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.


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

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by pplrnuts

Reality check!

What's going on here in the UK has nothing to do with being spineless, as it's the same situation with nearly every other country on Earth and it's the politicians, corporations & media who are to blame, not the people, as they have completely sold everyone out. Their lust for power, greed & wealth knows no bounds and your own country isn't any better, if anything it's worse.
And your guns are certainly not going to help you.
edit on 24-7-2011 by kindred because: update

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Quite the contrary, it is precisely because the United States has a military power no where near Constitutionally mandated, and very obviously a threat to other nations, that it becomes a threat to its nation. This is why it is so damn necessary to make sure the people remained armed, and given the nature of the U.S. modern military heavily armed.

Ahh! So you armed citizens are going to take on the U.S. military with your guns eh? Now I see what geniuses you are. Took me a while.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Frankly, I would prefer to see the standing armies, not at all Constitutionally mandated, stripped of their might, but that sure as hell isn't going to happen until more American's begin to understand their profound responsibility to secure their rights, each and every one.

Yeah. The people have to be educated. They MUST have a gun and use it to coerce the system into being what you personally see as legal. And I'm sure you're right.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your naive belief that the U.S. military is some benign force that can totally be trusted is hardly a voice of wisdom.

I'm glad you could figure out what my "belief" was on the military on so little info. Now I'm beginning to see how naive I was.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
For the record, regulation of gun ownership is not a well regulated militia. Just saying, since you claim to be such an ardent Second Amendment supporter.

First, what "well regulated militia" are you talking about? It DOESN'T EXIST but the founders made it clear why they were granting that right BECAUSE a militia was seen as necessary to the defense of the USA then. That was then. We have a military for that defense now.

Secondly, you're wrong even about regulation of gun ownership not being well regulated. Even in the army, not only every weapon, but ultimately every round of ammunition that yu are given has to be accounted for.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Yeah, like you. This is why it is called ignorance, not because it is knowledge one cannot know, but because it is knowledge one can know but ignores it anyway. Your ignorance is on full display.

Well, okay. But look at the bright side. Your amazing brilliance is also on full display.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by ASeeker343

Originally posted by 27jd

Do they have the right to bear arms in Norway? If not, it seems to me the events in Norway were a strike against the anti-gun crowd. That a-hole was able to take his time, and calmly shoot and kill nearly a hundred people, without having to be concerned about watching his back or have to worry about stopping for a second to reload. When a bad guy gets a gun in Europe, and decides to go the route this guy did, they in effect become gods, able to take lives with impunity. Here, not so much...

I completely agree with you, just one or two people on that island with a gun could have changed that story and saved alot of lives. You cant completely remove something, just outlaw it. Look how well thats working in the US with the war on drugs... People will find a way to get around the laws. This point falls on deaf ears though, and the fact that he used a gun to kill people will still bring the anti gun crowd out, regardless of the logic of their arguments.

No, it seems to have brought the PRO-gun crowd out - with the 'what-if's etc and all the other machismo rubbish that is often touted after such atrocities.

Notice how most shooting sprees occur in America? Where guns are LEGAL. The more guns you have, the more likely some idiot will take them and go crazy.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by mr-lizard

Are you saying that armed citizens don't stop shooting sprees here in the U.S.? There are plenty of case examples I can provide (on top of the ones I listed before), and we can discuss. Those would have been "what if" situations, if armed citizens didn't show that it's not all talk and machismo. We put our money where our mouths are.

Europe has their share of shooting sprees as well (notice they all kill themselves when they're all finished, nobody takes them out and saves any lives)...

What if, huh?

edit on 24-7-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by ASeeker343

There already was an armed guard on the island and he didn't make any difference, simply because the attacker had the element of surprise.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by kindred

Any link to that info? I just searched and found nothing.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by 27jd

So who stopped the Columbine massacre and the Virginia tech massacre?

The police? An armed civilian? An armed security guard? An armed passer by? An armed student?

No... They killed themselves.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by mr-lizard

I never said there's an armed citizen around to stop every massacre. I would also say those states are less gun friendly states than say here in AZ. Chances of an armed citizen being on scene in those cities is much less than here, alot like there in Europe. The police were, IMO, cowards during the Columbine massacre. They took defensive positions behind their cars while kids were being killed. Those were children, they should have put their lives as far on the line as needed to neutralize those killers immediately. It just proves further, to me, that you can't rely on the government to protect your children. If my kid was in that school, and I was anywhere near that scene before the cops got there, I would have either put an end to it, or died trying. That I can promise you, in front of every god that may or may not exist.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by mr-lizard

But here are some examples, in which there was an armed citizen on the scene...

