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.

 

Difference between liberal and conservative

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   


No. I mean the founding fathers of this country. Ok. When you preach that men are to be equal and you own slaves. What is that? Anyone guess? Plus suggesting that your class be the only ones allowed to vote. So I guess women and blacks were out of the question back then, huh?

They would be hypocrites had they wrote the DoI today, but they didn't so they aren't. This is not 1776. Most people today have some education and freedom to get more. Back then life was agrarian and most of society was based on landed gentry. It was very "Roman" imho.


As far as guns go, don't gloss over the fact that we (the USA) were created from revolution. The founding fathers were aware of how government becomes more and more tyrannical, read the Federalist papers. They put in the checks and balances because of their ideas about how government would progress.
For their time they were deep thinkers. They were trying to plan a society that would last as long as the Romans did. The DoI is a living document that was meant to grow as the country did. To ignore any right inherit in the document is short sighted. No man knows what the future holds. We should always be suspect of anyone who wants to take rights and privileges from the People, no matter what political or ideological hat they wear.

Variable




posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The second amendment is the basis for establishing the militia. The militia is not meant to defend from outside attacks, but to defend the people inside.

Remember, threats both foreign AND domestic.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Certainly, trees provide homes and food for critters, but then again, to does grasslands. Regardless, the point made was of oxygen, and of course that is what I was responding to. Everything has a balance, and too many trees is just as much out of balance as too few. Wrong kinds of trees makes an imbalance as well. Down around where I live, there are 1,000's of acres of trees planted by people, but they are pines. These pines are not native, they provide little in the form of nutrients and have a natural herbicide to prevent other growth, such as vines. As a forest ranger said a couple years ago, the stupid things create a green desert.

I think I told you before, Thorfin (memory is slipping), but I saw a map of how the NWO will control the nations, showing what nations' military will control what regions. I remember that the U.S. will be carved up into about four regions, I can't remember which nations will be providing the military force, but I do remember it is nations who aren't too much in love with us. I also remember that China will be controlling the Panama Canal area. That made me think it was a load of BS. After seeing that the Chinese now control the Canal, I wish I knew where that stupid map is now!



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Find it if you can, Thomas. I would like to see it.

By the by. You're right about the tree bit. Too much and too little is a bad thing...



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
hmm...bye the way, we can remove all the trees from the face of the earth. I believe a number like 60% of our oxygen comes from algae anyhow.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



However, the gun toters today hurt our indepence. They usually end up killing some innocent people. We do have the army, national guard, etc today to protect our nation.


Anyone that believes this tripe deserves to have his freedom taken. I have been raised around guns and my independence is not harmed in the least by my neighbor owning a gun.


Ask any mom and pop business owner or any family that has had someone killed while working to find out if that person's independence was taken away.

I have nothing against rifles, shotguns, etc. It is the handgun which is really a problem with me. The difference? It is hard to conceal a rifle. It is very easy to conceal a handgun.

Please, I don't want to hear the line that it is not the gun that kills but the perpetrator. One can run from a knife. I haven't found anyone quick enough yet to run from a bullet.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Oh lets not turn this is into another gun debate. Lets review the points, so we can move on:

Pro-Gun: Guns are good. Guns protect us from the government.

Anti-Gun: No they don't. The government is too big. We could never protect ourselves.

PG: But it sends out a message. Thats one more armed civilian out there.

AG: It does send out a message...But alright, guns are responsible for thousands of accidental deaths every year.

PG: Well then who ever owned the gun should have been trained and should have hidden it better. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

AG: I've heard that line way too damn much. Please refrain from ever using it again.

PG: Look, you can try to put as much legislation on guns as you want to, but the bad guys will always be able to get the better guns that really kill people. Besides that just brings up another point...that I need my gun to protect myself from these type of people.

AG: No you don't. If anything, your attacker will take away your gun and then you will be the one looking down the barrell.

PG: No ordinary person could just take a gun away from someone.

AG: Oh yeah, I could take away yours.

PG: Hah, no you couldn't.

AG: Ok, pull it out. Watch me.

Pro-Gun pulls out his gun and Anti-Gun attempts to wrestle it away. It the struggle Pro-Gun accidentallly shoots Anti-Gun and kills him. Pro-Gun is then sentenced to the death penalty by a jury of his peers. I guess people really do kill people. The End.

can we drop gun chat now?



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
No. Too big of an issue to be dropped...



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Yeah, buts its already been debated countless time. There just seems to be no reason to rehash the same damn arguments everytime.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Yeah, but that could be said of A LOT of things around here...



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   


Ask any mom and pop business owner or any family that has had someone killed while working to find out if that person's independence was taken away.


This is a lame arguement at best, ask any mom or Pop store that had there lives SAVED because they were armed too.

Like I said in another thread recently a neighbor of mine caught a three time convicted rapist trying to break into another neighbors house. She was an older woman at home at the time and hard of hearing chances are that she would have been raped or worse. He held the man at gun point (a 45 just like mine.) ask her what she thinks about people not having guns.


Oh by the way she just bought one herself.

[Edited on 19-3-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   


Please, I don't want to hear the line that it is not the gun that kills but the perpetrator.



Dont want to hear the truth?

That explains a lot.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
:p



The second amendment is the basis for establishing the militia. The militia is not meant to defend from outside attacks, but to defend the people inside.


Who is the militia in your opinion?


Variable



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   


Who is the militia in your opinion?



Us.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Yes, it was all able bodied men. Now I would assume you would have to throw in some women as well.

"Militia" is not the national guard or Army reserve. They are simply part of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join