It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Ridiculously MORE people die through gun crime in the US than through terrorist incidents, FACT. You guys need to sort out your gun laws before spending further money on anti-terrorism and intelligence.

As an outsider it's plain to see. There is very little gun crime in the UK.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:49 AM
Shouldn't be a big deal. I think people should directly worry about what is good for their country rather than doing it through the constitution, it's not needed anyway, if it disappeared from existence tomorrow nothing would change.
edit on 24-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:27 AM
I'm more afraid of what the politicians are gonna do from the result of the "terrorist attacks"
Then I am of the attacks themselves.

Look at 911 the bush admistration were warned about Osama bin laden and that he was planning in attacking the United States but they didn't stop it

The FBI was warned about suspect number one in 2011 but they didn't stop it

Hell they even have the patriot act so they can spy on all of us at anytime legally and they still couldn't stop the Boston bombing

If we let out country get any worse then soon there won't be a country left for us

We need to take action out congressman don't do much for us
We have to take matters into our own hands its either now or never and never is gonna be here real soon
edit on 24-4-2013 by Deceasedfantasy because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:58 AM
reply to post by Autocrat14

Well, it's true enough that the U.S. has an issue we all need to get worked out on homicidal nutjobs choosing a gun to act out their desire to end the lives of others. Any number is too many...Although I find something interesting on that. A couple tings...Actually, since you bring it up the way you do.

First, there aren't quite as many as you might think.

(Source: Centers for Disease Control)

In fact, it doesn't even hit the top 10 for what kills Americans.

(Source: Centers For Disease Control)

Although, as agreed, any number is too many. Yes, crime is something that does have to be treated seriously. Come to think of it...out of pure curiosity, I checked England...seeing as how you're comparing Jolly 'Ol to the U.S. in this instance.

(Source: House of Commons - Library)

Now if we can agree that any number of violent crimes, especially attempted murder or crimes committed with the threat of murder are too many, a saying about throwing rocks from glass houses comes to mind. Perhaps England needs to work on it's predilection for seeing people cut open with knives before picking too hard on the fact Americans choose guns instead. Given the population differences to add into those statistics, I'd say both nations have a real serious problem needing internal attention before focusing too hard on others. Just my humble opinion there.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:08 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Where was Bloomers in the 1960's and early 70's when groups like the Weather Underground, The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) and other extreme radical groups were bombing everything from the Pentagon itself to statues in cities across this land with Anfo and other homemade explosive? The Constitution saw us through that period and we've been through worse still

IMO , in that period of time , there was no real police like US police and FBI today , so those bombings occurred because no intelligent service was controlling terrorist groups.

But today , the situation is different.

You can not compare today with those days.

People are more civil. There is police , army , intelligent service and ....

IMO , US govt has the valve of terrorists in it's hand , but it is letting some pass to excite people.

Unless you tell me they don't know about their job.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:33 AM
reply to post by mideast

No police or FBI like there are today? WHOA... You need to check your history a bit. The 1960's saw a focus on infiltrating, agitating and generally firing up the violent counter-culture by law enforcement at levels no where near what we've yet seen today. The equivalent would have been seeing Occupy being guided and pushed into bombings out of most camps, nation wide. That IS what was happening in the 60's and in large part by the Federal and State Police/FBI. The CIA was running domestic operations and stations in places like Miami as if it were an annex of Langley itself and with total disregard to any limitations they had by law.

Internal Threats to America : Domestic Terrorism Study Guide

Aside from 9/11, which anyone ought to agree, stands alone in a class unique in US and largely, world history ... The attacks since 2001 haven't even been all that meaningful compared to past times. Oklahoma City cost the lives of 168 people in 1995. Many of those were small children in a daycare that animal could SEE when he parked and walked.. No one suggested Constitutional Trimming was needed then, despite the fact many were looking toward Militia and Aryan groups afterward.

I think the BIGGEST difference between the 60's through the end of the 90's is that we had a Government who handled these things and worked hard NOT to make it the problem of every average American in their daily lives. We now have a Government that THRIVES on making crisis in our lives as a daily event and part of life. DHS doesn't stop crime, they tell US if we're paying them to make it OUR problem?? Well, they sure think so.

So it SEEMS to be much worse, but that's a crock, IMO. Body counts alone don't even compare if one wants to be crude for measure ..but number and nature don't compare either. We just get it shoved in our face like a media event for every single one of them. That's all I believe has changed with a fair look at numbers and incidents.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:52 AM
Unfortunately for the mayor who thinks the NYPD is his own personal army, changing the Constitution isn't a simple matter. I don't think this guy will make it through another election, between OWS, big gulps and this... he's done.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:54 AM
New Oath of Office in the US:

"I promise to rend and amend the Constitution of the United States with enemies foreign and domestic, so help me."

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 06:29 AM

Originally posted by crankyoldman
When an "officer" is feeling insecure about any given situation, he is afforded the right to kill anyone who makes him insecure - this is not murder, manslaughter or even a crime.

That's a bold faced lie. You do not the right to kill anyone for simply feeling "insecure." You have the right to deploy lethal force when - and ONLY when - you or another person is in danger of severe bodily harm or death or you are preventing a felon from escaping custody.

