It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Logarock
Any talk about tanks ect really does not confront questions about bearing personal tactical arms. At any rate the 2nd means I dont have to use a ball bat even if the effect on said tank would be about the same.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by intrepid
NDAA certainly gives pause to what government can or cannot do. As does DHS, et al
This is an element of freedom that we are talking about eliminating. It should not be taken lightly nor be done based on the emotional tidal wave after a horrible school shooting.
Originally posted by Logarock
The amendment that came later were like saying "and this as well". The consitution is not something where the rights start falling off as time passes but where new ones were added as we awakened further.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by Logarock
This is not quite true. There were loads of WWI and WWII combat weapons in the closets of the american public in the 40s and 50s. Bolt actions and semi automatic weapons, rifles, american, british, german ect brought home from the war.
Not sold for mass consumption.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by Logarock
The amendment that came later were like saying "and this as well". The consitution is not something where the rights start falling off as time passes but where new ones were added as we awakened further.
It isn't? I think Blacks would disagree with you. As would women. Gays? Probably. That is the exact reason for amendments. The world changes and the country has to change as well.
Originally posted by Logarock
On top of that, whatever we say and do here, the 2nd amendment is law and if its to be changed the constitution has to be tampered with.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
I'm just trying to imagine the world if you got your way.
First off, criminals would still have firearms and be conducting crimes with near impunity.
Gun free zones are also free-fire zones across America.
Normally innocent people are now prisoners and soley dependent on the state for protection.
The government gets to decide what size, caliber, max load of firearm they deem you to have.
Sales in crossbows increase until government steps in to deny those as well.
Crime increases.
Homicides increase.
School shootings increase.
Home invasions increase.
Of course, just mere speculation on my part. But it is a right that should be kept. Not limited, denied to Americans.
Originally posted by intrepid
Or the emotion of an amendment who's time has passed?
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by Logarock
Any talk about tanks ect really does not confront questions about bearing personal tactical arms. At any rate the 2nd means I dont have to use a ball bat even if the effect on said tank would be about the same.
Really? Where does it say that in the 2nd amendment? Or, is that just your interpretation of what it says?
Originally posted by beezzer
Freedoms are never passe'. They should never be considered as something that can be eliminated over time.
Originally posted by Logarock
Well no, sugar, its says that right here...."....bear arms" (not ball bats). You should school up on this before you go on. We are talking law here not opinion.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by Logarock
On top of that, whatever we say and do here, the 2nd amendment is law and if its to be changed the constitution has to be tampered with.
Ok, would you consider the 13th Amendment to be tampering with the Constitution?
Originally posted by Logarock
Hay look dude, I have the right to expect a Mod not to play these rabbit hole games. You know what I am talking about. Dont even try it.
We are not talking about adding something here we are takling about taking an amendement out, the 2nd. As far as the 13th no its wasnt tampering with already established rights it was an addition to the already standing rights.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by Logarock
Well no, sugar, its says that right here...."....bear arms" (not ball bats). You should school up on this before you go on. We are talking law here not opinion.
OK, "sugar". When are you getting your shipment of nuclear "arms"?
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by Logarock
Hay look dude, I have the right to expect a Mod not to play these rabbit hole games. You know what I am talking about. Dont even try it.
I'm a member first and a staffer second. If that is your only argument, give it up. I WILL try whatever I feel like, inside of the T&C of course.
We are not talking about adding something here we are takling about taking an amendement out, the 2nd. As far as the 13th no its wasnt tampering with already established rights it was an addition to the already standing rights.
Really? I wonder if the law abiding, tax paying slave owners saw it the same way.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by beezzer
Freedoms are never passe'. They should never be considered as something that can be eliminated over time.
That's the thing Beez. You might see it as a "freedom" but most of the 1st world nations see it as a shackle. Many Americans too. You're drowning in the gun culture. It's not saving you from anything. It just propagates further violence and death. Don't believe me, just look at the news man.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by Logarock
Any talk about tanks ect really does not confront questions about bearing personal tactical arms. At any rate the 2nd means I dont have to use a ball bat even if the effect on said tank would be about the same.
Really? Where does it say that in the 2nd amendment? Or, is that just your interpretation of what it says?
Well no, sugar, its says that right here...."....bear arms" (not ball bats). You should school up on this before you go on. We are talking law here not opinion.