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.

 

2nd Amendment for defense from Government

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I recently read an article on gun issues of current presidential candidates. It said that one of the candidates basically considers gun rights to secure hunting and target shooting only. This concept got me thinking about the nature of the second amendment and how people view things today.

The 2nd Amendment states: "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."


While many people argue on behalf of the Militia as opposed to the individual, or the meaning of infringed as a case against regulation in any form. I do not intend for this topic to go into that aspect of things. Instead, I want to focus on the security of a free State.

I have always viewed this statement to provide for the defense by individuals against an aggressive government overstepping their constitutional authority. It is clear however, that this statement would be considered radical by 'intellectuals' and the MSM. I don't think that they disagree that the idea that the government could be corrupt. For some reason though, when it comes to military and police action inside the US, the groups I previously mentioned and people in general tend to accept things assuming it must be legal or else they wouldn't have done 'it.' More so, the idea of people having to defend themselves from an abusive government by force seems laughable and never conceivably necessary by the same group.

Under the present state of the Union, I cannot see any scenario that would warrant an offensive attack on the government, but I can see situations where the constitution and rights are completely ignored, force used and the need for individuals to defend themselves from an aggressive US force.

What are your views on the 2nd amendment as pertaining to defense against government abuse?

Why do you think that 'intellectuals' and the MSM seem to laugh at the idea of civilian defense and an aggressive government?

[edit on 16-6-2008 by Wolf321]




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
As long as one person working for the gov is violating one or more citizens of the U.S., the whole government is crooked. The gov needs to be held accountable for any of its employed persons.

The gov shouldnt pick and choose who of it to allow to stand accountable individually. For ever time a person of the government violates the law, all the employed to the whole government need to step down and let the next batch take over. Wash, rinse, repeat.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
In the America of today, the citizens has been brainwashed to believe that everything the government do is for their own benefit.

Citizens has been geared to trust government as the law of the land.

America today have a population that actually believe that until our government nullify the constitution they are still protected.

Guess what, the government of today in our nation doesn't have to nullify the constitution all it does is making laws to make constitutional rights insignificant and outdated.

keeping the nation in a high alert of war fighting makes possible for government to do as they wish, as long as the population do not revolt.

Many people had not clue as the power of the people given to us under our constitution.

Government does and they are making everything they can to keep the population ignorant and afraid.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
This has been going on in this country from it's inception.When any government formed to serve the soverign citizen becomes so burdensome as to be tyranical,it is the duty of the populace to put that government in check.A will armed citizenery is important,a well informed citizenery is paramount.
We must never forget that the federal government was formed to act at the behest of the several soverign states of the union who in turn act on the behest of the soverign citizen. The common man is the reason for a federal government.We are the glue that binds this country.

The framers of the Constitution and the bill of rights knew all to well how an oppressive government could rend it's citizens asunder.The second amendment is a warning to the federal government that these rights are meant to allow the SOVERIGN CITIZEN to protect themselves from any infringement by the government.The ability to create militia is there to exert force against tyranny and oppression.

Actually all the firearm control laws on the books are an infringment on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. In my opinion of course.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I agree that gun control is unconstitutional, but guess what, we are inundated with propaganda that the government what it does is for the benefit and safety of its population.

And . . . you are going to find citizens that actually believe it.

The government of this nation has lost its integrity and ability to serve its citizens.

It only serve personal interest, we have allow this government entity to be control by private interest that is not in any means to work for the people.

But against the people and in their own favor, when you have corporate lobbyist writing laws to be passed unto the people you know that our nation's government system is completely corrupted.

But people in this nation can not comprehend or understand that it can be corruption in a nation like ours with a constitution like no other nation in the rest of the world.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
In the America of today, the citizens has been brainwashed to believe that everything the government do is for their own benefit.

And this is how the government has mightily abused the "general Welfare" clause in the Constitution Preamble..."We take away your Rights because it's for your own good."
Plaaaagh!
Not to derail or sidetrack, but there's a lot of 2nd Amendment viewpoints in a lot of other threads already...To keep me from typing over & over the very same things I've said before, I'll link to one such thread that's still not very old.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


The founding fathers put this amendment in there as way for us to protect our rights after words had lost their meaning.

In the event of Monarch take over (I say monarch because thats what they would have called them) the people of the free state would band together as a well regulated militia and protect theirs rights.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Spot on, dude! Star for you!

It sounds like you know your Founding Forefathers...


“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington




new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join