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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Everyone Is Worried About the 2nd; What About the 5th?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:39 PM
What about the 13th? There are teenagers who are joining the military because they feel that
they have no purpose now.

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by Kali74

Well stated.

The Constitution and Amendments were put in place to protect us from a tyrannical government.

Sadly, we see the selfsame government shredding these documents (or just using white-out) to change them.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 10:15 PM
The second amendment has been dead for a very, very long time. A right is something you can do and not ask permission for. You do not have a right to drive a car. You have to ask permission in the form of getting a license. The same is in effect for guns. You go to buy one and you have to fill out a 4473 and ask permission to get one.

They are fixing to make it mandatory that you ask permission every single time you buy a gun no matter where you get it. That is defacto removal of the last vestiges of the 2nd amendment.

Remember, asking permission (getting a permit, filling out a form, etc) is for a privilege, not a right. You DO NOT have a right to own a gun in this country. You can get one, but only after asking Uncle Sam if it is ok. That is not a right. Not by the normal definition anyway.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:28 AM
The best way I have seen this put is in ACLU Briefing Paper 9 "A History of the Bill of Rights."

In recent years, the Supreme Court has shown less willingness to bolster individual rights and has even cut back the scope of several previous decisions. Fourth Amendment protections against government searches have been badly eroded, and civil rights laws have been newly interpreted to reduce their strength. Nevertheless, the Court retains the responsibility to ensure that individual rights are protected.

For 130 years after ratification, the most notable thing about the Bill of Rights was its almost total lack of implementation. For example, the right to a free press was frequently breached. In 1798, passage of the Alien and Sedition Act forbade, among other things, publication of any "false, scandalous or malicious writing." In 1859, booksellers in southern states faced arrest for selling Hinton Helper's banned Impending Crisis of the South. And in 1863, the mailing of four New York City newspapers was prohibited because of alleged sedition.

In the early years of the 20th century, civil liberties were in a sorry state. Racial segregation was legal and pervaded all aspects of American society, with lynchings and other racist violence against African Americans occurring frequently. Sex discrimination was firmly institutionalized, denying women the right to vote and prompting their arrest for discussing birth control in public. Employers fired workers for advocating labor unions. The police conducted warrantless searches of criminal suspects and their homes with impunity. The government routinely deported aliens because of their political views.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by streetfightingman

I understand and to a large degree, agree with your sentiment... however joining the military is a free choice in the literal sense. Lack of other choices, if you want to get philosophical about it could be a covert means of enslavement. However, you can choose your enlistment time, 2 years, 4 years, longer... The danger of backdoor drafts like we saw under GW Bush has pretty much passed as well, considering enlistment is up so high that there is now a waiting list for all military branches.

Thought provoking post, thank-you.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:23 AM
reply to post by Robonakka

Your post really gave me pause on my 2nd Amendment position. The argument you have used is one that I myself use regarding voter ID laws. You are correct, no way around it no matter how I try to resolve it in my mind. However, no matter how correct you are, I can't resign my position that some gun control is necessary. I recognize that this puts me in a hypocritical position... I'm not sure what to do about it.

Thanks for your post though I'm now very frustrated and arguing with myself.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by Gattacanian

Thanks for the info there. I wish the Right would stop demonizing the ACLU as they have been the staunchest defenders of the Constitution since their inception. It is true as many posters have pointed out, the entire Constitution is under attack.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by Robonakka

Your point is well taken (and the govt can start tightening the requirements to get "permission" also; ie, if you belong to a conspiracy site or have any family history of mental illness or served in a combat zone, etc) but absent some reasonable restrictions to protect society from the results if just anyone like Adam Lanza could walk into a gun store and purchase one without any background check. IF not then society (manipulated by the government influenced media) would clamor for a total repeal of the Second Amendment. That is the risk. We are a republic and hence some rights are considered inalienable but also a democracy and a majority could try to revamp those original rights.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by SpaDe_

we still have the power to fight it. Being passionate about only one is a distraction and flawed thinking, in my opinion.

We can all agree that there is an all out assault on the Constitution and the constitution as a whole should be protected.

This is a list of executive orders in force that outline Emergency Powers. Some of these were signed by prior US Presidents going back all the way to JFK. Obama specifically has signed executive orders starting with the number EO-13489 and forward. But these all reference powers Obama could use to limit your freedoms.

The major question is What can we actually do to reverse the damage that has already been done and prevent it from happening again.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by 1plusXisto7billion
Just out of curiosity, but could someone (whoever knows) post a list of all the laws the Obama admin have passed that are against the Consititution?

