another person wonts a gun to defend themselves against that person. Then another person wants a gun to....etc etc....soon everyone has a gun to defend themselves from everyone else.

You take away the nuke or gun in the first place, no one needs to defend themselves against anyone.

"But what if someone attacks you at your home?"

If anyone robs anyone, it's because they're poor, they need money....think of all the money spent every single year on military from every single country, you take away the military, think of what the government could spend all those billions upon billions of dollars on for the public, instead on some BS secret weapon that could destroy the earth by pressing a button.

We literally would all be beyond millionaires, no starving children in Africa, no homeless.....etc.....all the governments of the world need to do is give up the need for military.....

The army Air force navy etc, is meant for defending, but if there’s no other countries military, there’s no need to defend against another country.....so bloody simple.......it does not take a great mind to figure that out.....

It sickens me that we are not all living in a paradise right now, we have the technology to basically to what ever we want......

The only thing that I can think of the would just put the smallest dent in this...is that people tell me that if everyone was that wealthy no one would work......

Are you saying you'd rather there be millions of people dying of poverty and people having a life of basic hell because they don't have the opportunities other wealthy people do....then a few lazy bums enjoying the one life they have, doing what they wont.

You only live once, why spend that life working your ass off for someone else……(because it strengthens the economy) so 6.5 billion people all incredibly wealthy wouldn’t strengthen the economy?




[edit on 13-12-2007 by andre18]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
You only live once, why spend that life working your ass off for someone else……(because it strengthens the economy) so 6.5 billion people all incredibly wealthy wouldn’t strengthen the economy?
[edit on 13-12-2007 by andre18]


Huh? Are you suggesting that by ending the military industrial complex that no one will have to work and everyone will be wealthy? Am I understanding you correctly?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Then the threat goes further more countries build nukes to defend themselves from the threat of the other countries having nukes......



I'll concede that this is true.




One person has a gun, another person wonts a gun to defend themselves against that person. Then another person wants a gun to....etc etc....soon everyone has a gun to defend themselves from everyone else.



I'll even concede that this is true.
But let's not forget the parents in the UK frantically trying to purchase "stab-proof" clothing for their children. Or the work of Dr. Lott and the Harvard Journal of Law and Policy study proving worldwide that more guns do indeed = less crime.




You take away the nuke or gun in the first place, no one needs to defend themselves against anyone.



This illustrates the problem nicely. It may be theoretically possible to dismantle existing nuclear weapons and the labs and scientists that create them. There exist in relatively small numbers. But how do you plan on destroying every firearm, every combustible material, every person alive with the understanding of how firearms operate, etc... You would have to wipe out or imprison more than 3/4 of the Earths population.



"But what if someone attacks you at your home?"

If anyone robs anyone, it's because they're poor, they need money....think of all the money spent every single year on military from every single country, you take away the military, think of what the government could spend all those billions upon billions of dollars on for the public, instead on some BS secret weapon that could destroy the earth by pressing a button.


This shows how naive you really are. Hand everyone on Earth a million dollars and you think they'll stop stealing things? Every week something of little or no consequence is stolen from me or my property. A bent snow shovel from the porch, a can of soda from the hood of my car, a pair of hedge clippers, Once I was trying to get rid some old PC parts. I had them on the curb and nobody took them for days. I moved them up to the front porch and they were gone within minutes. They don't steal because they need or want anything. They steal for the sake of the crime. For the thrill of it or simply just to be a jerk and inconvenience somebody else.




no starving children in Africa, no homeless.....


I don't know how many homeless/panhandlers you live with but I walk through a sea of them daily. Day after day for decades they are the same faces on the same corners. They do not want to stop being homeless. They like it. They think they are resisting the status quo or are finding validation with their peers. They choose to be in that situation. If a genuinely down and out person finds themselves in a homeless situation it statistically lasts no more than 6 months. Within that 6 months time they are in a shelter, seeking work, finding an apartment and are back in functioning society likity-split.