Law officers have praised a bank customer who pulled his gun and helped deputies capture a gunman who opened fire during a robbery of a Wachovia branch, killing two tellers and wounding two.

Chris Chappell, who was in the bank Monday morning getting $40 in change on the way to his job in Adger, fled the bank when gunshots rang out, drew a gun for which he has a concealed weapon permit, took cover by his sport utility vehicle and alerted deputies who came up.

The gunman, cornered by Chappell and the deputies when he tried to flee the bank with a hostage, stumbled and was shot by Deputy Alan Rhea.

"It's certainly commendable," Jefferson County Sheriff's Sgt. Randy Christian said. "It's obvious he played a key role in keeping the guy there until we could get there. It's a great testament of someone willing to take action."

"He kept him from escaping, and he gave deputies time to get to the scene," Bill Veitch, chief assistant district attorney, told The Birmingham News in its moment-by-moment account of the robbery and arrest.

Bessemer Mayor Ed May, while calling Chappell a "good Samaritan and a brave individual," added that "I would not encourage anyone to do that."

Chappell, however, said he just went by his instincts.

"I know what's right and what's wrong. There wasn't nothing I could do differently. I'm always going to do what I think is right," Chappell said.

Police in Memphis say a gunman firing a pistol beside a busy city street was subdued by two passers-by who were also armed.

No one was hurt during the incident that apparently began with a minor traffic accident, but one passing car was believed hit by a bullet.

Brothers William Webber and Paul Webber told police they stopped their car and pulled their own pistols when they saw a man firing a handgun yesterday.

The brothers said they ordered the man to drop his weapon and then held him at gunpoint until police arrived a few minutes later. Police say the Webbers did not fire their pistols.

Police arrested Dementrius Roberson and charged him with reckless endangerment. Police say the Webber brothers and Roberson have licenses to carry firearms.

Paul Webber says Roberson was firing across traffic and they couldn't tell why he was shooting.

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A man is in police custody after opening fire at a northwest Oklahoma City apartment complex near Hefner and Council roads.

Police said the man started firing multiple shots in the parking lot of the Tammaron Village apartments around 4 p.m. Thursday.

Witnesses said the man initially went into the apartment complex's main office. When employees locked him out, he opened fire in the parking lot.

As the man was firing shots, another citizen armed with a gun came around the corner and ordered the gunman to put his weapon down. The gunman dropped his weapon and ran into his father's apartment and barricaded himself inside.

Want more, there's plenty?

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by ClintK

Ahh! So you armed citizens are going to take on the U.S. military with your guns eh? Now I see what geniuses you are. Took me a while.

This is precisely why I am arguing that the intent of the Second Amendment means that today the people have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction. It is an absurdity that exists, not because of people who make arguments like the ones I do, but precisely because there are people such as you making the arguments you do. Your pathetic sarcasm does little to add to this debate, and only continues to reveal your profound ignorance.

Yeah. The people have to be educated. They MUST have a gun and use it to coerce the system into being what you personally see as legal. And I'm sure you're right.

More so you reveal your willful ignorance, as clearly you have ignored previous posts of mine in order to make the ignorant determination you make here. I do not own a gun, sport. I have no interests in guns, but more importantly than this, I am only concerned with what is lawful and could care less what is "legal". You can take your legalities and shove them where the sun don't shine for all I care. In the United States there are Constitutions in place expressly forbidding governments from trampling all over my rights to act lawfully. Legality has nothing to do with it. Try again.

First, what "well regulated militia" are you talking about? It DOESN'T EXIST but the founders made it clear why they were granting that right BECAUSE a militia was seen as necessary to the defense of the USA then. That was then. We have a military for that defense now.

You're the poser who brought the "well regulated militia" into the fray, and now that it has backfired on you, you disingenuously claim it doesn't exist. Nice.

The people certainly have the right to take your opinion into consideration when determining whether or not they have a lawful right to keep and bear arms - not limited to guns, arms means arms - but in this site there are too many people much more educated than you are who just simply will not buy into your ill informed opinions.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 05:54 PM
Reply to post by mr-lizard

Those are "gun free" zones.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:08 PM
Reply to post by ClintK

Actually the militia does exist.

We the people are militia.

You absolutely fail at denying ignorance. You bask in it, instead.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:11 PM
Ah, yes. The Right to Bear Arms.

Only back then they had Muskets in mind. Not semi automatic weapons or any other deadly weapon that nobody needs.

