We Won't Lose the 2nd Ammendment...Yet, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 04:44 PM by SpookyVince

oh, btw... I hesitated to post this, but any mod is free to remove this & warn me (this is opinion, just stated in a "hot" way"): keep your nationalist extremist speech for yourself. Keep your oral diarrhea for your fellow listeners of your faith. Keep praying your CNN god. Keep listening to your "clean" politicians. Keep believing your McDo's and #ing Burger Kings. Keep thinking that your country is the best. Keep thinking that Europe is lame.

When you will open your eyes, you'll realize that except your stupid nationalist pride, you have nothing at all to advertise outside your sad borders! Your country is failing. It was once great, it is now only pathetic. It is now a shadow of itself.

And whine all the whine you can: I am still proud and happy to be a "liberal european". At least my government doesn't force me into some kind of thinking!

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 05:22 PM by Anonymous ATS

Even with a Democratic Majority it will be hard to pass such heavy tax on guns measures thru the Congress against heavy NRA lobbying unless: 1) we get another dometic terrorist attack using guns (ie, Columbine), 2) the federal govt gets desperate for tax revenues as a result of the failing economy (hmmm) OR the Executive Branch (ATFE) reinterprets existing laws (I am not going to tell them how to do it - so I will stop here).

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 09:19 PM by orangetom1999

reply to post by SpookyVince

vince,
I dont watch CNN here. We call it Chicken Noodle News. Dont care much for Fox News as well.

Not impressed with NATO forces either as they twiddled thier thumbs during the Yugloslavia mess in the 1990s. Europe fiddled for years on this one...right in your back door.

There is something very unsettling ...questionable about a government who will train you to pick up a gun for them, to fight their wars and conflicts for them, but not trust you with a gun of your own. There is something highly suspect about such a government....or body politic.
And I also know that government or the body politic finances public education. ...the trail is pretty difficult to not see how the dots are connected.
Here with the mentality of many people coming out of public school...I ask myself what they are teaching about the founding fathers and thier thinking if so few seem to know this history...that we are to not trust government with our rights and libertys but constantly watch them for mischief.

As to your government forcing you into some kind of thinking..I think you are beyond that by your behavior and conduct on this thread.

You come across as do many here who have taken a big bite out of the apple. A expression of entitlement at the expense of others.

Americans cherish their rights ...those who know what they are ...which is becoming a smaller and smaller number once public education gets done with them.

However...we do not respond well to those who speak from a point of ranting and entitlement..or guilt training...guilt techniques. Sorry Vince..not interested in it.

Vince...not all of us here are emotional train wrecks as you are wont to demonatrate by your posts. Dont waste your time or ours by such expressions of moral superiority. We are not interested in it . Some of us actually know the history of Europe going back to the middle ages and some of us beyond that. We do not find Europe to be the shining beacon on the hill. No thanks. We are not interested.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 09:35 PM by Survivorman1969

SpookyVince, you ask if I have ever been to Belgium. No. Have you ever been an American citizen? Okay, I was wrong to criticize Belgium citizens. I'm sure they are good people. But for you to criticize Americans and our beliefs and convictions is wrong. What we do and believe is none of your business my friend. Brainwashed? It seems the only one in this back-and-forth conversation, between you and me, that is brainwashed is the European liberal who is anti-gun. Where did you learn that? At a liberal European university or at the NATO Institute for Peace? If anybody is brainwashed by philosophy, it is you Spooky. You may not have land to hunt on anymore (did your government take control over it?), but we have plenty to hunt on and we do here in the States. It is a blessed heritage that many Americans love and cherish.

The initial speculative question that I posed revolved around how Obama will go about removing guns and our rights to own guns. He himself has been an advocate of removing guns to some degree, and he has mentioned it often. The question was concerning how he would accomplish it. I offered a possible scenario and wanted feedback from other intelligent people who are concerned about losing our rights. It had nothing to do with some liberal across the Atlantic preaching to we Americans about how bad we are for owning guns. The nerve!!! This whole episode with you has encouraged me to go out and buy another gun for the pride of the old red, white, and blue. Thanks for compelling me to buy another gun, fund a gun company so they stay in business longer, and irritate gun-haters like you. Appreciate it Buddy.

