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.

 

Someone explain to me how our right to bear arms is NOT infringed?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

YOU are the reason we are in this predicament.



I hope there's always more people like me then you.




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I shoplifted a dvd player when I was 18. Well, to rephrase that more accurately, I GOT CAUGHT shoplifting 1 Sony dvd player when I was 19. The retail value of the player was 220 USD. Since the companies who provide us with our material desires like to rape us up the bungholio and charge so damn much for plastic and wires and a small amount of some mediocre "tech", (yeah i know its my choice to steal but i felt justified, and still do although I stopped it because getting caught once was enough, plus I got out ahead so its all good, I was like a modern day robin hood, I shared everything i looted with my whole crew, nobody was ever left out, even if I just met you. and just to be clear, I have no sympathy for any megacorp and neither should you. nor should you have any for me, I knew what I was doing pretty much and I got off lucky while still learning a lot of lessons. to clear another thing, I ONLY stole from the very very rich, and never an individual person, never a persons car or house that would be against my purpose at the time) and they charged an amount more than 200 USD for that peice of crap, I got charged with a class c felony. (2nd degree theft is stealing more than 200USD worth of items) Class c is the lowest asa far as level of seriousness. However I am still not allowed to vote or own a gun or enter any country worth a crap. I`m basically a prisinor of this country now with no way to defend myself. I can`t even defend myself by attempting to vote the maniacs out of office because since I shoplifteds then I guess that means I would only vote for a criminal. So anyway, I just wanted to add that to your thread. Like I said, don`t think I`m lookin for pity. Just take the information and do with it what you please. I`m doin way better now and don`t regret the amazing learning experiences I`ve had, even being a fugitive for 7 years.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by VintageEnvy
 


How do you feel about people armed with a pitbulls on the street?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
The last time I looked, I saw many people walking around in public with firearms, even walking into coffee shops and restaurants and every public facility you can name — those people are called the police, under direct control of the Executive Branch of federal government.

When I looked down in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, I saw police officers walk off the job when they were needed most, I saw armed police officers stealing right alongside looters in downtown New Orleans, and I saw hundreds of armed members of the Executive Branch, storming people's homes, holding them at gunpoint, and confiscating privately-owned firearms.

No, the police and the National Guard are no more trustworthy than your average American citizen, yet the police and National Guard are permitted to carry firearms in public and even violate the Constitution.

THAT is indicative of a corrupt government, one that is not qualified to protect American citizens, and American citizens have every right to bear firearms to protect their homes and families when the government FAILS to do so.

Look at our police forces today — they no longer "protect" American citizens from crime; rather, the police have devolved into response agencies, responding to our calls for assistance, up to a half-hour AFTER a crime has been committed.

When we attempt to protect ourselves from crime — sometimes killing a criminal in the process — then we are arrested and prosecuted. What's wrong with this picture?

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 4/19/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR
Criminals carry weapons everywhere...Law abiding citizens don't
For if they did, they would be the same as the criminals.
We call that "respecting the law" ...maybe when you see these figures you'll have a different look on things


Once again, the anti-gunners drag out these meaningless "Gun Death Rate" numbers which don't mean anything taken in context.

Look at all the countries listed in the Gun Death Rate data... They consistently list countries with small (even TINY) populations compared to the USA. The largest country on the list is Japan with 128 million people — less than half the size of the USA — which banned private gun ownership long ago. OF COURSE a country that has banned gun ownership will have a lower gun death rate.

However, is Japan safer? Not by a long shot. Japan's preferred weapon for committing criminal violence is the KNIFE, which is even used to commit mass-murders. The most heinous crime with a knife in Japan was committed by a madman who murdered 8 children, wounded 13 others and 2 teachers at a school in Osaka, Japan.

He did this with a paring knife... That's a 6-inch knife with a 3-inch blade. Yet, nobody could stop him from murdering 8 children and critically wounding 15 other people.

This ranks with Columbine for sheer horror, yet not a shot was fired at the Osaka Massacre. Incidentally, Japan still has capital punishment, and they hung the bastard that killed all those kids.

How do anti-gunners feel about hanging, I wonder? Should we ban ropes, too?

