Hello, I am against fire arms.

reply to post by j230ns


" and since when is a full auto not any good for dealing with a tyrannical government? "

no its great for that reason, lol, im not against arms at all just some of the crazier stuff out there, our fore fathers didnt give us these rights for no reason, they knew the scum bags would be back, and they are. and we may very well need uzi's for that reason, but for hunting or open carry in middle of a city, no i dont think they should be allowed heh.

reply to post by AdamLaw

I have walked into city Low Income Skyscrapers where there is what can only be called...an American Warlord which controls every aspect of what goes on in His Turf.

Now there are Good ones and Bad ones. The Good ones do make money via criminal means but they make sure that the people in their building which are so large they are a City to themselves. The Bad ones will use Fear and intimidation to garnish PROTECTION MONEY from people who live in these MEGA-COMPLEXES.

One of my JOBS is Helping Run several Family Companies and in this aspect I found myself at one on these Skyscrapers. The Buildings WARLORD had no idea that I was a Highly Trained "CIVILIAN" operative that was there because our Family Company had been brought in as a Consultant as to whether or not these buildings could be properly as well as Monetarily Viable to remodel.

I went in with a few former Team Mates who were also being paid as Consultants. The difference between doing this as apposed to doing something very similar 16 Hours Flight time or more...is that WE ARE DEALING WITH U.S. CITIZENS...and BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY...these U.S. Citizens both of the GOOD and BAD variety...are a HELL OF A LOT SMARTER that many of the Clowns I have had to deal with in other places of the World. But the Mission or JOB is the SAME...get the right Intel in order to be able to TALK TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE! It is when you are NOT TALKING TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE THAT PROBLEMS ARISE!

Also...the U.S. Citizens are usually BETTER ARMED as well as capable of HANDLING THEMSELVES! This makes things tough for me and my associates as we do not just OFF AMERICANS! But still...the game is the same! We go in at a time that is unexpected that being at 8 to 10 am. They are up all night as this is when they do Business and usually hit the rack at about 8 to 10 am...so this is when we come to see them as they are tired, wasted and they have their apts on PROTECTED FLOORS. They KNOW WE ARE COMING AS WE LET THEM KNOW but they are used to chasing away all forms of authority...even COP'S will not go in...but we will.

If anyone here has an argument over GUNS BEING THE PROBLEM AND THAT WE SHOULD MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL IN THE U.S...I can tell you RIGHT NOW...these Guy's have ILLEGAL NON-REGISTERED...BROUGHT IN FROM CHINA VERSIONS OF THE AK-47 AS well as MAC-10's, UZI's, Every Type of Handgun known to Man...and they are purchased Illegally or brought into the U.S. Illegally.

THE STUPIDITY OF ANY ATTEMPT TO ASSOCIATE CRIME WITH LEGAL WEAPONS IS SO DUMB AND ILL INFORMED THAT I WILL NOT EVEN BOTHER TO ARGUE THE POINT AS PEOPLE WITH THIS CONCEPT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE REALITY IS AS FAR A WEAPONS.

As in what we do in other Countries...RESPECT IS EVERYTHING TO THESE PEOPLE so in order for a deal to be made...you must allow them a certain amount of respect whether you like it or not...or a DEAL WILL NOT HAPPEN. And in these cases...we are talking about actually getting permission from a criminal element to have repairs done! The only other way to get this done is to SHOOT THEM! I prefer just cutting a DEAL!

Split Infinity

To answer your question...

"Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State? "

Yes, the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion should still have the freedom to bear arms.

Just a note this is coming from one who has never owned a fire arm, there is a security and safety that comes knowing the citizens would have a chance were there to be a type of ground combat war scenario, such may never happen but it's a security that can't exist without the right to bear arms.

Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year require a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?

In short, yes. In a longer answer, most assuredly yes. There is no "individualistic" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, especially in light of the version passed by the Senate, as seen here:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or an earlier version (actually the first to be sent to the floor):

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

James Madison, a staunch Federalist, wrote:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

A "well-regulated militia" would be kept at home only, within the borders of the U.S. It is what the National Guard was intended to be before it was put under the U.S. Army. The militia would be mostly governed at the state level, but armed at the federal level with federal funds. As to your assertion of "open vigilantism", that is not the intent of the 2nd Amendment, nor is it assumed.

Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?

See above.

Question 3: Should we conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks if the times we live in makes it militia relevant weaponry?

At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, the most powerful of weapons were cannons, and individuals could own cannons as personal property. Any force that went against an individual with muskets and cannons were met with muskets and cannons. It can be translated today to an individual met with M-16s and rocket launchers, should be met with M-16s and rocket launchers.

Alas, current federal laws prohibit certain weaponry from individual ownership. But are they necessary today? Is it necessary for me to own a rocket launcher? I don't personally believe so because, in the event that I need to defend myself against such a force that only something like a rocket launcher will help me, I'll just "acquire" them.

Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American citizens?

Simply put: they can't without repealing the 2nd Amendment. However, I would ask: how's that drug war going? Since drugs are illegal people can't buy or own drugs, right? Banning guns will make citizens powerless against force, both by criminals who will have guns and a government no longer afraid of the unarmed populace.

Welcome to ATS. Leave my guns alone. They may be used to save you someday.

/TOA

reply to post by AdamLaw


First of all, what do you mean by eternal and intangible? If you don't like a constitutional right, change the constitution. It's been done 27 times.

op, dude....what about all these wild hogs taking over in Texas...? we gotta shoot'em....they're good eating and fun to grab by the back legs, then you got em.....the 300 pound ones....44 mag with 305 grain hammerheads....go all the way through,taking out both shoulders

and our fathers said...we will have to keep the republic....every twenty years