The 2nd Amendment Is What Makes The Other Nine Possible, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 09:19 AM by sonnny1
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to
post by sonnny1



True. But if history repeats itself I highly doubt that the government will be stupid enough to wage war in the woods wearing BRIGHT RED coats!





You have me there.

The Second is what Makes the other nine possible. I still await someone who can show me that without it, our Country stays the same.


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 09:34 AM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by sonnny1


A very good read and solid thread, to be sure! I very much enjoyed reading it. I tend to agree entirely as well with the Rights of the Constitution being interlinked with some holding just a bit more importance over others in the order of importance.

After all, the right to be free from quartering of troops isn't much for daily life or consideration but might come to be an interesting point of argument someday when we have .22 squirrel guns to argue with and those making the point are telling us how it's going to be. Without the 2nd to protect the rights of the 1st to say something, I guess there isn't much debate about how that scenario turns out for the citizen. In that unlikely example of a specific right to be abused, I suppose we'd be left asking if the Lieutenant or Captain wants turn down service for his men and would how would they like their eggs in the morning. ? lol... It's absurd to consider but made more so by the fact it wasn't worth worrying bout until yesterday because it could simply never happen.

Now? Well... it'll be some time for all the repercussions of yesterday to be felt and known I believe. However, the direction is set and the path is determined. I think it's going to be felt strongly enough in due time. The above, while funny to consider even now, may not be funny at all given time and circumstances, huh?

Whoever started that saying about how we 'may live in interesting times' needs his fingers broken and tongue cut out. I'll show the loud mouth about interesting times, I'll tell ya!

S/F for some things to think about!


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 09:35 AM by seabag
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to
post by sonnny1



True. But if history repeats itself I highly doubt that the government will be stupid enough to wage war in the woods wearing BRIGHT RED coats!



No, but the aggressors may very well have shiny blue helmets!

That would be my guess at who would step up to attempt disarmament.....I don't think there will be many in the US military willing to do the bidding of TPTB on US soil.



edit on 17-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 09:38 AM by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by sonnny1


Anyone who wishes to not abide by the Constitution can leave this country...and that includes those in government; in fact, I would propose allowing them to deduct the cost of moving from their income on their final income tax filing.


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 10:28 AM by MyMindIsMyOwn
Originally posted by Perhaps
how would it be possible for the citizens of the US to organise themselves in such a way that this outcome would be possible??

After all, it doesn't appear that it would be achieved through the electoral/voting process.


I'm going to try to tackle this one. Keep in mind I am myself in the process of digging deeper into this subject as well and trying to tackle it from a more historical and informed aspect rather than just going about regurgitating the same old same old.

In another thread I posted this article written by a pro-2nd attorney named
Daniel J Schultz: lectlaw.com article. He attempts (and does a good job actually) to explain more in depth what the actual wording of "well regulated militia" means. In his article he references Alexander Hamilton's letter to NY, also known as Federalist #29

In Federalist #29, Hamilton states that indeed the militia is made up of the population of the country that are not enlisted in the standing regular army and that that militia should be trained and outfitted equally with the standing army of the country. Having said that, he also understands that to do so is not a quick and easy process and would put undo strain on the progression of industry and agriculture as it would take able bodied citizens from those industries and hinder their progress.
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.
Source being the Federalist #29 linked above.

In the following paragraphs it is my interpretation (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that what Hamilton then proposes is a state guard of sorts to be a bridge between the common citizenry (read militia) and the standing army. This state guard would train as if they were regular army in the tactics and weaponry of the day and would serve then to train the common citizenry if the need ever arise should the US be invaded by a foreign force. This 'state guard' could then be called upon to increase the ranks of the standing army against a foreign force leaving the common citizenry with the tools and knowledge to defend not only themselves but their land as well while the 'state guard' and regular army are off doing what they must. Now, notice I said "should the US be invaded by a foreign force".....

I get the feeling that the 'state guard' was never meant to serve the interests of the standing army of the US on foreign soil.... meaning our 'state guard' was never meant to be deployed outside the borders of our own nation... like they are now.