But hey, that's the fun of taking advantage and abusing the Constitution. Enjoy it, folks

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:13 PM
Reply to post by ClintK

Actually, you are quite wrong.

There is your link. Read it and educate yourself.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:15 PM
Reply to post by SeventhSeal

-- Only back then they had Muskets in mind. Not semi automatic weapons or any other deadly weapon that nobody needs.--

BS. What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment?

Me thinks you need to take a gander in the link I just posted.

Deny ignorance.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by Scytherius

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.

Do you honestly believe that appealing to your own authority makes your argument any less fallacious? Look, you can hide in a cave all day long and only come out of that cave after the sun has set, and then you can point to the nighttime sky and declare that the sun is not as abundantly clear as so many are claiming, therefore they must be ignorant and insane, but anyone actually listening to your diagnosis would be tragically guilty of allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

This is precisely what we have done in this country, we have allowed the inmates to run the asylum. You can be impressed with your law degree all you want, sport. If you cannot understand the difference between what is lawful and what is legal, then your law degree is just a useless piece of paper, and the money you collected from the municipality or state you prosecuted in for "services rendered" was obviously theft.

It is also more than telling that a person who claims to have prosecuted for the State of Virginia makes no mention at all of Section 13 of the Declaration of Rights within the Virginia State Constitution:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

This Section is even more ABUNDANTLY CLEAR than the Second Amendment which for the sane is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

I should not have to lecture a person who claims to have been a prosecutor for more than 25 years that the rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance, and not just what is written be given significance, but what has not been written should be given significance too!

In Section 13, what has certainly not been written is that the State of Virginia, as a civil power, has been granted the authority to determine what type of arms of the people can keep and bear, and in fact, just like the ABUNDANTLY CLEAR Second Amendment, expressly prohibits government from infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms.

That Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution goes even further than the Second Amendment in explaining why this right exists should not be ignored. Presumably, as a prosecutor for the State of Virginia, you ignored it on a regular basis. If we are to take you at your word in this post of yours, then presumably you ignored the oath of office you took to protect and defend these Constitutions, and you did so in order to be a passionate advocate for a handful of usurpers greedily aggregating power. What really gets my goat is that as a prosecutor, you would disingenuously represent yourself as an advocate of the people, all the while gleefully pissing all over their rights. That is, if we are to take your post as true.

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.

It is always the tax feeders who have insinuated themselves into government that make the argument that "most" of the Amendments - and when Amendment is used in this regard it is understood what these government hacks mean is the Bill of Rights - are "far from clear". Even a good magician can be caught using sleight of hand to make reality appear as if it is something other than what it really is, but a bad magician is just plain embarrassing to watch. You come off as one of these bad magicians. Your rabbit out of the hat becomes SCOTUS, which is quite the cumbersome rabbit, and the weight of that Court only undoes your act.

When you claim that the Supreme Court hasn't been able to agree on this Amendment for over 200 years, you are either a grossly over paid attorney, or you are lying and hoping that your arrogant appeal to authority (you) will be enough to convince people that they cannot be sure of that which is self evident.

It is not the Supreme Court that keeps disagreeing with itself on the rulings it has made regarding the Second Amendment, and your gross exaggeration of "over 200 years" of jurisprudence regarding this Amendment is also more than telling.

It was not until 1939 in United States v Miller that the Supreme Court first addressed any issues regarding the Second Amendment...unless you want to count Justice Story's misattribution of the Fifth Amendment when speaking of the Second Amendment in Huston v Moore Do you understand? Hell, Justice Story was an imminent legal scholar and yet, he is forever on record for stupidly referring to the Fifth Amendment as if it were the Second. Even the bright judges make mistakes. Further, 1939 was only 72 years ago, not over 200 years. A prosecuting attorney prone to gross hyperbole does not bode well at all for the people.

The Supreme Court, in rendering their decisions in both District of Columbia v Heller, and McDonald v Chicago, did not reverse what was held in United States v Miller, so what you mean by disagreement, can only mean, and that is by giving you the benefit of the doubt, that these rulings were not unanimous decisions. Of course, even by giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is what you mean by disagreement, it is disingenuous at best, since unanimous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are not all that common.

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/

Your use of the term "National Guard" is beyond disingenuous. If the Founders - and if you knew a damn thing about the "legislative history" of the Second Amendment, I wouldn't have to explain this to you - intended to mean National Guard they would have said so, but as the "legislative history" bears out, the Federalists were in strong disagreement with the Anti Federalist regarding the enumeration of rights all together. For the Federalists, the idea that rights needed to be enumerated was a dangerous gambit, many of these Founders either being lawyers themselves, or intimately aware of the priest class lawyer sect that existed, knew full well what smug attorneys would do with such an enumeration and given your post, their prescience is to be lauded.

