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: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
You guys know it's already totally legal to own a tank, right?

That being said, there are no limits to the 2nd. As long you arent violating the rights of others (no, you do not have the right not to be scared by your own paranoia and misconceptions) go ahead and load up on tanks and machineguns and a nuke. Like you could afford them? Like you could pay that tax bill every year? Go ahead.

If a person is actually rich enough to own and maintain and pay the taxes on these things they already are either directly or by proxy through connections and political influence.

In the end, if everyone agreed everyone else had the right to these armaments you would notice absolutely no change in the day to day life of America.




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

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


People who have been convicted of felonies even 10 years out of jail should not have the right to own guns.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


Why? Their debt has been paid, hasnt it? If we as a society do not believe their debt has been paid or that they have been rehabilitated then they should never be let out of prison. But they have been let out.

Also, should a felons other rights be taken away too? Speech? Force them to quarter soldiers? Prohibit their exercising of religious beliefs? Kick in their doors and rummage through their lives whenever we feel like it?

I'm not saying I disagree with you but I am saying there needs to be some logical consistency across the board here. Without consistency we are essentially admitting that the system is all bunk and fairy tales not worthy of wielding the control and power we permit it to wield.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Has their debt been paid...yes. However they have proven that they are capable of major lack of judgment that threatens society. Therefore should not ever be allowed to own a gun again.

A person who proves a major lack in judgment about drinking and driving eventually reach a point where they can no longer own a drivers license to drive a car.

A child rapist can not get a job in an elementary school.

They can not physically harm anyone with words, or religion.

If they could utter words that would magically cause a person to burst into flames then they should be placed somewhere, where no one could be touched by their words for the rest of their life.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
And the whole ``it must be legal`` thing is BS.

Being legal = being under laws.

Laws = laws can ban the second amendment or restrict it heavily and that's BS.

The only law that I consider constitutional is the concealed carry permit law.

Other than that, ALL OTHER LAWS regarding firearms are not constitutional.

The natural right to protect yourself is a natural right and cannot be stopped by law. If they try, like they do in certains places, that's unconstitutional BS laws and I, for one, will not respect them since they are against natural law.

A free man decides what he thinks is best, and a slave obeys whatever the control freaks in power dictates.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


So we believe a 'debt' has been paid but we do not believe there has been rehabilitation and do believe that the released is still a threat. So why release them at all?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
It's a good question but really there is no good answer.

If we had the answer to these questions I presume there wouldn't be the constant bickering over this amendment, that there is now.

Everyone should have the right to own a fire arm for whatever reason until they use one for something illegal then I have no problem with stripping the right away from that individual.

The problem though is the folks who have fire arms we need to worry about chances are, they are using an illegal weapon already. So it doesn't stop the crime but may persuade someone from committing a crime if they know they have a good chance of being shot.

So I really can't see a good answer but the best answer is to allow firearms IMO.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I don't think dangerous criminals should be let out, unless there is overwhelming evidence that they would never re-offend.

Here's food for though: Opening another person's mail is a felony. If somebody is convicted of that and serves time, should their 2nd Amendment rights be lost when they get out? They are a convicted felon, after all.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Yes, but I believe for non-violent crimes they should eventually be able to petition to get their 2nd amend rights back.

And actually this is the way it actually is. You can petition, but now adays they're just unlikely to actually grant it to you. However, I don't believe that once a person is a criminal they should be treated like that their whole life.

The reason is because on average, each person breaks one law a day. Most people don't know this, but there are so many laws, that the average person will break one a day without even knowing it.

There's two kinds of people in the world. Those who get caught, and those that don't. So, eventually a person's debt is paid. You can't treat them like an animal forever if their crime was non-violent. Most everyone has committed a non-violent crime. It's just if they got caught or not.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


Do you think felons should get any of their rights back at all? For example, their right to a trial if they're accused of a second crime?

[edit on 27-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Yes they should have a right to trial. My state has a three strike rule. Go to jail 3 times and you dont get back out. However overcrouding often overules.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by mrsdudara]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
i beleave it goes all the way. Hunting and defence of chickens were mentioned. What about feral hogs.
farm1.static.flickr.com...
Around where I live they are known to run in heards, are highly aggresive and will charge you. A 20 mag in an M1A1 may not be enough, much less a 30 round mag in an AR15. A local gun shop sells a gun called the "Hog Thumper". Its a .50 cal. AR15.
Plus some varmits wear bullet proof vests.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


Well overcrowding is a problem, but seriously. When we have more criminals than we have room for them, then it's pretty obvious society is doing something wrong too and not just the criminals.

I don't know what it is that we're doing wrong. It seems like the more criminals we put in jail the more of them we have. I don't know what the problem is, but something needs to be done about it.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Well, without getting into taboo specifics, maybe the solution is to re-evaluate the reasons we use for putting people in jail. But, I digress.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Your right, there is a problem. If I get going on that now, though, it will take this discussion way off topic.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join