Knife violence in Japan has escalated dramatically since guns were banned, and the same is true in virtually every country where guns have been banned.

The conclusion? The choice of weapon means nothing. People will still kill each other regardless of what weapons are available. Ban guns, we switch to knives. Ban knives, we switch to golf clubs. Ban golf clubs, we'll switch to baseball bats. Et cetera, et cetera.

The problem is that we don't know how to address human violence. Eliminating the weapons is a meaningless gesture.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 4/19/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctor j and inmate c5779
I got charged with a class c felony.... However I am still not allowed to vote or own a gun or enter any country worth a crap.

You were convicted of a Class C felony, not just charged. Which tells me a couple of things: 1) You had been busted before for pretty much the same sort of activity in the past — a judge wouldn't convict you on a first offense Class C felony, especially if you showed a little remorse. I know, I've been there. 2) You must have had a really lousy attorney, maybe one of those court-appointed hacks.

Now, you may be prohibited from buying or transferring a firearm, but they can't do a damned thing about your owning a firearm; and, if you need one for defense, I wouldn't blame you for carrying. The government should have nothing to say about how we defend ourselves — because the government does a lousy job of protecting its citizens from crime.

As a street-robin-hood, you probably have plenty of connections for acquiring a firearm. I would just very strongly recommend that you take every precaution to avoid being caught with a firearm. That means DON'T SHOW and DON'T TELL. Don't tell even your closest friends that you're carrying, right. As a fugitive, that firearm is an ace card up your sleeve, and it should only come out for extreme emergencies.

BTW, I was only charged with a Class C — driving my hotrod through a delicatessen, in one side and out the other — but I was not convicted. DA recommended that the case be dismissed, and I walked.

And that is why you want a good attorney, my friend.


— Doc Velocity




[edit on 4/20/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR

Criminals get guns and carry them everywhere.
But, a law abiding citizen, can't?
We call that right.....being INFRINGED!


Criminals carry weapons everywhere...Law abiding citizens don't
For if they did, they would be the same as the criminals.
We call that "respecting the law"
Logic FTW!

maybe when you see these figures you'll have a different look on things
Since America has the most armed citizens/nation on earth it should in your warped logic be the safest... which it clearly isn't


Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000

Japan 0.07
Singapore 0.24
Taiwan 0.27
Kuwait 0.37
England/ Wales 0.4
Scotland 0.49
Netherlands 0.55
Spain 0.74
Ireland 1.24
Germany 1.44
Italy 2.27
Sweden 2.27
Denmark 2.48
Israel 2.56
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94
Belgium 3.32
Canada 3.95
Norway 4.23
Austria 4.48
Northern Ireland 4.72
France 5.48
Switzerland 6.2
Finland 6.65
USA 13.47


Source: W. Cukier, Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International
Context, Chronic Diseases in Canada, April, 1998 (statistics updated
to reflect most recent figures, January 2001)
www.guncontrol.ca...

How does the bible say it again:
He who lives by the sword..... (replace sword by handgun....)


Hello,

Gotta read up on the Swiss, friend.

en.wikipedia.org... issued arms

"The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[3] The ammunition are intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion."

Granted, it is from wiki. I'll check your link next.

ETA; your link 404'd me.

[edit on (4/20/1010 by loveguy]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Go to the appropriate state office and ask for a gun license application for an American. They won't have one, only for a US citizen. Now why is that?

Because Americans don't need a permit. Only members of the unlawful corporate federal government (US citizens).



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by Lilitu
 


So, any person choosing to excercise a constitutional right is either suicidal or a terrorist. REALLY? REALLY?


I didn't say anything about rights. I was addressing your stated purpose for bearing arms which entails a threat to US national security and sovereignty and is therefore a terroristic threat. At the time the constitution was written an armed citizenry made sense as a final check against tyranny but that is no longer feasible. You simply cannot match the firepower of the US government.


Originally posted by 23refugee
The first oppression that should be stopped is the disarming of the citizenry.


Where are US citizens being disarmed? Who is doing it? Obama? Seems his presidency has been a gift to gun owners.

The Obama Administration Year One: The flight from gun control




Much to the surprise of many, President Obama’s first year in office has not featured a push for new gun control legislation. In fact, not only has he not pushed for new legislation, he has actively resisted calls by gun control groups while signing legislation allowing open and concealed carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges as well as allowing firearms on Amtrak trains. In fact, the Brady Campaign is so up upset with President Obama that they rated him an ‘F’ on their annual report card. In a report issued on January 18th of this year, they noted that in just one year, President Obama has "signed into law more repeals of federal gun policies than in President George W. Bush’s eight years in office."


Wake up already!



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 



Those statistics are crap.

I live right between DC and Baltimore. The overwhelming majority of the shootings occur in DC and Baltimore, funny thing is, is that both places guns are banned. The same goes for L.A., New York, Chicago, and New Jersey. These cities (and state) contribute the most to the gun death numbers, and yet gun ownership is strictly "infringed". The problem is much deeper than the availability of guns... it's like the problem with fat kids has nothing to do with what's in the school lunch.


[edit on 20-4-2010 by kingofmd]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
I'm glad carrying your gun around town makes you feel safe. I sure as hell wouldn't feel safe with you standing next to me in line somewhere with your gun hanging out. I'm not going to feel better knowing your having dinner in my restaurant and your packing in case some mugger runs in and tries to hold me up.

Your causing more problems then you think it's solving. If I actually saw you rolling around with your gun I would be inclined to call someone and make sure your allowed to have it. I don't feel safe when people around me have guns. People are too flawed to be carrying around something that can do so much damage.


This is typical liberal bologna. I heard the same thing yesterday.
People are too flawed? Who are you to judge?
Why stereotype people you don't even know? Seems a little unfair...
Be glad you don't live in Texas!
How do you not feel safe if someone has a holstered weapon?
First, if its holstered, its usually in the hands of a responsible citizen.
Second, if its holstered, that means the person probably practices with his/her weapon and knows how to use it properly.
Third, I'd much rather see a citizen with a holstered weapon than a person just walking around with a gun in his/her hand.
That would scare anyone.
That is why I carry my holstered weapon.



Originally posted by Lilitu
Do you really believe your little pop-guns can prevent tyranny by the government?? I mean - REALLY??? Consider for a moment the awesome irresistible power they could bring to the fight against you. Consider the shock and awe. Consider dead neo-confederates by the millions bulldozed into mass graves because they are too numerous to give a proper burial. Your weapons are nothing. You are as powerless armed as you are disarmed. And while you are doing all that considering, consider that there are better, smarter means of accomplishing ones political aims than resorting to violent suicidal/terroristic behavior.


Hmm....our combined military services are what....2-3 million strong?
Lets take half of that number and tell them to come back from around the world.
Then take the other half and put them on their own country's soil.
Source

Now match that with the 223 million guns in America, plus the 15+ million registered gun owners and the 20+ million unregistered owners.
Source
That would be one heck of a gun fight. Technology or not.


All in all, great posts by all posters who support our rights.
Gwydion, Doc, etc. (those who I expect to have great additions to the thread)

I just see too many people take for granted the rights of an American.
Not a U.S. citizen of the corporate United States.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 


What really bothers me is the fact that you can't carry guns in these cities.

Since when were these cities not in America?
Since when was D.C./New York City not an American city?

This is why we need to research more about what happened to America.
There is a huge plot going on about why you can't own a gun in these cities.

The biggest cities in America with the MOST gun crimes and AMERICANS can't protect themselves.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by Lilitu
 


So, any person choosing to excercise a constitutional right is either suicidal or a terrorist. REALLY? REALLY?


I didn't say anything about rights. I was addressing your stated purpose for bearing arms which entails a threat to US national security and sovereignty and is therefore a terroristic threat. At the time the constitution was written an armed citizenry made sense as a final check against tyranny but that is no longer feasible. You simply cannot match the firepower of the US government.


Originally posted by 23refugee
The first oppression that should be stopped is the disarming of the citizenry.


Where are US citizens being disarmed? Who is doing it? Obama? Seems his presidency has been a gift to gun owners.