So to answer you question of how can this be achieved? As it was intended to do, it cannot if my interpretation is correct there. However what Hamilton does not address is the veterans of military service who may be willing to take up that duty, where able, in training the common militia (general citizenry) in tactics at the very least.... weapons is another thing entirely and for another post/thread should it come up.


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 10:50 AM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Pervius



You know.. I keep hearing this and usually as a basis for why we shouldn't try or shouldn't have hope for change to come in any positive way.

At the same time I hear about these super-weapons and control plots out of the movies...I see the U.S getting it's butt kicked in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

So if these things DO exist at all (which I'm starting to have a hard time believing) then apparently the criteria to USE any of it is so extreme and tight as to make them worthless in any real sense anyway. It's like Nuclear Weapons. They're great to show off on parade day, but one can't USE them for anything without it being the last actions in life. So..what good are they, really? At least we know the Nukes really do exist tho.


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 11:38 AM by Tw0Sides
reply to post by sonnny1



Funny thing,

The 2nd Didn't Stop the Destruction of the 4th Amendment. (Patriot Act)

Soooo, This is just another Bunk Gun Thread.


[off topic remark removed]
edit on Thu Jan 17 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 12:04 PM by seabag
reply to post by Tw0Sides



Funny thing,

The 2nd Didn't Stop the Destruction of the 4th Amendment. (Patriot Act)

Soooo, This is just another Bunk Gun Thread.


What would you protect your 4th amendment with? A butter knife? Why didn't you stop them?? Maybe we should ban butter knives because they don't work to preserve our rights.



* Thread Closed *


Talk about a usurpation of power. When did you become a mod?


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 01:15 PM by queenofswords
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to
post by sonnny1



Funny thing,

The 2nd Didn't Stop the Destruction of the 4th Amendment. (Patriot Act)

Soooo, This is just another Bunk Gun Thread.


* Thread Closed *


It won't happen again. The emotional trauma of 911 weakened us momentarily. All we could see were Terrorists everywhere, lurking behind every corner. We were duped into thinking we needed the Government to protect us by stripping some of our rights away.

Repeat....It WILL NOT happen again. As emotionally horrifying as Sandy Hook was, it is not an excuse to chip away at the 2A. If anything, it should strengthen it. There is evil in the world, and there must be people willing to fight it with whatever they have to fight it with.

Sonny1...I totally agree 100%. The 2A is what gives the other 9 a foot to stand on.



reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 02:03 PM by sonnny1
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to
post by sonnny1



Funny thing,

The 2nd Didn't Stop the Destruction of the 4th Amendment. (Patriot Act)

Soooo, This is just another Bunk Gun Thread.


[off topic remark removed]
edit on Thu Jan 17 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)


And why would it? Congress and Government is supposed to be limited. The Patriot Act just proves my point of Government becoming too big !


From Executive Acts to the Patriot Act, This is the MAIN Reason we need to hold on to our Constitutional rights........

The Second glues it all together.


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 05:59 PM by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to
post by sonnny1



Funny thing,

The 2nd Didn't Stop the Destruction of the 4th Amendment. (Patriot Act)

Soooo, This is just another Bunk Gun Thread.


[off topic remark removed]
edit on Thu Jan 17 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)


So was George Washington's quote saying the exact same thing as the OP just another bunk gun quote?

Lol


reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 09:20 PM by RedmoonMWC
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to
post by sonnny1



Funny thing,

The 2nd Didn't Stop the Destruction of the 4th Amendment. (Patriot Act)



As much as I hate to agree with you on this, I have been saying the same thing for a while now.
See this thread If you are interested in where the
bill of Rights stands today: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is a partial breakdown of the effects of the Patriot Act, NDAA and RICO with links to the PDF files for them.


reply posted on 18-1-2013 @ 01:28 AM by sonnny1
reply to post by Viesczy



Those in power are Millionaires.I am sure they are making their money while they let our Constitution get trampled on.






reply posted on 18-1-2013 @ 03:20 AM by Perhaps
reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn


I'm going to try to tackle this one...
This Post






reply to post by eriktheawful




The OP is saying that the reason we still have the other 9 rights...
This Post






reply to post by slugger9787



How did our forefathers gain their freedom from England's Tyranny?...
This Post



Thanks to the above for their thoughtful replies.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags
Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags
Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags
Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags
Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags