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.

 

I need opinions from Dem's and Liberals- The Second Amendment.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Im sorry if i sound like a troll, But why not an open debate? Why just liberals?

Do you want people to only agree with you? and not debate with you?

You need to look deep inside your self and see what side your on.

You know in your heart that the changing or alteration of the 2nd amendment would tear you up inside. That amandement was set up for the people to have a well trained malitia, and to protect us from not only outside threats but the government itself.




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I am not a Democrat (see siggy). "Liberals" agree with some of my views, "Conservatives" with others.

I do not believe this would be accepted. Sure, some people who hold extreme anti-gun views might think it a good idea, but I believe a huge majority would resoundingly scream NO, and any member of Congress that voted for such would lose their next election.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
If I had to wear a political label, I suppose it would Libertarian.

I would not vote for nor support any politician or political organization that was in favor of removing firearms from American citizens; yes, I would try to vote them out of office.

As BenevolentHeretic (excellent post BTW) and others said, training goes hand-in-hand with responsibility, and I also don't object to the enforcement of existing controls on firmarms acquisition.

If the government chose to finally define "assault weapon" as full-auto, and get rid of all the furtive language that allowed other firearms to be errantly cubbyholed into this definition, I think it would go a long way toward settling many of these issues.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 



The only definition that applies in the
case of "Assault weapon"
is the answer to this question:
IS IT AN ARM?
The definition of the word arm

v. armed, arm·ing, arms
v.intr.
1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.
v.tr.
1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
2. To equip with what is needed for effective action,
3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects:
4. To prepare (a weapon) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.

[From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European roots. V., from Middle English armen, from Old French armer, from Latin armre, from arma.]

armed (ärmd) adj.
armer n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

arm
Verb
1. to supply with weapons
2. to prepare (an explosive device) for use
3. to provide (a person or thing) with something that strengthens, or protects: you will be armed with all the information you will ever need

Arm has to do with strengthen, protect, prepare, equip for ready action

arms
Noun, pl
1. weapons collectively
2. military exploits: prowess in arms
3. take up arms to prepare to fight
4. under arms armed and prepared for war
5. up in arms prepared to protest strongly

Arms pertaint to the tools necessary to protect, combat, fight, resist.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


I'll repeat myself. No one is going to take away your guns if you are of sound mind to possess them.

If someone is able to take away your guns then you didn't know what they were for in the first place.

Don't give some chicken scratch on a piece of paper that belongs to some colored plop of dirt on a map too much credit. I think they are already inside your head. No one is going to take away your guns unless you give them to them.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


The infringement upon the Second Amendment has been occurring since the 1970's.

definition of INFRINGE:

verb: =break, violate, contravene, disobey, transgress
infringe on or upon:= intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb, encroach on, trespass on
Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2

Infringement of the inalienable right to bear and keep arms is occurring, and is being planned for by TPTB.

I am glad the Second amendment does not say operating arms, else we
would have to check out firing pins in and out of the local constabulatory.

Or some other essential piece of the firearm. That will be one of the next proposal.

The word fringe means the edges, like the fringe on a blanket or shawl.

Look at the third definition below:

fringe (frnj)
n.
1. A decorative border or edging of hanging threads, cords, or strips, often attached to a separate band.
2. Something that resembles such a border or edging.
3. A marginal, peripheral, or secondary part: "They like to hang out on the geographical fringes, the seedy outposts" James Atlas.
4. Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe.
5. Any of the light or dark bands produced by the diffraction or interference of light.
6. A fringe benefit.

A marginal, peripheral, or secondary part: in reference to an arm that would be the magazine, firing mechanism, (semi auto, fully auto), ammunition, how it is born (to bear) concealed, openly carried, loaded, unloaded, and how it is kept, (locked away, disassembled, stored away from children, with barrel lug, with barrel plug, in a safe, in the trunk, glove box, away from reach of driver, in case, in locked box.

The infringement is and has been happening as there are laws, regulations and statutes that deal with all or many of these peripheral marginal and secondary parts of the main issue: TO keep and bear arms.

Form 4473 prohibits felons, addicts and mentally impaired from purchase of firearms already. That is sufficient infringement enough.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
What a lot of people don't know is the 2nd amendment comes directly from the Pennsylvania Constitution which reads;

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
- Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 21

This was affirmed by the latest SCOTUS ruling where they referenced it.

AlBeMeT



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney

Form 4473 prohibits felons, addicts and mentally impaired from purchase of firearms already. That is sufficient infringement enough.