The Obama Administration Year One: The flight from gun control




Much to the surprise of many, President Obama’s first year in office has not featured a push for new gun control legislation. In fact, not only has he not pushed for new legislation, he has actively resisted calls by gun control groups while signing legislation allowing open and concealed carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges as well as allowing firearms on Amtrak trains. In fact, the Brady Campaign is so up upset with President Obama that they rated him an ‘F’ on their annual report card. In a report issued on January 18th of this year, they noted that in just one year, President Obama has "signed into law more repeals of federal gun policies than in President George W. Bush’s eight years in office."


Wake up already!
My statement was an explanation of the original intent of the second amendment, which is still the law, feasible or no.
Of course the firepower of the governtment can't be matched. This is the cause for alarm from the ciitzens who supposedly control it.
Accusations of terroristic threatening and an uncalled for defense of Obama indicate you're railing against some right wing militant.
You have no clue as to whom or what you're speaking.
Perhaps you should awaken from this dream where you're some valiant defender of the left.
You wake up already



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 23refugee
 


I should of titled this thread:

GUNS: For or Against?

or maybe...

Americans: The complacent.

Seems there are more proponents of taking away rights and trying to explain why we don't need rights than there are people supporting them.

Sheesh...





posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


No matter what the title. good choice for a discussion.
Had I entered this thread with warnings of impending shock and awe and imminent mass graves, I could also see my views as extremist.
But to be labeled as seditious for expressing a distrust of the government and and an understanding of the second amendment beggars belief.
That's not complacency, that's fascism.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23refugee
Accusations of terroristic threatening...


The words which you typed, posted and which I quoted are by legal definition a terroristic threat. Intimidation of the government by threat of force of arms is a terroristic threat according to the Federal criminal code 18 U.S.C. §2331.

You failed to answer the questions in the second part of my last post.

Where are US citizens being disarmed? Who is doing it? Show me the documentation if it's not just a paranoid delusion.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
OP...I absolutely 100% agree. But I choose to keep quiet because you cannot argue with the brainwashed gun-fearing masses. Police and military have done a great job at making the world afraid of guns. Meanwhile you and I can arm ourselves and when the police forces and military finally fail to maintain the order of society people will come to us screaming and crying for protection. Its pointless to argue with people that are brainwashed to be afraid of guns. Its like trying to tell an arachnaphobic that grandaddy long-legs aren't dangerous to humans. They don't care, they're still gonna scream in protest until you kill it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
How is your right to bear arm infringed? So far as I know, you can open carry in every state w/o a permit. The constitution says nothing about the right to concealed arms.

If one is carrying a gun for protection, fine, but show it. A revealed firearm is a deterrent, a concealed one is not.

And some places, it just takes common sense to understand the banning of possession. Schools, bars (or any place serving alcohol), court houses, etc...

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Aggie Man]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Here is the reductio ad absurdum for the gun arguement. You wanna talk about what kills people? Cars. Yes, cars kill lots of people. We should license cars and make the owners register them because it makes it less likely for a car to kill someone. Oh wait! We do! Does it change a damn thing? Nope. Cars still kill people. Let's ban cars.
What else...let's see. Oh yes. Knives. Knives kill people. We shoot let's ban knives. They're dangerous!
Airplanes kill people too. Let's ban those!
People choke on food! Let's ban solid food!
People drown in water? Ban it. People choke in plastic bags? Ban it. Sex gives people STDs that kill them? Ban it. Pointy corners on desks and walls can kill? Ban it. People can choke each other through physical contact? Ban it. Tetnis from nails? Ban them. Falling off cliffs? Ban them. Ready, 123GO!


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu

Originally posted by 23refugee
Accusations of terroristic threatening...


The words which you typed, posted and which I quoted are by legal definition a terroristic threat. Intimidation of the government by threat of force of arms is a terroristic threat according to the Federal criminal code 18 U.S.C. §2331.

You failed to answer the questions in the second part of my last post.

Where are US citizens being disarmed? Who is doing it? Show me the documentation if it's not just a paranoid delusion.

Show me, in context, where I advocated the overthrow of my government.
You broached the subject of violent government overthrow.
I've done nothing but give my interpretation of the second amendment.
This villification of dissenters is exactly the fascist ploy I mentioned earlier.
Reread the thread, see if there are any mentions of the government removing lawfully owned firearms from its' citizens.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by 23refugee]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join