And Africa. Christ, do you know why people in Africa are starving? Perpetually war. Constant fighting with Muslims and their sub-divisions, warlords seeking power laying claim to the pointless food drops through thuggary, the banning of DDT preventing the people from protecting themselves and their crops, genocide for the sake of genocide. It is also worth mentioning that the vast majority of the brutality and brutish behavior starving the people there is acted out with blades and machetes. We could arm and train the defenseless victims of this whole mess but hey, guns are bad and after all the U.N. is there somewhere doing something supposedly so it's all good.

The funny thing is when I was a teenager I had many of the same notions.

Trust me when I tell you being 18 definitely does hinder your total understanding.

Think about it. Say we wake up tomorrow and every gun has magically disappeared and every person has forgotten about their operation, design and science and every one of us is a millionaire. That will stop rapes, theft, vandalism, assault and oppression based on race, age, sexual orientation, murder, etc...

Nope. Not one of those things will stop.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
One thing most people take for granted is knowledge. While I will admit I haven't read word for word the entire post I would like to say is that arm confiscation just will not work. There are a number of people on this site and even more outside of it that are quite capable of producing a workable firearm simply by going to the hardware store and buying basic indescript hardware. Once knowledge is available the cat is out of the bag. A basic zip gun can be made in less than 10 minutes. If you are capable of working a lathe or mill a very reliable firearm can be made that is comparable to any made commercially. I would say that some here have probably done so already, including workable silencers. The concepts really are basic. This is one reason why the current admin may be pushing buttons on Iran. Once the knowledge is aquired manufacture cannot be stopped. Ask any terrorist or agent of the U.S. gov. Improvised weapons are taught in so many places it is unbelievable. If you can't take away the knowledge then you can't take away the firepower. Just as standard household chemicals can make an IED the same principles can and have been used to make firearms. Don't take my word for this. Research the use and implimentation of these items. You will be amazed at the creativity af A mind dead set on doing harm to another weathr for good or evil.

respectfully

reluctantpawn



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Would you not defend yourself if someone broke into your home and was beating the crap out of you?
Before you answer do you honestly think that people are good by nature?
We differ from all other animals in only one area and that is logical thought..

People are flawed by nature as is everything else in nature there is no perfect world nor will there ever be. we do the best we can with what we have and we try to be a good neighbor , good luck with getting rid of all the weapons in the world and please don't come over here to the U.S.A. and give aways millions as most of the people that line up will use it to buy drugs instead of food we see it here everyday "hey mister got any change? No but I can buy a you meal if your hungry. tight wad you really can't spare any change to help me out" .

as far as people starving and not having money get a job I have one and I eat very well thank you but if you can't help yourself then I can't help you
this is natures own way of thinning the herd or natural selection if you will..
and who am I to try to go against nature...

Respectfully
GEO



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Hi Andre,
I have to say that you make some good points, and I also believe I felt similarly before as well. In a way, you're saying "it's so simple", and in a way, you're right. Over time, you will probably have experiences and realize there is the long term, strategic ideal that it is noble to work towards, and there is the "how do we get there from here?"

IMO, the real issue that prevents your model from working now is the presence of a quickly growing enforcement branch, including military agencies with US jurisdiction, coupled with a gutted system of citizen and furthermore, human rights for all people. In the US, we have had a well balnced system for years, and though it has had its problems, it has worked and progressed quite beautifully until recently.

As long as we have predators of society committing violent crime or crimes against the people, we will either need a branch of public service to protect us with sufficient arms, we will need to defend ourselves with the same, or we will need some combination of the two. That's a point I believe we all can agree on. In any case, we, the majority of the people as a whole (at least in a democracy or republic), will collectively need weapons, infrastructure, and willingness as great as the predators to prevent them from preying on society. If we delegate that to a government, we certainly do so believing it is at least "for the people" if not, "by the people". In the US, we are supposed to have both.

