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.

 

How far does the Second Amendment go?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by milesp

Maybe if everyone owned a tank there would be no drugs!


If everyone owned the tanks drugs wouldn't be illegal and thus would probably have the profit margin of tomatoes.


A lot of laws would not exist if the average citizen could bring to bear that much firepower in support of the rights given them by their creator.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by Exuberant1]


Yeah, It's your god-given right to own firepower!




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by milesp
 


god-given?

I was thinking more along the lines of 'the universe'


But yeah, God-given works too. Such a right is innate.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by milesp
 


god-given?

I was thinking more along the lines of 'the universe'


But yeah, God-given works too. Such a right is innate.


Whatever, the point I was trying to make is that society should not be run by whoever has the most guns.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by milesp


Whatever, the point I was trying to make is that society should not be run by whoever has the most guns.


The maximum number of guns the average person can shoot at once is two guns.

That is why everyone should have at least one.

Guns are equalizers and their visible presence is conducive to a polite society.

*You ever see riot cops thumping crowds of Unarmed protesters?
-that would not happen if they all had guns on their hips or slung to their shoulders).

It is likely that the number of police in a nation with citizens so-armed would be a much smaller number than it is now. And the grievances that drive those citizens to protest would likely have not come to pass in the first place.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by milesp


Whatever, the point I was trying to make is that society should not be run by whoever has the most guns.


The maximum number of guns the average person can shoot at once is two guns.

That is why everyone should have at least one.

Guns are equalizers and their visible presence is conducive to a polite society.

*You ever see riot cops thumping crowds of Unarmed protesters?
-that would not happen if they all had guns on their hips or slung to their shoulders).

It is likely that the number of police in a nation with citizens so-armed would be a much smaller number than it is now. And the grievances that drive those citizens to protest would likely have not come to pass in the first place.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by Exuberant1]


Unarmed protesters allow the police to thump them so other people can see that the people doing the thumping are unjust. If everyone in the crowd was armed the police would just shoot everyone, and in the public eye they would be justified in doing so. Or a war would break out and whoever had the most guns and was the most brutal would likely win.

Guns are not equalizers.

For the record, I believe in the second amendment and the peoples' right to own guns. However, I don't believe in the right to use guns to force people to do things against their will.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by milesp
 


In my view, what the founders were really trying to say is that ALL your rights are weapons to be used against oppression.

Free speech is a weapon that you can use to speak out against the government. The government knows this. This is why they try to censor every little thing. They're trying to say, say whatever you want, as long as you say it how they want you to.

But no, sometimes speech is meant to be used as a weapon and the pen is much mightier than the sword or the gun and the government knows this. This is why they hate the internet. With a gun I can kill a dozen. With the internet we could reach billions.

If they try to make you worship a certain way or a certain God or try to shut down your protest or try to stop you from uncovering corruption or whatever, then you whip out that weapon. That weapon is the 1st Amendment.

The 5th Amendment is a weapon to use against the government when they try to make you accuse yourself of a crime in a trial. Unreasonable search and seizure is a weapon to use against the government when it oversteps its bounds into your home. The right to privacy, and the right not to have troops in your home and so forth.

All your rights are weapons to be whipped out and used against the government appropriately. With wisdom the people can use the right one at the right time.

However, just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you have to use it if another tool in your box would be more effective. However, to ban the 2nd is the same as banning the 1st.

Why take one tool out of the American people's toolbox to fight government oppression and not another?

Because we think we'll never need it is the only logical conclusion, but I could make the same argument about all the other rights too. However, history has proven time and time again that sometimes, just sometimes, oppression has to be shot where it stands and no further.

So, you're right. Guns are not an equalizer. They're not meant to be. They're meant to give one the upper hand, because one day, you just might need it.

Outside of that though, they're just a tool like any other tool. I can kill with a hammer, a knife, a bow and arrow. I can hit someone with my car if I'm really feeling adventury. I could probably take out at least two with just a can opener.

