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.

 

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

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Not for assassination no, but to protect a States right the leave the union and defend against an over reaching Federal Government - yes!

This will happen again here and there sooner than later:


An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.

Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and

Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore,

Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.

This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

Approved, October 31, 1861. Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, pp. 752-53.


I have to say that when you look at the maps you can see the reason we will have a civil war soon and over issues like this one. I bet Texas will be first.

The left coasts can because of population density impose their poor management practices on the red states in the middle.

One need only carry a few key states now to win the 277 vote necessary to be President, basically why they campaign in only those states and disenfranchise the others. What is good for NY and LA is not good for Missouri - totally different issues and ideas on how to run things.

This is one of the problems we have with our current system and one I feel will eventually lead to civil war:

This one from Obama: While it may be a popular mandate of the majority of the "people" it is one that seems to entirely ignore the will of a great portion of the country in land mass.

These left run and dominated States have ideals often diametrically opposed to those of the red middle America Look at this divide…and the same trend basically since after Regan –red middle/blue coasts (with Illinois in there as red a lot)



Then this one from Regan: This; however, is a clear mandate…



Reagan clearly had a mandate of the states wining a clear majority of both the land mass and the population.

While Obama carried a lot less states but those that were more populated and therefore with more electoral votes.

The problem with this is that eventually these larger more populated states with larger cities and more liberal politics (meaning higher taxes, worse crime, higher debt, less freedom and more entitlements) are forcing the smaller states into a sort of forced servitude to finance the same.

We are not a democracy we are a representative republic and the States are the ones losing their rights more and more.

However, we can split this off to another thread about secession of a number of states and why I see it coming when I reach the ability to do so.

edit on 12/1/2011 by Golf66 because:





posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


You made a good point about "what's good for LA and NY isn't always good for Missouri". That just goes to show that federal government deciding what is good for everyone isn't good at all. That's why we have state constitutions and legislatures.

Just saying...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Hmm, according to archives.gov the second amendment in the bill of rights says and is stated as follows.


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.


What is the definition of militia? According to dictionary.com

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


According again, to archive.gov the constitution says under Article 1, section 10, paragraph 3.


No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


And in Article 1, section 8 in the last few paragraphs pertaining to the powers of congress:

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; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


And as it pertains to who controls the militia, again according to archives.gov: article 2, section 2, paragraph 1.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


And of course for you psycho fuddy duddies out there who think you can just go overthrow your government, by physical and or violent force.

Article 3, Section. 3.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


So in short, while we the citizens of the US may keep arms, a militia is formed by the government, for the government and people as a measure of homeland defense. I didn't see anything in there about what the ops referring to. If I missed it, feel free to link. but in my eyes, the answer is clear as day, Hell no.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
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!



Cute!


Those are the words that would justify political resistance with violence if taken literally, and if you believe the Second Amendment enshrines violent resistance with guns. That is what they are being called out on.


Above quote is from this Blog - Click me and read me


That is why I asked if it was your question as this is nearly the same.

Perhaps if you read your own title? If a person answers yes they are an insane psycho like Loughner, if they answer no they are admitting they don't need guns. Trick question, you betcha!

My question was answered. Have fun with the smileys.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by asperetty You made a good point about "what's good for LA and NY isn't always good for Missouri". That just goes to show that federal government deciding what is good for everyone isn't good at all. That's why we have state constitutions and legislatures.


Thanks, and exactly why the power of the Federal Government was limited and specifically enumerated to them in the Constitution so we could all move about and find a place to "fit in" by voting with our feet.

However, since the Fed is now involved in everything that should be exclusively local, like education and government charity - i.e. welfare and other such things they were not given the power to be involved in we are losing that right to find people of a like mind.

It is creating a populist style government in which the few more populated states can enforce their will on the less populated areas through use of their power to exclusively choose the executive branch who has a lot of power not in and of itself maybe but through its appointees and their regulatory powers they can regulate what they can't legislate.

This system has become an abomination.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
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.


THANK YOU Blain91555, for waking us up to the insidious intentions of the OP.