For a government to claim to be "by the people, for the people", there is an inherent requirement that whosoever wields the physical power over citizens that enables them to enforce laws, the executive branch, do it with respect for the inalienable rights of the citizens they work for. The reality is that our rights are being taken away, and there is a lot of growing disrespect on the part of the US administration, unchecked by congress, for citizen or human rights. Historically, this does not bode well and would not have been the time to freely offer to give up more basic rights, including the basic right to defend yourself.

Having the ability to defend yourself does not indicate fear, and is not in conflict with being peaceful. In many martial arts, one trains to be physically strong and capable of defeating an opponent, sometimes with the ability to disarm or kill. Most traditional martial arts systems simultaneously teach the consequences of your actions, through the effect on your partner, but also in the effect on you when a technique is applied. You train in both the ability to defend against and with force, but you also learn what really happens to someone when that is applied. In some systems, it is mandatory for advanced practitioners to also learn to heal.

Some of the most effective martial arts systems were developed with the goal of peace. In many Chinese martial arts, there is a bow that includes the left hand cupped over the right, a symbol of physical strength and ability covered by a gentle spirit. In some Japanese martial arts, the left of the gi covers the right and the left of the belt is looped over the right to remind a practitioner that the goal is peace over strength. Martial arts have been a very effective tool in history for maintaining human rights, of course mostly prior to the invention of guns.

To give up all weapons and martial education would obviously not work, so who gets to defend themselves? Giving up all personal right to defense would require permanent, in-built respect of all human rights by those who wield power, something like an unbreakable constitution, a truly effective, prompt anti-violent crime focused police force, and incorruptible officials. Aside from that, I think people, and US citizens specifically as guaranteed to them in their foundng constitution should have the right to keep and bear arms.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Thank you for the many comments thus far but I think the thread is going astray a little. The thread is not about the morality of the rights and wrongs of owning guns or the damage they may or may not do.

This thread is about the errosion of rights and what would happen if the US Goverment took action to remove the right to bear arms from the people of America, how would they go about this what would be the public reaction and what would be the reason for the Goverment to take such action, I thank you.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom

This thread is about the errosion of rights and what would happen if the US Goverment took action to remove the right to bear arms from the people of America, how would they go about this what would be the public reaction and what would be the reason for the Goverment to take such action, I thank you.


In that case, I think the majority of us have spelled out the consequences. We will lose our country as we know it should firearms be outlawed. Historical fact - not just opinion. The government has already demonstrated that it will take our weapons away in the face of a crisis.

I will say it again - to think that we do not need guns to protect our rights is incredibly naiive. And no andre, it has nothing to do with you being 18. It's historical fact.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18


One last thing….this really confuses me……the constitution was written hundreds of years ago…….why do people defend something written that many years ago…..



Good god. I'm just shaking my head at this point.

Statements like this make me lose all hope for my generation


*edit* Actually, andre is not an American so I suppose that's not fair. As far as I know, my American generation still understands the importance of the constitution. I really really hope so.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Andre, many documents are hundreds of years old many alot older than the Constitution but its is not the age of the documents that is important as what is written on those documents.

The American Constitution gives the people of America rights, rights that some now seek to errode or remove and one must ask the question why for what reason.

If changes are made to the bill of rights then it should be for the betterment of all the American people, removing the rights of its citizens to bear arms isn't just unconstitutional it takes away the power of the people to defend themsleves from tyranny and enemies, anyone can fall into that group including the Goverment and its Armed Forces.

Remember Goverments should fear the people and not the people fearing the Goverment. That is what the Constitution is all about, Idiot Bush called it a damm bit of paper, well it might just be paper but the words upon it allow people to live without fear, or threat to life and limb, to live in freedom, to speak ones mind openly, to work to travel to progress, there are people dying right know who wished they had such a piece of paper.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
“Huh? Are you suggesting that by ending the military industrial complex that no one will have to work and everyone will be wealthy? Am I understanding you correctly?”

