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.


Coming soon- Restrictions on Ammo.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by bknapple32
I tried to be nice and I tried to smooth things over, but you sir
are completely full of yourself, I'm sure your little world revolves around you. Your apparent worship of Gov't and our ELECTED leaders who are no better than any others worthy of no more respect or honor, frankly turns my stomach. Lone weasle has an excuse as he has never really been here and probably has not studied our history fully, you do not have such an excuse. Someone (maybe you know who?) said "anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither and will get neither" Thanks to those who so much more eloquently than I, who have posted without belittling others. United we Stand!

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by racegunz

Where were you belittled? I fail to see how any of what I said should be taken as if Im some know it all. You joke about assassinating a president, I called you on it. You say socialists and democrats are the same, and I called you on that as well. You then said one of the reasons you had a gun was to keep said democrats in check, and yes, I called you on that too.

Ben Franklin would also probably tell you that if you are going to use his quotes, you probably shouldn't back the republican party that is behind the great patriot act. Talk about trading liberties for security.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You understand this concept too ..Yes??

Thanks orangetom - I quite understand the points you're making and the concepts your citizens live by. As I've said more than once - I understand and respect the differences between your country's attitude to the rights of man - indeed I have studied Thomas Paine, contrary to racegunz' slightly patronising appraisal of me as being ignorant of The American Way.

I think you completely misrepresent the way my "sovereign nation" works - but frankly that's irrelevant to this topic. I don't think the British and American attitude to individual rights are quite so different as you imply - even if our antiquated judiciary to some extent supports your claims!

I repeat - my purpose here is not to argue against your fundamental rights, or indeed your reasons for having them. It's to ask pro-gun people to listen to the points made by the anti-gun campaigners - rather than dismissing them out of hand. As I've also already said, my own personal convictions are not relevant here, except in as much as they supply me with understanding of the undeniable train of logic behind those who would ban private ownership of weapons.

I suppose I should tell you LoneWeasel...that my occupation is that of a Nuclear Fueler. I put Fuel Cells in Nuclear Reactors on these Aircraft Carrriers and Submarines we build here.

And you would be concerned with me having a firearm and ammunition in my hands??

Now when did I ever say that?!

Are you like Homer Simpson in the opening credits to the Simpsons, then (who says I don't have a grasp of American culture)...

All the best,


P.S - Racegunz - I have been over this thread two or three times and I can't find any instance of anyone being belittled. We wouldn't dare - you're armed!


[edit on 2-7-2008 by LoneWeasel]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:03 PM
the right to bear arms


posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by bknapple32

Sorry bknapple32 but your statement itself is to simplistic and inaccurate.

The 2nd amendment was not made in time of war. It was made after the war was long over. This Consitution of the United States is the second government we have had here after the failed Articles of Confederation which was in effect for some 10 years. The Articles failed precisely because they were feudal in nature and had no checks and balances. They did not protect the rights of individuals but only the feudal power of government. This is a history not often taught in public schools next to the significance of it. The revolutionary war was over when the Constitution of the United States was written.

The Second Amendment and others were in fact put in there as a result of what the British had done in the Revolutionary war...the Third Amendment too...quartering soldiers in a persons home without thier blessing. Search and siezure..fourth Amendment. Forced to bear witness against ones self. Fifth Amendment. Inability to peacably assemble..First Amendment.

Nonetheless these are all limits on government.
All attempts by governments..state. local, and federal have been to chip away at these rights..slowly and sometimes imperceptably...piece by regulating them ..eventually till they are in name only and you then have the Law of the Soverign. Mischief has taken place by the Wisdom and Sophism of Learned Men...Men of Letters. Except that by then the Rights no longer exist ..except on some museum piece of a paper.

None of this will be taught in public schools next to the significance of what it means to the public..but only what Government ..financing of public education desires to be taught.

I take it that you also know that polls have been taken amongst our soldiers ....if they would be willing to enforce law by gunpoint against our own people. The polls failed miserably. If this is going to be done here it will most likely be done by foreign soldiers ..operating under the UN auspicies.

If only the far leaning could see that this gun legislation is just to control it for safety and nothing more.

to control something means you can change the rules as necessary ..and for whatever reasons. The most untrustworthy entity ever has always been exceptions. This is historically demonstratable.

Dear sir, gun rights are not GOD GIVEN. They are given to you by your government. God did not write the constitution, MEN DID. The United States OF America gives you your right to a gun, no one else. And anyone saying otherwise is delusional.

bknapple32..the quote above delusional...simply because of what is stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution...

Inalienable Rights...

Inalienable means not given by men...not able to be taken away. THey were there before the document was written...the documents only reiterate what already was.