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 09:39 PM by Survivorman1969

reply to post by orangetom1999

Amen!!! People like you are hard to find today. You are right. The numbers are dwindling quickly. Keep on!

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 10:21 PM by orangetom1999

reply to post by Survivorman1969

Survivorman,

Be very careful about the body politic and hunting. The assumption is very often made that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. The body politic will try very quickly to focus on the placebo of hunting for the 2nd Amendment justification....with the position that hunting does not require ownership of handguns ..certain rifles..etc etc. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about hunting. It is about the necessity of a free state.. by a well regulated militia...through the keeping and bearing of arms by the people.

Nothing there about hunting. I am not against hunting at all. I am just saying be very careful of the body politic ...they will try to use or misuse the placebo of hunting to ban handguns and rifles of certain kinds and eventually all firearms. I have seen them do this in committees...switch the emphasis to hunting and not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Thinking people know that the 2nd Amendment says nothing about hunting. Any politician or committee using such a debate point is misrepresenting the public on this issue. They are phoneys.

Hope this helps you. Watch for this fingerprint among many people trying to debate the 2nd Amendment. They simply dont know and have not thought it through...on both sides..pro and con. IF you dont know it is very easy for cons to get over on you using or misusing the issue of hunting.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply posted on 29-12-2008 @ 10:27 PM by turbokid

reply to post by SpookyVince

spookyvince, dear friend

please read this.home.scarlet.be...

some interesting quotes from link.

E. Evolution of crime after the introduction of the Gun Ban.
The Gun Ban was implemented early June 2006.
The official crime statistics of the Federal Police indicate a sudden and significant
increase of crime in 2006.
This increase was in contrast with the decrease of crime we had seen in the 3
years before the introduction of the Gun Ban.
Increase of crime during 2006 compared to 2005 :
• total crime : + 4,5 %
• Rapes : + 8 %
• Burglary : + 13 %
• Assaults : + 5,5 %
• Violent deaths (homicide + manslaughter + unintentional killing) : + 7 %

and i find this interesting, quote from you..

I live in Belgium. Even though we have still at the moment no government, and that's because our politics suck, I can tell you this: NOBODY needs a gun here. NO ONE. We don't have guns. Only the cops and some really bad people do. And you know what? I can leave my car unlocked at night, and I can leave my house unlocked. And I am safe.

and from the article.

II. General public
The quality magazine "Knack" organised a poll about the gun ban in February 2007 : 88% voted for a modification of the gun ban to make it less strict, 12 % voted to not
change the gun ban.

and THIS...hahahahah.

In practice the owners of guns do not respect the new legislation.
Originally they all had to present their guns for destruction or registration by November 2006 to the Police. Only 150.000 guns (on a total of 2.000.000) guns were presented. So only 7,5 % of the guns were timely handed over to the police, 92,5 % of the weapons were not handed in.
The Government saw no other possibility than to prolong the time period to hand in the guns until June 2007. But also today, nearly no new guns are handed in for registrationor destruction.

sounds to me like your fellow countrymen DO want their guns, and are willing to break the law to keep them

best of luck to you friend

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 07:24 AM by SpookyVince

Maybe I misphrased some things. I reckon I was never clear about this enormous difference: people don't go out with their guns. There are indeed a part of the population with a handgun or a pistol. It is in nearly all cases in a closet, in a drawer in the bedroom, some hidden place, and in most cases, no ammo ready. My father had 2 guns. Constantly unloaded.

And hunting weapons are a totally different matter.

Nevertheless: I am 100% pro a ban. Arguments in favour of a ban are as numerous and as good, at least, as those against the ban.

And trust me: I have been aggressed once with a gun pointed on my head. Whether or not I would have one or not wouldn't have changed it in the first place. I have been robbed and beaten, and that's it. If I had a gun, that would have likely ended in a slaughter of a man: me or him, if not both. I'm only glad he didn't USE it!

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 07:58 AM by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by SpookyVince
I have been aggressed once with a gun pointed on my head. Whether or not I would have one or not wouldn't have changed it in the first place.

So a ban of any sort would have made a difference?

Unless I'm mistaken there are already numerous bans on "agressing", robing and pointing guns at people. Doesnt seem like any of them worked in your favor. What makes you think a ban on the device itself would work any better?

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 08:05 AM by Logarock

It would actually be illegal to prohibitively or punitively tax ammunition or wepons becouse it would interfere with the exercise of the 2nd amendment.

