Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The 2nd Amendment is a JOKE - The hypocrisy of gun owners!

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bghanson
 


Final continue 7

Arms
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
This off-site essay offers a differing and reasonable view that arms in the late 18th Century did mean the full array of arms and offers how that definition can be applied today "honestly (and constitutionally)."




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
As the OP pointed out, you cannot "bear" an attack helicopter.
However, under the founder's intent, the states could certainly put restrictions on such weapons. (The 14th Amendment kinda changed that.) I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has detailed the basis on which they allow the government to ban "dangerous or unusual weapons" so if you are curious I would suggest doing some digging in Supreme Court cases. If I recall correctly, restrictions on say, grenades, machine guns, etc. are based on historical regulations that existed around the time of founding of America. I personally believe the federal government has no say in what its private citizens own, but the state government can certainly restrict the right to keep and bear arms to, say, small arms.
And just to spike the argument right here, the idea that private firearms are useless against a well-equipped military is simply a false one, especially so in the United States.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


I have seen that idea before that the States had the power to restrict arms that the federal government did not. This is not the case. Most states copied the BoR into their own constitutions or at least the basics from it and the 1 and 2 amendments were present there. This gets into the idea of Natural rights that I have been posting about all over the board the last few days. The documents do not grant rights as I am sure you know they simply codify rights that we have by nature of our birth. The states can no more take those rights away than can the Federal government. That would be just as much of an infringement. Just as they cannot limit free speech or search you without a warrant. Now some states have passed laws that do these very things and people fight those laws all the time. Passing a law to prohibit or infringe on something does not make that law correct.

If you get 2 out of 3 people to agree that the sky is purple that does not make the sky purple.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


I have seen that idea before that the States had the power to restrict arms that the federal government did not. This is not the case. Most states copied the BoR into their own constitutions or at least the basics from it and the 1 and 2 amendments were present there. This gets into the idea of Natural rights that I have been posting about all over the board the last few days. The documents do not grant rights as I am sure you know they simply codify rights that we have by nature of our birth. The states can no more take those rights away than can the Federal government. That would be just as much of an infringement. Just as they cannot limit free speech or search you without a warrant. Now some states have passed laws that do these very things and people fight those laws all the time. Passing a law to prohibit or infringe on something does not make that law correct.

If you get 2 out of 3 people to agree that the sky is purple that does not make the sky purple.


You are certainly correct that most states copied the Bill of Rights into their Constitutions (I wouldn't have it any other way, myself.) But the 2nd was clearly a restriction on the federal government. (My state constitution allows the state to restrict the open carry of its citizens.) At the time, I believe it was clearly assumed that the state governments would protect the right to keep and bear arms.
And I completely agree that if 2 out of 3 people decide that the sky is purple (or that I shouldn't have guns!) that their collusion does not make their conclusion correct. As you point out, just because it's legal, doesn't mean its right (and vice versa.) I don't think it would be legitimate to take away people's guns even if the 2nd was repealed.
Unfortunately, natural law is not something we rely on in our society any more. Kudos to you for relying on it.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


Please allow me to just pop that idiocy balloon for you right here. Sorry that you used so much energy to make such an INVALID point!



If you want a grenade you need a NFA Destructive Device permit which isn't easy to get.


You missed the whole point! "The right to keep and bear ARMS"! A grenade is armament, is it not? If it is, the right to have it "shall NOT be infringed"! A permit is infringement, therefore unlawful!

Sorry to say, but this alone lets the air out of your entire post!



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
To me, the op makes a good argument for releasing military technology to the population



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Please tell me OP, how is all of that technology fairing against a few thousand villagers armed with little more than AK-47s, crude explosives and the occasional RPG when they are outnumbered nearly 3 to 1 by the most powerful military on Earth? Now let's say that the government would try to forcibly confiscate all these weapons, how would they do this when a majority of the police/military that will be needed realize that it is either wrong to do so, suicidal or both? Now tell me when those police and military are outnumbered over 50 to 1 before the gov. forces desert, stand down or defect (not only troops but entire units, taking their more powerful weapons with them), how would they stop over 100 million gun owners?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


I think people should be allowed to keep military style type weapons if they want to. I have never thought ti would be a bad thing.

Living in a "civilized" society is not excuse to dis arm yourself. It is stupidity to think that. People very easily forget history and think that OH THE PAST WAS DIFFERENT IT WON'T HAPPEN TO US.

There are many examples in history that shows what happens when the people are disarmed. And just like people today think we are different and we are the cream of the crop on earth... well news flash those people back then thought they were as advanced as we are now. In technology and culture. Guess what happened?? they got screwed when they thought they were too civilized for weapons.

You anti gun idiots never learn and have enabled the power hungry to rack up a huge death count in their quest for world domination.

thank you for perpetuating destruction



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
SOMEDAY IN A DARK FUTURE, I imagine the OP and all the others who feel so strongly against guns won't bat an eye should the government use guns to murder the last of the 2nd Amendment holdouts.