Yep……….The military takes in so many billions of dollars every year, you take away the funding, you take away the warships, the aircraft, tanks, troops etc, the country is utterly defenceless, but if everyone is defenceless, there is no reason to have a military to defend against another…

All that money would then go into other projects, like medical problems and into the public like hospital funding, the media wouldn’t have any war to talk about no more fear.

“But how do you plan on destroying every firearm,” not destroying but banning……….it’s up to the people whether they want a war free world, or a “I like my gun, it makes me feel like a man….”

“You would have to wipe out or imprison more than 3/4 of the Earths population.” if people would just give up the want (not need) for guns, the world would be a better place.

“Hand everyone on Earth a million dollars and you think they'll stop stealing things?”

Yes…….Rich people don’t steal, wealthy people don’t steal. You take away the fear, you take away the war, people become less afraid and paranoid of everyone else. People start trusting each other…..I would love to think of a world where no one needs locks on there doors because no one would won’t to rob anyone. Everyone would have enough money, they wouldn’t need or want to steal.

“For the thrill of it or simply just to be a jerk and inconvenience somebody else.”

Bad people exist because bad things happen to them, more trust and less fear means people become happier, less stress over financial problems, etc.

“And Africa. Christ, do you know why people in Africa are starving? Perpetually war. Constant fighting with Muslims and their sub-divisions,”

You take away the military, poverty diminishes. Let’s say every single country on the planet took away its military except for Africa, (I expect) they’ll look at each other and think “ why are we the only ones still fighting?”

“That will stop rapes, theft, vandalism, assault and oppression based on race, age, sexual orientation, murder, etc...”

But it’s a start, and a step In the right direction……..but as I said, you take away war, fear goes away, people become less stressed, people are financially wealthy, less greedy, and more happier people, rape, theft, assault etc diminish.

“simply by going to the hardware store and buying basic indescript hardware.”

no one would want to build a gun, for what reason would they want to?
“ to go hunting” another primitive illogical thing for some reason I can’t comprehend people do…..local shops have food, people going around for the fun of it hunting animals for sport is sick…..if there was a way to create a food that had the same properties that meat has, like the same taste, the same protein, and just everything that’s good about meat, only it doesn’t come from an animal, there would be no reason for anyone to eat meat……

“Would you not defend yourself if someone broke into your home and was beating the crap out of you?”

I live in a fairly safe neighbourhood, fairly wealthy, nobodies going to break into anyone’s home…..the atmosphere we I live is that nobody wants to break into some ones home not because we all have security systems, but because everyone is wealthy and has what they need, they don’t need to steal. You go to a neighbourhood that’s poor, you’ll always see strife…..if the whole world was like my neighbourhood, (they all were wealtht) there wouldn’t be hardly any break ins because everyone can afford what they need and want.

“not the age of the documents that is important as what is written on those documents.” The Amero ….end of story…..



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Bro, in a perfect world we wouldn't need weapons. That's the simplest I can put it. You are extremely idealistic just like I am, but that doesn't mean we can change history. The gun has been invented, every way to kill a man has been invented, and there are more than enough people willing to use those tools for the wrong reason.

Self defense is not idealistic, but it's reality. To say that we want weapons in our life because it makes us feel like a man is laughable. What makes us feel like a man is being able to protect our families etc. and in a perfect world all we would need is our fists.

In any case : the moment firearms are taken away from the general public the very people interested in hurting or controlling them, will do exactly that. You'd be surprised how many people at the top of the chain are willing to kill you for innumerable reasons. You'd also be surprised how many people will kill each other in the event of a crisis. Life can be alot like a shipwreck, when the boat goes down people will cling to and drown one another in their panic. That's the best analogy I can use - a firearm is your last defense in the face of anarchy.

You are under the impression that life should be like suburbia, but I have lived in suburbia and witnessed shootings. People are people, no matter what they're financial class... you seem to believe violence is something that poor people do.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Andre, not withstanding the fact that you never responded to my challenges to rectify your re-write of the history of Nazi Germany or to research the real intent of the 2nd ammendment here are some excerpts from a recent article that you may find enlightening. I suggest you read the article.

