Where does the right to bear arms start and finish?, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 11:39 PM by CosmicCitizen

reply to post by denver22

Altho the feudal barons who presented The Magna Carta to the King of England already had "the right to bear arms and the power to meet justice" we do not have a monarchy/feudal system....if so, we could knight ourselves and gain that right. But in our system we believe that all (not originally slaves however and felons are also excluded) shall have the right to bear arms....but alas those who are charged with meeting out justice dont all agree. It is interesting to note what came to be known as "Clause 61" of The Magna Carta tho....where the King was subject to overthrow if he violated terms of The Magna Carta, the precursor document to our sacred documents.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 12:01 AM by Cosmic911

I'm a patriot. I'm a veteran. I believe in the 2nd amendment; the right to keep and bear arms. I believe the founding fathers were well aware of the tyranny that greed and ambition breed. They knew then politicians would not and could not be trusted. I believe that common sense should prevail in gun legislation debates. I believe in Reasonable and Effective firearm legislation. Emotions should be left out of this debate. Yep, I own several handguns, a rifle, and an AR-15. I think that's enough to ensure the public and private safety of myself, my family, and my friends. Do I like owning one AR-15, yes. Do I need to own fifteen AR-15s, no. I think our government should fear its public. I don't trust our elected (well, not my elected officials), leaders. Our government is just a collective quarum of well-dressed thieves and liars. They should fear us. They can't be trusted.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 12:24 AM by CosmicCitizen

reply to post by Cosmic911

To your last point it was quite unbelievable that Congress had exempted themselves from the Insider Trading Laws (at least until the 60 Minutes piece came out)....and over in the European Union; those (unelected) officials voted themselves except from taxation. Incroiable, n'est pas?

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 12:53 AM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by Maxatoria

YOu will get all manner of answers. I will read them once I reply

My take:

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

Now, to preface my thoughts on the above quote, keep in mind that the intent of the Bill of Rights was not to limit The People, but rather to limit government. It is expressly stated that unless the authority is granted to the government to restrict a right, the government has no authority to restrict a right.

With that understanding, the wording leaves little room for discussion. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

If the government doesn't want us to have nukes, then they should not create them. Once they are invented, once they exist, they should exist for all. Yea, that sucks. But really think about it: nukes are not as hard as we are led to believe to get ahold of. Where are all those missing Russian nukes?

With this in mind, notice how few nuclear bombs are set off in cities across the world?

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 12:56 AM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by Lonewulph

protection would include protecting your family and nation from tyranny.

therefore, whatever the tyrant can bring to bear against you, you are (supposed to be) able to to bear against them. This is the whole concept behind the term "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.

This concept is solidly established via various SCOTUS rulings, etc. I am unsure why, given all the understandings provided by various officials, the term "gun control" is even a discussion.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 01:03 AM by sconner755

Often a logical conclusion can be drawn be looking at the scenario from the opposite point of view.

The 2nd Amendment did NOT say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just so long as the government has more powerful arms. The people shall be controlled in such a way to ensure the arms of the government are always more powerful than the arms of the people."

That's because the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the government could never strip military power from the people by decree or law.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 01:06 AM by Cosmic911

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Are we really surprised by what our politicians do anymore? I think no. The problem is we have become desensitized with each blunder. The predictable eventuality is we don't care, and they depend on that to keep their jobs.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 01:19 AM by rockoperawriter

as long as man has harnessed fire and steel he has waged war, fended off the wolves, and thanked the forest for his bounty. the use of the gun dies with the wielder in this nation.

YouTube Link

The children of Doom...Doom's children. They told my lord the way to the mountain of power..they told him to throw down his m-14 and return to the earth. Hah! Time enough for the earth in the grave

edit on 28-12-2012 by rockoperawriter because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 02:34 AM by bloodreviara

The right to bear arms ends at what is necessary to protect oneself,
i cannot see the validity of a private citizen owning chem weps or nukes,
the reason for that is those are weapons of mass destruction and
have absolutely no practical use other than that, guns on the other
hand give you self sustainability in case the government collapses or
a major natural disaster occurs and you need to hunt for your own
food and protect yourself.

lets face it, relying on ones governing body to do everything is simply
irresponsible, there is no guarantee that says a government cannot
simply collapse overnight, be taken over by a dictator, or many such
things that have much historical merit and relevance, to entrust your
personal safety to anyone but yourself is simply wishful thinking.

Self sustainability is every single human beings right, not only a right
but their own responsibility.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 03:04 AM by rockoperawriter

reply to post by bloodreviara

and a logical, practical ability

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 07:12 AM by vor78

I think its reasonable to assume that the 2nd amendment applies to the weapon classes available to civilians in 1776, plus their technological descendants. This would include virtually everything available to the American public today.

