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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
This thread is indicative of what is wrong in this country. Arguing over the EXACT intended phrasing in our bill of rights. REALLY!?!??! To be technical, during colonial times a "call to arms" meant it was time to assemble your defensive weapons and prepare for battle, PERIOD! Why waste 8 pages of debate over a simple word? Don't you think our country and our citizens have much more important issues to discuss and debate than a single word in the bill of rights???

Good god people, use your energy and do some good to restore our country instead of fighting over stupid stuff!!!




posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by vogon42
 


As an outsider who is following this debate with interest for clarity could you just explain what constitutes a domestic enemy and who decides who is a domestic enemy?


Read it a bit closer, its about enemies to the constitution.
"To serve and defend the constitution against all enemies...."
so its not a
domestic enemy
its a
domestic enemy of the constitution



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
This thread is indicative of what is wrong in this country. Arguing over the EXACT intended phrasing in our bill of rights. REALLY!?!??! To be technical, during colonial times a "call to arms" meant it was time to assemble your defensive weapons and prepare for battle, PERIOD! Why waste 8 pages of debate over a simple word? Don't you think our country and our citizens have much more important issues to discuss and debate than a single word in the bill of rights???

Good god people, use your energy and do some good to restore our country instead of fighting over stupid stuff!!!


Actually what we are doing now is called discussing. Its the sort of thing you do on a DISCUSSION board.
(so chill, its like you went to a car lot and got upset because the stupid thing is full of cars!)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I agree that there should be no line. Yes there are lots of 'nutters' out there, but they generally work for the government and police anyway. At least give regular folk the same protection from these nutters.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

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.


Yeah, like that Stalin guy and the totally "sensible" 60 million deaths that occurred under his rule. Sensible guy, that Stalin.


Most brainwashed Americans tend not to understand the difference between communism and socialism. And I do mean brainwashed. The issue is only this bad in the United States, due to a 50 year long McCarthyist campaign of historical revisionism and disinformation. Nowhere else in the world will you encounter such ignorance.

A simple exercise for Americans: look up "Socialism" on Wikipedia, then look up "Communism". You'll note the two pages are different. Bonus exercise: look up "Stalinism".

I would like to point out that both George Orwell and Albert Einstein were socialists. Einstein explained why in his essay "Why Socialism".
edit on 20-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


Most brainwashed Socialists use this form of rationalization to prop up their viewpoint. Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Stalinist... all sooo different, right? Your brand of Socialism is so much better, right?



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observor
As for armed populations preventing a tyranny, it is equally laughable unless the tyrants are downright stupid.


Like the Americans of the thirteen colonies? How laughable was the first American Revolution?



If under the authority of the recently passed NDAA, government agents come to arrest a person suspected of terrorism, how exactly does he/she defend themselves? Do the gun owners go armed to the door every time there is a knock on it and start shooting once they realise it is the government agents come to arrest them on suspicion of terrorism? Or they don't always go to the door armed, but have some kind of an alarm call system worked out with their family and neighbours which when given by anybody the others would come with their guns and shoot down the government agents come to arrest the person under the tyrannical laws?


When it starts happening with frequency, you WILL see incidents of people protecting themselves against these kinds of unlawful intrusions.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by vogon42
 


So the question should be;
What exactly constitutes 'a domestic enemy of the constitution' and who makes that call?



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by vogon42
 


So the question should be;
What exactly constitutes 'a domestic enemy of the constitution' and who makes that call?


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 just use a bit of free thinking. (no I'm not saying you are closed minded......just that this seems to be a simple concept)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by vogon42
 


It is very simple....I was merely asking for clarification for us non-US members who are following this thread and aren't as familiar with the US Constitution etc as you obviously are.

Sorry for the inconvenience as it's obviously too much of a hardship for you to tale the time out to try and clarify some of the vagaries and misunderstandings of THE cornerstone of US society and culture.

I hope to return the favour with an equal amount of grace and patience should you ever seek clarification on anything, somehow though I doubt that will ever happen as I suspect you know everything anyway.

I bid you and this thread goodbye and with the impression of American arrogance, ignorance and pure bad manners just that bit more firmly entrenched.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


OK, well I guess that "free thinking" part does vary greatly between our cultures.
Honestly, did not mean to offend.....but now, sure - take your toys and go home.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Observor
As for armed populations preventing a tyranny, it is equally laughable unless the tyrants are downright stupid.


Like the Americans of the thirteen colonies? How laughable was the first American Revolution?

The "tyrant", King George, was stupid.