When used responsibly they're just tools to hunt or eat or get to work. However, when not, like any tool, it can become a weapon. But if they ban guns, well when and IF the oppression comes to my door step, I don't really care if they get a bullet or an arrow through the neck or if they get taken out by my windshield. Whatever works. In the end, everything is a weapon.




[edit on 26-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Rams59lb

Thanks for taking the time to answer all of the questions. I know it took awhile to come up with them, so I know you took some time to answer them.

So, it sounds like you're happy with the laws the way they currently are? Or would you prefer them to be changed, but feel that it's wrong to violate them regardless? What if, hypothetically, the government were to repeal the Second Amendment and enact an outright ban of firearms ownership? Would any of your answers change? FYI, you stated in one of your answers that AK-47's are illegal. This isn't true, thus no flaw there (also, he has an AR-15, but I won't split hairs.) :-)

As far as making my point goes... well, if I didn't make a point, then mission accomplished. I was only trying to ask the questions with my OP.

 


reply to post by LordBucket


It might help to know if you want out opinions on what the second amendmant intends or if you want our opinions on what we want it to intend.


Either/Or. Whatever you feel like telling me. If you so feel, you can answer that you think the whole Amendment is garbage and it should be scrapped.

I gave you stars, because I agree with your overall assessment that a Right is a Right and a restriction is an infringement. Also, good job on bringing up other Amendments to make your cases.


Ahh. Now this is an interesting question. Fortunately you made it easy for me. You said he is now a US citizen. Therefore his former immigrant status is irrelevant. Yes, he is entitled to own all the guns he can buy.


What if he was a foreign citizen, legally living within the United States? What if he was here illegally?

As for being gradual with the build up, I did that on purpose. I'm hoping some people who are pro-gun control will take the time to answer my questions, and I'm curious to know exactly where they draw the line at when the law should intervene. I promise not to be mean or argumentative! :-)



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 

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

I think that pretty much says it right there.

I find it amazing that the wangling weasels try to find some way
to twist that to licenses, fees, restrictions, permits, and any other
arbitrary pile of organic fertilizer with a brand name of midnight pasture.

A turd by any other name is a turd.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
reply to post by mattifikation
 

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

I think that pretty much says it right there.

I find it amazing that the wangling weasels try to find some way
to twist that to licenses, fees, restrictions, permits, and any other
arbitrary pile of organic fertilizer with a brand name of midnight pasture.

A turd by any other name is a turd.


Well Said.


Now... where the heck are the gun control supporters? I really wanted to hear some varying opinions. I *KNOW* ATS is full of people who are pro-gun control. I *KNOW* ATS has lots of people who are completely anti-gun, also.

Where are you, people?!



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
1) Yes, as long as he has no violent criminal history
2) Yes
3) As many as he wants.
4) Yes
5) Yes
6) He's the only one who can determine what his needs are. The government has no right to interfere in that decision or restrict his options further than they already are.
7) He has the right to the twenty round magazine (or more). Besides, if we ban twenty round magazines, it won't be long before they ban those five round magazines, too.
8) No, the government has no right to monitor ammunition purchases.
9) I'm on the fence, but would lean towards 'hunting' since he does provide the meat to others.
10) Its his rifle, he can do whatever he wants, for the most part. The 2nd Amendment's original purpose was not to protect the rights of hunters, anyway, but as the final safeguard for a free state.
11) Yes
12) The involvement of alcohol raises another issue, IMO, but as long as no one was seriously injured and he is not convicted of a felony charge over the matter, he should retain his ability to own firearms.
13) No. Criminals will find ways to acquire handguns regardless of legality. Its not even that difficult to make a crude firearm, though it is obviously illegal.
14) The balance between safety and wages is one that each individual would have to determine for themselves.
15) For concealed carry, I have no problems with requiring permits, but I do believe that open carry and certainly ownership itself should generally be unrestricted.
16) The thug initiated the confrontation and he drew his weapon first. He alone is responsible for the consequences that followed.
17) It can't happen here for a variety of reasons, as long as the public doesn't allow it. Public gun ownership is one of those, but I'm not sure its the primary one.
18) No. If he is now a legal US citizen, he retains the same rights as any other, including the right to privacy.
19) Yes. There is no provision in the Constitution that restricts the freedoms of the Bill of Rights as applied to immigrants.
20) The weapons mentioned are not military grade weaponry. However, as it applies to the 2nd Amendment, 'arms' I believe refers only to firearms AND any equivalent small arm that should be developed in the future. I do not believe that it extends to naval vessels, military aircraft, artillery, explosive ordnance or military vehicles. The 2nd Amendment does not provide a protection for the right to own these and they may be restricted or banned altogether.
21) No. There's no provision in the Constitution that limits the freedoms of otherwise law-abiding citizens for the crime of douchebaggery.
22) No. See above. As long as they are not espousing violence and have no criminal history, they should retain the right to own firearms.
23) No. As for Robert, as long as he acquires the proper licenses, there is no reason to take away a legal firearm.
24) They would be criminals. In that instance, the correct course of action is to allow the courts to decide the matter.
25) Yes. The cousin's rights are being restricted by a choice he has made, that being to allow Darren to move into his home. At such time that his cousin leaves the home or is evicted, his rights will be restored in full.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by vor78]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I have to say that LordBucket answered most of the questions the same way I would, and spent a lot more time answering them than I would have.


