Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Amendment 2: - Right to Bear Arms DAMN RIGHT! Get over it!

page: 11
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   


the police are only a few minutes away.


A few minutes too late!

Are you serious with that one?So instead of having a gun close by to protect ourselves,we are suppose to call the police and then wait?Rely on the police?....No thanks!
edit on 24-7-2011 by GodIsPissed because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ClintK
 


Clint, it's clear I understand this issue far better than you. I understand both our right to bear arms, and the right of our country to be safe from foreign invaders. You apparently do not get that Obama is destroying BOTH with his idiotic Marxist ideology.


Hey, ThirdEyeofHorus, you're right. Forget everything I said. You're 100 percent sane and are probably one of the few people in this country who understands EXACTLY what is going on. I just didn't understand your genius before. But now I see.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwasneverhere
 


"...which is not likely because as a psycho he more than likely would have been discovered as such beforehand"

Like uhmm.. Ted Bundy?



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 




Yes, when we were armed... or at least, when sufficient numbers of ordinary citizens were. I'm interested to know by what manner you think we would oust tyrants again.


Yes, we were armed, with wooden staffs and the odd longbow....relatively we were as out gunned then as we are now, but we prevailed.



I'm a strong believer in educating people and civil disobedience before turning to violence, but I don't think the tyrants will go out without an actual, physical fight.


History teaches us that they rarely do.



What then - bread knives and tea trays versus automatic firearms and Kevlar?


And what good would a few handguns etc have against modern day weaponry?

Whilst I have little trust in our police forces I think the British military might be relied upon to reflect the will of the people.
Naivety maybe, let's hope we never find out....we'll see.



I agree the UK is violent. I don't think we are inherently more violent as people than Americans are, but we are more cramped and with closer proximity to one another.


Knocking lumps out of each other has been a national sport for centuries.
More violent?
Obviously there are areas of the USA which are at least as violent, if not more, than the UK, however I think violence is more common place and accepted here in the UK.

I don't think it's something we should necessarily be proud of, but it is certainly a determining factor in defining us as a nation and developing that 'fighting spirit' TPTB rely on in times of war but are petrified of in peacetime.



So you're right that a relaxation of gun laws may produce more violent crime here than in America.


So why advocate it then?
An increase of one death is one death too many.

Maybe we should try something radical and try to determine root cause and then adress that?



But it still begs the question of how to defend our liberty and Constitution(s).


Arming the populace is not the answer.
We need radical electoral and parliamentary reform; party politics has served it's purpose and is now nothing but a tool and process used to restrain us.
How do we achieve this?
I don't have all the answers and it's probably a subject for another time and place and not this thread.



By the way, this is one of the reasons I'm so against immigration. We're already way, way overcrowded, and that keeps tensions at a horrible high at all times.


I thnk you know my feelings about that, but again, here is not the time or place for us to air our displeasure and discomfort with current policies.



Maybe I should have been born in America.


I genuinely believe the world is a better place for the USA, but I could never imagine or wish to be anything other than English and British.
edit on 24/7/11 by Freeborn because: fix quotes



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ClintK
 


Hi ClintK.

Perhaps you should read the link in my sig.

Every single point you made is flat out wrong.

Please help yourself in denying ignorance.

Thanks!
edit on 7/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scytherius
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


It is the single most telling comment on the state of the insanity gripping the dying United States when people who know nothing quote the Constitution and claim it is abundantly clear. I was a Prosecutor and Defense attorney for 25 years and litigated my fair share of constitutional issues in the ED of VA and up to SCOTUS.

This Amendment (as with most) is far from clear. That doesn't mean it is utterly vague, but SCOTUS hasn't been able to agree on this Amendment for over 200 years. And the history of this Amendment (it's legislative history) is such that it is MUCH more about the U.S. having the ability to call up an already armed National Guard than it does to carry a concealed weapon at a Church or College or at a bar. If it was so damned clear, then all those SCOTUS decisions would be 9-0. They weren't. Most were 53 or 6-3/

Grow up and snag a little wisdom.


Let me jump in here if I may. Its not brain surgery.

Just know this about what the 2nd means and what it was a the time.....if the federalists would have insisted at the time that americans didnt need the 2nd to insure personal fire arms and that state and federal power were all that needed guns.....the constitutional convention would have ended right there. It would have been a total absurdity to suggest such a thing.

So guarding of their rights were the people back then that a very good case had to be made for the need for a federal standing army! Not the other way around. Now days things have sliped to a point where some, like above, are making the case that the standing army is precisely the reason we dont need the 2nd!



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





Amendment 2: - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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.


1) A well Regulated Militia as should be in every State and Every Big County within the State
as also in my opinion The Warriior Society In American Indian Reservations as I call it The Reservation OWN FIRST NATIONAL GUARD as the Canadian and American Government thinks its a Terrorist Group LOL!





National Defense and Public Security (Mohawk Defense)
www.kahnawakelonghouse.com...

In 1972, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs at Kahnawake authorized the formation of the Kahnawake Warrior Society as a means to carry out the resolutions of the Clans in Council and to serve as the defensive vanguard of the Longhouse. Since that time, generations have embraced their duties and responsibilities as Haudenosaunee men.


2) necessary to secure Free State!! !! Well Its Starting to Become a Police Orwellian Nation
With People Following Blindly (ANY) Law Ignoring Common sense Reason
How to catch a Pig ( a Pig in the Fence )

Catching Wild Pigs….A Political Parable
swineline.org...


Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America.
And remember:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson


Just a Reminder of what happen with The Prohibition AREA! when a Government cuts off what People want!

as of Now there doing the same type of Restrictions ! to certain things ! Smoking for Example

3) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

It Shall NOT be Broken !!!

Infringed

past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
More » Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary


My Only Exception to that Rule ! is if Someone is Incapable to prevent Crime
or a Violent Criminal Record Past I would Agree for a Mental Evaluation before Owning a Firearm as
to get a Hand Gun is already stated for that ..

But I can See the Laws for Restriction to a certain extent
Regulated by the Agreement of the People in their State NOT THE GOVERNMENT

The question it say ARMS does this mean All weapons or just projectile & missile Weapons ! ?
How Big , How Many ! Can you have
How about a Catapult!! LOL! I dont want my bad Neighbor have Some Nuclear Armament ! Nor BIO!

edit on 24-7-2011 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Amendment 2: - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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.

OK, so whats so confusing here?

Law abiding US Citizens have the lawful right to keep and bear firearms! This isn't brain surgery here or even rocket science! My outburst was over a recently read post/reply {which will remain anonymous} with regards to which thread but, their argument against legally held/owned firearms is PURE BS!

I once managed a fairly active retail establishment back in the 90s and during a routine nightly bank drop I was confronted by an armed assailant. He pointed a revolver at me and made his demands. I was shocked at first but proceeded {thinking of my children} not making a fuss. After handing over to him the bank drop container he stuck his firearm in my face and made some half-Assed political statement.

I then reached into my pocket and produced my own "Legally owned hand gun" and showed him I wasn't one to be "F"d with! His whole demeanor changed at that point. His weapon was actually an early "Air soft" non lethal pistol. Had I'd been a stereotypical "Merican" I would have blown his brains out and killed him.

That didn't happen!

Enough said.

edit on 23-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: Spelling: Note to self, MORE COFFEE


Slayer, I usually enjoy your threads but this one seems to be about your right to have a bigger penis extension????? Doesn't become the usual quality of your posts but I'm sure a lot of gun lovin' friends on ATS will love it.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClintK
reply to post by Logarock
 


From Wikipedia:
"When the war began, the 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy. Each colony sponsored local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to travel far from home and thus were unavailable for extended operations, and lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience. If properly used, however, their numbers could help the Continental armies overwhelm smaller British forces, as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston. Both sides used partisan warfare but the Americans effectively suppressed Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area.[12]

Seeking to coordinate military efforts, the Continental Congress established (on paper) a regular army on June 14, 1775, and appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief. The development of the Continental Army was always a work in progress, and Washington used both his regulars and state militia throughout the war."