I fully support that. It is public safety.

You can possess any gun you want. No one is going to take away the guns. Some people only want guns for show and take pictures of themselves with them and post them on their facebook and myspace pages. If people wouldn't advertise their weapons no one would know they even had them.

The laws only limit manufacturer's abilities. If you want something done right sometimes you have to do it yourself. Americans have become so lazy.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by Spoodily]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Ignoring a lot of the debate here, cause thats what intrepid wanted.

Im a dem, and I own two guns. A handgun and a rifle. And I would never vote for a candidate who would want to take either away from me. simple as that.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Yeppers same gun, It was my fathers first rifle, (he is 94 now) and he gave it to me for my first rifle.. (sorry so long for the reply, been out of town all week)



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
I am no republican but and the only people I ever hear talking about gun rights being taken away are republicans. It seems to me that the democrats have a long list of things to do and that one has to be pretty far down since it never comes up.


Wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. The issue of seccond amendment rights came up THIS YEAR, in the Supreme Court. The definition to limit the right to bear arms to the military was barely voted down, by one vote. ONE VOTE - Kennedy!

Here's what I find astounding - the same people on here who say that the right to own a gun is so that the people can protect themselves from the government - most of those people would vote to put a Democrat in office this year. A Democrat who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. By definition, liberals and Democrats want MORE, LARGER government, not smaller government.

So you want guns to defend yourselves from a tyrannical government, yet you go and elect people to office that are more likely to enact a larger, more intrusive government!

The two conflict with each other!



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
We just know that Obama and the current dems running for office wont take away our second ammendment rights. Its the same ole' fear tactics that we hear every election.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
One point brought up was the militia. The militia is not the Reserve, nor the National Guard. The militia is every able-bodied adult. Period.

I have some small-arms military weapons, and I have a 427 Vette. I don't need the government to give me specific training on either. I don't personally need the military weapons, but I don't need the Vette either. I wanted both, I am allowed both, and that's quite enough.

I would suggest that no military weapon, full-auto or not should be regulated. The purpose behind the Second Amendment was to enable the militia, (the able-bodied adults) to show up as the situation required, and fit right in with the standing Army of the moment.

Are arms misused? Of course they are! Are autos misused? Of course they are!

The most law-abiding and polite society one can ever imagine is a society where everyone is armed. You'll note that the trouble-makers and social deviates drop faster than burdschitt in a downdraft. They simply don't last long.

Would I ever use my vote to support the maintenance of the Second Amendment? Till my dying breath.

And the way things are looking all over the world, we're going to be in a complete state of anarchy eventually, and then, those who previously exercised their Second Amendment rights will make the new rules.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE (TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS)
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

(insert Bill of Rights)

The first ten amendments ( of the Bill of Rights) are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.



www.harbornet.com...




[edit on 22-10-2008 by fmcanarney]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37


Wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. The issue of seccond amendment rights came up THIS YEAR, in the Supreme Court. The definition to limit the right to bear arms to the military was barely voted down, by one vote. ONE VOTE - Kennedy!



So a democrat gave you what you wanted and somehow it is there fault for the gun loss noone is suffering?



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


I was waiting for someone to jump on that. Its funny when they use it to serve their purpose. But when the dems help the 2nd ammendment, no love.... too bad.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
to the OP

I would vote them out as fast as I could and would sign a petition/referendum to hold early elections.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by seejanerun]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I think it is cute how every election we hear this crap about the dems taking the guns away. In the last 8 years how many rights have been lost? How much of the constitution has been shredded. But you still have your guns right? What good will they do against a military force with chemical, biological, nuclear, weapons. Any manner of delivery system. Armor and machines. You really gonna hold them off with your guns? And what for? What is going to be left to defend? While Hannity and Rush have you all worrying about losing your guns to people that are not even trying to take them, you are losing the rest of the constitution right out from under your noses. Seems to me that they want you worrying about your guns because
1- it keeps you distracted from the real problems.
2- they are not worried about your guns.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Some people are "worried" about guns and weapons aka arms. Else there would not be the bills presented in Congress to infringe upon them.

Some congressmen are worried about the sex lives of grasshoppers and this leads them to spend money via a bill to study that concern.

As many bills that get proposed regarding guns, logic dictated some one is worried about it.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
The use of hand held arms against a superior force was decided in Viet Nam from 1954-1973.

So nuclear, chemical, biological and tanks, trucks, planes, missiles and all have their place and use, but the man on the ground with the hand held weapon rules the day.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join