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.

 

Your right to 'Bear Arms'

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I think everyone has seen the dubious episode of family guy in which the right to bear arms is referred to as owning a set of actual bear arms, but more to the point, i was watching Bowling for Columbine and it really brought the question to me whilst he is discussing and questioning John Nichols

"John Nichols: I sleep at night with a gun under my pillow."

Then the question arises to which in my eyes a follow up question should have been asked and it wasnt, Moore asks whether anyone should be allowed to own nuclear weaponry, to which John replies "no, theres some nutters out there"

Now my question is, even if apparent "Gun Nuts" realise there is a line, where should it be drawn? I mean what arms should (If any) be allowed under the second amendment, as it is, extremely vague. The right to 'bear arms' is extremely shrouded, it could include from a plank of wood as your arms, to guns, explosives, chemical warfare? Which out of any of these are accepted arms and where is the line drawn? and for how long?

Will this mean that as any weaponry becomes available to the military, it will soon follow for citizens? Isnt that the point of the amendment to allow US citizens freedom of choice for 'defending' ones self?

I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.

And my final question, who decides what 'weapons' are available for citizens as i imagine not all are readily available
edit on 19-12-2011 by browsey because: missed word



+6 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
The "line" exists naturally as expense regulates ownership and use.

Announce today that nukes are available to all off the shelf and Walmart and you will see none sold as people do not have millions burning holes in their pockets.

If the government can bear it you should be able to too. Good luck affording it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 


It's not vague. "Arms" back when the Constitution was written meant guns. Thus every American has the right to own guns. It only seems vague when one doesn't think to look at what a word meant in a document when it was written.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


Dang... Just guns, eh? They did have cannons back then... Can't I have a couple cannons at the ready pointing down my driveway?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Reply to post by IronDogg
 


Lots of people have cannons. They're loads of fun.

If what octomom says is true I suspect millions of Americans are running afoul ofthe law.

Private ownership and use of cannons is very common.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Private ownership and use of cannons is very common.


Nice. Sounds like fun too.

So if I understand Browsey correctly when he says that the, "point of the amendment to allow US citizens freedom of choice for 'defending' ones self", and then take into account what you say about, "If the government can bear it you should be able to too", and as well take into account typical government initiatives such as the european missile defense shield, then I would like to set up a number of cannons on my property in defense of attackers...


heheh, next time those Jehovah's ignore the no trespassing sign, am I in my right to blast a cannon ball through their front grill?

heheh, that does sound like fun, no?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Textshould be said that as socialists we are opposed to a situation where only the capitalist state has guns. We are not in favor of disarming working people. However, the issues of what types of guns should be available, what type of safety measures and gun education should be implemented are issues that should be rationally and democratically decided by the people.


Socialists are always sensible.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
The second ammendment:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


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.


Everyone seems to leave out the first part.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,,

This part states the reason that we were given the right to bear arms. IMO, there has been far too much interpretation to the 2nd ammendment. Independent interpretation has taken a simple sentence and created a monster. I think if the Founding Fathers new that we would have small weapons that can cause mass destruction, this ammendment would have been written differently. On the other hand, maybe the Founding Fathers gave us way too much credit, and figured that we would be smart enough to read the entire ammendment as it was written.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
The2nd Amendment was written so the populace would always have a way to take back their freedom from a tyrannical govt. (should one ever enslave them).
It doesn't, However imply: "overturn with one arm tied behind your back". Dynamite is available to farmers and miners but classified as a "dangerous explosive device.." requiring a license. I don't have a problem with that.

I think this question sets up an absurd "strawman argument of extremes". Nobody wants a nuclear device for their closet. It's just a conveniently absurd position used all the time to. argue against ownership of firearms.

My opinion:
As long as we are left the remedy of the modern "firearm".There is no "need"for tactical nuclear weapons in the hands of civilians to fulfill the intent of the founders.

So leave us alone with all the "evil semi- automatic"NONSENSE and there won't be an escalation of civilian arms lethality. What did will Smith say in (I am legend(?):"Don't start nothin' won't be nothin''" and Mama liberty:" If they don't want a "civil disturbance" maybe they should quit disturbing us"...



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 


I have always wondered what-if we got it all wrong
maybe the right to bear arms is actually just like how peter griffin refered to it...Maybe your only have a right to own a set of Genuine, Bear arms rofl....why not sounds stupid but why cant it be true


P.s i dont live in america so havent read the document its in so dont actually know if it refers to guns at all



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 





I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.


