It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
If you want a grenade you need a NFA Destructive Device permit which isn't easy to get.
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.
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.
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.
Also if you a part of the militia shouldn't you be well trained/screened in rifles?
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?