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.

 

Kerry Anti Second Amendment

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

(unless you count the little "militia" clubs with about 15 members that meet in the woods and shoot guns at trees)...if the government ordered the national guard to round up their fellow citizens and throw them into camps, they'd do it.


Doh ,I never said they had huge numbers but 15 guys is a little of a underestimate. In recent years their have had a nice little boom in numbers though. I do not think these guys would stop the military but they would put up a good fight. You be surprised how many of them are ex-military




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Who do you think is going to win?


The club in Michigan:



Or the Marines:



It's not a trick question.


[edit on 22-7-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Force Recon vs. MM is a no-brainer. However, I think the point is that they would have to put up a fight, however small, and that we won't just roll over for whoever tells us to.

The federal government would have to do something pretty stupid to get the entire country up in arms against them, though.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I am by no means saying that these Militias would win in a battle with the Juggernaut that is the US military. But groups like this would most likely be the first to resist a attack on the american people by the goverment. I would also like to think that in such a event many more groups that are like this would be born. I think large groups of people would organize together and help resist the goverment and at least they would be a thorn in the side of the goverment.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I would suspect that if the government were ever going to plan to take our guns away and imprison people, they would have been keeping tabs on all "citizen militia" members long before this...they would all be rounded up much earlier than the public would know of martial law being ordered, we would be unprepared.

Well trained military units such as delta force, SEALs, force recon, etc have been known for kill ratios of up to 30:1...and that's against people with automatic weapons.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I wonder what you guys think about this. Should such a conflict break out, how many people in the military would refuse orders, shoot their officers, defect, etc? WOuld there be mass assassination attempts on government leaders by citizens and military alike?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
I wonder what you guys think about this. Should such a conflict break out, how many people in the military would refuse orders, shoot their officers, defect, etc? WOuld there be mass assassination attempts on government leaders by citizens and military alike?


By the time people are in the military, and have been for a while, they WANT and NEED to obey orders...the conditioning is so much, that I think most people would just obey. There would probably be a few people who would refuse, and run off...but it mainly depends on the amount of people who would be fighting against the government for people in the army to simple consider them "terrorists" or else innocent people fighting for their rights if there was a large number.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
First of all no one is going to sign a bill that takes away all of our guns they will be much more sneakey than that. Gun control will come through lawsuits that make no sence and international laws that we will commit to without knowing the fallout,then the international and Supream court will force us to comply such as with NAFTA and the Mexican truck Drivers. Just look at what the UN feels gun control should be because they will ensure that we have only Shotguns or Bolt action rifle with no more than a 3 round clip that is a fixed clip. You will all give up your guns that do not fit this description because of laws that will tax you for any other type of weapon and tax ammo so high you wont want to buy more than 3 shells at a time. The writing is on the wall and we had better start reading it or we will all be very sorry in the near future.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

By the time people are in the military, and have been for a while, they WANT and NEED to obey orders...the conditioning is so much, that I think most people would just obey.


I can't confirm or deny your conclusion, but being from where everyone of my uncles, a third of my siblings and cousins, and a good number of my friends have served in the military, I see no indication whatsoever that they felt or feel a need or desire to follow orders.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
I can't confirm or deny your conclusion, but being from where everyone of my uncles, a third of my siblings and cousins, and a good number of my friends have served in the military, I see no indication whatsoever that they felt or feel a need or desire to follow orders.


If you were in the military, and we started rounding people up in jail...you would be told that these people were terrorists, and ordered to take them away to jail...if they fought back, you would be given orders to fire back at them. You would follow orders, as most people would. I'm not saying that military men like following orders, but if they are fed the right propaganda, and in the right situation, they have nothing else to turn to.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockerDom
Face it, the Remington 870 IS an assault weapon. What the hell animals are you hunting that you need an 870 to take them down, whales? Maybe bear hunting, but not if you want to keep the carcass for mounting. Ever shot a deer with an 870? There'd be a hole big enough to put your head in.


Your either a liar or seriously delusional. A Remington 870 is a 12 gauge shot gun used to hunt deer in almost every state in the union and has been for 20 years. It has far less range than an assault rifle and is not a fully automatic. You can modify this shotgun to have a pistol grip and make it look like some kind of military weapon but it is first and foremost a sportsmans gun also used to hunt duck geese quail turkey and pheasant. If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that. I really disprove of people pretending to be what they are not. You know all about guns and yet post ignorant stuff like the above. If you want to make a political point do it honestly not by making yourself out to be an expert. Deny ignorance do not display it.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Johannmon]

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Johannmon]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I hate to say it, but if they ever come for my guns, I will turn them over...




...bullets first!


I love target shooting, and I have a large wish list of guns. Right on the top is a Barret M82A1 .50. So what if it's impractical for hunting? I enjoy punching holes in targets. High-speed cigarette boats are impractical for fishing, but nobody's gonna tell you that means that you can't enjoy driving them.

Taking guns away from responsible, law-abiding recreational gun owners such as myself will accomplish nothing. We need to identify the root of the crime, and deal with it. What drives people to kill? Everyone looks for the easy solution to a problem that is anything but trivial.