The founding fathers were abundantly clear in their intent:


America's Founding Fathers agreed with Heinlein. Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." He also said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Samuel Adams said, "[T]he said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

James Madison said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."

Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

George Washington called the private collections of arms "the people's liberty's teeth."



Outlawing guns does not lessen gun crime:


One thing the national news media will always ignore is the practice of lawful self-defense. For example, most people are probably not aware of the fact that American citizens use a firearm to defend themselves more than 2.4 million times EVERY YEAR. That is more than 6,500 times EVERY DAY. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Furthermore, of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault. And in less than eight percent of those occasions is a shot actually fired. The vast majority of the time (92%), the mere presence of a firearm helps to avert a major crime from occurring. That is what Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) concluded after extensive research. According to Rep. Bartlett, the number of defensive uses is four times the number of crimes reported committed with guns.

John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, agrees with Bartlett. His book "More Guns, Less Crime" documents the fact that--instead of being a cause of crime--firearms in the hands of private citizens are actually a major deterrent to crime.


Even in the Bible...

Even our Lord understood and validated the right of every person to arm themselves for personal self-defense. He said, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36 KJV) The old Roman sword was the First Century equivalent of a modern handgun. It was the most practical and convenient form of self-defense available at that time. Also, please note that at least two of Jesus' disciples (one of whom was Simon Peter) were in the habit of carrying their own personal swords, and Jesus never rebuked them. (See Luke 22:38.)


But most importantly:

Some years back, Alan Rice of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) wrote, "Since 1900 at least seven major genocides have occurred resulting in the murder of 50-60 million people:

Ottoman Turkey, 1915-17; 1-1.5 million Armenians murdered;
Soviet Union, 1929-53; 20 million anti-Communists and anti-Stalinists murdered;
Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe, 1933-45; 13 million Jews, Gypsies, and Anti-Nazis murdered;
China, 1949-52, 1957-60 & 1966-1976; 20 million anti-Communists murdered;
Guatemala, 1960-1981; 100,000 Mayan Indians murdered;
Uganda, 1971-1979; 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
Cambodia, 1975-1979; 1 million murdered."

Rice continued to say, "In all seven of the genocides summarized above, gun control laws were in force before the genocide occurred, in some cases decades before. In five of the seven genocides, the lethal law, the gun control law was in force before the genocide regime took power."

Rice also said, "Gun control laws are usually enacted during a crisis or a perceived crisis." He then said, "Government officials, not hate groups or common criminals, were responsible for these seven genocides. In most of these cases the murder victims outnumbered their murderers; yet they were powerless to defend themselves because they were disarmed."


Read the article here...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
It's too late to stop gun ownership in the US. If it was revoked, the current ease of getting a gun (either legally or illegally) would mean the criminal element would be flooded with firearms. If a country never had a right to bear arms, at least in modern times, it's much easier to stop criminals having guns. That and an adequately-trained and equipped police department, which you can rely on, means citizens wouldn't have to worry about their own safety - the police can do that (which is, after all, their job).

Now if we're talking about the ol' "what's to stop King George stealing my waffles etc. etc." argument, well, the armed forces are there for that. And if it's the "stop a corrupt government" argument, well, again - the armed forces will definitely help with that (they've taken an oath for just that purpose). If they're not on your side, no amount of guns will stop an armoured column from running over your house.

I try to be as respectful to the sentiments and emotions surrounding gun ownership, so please forgive me if I seem abbrasive or insensitive - I welcome a nice, friendly debate about this subject.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420Now if we're talking about the ol' "what's to stop King George stealing my waffles etc. etc." argument, well, the armed forces are there for that. And if it's the "stop a corrupt government" argument, well, again - the armed forces will definitely help with that (they've taken an oath for just that purpose).


