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.

 

Think the feds are taking your guns? Think again! This just in!

page: 11
45
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Sheol
 


I'm glad you feel that way, so when someone decides to take your home, kill your family and you, steal every possession you own, then they will not be prosecuted in your world since the constitution is so outdated and useless you are not afforded the rights therein. Although they are natural rights everyone has.

So lets break from your insane dreamworld where there's no constitution and let me explain to you what the Bill of Rights is. The first ten amendments to the constitution are considered the bill of rights.

They are listed there as being natural rights the paper document is just that paper. It does not give you those rights as your born with them. They are god given or natural rights. Regardless if you have a constitution every human being has those rights. So to explain this to you regardless of your opinion, which is what that is, you have no right to deny the rights of others. And you cannot use that to explain your opinion.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by LurkingSleipner]




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotgal
 


It warms my patriotic heart to read your post. I'm glad to see we still have some who think as our founding fathers did and those that inspired them. We should live free or die trying.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Even if I lived in a country where no private guns were allowed, I would be very well armed. I would hope my friends family and neighbors would do the same. Because at that point I would be in a totalitarian, authoritarian dictatorship, that would try to kill me regardless, and I would not go down without a fight.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sheol
Guns do not provide protection or defense whatsoever. ... Guns are meant for killing, not defending.


Utter garbage. Your above statement is proof positive that you do not have the slightest rational concept of history, firearms or military tactics.... but why argue with my reprimand of your lacking education, I will prove it by historical examples..

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: "When we invaded the Ghetto for the first time, the Jews and the Polish bandits succeeded in repelling the participating units, including tanks and armored cars, by a well-prepared concentration of fire. (...) [Their] plan was to hold the Ghetto by every means in order to prevent us from invading it. (...) Time and again the bandits and Jews found refuge in the Ghetto... armed with carbines, small arms, and in one case a light machine gun -"
—Jürgen Stroop Stroop Report 1943

To argue that firearms were some how not used as a defensive tool here, is completely without foundation and borders on delusional. A group of almost entirely untrained civilians, armed with nothing more than a few old firearms and very little ammunition defensively held off an extremely well equipped, well trained German army, as well as many elite SS troops; for 3 months.

I could do this all day, linking historic events where firearms were used definitely as a defensive means. You would be hard pressed to find a professional historian or Military expert that would back your asinine claim, if so post it with a factual link.



Originally posted by Sheol
If someone is running around with a machine gun, firing into a crowd, it doesn't matter if anyone in the crowd had a gun - they'll be shot and dead anyway. It did nothing to protect them. For protection, they would have to actually have foreknowledge that they would be shot by this person before it actually happened. Obviously, they won't know until after the person has started shooting.


What? Your logic is twisting upon itself here. Please restate your meaning with a more thought out example, if in fact you actually have one.



Originally posted by Sheol
Guns don't cause potential shooters to "think twice." If they want you dead, and they have a gun, they'll shoot you. The only way to possibly be protected is to just carry your gun around openly wherever you go for intimidation. But if that happens, intimidation will actually diminish. If everyone carries guns like it's a normal thing, why would anyone be scared? Plus, open-carry doesn't stop anyone from shooting, but would in fact make it easier to shoot someone.
If two people have guns, one "attacking" and one "defending," then unless the defender knows that the attacker is going to shoot him beforehand, he will most certainly be shot. The gun for "self-defense" does not work.


This statement is sadly laughable and again borders on asinine.

I served in two wars and there was not an encounter that firearms did not make me think twice; those who didn't think at least twice, are dead.

Your above statement is counter to almost every historical account involving in firearms when dealing with to opposing sides.



Originally posted by Sheol


Let us examine the whole picture, shall we and I will not even contest that propaganda or numbers of "murders" in each country.

New Zealand 5 deaths out of a population of 4 million. That is 0.00125% of the population.

Sweden: 37 deaths out of 10 million. That is 0.00037% of the population

Australia: 56 deaths out of 24 million. That is 0.00023%

England: 73 deaths. 51 million. 0.00014%

Canada: 184 deaths. 33 million. 0.00055%

USA: 11344 deaths. 310 million. 0.0036%. Here, one must also consider the 300 million privately owned firearms (conservative figure)



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamwalker74
 


Follow up: People of the world, When your govenment comes for your guns, (to quote Nancy Reagan) "JUST SAY NO!" There are FAR more of us than there are of them. Don not EVER give up your human right to defend yourself!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kneverr
 