NO ARMY at the beginning. And not only that, it was mostly militia members who made up the first.

Heavenz you're quick to accuse another of ignorance, aren't you?

Hope that glass house is holding up well.



I like this info you posted. It makes my point!

Yes I am very fast to accuse others of ignorance....when they are ignorant. Feel free to do the same to me friend. I am not trying to live in a stupid glass house here.

The fact is the war was about 8 years long and untill regular trained pro armies were put in the field the americans had very little to bost about. They suffered loss after loss to the well trained and organized Brits.....untill they started to train men in a classical military manner.


Alex Hamilton, Washingtons right hand man, said after the war that if the war, it whole issue, had been dependent on a good result form the militia the issue would have been a bad result.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by p00hbear
 


I believe that the answers are:

When in self defense of an unprovoked attack on your person or family.
When an intruder illegally enters your private property. (Usually you must shoot in the front, not his back)
When our form of government becomes tyrannical against we the people of the United States.

As far as storage of weapons and ammo, besides the obvious care and security to store them, each state, city and municipality has laws, rules and regulations for the proper maintenance, storage, and even disposal of said weapons.

I would recommend asking "Xcathdra" on here as this is more his specialty.

The above notwithstanding, earlier this year, a man was arrested, I believe in New Jersey, for defending his family against a gang that had attacked his household in a case of mistaken identity. The man was arrested because he fired warning shots (from an AK-47 I believe) INTO the ground. He didn't even aim at the perps yet it was HE that was arrested. This is where America is today.

Border states are much more in favor of this right because our government is doing absolutely NOTHING about securing our borders from those that would do us harm, either passively (drugs) or actively (kidnapping/robbery/assault/murder)

Their is a saying in America, "When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns"

2nd Amendment? YOU BETCHA! I'm ALL for it.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Scytherius
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



So guarding of their rights were the people back then that a very good case had to be made for the need for a federal standing army! Not the other way around. Now days things have sliped to a point where some, like above, are making the case that the standing army is precisely the reason we dont need the 2nd!



NICELY PUT! Thank you



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Slayer, I usually enjoy your threads but this one seems to be about your right to have a bigger penis extension????? Doesn't become the usual quality of your posts but I'm sure a lot of gun lovin' friends on ATS will love it.


I hope you are not smoking while you wrote this......Sigmund! lol

This is all we need......some guy making penis conections that still smoked a cigar after claiming the habbit was rooted in a suck fedish!

I mean heck....why do you think the Brits call them "Yanks" anyway??



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
REGARDLESS of what the gun-hating brainwashed Brits say here, [color=cyan]AS AMERICANS, it is OUR RIGHT AND DUTY TO ARM OURSELVES!!! PERIOD!!!!!!

You take your silly nonsense and keep it in your OWN country where you are currently being INVADED by foreigners who are forcing you to SUBMIT to THEIR laws and asinine beliefs, and you SPINELESS fools are letting it happen AS WE SPEAK!!!


Your homeland is currently being taken over and your children and grandchildren are going to be COMPLETELY SCREWED now and you think anyone here with HALF A BRAIN is going to think your opinions are of any value??

You got to be kidding Brits!!!


edit on 24-7-2011 by pplrnuts because: [color=cyan]COLOR for the THICK-SKULLED among us!!



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I just got back from a weekend training with a bunch of cops, some MP's and a fed or two.

We all had a blast.

Every last one of them with the exception of one of the city cops pushed regular citizen ownership, carry and use of firearms as an absolute must.

The fed went so far as to tell me that all that "just give the criminal what he wants" stuff is complete crap. He said everything he's read, seen and been told indicates just the opposite. Compliance is more likely going to get you killed than fighting back with everything and anything you can.