The US is 5th on the list of firearm related deaths. After such countries as, South Africa (1), Columbia (2), Thailand (3), Guatemala (4). Yes those countries have much higher deaths from firearms, but the US only has 15.2% of it's deaths from guns. 7.07% are homicides. Compare this with the homicide statistics : 4.8 people killed per 100,000 population and really it is a small number that gets capped...compared to population.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines
The second ammendment:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


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.


Everyone seems to leave out the first part.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,,

This part states the reason that we were given the right to bear arms. IMO, there has been far too much interpretation to the 2nd ammendment. Independent interpretation has taken a simple sentence and created a monster. I think if the Founding Fathers new that we would have small weapons that can cause mass destruction, this ammendment would have been written differently. On the other hand, maybe the Founding Fathers gave us way too much credit, and figured that we would be smart enough to read the entire ammendment as it was written.


"WELL REGULATED" in the language of the day meant :"well trained disciplined and equipped" or a highly "effective unit". Not heavily "legislated".

Try:" A well equipped "militia"( a paramilitary force comprised of "the people") is necessary for a free state to exist; So the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

Its clear they were maintaining military grade weapons in the hands of civilians to employ in the event the people needed to relieve themselves of a tyrannical govt.
It's so clear it makes my eyes bleed!


The smooth bore muzzle loading musket WAS the penultimate military service arm of the day.The "assault rifle" of it's day.it's clear the founders knew we needed weapons; ball and powder( ammunition) on hand to prevent tyranny.!!!

edit on 19-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   




No disrespect intended, but you are incorrect. The above is your interpretation of what was written. Whether you came to that yourself, or you heard someone say it.

Please read George Washington's own words:


General Washington said:
"The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter." (August 25, 1776)

"The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this Province, makes it necessary for me to inform you... your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law." (January 24, 1777)

"For want of proper Laws in the Southern Governments, their Militia were never well regulated; and since the late Troubles, in which the Old Governments have been unhinged, and new ones not yet firmly established, the people have adopted a mode of thinking and Acting for themselves." (March 6, 1777)

"The Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency, for these purposes they ought to be duly organized into Commands of the same formation... By keeping up in Peace 'a well regulated, and disciplined Militia,' we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country." (May 1, 1783)
President Washington said:
"The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." (Address to Congress, November 19, 1794)


www.greatseal.com...

Mod Note: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS - Please Review This Link.
edit on 12/19/2011 by Mirthful Me because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by browsey
 


It's not vague. "Arms" back when the Constitution was written meant guns. Thus every American has the right to own guns. It only seems vague when one doesn't think to look at what a word meant in a document when it was written.


'Arms' means armaments and that doesn't necessarily mean guns. Back when the constitution was written it meant any offensive weapon you could carry on your person, from a tomahawk to a flintlock. If a man is carrying a sword he is bearing an armament.
edit on 19-12-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
The Right to Bear Arms has always been interpreted as the weapons in which a line soldier in the militia would carry.

However,

In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled , in US vs. Miller, that a “sawed-off” shotgun does NOT meet the description of a line soldiers weaponry.

This ruling sighted the Virginia Militia Act of 1785 as its basis in their decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision was inaccurate and with out merit because the Militia of 1785 did in fact have employed the “Blunderbuss”.

The Supreme Court’s ruling became to suggest that if a weapon was a weapon a line soldier in the military used it was then legal for the citizen to posses under the Militia clause.

However, this also has been changed through Congress with the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, where by it was recognized that the citizen is able to posses a machine gun under the second amendment, but the congress will now require a tax and registration of the machine gun.

And,

That explosives as grenades will now be outlawed for the citizen, as will silencers.

It is commonly held that if a line solider in the military CARRIES a weapon, that weapon is protected under the second amendment, but our Congress has outlawed most of that as well.

edit on 19-12-2011 by brokedown because: spelling correction

edit on 19-12-2011 by brokedown because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Historically the second amendment has been interpreted to mean if a solider Carries a weapon, that weapon is protected.

The argument of

“Well what about a cannon, a tank, a nuclear weapon”

Is just distraction and anti-second amendment speech.

A person in the Militia can’t carry any of these weapons.

If you can carry it, it should be protected.

