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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by macman
 

Nah, I'll visit thanks very much. I'm pretty unique amongst my country men, I like America.


Sure do hope you don't offend anyone, cause we sure a trigger happy and all.


Seriously, is that what people outside the US get from our 2nd Amendment right?
That we just draw guns at any drop of the hat?


To be honest, yeah it is exaggerated, like that biker story I just posted. People like that stuff, and hey then we have the movies.
I don't think most people believe that America is the land of the trigger happy, it's just that when I look around me and try to imagine guns being more readily available here, it's a scary thought.


Ok, fair enough.
People, as a whole, tend to fear what they don't understand.
You come to the states, and make it out west.
PM me and I will see about taking you shooting.
Don't buy into the movies and media.




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


I have personally been witness to the destructive and horrible outcome of hammer vs. body part.

Sometimes, I think a gun would be better, then the above.

There are many bikers in the US that won't carry guns, due to felony convictions and all. So, the choices then becomes hammers, hatchets, knives and so on.
It becomes very brutal.
edit on 19-12-2011 by macman because: Spelling.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Thanks for the invite macman.

Yeah I guess, like I said earlier, sometimes I would like to feel the security of knowing that I can defend myself, I've been mugged and robbed, as we call it here, and lord knows if I'd had a gun then, those guys would have a limp for the rest of their lives

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

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



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


My invite is to anyone as well, that wishes to learn about and enjoy firearms.

And to think, some here believe I am an evil baby eating member of ATS.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Look mate,
I really can't be arsed with this tit for tat ping pong we are playing.

I've had this arguement so many times over the years that I really do know there is very little mileage in it.

I really don't know why you got so stroppy in the first place.

I understand and appreciate your right to bear arms.
And it's your right to stand up for it.
But it's not right for everyone and we in the UK do not want any relaxation of our gun laws.
And just as you resent non-Americans moralising to you, we resent Americans posting on UK and European issues and stating that all of our faults are due to our lack of right to bear arms.

For all the similarities between our societies and cultures there are also some massive differences.

And for the record I'm no US hating, bashing pinko liberal.....neither am I an Uncle Sam loving kiss arse Conservative.....I simply try to call things as I see them.

( I hate verbal ping-pong.)
born"stroppy"and just grew bigger: I guess this issue hits all the "right" buttons.

I agree: "peace"...

you guys think what you want... we'll keep our "culture" no matter how revulsive it seems to be to the rest of you.
no response necessary..
end...
fino...
I'm gonna go take a shower now and get some oft he mud off

why are you still here?

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 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Hahahah, I'm not telling.

That brings another question to mind, if you are a US citizen who has a license to, and does regularly, carry a firearm, like yourself, how do you feel when you come and visit a country where guns are illegal??


I feel less safe.

Except in Russia, I felt very safe there. Almost no street crime against tourists, the mob wouldn't stand for it.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Hahahah, I'm not telling.

That brings another question to mind, if you are a US citizen who has a license to, and does regularly, carry a firearm, like yourself, how do you feel when you come and visit a country where guns are illegal??


Not as safe as in the States.
But, it has more to do with the unfamiliarity of the area, people and such.
I do know bad places when I see them, so I have avoided them, when outside the US.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I am a formerly Active Duty Marine, I have qualified with the 60 cal and 50 cal machine gun, I have qualified with the M-16 and M-4 carbine, I have qualified with the 45 and 9 mm pistol. I do NOT own a gun, nor have I wanted to own one since I was on active duty, I Do have a Black belt in Muay Thai and Mu do kwon Tan su do. I am never unarmed. I just carry no firearms. I have never been mugged, not once. I am however able to defeat most opponents without any violence (I'm nearly 2 meters tall) I am a nerd trapped in a jocks body. I have no need of guns but always carry a small knife with me. I can kill a man without anything but my bare hands, but have yet to take a life outside of the USMC. I have traveled the world 3 times and have been to every state of the USA except Alaska. I have no fear, of my fellow man, I fear the Governments more.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 


The main point is that it's none of your #ing business!!! It's MY right!



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
As our 2nd amendment is meant to keep us safe from threats, internal and external, I feel that we should be able to own the same arms as the government.

TheSCOTUS decision of Miller vs US 1939 was successfully argued that the 2nd Amendent protects only weapons that are military type and be used by organized Militia. That's good enough for me, where my M4 for cheap and not a high price due to their scarcity?

Liberty is best when not meted out by a Draconian government.

