It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 05:10 PM
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Codemaster_01
.........The theory of the framers, we were told, was that soldiers would be unlikely to shoot their fellow citizens who were armed and protecting their property and rights. Allowing citizens weapons would discourage a dictator-minded president or congress from taking our liberty from us.......

- That's an interesting theory but, although there will be exceptional instances at certain times, I think you'll find that in the case of just about every society there ever was it is not often true and quite wrong.

History is full of examples of citizenry/subjects turning their weapons on 'their own' when ordered to do so, again and again.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 05:35 PM
You saw what happened when they tried to take your alcohol away......They will never try to take your guns away.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 05:54 PM
Notice it is the SECOND Amendment. That kind of outlines how important the founding fathers felt this right to bear arms was.

It is ahead of and kmore important than the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, so on and so forth. Why? because the second amendment assures the enforcement of the amendments that follow. Alot harder to illegally search and seize a citizen when they are armed. Alot harder to quarter troops when the public is armed.

The only amendment more important than the right to bear arms is the 1st. In order to have a state where citizens can bear arms, the 1st amendment must exist.

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Notice it is the SECOND Amendment. That kind of outlines how important the founding fathers felt this right to bear arms was.

Nice post!

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by sublime4372
great point, crypsta, except one thing, the insurgents are getting their as_es kicked right now. You and your few guns arent going to able to do a damn thing. Oh, by the way, does anyone know when this great "takeover" of the american people is suppose to happen? just wondering, cuz it seems to me, that our government is allready tyrannical and noone is doing a damn thing. so all you gun nuts go get busy!! go stop the tyranny. go on, grow a pair and stop the oppressors !!!!!

The insurgents that are fighting right now are also pretty poor fighters, mostly just armed rioters. And they're not in large numbers. The US government is getting more tyrannical but the breaking point comes a lot sooner with an armed populace.

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 12:04 AM
If it was a right imparted upon us by our fore-fathers, and for some reason it is taken away in the modern political arena, is it considered self-defense to uphold laws you believe are just by keeping your weapons in a secret stash and upholding a law passed down by those who founded this country?

It's not as if any amendments given by our fore-fathers have actually been striken from the books, so how would we even begin to deal with such a scenario?

[edit on 8/8/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

[edit on 8/9/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 12:13 AM

Originally posted by RANT
While I don't doubt that the NRA plays a valuable role in cultural diversity, remains America's first line of defense in building a boy's self esteem and indeed exists first and foremost to pet kittens, I suppose I'm still a bit jaded in my perception of the inherent corporate manipulation of citizens fears for their own selfish interests.[edit on 7-8-2004 by RANT]


I mean seriously, isnt that the cutest thing ever?

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 11:20 AM
Nerdling, that is a pretty kitty

[edit on 8-8-2004 by cryptorsa1001]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by cryptorsa1001]

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 11:34 AM
I'm Military and I fully support the 2nd ammendment. I don't support different assault weapons bans, I believe those laws to be unconstitutional. I would, however, really worry about a neighbor who felt he/she needed a howitzer. Most gun owners are normal law abiding citizens who merely want to either protect their families or to participate in different firearms sports.

Not that I believe that our government would ever feel the need to wage war against the populace, but the 2nd ammendment does allow us to protect ourselves against common criminals, an outside invading force and a national government gone totally out of control (remember Nazi Germany).

Make all guns illegal and only criminals will have guns.

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 01:42 PM
There are plenty of places where citizens cannot own weapons and the rate of gun-violence among citizens is lower than in the USA. The rate of gun violence surged in the 90s and has dipped to where it was in the 70s. Was there as much gun violence in the early 1800s when most households owned at least a rifle? Hell no. It has taken me a while to appreciate this, but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE DO. Yes, there would be fewer gun-related deaths if we got rid of the 2nd ammendment but then if we began getting rid of ammendments from our BILL OF RIGHTS, we could ammend the freedom of assembly clause or ammend the right for military to use our homes or ammend our right to a fair trial in case of terrorism etc etc.
Most of the gun violence anyway is from ILLEGAL UNLICENSED FIREARMS.

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Wassabi

Primarily the problem as I see it is handguns. Theres no legitimate reason to have handguns. If you are going to bring up the old adage that if we take them away then only criminals will have them, then I would suggest taking them away and making it punishable by death to have them. At least rifles and shotguns can be excused for having a purpose (hunting). Nice thing about both is that they arent easily concealed and are harder to use for criminal purposes.

- Was

Self Defense that is why we have Handguns. You cant walk around with a shotgun or rifle for personal defense, Although they have some that are small enough to have on you(baby MP-5, S.B.S) normal people cannot buy those.