And that's the point where the political party you thought you sided with turns them on you. Because you are a useful idiot, and once you are no longer useful you become expendable. All the left-wing green feel good ideology is warm and fuzzy, til you are forced at the barrel of a gun to do it.

Want another kid? Ummmm no. (China)
Want to keep grandma around for as long as possible? Ummm, no. (Britain)
Want to practice your personal religion? Ummm, no. (USSR)
Want to say that a policy sucks? Ummm, no. (Every disarmed population, ever)
Want to not be killed just cause? Ummm, no. (Germany, Cambodia, China, Russia, et al)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I defend my right to own a gun or guns. I also think my state should have even bigger weapons and finally...the Federal Government should have none. Control of the people's military for "out of country" wars...yes. To use as they wish...maybe against us or the state...never! Why? Because I believe in people first, the state second and the federal government last.
edit on 1/11/2013 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


You don't think we KNOW that?

We understand that the government has essentially raped the second amendment, slipping one weapon away from us at a time until we have none left.

And, each and every time they take another weapon, Americans get angry and revolt. Why?

Because we have one of the most powerful governments in the world, and, those of us who haven't lost our ability to think, understand that the government isn't our protector, it's our manager. They manage who lives, who dies, who gets money, etc. And if we want any shred of our freedom, we deserve to bear whatever weaponry is needed to do so.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Besides. Do you really think Americans don't bear grenades and rocket launchers, despite the laws? Come on.

Still, trying to ban rifles is a fairly ignorant thing to do.

The 2nd amendment is slightly outdated, and the progression of weaponry has spiked astonishingly since the patriot days, but the law still remains; we were founded by rebels who defied tyrants. And we will defend this country as such.

Veterans are revolting.

Teenagers are learning the truth. (Hello!)

Gun sales are spiraling off the charts, and now, even the schools are teaching gun use and disarming, as of the recent few weeks.

Don't ever tell me our right to bear arms is a joke.

This is America.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by steel49
reply to post by luciddream
 


Why not indeed? I would if I was allowed. Is that what you want to hear? that I want a rocket launcher?
We are actually supposed to be able to, in all rights. the people are supposed to be able to keep the same weapons as the government. if you want to get even more technical, those are the peoples weapons.
I don't have the funds to buy more than a few guns. Also, if I had a rocket launcher, or attack helicopter, etc. I would need training on how to operate it, and again don't have the funds for that. So, for now, I'll stick with my guns.


...but, you might be surprised by what some people have...
edit on 11-1-2013 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
I'll make this quick

Let us start with some facts, shall we.

- The 2nd Amendment grants the American citizen the right to bear arms
- The 2nd Amendment puts no limit on what arms are to be owned
- The purpose is so that the citizens, a militia, secures the security of a free state

So we know why you have a right to arms, and we know there was no further detail on which arms, no set limits on rate of fire, caliber, that sort of thing. Because of this gun advocates scream until they're blue in the face that they need assault rifles and that they need machines with dumb high magazines, and that they need 20 guns and thousands of bullets, just in case they have to take to the streets and defeat tyranny. This is what they say, when asked why such weaponry is needed it almost always comes back to the 2nd amendment. It's an excuse, but it's what they say. And it's hard to argue with that - We have the right, therefore we're going to own the guns.

Now here's the stupid part. When confronted with the fact that back in them days they had muskets and other weak weaponry, the gun owners say what? that it doesn't matter, it says the right to bear arms and it's all relative, right. Tyrants have muskets, we have muskets. Tyrants have assault rifles, we have assault rifles. It's the right to bear arms, not the right to bear muskets. They need to protect themselves from tyranny in government. They need

If this is true, gun owners must also support the right to bear rocket launchers, they must support the right to own a fleet of attack helicopters. They must support the right of citizens to stock pile the chemical ingredients for making large bombs. They must support these.

If the founding fathers were alive today, would they not - in the same way that we're told they'd support assault rifles - see what the government has at their disposal, and recognise the need for citizens and militia to have surface-to-air missiles. To shoot down planes, spy drones, that sort of thing? Am I not right in saying that such weapons would be necessary, were a tyranny to form. That a gun would not do the trick, no matter how many rounds it has? Citizens also need fighter jets which are armed to the teeth. They need grenades.

Instead what happens? If you want a grenade you need a NFA Destructive Device permit which isn't easy to get. If you want a rocket launcher you can't have one. If you want an attack helicopter that's not going to fly. So your 2nd amendment, or the purpose of the 2nd amendment, your right to arm up to dissuade from and defeat tyrannical government, it's already been betrayed. You're already denied ownership of necessary weaponry for such a scenario, are you not?

