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.

 

2nd Ammendment , Right to bear arms , Legally to be Challenged

page: 6
64
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I'm done with debating and playing around. I have children to protect, and that means passing onto them my Constitution. I've tolerated these people who want to take this birthright from me long enough. Bring it on, the first thing to go will not be my child's God given rights, if they are victorious it will be the last.

But if the elitists ignore our wishes and force this thing upon us the rights of our children will not be the first thing to go. The first thing to go will be the Hamptons, the private schools, the banks, the country clubs, the Universities, and any other gathering place where the people who made this law and prompted it into fruition call home.

That is not a threat, it is a barter. If anyone does not like the deal that I have proposed, then step away and we will mutually say carry on.




posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I will bet anyone here $100 that there will be NO effort to overturn the 2nd Amendment while Obama is President.

That's right, $100.

Now, that's not saying so ridiculously silly guns might not be banned, but that's not overturning the 2nd Amendment.

Anyone care to put their money where their paranoid delusion is?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
We should remember, the language used within the Constitution reflects the mind set of the authors and the meaning of those words at the time.
The second amendment speaks of "the need to keep a well armed malitia." At this time a militia was thought of as a loosely bound group of citizens, insurgents, not a paramilitary organization such as a national guard. This in it's self is saying that each citizen should be able to "keep and bear arms".
One other thought to note, a corporation is considered as an individual in the legal sense. If this holds true then no company or corporation such as XE ( Blackwater ) or any of the other "defense contractors" could carry guns, either within or outside the country.
So much for defending our state department, or whatever it is they are suppose to be doing.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I am never surprised by the ones that say they know the Constitution and try to claim that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individual people but is for the military, law enforcement and other legal paramilitary groups. I try to steer them towards Article 1, Section 8 if a copy is nearby.




To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



Then I ask why would there be a need for a 2nd Amendment if Congress must provide for all those groups under their control? It is pretty obvious that the freedom to bare arms is an individual right under the 2nd.

But to be a stick in my own mud, the 2nd also says that it is for the security of a free state. To place the 2nd under tight scrutiny could determine if having firearms is a state right (for their own security) or an individual right (for their protection and enforcement of rights). Close examination by the Supreme Court could overturn the laws of several states that regulate the possession of firearms within the state's borders.

Because if it defined as an individual right to keep arms, then a person could simply state that they are carrying in case of invasion or tyrannical mandates from federal, state or local government. It would also open the floodgates for anyone claiming that they were illegally disarmed if a weapon had been confiscated by the police or even the US Border Patrol.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by Ahabstar]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I think our Information Czar is badly misinformed. What a load of crap! I hope this guy finds himself facing off with some gangbanger looking for cash in a dark parking lot, I'm sure he would change his tune then.
Our taxes pay this clown's salary, once again I'm disgusted
He wouldn't care, he would just pull out his gun and shoot the felon. The laws are not for the 'elite', just us little guys........www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
There seems to be a central issue that most of you are missing here - or have you Americans become too jaded? The tighter restriction on guns will hopefully stop the prevalence of gun massacres.

The case I point to is the Port Arthur Massecre in Tasmainia, Australia, 1996. A mentally ill man killed 35 men, women and children and wounded 21 others. The government swiftly imposed gun restrictions and cash-for-guns programs (fortunately there was no ridiculous 2nd amendment standing in their way).

How many gun massacres have there been in Australian since? NONE.

How many have there been in America in the last year alone? Can you count them all?

Well, one is too many as far as I'm concerned.

And for all you so-called hunters out there, RESPONSIBLE people are still issued gun licences for hunting here in Australia. (Most Aussie pig hunters don't need them - they hunt pigs the REAL way.)

