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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   


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.


To understand the intent and meaning, you have to go back and look at what was said in the constitutional ratification debates. Lets assume they had written a 300 page document just on the right to bear arms. Seems like this would make things easier, but it was not necessary and would only lead to unwanted regulation. All that was necessary was to say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That made it real easy. Does it say anything about weapons that have the capability to do harm to more than one person? No, it does not. You can say it did not include anything about those weapons because they did not exist, but in fact they did. Cannon was known in that day to be able to take out many soldiers in a single shot. The use of illegal and privately owned cannon was a great asset to those revolutionaries, one that they recognized when framing the constitution. Like I said, it is all right there in the constitutional ratification debates. No clarifying of the right to keep and bear arms was tolerated, because clarifying meant restricting. In order to keep you safe from foreign and domestic governments, any weapon system that they can deploy against you, or you against them, must be legal to own without interference from any government. If you can use it, it is a personal weapon. If it can be used against any person or groups of persons, it is protected.

You must also look at the frame of mind of the people drafting the document. They had just won their independence from a repressive government by a fluke. They just happened to have better, more accurate weapons than British soldiers did. They probably would not have done so well if they did not. Do you think they would want us to be armed with weapons of less quality than the ones that may be used to oppress us someday? Bolt action hunting riffles are little good against an army with select fire weapons.

If you question the validity of the handgun as a weapon of deterrence against a hostile government, imagine how different WWII would have been if every Jew had owned and carried a handgun. Look at the trouble a few people armed with handguns caused the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto.

It would be easier to make the argument that hunting riffles are not protected under the 2nd than to make the argument that nukes are not protected. After all, the day a bolt action riffle does me much good in modern combat is the day we are invaded by an army of deer and elk.




posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
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...


1982 for our Const.

The fact is the Contitution has been changed many time, see amendment a few posts back.

"we don't change presidents by shooting them or through our military..." Libertarians across the country gave out a collective groan after that. No problem though, got the answer I was looking for from Amuk.

Thanks for allowing me to challenge my views in this manner. If this was the only issue on the docket, I would vote for Kerry. However there's much more than just gun ownership.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership.



The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.


Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.

Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property.

Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher.


A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.


The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles".

They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them.


Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.

Guns are not the problem.

They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

www.lp.org

[edit on 3-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Thanks for allowing me to challenge my views in this manner. If this was the only issue on the docket, I would vote for Kerry. However there's much more than just gun ownership.


Anytime... It's the least I could do for helping out the logically impaired .... Maybe one day you'll get your wish, ban the guns in Canada from all the law abiding citizens, make laws tougher and put trigger locks on them, after all these people aren't smart enough to take safety precautions on their own...



[edit on 3-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:44 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?


This isn't a religious issue, I'm not claiming it to be.

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


This is where the precedence is firmly set. Perhaps you would rather your rights be given to you from Steve up the street?

The 8th Commandment in the Bible is "Thou shall not steal", can someone rob you without you first owning something? I'd say that's a pretty good example of a supreme being recognizing the right to ownership.

If you want to disagree with our Constitution I have no problem with that, but you should first at least understand where the framers were coming from when it was written.

I didn't say anything about protecting my property with guns, I'm saying guns are property.

Edit: to added something

[edit on (9/4/0404 by PistolPete]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
The populists main goal is to give people the power to protect their rights from the gov. and therefore are against any law undermining the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. They believe that the people have the right do defend themselves from any criminal or tyrannical aggressor. Let us not forget that before WW2 Germany was a democracy and look at what Hitler was able to do to a disarmed Germany after he was elected.

Also, as has been previously stated, gun control does NOT reduce crime, it has statistically shown to lead to an increase. The only people who would willingly give up their guns are the law abiding citizens who would become victimized either by those who refused or by a more oppressive gov. freed from the threat of armed revolt.

Populist Party - 2nd Amendment



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I would just like to add that their is extreme gun control laws in D.C contrary to the strict gun control laws, their is less gun control...

Stricter gun laws don't stop the dummies from doing stupid things...

It's also amazing when you have secret service lingering about and such... rodney white just got arrested the other day for pointing his gun out the top of the sunroof and firing off shots with his buddy...

Gun control doesn't do a damn thing except stomp the law adiding citizens' rights. Which I have to give a big booo to and a
down on this one...

www.justfacts.com...

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.




[edit on 6-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
True Lies and Amuk did a very good job of debating this entire issue. I only have one thing to add.

Cars are an every day neccessity, so are showers, and table saws if you happen to be a carpenter. Guns are NOT an every day neccessity.

Yes, they are for many of us. I carry one every day from Monday to Friday. Why? you may ask....
Because there are many people who have guns that are not supposed to. I happen to work in a high crime area of a large city. What makes you think that making a law to take away guns would convince these convicted felons to give them up? It sure hasn't worked with nuclear weapons on the world stage. Why would this be any different?
I have a right to live in peace. If someone wants to disrupt that then I have a right to defend the first right.
If you, in Canada, care to give that up please feel free to do so. When your crime rates follow the Brits and Aussies don't come whining to me or my countrymen.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate. ( Richard Henry Lee, Richard Henry Lee, Virgina delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

Amendment II

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.



Also some logical quotes I found:

A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone.

If guns kill people, where are mine hiding the bodies.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.


I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by TrueLies]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join