I had noticed over the past few months that many of such seemingly 'innocent' questions was often posed here, that many of the simpler or confused folks would fall for it.

The question posed was an outright lie itself, and anyone who replies as the OP dictates are only following lies.

1. Where does the sacred Constitution mention killing anyone, let alone 'assasinate'?

2. The question is not even a honest effort at interpretation, but a deliberate attempt to attack the noble ideals of the founding fathers.

The Constitution gives the american society to bear arms, for the noble founding fathers realized that when all else fails, as they had tried at diplomacy with England, armed revolution is the only answer. And therein lays the purpose to arm the population should one day tyranny reigns, as it did after the reign of the greatest queen England knew - Queen Elizabeth the First

The sacred Constitution gives future american and all free man descendants to stage a revolution against tyranny, but only as A SOCIETY, and not as some lone indivdual. Revolutions are not one man shows, but needs the cooperation and will of a majority, if not the entire oppressed nation to stand up.

What Jared had done was to stage a one man violent and senseless brutual revolution, without the majority of society's agreement to act. No society would condon such unnecessary act. He acted alone or through the bidding of an insidious hidden few, without counsel or consent from the majority whom had not seek for revolution, or at least not yet.

Thus, may more be better informed before replying to the trap the OP has set for simpler minds.
edit on 13-1-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
You have to wonder about the question and the REASON behind the question, any with common sense know that sites like this are under invistagation now, especially since the nutjob posted here. I think at worst its not just an offhanded question and the poster knows it, or at best you will have Feds looking closely at the responses



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
No, it doesn't give anyone the right to kill anybody. It also doesn't say that you have the right bear arms, Except you have to register them, you can only have X amount of bullets in a magazine, you can't carry a gun without a permit, they have to be locked in your trunk with no access to it should you need it. There are too many restrictions in place that only restrict the gun owners who follow the law, who passed background tests, who aren't going to go on a rampage. Stop raping the 2nd Amendment already.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbc650mike
No, it doesn't give anyone the right to kill anybody. It also doesn't say that you have the right bear arms, Except you have to register them, you can only have X amount of bullets in a magazine, you can't carry a gun without a permit, they have to be locked in your trunk with no access to it should you need it. There are too many restrictions in place that only restrict the gun owners who follow the law, who passed background tests, who aren't going to go on a rampage. Stop raping the 2nd Amendment already.


Actually it very much depends on what state you live in. In Missouri it is perfectly legal for a person to open carry a handgun in an exposed hip or shoulder holster loaded and ready to go. That is of course with the exception of the federal buildings, schools, and if a business owner has a sign asking you (not telling) not to.

The only "registration" is that you purchased it legally which if it was 20 or more years ago meant showing your drivers license at Sears or Wal-Mart. Actually, your dad could have given it to you as a gift there is no registration required at all.

Thank god we can still chose where we live so I can live in a place with an understanding of the constitution and not some pseudo-police state line Maryland.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Thread title: "The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right to Assasinate high ranking US Gov. Officials!!!"

Right to assasinate? [sic - it's assassinate] Enshrines the right to Assasinate? Seriously?

This thread is an embarrassment.

Assassinate definition according to Merriam-Webster's: :



1. to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously 2 : to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons


Injure, destroy unexpectedly and treacherously, MURDER? And you have posited that this is a RIGHT? And that this RIGHT is ENSHRINED? By our CONSTITUTION?

This thread is utter nonsense, and a discredit to ATS.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


It depends if the highly elected official is a danger to the population, as we has learned the people that died in the incident of any political position was a Judge and state official hardly working against the people right now, just two lowly appointees with not power whatsoever.

This means their death are only glorified by our government that is the only reason they are making the front page in the news like it was 9/11 all over again.

Just remember what congress has been sleeping on for a few years, now, the homegrown terrorism bill.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I would like to point out that law is carried out by the judicial system. That is also in the constitution.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Does the 2nd enshrine any "rights' to assassinate ANYONE ? Absolutely not .

Are you now on a watchlist because of this thread ? Absolutely .



