Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right to Assasinate high ranking US Gov. Officials!!! Yes or No???

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Explanation: The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right to bare arms and to militia's etc. This is self evident to those US educated citizens. The reason for this is so as to be able to take back power FROM an oppressive and Tyranical Government which is staffed by officials and representatives etc. This is also self evident or it would call in to serious question its reason for being.



Second Amendment to the United States Constitution [wiki]

This thread is just to gauge the responses to the threads Title/subject and a simple yes or no and a why to qualify that reply would help to avoid 1 liners etc.

Please stay ON Topic OK!


Personal Disclosure: It's "We, The People" who are in charge and NOT TPTB OK! Loose that victim mentality and start living for your dreams and dying for your principles OK!




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 



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.


Point out where it says we can kill anyone.

Seriously?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

New Hampshire's constitution[29] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the New Hampshire constitution's Bill of Rights: Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

source

In fact almost every state's Constitution has this clause within it. However, pay careful attention to the specific terminology used within.

The link I provided lists other state's clauses, Kentucky, PA, Tenn, Texas, etc.
It says pretty clearly what the rules are. They are not all listed but you get the point.

edit on 12-1-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 



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.


Point out where it says we can kill anyone.

Seriously?


Precisely. The amendment clearly states for security purposes.
The overwhelming answer to the question in the title is "No."
Security does not equate with assassination.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Yeah you have a good point there, You do have a right to a free state
edit on 12/1/11 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 



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.


Point out where it says we can kill anyone.

Seriously?


Killing innocent civilians is definitely always illegal.

Therefore indiscriminate terrorist attacks do not count as legitimate under the legal rules of rightful revolution.
edit on 12-1-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


1:

That is not the second...

2:

I still don't see any sentence saying "Kill"

The answer is "No" the text does not say you can kill anyone, regardless of their job.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 

Explanation: St*rred!

You make a great point. Whats the point of having that constitutional amendment for, the right to collect and display guns only?


Personal Disclosure: Now can you answer the question posed by the topic please. I can see the why... but not the Yes or No reply!
: :shk:

[EDITED] Thanks for answering and I apologize as this thread has taken off faster than I can handle it!


edit on 12-1-2011 by OmegaLogos because: Edieted to add the edit.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.


That is in the Kentucky Bill of Rights.

"in such manner as they may deem proper".

That means any way that the people deem is proper is legit. If violence is part of it, so be it. It's pretty clear about this stuff.
edit on 12-1-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

Explanation: The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right to bare arms and to militia's etc. This is self evident to those US educated citizens. The reason for this is so as to be able to take back power FROM an oppressive and Tyranical Government which is staffed by officials and representatives etc.


If you're talking about breaking the state's monopoly on force, good luck, they have you outgunned. If you want to talk about just turning our back on government and pretending they don't exist until they go away, hell yes, great idea. In other words, no.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Again, this is not the second. Which is the topic. The second does NOT say you can kill anyone. Therefore the answer to the topic question is "No".

Unless you can point out, in the second, where it says you can kill.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
No.

It explains our right to provide ourselves with adequate defense against anything and anyone, not to kill.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 

Explanation: OL agrees but thanks muzzleflash for their important and qualifying input. This thread is about The US constitution and not any individual states constitutions. But also this thread is about High Ranking Gov. Officials etc and not just anyone. OL fully agrees the wording of the 2nd Amenmendt doesn'texxplicitly state or contain the words "Kill" and or "Assasinate" at all.

This begs the question then what the hell IS the reason behind this amendment?


Personal Disclosure: Thanks for the interest displayed by my fellow ATS members on this important subject.





posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
The Second Amendment was meant for citizens to protect themselves from government oppression when all else fails.

Shooting a politician at a meet & greet is definitely wrong, no question about it. Even if the politician is corrupt, they deserve the right to a trial same as anyone else.

When Federal agents are about to kick in your door to arrest you for some imaginary thought crime, THAT would be the time to lock & load.

Probably the best use of this Amendment would be to form a militia to defend your rights, declare your independence from the corrupt and oppressive government and then stand ready to defend your freedom if the Feds decide to come after you. Shooting first should never be the 1st option.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Your title is an obvious trap a child could figure out. We are not stupid here. Apparently you think we are for some reason or your using some kind of nonsense reverse psychology. One could almost say it is a question a Troll would post to try and hide the fact they are trying to force their beliefs on others through false logic and deception.

Did you get that question from someplace else and decided to use it here?

There are only two ways to view the recent tragedy.

Man kills people with a gun, therefore its the guns fault.
Man kills people with a gun, therefore its the mans fault.

Only one can be true and the false argument is obvious, until they invent a self-animating gun that can move and fire on its own and make the decision of when it fires and at whom.

If your title is an attempt at reverse psychology, you agree with me, if its just a trick, you don't. What is your answer.

My other thought which makes me shiver, is that your looking for validation and are thinking of doing something terrible yourself. Bad idea to not define your own views.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


The reason behind the second:

"Cold War"

At least that is my guess. People don't want to kill their friends/family/neighbors/etc. (On average anyway...)

If we go to war with our government, then that is what is happening. So the "Cold War" of the 2nd is keeping the peace.

(Though I don't seem to know any "Well regulated militia" with guns, just average Joes...and Janes)
edit on 1/12/2011 by adigregorio because: "well trained militia" (to) "well regulated militia" (Hey, high school education at its finest, right?)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If you die for your principles...do you have principles? Because your dead. A dead person can't do anything but be dead, so therefore, you have no principles....you just have death...and worms. The government is on some b.s., but I know the 2nd amendment does'nt say a person can kill a high ranking "official", so the answer to your question is, no. It does not.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Let us look at the entire text of the 2nd amendment.


Amendment II
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.

source

That raises the question of what exactly is a well regulated militia, since that is the necessity on which the right to keep and bear arms is hinged.


Militia


The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service.

source

So as a citizen of the United States that is in the eligible pool for military service or in a body of citizens that is enrolled in military service when needed, then you qualify as a potential militia member. Since every aduly in the United States (barring exigent circumstances) is eligible for service, then that includes just about everybody.

But wait there is a little bit more here.
Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution states that the Federal Government can use the militia :


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


source

so by your interpretation of the second amendment, having a militia gives you the right to use violence against the government, however the same Constitution also states that the militia is subservient to the federal government and can by used at will by them. Would you be ok with this too?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

Explanation: 1]I posted this thread in Skunk works!


2] I haven't forced anybody to read this thread!


3] I got the question from ... inside my brain!


4] OL agrees that you are a troll!


5] Yes! I AM! But I'm in Australia and an Australian and so a whole different kettle of fish!


Personal Disclosure: OL is prepared to die for his principles and to also STRESS TEST everybody elses!


The Last Resort ... is not a holiday camp ok!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I think this article does an extremely good job at addressing your question, sir:

The Second Amendment: Our Nation's Foundation





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join