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 10:28 AM by Anonymous ATS

excessive taxation would certainly be an infringement....

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 10:41 AM by orangetom1999

Unless I'm mistaken there are already numerous bans on "agressing", robing and pointing guns at people. Doesnt seem like any of them worked in your favor. What makes you think a ban on the device itself would work any better?

Agree with thisguyrighthere. There are indeed numerious bans and controls on guns. It has not made much difference. Neither has more police for which most cities and neighborhoods cannot afford.

I will be going out later today and carrying my revolver with me....Loaded. I have been doing it for many years now.

I am very pro gun. I do not trust a government to have guns and not the public citizen. I find something very morally questionable about a government who would train and arm me to fight their dirty wars for them and then not trust me with a gun at home.

In like manner of "what doesnt make good nonsense" I dont trust such a government with money...as well as guns. This should be quite clear to the general public. I have to maintain some kind of a budget...why cannot they. So why would I ever trust my government with my rights to a gun..when they obviously cannot be trusted with moneys. Common sense people.

Government is a money whore...and you want to trust them with our rights to possess/own firearms..of any type?? I mean to tell you folks....one has to go to public school to get this stupid. People on their own natural abilities are not this stupid without a government school/television education....dumbing them down. Translate that ...making them an emotional train wreck.

Jerry!!!! Jerry!!!! Jerry!!!!
Maury!!!! Maury!!!! Maury!!!!
Oprah!!!! Oprah!!! Oprah!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 30-12-2008 by orangetom1999]

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 11:02 AM by Anonymous ATS

2nd Amendment to the US Constitution: "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
1) The language "well-regulated" refers not to government regulation per se but rather to a well disciplined or "well-oiled" body. This is a construct that is analogous to a regulated clock or other timing mechanism.
2) The term militia in the prefatory phrase to modify the right refers to a citizen soldiery which quite frankly does not exist anymore. However, the frame of reference for including the word, militia, is that an armed citizenry (assuming freemen and not criminals) is necessary to preserve the freedom of the state, not for national defense (we have an armed forces for that) but to protect itself from a potentially tyrannical despot.
3) The key language is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
This refers to a basic right but like the right to vote, you can lose it (ie, felon). It would appear that all laws re gun control, no matter how reasonable (registration and requirements to be locked up, etc) are an infringement per the language. But a society must be able to balance the rights of the people with the duty of government to protect the citizenry.

With respect to "militias" there is an interesting story regarding WWI:
At the time of the outbreak of WWI Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany visited neutral Switzerland (in part to gather intelligence for a potential invasion). While touring the border defenses he asked a Swiss guard what he would do if 500,000 Germans invaded the border. The guard simply stated that all swiss men (250,000 strong) are required to keep a military rifle as part of the homeland militia and that they would all shot twice and go home! Germany never invaded Switzerland and it was a lesson that carried over into the 2nd WW by Nazi Germany as well. There is a lesson for us all.

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 05:56 PM by turbokid

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

With respect to "militias" there is an interesting story regarding WWI:
At the time of the outbreak of WWI Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany visited neutral Switzerland (in part to gather intelligence for a potential invasion). While touring the border defenses he asked a Swiss guard what he would do if 500,000 Germans invaded the border. The guard simply stated that all swiss men (250,000 strong) are required to keep a military rifle as part of the homeland militia and that they would all shot twice and go home! Germany never invaded Switzerland and it was a lesson that carried over into the 2nd WW by Nazi Germany as well. There is a lesson for us all.

i remember reading that before as well.
i also like the one where someone asked the japanese military general why he didnt stage a ground offensive on the US mainland after the bombing of pearl harbor. his response, "there would be an american with a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[edit on 30-12-2008 by turbokid]

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:25 AM by SpookyVince

I'm giving up. You people see the world differently. And you surely don't accept or either understand a different idea.

Fine. Own your stupid weapons. Kill people.

You CANNOT EVEN READ what I wrote...

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
So a ban of any sort would have made a difference?

Unless I'm mistaken there are already numerous bans on "agressing", robing and pointing guns at people. Doesnt seem like any of them worked in your favor. What makes you think a ban on the device itself would work any better?

Originally posted by SpookyVince
If I had a gun, that would have likely ended in a slaughter of a man: me or him, if not both.

