It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Constitution Reality Check>Second Amendment did not forsee current government technology vs. a

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:59 AM
I think this is a good time for an ATS reality check.
Do you remember "Bert" and his massive gun/munitions collection in the movie Tremors?

Should the US citizens ever even try to exercise 2nd. amendment for whatever reason, It would not matter, if you owned one of every assault weapon ever invented. You would be hunted down with drones, spy satellites, stealth fighters and the net of cameras blanketing our country. Once located you can be terminated remotely with the drone that found you, any fighter jet or helicopter, could flatten your entire neighbourhood from just over the hill. If you where lucky enough to deal with an "on the ground only" situation, armoured vehicles of all sorts, filled with troops in full body/combat armour sporting LAW rockets, RPG's, and full auto AK's, would dispense of you and your arsenal without incident.

I'm sorry, but this is the reality of the current state of the second amendment.
Supposedly, this document called the constitution is still relevant.
This being the case, the government should not legally own any weapon or weapon system that civilians can't have. Now personally, I don't want my drunk arse neighbour blowing up stuff with H bombs, so in practice, I'm ok with this imbalance of power.

If one is to interpret the meaning of the second amendment, should the government have any say at all when it comes to who owns what kind of weapon, and how many? By the current US constitution, I say none what so ever. You can imagine the problems zero arms control might cause, so you have to face the painful truth.

The second amendment does not work today's world. We the people as a whole, seem to be too stupid to see the effects of a truly obsolete and broken constitution. You can chuck it out the window as far as I'm concerned, draft up a new one, and break the rules again.

The reality is that those that don't think they are sheeple, actually are. Why change it now? It is as meaningless now as it will ever be.

Carry on

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:17 AM
Surely, the government is not afraid of any private weapons civilians can acquire at this stage in the game.
I'm thinking a wrist rocket, bb gun, and spear, vs patriot missile.
Second Amendment was toast long long ago, and is now irrelevant.
Reality is that a real sportsman would hunt with a spear, not an AK, however 2nd Amendment says he should be able to own and shoot said AK for self protection from the gubment.

Gun control is also irrelevant. It won't work, and it won't make enough difference.

We are so used to militarized police that, that we don't realize the level of Martial Law that is being exerted on us now.

You don't just opt out of being a sheep.
You give up your fur with every purchase, or become the next meal.

Reality.,.she's a b****

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:19 AM
I'm sure the founding fathers understood technology would advance, they seemed to be pretty astute.

You forget that active military are still citizens, they make up less than 1% of the population, we have roughly 20 million vets and 200 million firearms... Do the math.
edit on 16-12-2012 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:25 PM

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
I'm sure the founding fathers understood technology would advance, they seemed to be pretty astute.

You forget that active military are still citizens, they make up less than 1% of the population, we have roughly 20 million vets and 200 million firearms... Do the math.
edit on 16-12-2012 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)

I'm sure they had no clue how far technology would take us. I doubt many of them could even imagine what one man in a modern fighter jet or helicopter could do, let alone one man and a drone. I'm pretty sure the foot soldier of today would blow them away (mentally).

I am saying that our entire, non police, non military population could not enforce the nasty side of the second am. even if the government armed us all with full auto ak's. It would not be a fair fight, because you don't have access to the tech. I'm not to bothered about this, I'm just sayin'
Been this way for a long time.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by assspeaker

Supposedly, this document called the constitution is still relevant.

Amazing isn't it?

Yes, there are amendments made to keep it all "updated". Yes, they are made by officials who are elected by the people, so yes, on paper, it seems all Democratic, fair, and educated. But..............this is all based on the premise that our elected officials are Democratic, fair and educated. And they're not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. If they were, the constitution would, as you pointed out, be more in tune with current technologies and their capabilities.

Here's a thought. The U.S. patent office is a Federal institution. Instead of applying for and making advancements in weapons technologies ( which you KNOW people hold patents on) and THEN making constitutional amendments that try to apply to them, make the amendment based on the PENDING patent. The way it stands now is that the patent is applied for, granted, made, mass produced, implemented in real time and THEN amendments are made to try to control them all. While it's true that most patents are made to protect an idea, that there never is intent on actually making some of those things, amendments should still be made in the chance that the patents are utilized. It's called being realistically proactive. A term that is obviously lost on today's politicians

(And this is from 10 years ago)

The amendments we have are drafted by people who haven't a clue about how it all works, (nor should they be expected to because they're politicians by trade), that try to regulate something after the fact all the while trying to keep the amendments relevant to a piece of paper written in 1776.

Ever see a three legged dog chase it's own tail? Same thing. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

I know I might sound like a broken record on this one, but if both sides of the political fence can't come to agreements on how to keep this business called America relevant on a global scale, safe and in the black, why should I take them seriously? Politics doesn't make the world go 'round, money does and we're a part of the world. Why do you think politicians are in the business they are? Because they like politics and they care? Spare me the fairy tales, I'm a grown man. They're in it for the money, status, benefits and part of their kickbacks come from the Defense Department by letting them patent whatever the hell they want regardless of legislation and what the rest of world thinks.

You know OP, you brought up a valid point that really should be seriously discussed by the movers and shakers of this country. But it's probably not going to be because quite frankly, they don't have a good track record of getting things done. So.........speaking of being proactive I'm probably going to be censoring myself from topics of this nature. It's all for the common good really to focus on change that's realistic.

Here you go Washington DC....... not to be too critical, but until you grow a pair and stop letting the military treat you like a red headed stepchild, here's your theme song:

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by DeepImpactX

Thanks for the deep thought in your reply Mr. Impact!
You speak of one place that could hamper an invention because it is not constitutional. The US Pat. off.
You also speak of patenting an idea, such is the case with the most dangerous emerging technology designed.....Artificial Intellegence (AI for now).

My concern, becomes reality the day a DARPA Robot shows up in a US hood to enforce gun control. It knows where your guns are because it's sensors see through your house. You try to deny this judge and jury to something it knows is there. It has martial law written all over it.

Deepak was on CNN this morning, and reminded us that the second amendment was written around the technology of the musket, not the AK.

Removing assault or semi automatic weapons from americans requires a constitutional ammendment. Without going one word forward, it does not matter at this point.
Your AK is nothing more than a musket sized pea shooter compaired to your governments toys. When it comes to the state of the constitution, the second ammendment was toast long ago.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:36 AM
Weaponry comes in all classes and sizes with a huge range of uses and destructive power.

Does bearing arms include weapons of mass destruction?

Does it include bio-weapons or particle beam weapons?

I look at owning fire arms from the hunting and personal self defense point of view.

Like the saying goes, "You can't fight city hall", so how can any common citizen believe they could fight our military or militarized police force?

Regardless if you can't own or afford the same toys as the government, if you're forming a rebellion, there is always a rich and powerful friend out there who will help you even the playing field a little. Where do all the other poor and uneducated rebels around the world get their toys? They aren't manufacturing anything more than IEDs themselves so they get help from somebody.
edit on 17-12-2012 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Typo

I thought I'd add that the best weapon against government tyranny is your mind. Having your mind armed is the best defense against anything they throw at you.
edit on 17-12-2012 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added the last two lines

top topics


log in