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.

 

Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


To me, maybe they haven't expressed it as clearly as they want to. Just as a firearm is the instrument utilized by the person, so is the words utilized by a person that can lead to death.

Someone uses a firearm to murder 5 people; someone who commands a military uses their voice to kill 1000 people; so in a sense, words can kill and are just as much a tool as a firearm.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The idea that words kill is nonsense to me.

Why is it the words that killed and not the susceptibility of that persons mind and lack of will to live?

I find it very interesting that the same people here

that say it's not guns that kill but people that kill (which I agree) are touting it's words that kill and not the person that committed suicide. Ultimately it's the fault of the person with the intention of ending life.

Sorry if I sound callous, we will just have to agree to disagree.


Okay, in the case of a jumper I'll grant you that. Now when we talk about a despotic government ordering soldiers or officials to kill or be killed.... well then words kill. Thus our need for the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



Just as a firearm is the instrument utilized by the person, so is the words utilized by a person

Right absolutely. That's what I meant. They are connected like that. Which is why I was surprised to see people blame the instrument in one scenario but not the other.

I am taking the position ultimate fault is not on the instrument but on the person. Whether it's the person pointing the gun at someone else, or the person pointing it at themselves.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


en.wikipedia.org...

Li Xianliang,killed 11-17 people with a car and wounded 24-30 if thats not a mass killing with a car(was a tractor) i dont know what is,so yeah cars can be used as weapons for mass killings if the person decides to use it as such.en.wikipedia.org...


Hebei tractor rampage was a spontaneous mass murder incident in which 17 people were killed in Yuanshi County, Hebei, China by a shovel loader.[1] The rampage began when coal worker Li Xianliang (李现亮), who had been drinking[2] and had blood alcohol content of 154 milligrams per 100 millilitres,[3] had an argument with a customer,[1] whom he then tried to kill.[2] The customer escaped, but another nearby was killed as the rampage began.[2] The attack followed unrelated attacks on schools elsewhere in China; the Chinese government removed some mentions of the incidents from the internet in China for fear that mass coverage of such violence can provoke copycat attacks.


knives.....en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2012) not quite butter knives but they are close enough i guess we will call butter knives normal knives and the ones these people used as assault knives?
en.wikipedia.org...
web.archive.org...://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gbb3SvwJW0F1Te35LxNwJDk2UBnQD9FL8K0O0 9 killed

and hey if we count box cutters 9/11 was achieved by a combination of edged weapon and planes to kill those people so yeah crazies/terrorists are gonna kill with what ever they are comfortable using


No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.



www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 

what is nice is when you make such ridiculous assumptions like this one ...

It is nice to see that you are a Glen Beck fan
it only proves your total ineptitude for delivering a valid argument.

and this my friend ...

they are not incompatible unless you choose to make them so.
goes both ways


the hard core gun lobby hasn't even rendered an opinion, yet

and, the world is only grey, when you make it that way.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NickK3
 


Absent the willful intention it is no longer murder by definition.
hmmmm, drinking and driving = not willful intent ??
ok, you keep believin it


in the meantime, i intend to maintain Liberty with whatever Liberty weapon i choose.
self-defense and maintaining Liberty cannot be presumed 'murder' either, as there is no willful intent to harm anyone.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I have skimmed through this thread and the argument of banning so called "assault rifles" because people are under the misguided belief that mine and others AR15's are nothing but war machines....

First off the 2nd amendment does not specify firearms but rather the word arms which by definition includes all weaponry. You cant go ban some arms because they dont fit YOUR political beliefs!!!

The federal Government banning any weapon is paramount to the federal government saying you cannot use the word "freedom", "revolution", "Anonymous", "Anti Government" and etc... because they incite FEAR and REBELLION!!!

It is NOT the Governments duty or right to tell the people what they can arm themselves with. Rather yet it is up to the People and the States to determine what is best for their community!

The Government telling people what they can and cannot arm themselves with is like a Referee in a basketball game telling one team they can only use one hand instead of two to play the game and that by using two hands they are kicked from the game... Does that make sense? is that Fair?

Gun bans have proven even in FBI reports that they are ineffective at stopping crime! You are only hurting law abiding citizens like myself from being able to defend me, my family and my community from enemies both FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC!

To the argument of banning any firearm that is capable of killing people in mass within seconds... I give you this for food for thought. Any semi automatic weapon has the capability to fire 400-600+ rounds per minute. A magazine reload in any AR or AK takes less than a second... a bolt action rifle with magazine can fire around 100-200+ rounds per second... No matter what argument you place on mass killings in seconds any firearm is capable of causing great damage when used for evil... Same goes for any weapon or vehicle! In ga we recently had a DUI driver purposefully ram 15 cars the other night and finally ending in a fatality... Should we outlaw cars or how about Drunk driving? Wait Drinking and driving is illegal yet WE ALL know someone who does it! Just like people who smoke pot! Some people think they are taking the moral high ground with ideas of banning all guns or even the EVIL "Assault rifle" which is already been and currently banned for decades but in reality they have their eyes closed to the real issue at hand.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NickK3
 


Absent the willful intention it is no longer murder by definition.


The "willful intention" of a gun is exactly the same as that of a car - none, they are inanimate objects.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Dennis who?

Second line.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

hahahaha, and if they didn't, these children would likely still be alive today.
children verbally bullied to death
and so many more.

yet, how many of the abusers were prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment right to say or do such abusive things ??


I didn't say that words couldn't hurt. And there are statements that you cannot make without consequences. But a word does not tear into flesh. The original argument was for the government requiring a background check to speak. Not the same as requiring a background check for a gun.



A simple order by a despot, "kill them" has proven deadly to millions throughout history. Yes words can kill.


No - actions kill. The words "kill them" didn't kill anyone. The physical action of killing is what kills. You can say "kill them" a million times, but unless someone acts, the killing doesn't happen. If someone is ordered to kill or be killed, either they act on it and kill, or someone acts on them and kills them. It's not the words, it's the actions.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Dennis has always been my first choice for POTUS.


Originally posted by WaterBottle
Dennis is awesome. Unfortunately the republicans re-districted his former district so he would lose, and he did.


edit on 26-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Yes. Sad.

Maybe the time has finally come, after decades of being torn apart, for voters to see that we must work together on what we have in common, common needs, rather than follow those who would keep us apart.

There have always been Liberals/Progressives who have guns! Somehow, somehow, even current talk about guns will be directed by some to keep us divided, assuring that corporatism will win and kill us softly as we sleep.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
No - actions kill. The words "kill them" didn't kill anyone. The physical action of killing is what kills. You can say "kill them" a million times, but unless someone acts, the killing doesn't happen. If someone is ordered to kill or be killed, either they act on it and kill, or someone acts on them and kills them. It's not the words, it's the actions.


Then by this logic it isn't the firearm either that killed anyone it was the brain-finger connection of the person holding the connection; of in terms of a knife wielder, it is the brain-muscle connection and not the person right or the object/tool utilized? We can play semantics all day long with this; words can and have killed just as guns have and can kill; but ultimately there is a person behind those tools that initiate those actions to make the kill happen.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



hmmmm, drinking and driving = not willful intent ??
ok, you keep believin it


First that's not funny at all.

Secondly no it's not. People that drink and drive are not (vast majority...) doing so to kill people. It's the result of the 'accident' and the accident is the result of horrible choices on their part. It is their fault someone died and they should be punished severely. But it's called involuntary manslaughter, not murder. Murder is premeditated intention to cause homicide. If that drunk driver had previous DUIs, and other infractions, it could be charged as murder. Since we are talking about laws in this thread, forgive me for being all semantic.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by APOCOLYPSE DAWN
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.


Did you write that or are you not Maj. L. Caudill?

Either way, it was brilliant and so brilliant that it would drive a liberal nuts from too much reason and logic.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I remember back in the 70's when "Revolutionaries" when presented in Television would often be holding there AK-47's with one arm held high. There is even a country Mozambique which was formed in 1983, the countries flag includes the image of the rifle. But it is not like that today now its grenade launchers as turning bombs that are usually dropped from aircraft into mines.

Just prior to the Soviet Union falling its leaders ordered there military, to attack the protesters and at that particular time, they refused. They did so because they had grown tired of killing the very people, they were tasked to protect.

