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.

 

Do you think guns should allowed to be sold to citizens?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
They must take their medicine and only use right-speak!
Believe in the government!!
And whatever they do, don't think too much or too deeply, it'll only get them scolded by the authority.




posted on May, 13 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I tell you who I'd like to get harsh with, though, is the moronic controllers of the moronic education system! My son is 13 and has a decent understanding of the constitution and several other things, but no thanks to the education system. It is incredible how miserable it is. In some ways, such as computer understanding, they are doing great, but it seems in everything else they are failing us.
Meanwhile, they feed our kids with social engineering garbage. I got a dose of it in elementary school and JR high, and its gotten even worse nowadays, from looking at the books and curriculum!


That's awful. When I was in grade school, I was fortunate enough to be enrolled in a private school. The last year required us to memorize the first part of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, as well as the Bill of Rights. This was a small, but important, part of the entire lesson that reviewed the importance of those documents. We had great teachers. That all changed when I went to a public high school, however... good teachers were rare to put it nicely, nothing was taught on the constitution, bill of rights, etc, and to add insult to injury... yes, lots of social engineering. And what's worse is that the best of the knowledge they had to share was reserved for students they deemed worthy of Advanced Placement. Most of those AP kids were idiots to begin with! Even in the one class dedicated to the domestic government... nothing on the constitution and the meaning behind such a document. Just rules and regulations to abide by. I am quite convinced this is done on purpose; the public school system is kept this way to ensure a docile general population that is willing to accept anything the government throws at them.

Your son is lucky to have an informative and caring father such as yourself. You probably know this already, but you are doing him a favor that is immeasurably valuable. He will probably thank you many times over as he gets older.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I don't mean to debate, nobody's mind is going to change on this issue. This is just how some "constitutionists" interpret the 2nd Admendment. The Second Amendment applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms. If it were true to for individuals to bear are to protect itself from the government, then arms would apply to tanks and bazookas, since those are the only arms that could match the governments. It meant a militia not assembled by, or loyal to, the federal government but to their own local neighborhoods and state. When they were forming the United States, they needed the support from States who may of been nervous of being 'absorbed' into this new country and losing their identity. They said "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to show the States that the Federal government won't have the authority to disarm a State. You have to understand the context and the times of a document written over 200 years ago.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Normally, i dont agree with TC either. But on this....and the educational system, i agree.

Its like that in the army. they spend more time on trainig soldiers not to say anything offensive and tell jokes that are offensive, or singing dirty cadences, than they do on teaching them how to move, fight, survive.

They spend more time in the schools teaching kids to be zombies and "be well" than teaching them how to read, write, add, subtract, and the capitals of the 50 states. i was almost a victim of such a shoddy educational system, however, the garbage that teachers tried cramming down my throat conflicted with the real world I stepped into once I left the classroom, and conflicted seriously with the history my granny taught me, my gramps, and the myriad of books and encyclopedias on the subject that i often read.

I have seen curriculum now, and I agree, its sick. Stop politically indoctrinating kids and teach them, first, the history and laws of thier own land, how to calculate. Stop coloring things with thier own bias.

I was lucky and had a real teacher for my senior govornment and economics class, he was a democrat, (used to be a republican until the Neo Conservatives) yet despite hsi own beliefs, he focus purely on making kids pay attention to the many political parties in the country, understanding how election and govornment works, and understanding the constitution, despite his own feelings on the subject, and encouraged us to form our own opinions based on the facts given to us. What we discovered: everyone who paid attention chose thier own political affiliation, different from everyone else.

That was a real teacher, and the kind a youngster like AD sorely needs.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
No i havent taken any classes on the constitution, I thin it's wrong to own guns though! You could just go out side and shoot someone if youre pissed of at them.


Yes and you could also run them over with a car, stab them with a fork, hit them with a brick, douse them with gasoline and set them on fire, strangle them, etc, etc, etc.

Are you getting the point? It's not the gun that kills - it's the person using it. That's why we don't put guns, or knives or forks or cars or whatever in prison.