Please check your facts, and stop making things up.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:19 AM
Bloobug I mean Bloomberg is not alone he like I been telling is a danger and indeed the danger do not stop with him, he is a re constructionist and belong to an elite group of PoliticRats that are going after no only the constitution but Americas rights to free society.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is a coalition that claims to have more than 900 mayors[2] who support a number of gun control initiatives that the group calls "commonsense reforms" on firearms ownership in the United States. Most recently the group has focused on efforts to outlaw semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.

The group was formed on April 25, 2006, during a summit held at Gracie Mansion in New York City that was hosted by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who serve as co-chairs of the coalition.

The initial group consisted of 15 mayors that signed a statement of principles[3] and set a goal to expand their membership to 50 mayors by the end of 2006. As of November 2009, there were 522 mayors listed on the membership roster at the MAIG website.

The coalition is composed of mostly Democratic mayors[4], but also has some members of the Republican Party, the Progressive Party, and the Green Party,[5] and its statement of principles has received the endorsement of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Conference of Black Mayors.[1]

Yes is actually 900 anti constitutionlist that are after everything that makes US a free society

He got the financial backing to buy himself corruption in other states not only in NY to go after peoples rights

NewYork Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $2.3 million in campaign spending helped anti-gun radical Robin Kelly win the Democratic primary to replace convicted former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D) yesterday. Bloomberg joined Obama political adviser David Axelrod, radical Jeremiah Wright ally Father Michael Pfelger, and left-wing Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in helping Kelly defeat former Rep. Debbie Halvorson, who was once the darling of the party's election machine but became a useful target due to her "A" rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA).

And agenda it is and is all helping the present administration anti rights agenda get going.

Money talks and BS walk.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:27 AM
Why doesn't Bloomberg attack their health by making them drink numerous Big Gulps.I left NYC after 9/11 but I can't understand is why they keep electing this megalomaniac billionaire.We were the most open minded and progressive then....

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Hey leave "The Dude" out of this.

IMO a picture says a thousand words.

edit on 24-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:22 AM
I don't think The United States will every dip so low that we have to change the constitution.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:51 AM
Why are the police and military willing to give up their lives for the other citizens security? Don't they value their own personal security too? If we the people ask them to risk their lives for something, shouldn't we also be willing to risk our lives for the same thing? If every citizen would take responsibility for the security of himself and all other citizens, then there would be no need for more laws. Let every citizen be a soldier, and every citizen a policeman. Then, everyone would receive the same level of protection as every other person.

The real problem here is the division of the society into "masters" and "servants". The masters hire the servants to take risks that they do not want to take themselves. The servants, being wise, require the masters to give up their guns, so that they the servants would have an easier time providing security, with less risk to themselves, so that they too can live like the masters, in security. And by taking away the guns, the servants become the masters, because only they have the guns, and they also have security. They then can effectively tell the masters to do this and to that, and the masters have to comply, since the original masters gave up all their freedoms to empower the original servants to protect them, and in the process the servants became the masters.

But, if there were no masters nor servants to begin with, then this would not happen, nor continue to happen.

The solution is to dissolve the institution of "Public Servants" and replace it with the "Society of Citizens". In this new society, no citizen will be made to serve another, we'll all have robots as servants instead. Since no citizen plays the role of servant to another, there will be no "emotional need" to get more power, to be able to to their job better and stave off criticism. Then the only law we'll need, is a law that prevents robots from being programmed with any kind of Artificial Intelligence that could be used by the robots to figure out they need more power to to their work. Robots are to be kept dumb, so that the humans can live free.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:23 PM
Sorry Mr. Bloomberg. Last time I checked, you're the mayor of a city 1300 miles from me. Meaning, stay the hell away from my rights. You have no importance to the nation, stop pretending like you do.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by SpearMint

yeah, that's the ticket--let's just voluntarily cancel the constitution, rather than have it snatched piece by piece as is happening now. throw it in the dumpster out back already!

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by shelbylcollins
I don't think The United States will every dip so low that we have to change the constitution.

it's already being shredded daily. some of you seem to think that these people like the mayor, president and their corporate masters are merely misguided, don't understand the role of freedom our nation has aspired to (while often failing); fact is, they aren't stupid, have a very concrete plan for the abolition of nation states and establishment of a global plutocracy where a residual slave population of about qne billion, max, is totally dependent upon their permission to live, don't plan on letting anyone get in their way as they peddle their fear agenda to manipulate the sheeple--and it's getting very late in the game.

and they ain't building these underground bunker cities around the world for nothing, either.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by kathael

I wish it was just Harper, truth is he had a" 40 percent" majority

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by ipsedixit
New Oath of Office in the US:

"I promise to rend and amend the Constitution of the United States with enemies foreign and domestic, so help me."

good won
you forgot "so help me dog"

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by stirling

Your sentiment and that of the poster you replied to are both correct. The poster you replied to makes a valid point; get involved. The only thing I disagree with is the notion that only being involved in Government can change be affected. Involvement has many paths. Serving time as a sitting representative is one of them and is a noble (if you are of course, of noble intentions) cause.

I do not however see it at "complaining". Where those who were not actively in or potentially seeking, a seat of power not engaged? Franklin was of great influence, but held no seat of power in the Government. He was an outsider (in the respect of seats of power) speaking freely about the limits and justifications of a government. He also wasn't the greatest of character (think Bill Clinton; but Clinton was a neophyte compared to Franklin).

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in