But

Our Congress has seen fit to disarm the public, thus limiting our ability as Citizens in resisting a tyrannical Government.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by browsey
 





I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.


The US is 5th on the list of firearm related deaths. After such countries as, South Africa (1), Columbia (2), Thailand (3), Guatemala (4). Yes those countries have much higher deaths from firearms, but the US only has 15.2% of it's deaths from guns. 7.07% are homicides. Compare this with the homicide statistics : 4.8 people killed per 100,000 population and really it is a small number that gets capped...compared to population.


*Facepalm*
Please do not use wikipedia as your source for collecting statistics, and also check the year, and if possible when giving facts, statistics etc (As i have not done) please give us the link as for all we know that is mere speculation.

Watch Bowling for Columbine if you have not seen it, if for nothing more than the homicide gun crime rates in the US, being dramatically more.

So we have also concluded that yes explosives (I.e cannons) are allowed, but again WHERE is the line drawn? surely it should be as clear cut as possible? Too much it so say that it is ridiculous that certain weapons can be readily available if you have the funds, shouldnt the whole point of being "equal" (For this instance just for arms' sake) everyone should just be given every weapon that is readily available from bombs to nukes o that nobody has the upper hand and nobody uses them right? No? Well the common answer would be "Oh there too many nutters out there.." well if you can understand that with bombs and nuclear/chemical warfare, relative to the damage they cause, look at the thousands that die to gun crime because they are just 'readily available', i hate the fact that in the US you NEED a gun to be 'safe' and on par with everyone else.

Personally i would not ever live in America, i have visited it, i like the place but due to the ridiculous gun laws, i can't feel the need to feel safe and call a place home that is extremely dangerous, im sorry id much rather live with your friends up north or down south (Canada and South Americas).



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by browsey
 





I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.


The US is 5th on the list of firearm related deaths. After such countries as, South Africa (1), Columbia (2), Thailand (3), Guatemala (4). Yes those countries have much higher deaths from firearms, but the US only has 15.2% of it's deaths from guns. 7.07% are homicides. Compare this with the homicide statistics : 4.8 people killed per 100,000 population and really it is a small number that gets capped...compared to population.


" Where are we in "# of automobile deaths per capita?"
Makes about as much sense in this context...



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by browsey

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by browsey
 





I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.


The US is 5th on the list of firearm related deaths. After such countries as, South Africa (1), Columbia (2), Thailand (3), Guatemala (4). Yes those countries have much higher deaths from firearms, but the US only has 15.2% of it's deaths from guns. 7.07% are homicides. Compare this with the homicide statistics : 4.8 people killed per 100,000 population and really it is a small number that gets capped...compared to population.


*Facepalm*
Please do not use wikipedia as your source for collecting statistics, and also check the year, and if possible when giving facts, statistics etc (As i have not done) please give us the link as for all we know that is mere speculation.

Watch Bowling for Columbine if you have not seen it, if for nothing more than the homicide gun crime rates in the US, being dramatically more.

So we have also concluded that yes explosives (I.e cannons) are allowed, but again WHERE is the line drawn? surely it should be as clear cut as possible? Too much it so say that it is ridiculous that certain weapons can be readily available if you have the funds, shouldnt the whole point of being "equal" (For this instance just for arms' sake) everyone should just be given every weapon that is readily available from bombs to nukes o that nobody has the upper hand and nobody uses them right? No? Well the common answer would be "Oh there too many nutters out there.." well if you can understand that with bombs and nuclear/chemical warfare, relative to the damage they cause, look at the thousands that die to gun crime because they are just 'readily available', i hate the fact that in the US you NEED a gun to be 'safe' and on par with everyone else.

Personally i would not ever live in America, i have visited it, i like the place but due to the ridiculous gun laws, i can't feel the need to feel safe and call a place home that is extremely dangerous, im sorry id much rather live with your friends up north or down south (Canada and South Americas).


BTW: Using" bowling for columbine"(i.e.Michael Moore for statistics is far worse than Wiki! he is openly biased in his movies.and pressing a "liberal" agenda.
Don't believe all the bad news "hype": I.E. "dangerous".

I feel perfectly safe. I have owned and been around guns and lived in the U.S. my entire life(except for a short(2year active duty tour in Europe);

I have yet to see a gun shot victim.(ever)

edit on 19-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
The right to bear arms:



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join