If only this were true. George Bush and Dick Cheney took the very same oath. That hasn't stopped them from running rough-shod over The Constitution. We can only hope that the military remain true to 'The People' should that time come. IMO, the military might be convinced to round us all up, detain us, take our property, etc. but far less likely to shoot us. And that would only become necessary if we resisted.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I know Bush & Cheney have, but they're not in it for that - taking the oath is something they had to do to be able to get into their positions of power. I doubt all the armed forces will turn their guns/tanks/planes/subs/carriers/trained-laser-sharks on the general population, as they're people just like you and I. That's where the real power lies - the armed forces. When dealing with their compatriots, they've got more conscience than the government that controls them. And either way, poorly-trained accountants with handguns and hunting rifles will not be able to hold off the army should they want to fight, which would never happen anyway.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
I live in a fairly safe neighbourhood, fairly wealthy,


LOL, well, that explains it right there. You're just some rich teenager. Fairly sheltered too I gather.

Trust me, CT is the wealthiest state in America and plenty of rich people steal, rape, murder, vandalize and everything else. Not because they've had such a bad life being rich or are afraid of anything at all. It's quite the opposite. The fear absolutely nothing because they can buy their way out of just about any trouble and the kids born into wealth (not those who busted their asses to earn wealth) have this sense of entitlement about them that just begs them to rape a girl because why wouldn't she want it? He's rich! Smash stuff steal stuff kill people. It's all fun to them. Anyone earning less than 80K is just here for their amusement after all.

Thankfully clowns like this generally squander the wealth their parents earned and bear their children into poverty.

Trust me. You have an awful lot of living to do before you can be so hell bent dead locked on a position. Sadly, in a safe, rich neighborhood I doubt you'll get it.

I don't resent the wealthy. I'd just rather they not try to tell the rest of the world how they should live their lives. Just lock the gate behind you and and play squash with daddy.


Maybe you should take a trip to Fairhaven New Haven, CT USA with nothing but the clothes on your back? Stay there a year or so and live a little. Then we can talk about your fantasy utopian ideas. If you're right and writing the poor a million dollar check will save the world then you'll know for sure here. Hell, just hand these guys a thousand or so and see what they do with it. I'll get some good laughs and you'll probably feel more than a bit discouraged.

It'll be great.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

America's Founding Fathers agreed with Heinlein. Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."


More like no free man shall ever exist while guns exist.



He also said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


More like laws that forbid the carrying of arms helps society progress, unless the society doesn’t want to progress.

See this was written hundreds of years ago in a time when people didn’t know anything better then war, when war was common place, the answer back then was guns solve all problems…I guess they thought people had to defend themselves from other people, they didn’t understand guns are designed to kill people, I suppose they were okay with defending the right to kill someone if it’s for the right cause, (there is never a right cause)



Samuel Adams said, "[T]he said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." “peaceable citizens”


11,000 yeah real peaceful like…………



James Madison said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."


so you can defend yourself from an invisible enemy.



Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."


“keep the invader” see right here to keep the invader….. This mentality that there will always be someone attacking you, if there is world peace this entire text would mean nothing…..In order for this to make sense, it inclines that there will always be someone against you.

Lets say the world one day is in a state of world peace, what will be the point of guns…? The need for guns to defend yourself means there will always be someone you need to defend yourself against, this mentality that you will always need to protect yourself means you will always think there is some against you…..this is an illusion and complete BS paranoia that makes you think that there is always someone out there to get you, all this creates fear and distrust.




[edit on 14-12-2007 by andre18]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


dave420 I respectfully disagree with your statement that a poorly armed group of accountants could put up a good defense against a superior well trained army. I suggest that you read my thread about the best guerrilla fighters. There are many,many instances of just this very thing happening all around the world. A determined group protecting territory that is well known often actually has an advantage equal or to superior to a well trained and equipped force. The Apaches used it. The Viet-Cong used it. The Afghans are using it today and kicking our butt. Technology will only get you so far. Knowledge and desire will achieve far more than numbers and firepower.

respectfully

reluctantpawn



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join