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: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
When they break down your door without a warrant? Happened many many times in the recent past all over this country. The residents of the houses in question were well within their legal rights to shoot at the cops breaking down their door. Does it mean they win the battle? Probably not, but if the gestapo is going to trample your rights, may as well trample a few of theirs on your way out.

I understand that part. But I doubt it will prevent tyranny.

Unless your neighbours are sure the action on the part of the government is unlawful, which they cannot be when the action is taking place, they will not come to your rescue. By the time the government itself loses legitimacy in the eyes of the people because of its actions it is too late.

So the only chance anyone has of preventing tyranny is not waiting for the government to engage in tyrannical behaviour, but to punish the legislators who gave the government the tyrannical powers and right away. Unless the government gets the message that tyranny won't be tolerated, even if only on paper at the moment, tyranny is something that cannot be prevented by gun ownership.


Americans are looking at two options right now. I should say Americans who are AWARE of the situation:

Electing a man like Ron Paul and hoping he can do what he says he wants to do. Or..

FIghting back when the government tries to tighten the last screw of authoritarianism when Obama is "reelected" (notice the "quotes"). At that point it will be a long process and likely a bloody one. American Revolution Part II.

And it's not just me saying it.




posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Every time I log on, I check the forums... hoping to add something to the conversation. A voice of reason, if you would. And every time, it seems there's an answer like this that pretty much hits the nail squarely on the head. No more discussion needed... because your answer is 100% accurate.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I have to laugh at the sheer number of non-US citizens on ATS who do not put their location on their profile. Why is that? Are you not proud of your socialist country?


I'm from the Netherlands.


Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I do not neet Wikipedia to "look up" facts about different "forms" of socialism.


Because you lie. I know more about your country than you know about mine.


Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I actually went to "school" and had "classes" that covered "history" and I actually "paid attention", and I have done plenty of studying on world affairs of late.


Home schooling?


Originally posted by AwakeinNM
It's like debating which form of cancer is better. Cancer is cancer and no one in the US wants it.


False.



Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Okay, maybe a very vocal minority of ignorants who took well to their public school/university indoctrination, but they don't know any better.


The universities in the United States are the only life preserver you have left.


Originally posted by AwakeinNM
By the way, LOVE LOVE LOVE the anti-American sentiment in your post. Makes you look so much less ignorant than you suggest I am.


I suggest you stop confirming my bias. Surprise me and show me you have the capacity for intelligent thought. This isn't about Europeans being superior to Americans; that's nonsense. I love my American brothers who are not as ignorant as you are. I think internationally. You cuddle the flag, because that's your fall-back strategy. Your identity.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Americans are looking at two options right now. I should say Americans who are AWARE of the situation:

Electing a man like Ron Paul and hoping he can do what he says he wants to do. Or..

FIghting back when the government tries to tighten the last screw of authoritarianism when Obama is "reelected" (notice the "quotes"). At that point it will be a long process and likely a bloody one. American Revolution Part II.

And it's not just me saying it.

Not a bad strategy. But there are unanswered scenarios here, like someone other than Obama or Paul getting "elected". Do you think there is enough agreement in the aware Americans on a President Paul or revolution?

If you think it is not a good idea to answer such a question on an open forum, feel free to ignore it



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


I am not going to apologize for having an identity just because you think Americans don't deserve one. I am not ignorant as you think I am, and I am well aware of world history and current events. I am also well aware that most Americans have been bred to be stupid, ignorant cattle. Fortunately I do not moo and many of my countrymen do not moo either.

Want an apology? Look to our puppet-in-chief. He's done a good job of that for you.

By the way, Heineken sucks. Go to Germany or the UK for good beer.





edit on 20-12-2011 by AwakeinNM because: Correcting my ignorant American grammar.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Americans are looking at two options right now. I should say Americans who are AWARE of the situation:

Electing a man like Ron Paul and hoping he can do what he says he wants to do. Or..

FIghting back when the government tries to tighten the last screw of authoritarianism when Obama is "reelected" (notice the "quotes"). At that point it will be a long process and likely a bloody one. American Revolution Part II.

And it's not just me saying it.

Not a bad strategy. But there are unanswered scenarios here, like someone other than Obama or Paul getting "elected". Do you think there is enough agreement in the aware Americans on a President Paul or revolution?

If you think it is not a good idea to answer such a question on an open forum, feel free to ignore it


I think that's one of Neocon Rummy's great "known unknowns". We'll have to see, shan't we?



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Notice To All Politicians:

It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody.

A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to, and dependence upon, the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose, either piecemeal or in one sweeping act, those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over 200 years ago.

We Will Not Disarm.

The right to self-protection, the internal directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man is the most fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against the predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all, those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

We Will Not Disarm.

Not in the face of robbers, rapists and murderers who prey upon our families and friends. Nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order, those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

* We will not surrender our handguns.
* We will not surrender our hunting arms.
* And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An armed citizenry, the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms, is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpation's.

An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence. And should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of - may God forbid it - throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end.

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens.

Now-today-we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are times when our government is demanding - in the guise of measures for the common good - the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense. These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility-to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights.

Legislators, justices and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land - the Constitution. They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one's fellow citizens will also disarm one's parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children and children's children. They must bear in mind that there are good citizens who - taking heed of George Washington's belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people - will not passively allow these teeth to be torn out. There are good citizens who-taking heed of Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety-will surrender not one of their rights. Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on the face of this planet.

The right to keep and bear arms is the tap root of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world's dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today. Now - today - is a critical moment in our history.

Will we Americans passively lie down before a government grown disdainful of its best citizens? Or will we again declare:

WE are the government, government functions at our behest, and it may not rescind our sacred rights? Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our masters? Or will we place our faith in the words and deeds of the daring, far-seeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play?

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails? Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era-which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America-and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we be deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, and patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the words of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.

Legislators: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic - the right to bear arms.

Justices: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Lawmen: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and to protect - not to oppress, to disarm and to make helpless your countrymen. To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they ever have been through history. For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable.

For these reasons we must now make known:

We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road.
We Will Not Disarm.

edit on 20-12-2011 by mwc273 because: Add Link



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by vogon42
 


Look mate, I haven't a clue what 'free thinking' has to do with anything.

The US Constitution, Second Amendment, Bill Of Rights etc mean little to me, they have absolutely zero impact on me and my life.
But I recognise they are an integral part of US culture and society.
As such I was trying to understand, beyond doubt, exactly what constitutes 'a domestic enemy of the constitution' and who determines who is one, in the opinion of Americans themselves, my opinion is absolutely irrelevant.

Now if you had shown the good will, grace and patience to indulge a non-US member and help answer the questions then there would have been an ultimate point.
But as it is appears so hard for you to answer these questions it's obvious there is no further merit in contributing to this thread.....pretty simple really, no drama's.

edit on 20/12/11 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
The 2nd amendment was designed to help a populace rise up against a dictatorship. What's keeping you?

Perhaps I don't see a "dictatorship" in place yet? I never claimed anything about a dictatorship.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


For what it's worth, a "domestic enemy of the Constitution" is subjective to the individual. I'm sure many people feel George W. Bush was an enemy by pushing the Patriot Act, and I'm sure many people believe that Barack Obama is by keeping the Patriot act, and signing S.1867.

It's all in the eye of the beholder, and if enough people feel this country is out of control, there will be an armed revolution. I hope that never happens. I'd rather try and get these bastards out by voting them out. The bottom line, both political parties have stomped all over the Constitution, but as of now, there isn't enough push from the American populous to change it.

As for those in the military that took the oath, they would be quickly rounded up, taken to Ft. Leavenworth and executed by firing squad. For them, it's the same thing...there just isn't the support for a revolution. People seem content with their X-Box, American Idol and protesting Wall Street.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


OK, from my earlier post
"an enemy would be someone who intentionally wishes or affects ill will or harm to you (or in this case to the constitution)

domestic would mean some thing or some one local to you, not of a foreign nature. "

So a domestic enemy to the constution would mean some one (or group) that is not foreign to the US (perhaps a US resident), that is intent on destroying/eliminating the rights granted to the people by the constitution.