The coos from the area went on to agree and added that typical cop response time here is anywhere from 8 minutes in the more urban areas to 45 minutes to an hour in more rural areas and that not having a firearm, not training with that firearm and not being willing to use that firearm was perhaps the most irresponsible thing you could to for yourself and your loved ones.

With the exception of the one cop anyway. He was pissed I was even there. He faced much ridicule over the weekend from the others. He was a younger cop. A newer cop. And from an antigun city in an antigun state.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Cythraul
 


But in the UK it would just be used to shoot some idiot who 'just had a go at our lass' on a Saturday night in the kebab shop.

Those that need / want guns for professional or recreational purposes can get them by following the perfectly reasonable legal process of doing so.
We don't need or want easier access to guns or relaxing of the current laws.

The US is a completely different scenario; gun culture is ingrained in them, it is a part of the national psyche.


exactly what you said in the last part of your statment, perfect, ingrained. Thats the problem.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by SLAYER69
 






At least they attempted to defend their borders...



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I am English born and bred , Ok we have problems in this country with our goverment and I can tell you they suck just like any other goverment around the world the problem is the people in goverment are sad Bas tARDS they are power hungry the crave for power and domination , as they dont no what else to do with thenselves all I can Say is Adolf Hitler was right what he did and that mother F ==cker in norway did the same and we all should in the western world should learn from is brave act left wingers well is there an answer you tell me



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ClintK
 


Clint, it's clear I understand this issue far better than you. I understand both our right to bear arms, and the right of our country to be safe from foreign invaders. You apparently do not get that Obama is destroying BOTH with his idiotic Marxist ideology.


Hey, ThirdEyeofHorus, you're right. Forget everything I said. You're 100 percent sane and are probably one of the few people in this country who understands EXACTLY what is going on. I just didn't understand your genius before. But now I see.



Yah and youre a mean smartZZZZZ on top of it.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by SLAYER69
 






At least they attempted to defend their borders...



yet they Still do in away within the Mohawk & Iroquois territory along the Boarder MY Area !



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Our 2nd ammendment was put in place so that we remain vigilant. It is our duty to protect ourselves from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. We MUST hold our government accountable for their actions. We have the inalienable right to bear arms as it is our DUTY to REMOVE (that doesn’t mean kill, nor does it doesn’t imply violence in any way) any elected representative who strays from the constitution. The right to bear arms doesn’t mean you have to shoot people. Violence is a last resort. However, “those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” I am not here calling for violence. I truly believe violence is the LAST resort. The more we get pushed around, the less options we have. When it’s blatently obvious that our voices are not being heard and frankly don’t even matter to the powers that be, the time for talk is over. AGAIN, that doesn’t mean violence. There is much peaceful action that can be taken. To say that it’s okay to pull people over for simply displaying a bumper sticker is the same as saying it’s okay for a cop to come question me about this post. It infringes on my right to free speech, as pulling someone over because of a bumper sticker infringes on one’s right to freedom of expression. There is no grey area. It infringes on our inalienable rights. Next, it’ll be okay to ban handguns while saying “we aren’t infringing on your right to bear arms, you can still bear arms. Just not THESE kind of arms.” It will go on and on, as it does, until the constitution is merely a memory. That is why we need to know what our inherent rights are and stand up for them ANYTIME and EVERYTIME someone tries to tread on us.

It's crazy to me that there is so much debate about this ammendment. It seems pretty clear to me. Also, in regards to the ATSer (who's name escapes me right now) who said that technically, Americans are allowed to have WMD, biological weapons, fighter jets, etc..... I don't disagree with you there. The 2nd ammendment simply states "the right to bear arms" - it doesn't say what kind of arms, and the purpose is so that we may keep tyrants at bay, so why shouldn't we be able to have the same kind of weapons they have?
edit on 24-7-2011 by cwilson because: typo






top topics



 
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join