Difference = at least 1 life Duh! Read!!!

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:34 AM by riff_raff

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 10:11 AM by orangetom1999

reply to post by Spooky Vince

Vince,
You constantly show your public school values....ie...government values based on emotional train wreck conditioning..ie..brainwashing.

Notice how emotional train wreck values work in what I am quoting concerning your last statement.

Difference = at least 1 life Duh! Read!!!

Notice here you did not say who or what life...just any life...period.

All of us here would agree ...life has value. But when someone tresspasses on mine or my families life or property earned at great risk to their lives...they should also take risk in such an attempt. When someone threatens our lives to remove said properties ,earned at great risk, from us....they are subject themselves to risk or loss of life.
You do not say whose life is at risk in your statement quoted above. Your position is textbook of gnosticism and sophism and it is a religious practice.

Someone does not enter our property or trespass when we are out and about ...taking care of family business...then put our family at risk...and then try to debate with us how holy and sacred life is. They don't think our lives are valuable at all if they try to take our properties earned at great risk...by threatening or trespassing on our lives.

Almost all feel good and politicians avoid this line of thought for the sacredness of life arguments. It becomes obvious to us who earn our properties (money is property) at great risk..that the body politic does not consider our risk holy and sacred and therefore our lives are not holy and sacred. One need not go to school to figure this out about politicians and feel good types.

I am a machinist..building ships for a living. Farming too is also a dangerous/risky occupation. How about a taxi driver, convenience store operator, nurse or doctor...and a whole host of other dangerous occupations. Do not ever minimize for political purposes the risk people take in earning their moneys and therefore their livings. It would be the same as whoring out these peoples lives/souls for a cheap vote.

Someone threatening harm to us in order to acquire our properties is also not interested in the holiness and sacredness of life arguments. This includes politicians as well. Remember the point I made earlier about mischief and the relationship of mischief to politicians.

This is the flaw in your debate points. All of them. I was waiting to see how long it would take you to trespass here and think no one would notice it.

Both you and politicians would have people earning their properties over and over and over again and again to reinforce the sacredness of life policies...and having these people by this process take risk after risk after risk for the same properties...which neither you or the body politic can protect. To subject people to risk over and over ...is to threaten their lives..to hold their lives and properties earned at such risk....not valuable not sacred...not holy. When this happens..social structure and civilization breaks down. You can see this in many large cities...here in America and all over the world.

All most governments do it keep it hidden from most peoples....and get moneys and votes from this corruption.

This is known to anyone who can think past public education/television education standards.

Please do not try to substitute your emotions for ours. For in order to earn our livelihoods..at great risk...many of us do not live our lives as emotional train wrecks. We must discipline our emotions....not live for them. Neither do we do so here on ATS/BTS.

We do not find the emotions of most peoples to be the moral high ground in most debates. We do not find emotions to be currency/moneys to play through unquestioned, undebated, or unchallanged. The technique you are using here is exactly the cheap whorish technique to which much of the body politic here is attempting to use on us. They know this works well on young people or those with few life experiences outside of television and public school education standards. Politics=whoredom to many of us...the buying, selling, trading of the souls of the American public by any means and for any purpose...particularly for votes. Many Americans still do not find this acceptable conduct. They do still find the Constitution of the United States as acceptable conduct and a good restraint on the natural mischief of government.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 31-12-2008 by orangetom1999]

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:05 PM by SpookyVince

Orangetom, YOUR public school has a L too much: it sucks. OURS is a totally different thing.

One way or another, keep your firearm right there with you. I really do hope you kill someone one day. I really do.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by SpookyVince]

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:13 PM by SpookyVince

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Notice how emotional train wreck values work in what I am quoting concerning your last statement.

Difference = at least 1 life Duh! Read!!!

Notice here you did not say who or what life...just any life...period.

I am just strengthening my point:

Originally posted by SpookyVince
You CANNOT EVEN READ what I wrote...

Originally posted by SpookyVince
And trust me: I have been aggressed once with a gun pointed on my head. Whether or not I would have one or not wouldn't have changed it in the first place. I have been robbed and beaten, and that's it. If I had a gun, that would have likely ended in a slaughter of a man: me or him, if not both. I'm only glad he didn't USE it!

You can't even read.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by SpookyVince]

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^