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.

 

CRIME: Keeping Americans Safe the Libertarian way

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Nope buddy that wont fly, it says the right to bear ARMS which is commanly taken to mean guns but I think an arguement COULD even be made for RPGs and LAWs but thats another arguement


Exactly, let's go with arguement, does the Constitution allow for the American citizens to bear nuclear ARMS? If not, then there are limitations, who set those limitations?




posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK Bro, let's throw out the stats. Using the logic you've applied here, I would come back that if it's a Constitional thing, even the spirit of said document, let's use the tools they were refering to, muskets. The Constitution gave every American the right to bear muskets and shot pistols.



That logic is a bit flawed. You are using a theory that is often used by people that either dont respect the document or think it should be morphed to fit their ideas. I will give you a brief analogy. Using YOUR logic , the 1st amendmentshould only apply to those using a pen quill and an ink well to write their beliefs. Anyone using a computer, typewriter, pda etc. would be exempt from voicing their opinion because they didnt use an eagles feather and indian ink to write it



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Amuk
Nope buddy that wont fly, it says the right to bear ARMS which is commanly taken to mean guns but I think an arguement COULD even be made for RPGs and LAWs but thats another arguement


Exactly, let's go with arguement, does the Constitution allow for the American citizens to bear nuclear ARMS? If not, then there are limitations, who set those limitations?


An arguement COULD be made for this but the right is for PERSONAL arms a nuke hardly counts as a personal arm. Does the right to free speech allow everyone to own a TV station? Nope its just the right to PERSONAL freedom of speech.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
That logic is a bit flawed. You are using a theory that is often used by people that either dont respect the document or think it should be morphed to fit their ideas. I will give you a brief analogy. Using YOUR logic , the 1st amendmentshould only apply to those using a pen quill and an ink well to write their beliefs. Anyone using a computer, typewriter, pda etc. would be exempt from voicing their opinion because they didnt use an eagles feather and indian ink to write it


That is exactly my point. Times change, so should the document. As time goes by the Constitution becomes flawed, or outdated. Do you know what amendment means?

Meriam Webster: "1 : the act of amending : CORRECTION."

The days of protecting your country by means of bearing arms, which is what the document meant, are over. You have the strongest millitary on the planet, they don't need your help. Time to "amend" this document again.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
An arguement COULD be made for this but the right is for PERSONAL arms a nuke hardly counts as a personal arm. Does the right to free speech allow everyone to own a TV station? Nope its just the right to PERSONAL freedom of speech.


Before I respond to this, could you define what you mean by "personal"?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
The days of protecting your country by means of bearing arms, which is what the document meant, are over. You have the strongest millitary on the planet, they don't need your help. Time to "amend" this document again.


The problem with this is

1. The army does not protect our property from criminals
2. The right to bear arms is in place to help protect ourselves FROM the army
3. The majority of Americans dont want to take away this right
4. If they did there would be a civil war



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Before I respond to this, could you define what you mean by "personal"?


You have a right to say in what ever form you can what you wish.

It doesnt mean you have a right to have your words broadcast from every TV station in the country

Just as the right to bear arms means you have a right to PERSONAL weapons not a nuke

But personally I read it to mean ANY TYPE of personal weapon which to me would include RPGs LAWs and possibly even up to say Tanks

But thats just me



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
3. The majority of Americans dont want to take away this right


So in reallity, this is really the crux of the matter, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Just as the right to bear arms means you have a right to PERSONAL weapons not a nuke

But personally I read it to mean ANY TYPE of personal weapon which to me would include RPGs LAWs and possibly even up to say Tanks

But thats just me


So that means a weapon you could carry and operate?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I can't believe how blind a person has to be to believe this. How convoluted. God has given you the right to own property, so you must protect it with guns. Therefore God himself gave you the right to bear arms? First off where in ANY Holy text does a supreme being give you the right to property ownership?



Actually it is not so convoluted, let me explain it in a way that even a blind person with a brail version of the constitution could grasp. The amendments address different issues and some accent or enhance others. Back in the day, those right wing extremests (framers) had a concept. It was not a rule book for the people but rather a rulebook for the government i.e. what they could or could not do, to the people

Back then their intent on the "God given" parts was more a way of saying they are self evident or not given by a man or govt. God gave them so no man can take them. (if you are an atheist then dont worry cause God doesnt exist so his mention should not affect you) I hope that helped

As for your connection that they implied that God gave them the right to own property and the gun to protect it, please see above for the God explaination. For the taking of property aspect, ask many Jews, Iraqis,Russians, Cubans etc on what was taken first, their guns or their property. One always precedes the other. An unarmed society is a complacent and vulnerable one.

Hope that clarified some of the convolusion



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Amuk
3. The majority of Americans dont want to take away this right


So in reallity, this is really the crux of the matter, isn't it?