James Madison is generally accepted to be the author of the Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment. So, rather than post a plethora of quotes from the Founders regarding the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment let's just keep those quotes limited to Madison:

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone,"

Federalist Paper #46

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Federalist #46

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it."

Federalist #46

I own guns and believe people should be allowed to own them for home protection.

Of course a government lackey, and a willfully ignorant prosecutor would discuss about the right to keep and bear arms in terms of what government "allows". God protect the People of the Great State of Virginia from the likes of you!

How pathetic can you be, as a prosecutor for the State of Virginia that it takes a member of an online community residing in a different state to point out to you what Virginia's Constitution has to say about what is "allowed":

Section 1. Equality and rights of men. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their post erity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. People the source of power. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

One would have to fairly presume you are more than aware of the text and meaning of these two sections. Of course, I suppose you would like to argue that the meaning is not so clear, but if this is so, why even bother to have people such as prosecutors take an oath of office to protect and defend this Constitution, since meaning cannot be reasonably derived from it? Nope, you know better I think, and you make your arguments not because you genuinely believe that meaning cannot be reasonably discerned from legislation, but because you willfully employ priest class lawyer tricks that can only confound and astound the simplest of minds.

But in all my years of Prosecuting I had EXACTLY ONE case where someone was able to defend themselves with a gun. I had about 20 cases where people were accidentally hurt or killed (usually kids) because some gun owner was either drunk or didn't keep the guns locked up, etc ...

Anecdotal evidence offered up from the poster who - if we are to believe your post - willfully pissed all over the oath of office took to defend and protect the Constitution?

But when you talk about something as utterly complex as the Constitution and act like it is "clear", you fly in the face of reason, intelligence and over 200 years of case law in the United States. It is this attitude that is KILLING the United States. It's as though you are telling us how clear and easy it is to perform brain surgery.

Now you're comparing yourself to a brain surgeon? Please! Get the hell over yourself, a brain surgeon you are not. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. If it is law, that legislation is intended to somehow protect the rights of individuals. Any act of legislation not doing this, but instead presuming an excess of governance is lawful is certainly not law, and very much challenge-able by individuals, even before Bond v United States.

Only the priest class lawyers and their acolytes endeavor to complicate simplicity. Law is simple, it is legality that is complex, and it is purposely complex to give attorneys the appearance they are as important as...well, brain surgeons.

Not only is the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia Constitution ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, what is also ABUNDANTLY CLEAR is that you are a clear and present danger to the rights of individuals.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by mr-lizard

Why are you back in this thread?

Originally posted by mr-lizard

I'm walking away from this thread. I expect to be insulted, humiliated and stabbed (shot?) in the back whilst I'm away, but I take pride in the fact I've stood my ground.

But I'm walking away before I start swinging virtual punches

Take care everyone. Have a good discussion, I hope we all learn something.

People should mean what they say and say what they mean...

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Ah, yes. The Right to Bear Arms.

Only back then they had Muskets in mind. Not semi automatic weapons or any other deadly weapon that nobody needs.

But hey, that's the fun of taking advantage and abusing the Constitution. Enjoy it, folks

You are not, by far, the first poster in this thread to make this fallacious argument, but I will use your post to demonstrate the absurdity of your irrationality.

Back when the First Amendment was written, many words in the English lexicon did not exist. Words such as internet did not exist. It is fairly presumed the Founders could not even imagine what an internet would be let alone speak its name. Based upon your irrationality the use of this word today is just taking advantage and abusing the Constitution.

When the First Amendment was written there were certain religions, such as Scientology as just one example, that did not even exist. So, based upon your irrationality, Scientology doesn't not have any reasonable expectation of protection of the First Amendment.

Some are abusing the Constitution, that is to be sure, but your lamentation of it is nothing more than pretense since clearly you would abuse it all day long.

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 08:17 PM

Originally posted by zookey

So why don't you use your rights to fix the government?

Just askin because every day on this forum I hear Americans huff puff hot air and smoke blowing declaring their rights, but I have yet to see them exercised.

edit on 23-7-2011 by zookey because: (no reason given)

There exercised everyday since we all walk around with pistols in our pockets can you not read?

posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

LOL yeah ill just go and buy some plutonium and build a bomb, what are u high?

new topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in