Off the top of my head, I know he did the indefinate detention and made protesting a felony if the secret service is present (now it looks like it will be the 2nd Amendment too). But when I'm talking to anyone about this, I wanna be able to actually mention the bills or laws that mention this.
edit on 21-12-2012 by 1plusXisto7billion because: (no reason given)

The first one that pops to my mind beyond the NDAA is HR347. This law says you can be arrested for protesting on Gov property if is has been labeled as "under construction" or a secure area. You can also be arrested for protesting under this law if someone is nearby what is under Secret Service protection. Of course you have no way of knowing any of these things beforehand. It is a trick they can use any time they wish to have vocal protestors arrested and removed. This violates our first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble.
edit on 12/22/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

The major question is What can we actually do to reverse the damage that has already been done and prevent it from happening again.

The foremost thing we can do to reverse the damage and to further prevent is to become more educated on law and politics. We have to be rational about it, not zealots and we need to be specific. The success of the lawsuit against Obama is due to being able to present a specific scenario ie, journalists in pursuit of a story coming into contact with terrorists, being disappeared by our military and a direct question to the Administrations lawyers as to whether it could or has happened... the defense lawyers could not answer.

The journalists involved didn't get into the fringe of cabals and puppets etc. They saw a clear attack on Americans and laser focused on exactly what the attack was.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Gattacanian

Thanks for the info there. I wish the Right would stop demonizing the ACLU as they have been the staunchest defenders of the Constitution since their inception. It is true as many posters have pointed out, the entire Constitution is under attack.

They have been the staunchest defenders of the Constitution, with the exception of the second amendment and religous freedom.

Unfortunately, we have never been able to reverse the ACLU's national position on the Second Amendment as a non-individual right.

“The Constitution should be the only permission slip students need to exercise their freedom of religion,” said ADF legal counsel Matt Sharp. “The ACLU’s ‘Religious Freedom Goes to School’ campaign paints a restrictive picture of the freedoms for students, teachers and school administrators that the First Amendment protects. School districts in South Carolina should be wary of taking advice about religious freedom from an organization that frequently seeks to give that freedom a backseat to their own social and political agenda.”

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:55 AM
Somebody should tell the Afghans that their old weapons aren't any use against the technologically advanced Russians. And arguably the US gov. Not being a smarty, just tired of hearing this argument. Most of our military would jump behind the citizens in such a time. The ones who didn't, would be brought in line pretty quickly after that. Most of those guys take their Oath and Sacred Honor very seriously. No, domestic enemies fear an open fight. They know their own ass is what would be torn to shreds.

Also, to be clear, those same guys believe in the ENTIRE Constitution, not just the 2nd.
edit on 22-12-2012 by rbnhd76 because: added a link

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by rbnhd76

If there was any intention of 'winning' a war it would have been over in less than a year. Gotta keep those defense contractors rolling in the dough... 11 years later.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:16 PM
I almost thought 2nd and 5th world war...

There was a comment by one Soviet former politician, he said that he did not exactely know which arms and weaponry was to be used in eventual WW3, but that he believed WW4 would have been made with arc and arrow... JOKE, ANEGDOTE, REAL...
Surely that amandements are made in order to dissalllow tyrany, your ancestors that made revolution and independence war, they were far in front of that time... What happened later
, I am not informed about...
Another JOKE. But, surely I am against any kind of tyrany.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:11 PM
People don't complain about infringement on the 2nd amendment because it will stop governmental tyranny. They whine on that because their is a huge lobby for it and they know it won't EVER be erased. If they truly were worried about tyranny they would have marched LONG ago. But they are the lowest kind of cowards, I ADMIT I AM A COWARD, I will do nothing to stop all this, they won't admit that, well, as long as there is an internet that let's them be anonymous to be all big and bad, then they will
edit on 22-12-2012 by mymymy because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:59 AM
Absolutely agree, OP. To say nothing of the fourth, as well, which in my opinion is presently and routinely being circumvented with the use of private businesses and contractors who, while not technically, legally "the government" or "the congress," clearly act at the behest of federal agencies in these contexts (air travel security, data mining, etc.)

edit on 12/23/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typo

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 12:20 PM
The argument that our government would wipe us out easily with or without guns is straight up BULL. I don't care how many drones and nukes our government has. Look at the Taliban. They are way more primitive than a nationwide US militia would be and we cannot get rid of them after 10+ years. The government would not nuke it's own country even if it were against us because they'd be destroying themselves in the process. Don't let these disinformation agents lead you into believing that your guns and the 2A will not protect you because it's bull. The US military cannot even beat the Taliban, let alone the entire US populace.

Wake up. Use common sense.
edit on 23-12-2012 by DriCo04 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in