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 
The answer is NO. The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to intentionly go out to kill someone, but it does give you the right to defend yourself and your property from someone who is intent on your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What I was wondering was did the 2nd give the right to revolt against a unresponcible government. But unfortunately it is only the states that give you the right to revolt against a nonfunctioning government and I take it that it means we can only redress a state government, not the Federal Government. So maybe the 2nd is meant to allow the citizens of the U.S. to protect themselves from their own unresponsive government. I don't know.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephalimWhat is the definition of militia? According to dictionary.com


1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


Dictionary.com is cool and all but here is the legal definition:

US code Title 10, subtitle A, part 1, chapter 13 section 311.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.




Originally posted by NephalimAnd as it pertains to who controls the militia, again according to archives.gov: article 2, section 2, paragraph 1.


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


The key part here is that he is only the Commander of the Militia when called into the actual Service of the United States. Until then the Troops of the Organized Militia - The National Guard are under the Civilian Command of their respective Governors.

The unorganized Militia are under the Command and direction of no one in particular and may organize themselves in the absence of such orders to defend their homes and property from any threat be it from an invading enemy force or that of a corrupt and Unconstitutional Federal Government.

People have the right to form their own militias and to organize themselves through their own rules as they see fit. Militia groups only get in trouble when they start disobeying laws to pay taxes and or illegal use - purchase of weapons.


Originally posted by NephalimAnd of course for you psycho fuddy duddies out there who think you can just go overthrow your government, by physical and or violent force.

Article 3, Section. 3.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Well, here is a sticky subject since this applies to individuals not the States or their duly elected legislatures:

Once they do this:

Missouri


An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.


The US law no longer applies and the "psycho fuddy duddies" would in effect become Soldiers in the militia of their State or local area and according to the laws of war are lawful combatants not terrorists or such nonsense and entitled to all protections of the laws of conduct of land warfare.

You will note that the Confederate Soldiers were not tried for treason they were required to take an oath to not take up arms after they surrendered. Some were; however, like a lot in the Missouri area, treated as guerrillas and justly so tried for war crimes because they did not submit to an established governmental authority and chain of command and conduct themselves as Soldiers but rather as criminal gangs with informal leadership.


Originally posted by NephalimSo in short, while we the citizens of the US may keep arms, a militia is formed by the government, for the government and people as a measure of homeland defense. I didn't see anything in there about what the ops referring to. If I missed it, feel free to link. but in my eyes, the answer is clear as day, Hell no.


Again, this is not true, the "militia" requires neither the permission nor involvement of the Federal Government to exist, organize themselves, arm & train or conduct operations as long as they do not commit crimes in so doing.

US code Title 10, subtitle A, part 1, chapter 13 section 311.

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Ok so let's say you wanna assasinate some 'high ranking US Gov. Officials'.
What makes you think the next one stepping up to take his is place is not ten times worse?

To add something else,



"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

Quote by Thomas Jefferson from wikipedia.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Thanks for the addition. research fell a bit short o nthe part o them ilitia, and I knew there was a hole in there. however, Id have just as easily skipped over the Missouri argument considering it is speculative and fictional at this point.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:07 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. 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!


We the people in no manner implys one person can take the constitution and use it in the direction it was used against gifford. It says to form a militia to fight against tyranous government,this means to overturn and change to bring peace to our nation with more then one people involved. To form a malitia is a multitude. To fight against the government in no way implys to kill. You are taking the constitution in a completely wrong direction, and your thread displays a dangerous person.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


It is separating our nation by colors/ ( red oand blue)political parties is the dominant reason america is falling apart. Both parties, democrats and republican are at a extreme corrution level. each party has their corruption, each parties corruption is differnet however neither party is good for anything. Democrats want to brake america, force laws upon us we do not want, improve outside countries and forget america. Republicans want to take from the lower class and give to the rich, they are greedy elities, power hungry dawgs, they look for world domination ( and democrats probably do too) and both parties have turned their backs on the american citizens. WHen we the people wake up and realize this, it will be at that time we the people change it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Explanation: Bumped to help generate ad revenue!

Personal Disclosure: Enjoy!



new topics




 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join