Get real, people. Until you get rid of guns you will never will never get rid of gun violence. Simple as that.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Maybe we actually what the founding meant when the said we have the right to bear arms, was that everyone had the right to have a pair of bear arms mounted on their wall

It probably had nothing to do with weapons



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rainfall
 


They disarmed people after Katrina, all they need is a bs reason and they will come a knockin. I agree they will never disarm America but they will disarm many as they can.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
My two cents ya know for a forum designed to search for truth and deny ignorance there sure are a lot of violent gun nuts. Guess paranoia and conspiracy go hand in hand. I am a little put back when i here all this talk of what guns people have and what they would do with them if ....
I dunno its just a bit freaky. I am coming to realize why there are so many accidental shootings.
Go easy folks nobodys coming for your guns itll be okay.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Challenge THIS!




No chance in hell that this will fly

[edit on 1/18/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by triplescorpio
My two cents ya know for a forum designed to search for truth and deny ignorance there sure are a lot of violent gun nuts. Guess paranoia and conspiracy go hand in hand. I am a little put back when i here all this talk of what guns people have and what they would do with them if ....
I dunno its just a bit freaky. I am coming to realize why there are so many accidental shootings.
Go easy folks nobodys coming for your guns itll be okay.


Are you serious?



----------------------

US Gun Statistics
Various Sources
2-2-5


(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!


^^From Rense.com . . . but true, none the less.

Pansy

[edit on 1/18/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Does anyone remember that Senator or Congressman who was an advocate for gun control who recently killed an attacker in his home??? If so, someone should post that to this thread.

It seems that they want to be able to defend themselves but, have no problems with making sitting ducks out of the rest of us.

So, this administration is really trying to push the envelope on American freedoms. This is going to get really ugly soon.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by nicm01
There seems to be a central issue that most of you are missing here - or have you Americans become too jaded? The tighter restriction on guns will hopefully stop the prevalence of gun massacres.

Get real, people. Until you get rid of guns you will never will never get rid of gun violence. Simple as that.

How simple is this? We have laws against Heroin use in America. A medical doctor can't write a prescription for it, yet a ten year old child can buy it on a street corner in any major city. So you can tell me all you want to about passing laws against gun ownership, the criminal element will still be able to get them. Your theory is not valid.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 
Here it is again.....www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nicm01
 


Seems to me that I recall the government of Australia is clamping down on the freedom of the internet as well.

Here in the good old US of A, they conduct wiretaps of the phones and monitor other forms of communication. Would hate to see what they would try if there could be no chance of an armed resistance whatsoever.

Guess it boils down to the old saying about preparedness: Better to have it and not need than to need it and not have it.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Uhhh... NOT talking about drugs... I think we are talking about guns...

No reply to the constant gun massacres though...

Isn't that the bigger issue?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by nicm01
 


Seems to me that I recall the government of Australia is clamping down on the freedom of the internet as well.

Here in the good old US of A, they conduct wiretaps of the phones and monitor other forms of communication. Would hate to see what they would try if there could be no chance of an armed resistance whatsoever.

Guess it boils down to the old saying about preparedness: Better to have it and not need than to need it and not have it.


There is no internet clampdown in Australia, Bozo. Apart from child porn coming from America. Whoo-haa!

You feel comfortable knowing that your phone is being tapped for no reason. But some random pyscho is out on the street and can shoot you because its their "constitutional right". Awesome.

Still don't have an answer to the rate of gun-related massacres in America. Must have been great to see soldiers attacked in Texas. Or were the Amish teenagers better?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicm01
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Uhhh... NOT talking about drugs... I think we are talking about guns...

No reply to the constant gun massacres though...

Isn't that the bigger issue?
I was making a very SIMPLE point. To quote you,"uh". I really don't know how to make it much SIMPLER for you. You think making guns illegal would stop gun violence. Just like passing laws against heroin would eradicate it ( hint: You can still buy it illegally and it is available... nobody asks for ID or anything!) It is called an ANALOGY.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicm01
reply to post by butcherguy
 


No reply to the constant gun massacres though...

Isn't that the bigger issue?
Care to document " constant gun massacres" especially the CONSTANT part.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


he's making up stuff about owning guns. the concept and purpose of owning a gun, as well as misusing or abusing the right has been the same since guns were invented, how could it possibly be conceptualized any differently?




top topics



 
64
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join