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.

 

Ban the 2nd amendment

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Should the 2nd amendment be banned?

Here is my opinion:

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The second amendment was designed so that individuals could defend themselves against. Totalitarianism. One item that I think that people tend to overlook is that the framers of the constitution just finished fighting a war against tyranny. The first battle fought occurred when the British were moving in to take arms away from the colonials. They knew how valuable having arms were; they enabled the colonials to take their freedom. Think it cant happen again? What about the patriot act, or in the event of a terrorist attack and martial law is instituted and then never relinquished.

Now, what about assault weapons. During the 1700s the musket was their assault weapon. Now we have the ar-15, mini-14 etc all of which are single fire weapons and not the automatic weapons that the military currently have. Firearms are the liberty teeth of the United States citizens. Without firearms we are at the mercy of our Government. With them we can keep it we the people, without them who knows what would happen. I for one do not intend to find out. Do you trust the Government enough to let them have total control over you?




posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
It does three things, (1) It gives you a defense from criminals until the police can arrive, (2) It makes it harder for a totalitarian US government to nullify the average citizen, (3) It makes it much harder for an external invader to bend us into submission.

I don't understand the view of many liberals that think no citizens should have arms. Then only the government, criminals and foreign entities have arms. If you personally don't want to own a weapon that is your free choice. Don't however trample the constitution due to your terror of others owning firearms.

Freedom for the individual.
.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I think there should be a 2nd Amendment forum. Maybe a sub-forum?



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
I think there should be a 2nd Amendment forum. Maybe a sub-forum?

Well we do have the weaponry forum, but it doesn't really discuss any of the politics about firearms.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I agree with the conservative POV that we need to protect ourselves from thescary world in wich we live in today and it is our right to do so.

However, liberals bring up a good point. It being, Most ( NOT ALL but most )
of the violence we must deal with is caused by peoples easy acsess to fire arms and their ability to use them without moral question.

There is no right answer to this, you can only have an opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) and here is mine. I believe that as an american citizen you have the right to own a rifle. A rifle ( not fully auto. ) is used mainly for sport and, god forbid that there was ever an attack on american soil or something to that nature, it can make an efficient weapon to use on your enemy. Handguns on the other hand, serve only one perpose and that is to kill people. Some of you might say you need it for self defence, well think about it, if handguns were never created in the first place then we wouldnt need to protect ourselvs from them now would we? I am a firm believer that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" handguns just make it easier to get the job done, there is no way to defend yourself agenst a bullet. And if you think a handgun will protect you from someone using a rifle, im sorry but you are mistaken, they would be too far away from you for you to even realize that your in his/her crosshairs before its too late. Handguns were created to kill people IMO and we dont need anything like that acsessable to the public, IMHO.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Tr33stump]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Although I am quite liberal, I also support the 2nd Amendment to it's fullest!
My take with firearms, 'To use the right tool for the right job.'

There is nothing wrong with owning both a rifle and a pistol. A rifle as previously noted is a long range weapon, excellent for taking out known hostiles from a distance. The pistol is a short range weapon, excellent for taking out known hostiles from a melee (or near melee) distance.

I do not feel that either tool is effective for hunting, although it may be quite useful against animals that are a lot stronger than a human. I prefer bowhunting instead.


Moving back onto topic, the points of protection from a gov't take over(however unlikely as it is) I gladly accept as valid. If the 2nd Amendment were to be modified, I would rather it be modified or appended by allowing swords, axes, and personal energy weapons to be in possession of Americans for purposes of self-defense in addition to firearms.

I have often wondered, why there are no goverment funded firearm safety courses for all citizens?(outside of joining the armed forces of course
)

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Crysstaafur]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Benefactor Member of the National Rifle Association.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   


If the 2nd Amendment were to be modified, I would rather it be modified or appended by allowing swords, axes, and personal energy weapons to be in possession of Americans for purposes of self-defense in addition to firearms.


I would prefer these weapons to fire arms anyday ( aside from the personal energy weapon ). Whatever happend to the good ole' days when you had to work for your kill, for example sword fighting, when you had to look into your enemys eyes before you kill them. Pulling a trigger is just too easy ( dont get me wrong I understand fully that it takes skill and practice to become something like a sniper ), if you are to kill someone you should have to see the look on their face as your doing it and hear them in their final moments of life. I was also unaware that these weapons are not allowed in or possesion.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
Although I am quite liberal, I also support the 2nd Amendment to it's fullest!
My take with firearms, 'To use the right tool for the right job.'

There is nothing wrong with owning both a rifle and a pistol. A rifle as previously noted is a long range weapon, excellent for taking out known hostiles from a distance. The pistol is a short range weapon, excellent for taking out known hostiles from a melee (or near melee) distance.

I do not feel that either tool is effective for hunting, although it may be quite useful against animals that are a lot stronger than a human. I prefer bowhunting instead.


[edit on 6-8-2004 by Crysstaafur]


I love when I see a self admitted liberal person voice their support for the 2 Amendment.
Crysstaafur.

I have owned guns for many years but I never hunt. I collect firearms and go target shooting often which is really fun for me. Thats one reason why I would hate to see guns be restricted to just a hunting purpose only. I have guns that I have never fired just part of my collection



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I believe certain guns should be allowed - I've never purchased a gun before, but I would hope that the purchaser of a gun must state their purpose of buying the gun - Maybe a law could be enforced that tells the customer that if you want to hunt deer, this is what you must have....if you want to have it for protection...this is what you must have - any infractions could be punished.

