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.

 

Once and for all: Why you should vote for Obama

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Slazer
 

Yes, we should start looking for alternatives NOW, just like I already mentioned in the post you quoted. But that doesn't mean we should discontinue our current source of energy and send the economy into the toilet with unbearably high energy prices. How do you guys not understand this? You don't stop producing oil BEFORE the new technology is even invented.

Could you imagine if someone designed a hovercraft that would be ready in 50 years, so all the auto manufacturers stopped making automobiles? For the next 50 years, we're on foot til the hovercraft is ready, guys! THIS is Obama's plan. Put us all out into the cold until a fictional alternative energy that isn't even conceived yet is available for the masses. Oh. My. God.

How does ANYONE not understand this? EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD is staking their claim on oil but us. We're the ONLY nation with a coast that isn't drilling off of it. I can't take this ignorance. When is the American public going to WAKE UP? How can anyone be this blind and ignorant?

[edit on 6-7-2008 by ChocoTaco369]




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



Andrew, you seem to be glossing over a very impotant part of the second amendment.

Amendment II

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.

The key to all that, and the part you so convienently overlook is..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Militias are made up of individuals, the people, these individuals have the right to bear arms period...

quit trying to mince words to fit your ideaology...we the individulas of this country have the right to bear arms.

and as to your "poorly written and vague amendment" statement, who are you trying to kid...it's as plain as day my friend...

it's YOUR opinion that its porrly written and vague, plenty of us see and read it for what it is...the founding fathers recognition of the need of the individual to protect himself/herself from..
1. the govt. (ours)
2. other govts. (foreign)
3. citizens who would seek to do harm to the individual (criminals)
4. and people like you who would leave us defenseless against all of the above.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by deadbang
 



Okay. Well, its been a while since i took grammar class, but lets evaluate this from a grammatical standpoint. Afterall - you can read anything by the founding fathers and see there is a lot of emotion, and even more structure, that goes into anything they write. So - we know their emotion. Guns are necsesary. Not just "muskets" but guns. So - now - lets evaluate their structure


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.


So you claim i "overlook" "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"



I guess you make that assumption because you think you can so easily get inside my head, like some neo-miss cleo. Well....sorry, friend, but you got it wrong.

I did not overlook it, and infact, if you'd take a moment to go back and check it out - i offer up an explanation on exactly that.

The first part, before the first comma, refers to

well regulated militia

now they go onward to describe what kind of militia and their responsiblity


being necessary to the security of a free state

and now, the kicker, the one you claim was excluded

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If the "right of THE people" refers to anyone in this paragraph, its the militia. Since a militia is made up of people you can see how one my draw this conclusion.

And here, this confusion, this complete lack of direction issued to us by the founding fathers, is exactly why the 2nd amendment is so controversial.

IF "the right of the people" refers to ALL people, regardless of association to any sort of militia whose purpose is to protect the state (minutemen, etc)

then they have a complete lack of structure in their descriptions, as they touch on "militia" and completely change direction, leaving militia in the dirt, and really bringing it up for no reason.

You see what you want to see, because you have been lied to that Obama wants to take away your guns.

But, as i've said an uncanny amount of times, he does not.

Obama is for "local governments" regulating their own gun laws

(for a source of the following example: please click here )


Detroit, Michigan is ranked #1 for murder rate in the united states in 2006 for cities with populations above 250,000.

Plano, Texas is ranked #72 for murder.
So - would it be okay to allow both towns to run amuck with any weapon they can get their hands on?

Well, i mean this question rhetorically, of course, but those who do not want to be convinced, never will be done so. So i rest my case.

But just realize that all we have to go off of from our founding fathers is the words they left behind.

Many of those words have been superseded by modern governments in the forms of amendments, and interpretations of supreme court justices of modern times, in relation the constitution, because "times are a changing" and require updated laws that address issues the founding fathers never foresaw.

Im sure if you could invent a time machine, and go back to speak with George Washington, he'd call you crazy if you described the modern weapons of today's world.

