The Second Amendment is a Relic - Its Purpose is Long Past., page 6


Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times


reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 08:42 AM by hawkiye
Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Being a non-American my view on this issue is moot. I am neither pro or anti gun. I do think that it is not logistically feasible to disarm the American public, there are so many guns in the US a person is probably safer owning and carrying one. If you take away the LAC's guns then armed criminals will have a spree, that's my view.

However another poster has brought up a point that has been on my mind of late. If it is the 'duty' of US citizens to 'dismember and overthrow' their government when it becomes tyrannical, and this seems to be the original purpose of the 2nd amendment, and clearly the US government could be classed as tyrannical, when are the citizens of the USA going to exercise their 'duty'?(I know it's a simplistic view on the matter but someone please address this question).

It's fairly safe to say that if the general populace had guns in my country there would be a smaller population, by about half, in a matter of weeks.



Because as so eloquently illustrated in the Declaration of Independence human nature is that people tend to tolerate abuse as long as it is tolerable. Despite all the problems and abuse for most people things still seem relatively normal with just a few extra bumps in the road. The American people are divided and most are still to comfortable despite the abuse to rise up and TPTB also know this which is why they implement tyranny in increments and often by crisis like this latest shooting. When enough people have had enough they will make a stand. They are pushing the edge of tolerance with this gun grab but you never know what will trigger the masses to say enough is enough.


reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 09:33 AM by NavyDoc
reply to post by elysiumfire



And here is where the "but things are different now" crowd miss the point. Things are not different. Human nature has not changed in spite of our "enlightened" times. We still have evil people: rapists, criminals, dictators, the power hungry and the brutal predators. Nothing has changed since 1791.


reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 10:15 AM by NavyDoc
Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to
post by zedVSzardoz



I can see where you're coming from, but the implications of the words that I replied to are still valid and relevant to the OP.

Like the poster I replied to, slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bill of Rights but has since been recognised as unacceptable in a modern setting. The implications to gun control can be seen to be the same.

How many massacres were committed by a single shooter when the Constitution was drawn up? If these massacres were common then, the law may have been written differently.

All legal systems evolve with time, why should gun laws be exempt?
edit on 20/12/1212 by Krusty the Klown because: Kan't do grammar


Fristly, we had to amend our Constitution to do away with slavery.

Secondly, removal of slavery was a movement towards civil liberty, removing the right to self defense would be a movement away from civil liberties.


reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 11:09 AM by Julie Washington
reply to post by FissionSurplus


Thanks Fission.

I anticipated the heated discussion this article would provoke. I also understand how passionate many are about the 2nd amendment.

Please know that I do not favor disarming Americans and never said that.

I do however, fully support some sort of "automatic" style, military style weapon "gun control".


reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 11:57 AM by MikeNice81
Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to
post by FissionSurplus


Thanks Fission.

I anticipated the heated discussion this article would provoke. I also understand how passionate many are about the 2nd amendment.

Please know that I do not favor disarming Americans and never said that.

I do however, fully support some sort of "automatic" style, military style weapon "gun control".




Automatic weapons are already highly regulated. You can not transfer or purchase one manufactured after 1986. Some states ban their purchase out right. At the very least you have to go through a long series of paper work and back ground investigations by the ATF. Then you have to ask permission from the local head of the police. Then he can deny you just because he wants to.


reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 12:04 PM by elysiumfire
zedVSzardoz:
The fourteenth amendment clears that up for you. It was made in part to clarify that if blacks were freed from slavery then the state can not infringe on their personal right to bear arms like any citizen.


No. You are quite in error. It seems to me you are confusing personal opinion (and I don't just mean your own interpretive opinion) as if they pertain to sanctioned rights of the constitution...they do not!

The 14th amendment relates to negating the Black Codes of the South, conferring equal citizenship to the black man as all it conferred on the White man. This automatically conferred the same rights stipulated in the 2nd amendment for bearing arms. It did not confer a right for the black man to be armed individually, but that he had the same rights as the white man to bear arms as part of a militia.

hawkiye:
First you need to look up the definition and purpose of a comma and second the personal writings of the founders are absolutely relevant for they give us the meaning of and intent of the text they wrote into the constitution.


Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. You really must stop believing that the personal thought, thinking, opinion, carry the same weight of conferance of 'right' as that which has been passed by congress, or ratified by the states. It does not matter what a founding father or any writer of the constitution states in a personal diary or biography in clarification of what he meant or hoped for...his personal thoughts were not passed as law or right. They are irrelevant! I believe there are enough 'commas' in this paragraph to show you that I am quite aware of what a comma is for, and how to use it!


reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 12:35 PM by JohnPhoenix
Originally posted by Julie Washington

"There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown."

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.


Source

This is an excellent article the explains the reasons the 2nd amendment was created, and how it's been used in the SCOTUS.


The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government


Now is the time to establish new gun control laws and perhaps an all out ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons.


What? No blame for the school who failed at security and allowed this kid through with a AR-15 assault rifle? It has to be THE GUNS fault? Not the person in charge of that checkpoint? How blind can you be?

Lets say these guns were banned.. well this kid had 3 guns on him.. only one of which was an assault rifle. The kid was mentally disturbed.. if he wanted to kill, he could have used any means at his disposal, a knife even. So you see, banning the guns themselves and not placing blame where it is due.. On the schools security, will do nothing to stop crimes like this.

Listen sister, I have a semi-auto 12 shot pistol for protection that saved my life. You would rather have me dead and not have my gun to protect me? You just killed me. What a horrible person you are !



reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 03:33 PM by rockoperawriter
Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to
post by FissionSurplus


Thanks Fission.


I do however, fully support some sort of "automatic" style, military style weapon "gun control".




yeah none of the kids were armed. do you want everybody to share their fate? no? then arm the schools! i don't want my children (when borned) to be unsafe where someone with a gun can just walk in, kill unarmed people, and get arrested later. if you take semi automatic weapons out of the equasion, the we as americans are inadequately defenseless against attackers with semiautomatic weapons or fully automatic weapons
edit on 20-12-2012 by rockoperawriter because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 04:20 PM by Logarock
reply to post by Julie Washington

And thats all it is....provocative.


Heres a read to help you understand a bit better.

Read

Stevens is full of bull. Now dont make me break out the Federalist Papers on that posterior.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Logarock because: n



reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 05:50 PM by votan
Originally posted by Julie Washington

"There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown."

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.


Source

This is an excellent article the explains the reasons the 2nd amendment was created, and how it's been used in the SCOTUS.


The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government


Now is the time to establish new gun control laws and perhaps an all out ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons.


The concept of gun bans is a thing of the past too. We have seen past tyrants use it. So it is a moot point. YOu can argue it the other way around
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags
Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags
" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags
Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags
Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags