The Second Amendment is not being properly used

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Actually, not a bit. The Military people were kids before they went through boot and age wise, that hasn't changed. I've met more than a couple I'd personally avoid even going to a firing range with under controlled conditions.

I just note that if that grade of weapons became available to the whole zoo of personalities that makes up our nation, we'd have a little bit of everyone. I'd figure that would end up being as many Homer Simpsons and "Jackass The Movie" types running around as sensible and mature adults who know which end of a rocket to point and never look down to see why it didn't go swoosh when the button got pushed. I can't resist... Forgive me one more video to show the kind of people which really scare me. They really exist...and they walk among us!



The argument Professional made about Darwin awards is the only saving grace. This guy came about 3/4 of an inch away from earning himself one. We never would have seen that video to understand how unbelievably dumb some people really are.




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I dont think op realizes how much those weapons cost....hehehe. whose payin for my hellfire nissiles? i want a couple of nuclear icbm silos too.

A decent assault rifle is 1000 dollars these days. Dont forget the ammo, cheap russian steel cased .223 is 5 bucks for 20 rounds.

Honestly i think the point is moot. Pump action shot guns will win the war with an extended magazine. Thats what john titor used. Seriously though, read about the controversy of the use of shotguns in world war 1. The germans bitched and moaned cause they were so effective........



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


This always comes up.


Originally posted by Wolf321
First, let me explain the uniqueness of the USA. We were established to ensure self government with the purpose of living as free people. As such, every issue with respect to law and government should be to keep its people free. In a perfect world, there would be no need for government as humanity would be completely moral, ethical, benevolent, altruistic, etc. Basically a utopia. That would be a state of anarchy. (Not to be confused with chaos.) In such a perfect world, although there would be not need for such things, nuclear weapons could be possessed by anyone. Since humanity has not progressed to that level of responsibility and morality, we require laws and such to prohibit and punish behavior or actions that are destructive towards freedom.

So, back to the question about allowing WMDs by the people if the US government posses them. As the 2nd Amendment is to prevent or deter tyranny, we assume that the nature of government is always to try to assume more power (as the founders have noted.) For the government to utilize WMDs on itself is not in its self interest of growing or maintaining power. Therefore, it can be assumed that an attack on a revolting US would not utilize WMDs in any form. This is because the use of such a weapon cannot be contained in the area of attack alone. The nature of WMDs as a weapon used by governments is towards or to prevent the use of the same by foreign forces. As such, WMDs are not a weapon that could be used against its own people. If a weapon cannot be used against its own people, there would be no need for the people to have a weapon to counter or retaliate with the same.

Any weapon that the US can and would use against its own people, should be legal for the people to posses. Guns, tanks, jets, non-lethal sound rays, drones, anything.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


That text of yours reminds me of the movie "Signs". The attacking force couldn't use WMD because they needed the resources of the environment intact. If we win the next few rounds of the fight, "Signs" would be like the last battle with the NWO, when they have all of their technology but no political/economic/social power.

If citizens had WMD then their neighbors would have detection and countermeasures as a normal fact of life. EMPs and incendiaries for nukes and bio/chem agents.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
You are absolutely right, although it can be interpreted to mean only weapons that can be carried. I get so mad when people talk about gun control, because they apparently don't know WHY this provision was made in the first place. I shouldn't have to spell it out either. And it makes sense that since this provision is to offer the people a way to overthrow an unjust government, we should be allowed all weapons the government could use against us. This wasn't as necessary when the document was written, but the intent was clear.

To make sure the government did not have an unfair advantage over the people, which could result in tyranny. It has already gone too far, the margin between the government power and the power of the governed, and anyone who can't see that has their head you know where.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   


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.


Anyone stupid enough to follow the anarchist cookbook doesn't have to fear government, and they will all definately win the darwin award for those who do try.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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


I personally appreciate the sentiment....

No offense PROFESSIONAL, but in real war there are no do-overs, no re-spawning and no instant health packs to take you back to 100%

edit on 12-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Anyone stupid enough to follow the anarchist cookbook doesn't have to fear government, and they will all definately win the darwin award for those who do try.


The napalm one is quite easy to follow


reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


To make sure the government did not have an unfair advantage over the people, which could result in tyranny. It has already gone too far, the margin between the government power and the power of the governed, and anyone who can't see that has their head you know where.


Exactly! Equally armed militia to protect against potential tyranny. Within that understanding it's clear the continual push to make weapons illegal is tyrannical oppression.

It's not just a tyrannical Government we need to protect from, any hypothetical invasion from foreign to alien, needs a well armed public.

But you're right the margin between is drastic. So drastic it's ridiculous. 12 gauge shot gun versus a tank
edit on 12-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Lol BF2? Really?

But now on to the good part.
Finally people are catching on. In the us there is a toygun culture more than anything. Do not look to the goverment to lead the drive in getting concevievable crime weapons like pistols out of the hands of the public and anti material rifles, rifles and AT weapons in the hands of well organised militias.

The gun culture needs to change, it shouldnt be about my guns, but the neighbourhoods guns in an organised militia with a well balanced arsenal. And dont forget actual training. If you dont want to sign up, you should consider living with 2 rifles instead of 30 and spending the money in getting training instead.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
So the government has tanks. you to can buy a tank.
armyjeeps.net...


Even in the UK you can still buy a used tank.
www.tanksforsale.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I am sick and tired of reading your prejudice posts all the time. George Washington was not a terrorist. He was a freedom fighter. And don't for a second tell me they are the same.

If you can find instances in history where the minute-men or other revolutionary group were sawing off British soldiers' heads or sending a horse-drawn carriage full of women and children into battle as a distraction or means of discouraging the enemy, then I might believe you.

It's not the same. Now go sulk somewhere else.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I have always wanted to mount a minigun 134 type on a classic VW bug.I don't want an M1 tank though,insurance for liability would be too high.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Interesting point of view, Professional. S&F!

It was enjoyable to read a different perspective on an old subject. As a former flight nurse/paramedic, I have flown in a variety of helicopters, however, I think it would be awesome to fly to work in an Apache or Cobra! Helicopter gunships will always have a special place in my heart.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I completely agree. The whole point of the 2A is to allow the us citizens to possess weapons equal to what the govt has in the event they have to defend themselves from a corrupt tyrannical govt.

We should be allowed to have falme throwers, tanks, F22 Raptors, Apaches etc.... We should be allowed fully auto weapons, M60s the works. Love how the govt tries to twist the constitution to their own benefit instead of the the benefit of the people.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Did the OP reference a video game in defense of some bizarre ideal that the public should have acess to military weapons. There were war ships and cannons during GW's time and if they would have mentioned it if they wanted the public to have acess to them. I believe in a national guard with the proper training to handle those things but giving everyone carte blanche access is insane.

Can you imagine master p having acess to a real tank? The white house would be a smoking crater.

edit on 13-8-2012 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Just had a thought and had to log in for this thread...

All revolutions just start. Full out shooting, killing, etc... This makes it easy for the government to clamp down and claim National Defence or terrorist or whatever words they use to manipulate and deceive the people.

If the pen is mightier than the sword then what if you combine the two?

The constitution is a legal document so it seems to me that a legal document to defend it should be created and upheld as well. The writing of such a document and the notarization of it by a lawyer and then filing it against the government, sending a copy to every single government on the planet possibly filing it with them and their legal systems along with the United Nations, assures that you have a legal right to revolt and that it is not terrorism and that it is in fact a permissible action.

This leaves the government to deny your legal challenge for revolution in the courts and on the battlefield. They would have to prove that they are upholding YOUR rights under the constitution and that the revolution is illegal while they are fighting you. That would be impossible for them to do.

The key would be coordinating the legal delivery with the actual armed revolution.

Just a thought. I'm not an American so hopefully the US Government doesn't disappear me for getting an idea from your thread.

edit on 13-8-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


The 2nd amendment guarantees a person the right to keep and bear arms. What it does not do is list what a weapon / arm is nor does it specifically state / list military grade items.

Travel within states and across state lines is constitutionally protected. However the method of travel is not so if you dont like the TSA then dont fly.. Drive.

The gun control act of 1968 along with a few Supreme Court decisions starting in the 1930's has established the box when it comes to what types of weapons the public can or cannot own.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I agree.

George Washington, fought for his freedoms, and the freedoms for people to label him a "terrorist", here in the United States. I wonder what the repercussion is, for calling Ali Khamenei a terrorist ? Im sure a virtual bullet, and top score, is not an option, to voicing your Opinion, in certain Countries.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The 2nd amendment guarantees a person the right to keep and bear arms.


Why did they include that amendment to the constitution? Why was that right specified one its own?

The answer is simple; it is so the people have the tools to resist and overthrow a tyrannical and oppressive government. To restrict and limit that right in a manner that prohibits its use is not in accordance with its purpose. To allow restrictions or prohibitions that give the government the advantage, is to essentially not even have a 2nd Amendment.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Star for you sir!

Now where can I get my Apache attack helo.

If or when our gov turns on us they do have better toys and training. Scary.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join