It's a matter of people acting in a responsible manner. There is no way to legislate a society where every possible weapon could be eliminated. It's a nice ideal to aspire to - but I think we're better off using a little Common Sense.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
curme, your igorance is overpowering, much like an onion. Your words are not from any study, but regurgitation of words from the likes of Kennedy and Shumer. Were you to read the words of the ones who wrote the constitution, you'd realize exactly how stupid Kennedy is. That's what happens when you scan the document briefly and don't study on the thought process tha ttook place in order to get the constitution and the ten amendments in place.
Man, will the ignorance never cease? Will people ever learn on their own again, or have those in control already won? Have we lost the nation to ignorance and laziness?



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673You could just go out side and shoot someone if youre pissed of at them.


thats like saying free speech is wrong because you can go outside and yell at people.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
AlnilamOmega, thank you for the kind words. I try to make sure my son learns the truth about the nation, and I have him read it for himself, that way when idiots like Kennedy and the like try and say the second amendment is the government telling the government that the government may have weapons, he has enough knowledge to realize that is BS. I'd like to think he'd be smart enough to realize that makes no sense on face value, anyway.
Your private schooling was a great blessing. Talk about smart parents! Because of a divorce, I have no control over the son's education (public, anyway), so I have to try and make up the difference. Hard work, but it pays off. In return, he keeps my computer going smooth! Thank goodness for remote access!!



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
curme, your igorance is overpowering, much like an onion.


Why couldn't you just respect my opinion, instead of calling me ignorant? (I was thinking the same of you, but I was nice enough not to say it). Is that anyway to have a civil discourse? My major was poly sci (minor economics) at Hunter College in NYC (have fun with that one). I have studied this document in great detail, specifically this issue, since there is such a huge misunderstanding of it. You think you're right, I know I'm right. I said I didn't want to debate, because I know people are quick to anger when they are told they are wrong. I just wanted to show the kid another side. Now he has both sides, and can figure out which one for himself is correct. Can we leave it at that?



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Opinion? That, sir, is no opinion, that is a misrepresentation of the historical fact.

An opinion would be to say that you think the Founding FAthers were wrong and you would have written it differently. That would be an opinion.

I deal in historical facts. Not all historical facts do I appreciate, but regardless of my opinion, they are fact.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Lets have a look at the wording of the second amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON.

Note, it does not say the right of the STATES to keep and bear arms. The right of the PEOPLE.

Well regulated Milita necessary to the security of a free state. In otherwords, an armed populace capable of overthrowing the govornment should it become less than free.

pages.prodigy.net...

I will say it again. The right of the PEOPLE, not the state, to keep and bear arms.

Thank you very much, have a nice day folks.











posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
You degree does not impress me as it seems they forgot to tell you about the guy who is called the FAther of the Constitution. Mr. Madison made it clear that the citizenry must be armed, not any organization controlled by the government, so that we couold control those who are in office. That way, were they to beome tyranical and arbitrary in rule, we would have the means by which to take back the country.

Did Hitler have to write it on paper that his soldiers could carry weapons? Further back, how about the King of England? Nope. What do the last several decades of tyranists have in common? They imposed gun control, thereby rendering helpless the citizenry. That was what the Founders had in mind. That is what you can learn were you to forget about the textbooks you read in a controlled mind learning institution and learn what it is you really need to know, curme.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Have you ever held a gun? A rifle? A pistol?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I go and look at guns, I see freedom.

When I hold in my hands the power, and responsiblity; to defend my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; only then, I feel free.

When I hold even my [whimpy] .22 bolt action, I feel free.

Learn to know firearms, examine them for their reason, their powers, and how simple they are.

They are the simplest seperation between freedom, and slavery.

A single shot .22 for example, the stock, a barrel, a cocking mechanism, and trigger.

Simple, they way America should be.

Defend your Constitutionally protected rights, buy the best form of protection!



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
When I look at a gun, I see something that has kept me from being a rape/murder victim despite the fact Ive lived in very bad areas and neighborhoods.

And Ive never had to shoot a single agressor once. Just letting em know I had one in my possesion and pointing it in thier general direction and telling them to kindly # off and go bother someone else was more than enough to keep me from being attacked and assaulted. Unlike many women who, ever gun paranoid, can only scream and beg, two tactics that dont work.