You are the man. Let's look at the idea of guns in general. Are they more deadly than knives? Not necessarily, unless you are ten to twenty feet away. (at that point it takes one hell fo a throwing arm) yet still possible. How about rocks? You can throw rocks, or if you are able to lift a good sized rock you can bash someone's braines in. You could even attach a bayonette and call it an "assault rock" (a joke a few of you will actually get). How about nooses? I wonder how mouch rope kills people daily? Hey, Ive got it! How about we make all lives illegal? From know on everybody can only carry plastic sporks? Although if you are pulled over and detained, the spork should automatically be examined to make sure the plastic has not been sharpened of fortified in any way. Make the picking up of rocks illegal. We need to be proactive as a people on this, if you see someone bending over to pick something up, everybody immediately stop an wathc the person to make sure they are not picking up a rock. If they do so, do not attempt to detain that person, they are now armed with a "deadly weapon". REPORT THIS PERSON IMMEDIATELY! you have no idea how bloody the situation can get. Last but not least, set up a government run agency to teach and review the proper use of rope and all of it's potential illegal uses. The slogan for the agency should be "One Loop Away From Death".
Quit protecting me. I'll protect myself!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I would still be worried. They only had a 5 - 4 majority. I still think Americans will loose the right to bear arms.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I remember a line from when I was living in the states: "I've never met a Republican who was for reasonable gun control and I've never met a Democrat who was for reasonable gun rights." I forget who said it but perhaps it could ring true today.

This United States Supreme Court decision could indeed have far-reaching implications, basically it has stated that the people have a right to arms, period.

It leaves the question open as to exactly what kinds of guns can be banned, and that probably will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Handguns cannot be banned, hunting weapons never really were banned but the next logical step would be to see if "assault weapons" fall under second amendment protections. Also a much more interesting case would be weather concealed weapons are legal everywhere as well.

This is surely a victory for gun rights in the United States but how big a victory remains to be seen through future cases.

Read up on Lexington and Concord and why Paul Revere went for a midnight horse ride.

The main reason the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" is not personal protection (although that is also true), nor is it hunting rights, but so we will have the ability to revolt against tyrants, if necessary.

The real problem with this Supreme Court ruling is 4 "justices" voted to, in effect, do away with the 2nd Amendment. We have a procedure to amend the Constitution (Article V) and it does not involve the judiciary.

"Progressives" argue that the courts need to change the Constitution because it is too hard to pass amendments. It only takes looking at the 18th Amendment which only took 13 months and the 20th Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, and took less than 10 months to be ratified.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thetiggler
I still think Americans will loose the right to bear arms.


I hope not.

America: peaceful or helpless. Pick any zero.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
For those of you that have been stating that the constitution and rights are outdated and irrelevant, I can see clearly that you miss their point entirely.

These documents were written to protect all of us from people like you.

Tyranny takes many forms. It isn't necessarily a Kingly interest with a Red Coated Army to back it up. We are meant to be a nation of free people not the subjects of any crown, government nor cowardly/agendized groups.

No one says you MUST need to keep and bear arms, only that the right will not be toyed with.

I would suggest that those of you who insult the contitution and its protections of the individual, probably can't read the darned thing, or have reading comprehension problems.

Granted these documents were created by people fresh out of a genuine tussle with a tyrant.

What better advice could you possibly get? Do you think Tyranny comes with a Gestalt switch? No buddy... it creeps in little by little.

We have been subject to the conditioning process for quite some time. That is how it comes, unnoticed and seemingly natural.

You are the same people who cannot sort out that criminal use of guns causes the most problems. So like true tyrant, you would punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of the few out of the fear of the "might".

They might...

You live by fear. Gun owners do not. AMERICANS do not. Only the Anti Americans do. You would like to pass laws based on vain imaginations, fears and farts. They are equal in their import and meaningfulness.


The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written because of people like YOU, in spite of people like YOU, to protect individuals from people like you who get into the seats of power and run roughshod over the rights of everyone else.

Just think about, if you need more background, read the federalist papers.

These people were unmatched in the ability to reason things out. There is no one around anywhere near their class any more. You cannot possibly be smarter than they are. You can only approach the same level. Once you do, if you do, then it will all become much more clear to you, and you will sit in agreement with those people whose education and intellect puts our best to shame.

Outdated? NO, your thinking is outdated and contributes nothing to the advancement of mankind in general. You would have us go backwards because you can't tell the difference between freemen and slaves.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Another thing that sort of gets my goat... hehehe... is the idea that THIS website is so full of talk about the grand conspiracies.

There is the 2012 destruction,

global nuclear war,

massive solar flares,

anarchy,

Revolt and revolution,

Government take over.

Asteroid destruction,

Planet X and the return of the Annunaki, (or whatever they are)


We silly folks sitting here discussing that guns ought to be tossed is massively inconsistent with the idea of survival of ANY of the above.

Let's put it this way:

2012 is coming, the chinese are gonna nuke us, the sun is gonna fry all the electronics, there will be massive public unrest, the revolt is coming, martial law is coming, the asteroid is gonna smack us, and the 9 foot lizard Gods are coming... so.... let's get rid of guns now!

yeahhhh... buddy.... we ought to be listening to you!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Actually by being a part of the United States each state agrees to help the other in times of war. So if the federal government declares a state of war the individual states are seen to be in a state of war.

Actually if you can be at war with say Germany, you can be at war with a noun. Nouns are the abstract representation of something concrete and solid.