Who determines it, well thats kind of like asking..If someone shows up at your house and buries an axe in your skull....who determines if they are a murderer. (answer - anyone with a clear enough mind to realize that you were murdered, and that dude did it)

I guess if you want a really specific answer. Since I'm the one who took the oath, I'm the one that sticks to my word, so I determine it, or my platoon sgt determines it, or my company commander....and so on up the chain.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I'm on neither side of the gun debate because it can't be won. While everyone argues "it's in the constitution" well so was the 1st, 4th, and 6th but that didn't stop the Patriot Act. You have to wonder whether or not the founding fathers would've made that amendment if they would've known about surge of mind altering prescription medication that was flooded to the American people. Why I bring this up is because how thorough is the firearm application? How many nutcases slip through the cracks ( NIU shooting?). Plus I was reading a previous post were it was argued that the percentage of gun related deaths compared to the population is a small fraction that gets blown out of proportion. Well I think 1 gun death is too many. While Americans have the right to bear arms, do they have the right to bear a automatic weapon with extended magazine? How often do you hear of platoon storming through your front door? If these weapons are there for us to either take back our freedom or topple our corrupt government who is this government you speak of? Is it your next door neighbor who enlisted in the military or is it me who technically works for the state? Am I the "man" who should be taken down? Ladies and gentlemen we live in George Orwell's 1984 and the only weapon we have and we can use is information.Big Brother's brainwashing has corrupted the minds of everyone around you and if you believe you "need" your arms to defend your rights, you're mistaken about many things. First thing you are mistaken is that you have rights, if a right can be taken away it was never a right it was a privilege. Second, the same people you defend your right against is everyone around you.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Probably you would never know who fired first, but there would be an exchange of fire or you wouldn't get there in time anyway.

In the context of militias correcting the unconstitutional use authority, yes-- there would be a high level of awareness and commitment among neighbors. And it would be the start of a long time away from home.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Historically, a domestic enemy has been a group of US citizens who tried to secceed from the Union. The Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War are the only two I've read about. John Brown (1859) probably fits as a domestic enemy. Maybe he was just a criminal officially.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
In order to understand the 2nd amendment properly, you need to understand what the term regulated means, and that words change their meanings over time.

After years of arguing with folks about the 2nd amendment, I took the time and trouble to look up all the cognates of the term "regulated" using the oldest thesauri I could find.

What emerged is that the term "regulated" at the time of the writing, was also a military term meaning "equipped".

Some of the synonyms I found for the term are:

similarized

well-fitted

homologized

accorded

normalized

balanced

standardized

assimilated

set up

harmonized

accommodated

disposed

arrayed

coordinated

adjusted

ordered

marshalled

deployed

arranged

adapted

organized

governed

conducted

administered

commanded

directed

managed

supervised

handled

run

controlled

ruled

manipulated


Interestingly, the older the thesaurus, the less likely the meanings relating to controlled were represented, and the more likely you would find meanings related to the idea of being equipped. The "controlled" aspects become more prevalent in thesauri after the Industrial Revolution, when regulators were becoming necessary to control machines.

Eventually I created a T-shirt illustrating these meanings, with the 2nd amendment being repeated with the substitution of each term for regulated.over a background of the Statue of Liberty holding a rifle pointing down in her left hand and the Bill of Rights aloft in her right so that those who would argue the point could read and see for themselves what the word implies by preponderance of meanings.

I believe that while the Founders had an eye towards training and management, their main and primary goal was to ensure universal equipage, for without that the rest is moot.


interesting, from what i've read recently

Regulated means regularized or made ready to be a regular army unit. The term "Regular Army" is still used today to denote a professional frontline unit.

We know the word "regulated" from "subject to regulations" a different perspective than the founding fathers had.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Its kind of like long division, you can't choose answer directly, you need to trial and error a multiplier that will fit. recursive

Alot of people could come to the same conclusion at the same time. That's why thinking and relevant information are important.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by brokedown

And,

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



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

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


There's no such thing as a "silencer," but supressors are legal in 39 states. $200 and an ATF background check.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:16 PM
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.


And a militia is of the people to defend against oppressors foreign and domestic. The military is not the people's militia. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because if it were, the right of the people to assemble into a militia would be destroyed.

I'm sorry that you don't want it that way, but it is the way it should be.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Ah, They joys of gun threads on ATS. What was that Einstein quote about insanity and repetitiveness?



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I have never really pondered this question before, but I think the answer is obvious...The right to bear arms, which includes the right to "bare" arms, especially in the summertime, includes only those arms that can legally be bought and sold in the United States.

If I am wrong, I cannot think of any other solution/answer to the problem/question...




top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join