Life liberty and the persuit of Happiness..inalienable rights..

Persuit of Happiness means the right to own and acquire private property. Guns are private property.

When you state that these rights are given by government and make certain men ..demigods...Feudal Lords..and you are back to LoneWeasel's position. Demigods is a religion as is Feudalism. Some men Lording over rank and privelege. Totally against the charter of this government and American principles.

How do you misinterpret a simple concept as written..inalienable rights??
The founders went on to catalogue these inaleinable rights as limits on government the Bill of Rights...particularly the first 10 Amendments. All of them limits on government..not the people.


Congratulations, I have not read the works of Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense". I have, some years ago, read the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay.

I have also been under tutorage of the Constitution of the United States by Elders who did not totally sucumbed to public education standards.

I think you completely misrepresent the way my "sovereign nation" works - but frankly that's irrelevant to this topic. I don't think the British and American attitude to individual rights are quite so different as you imply - even if our antiquated judiciary to some extent supports your claims!

Our laws come from two different origins...while not totally different..what is significant is the concept of Admiralty Maritime law....suits at Admiralty. This has to do with priveleges not rights.
Admiralty Maritime Law has its origins in Feudalism..priveleges granted by the Sovereign...not rights.

More and more as time trasnpires here in America ..more and more laws and regulations are done on the basis of Admiralty Maritime Law principles.
Priveleges granted by the this case the government.
Priveleges are very different from rights.

I have not misrepresented the way the laws work. One is the appearance of rights but are actually priveleges granted by a Sovereign. Priveleges can be removed...revoked at the will of the Sovereign.

The other has to do with inalienable rights not granted by men or a government but already were in existance before the government ever was.

As I've also already said, my own personal convictions are not relevant here, except in as much as they supply me with understanding of the undeniable train of logic behind those who would ban private ownership of weapons.

This is double speak. Logic does not trump rights...unless you are trying to mix rights with priveleges like a they superimposed the traditions of men over the Law of Moses as if it was the Law of Moses ...when it was in fact no such thing.

A counterfit not the opposite of the real thing..but as close to the real thing so as to pass for the real thing and substitute itself for the real thing when it in fact is not ...the real thing.

Logic and reason is not the same thing as inalienable rights. Thinking people know this..emoting people do not.

Are you like Homer Simpson in the opening credits to the Simpsons, then (who says I don't have a grasp of American culture)...

I dont watch the Simpsons. I watch little television as I find most of it insulting and debasing. Homer Simpson is not a good grasp on American Culture nor is television.

My point in mentioning my occupation is to get you to understand that in my line of work..we do not live to emotions or do so can get one badly hurt or killed. When we go to work we must live in the real world..not the world of second hand values or thinking...and most certainly not drama. Drama queens will not survive this line of work.
Mind you now..this does not make us better than others..only different.
But it also makes many of us well aware of the nonsense of government and those who would push a government position in the trust category.
It makes us well aware that we need to be very dubious about the real position and tendency. of government....Feudalism.

One of the faults of Civilized humans ..especially in affluent cultures...and especially us Americans that we live very vicarious lives today.
We live second hand television/movie lives.

I have noted among my Fellow Americans a marked tendency to measure and describe a moral principle or concept in terms of some movie or television program they have watched. Their thoughts are television and movie thoughts...someone elses thoughts. It is stamped out like on a xerox machine. They have movie and televison emotions too.

I have noted here in America that the programming on most of television is very poor...the commercial appeal is actually more original than the television programming. And that is quite pitiful as I find much of the commercial appeal just as insulting and debasing as the programming.

Hope this helps to clarify LoneWeasel.


posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:52 PM
im done with this thread if you think GOD gives the right to bear arms. What kind of God would want anyone to have a gun? Hmmm... Id think God would want no guns at all.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:40 AM

Originally posted by bknapple32
im done with this thread if you think GOD gives the right to bear arms. What kind of God would want anyone to have a gun? Hmmm... Id think God would want no guns at all.

Public Schooling eh....bknapple32??? too. I took me quite a number of years to get over it. It was not easy to do.

Your done with this thread?? Not much backbone there bknapple32 for one so fervent and sure in their beliefs.

Lets try this again...inalienable rights. Rights which were there and understood..known ...believed ..before the document was even written...even before it was written by men. Thus meaning and implying that the rights themselves were not given by men. What the document does is to put limits on the government in order to protect these inalienable rights from the natural mischief which is what men historically have always done.

Notice the usage here from the Declaration of Independence.

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,

Notice the usage of the words "Inalienable Rights". Also in the same sentance..."endowed by their Creator???"