I don't see why someone needs an automatic for hunting deer....My father has stopped using guns and picked up a bow b/c he finds it more challenging and sportsman-like.

Plus you have the whole issue of protecting your children from the guns...these gun lock things are silly - if your gun you use for protection has a gun lock on it, what good does it do you in a needy situation? I knew a kid who's dad preached to him about gun safety....kid picked it up one day and went off right in his face....you won't find a gun in his house anymore....

I see uses for them and I also see the dangers of them - the NRA seems to be hell bent on claiming that proper gun-handeling education is all it takes - that's just crap IMHO - no proper amount of education can keep a gun-owner from going mad or a kid from checking out dad's gun for 5 seconds too long.

I carry a knife in my car - I dunno if it's the legal length or not....if someone wants to mess with me, I've got that waiting for them - I know how to use it and I know not to touch the sharp edge - lol

A gun isn't that simple of a tool to respect or use for everyone and by protecting our rights to own them we also accept the loss of people we may or may not know to the unpredictable nature of humans....

[edit on 8/7/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The second amendment was designed so that individuals could defend themselves against. Totalitarianism.


I agree entirely. The assault weapons ban prevents an armed populace from defending themselves against the current US military. I'm not suggesting that the current political situation calls for an armed revolt of the populace, however, should the time arise, the assault weapons ban would prevent the law-obiding populace from presenting an effective resistance against whatever regime may present itself and have the backing (at least officially) of the current US military.

As it stands currently, the US populace would be unable to effectively make an armed revolt against any regime with control of the US military, totaliarian or not.

Edit: spelling

[edit on 7-8-2004 by Enki]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   


I don't understand the view of many liberals that think no citizens should have arms. Then only the government, criminals and foreign entities have arms. If you personally don't want to own a weapon that is your free choice. Don't however trample the constitution due to your terror of others owning firearms.



liberals want to ban guns? hmm i thought we want them controlled, and mandatory trigger locks. i thought we want them all registered? nothing wrong with that. you want gun and the fun? fine. YOUR RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. period. besides, when we get invaded(as you predicted) you'll still have plently of time to load the ammo, im sure



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I'm all for people having access to guns. You have to train a civil culture to have peace. You can't force people to live civily by putting laws on them.

At the same time, so, ok, I can have an automatic weapon. What the hell good is that against the government when it has tanks, choppers, freaking ninja delta force guys, jets, etc. Unless they make anti-tank and shoulder-fired missiles legal, I don't see citizens having weapons as making much of a difference against tyranny.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Jefferson

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance...No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Jefferson



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I personally am glad that its an ammendment. Nobody will ever be able to simply ban it, they would have to ammend it. Like prohibition. By the way, good luck with that.

And MindWarrior is right, ask T. Jefferson... the man.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   
ban the 2nd amendment? f@#$ no! i may come off as a toatal liberal sometimes, but one thing i'm all for is our right to defend ourselves. with all the big brother s@#$ thats going on right now, the last thing we'd want to do is hand over our guns to the governemnt. if we were all unarmed we'd be no different from nazi germany. call me a redneck hick if you want, but i'd think america would be a much safer place to live if we all had guns. think about it, if everyone had a gun, nobody would want to f@#$ with anyone. michael more can kiss my skinny fat a$$.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
I don't understand the view of many liberals that think no citizens should have arms.


And I don't understand the view of many conservatives that think most liberals want to ban all arms. It's simply not the case.

Just another propaganda scare tactic of the gun lobby (read as manufacturers) to get your donations to the politcal lobby of the NRA that exists first and foremost to protect gun manufacturers rights, not yours (IMO).

Sending money to the NRA is like paying the legal bills of the opposition should a gun ever explode in your hand, or the neighbors kid ever shoot your kid because there was no safety lock. Though they speak a different tune at their "give me your money" rallies, that's who they really represent. Big business. The "right" to sell at K-Mart. The "right" to open markets to teenagers. The "right" to ban liability lawsuits. The "right" to avoid costly background checks or track sales via database. All corporate "rights".

They don't give a hoot about members. That's just the sales pitch.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Firearms stand next in importance to the
Constitution itself." - George Washington



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
And I don't understand the view of many conservatives that think most liberals want to ban all arms. It's simply not the case.

Just another propaganda scare tactic of the gun lobby (read as manufacturers) to get your donations to the politcal lobby of the NRA that exists first and foremost to protect gun manufacturers rights, not yours (IMO).

Sending money to the NRA is like paying the legal bills of the opposition should a gun ever explode in your hand, or the neighbors kid ever shoot your kid because there was no safety lock. Though they speak a different tune at their "give me your money" rallies, that's who they really represent. Big business. The "right" to sell at K-Mart. The "right" to open markets to teenagers. The "right" to ban liability lawsuits. The "right" to avoid costly background checks or track sales via database. All corporate "rights".

They don't give a hoot about members. That's just the sales pitch.


While I would never solicit membership to the NRA, I do take exception to the sole purpose of NRA being a legal front for the gun manufacturers. The NRA has demonstrated a comprehensive list of services, my favorite being the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program for children. They also keep tabs on those pesky little vermin... no not Prairie Dogs, but politicians. My status as a New Mexico resident also puts me in close proximity to the Whittington Center, the largest most sophisticated civilian hunting and shooting range in the world. The NRA is a multifaceted organization whose priority is the preservation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join