Most of the questions were interesting, but irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment is one of the purest statements of our rights, yet one of the most viciously attacked. So far, it has weathered most of the attacks, thanks to citizen diligence and the efforts of groups such as the NRA.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I believe that criminals should not be allowed to own guns. I believe that should be controlled at the state level. Right up until the point where the government calls anyone who is against them criminals.

Other than that, the government should never have any say what so ever, in what or how many guns I own OR the ammo I have or use.

They should have nothing to do with it what so ever. PERIOD no serial numbers on ammo no way to find out who shoots what bullet when no way to find out who buys what ammo when, and no way to find out who owns what.

I believe in hunting responsibly after taking a hunter safety course.

I believe that people should have to pass a gun safety course before being licensed to cary for the same reasons you have to pass a test to get a drivers license to drive.

I believe in the right to defend myself and my family. I dont care if it is in my home, on the street, or out in the middle of no where.

I believe this ammendment is crucial to preserving our freedom, and never, under any circumstance should the government be allowed to change this ammendment in any way what so ever. I believe that if any member of our government even attempts, then they should no longer be allowed to serve our country.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by mrsdudara]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 



Ahh. Now this is an interesting question. Fortunately you made it easy for me. You said he is now a US citizen. Therefore his former immigrant status is irrelevant. Yes, he is entitled to own all the guns he can buy.


What if he was a foreign citizen, legally living within the United States?


I see no reason to deny him the power to defend himself, or to enjoy the other aspects of gun ownership.


What if he was here illegally?


Obviously, NO.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 



I believe that criminals should not be allowed to own guns. I believe that should be controlled at the state level.


Controlled at the state level. Excellent point.
That is one of the most important aspects of gun ownership. Let the people decide on a state-by-state basis.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrsdudara
I believe that criminals should not be allowed to own guns. I believe that should be controlled at the state level. Right up until the point where the government calls anyone who is against them criminals.


I believe a criminal doesn't need a gun because a criminal is in prison. Once released from prison they're not criminals anymore. They're citizens. They might reoffend, but anyone that's not a criminal might offend as well.

The point however though, is when you look at things like the brady bill and the sex offender registry and how companies won't hire felons, well my point is this. If you're not going to give a person a fair second chance, then why did you let them out of prison to begin with? Either they deserve a second chance or they don't. What they don't deserve is to be jerked around with half second chances once they've already served their time.

If they're that dangerous they need to be kept in jail. Not let out and told they can't have guns because that kind of person won't listen. They don't care about the law. Let me say that every gang member I've known has had a criminal record. They've also all owned guns. Doesn't matter to them.

But a person that's served his time has served his time. Let me ask, if you got a speeding ticket, should you have to suffer for the rest of your life by repaying the fine every month for the rest of your life? Should a shop lifter never be allowed in the grocery store again? Or, do you believe that once you've paid the price then the debt is settled?