So people cant defend themselves unless they are in their homes because if you outlawed handguns thats about all you would do. Criminals would just use saw off shotguns or high powered rifles if they some how got rid of all handguns which they would never be able to do.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:03 PM
It is absolutely true that if all citizens turned in their legal firearms, it would only result in an unarmed citizenry for criminals to prey upon. I'm a female, living alone. I bought my gun when I was living in Northern Virginia and there was a rash of break-ins going on where a man was b&e'ing into the homes of single females at night while they slept. I thought about it and decided that all I could do was secure the place, put some kind of early warning to use and be armed. The criminal has advantages over the victim. The criminal knows the crime is about to happen, the victim doesn't. The criminal has planned what they're going to do and is prepared to break in to do it. The criminal is awake/aware. The monkey wrench for the criminal is going to be the handgun he's faced with when he comes into my house. He might not be expecting it. In fact, most are not expecting any kind of resistance. Sometimes it's enough just to have the gun and let them see it. The handgun evens things up nicely for me. It's small enough to handle easily and good for close-quarter situations. When the chips are down, I'd rather have it in my hand than a phone.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:14 PM
Uh...your picture has changed Nerdling...lmao....that pretty kitty is about to eat someone's doll set as he sits and contimplates life....

But seriously tho - has anyone thought about the question I posted a couple posts up?

EDIT: Actually the image appears to change everytime.

[edit on 8/9/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:40 PM
Question, is anyone actualy saying that the second amendment should be changed or removed?

I am neither liberal or conservitive, and though I personaly feel that the best solution is the non-existance of firearms and consider them to be dishonerable. I am not stupid enough to think that will ever hapen and I feel that it is everyone right to be able to defend themselfs as they see fit. I agree with the bow hunter that I should be able to wear a sword if I wish or carry my bow of which I am a hell of an archer.

The problem with gun violence in our country is not the guns, it is not the media, the games, tv, movies, etc.. several countries such as Canada and Germany have a large ammount of guns and have the violence in the media that we do, they have the violent histories we do, they have the racial mixing we do... what is it about americans that causes us to have the exceptionaly high gun violence that we do? That is truely the question and when we can answer that, then we can work to reduce it.

Personaly I think I know what it is, though few people want to accept it. We as a nation refuse to take responcibility for our actions. you see it every day, this person turned to crime cause they were poor, they killed those people cause thier parent beat them, I turned to drugs and crime bacause my parents didn't love me enough...

You never hear that a person is robing banks becasue they are a basterd who made the conscious choise to do so and therefor must accept not only the responsibility of their actions but the punishment for it, and that includes paying the full punishment for it. Not beign sentenced for 30 years and only serving 8. Parents need to take responcibility for the actions of their children untill their children are old enough to take legal responcibility for themselfs. No more, well I didn't know my 14 year old was out stealing cars. When a 13 year old has access to his fathers gun and takes it to school and shoots somone with it. Then the father must claim responcibility for allowing access to that weapon.

The problem that we have is the most difficult problem to rectify. The problem is the way we, as an american society, think.


posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:43 PM
Hmmm, blaming a knife or a gun for what the person does. So, I mespil a wird I git te blim the kibord? It's the same thing anti-gun people do. Or say your kid does bad on a test, wasn't his fault, iot was the pens fault. You do bad on a eye test and have to get glasses, not your fault, it was the eye charts fault. It wasn't my fault the 2x4 I was using to beat you with hit you, it was the 2x4's fault. See how ridiculous that sounds? You can't blame a non living object for the actions of a living object.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:50 PM
we should get rid of the 2nd ammendment
we are in good hands with our government

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:53 PM
Shut-up 1gov you troll. No one thinks like you unless obviously trying to inflame others.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:11 PM
What I don't get, is why you knuckleheads keep going round and round on this issue all over the place saying the same crap and running the same historical quotes.

Here is an interesting piece on gun ownership by the Department of Justice - National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms

Read this and don't forget it:


Flat out. As the DOJ says, there are close to 200 Million guns in the hands of the people. If anyone banned guns or put us under Martial Law and only 25% of that number retaliated, 50 million guns certainly outranks the US military, police, etc.

Libs and Conservatives alike may wish for something better, but there is no way to take the guns now.

Perhaps a better conversation should be about what practical laws can we replace the umteen thousand laws we already have while overhauling the tracking system.

WHOA, someone might learn something then. Better not try it.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:34 PM
As a staunch advocate of the 2nd Amendment I don't think the Federal gov't would ever attempt to completely disarm the populace. If law abiding citizens buy legal firearms, and these must be registered at time of purchase, then the Federal gov't knows exactly what weapons its' citizens have. If they were successful in disarming the legal gun owning citizens then they set themselves up for surprise from angry intelligent people constructing weapons that would be of a greater concern then the original weapons confiscated. If they truley wanted to control firearms all they would have to do is control the ammunition industry. Not an advocate of that myself. Just point to ponder An unloaded AK is less useful then 31" Loiville slugger wielded by an angry citizen!

And I have to give into my knee jerk response to the thought of being diarmed and say that it is a necessity for law abiding citizens to have the option to arm themselves if they so choose. Handgun or long gun. It is ingrained in the American way. Firearms are the cornerstone that this country was founded on and they are a tangible representation of what the cost of freedom is and how it must be preserved.

And it sis 63,000,000 registered gun owners that committed no crime today or yesterday. gun locks are not silly by any means. But education and the willingness to accept responsibility in the use of firearms is a far better way to ensure that firearms are not used improperly.

Other countrys that have no right to bear arms do not enjoy the freedoms we do. Or have the assurance of a voice in the way we live our lives. An unarmed population is not free by any means.

If the federal govt wants to make America safe then take away our cigarettes and Miller lite. And Barney

[edit on 9-8-2004 by CHANGELING]

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in