Notice how that works...the first 10 Amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Notice also how the first 10 Amendments are used in the expression..of Shall not ..shall make no law...and other limitations on order to protect the people from the government.

Specifically it states "Endowed by thier Creator...not by men. Understand now. Endowed with what?? "Inalienable Rights."

Furthermore the term inalienable rights is often used in the context of
Limits on the government to protect the rights and libertys which were already there and known ..before the document was written. Inalienable Rights. Protected only by Limited Government.

And you saw me give the list of Shall the first 10 Amendments.

John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton go to great lengths to discuss these principles...along with the tendency to mischief of government and men.

Persuit of Happyness is often at law construed as the ability own property by a process of work..labor. This is also called Private Property.

Firearms are property..private property.

Hope this helps...
Are you sure you want to quit this thread???

Actually bknapple32...nowhere in the Bible does it say ..I'm Ok....your Ok!!
Therefore we are all good people and no one should be armed...ever.

If I recall correctly ..some of the Apostles prior to going on a long journey were told to purchase a sword. I dont believe this was with which to swat flies.

Hope this helps,

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by LoneWeasel


You know LoneWeasel...I had to think about this in your post. Apparently I missed this concept in your post a couple of days ago. Quoted here for the purposes of what I am going to demonstrate in support of my statement in a previous post.

I happen to believe that if you buy a commodity that has the professed purpose of injuring or killing other members of the society in which you live, that decision becomes a matter of public significance rather than private. So shoot me.

I want to thank you for verifying/confirming my statement made previous to your posting the above quote.

My statement is this here....

The significant difference in this country and yours is that firearm ownership here in the USA is a right ..not a privelege. THe people here are the sovereigns...we are not subjects.

This changes the perspective of Law considerably. It also goes along with a presumption of innocence...not guilt...or guilt by possibly.....even the possibility of harming another.

In nations where he laws are based on the law of the sovereign...the presumption is one of guilt and you must prove your innocence.

Along with this presumption of also the right to own private property. Guns are property..private property. This is a very different status at law than in other countrys where the law of the sovereign is the norm.

Notice the difference in perspective between what you post and what I posted.

You are stating that if a commodity/property has the professed purpose of injuring or killing other memebers of society... in which we live...that commodity/property becomes a matter of public significance rather than private.

Notice the manner in which you imply this a default plays through automatically. It plays through..though no crime has taken law has been tresspassed upon. There is only default.

Guilt has already been implied here. Therefore the actions necessary to establish guilt and remove property are justified..even reasonable.

This is Feudalism...the Law of the Sovereign. Guilt has already been implied/established...others must prove their innocence.

Thank you for confirming my previous point about innocent untill proven guilty as an American principle verses the Law of the Sovereign...where one must prove or demonstrate ones innocence.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by orangetom1999

I like you orangetom. There's something about the way you compose your messages, that suggests you're really thinking about the answers, which I opften wish other people would do more on threads like these. Our lately departed Prime Minister, Mr Blair, had a manner of making important arguments in a horribly facile way which, regardless of the strength of his position, would occasionally make me inclined to disagree with him on principle.

The reverse is true too, when you read an argument you disagree with but it's written in a way that makes you realise that the author is giving a considered opinion based on real convictions, I am inclined to support them. I hope all this doesn't sound condescending, but thank you for taking so much trouble over your responses.


I agree completely that our perspectives are different on the issue of sovereign rule/individual rights. I agree that my own personal convictions assume guilt on the part of a gun owner based on my assumptions about their motives for ownership. You are correct to point this out.

However, my own personal convictions should not be confused with the governing principles of my country. I don't accept that sovereign rule works on the basis of guilty until proven innocent. I think this ignores the role of habeus corpus in English law, and I think it assumes an intention on the part of our sovereignty that isn't necessarily there. You imply an almost sinister foundation to our legal system that I think is unfair. Whatever the potential pitfalls of sovereign rule, the reality is that sovereignty is reliant on the democratic will of the people when they get the chance to vote.

Back to habeus corpus - it's interesting that both our countries, despite their differing "perspectives" are faced with challenging but essentially identical questions about sovereignty, be it personal or state driven, in the current political climate. While the US wrestles with it over Guantanemo prisoners, we in the UK have a prominent member of the shadow cabinet, David Davies, resigning his seat in parliament in order to have the issue wrestled with over here.

It seems that whatever the assumed rights of the citizenry in the US or UK, and whatever their founding rights and laws, their respective governments are ultimately able to do more or less what they want, whatever we attempt to assert.


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:37 PM
Restrictions on ammo- Make your own

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in