I suggest this. After a person is released, if they can stay out of trouble and commit no crimes for about 7 to 10 years and show some proof they've learned their lesson, then then they should be given ALL their rights back IF they can prove they'll actually use them correctly this time. Which means they may be able to buy a gun in the future. Most gun crimes are probably committed with guns that aren't registered and aren't supposed to be in the hands of the criminal in the first place anyway.

This would work well though, because most reoffenders won't make it 10 before getting caught for another crime. After that much time I doubt they're anymore likely to commit a crime than a normal person would.

But I think for the crimes like rape and murder and also any violent or sexual crime committed against a child that those people should never be let out in the first place until a treatment could be found to cure them because the risk is too great to their potential future victims.

However, if you ARE going to let someone out of jail then you have to give them a second chance or you're wasting everyone's time and money. They need a chance to work and make an honest living. If they can't get jobs they'll just steal. They need a chance to reform and become a true citizen again.

EDIT: I do believe this is a state right though and should be handled by the states and not at the federal level.
[edit on 26-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



[edit on 27-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I believe that the Second Amendment wanted for the people to be as well armed as the Government itself is as a defense against a tyrant taking over.

I believe that the right to bear arms (I am really not joking here) means that the average American should be allowed to own things like Nuclear Submarines, Aircraft Carriers, Tanks, Helicopter Gunships, Attack Aircraft, Bombing Aircraft, Heavy Caliber Machine Guns, Destroyers, Lasers, Biological Weapons, Surface to Air Missiles and for when a battle get’s really pitched…Debbie Boone albums!

The last one is kind of iffy because I don’t think the founding fathers had any idea how devastating songs like “You light up my life” could be.

There intent though was for the citizens to be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government which would mean the right to bear arms would be similar arms.

I am not a violent guy so I just keep a couple of Barry Manilow records for purely defensive purposes. I do believe that citizens should be able to own any weapon the government does.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   


mattifikation
What if he was a foreign citizen, legally living
within the United States? What if he was here illegally?


Once again, we may need to distinguish between what we think the constitution says, and what we might want it to say.

I think a compelling argument can be made for the idea that the bill of rights does not apply to non-citizens. The language of the constitution implies that it is intended solely for the people of the United States. The Dred Scott case, of course, being the classic example of a Supreme Court ruling supproting the idea.

That ruling was never overturned, and we depend on the 14th amendment for the notion that non-citizens are granted any protection under law. However, the relevant section takes great care to speak of citizens in different language than non-citizens, and makes a point of enumerating rights that are granted to non-citizens. Some of which are copied word-for-word from the bill of rights, but with the vast majority of those rights omitted. Among those omitted is any mention of the right to bear arms.

On a related note, so far as anyone has been able to convince me, the constution provides no protection of any kind for a non-citizen within the jurisdiction of a federal court. It probably deserves its own thread, but it appears to be completely legal, lawful and constitutional for a federal judge to order the execution of any non-citizen for any reason without any due process whatsoever. The 14th amendent very clearly states that only states are prohibited from depriving persons of life, liberty and property, and even then only if they are within proper jurisdiction. No such constitutional prohibition appears to exist for the federal government.








[edit on 26-8-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So far, it has weathered most of the attacks, thanks to citizen diligence and the efforts of groups such as the NRA.


Actually a lot of ppl feel that the NRA has done a poor job, and so a
lot of ppl have shifted over to Gun Owners of America.

Gun Owners of America

I am not a member and feel bad about it, but I really do not want to
be placed on some list.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one.

I do want to point out that a lot of them would stay in the system longer if there was enough room.

Also, if more people carried, I dont think there would be the over crowed jails there are today.

As for the other point that has been brought up about illegals....I believe that this constitutional right is for the citizens of the United States of America. When unwelcome people come into a country, armed, it is considered a threat.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by mrsdudara]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


Okay, but I'm not really sure which part you disagree with me on or if just all of it.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join