The Second Amendment is not being properly used

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
The second amendment was written at a time when government corruption was killing people left and right at the behest of a corrupt government. A terrorist by the name of George Washington led the USA to freedom over 200 years ago. In the US constitution wrote a provision in the Constitution that provides the right to bear arms. It was put in there to fight corrupt government.

Here is why it is not being utilized properly. Arms is a broad definition and not limited to just guns. The weapon at the time of 1776 was guns. It was an even fight of the British government vs the insurgents. It was guns vs guns. Now the US government has drones, and missiles. The US people need to have these weapons to because it is the right to bear arms, and not the right to bear guns.

Do not let the stooges in the congress think that it is just guns your are allowed. You are allowed any weapon that the US government has, any tanks, attack helicopters, hellfire missiles. You are all allowed to have these arms without a doubt 100%. They are limiting assault rifles etc, go get your guided missiles and attack helos and armored vehicles and defend your neighborhoods.

This is how much of a Pro I was in BF2, I played as good as this:





You must use skills like almost as good as mine to defend your neighborhoods
edit on 013131p://8America/ChicagoSun, 12 Aug 2012 01:00:58 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
What's that officer? The bulge in my jacket? I have a conceal carry permit for this here grenade launcher.





posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Man! What a great point you have, and a great post.


I've been tooling around the idea of building high-end homemade drones, at home. I don't see why not (except for that they are expensive.) This video inspired me.
A freelance videographer uses a drone to capture video/images for the highway department in TX.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Do you guys remember what the big threat was before 9/11?

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

Homemade bomb-makers. The Unabomber, OKC bombing, first WTC bombing, bombs on planes, bombs on bridges, bombs bombs bombs.

The Anarchist's Cookbook and similar bomb-making DIY manuals were one of the few files the FBI tracked in the infancy of the Internet.

Don't think domestic bombers have been forgotten by those who CAN carry out false flag events.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


This is not about domestic bombers, that is against the law and is called terrorism. This is about having the same weapons that are provided by the US constitution to defend yourself and your neighborhoods against oppression.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I agree. Chief Justice Antonin Scalia does as well.Hand Held Rocket Launcher 2nd Amendment.

So does the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Look up Knob Creek. Or Court Days in Lexington, Ky. Well outside of it.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by DaTroof
 


This is not about domestic bombers, that is against the law and is called terrorism. This is about having the same weapons that are provided by the US constitution to defend yourself and your neighborhoods against oppression.


Oh I get it. I'm just pointing out that "shooters" are the new "bombers".

Bombs are dangerous for everyone involved, where shooters can be approached and picked off with even or greater firepower.

The domestic bomber has disappeared. Why?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
According to Thomas Jefferson, the Americans should have had 10 to 30 revolutions by now. Maybe he was saying that you can't just stop tyrrany, you have to start over. And try to prevent the tryrrany from getting established.

A successful revolution requires a body of people who can live without the thing they are eliminating or expelling.

Historian Jaques Barzun said that, revolution, means a fundamental change in the way everyone interprets reality. And that revolts are bloody attempts to change the rulers while keeping the same political structure. And that revolts never accomplish what they set out to do.

I agree that the second amendment was meant to be a veto of the government by the people.

The 2nd amandment is right after the right to freedom of thought, speech and assembly, as in , when you can't think what you want or assemble when you want, you have the power to keep things from getting worse.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I don't typically like to quote across threads but I was discussing this issue in another thread and I think those contributions work well for this thread.


Originally posted by Wolf321
The thing about the 2nd Amendment is that its whole reason for existing is to give the people the power to overthrow or at least resist a tyranical government. If the government restricts or prohibits the people in the type of arms they can have, especially if it is to give the government the upper hand, then to do so flies in the very face of the 2nd amendment.



Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by RealSpoke
We can't overthrow this government with guns. They have a trained military, drones, heat seeking missiles, and everything else.

You can't overthrow the government with guns alone. That realization should make it clear that the government regulation or prohibition of arms is not in accordance with the letter or spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

ETA: As for the individual weapons, such as a gun, they serve a barrier to tyranny and less as a tool against it. Essentially, it keeps tyrannical forces from just coming to get you. The ability for a armed civilian population or militia, even with tanks, jets etc, to wage an offensive war against a tyrannical government is extremely small in scale and chance of success. The best action is to hold your position (using the same tools at the discretion of the tyrannical force) until they run out of resources or their forces turn on themselves. But to have a people who cannot even stand their ground only allows tyranny to gain a foothold and grow.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I have actually thought about this a lot.

It's really interesting actually. We tend to just talk about the right to bare arms but we don't appreciate the 'right to an equally armed militia'! We don't really break that down and analyze it!

I mean oftentimes we think automatic guns are over the top for civilians to posses yet our army and foreign armies have tanks and stealth bombers?? I mean come on! Equally armed militia!?
edit on 12-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I take your point on this and great thread! I'd also note..you might have killed me a time or two... grrr... but all's fair, right?

Anyway... I just can't quite get past the image of most people I've known in life actually having C-4 or access to armed remote control hardware in the real world. The occasional rocket or bomb obliterating a residential home because an idiot dumped his coke across the keyboard or got a little drunk before engaging the drone comes to mind as likely things to see happen. Heck, look at how many people get seriously hurt on Fireworks and through their own pure stupidity.

You wouldn't really advocate giving people like this access to Laws Rockets and Claymore mines.....



Would ya?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I take your point on this and great thread! I'd also note..you might have killed me a time or two... grrr... but all's fair, right?

Anyway... I just can't quite get past the image of most people I've known in life actually having C-4 or access to armed remote control hardware in the real world. The occasional rocket or bomb obliterating a residential home because an idiot dumped his coke across the keyboard or got a little drunk before engaging the drone comes to mind as likely things to see happen. Heck, look at how many people get seriously hurt on Fireworks and through their own pure stupidity.

You wouldn't really advocate giving people like this access to Laws Rockets and Claymore mines.....



Would ya?


You have a clear and understandable point. It has kept me from thinking further a few times.

However, if one variable is changed many other variables would be different also. A person who grows up with cars driving around will be less likely to get run over than a person who grew up with mass transit and bicycles only.

We will never know what we could have been like without the one size fits all MSM programming and schooling we all get

People would develope alot more circumspection if they lived closer to all of the forces of nature, not just the psychological ones



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Hehe, thanks but Darwin's law would naturally take care of those types..

Anyway I like hehe



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 

Okay, you win.
You have a very good point about self-appointed Darwin awards and it may just make for a better world after a few years of it, right? We just need to avoid the cross fire of the goobers while the oven runs it's self-clean cycle.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



You wouldn't really advocate giving people like this access to Laws Rockets and Claymore mines.....


Are you insinuating the grunts of the military are smarter and more responsible than the friends you mentioned?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
"...shall not be infringed" might as well not even be there anymore, because it means absolutely nothing. Of course it's been infringed. It's been infringed by circumvention in the form of "regulation". And your thread is absolutely correct, and in fact is understated.

The only hope this country ever has to stop these warmongers is internal sabotage from the US military at this point. Or a nuclear war against them. Because "check and balances" forgot to include the development of weaponry, and the ability of government to solely hold this advanced weaponry- which goes against everything that second amendment stood for. It was meant exactly as you say: to give the people equal if not MORE power than the government to prevent exactly the situation we see NOW.
edit on Sun Aug 12th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
My take on this question.....
Its a well regulated militia yer after. And these kind of troops have anti tank capabilities as well as full automatic and belt fed full auto weapons....light attack vehicles maybe.....
Id say anything a paratrooper or light iinfantryman could carry or man as in crew served Milan or machine gun.106 recoiless rifle etc.......
These are the class of weapon that the 2nd is speaking of as well as all other types......50 barret, programmed bullets etc....that come down the pike....if they pertain the the militia -light infantry role......



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
My take on this question.....
Its a well regulated militia yer after. And these kind of troops have anti tank capabilities as well as full automatic and belt fed full auto weapons....light attack vehicles maybe.....
Id say anything a paratrooper or light iinfantryman could carry or man as in crew served Milan or machine gun.106 recoiless rifle etc.......
These are the class of weapon that the 2nd is speaking of as well as all other types......50 barret, programmed bullets etc....that come down the pike....if they pertain the the militia -light infantry role......


Except that when this came to the Supreme Court of the United States to consider, they ruled that it didn't have to be a well regulated militia but applied to all law abiding citizens equally. There are several Supreme Court rulings that back this up, not just one.

Today a well regulated militia could be just a group of people who get together and decided they are going to stop this tyranny. It doesn't have to be a government regulated outfit - and in fact, it cannot be as that would defeat the very purpose. If you study the Constitution you see that this amendment was given for the purpose of overthrowing the government. This militia or group of freedom fighters has to come from We The People. We can get our hands on a lot of the good stuff even in unorthodox ways or build it ourselves.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Regulated meant "equipt like a regular" in 1790. In military jargon, a regular is a trained soldier.

The 2nd Amendment said " A militia is the only way to protect the country from foreign powers without the expense or potential tyranny of a standing professional army, and the militia must be fully armed and equipted"
This meaning of the Second Amendment is why the States went along with the additional Federal Government.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
our gov't has nuclear missles....
do you really want the crazies in our society to have nuclear missles?? I don't know for some reason, it would just bug me to death to know that many of the people I work with, and run into on a daily basis might have a missle waiting to be launched in the back yard......
ya know...kind of like....
your kid pushed my kid on the bus, so look up, see the nuke heading your way!!!


I agree the founding fathers more than likely meant what you are saying, but, I don't think they could ever have imagined just what kind of weapons we could come up with in the future....

I don't think I would want a country where armed drones were in the possession of alot of people, or companies either.

of course, I really don't like the idea of the gov't having these kinds of weapons much either, but that is beside the point. I definately don't want them in the hands of some of my neighbors...





new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join