That we refuse to give up the right our founding fathewrs felt so important they put it in writing?

I guess

Without the right to defend YOURSELF and the right to freedom of speech

What is left?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Amuk
Just as the right to bear arms means you have a right to PERSONAL weapons not a nuke

But personally I read it to mean ANY TYPE of personal weapon which to me would include RPGs LAWs and possibly even up to say Tanks

But thats just me


So that means a weapon you could carry and operate?



No not really

It means more of a PERSONAL deffense weapon

You cannot use a nuke to defend yourself from a robber

BUT I will admit a fairly good arguement could be put forth that you would need one to protect yourself from the government.

I wouldnt buy it but you could put one forth.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies



Actually it is not so convoluted, let me explain it in a way that even a blind person with a brail version of the constitution could grasp.

Hope that clarified some of the convolusion


Even worse actually, sounds like gobbledegook because you want your guns and you're going to keep them damnit. Even a blind person would get hand cramps trying to understand that.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Good post Truelies


Its only hard to understand if you believe the Government has the final say, if you believe the people do than its easy to understand

A lot of people would say they are the same but they are growing futher and futher apart.

I pray that it does NOT come to us needing our guns to fight the Government but I thank God every day our founding fathers were as smart as they were



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Just as the right to bear arms means you have a right to PERSONAL weapons not a nuke

But personally I read it to mean ANY TYPE of personal weapon which to me would include RPGs LAWs and possibly even up to say Tanks

But thats just me


Sorry, my fault, let's take a different tack. Where does it say "personal" arms? I was under the impression that it just said arms.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Amuk
Just as the right to bear arms means you have a right to PERSONAL weapons not a nuke

But personally I read it to mean ANY TYPE of personal weapon which to me would include RPGs LAWs and possibly even up to say Tanks

But thats just me


Sorry, my fault, let's take a different tack. Where does it say "personal" arms? I was under the impression that it just said arms.



Thats why I said an arguement COULD be made for nukes.

It does not SAY personal arms but it is widely understood to mean it.

They best referance I could use would it did not give you the right to own a warship although they did have priviteers

thats not a real good comparison but its close



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Thats why I said an arguement COULD be made for nukes.

It does not SAY personal arms but it is widely understood to mean it.

They best referance I could use would it did not give you the right to own a warship although they did have priviteers

thats not a real good comparison but its close


You see where I'm going with this. I bring up muskets, what the founding fathers meant, you say, "no, arms." I say nukes, you yourself said an arguement could be made for them, do you want anyone walking around with a nuke? Do you think the authorities would have a problem with that?

Basically as I see it, you on a daily basis, "amend" the document to allow yourselves the right to firearms. Unless you have no problem with someone running around with nukes. So I'm just asking, you want your guns and that's all there is to it, right?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
So I'm just asking, you want your guns and that's all there is to it, right?


Right, but there IS an admendment to allow us to have it.

All it would take to do away with it is another admendment

Do you see anyone commiting political sucide by trying to admend it?

Exspecially here in the South and the West and Northwest it would amount to declaring a civil war and they know it.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Basically as I see it, you on a daily basis, "amend" the document to allow yourselves the right to firearms. Unless you have no problem with someone running around with nukes. So I'm just asking, you want your guns and that's all there is to it, right?



How do you see this? I would just as soon see them have nukes as no one allowed to protect themselves.

Either way its the end of America



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Intrepird
"Even worse actually, sounds like gobbledegook because you want your guns and you're going to keep them damnit. Even a blind person would get hand cramps trying to understand that".


Well sorry you deemed it more "gobbledegook" Maybe when Canada gets a constitution you can lobby that they ban guns?
How many people are assaulted in Canada with hockey sticks every year?

You may find that hard to grasp also but we value our guns much like you guys value your hockey sticks

When was your consitution written 1984 or something, not 250 yrs ago... Our country is one that is very prosperous and will continue to be because we adhere to the consitution, we don't wipe our ass with it, the way you propose we do.


the fact we haven't changed it shows that we're the biggest strongest most propserous free country in the history of the world and part of that is because of the adhereance to the constitution.

we don't change presidents by shooting them or through our military...

When they wrote the consitution they forsaw what could happen in the future with the gov vs the people, look at foia(freedom of information act) in canada, you have it but they don't have to adhere to it... Its' a small example but it's still an example of the difference between these two countries.

And too put all your trust in the government is pretty naive... Government is far from perfect, it's bloated as it is, and because it's bloated it will probably get bigger the more and more time the left and right spends in washington.

And we all know what happens when government takes away people's arms/guns... It's the very first thing they take away before instaling a dictatorship or tyrannical government..

We've seen it in the 21st century.. .Not here, but don't be fooled...
It could very well happen...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join