Why does the assumption exist that with respect to the American Military, that they would not do the same thing today? Why would that change in the future?

Nonetheless these weapons cannot be used to take on an M1 Abrams tank, an Apache Attack Helicopter or for that matter an F-16 dropping ordinance and moving at 500+ Mph. With these guns at best one would chip some paint of a modern military vehicle. They are not altogether useless but attempting an assault on a modern army division with such guns would be suicide at best.

For me it is strange when someone brings up the idea that our founding fathers. Intended the 2nd Amendment, as a way to protect citizens from there own government. This because of the effort they put into creating this system. The intent was to insure a militia that could protect our country against foreign invaders intent upon overthrowing our government.

The Constitution gives every American citizen the right to have weapons so actually the Constitution would have to be Amended which, requires a general vote by the citizens of this country. No one has even suggested such a thing, or is such a thing being discussed. If anything it seems very strange that this issue is not brought up by major media outlets and I myself reviewed on the internet various articles from progressive, moderate and conservative points of view.

Despite the fact this is the only way our government can” take your guns away.” no one mentions this simple fact.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by kaylaluv
No - actions kill. The words "kill them" didn't kill anyone. The physical action of killing is what kills. You can say "kill them" a million times, but unless someone acts, the killing doesn't happen. If someone is ordered to kill or be killed, either they act on it and kill, or someone acts on them and kills them. It's not the words, it's the actions.


Then by this logic it isn't the firearm either that killed anyone it was the brain-finger connection of the person holding the connection; of in terms of a knife wielder, it is the brain-muscle connection and not the person right or the object/tool utilized? We can play semantics all day long with this; words can and have killed just as guns have and can kill; but ultimately there is a person behind those tools that initiate those actions to make the kill happen.


Okay -- let's say we have a situation where there are two people and NO weapons of any kind. Let's say one person says to the other, "You will die now". Of course, the person doesn't die just because of the words.

Now, we have another situation with same two people, except now one of those people has a gun, and says "You will die now", then proceeds to shoot the other person many times, until that person is dead.

In both examples, there was intent to kill and the exact same words were spoken, but only one of the situations involved a death. What is the difference between these two situations? Take the words out of the equation in the second example, and there is still a death. Take the gun out of the equation, and you have the first situation -- no death. The difference is ----- the gun.

Now, why don't you show me an example of where words killed with no weapons involved? And no, you can't use Dune as an example.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
The Constitution gives every American citizen the right to have weapons...


I have to nit pick here; the Constitution doesn't give that right, it recognizes it and protects it. If we want to go further, the Amendment and enumeration is actually completely redundant because that which is not delegated expressly within the Constitution cannot be infringed upon by the Federal Government. The right to self-defense and self-preservation predate and preexists the Constitution.


...so actually the Constitution would have to be Amended which, requires a general vote by the citizens of this country.


Your premise is correct; your information is wrong. The Amendment process is highlighted in Article V of the Constitution. There are 2 ways an amendment can be presented and technically 4 ways it can be ratified. First, 2/3rds of the Congress can present the proposed amendment. If then would have to be approved by 3/4th of the State Legislatures to become an amendment (either by convention or direct vote of legislatures). The second method is the State Legislatures, 2/3rds of them, can call for a Constitutional Convention and propose amendments at said convention. Here again, 3/4th of the Legislatures must approve of any amendments presented.

There is a theory that there exists the People option, but it has never been attempted nor would anyone be able to actually garner the necessary support for it. The closest option we have, without facing a Constitutional fight, is to pressure State Legislatures in invoking a Constitutional Convention.


Despite the fact this is the only way our government can” take your guns away.” no one mentions this simple fact.

Legally and Constitutionally, you are correct; but our Government has been known to operated outside of its limits on a fairly consistent basis -- stretching their authority and bending it to their whim to meet the ends they want.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


If you get a chance, please read my response to you in page 7. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 




The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)


Source

38 states out of 50 would have to aprove a change to the Constitution.

"Legally and Constitutionally, you are correct; but our Government has been known to operated outside of its limits on a fairly consistent basis -- stretching their authority and bending it to their whim to meet the ends they want. "


Can you be more specific as to how our government has actually done that?

Any thoughts?
edit on 26-1-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join