Guns are a deterrant. period. How likely are you gonna rape or kill someone if you possess a knife or superior size and strength, if your intended victim gets one up on you and has an even nastier weapon?

Sorry, but self defense dont work. Not alone, at least. especially when you are being stalked. When youre as small as I am, distance from a potential attacker is everything. And guns give me just that: distance.

Since the vast majority of rapists and guys who prey on women dont use guns, but instead, knives, strength, and intimidation to subdue thier attackers, its better for me to be armed than not. Im not a statistic because of it.

My mother is a big supporter of having guns. being a rape victim herself, as well as the unfortunate subject of ex husbands rage and jealousy, she has gone armed ever since.

And none of her former agressors ever threatened her with guns, just brute force and intimidation.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I think that if it was not for guns that home owners have .other countrys would walk across our great land from east to west...also bicycles kill more kids in the USA than guns



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I'm unsure what they are teaching in N.Y. in these areas these days, but they seem to not be getting back to the foundational decisions that caused the 2nd amendment.

Two states held out on ratifying the constitution: Rhode Island and North Carolina.

If you will check into the North Carolina State Bill of Rights, which pretty much pre-dates the Constitution, you'll get a good idea what they were wanting added to the constitution before they would sign on the dotted line. And the North Carolina Bill of Rights doesn't mince many words, it fairly clear that the dangers they wanted to avoid were the same dangers they tolerated by the British. It clearly states that "an organized army, in times of peace" is nothing but a pain in the ass to the free man...so let us bear our arms so that we may be called to action if need be...that's an unorganized call to militia by every free man carrying a gun...

and THAT is the foundation you are missing. And THAT is the reason we must always guard this freedom.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
TC, your like a drowning man, and I feel propelled to throw you a lifeline. First of all, the Hitler analogy is another superficial analysis without looking at the context of the times. Or misinterpreting. There is a lot of history leading up to Hitler getting power with only 44 percent of the vote. But anyway, the constitution. "Well regulated." This means, like a military, well trained, like a National Guard. The vision of the Framers was that the members of the militia (the armed populace) would be organized in small military units for the purpose of training, and occasionally for actual military use. Each member would be expected to supply his own arms, which would be made possible by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What do you think 'well regulated' means? More gun control laws?

EDIT: Yes Valhall, these states put it in their constitution to protect themselves from tyranny. That's why we put it in the US constitution, so these states would have protection.
EIDT: Think of it this way. If Europe became one big country, and this big country said, oh, by the way, once you join, you can't have a military anymore. The States wanted some degree of self-determination before experimenting with this new idea democracy and new country, United States.
[Edited on 13-5-2004 by curme]

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by curme]



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
TC and others alluded to the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany after Hitler gained power in 33' and disarmed the citizenry quite rightly as an example of what can happen when law abiding people no longer have the means to defend themselves against tyranny.

Here is a link to "The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment" presented by Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. In my opinion they have assembled quite an array of information on second amendment issues including historical and legal reasons it specifically applies to individuals, a must read for anyone interested in maintaining your original rights as written in the constitution.

The Bill of Rights Sentinal

Some excerpts,

FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble yet people dont argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal gun control statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings exten-sively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.







[Edited on 13-5-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Not everyone should be able to have a gun. Its lshould be like a driver's liscence, you have to pass the test before you get your priviledges. Not everyone can handle a weapon properly and forcing citizens to pay for and be tested on for a weapons liscence would be ideal.

The problem lies on the black market where anybody with cash can get one.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I agree with Skadi, TC and others that believe in the right of people to bear arms. I have legal guns too, and would not give up the right of having them.

Like others have said, guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are a lot of objects that can be used to kill another person. I could use a pencil to kill someone, even blunt objects like baseball bats, but i don't since I am a responsible, moral, human being. Are you going to ask those to be banned too?

Legal guns stop murders, rapes, robberies, etc, etc.

Criminals can always get illegal guns, so they will never stop having them, even if guns were ever made illegal.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join