That's the most restrictive interpretation I can make of the 2nd amendment. The authors of the Bill of Rights weren't fools. They may not have been able to foresee fully automatic weapons, for instance, but clearly, they were smart enough to realize that technology would eventually render the musket as obsolete as a military and defensive arm just as it had the bow and arrow a couple hundred years earlier. They wouldn't have intended to limit the American people of their future to defending themselves and their country with obsolete technology.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 07:15 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Maxatoria

Traditionally "arms" meant weapons that could be hand (arm) borne by a soldier. Initially clubs and other melee weapons, then knives and swords along with spears and arrows then with the advent of gunpowder, firearms (as was the case in the time of The Revolutionary War). They had naval war vessels as well as cannon but the Second Amendment maintained a reference that was applicable to the militia (civilian infantry) not a naval or even artillery force. Tanks and fighter jets were a long way off but dont meet the standard of being carried in ones arms. One could however, justify automatic weapons and even some anti-tank weapons but that is subject to debate. Regular small arms as we know the term today; however, should be covered based on the original intent of our founders.

The term "bear arms" is another way of saying "make war". That was the original intent. The ability of the people to make war and keep weapons of war.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 07:24 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by vor78
I think its reasonable to assume that the 2nd amendment applies to the weapon classes available to civilians in 1776, plus their technological descendants. This would include virtually everything available to the American public today.

That's the most restrictive interpretation I can make of the 2nd amendment. The authors of the Bill of Rights weren't fools. They may not have been able to foresee fully automatic weapons, for instance, but clearly, they were smart enough to realize that technology would eventually render the musket as obsolete as a military and defensive arm just as it had the bow and arrow a couple hundred years earlier. They wouldn't have intended to limit the American people of their future to defending themselves and their country with obsolete technology.

The idea that the people have the right to keep and bear presupposes...like you said... that this be in a fasion of the times current....whenever they may find themselves having to exercise the right.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 07:30 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Lonewulph

protection would include protecting your family and nation from tyranny.

therefore, whatever the tyrant can bring to bear against you, you are (supposed to be) able to to bear against them. This is the whole concept behind the term "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.

This concept is solidly established via various SCOTUS rulings, etc. I am unsure why, given all the understandings provided by various officials, the term "gun control" is even a discussion.

And you can be sure sir that if the day ever comes when the people need to bear arms that the SCOTUS will have become a collection of talking heads more keen as a tool of governmental power than a protector of the peoples rights.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 07:35 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Cosmic911

To your last point it was quite unbelievable that Congress had exempted themselves from the Insider Trading Laws (at least until the 60 Minutes piece came out)....and over in the European Union; those (unelected) officials voted themselves except from taxation. Incroiable, n'est pas?

This is a refelction of them wanting to be like their masters.....the banks....which are not taxed as well. Durring the Panic of 1813 several states wanted to tax banks but the SCOTUS voted on the side of the banks and gave them a tax free status.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 08:28 AM by conspiracytheoristIAM

The right to bear arms started here in America, when a rag-tag group of revolutionaries beat down one of the greatest empires the world has seen. The founding fathers gave , we the people, the right to possess and use the very same instruments of war and defense as they possessed.
Now our American government spends more money on defense than any other nation; has in place NDAA and The Patriot Act and is seeking to further limit our 2nd Amendment rights. How can we not have the right to possess only a small percentage of the weapons our government has ?? If we are not heading towards tyranny, than where are we headed??

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 08:44 AM by madenusa

The only way to stop the flow of Guns is to stop the demand, and that is a personal choice.

Let's recognize Owning a Gun for what it is - a personal choice and not a crime.
They can make all the Gun Bans they want but The demand for Guns will never cease.
The criminal underworld operates very much on the basis of free enterprise.
This regulatory burden is indeed a penalty of sorts for being a law-abiding citizen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 08:51 AM by Another_Nut

To me it's pretty easy.

It starts with rocks

And ends with nukes

Anything in between is fair game

Tanks,planes,rockets,guns,grenades all fall into this.

the purpose is to instill fear in our federal government.

Fear of the people.

The government doesn't fear single shot rifles or shotguns.

it only understands power.

Once the people sell that power to the tyrants

It has to be bought back with the blood of patriots .

Or we all live in slavery

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 08:51 AM by angrysniper

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
The right to bear arms started here in America, when a rag-tag group of revolutionaries beat down one of the greatest empires the world has seen. The founding fathers gave , we the people, the right to possess and use the very same instruments of war and defense as they possessed.
Now our American government spends more money on defense than any other nation; has in place NDAA and The Patriot Act and is seeking to further limit our 2nd Amendment rights. How can we not have the right to possess only a small percentage of the weapons our government has ?? If we are not heading towards tyranny, than where are we headed??

No, they did not GIVE us rights. I am really sick and tired of reading this on this forum and from people of all walks of life that do not understand that no one GIVES us rights. They created a government which has a duty to PROTECT those rights.

edit on 28-12-2012 by angrysniper because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-12-2012 @ 10:48 PM by conspiracytheoristIAM

Originally posted by angrysniper

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
The right to bear arms started here in America, when a rag-tag group of revolutionaries beat down one of the greatest empires the world has seen. The founding fathers gave , we the people, the right to possess and use the very same instruments of war and defense as they possessed.
Now our American government spends more money on defense than any other nation; has in place NDAA and The Patriot Act and is seeking to further limit our 2nd Amendment rights. How can we not have the right to possess only a small percentage of the weapons our government has ?? If we are not heading towards tyranny, than where are we headed??

No, they did not GIVE us rights. I am really sick and tired of reading this on this forum and from people of all walks of life that do not understand that no one GIVES us rights. They created a government which has a duty to PROTECT those rights.
edit on 28-12-2012 by angrysniper because: (no reason given)