The right to bare arms?
Sure. Obama doesnt dispute that. The right to bare weapons of death, mayhem, destruction, and war?

Well, i hope that by now, you can see the difference.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
One simple reason sums it up. The other choice is McCain.
Enslavement.
Corporate Fascism.
The rape of the American way of life.
A permanent war economy.
A one hundred year holy war.
Destitution as a motivation to fight for the corporation.
The continued dismanteling of the constitution.
And I just don't like the gang of fascist thugs McCain and his drug stealing addict wife hang out with.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   


THIS is Obama's plan. Put us all out into the cold until a fictional alternative energy that isn't even conceived yet is available for the masses.


That's exactly right. McCain and Bush want to lift drilling bands to save America's economy now while there is still a chance. High Gas price is the primary constituant to hurting our economy followed by the Mortgage Scandals incurred by Democrat Senators.

Deadbang stated word for word Andrew, right from the second amendment that the people, not just militias have the right to bear arms.

I don't know why you think writing three pages of useless text every time is going to solidify or support your claims in trying to mold what isn't there in the Amendment to support your literally new and incorrect interpretation of the text.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet



THIS is Obama's plan. Put us all out into the cold until a fictional alternative energy that isn't even conceived yet is available for the masses.


That's exactly right. McCain and Bush want to lift drilling bands to save America's economy now while there is still a chance. High Gas price is the primary constituant to hurting our economy followed by the Mortgage Scandals incurred by Democrat Senators.

Deadbang stated word for word Andrew, right from the second amendment that the people, not just militias have the right to bear arms.

I don't know why you think writing three pages of useless text every time is going to solidify or support your claims in trying to mold what isn't there in the Amendment to support your literally new and incorrect interpretation of the text.




They want to take the natural resources from public lands and GIVE them to their buddies to sell to us the people, the rightful owners of those resources at inflated prices.

Do you do something special to distract yourself from reality, so you can chant those blind praises without laughing or crying?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


I never claimed to be able to get inside your head...thats your realestate...

what I clam and still feel despite your condescending attitude, is your playing word games...

The second amendment is very clear about who the militia is...it's you and I, and as such we are allowed to own and keep guns.

and throwing in your cheeky comments does nothing to bolster your argument.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Hmmm.. not sure why the personal attack, of course that is common-place with flaming liberals. Deflect from the facts and go to personal attacks.

You don't have any proof that they want to do this, that is in selling to their buddies and have them resell it to the public. Where is this proof?

So, removing domestic and offshore drilling bans would better solve the energy crisis here at home. Would you rather it continue and not do anything about as Obama would suggest? In fact Obama suggests you drive your Surburbans less and eat less food. Does that sound like a problem-solver to you?

The high Oil and Gas prices are a global problem, not just an American one. The Gas prices are affecting most countries, and many are paying more than the US is.

"Chant those blind praises" - Change-Hope-Unity - give me a break.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


you know what is most hilarious about this 'blame the liberals" for the domestic drilling thing?

George Hershel Walker Bush is the one who put it into effect


is he a liberal now?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Andrew, I think you be Wiggin out again. What is that supposed to mean?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadbang


The second amendment is very clear about who the militia is...it's you and I, and as such we are allowed to own and keep guns.



I agree. And especially in today's society, nobody has the balls to actually join a militia. So it's up to ordinary individuals to protect this right.

Oh and getting on another subject, why don't the two candidates discuss fiscal and monetary policy, and the IDEALOGY behind the United States foreign policy? When it comes down to it, the truth is, neither candidate is going to change that much, because they refuse to look at the history and the ideology of the subjects that they're talking about, they're just going to put a band-aid on most things, and then it will erupt into an even bigger problem later in the future.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Slazer]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Well if the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any firearm in your opinion, good for you


everyone has an opinion

But i choose to evaluate it for how it was written, now how i want it to apply. Americans (more than anyone) tend to have double standards on policy as it applies to their lives

you can have free speech
but dont talk about christmas

you can have freedom of religion
but you better not bring up a Christian god in today's school

This is a REAL question:

How would you feel if you found out a camp of Nazi sympathizers were camped out in the woods, near a school in your home town.

They are armed to the teeth

Automatics
Explosives
Armor
etc

Do they have a right to own weapons of destruction?

Are they going to go deer hunting with that block of C4?
Are they goign to go duck hunting with that Uzi?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadbang

The second amendment is very clear about who the militia is...it's you and I, and as such we are allowed to own and keep guns.



No. im sorry, its not.

It says a militia. I've given definition of a militia. Militia's still exist in today's society, do i really need to provide google results to prove this to you? An individual is not a militia.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


To be perfectly honest, unless I was 99.9% positive that they were going to do something harmful, I wouldn't do anything. What right do I have to go over to them and say, "hey you can not have those."And if someone on here says "well you have to watch out for terrorists." Well that's another problem in itself, the United States policies towards the middle east have created the terrorism problem. When you go over, and give a group like Al-Queda weapons to fight the Russians, and then 10 years later, you start bombing their region, what else do you think is going to happen. You're going to cause major frustration and anger, and to go along with it, they have weapons that the United States government gave them.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Sorry, Andrew. I disagree with you (but that's ok)


The second amendment does not say that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To me, it's clear that the right of the people (not Militia members) shall not be infringed. Because a well-regulated Militia (made up of those people) is necessary to the security of a free State. So, at some point, IF the security of the free State is threatened, the PEOPLE can form a Militia, and with their arms, secure the free State.

Having said that, I do support some regulations. In addition to what is already in place, I support mandatory safety and instruction classes.

And there is no way in heaven or earth that Obama or anyone is going to mess with the 2nd.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Today's militia is each states National Guard, and that is run by the GOVERNMENT. The whole reason behind the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from GOVERNMENT. Seems contradicting to me.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Nice reply, anonymous poster.

But as your grievances pertain to the gun control, i offered an explanation that the 2nd amendment is vaguely written. It speaks of "right to bare arms" to a militia - yet never defines what KIND of militia. Its a militia of the people, and since a militia is an organized group of people.....i do see the conundrum.

My point is:

Obama does not want to take YOUR guns away.
People who are law abiding and use guns to protect themselves and their families have nothing to worry.

I dont support taking away guns for protection and things like hunting. But you don't need a fully automatic machine gun for either. You dont need a high powered sniper rifle that can pick off a human being from a mile away. You dont need mortar launchers and Big bad tanks.

I know a lot of people will "hate me" for that

To them : fine, i really am not going to loose sleep over it.



The intentions of our founding fathers were and are known

The founding fathers wanted us to be able to resist governmental tyranny..
If the government has 50cal sniper rifles so should we..
I know this could get out of hand (like who has room in their garage for an f-16
Or room on their pond for a battleship).. but that is exactly what they meant..

Quotes from the Founding Fathers:
"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."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"...arms...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 the use of them."
-Thomas Paine.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-Patrick Henry.

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
-Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."
-John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms."
-Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America."
-Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
~quotes found here..

www.largo.org...



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I understand what you're saying

but im asking

If they meant all people - why would they limit it to "militia"

would it not be fair to say if it were intended for all people that they would have said


that the rights of the people, in order to protect the freedom of their state, shall have the right to bear arms, and not have it infringed upon


(they say it much better than me)

but still, do you see what im saying?

They are so eloquent in everything else that they say, and mostly very direct and precise.

To me, this one is precise as well. It only becomes controversial because people believe they should have a right to own a big piece of weaponry.

I dont have problem with a law abiding citizen who owns a rifle of high power for their own recreation

but i do have a problem that because that right exists, there will be criminals who take advantage of it to murder and destroy.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


" Why you should vote for Obama "


You couldn't PAY ME to vote for another bilderberger approved puppet.

I can't believe ignorance reigns so high of all places, on ATS.




Try Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura for a real change...

[edit on 6-7-2008 by toasted]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
but i do have a problem that because that right exists, there will be criminals who take advantage of it to murder and destroy.


Even if the right didn't exist, the criminals would still own guns and murder and destroy.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join