Going back to the issue at hand, a real problem in politics is how politicians will say anything and everything they can to get people to vote for them. What ever happend to principles? Politicians warp and twist their ideals to garner votes, particularly in the presidential race. We're not voting for the president that holds all the same views as us, as such a thing is near impossible. We want a president that will best enact and enforce the constitution and laws of the United States. 535 senators and representatives can better represent the ideals of the people than one president can.

We have allowed the president too much power, so we try to elect a president that represents "me." How many people can actually name their representative and senators? What about state officials? Our misled ideas on the organization of the government only encourage presidential candidates to play both sides.

[edit on 7/22/2004 by PurdueNuc]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I doubt that there will ever be a gun “witch hunt” where everyone who owns a gun is forced to give them up or be shot/imprisoned/etc. What seems more likely is that they slowly tighten the noose until it becomes so unrealistically expensive to own a gun that it just isn’t worth it to the average citizen. I think that is what they have been trying to do for the last few years. Once the anti-gun movement gains enough momentum it will be nearly impossible to stop.

So, while a law against a .50BMG or “assault rife” may seem sensible to Mr. and Mrs. America, it really is just the beginning if the end.


EDITIED TO ADD: After re-assessing the picture, I have come to the conclusion that the Marines might have a problem stopping a few of those guys in the top row. I don’t think they carry enough rounds to knock over that guy on the far left.


[edit on 7/23/04 by para]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by para


So, while a law against a .50BMG or “assault rife” may seem sensible to Mr. and Mrs. America, it really is just the beginning if the end

[edit on 7/23/04 by para]


I really hate the attack on the 50cal rifle by some Anti-Gun groups and people. No one has ever been killed with a .50BMG rifle during a crime in the United States. They attack a gun that has never been used in a murder.No person has ever run into a bank and robbed it with a 50.cal rifle. They attack it for the fact that it is a powerful round and what it could do. I do see this as a slippery slope if you say the 50.cal round is too powerful for people to own then whats to stop you from then attacking the
.416 Rigby the 30-06 or even the .308 round.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
If someone has enough motivation to kill another person, it doesn't matter what they get their hands on...a handgun, a knife, or an uzi off the black market...they're still messed up enough to become a murderer, and if that crazy uzi-wielding murderer comes to my house, I want to be able to have equal fire power to defend myself...



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The second Amendment was never intended for invidividuals to fight a corrupt government, but a state with their militia.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
The second Amendment was never intended for invidividuals to fight a corrupt government, but a state with their militia.


Why wouldnt they have phrased it ,the right of the state militia to keep and bear Arms ,shall not be infringed? If this was their intent. The people that wrote the Amendent were not stupid they picked their words carefully. The used the word the ''People" for a reason.

Im afraid a arguement such as yours will be a way that the peoples right to own guns will be taken away from the them.
which will not be a good day for america



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by curme
The second Amendment was never intended for invidividuals to fight a corrupt government, but a state with their militia.


Why wouldnt they have phrased it ,the right of the state militia to keep and bear Arms ,shall not be infringed? If this was their intent. The people that wrote the Amendent were not stupid they picked their words carefully. The used the word the ''People" for a reason.


That's why they say 'A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State' part to don't hear much about. Then they say, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'


EDIT: What does 'well-regulated' mean to people? A National Guard? Strict gun control laws?

EDIT: In order for a state to have a militia, the federal government will not restrict arms use. That's what it says. Before the states joined this new country, they wanted guarantees that they could protect themselves.

Imagine europe wanted to become one big country, and told Spain and France that they couldn't keep thier Armies, but just trust the new big country.

EDIT: I keep forgetting something. To answer a poster's question, yes, states have tanks, fighter jets, and attack helicopters. Something to give to US a run for thier money, at least for a short time.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by curme]

[edit on 23-7-2004 by curme]

[edit on 23-7-2004 by curme]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
There seems to be a constant debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment and whether we the people actually have a right to keep and bear arms or not, or if that is a right solely conferred upon a State organized and operated militia.

One of the things that is important in looking at the meaning of the Constitution and the Second Amendment in particular is to consider the background of the men that wrote the Constitution and their ability to express their thoughts and ideas in an accurate manner

quotes

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, as reported in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1879.

The great object is that every man be armed. Everybody who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison

I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason

When firearms go, all goes....we need them every hour." - George Washington

"Laws that forbid the carrying of guns...disarm only those who are neither inclined not determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

"The true importance of the Second Amendment will not be fully understood, until they begin to usurp its power." - Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

These are the words of the founding fathers I think its clear how they felt about the Second Amendment and what they ment in it.


As a final thought on the interpretation of the Constitution, it is wise to reflect on the words of Thomas Jefferson to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. And though for a while, those, who have the sword in their power, abstain from doing him injury, yet by degrees he will be awed."

-James Burgh

I agree entirely.
I enjoyed a time during High School... Not an overly strange thing to say. But it was when I had "Sport" class where I chose to take up Shooting.

I found it liberating, very enjoyable and was quite good at it. I'm wishing to own a firearm of my own, and it is possible, but I do think it is at all probable unless I agree to only use it in a Gun Club.

I'm a bit hazy on the actual laws on Australian Firearm Ownership as I am not Australian. I guess it's about time to look it up.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join