IS a war on terror possible? That is a whole other discussion.

All of that being said I was using these two definitions of the word state:




2. country: a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government
3. government: a country's government and those government-controlled institutions that are responsible for its internal administration and its relationships with other countries


Dubya, didn't even declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan, they just moved in. So is a Invasion not a War.

You can not declare war on something that has no conscience.
A war is over when one side surrenders, Terror can not surrender as
there is no single point of command. As no one can surrender the fighing can continue foreever, which is basically what its' doing now



You are right that George did not declare war. However, an invasion is considerred an act of war. So technically the invasions did lead to wars. You can argue whether the are still wars or if they are "nation building" at this point.

I said (in a later post) declaring a war on terror was impossible because it is simply a military/criminal tactic. However, when the government declares that there is a state of war against terrorist and all of their supporters it becomes a war against people.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I just wanted to repost something I put elsewhere on the site. It applys directly to those saying that guns can not be used in a defensive manner.




According to the Department of Justice in 2007 guns were used 14,727 times to prevent violent attacks against people. That is a highly conservative number that comes through using a strict reading of the statistics provided here. Plus I added in the justifiable homicides for 2007 according to the FBI/

Guns are used defensively 40.34 times per day on average. This includes pointing or firing a warning shot. Not every defensive use of a hand gun leads to death.

I wanted to add this little story so I edited the post.

A kid using a gun to defend his life and his family's lives.

Police said that shortly after midnight three men broke into a home seeking money and drugs. There were no drugs in the home, but there was a .22 cal rifle—and an 11-year-old boy trained in its use. The boy leapt to the defense of his mother and sister. One of the intruders shot the boy, slightly injuring him. The boy returned fire, seriously wounding a suspect and causing the men to flee the home. Police found all three intruders nearby. That wounded man was airlifted to a hospital and will be charged after his release. (San Antonio Express-News, San Antonio, Texas, 01/20/10)

Another story that shows guns can be used defensively. Not only that it shows in many cases they never have to be fired.


When he was awakened by his home security system, NRA Endowment member Steve Bason prepared for the worst—he got his Benelli M1 12-ga. shotgun, while his wife, Beth, an NRA Life member, grabbed her Glock 9 mm pistol. "At first we figured it was just another false alarm," Bason told the editor of the "Armed Citizen." "Then a light came on in our barn and I thought, 'My goodness, this is real!'" Police say the couple cautiously approached the barn. They peered inside and found a man standing next to Bason's truck with the door open. "There was some yelling and we probably said some words that aren't fit for print," Bason recalled. The suspect quickly found himself staring down the barrels of two different guns and waited patiently for police. (The Express, Lock Haven, PA, 02/02/10)




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


That was a major pant load you penned there my friend!

While I am a believer in the sovereign right of every country and the courts therein to uphold their laws, excuse me for having to say that in Canada, the primary reason our cops don't need to kill their suspects with weapons is plain and simple.

They tazer them instead.

So please refrain from over generalizing, you are dragging our superior belief system through the mud.

Thanks and best regards,
Cynic




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynic
 


Tazers kill people.

Now what?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sheol
 


I have to disagree, I believe that guns are tools, not in possession of any good or evil intrinsic to their nature, like any other man-made object.

It is what we do with guns, and any other tool, that determines the moral outcome. Hammers were used to build the Nazi death camps, but are also used to build homes for the poor and great libraries for the people. Guns have been used for great evils and great goods as well.

By assigning moral characteristics to objects we excuse ourselves from judgment, and this never should be. The people, human beings, who use guns for evil purposes are evil, but the tool they used is no more guilty than the wind for tornadoes.

The gun lacks the capacity for choice, it cannot decide what it is used for. We on the other hand make choices, and for those choices we must be held accountable.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeh2324
reply to post by Cynic
 


Tazers kill people.

Now what?



Obviously sarcasm is lost on you.

Mandatory second line.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by apocalypsesound
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


you wrote:
"Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia."

Your argument destroys itself. The amendment clearly states that the rights are retained by the people due to the necessity of a well-regulated militia. There are no other reasons given. You directed me to Gunsite.com where i read some hand-picked quotes, written by various lawyers over a great deal of time, as to what they believe the article actually meant. All the interpolation in the world does not change what is actually contained in the amendment.

And to address the broader conversation here, I cannot find another western country who has a rate of violence, nor a rate of incarceration, anywhere near as high as ours here in the United States. Is it a just a coincidence that we also have the highest rate of gun ownership in the Western world?


That is fundamentally flawed.

"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. "

Those commas show the intent of the drafters of the 2ndA in the wording of the time - that sentence construction clearly points out that though a militia is necessary (State, Local and Federal by the way) it is the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bare Arms that takes primacy.

The founders were fundamentally distrusting of both standing armies and too centralized a seat of federal power. The USSC has held that that 2ndA is a personal right, not a collective one. Just as the founding fathers intended.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join