I know you don't bear an attack helicopter, technically speaking. But that's only because the founding fathers did not envisage a society where an attack helicopter is required!

so unless you support the citizens right to easily access and own repeat-fire rocket launchers, fragmentation grenades, the right to create bombs, then you won't be taken seriously by me when talking about the 2nd amendment, nor should you be taken seriously by anybody else.

I no longer want to see you hiding behind the 2nd amendment because you have no reasonable argument for your high powered guns, not unless you're also vocal supporters of the types of weapons I've outlined above, only then will I take seriously your belief in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Until that time, you're just pretenders, frauds.

Your 30 round clip is no more necessary or justifiable than an automatic grenade launcher. If guns - which couldn't have been imagined at the time - are protected by the 2nd amendment, so too should all the weapons I listed off.


Didn't the document specifically state military rifles?
Also if you a part of the militia shouldn't you be well trained/screened in rifles?
Limbo
edit on 11-1-2013 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Spacespider
 


a heroin addict knows drugs are bad. A heroin addict is addicted is the problem :/



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


i like your opening post.

it's true a 30 round magazine in a SKS or AK47 won't do much against a tank or drone or a attack helicopter. we are in a unique time in humanity. there is a vast difference in firepower between civilians and military. in the past, civilians could match up fairly evenly with a tyrannical government but that is not the case today.

the right to keep and bear arms is only a small part of the protection of the untied states. more can be accomplished with diplomacy, voting, getting involved in your community, getting involved with the local schools and understanding how the government works. it is in the best interest of all americans to never get to the point of armed conflict.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


I'll take the bait OP. Yep, I actually do think that the american people should be allowed to own any of the weapons you mentioned. With one caveat. If people decide something is too dangerous for a private citizen to own than the constitution should actually be amended to say so.

The problem with your argument is that people have already decided such things about certain types of weapons but here is that "problem part" instead of changing the wording of the 2nd amendment constitutionally, they have attempted repeatedly to legislate around it unconstitutionally for expediency so that an argument such as yours appears to actually hold water. It doesn't.

If people such as yourself and others wish to ban semi-automatic rifles, fine, do it the right way and change the constitution. The reason they do not do it this way is because banning semi-automatic rifles is not popular enough to actually get the votes needed to change the constitution. It might be just popular enough to side-step the constitution and ban them illegally though. Thus the line being drawn in the sand by so many.

I have no concerns that banning the personal ownership of nukes, biological weapons and other such weapons would be popular enough to actually make an amendment to the constitution and this is where your argument falls flat, banning semi-automatic rifles will never be that popular so therefore should not be banned unless the day comes that it actually is popular enough for an amendment to the constitution. We are still a constitutional republic, no? Why don't any of these "anti gun folk" have the balls to push for a legal amendment? Could it be because they know it could never get that level of support? If something does not have that level of support should it be shoved down are throats anyhow? How can something like that happen and we still call ourselves a government of the people?

peace.
edit on 11-1-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Yes it will be a joke, when you anti gun moaners are being rifle butted into the back of army trucks by U.N troops on your way to the FEMA camps, and you jump up and down saying ''This is America they cant do this to us ,something needs to be done "!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and everyone looks at you with a silent blank stare ,Its too late now IDIOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Limbo
 




Also if you a part of the militia shouldn't you be well trained/screened in rifles?

Just how much effort do you think this takes? You can read to gain the knowledge and merely practice to gain proficiency. Rifles are very easy to shoot and maintain. The army test is pretty easy, I could shoot "Expert" the first time I fired a rifle in the army. Of course, I owned and shot a rifle since I was 14 years old.

The "test" is merely to put a small numer of holes in the black region of a man-sized silouett at different distances. Most sporting shooters use much smaller targets with tighter bulls-eyes, and can shoot much better than military shooters.

Snipers are a horse of a different color.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 




banning semi-automatic rifles will never be that popular so therefore should not be banned unless the day comes that it actually is popular enough for an amendment to the constitution. We are still a constitutional republic, no?

Are you of those folks that thinks the Constitution grants rights? It doesn't! It prohibits the government from interfering with rights that naturally belong to We The People. Even if the Constitution were reworded, Natural Rights dictate that free men be armed. No amount of law-making, written material, or postering on the part of firearm opponents can set aside those Natural Rights.

It is really necessary that We The People regain familiarity with the Founding Principles, not merely the words of that Sacred document.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 





Are you of those folks that thinks the Constitution grants rights?


No and I don't need the cliff notes, I myself have given many lectures on ATS about rights being natural and not given. There is no inherent right to own a nuke. There is an inherent right to self defense and if we as a free country decide that we do not need to personally possess a nuke in order to defend ourselves I see no problem with amending the constitution to say so rather than bypassing the constitution illegally.

My post referred to this threads topic, don't go applying my words to another topic as I can't hit a target that moves after I shoot. Thanks.

peace.

ETA - here ya go, one of my many lectures to ATS on the subject
[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread810390/pg1#pid13494784]link






top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join