If under the authority of the recently passed NDAA, government agents come to arrest a person suspected of terrorism, how exactly does he/she defend themselves? Do the gun owners go armed to the door every time there is a knock on it and start shooting once they realise it is the government agents come to arrest them on suspicion of terrorism? Or they don't always go to the door armed, but have some kind of an alarm call system worked out with their family and neighbours which when given by anybody the others would come with their guns and shoot down the government agents come to arrest the person under the tyrannical laws?


When it starts happening with frequency, you WILL see incidents of people protecting themselves against these kinds of unlawful intrusions.

The question is: how does anyone know it was an unlawful intrusion and when the next one will be?



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.


Like 3/5ths of all other people?

Yeah, a plain text reading of the constitution is not a good idea. If we want to go to a technicality though since the constitution dos not specifically allow the feds to determine what type of arms, then its reserved for the states.

Good luck Illinois and DC.

As far as nuts go - Gun control does not work, being criminals gain that title for a reason. An armed population are citizens, an unarmed population are subjects. As I stated in another thread on the same topic civilians owning guns makes my job very difficult, however I would never support any ban on civilians owning guns. Even if the end result of that position is my death on a traffic stop.
edit on 20-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


You couldn't be more wrong... It is NOT reserved to the states. The second amendment is clear, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....

The only thing that is reserved to the states are powers NOT granted to the Federal Govt. in the COTUS. The bill of rights are things that NEITHER the feds NOR the states have a power to infringe upon.

Jaden



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The anti-gun nuts are wrong. Period. Let's look at the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, specifically the words "the people" and "shall not". When the framers wrote these 10 amendments, they did so with FREEDOM in mind. The term "the people" meant THE PEOPLE. Not the militia, not the wealthy, not some little group of individuals. No, they meant each and every American. When "shall not" is used (as in SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) it means just that. The government SHALL NOT do whatever it is that is laid out. Period.


Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2
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.

Amendment 3
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


That's the problem when the feds start passing unconstitutional legislation, there can be no lawful use of it....

Every time a cop or Fed uses this or any other unconstitutional provision, it is unlawful.

Every time they do not afford the person they are invading the opportunity to look over the warrant and or request an affirmation that it is lawful, then it is UNLAWFUL. Does that benefit some criminals? Yes. Does it make sure to protect our rights as FREEMEN??? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

Jaden



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Observor
As for armed populations preventing a tyranny, it is equally laughable unless the tyrants are downright stupid.


Like the Americans of the thirteen colonies? How laughable was the first American Revolution?

The "tyrant", King George, was stupid.


If under the authority of the recently passed NDAA, government agents come to arrest a person suspected of terrorism, how exactly does he/she defend themselves? Do the gun owners go armed to the door every time there is a knock on it and start shooting once they realise it is the government agents come to arrest them on suspicion of terrorism? Or they don't always go to the door armed, but have some kind of an alarm call system worked out with their family and neighbours which when given by anybody the others would come with their guns and shoot down the government agents come to arrest the person under the tyrannical laws?


When it starts happening with frequency, you WILL see incidents of people protecting themselves against these kinds of unlawful intrusions.

The question is: how does anyone know it was an unlawful intrusion and when the next one will be?


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.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Most brainwashed Socialists use this form of rationalization to prop up their viewpoint. Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Stalinist... all sooo different, right? Your brand of Socialism is so much better, right?


Complete the assignment. Look up each and every single one of those terms on Wikipedia. You'll notice the pages are different. Unlike your mind. Why is that? Because you're an American. Being American doesn't make you ignorant per se, but it does massively increase the likelihood of you being completely ignorant about socialism.

Hence your comment.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
The anti-gun nuts are wrong. Period. Let's look at the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, specifically the words "the people" and "shall not". When the framers wrote these 10 amendments, they did so with FREEDOM in mind. The term "the people" meant THE PEOPLE. Not the militia, not the wealthy, not some little group of individuals. No, they meant each and every American. When "shall not" is used (as in SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) it means just that. The government SHALL NOT do whatever it is that is laid out. Period.


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



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Most brainwashed Socialists use this form of rationalization to prop up their viewpoint. Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Stalinist... all sooo different, right? Your brand of Socialism is so much better, right?


Complete the assignment. Look up each and every single one of those terms on Wikipedia. You'll notice the pages are different. Unlike your mind. Why is that? Because you're an American. Being American doesn't make you ignorant per se, but it does massively increase the likelihood of you being completely ignorant about socialism.

Hence your comment.


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 do not neet Wikipedia to "look up" facts about different "forms" of socialism. 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.

It's like debating which form of cancer is better. Cancer is cancer and no one in the US wants it. Okay, maybe a very vocal minority of ignorants who took well to their public school/university indoctrination, but they don't know any better.

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.




edit on 20-12-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join