Derek



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch

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.


I don't find that quote to be particularly sensible. Specifically, the part I have issue with is: " issues that should be rationally and democratically decided by the people."

I don't recognize anyone's "right" to vote away my means of opposition. Not the government, not "the people".

That's EXACTLY the sort of thing Jefferson was referring to when he said "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper."



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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
 




This, right here.

The Second Amendment guarantees that government will not abridge the people's right to bear arms, not that the government will not abridge the people's right to bear firearms. If you want to specifically ban the ownership and use by the people of a specific weapon you must ultimately ban it through constitutional amendment, and getting a constitutional, domestic ban on nuclear arms shouldn't be that hard in this country that already tries to demonize firearms.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I think the only thing that is vague on this matter is the interpretations of nine President appointed Supreme Court Justices.

I believe the founders made this issue quite clear. (And here come the quotes)

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.


"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison


There really is no discussion needed because they speak for themselves

Thomas Jefferson, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

And one for the road

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933


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



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:42 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.


I dunno... Seems like people who don't want others to have weapons seem to make a big deal out of the first half of the amendment... Interestingly, Wherein is the well regulated militia, and who should it be formed against?

If you don't want people to be able to choose what or how many weapons they have in their possession, what particular set of attributes makes you superior, in general, to the folks who want and have weapons of choice?

Not trying to fight. Just curious as to why you or people who are anti-2nd amendment should be in charge over the rest of us. My reason and logic is not the same as yours, but it is, in this country, just as valid. However, this gets about as sullied and silly as the issue where the agnostics are busy trying to take Christianity out of everyone else's life by choice or not, just so it goes away to suit their particular paradigm and they don't have to think about it.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:46 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.


The US Supreme Court has already ruled in that matter, and found your take on the Second Amendment lacking.

The part you refer to is a preambulatory clause, It states one potential justification, not THE sole reason for bearing arms. It is a lead-in, nothing more. They found the second part to be the "operative clause", i.e. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In toto, the Second Amendment insures that the individual right to keep and bear arms is not subject to Federal Government infringement.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:52 PM
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).


*FACEPALM* right back at ya......

Your going to complain about using wikipedia as a source but you are going to use "Bowling for Columbine"????
A piece of biased, lie filled trash like that....come on man....... seriously?!?!

That show was full of both flat out lies and manipulated video clips.
Thats just insane.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 


If everyone owned a gun, a criminal with a gun thinks twice. It is the imbalance that creates the problems. Criminals with guns terrorize citizens who are not armed. Countries well armed terrorize those not as well armed and when they begin to get wise and arm themselves the *#it really hits the fan. When the playing field has been equalled it's not so much a standoff as a case of healthy respect for potential for catasrophic disaster. When this happens, it becomes more practical to actively work through differences, come to agreements and compromises that all parties can live with. I say level the playing field and make gun ownership mandatory for every citizen!

Back in the middle ages you could challenge a fellow you disagreed with to a duel to the death with a sword or a pistol. This not only thinned the heard, allowed an even and final result to a disagreement and rid the world of either a poor swordsman or bad shot. Now more than ever, there are stupid people everywhere and not a dueling sword or pistol in sight!!!

Second paragraph was a little tongue in cheek for those who have diffculty recognising the humour.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Pretty sure you don't need a nuclear weapon to defend yourself or your home. You wouldn't have much of a home left if you used it lol. Common sense should be able to dictate where to draw the line, but in today's world common sense is an ever dwindling commodity.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by browsey
 


Guns, No Guns people kill each other and in shockingly higher numbers outside the US. And we rank average for the world...go figure...


en.wikipedia.org...

So you tell me what the difference is, because you can't blame guns just stupid people that use them!



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Personally, I think it means just what it says, we all have the right to own guns. Now there are SOME limitations. Like ex-cons that have a history of violence and etc should not be allowed to own guns, or at least for a period of time after being released, without further incident. Also, full blown assault rifles, maybe that's cool for the shooting range, but I don't know that your every day hunter needs a huge-ass machine gun to take down a white tail deer in the Pennsylvania woods. I mean it's very hard to draw the line. Do we stop with, you can have this gun because it's not too strong and you can still kill animals for food, but you can't have this because it's too powerful. Or do we pick some kid off the street, picking his first gun and say, here have a bazooka! I mean there has to be a limit to the gun but at the same time it can't be too restrictive too.

To whoever above said about owning nuclear weapons,
Uranium Ore





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join