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.

 

Second Amendment

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by macman
 


You have failed to answer my question as to the confidence level that a sample size of 1100 provides and failed to give me a sample size that is adequate. Only a fool argues with a fool and I will not respond to you unless you have something worth addressing. You are "talking out of your anus", as it were.


There is absolutley no way that you can honestly say that 1 in every 28,536 people can properly represent any idea. It is an educational nightmare that somewhere someone decided that this is a valid sampling of people for any idea or opinion. That is a waste of good money if you paid for the teaching of such logic.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


Don't know how clear I need to be, but being the "simpleton" that I am, I guess that I need to spell it out.

I don't rely on statistics on matter of law. Have the populace vote on it.


Now, since I answered it very plainly, care to enlighten us as to your answers to my statements???

I do love the cop outs of the Progressives. If you don't get the answer you are fishing for, attack the person and ignore, as you have nothing else to argue with.



edit on Mon Jun 3 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by TheFlash
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


Don't know how clear I need to be, but being the "simpleton" that I am, I guess that I need to spell it out.

I don't rely on statistics on matter of law. Have the populace vote on it.


Now, since I answered it very plainly, care to enlighten us as to your answers to my statements???

I do love the cop outs of the Progressives. If you don't get the answer you are fishing for, attack the person and ignore, as you have nothing else to argue with.




Though anything that causes death at a rate higher than the cause which is getting such focus should be made illegal just the same if the cause in focus is being made illegal... Think of the ramifications to such an idea, lol.
edit on Mon Jun 3 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 

Which by that logic would impact EVERY facet of our lives until we are micro-managed. Healthcare comes to mind and the impending fiasco we will see before it gets torn down because no one can buy it.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Actually the Right to Bare Arms in the fullest meaning is that the people are to have the freedom to possess the armaments and materials necessary for a foot soldier in order to repel an invading force or insurrection. The ability to combat all enemies foreign or domestic that wish to take over is the idea here. The amendment has nothing to do with hunting, collecting, repairing or even manufacturing firearms.

Ideally, the American people would own military grade weapons akin to how the Swiss possess them today. The exception being that in America it would be optional as opposed to mandated like some older English laws in which everyone was to own and be proficient with a longbow or sword.

The purpose of a local militia was to be the standing army to secure freedom for the people and not fall under the command and orders of the Federal government, unless appropriated. In reading the main body of the Constitution, you will notice that we were never supposed to keep a US Army in times of peace.


the militia act of 1792 actually said every able bodied free white man from age 18 to 45,( they had a few exceptions),were required to join the militia. also every gun had to be military grade weapons available to citizens.

it should be noted that the act was made due to the losing the Battle of Wabash River, some reports of that battle
say that the militia was ill equipped and under trained. so congress set standards for the militia and gave the president the right to call out several state militias.

some say that this is where the US took over the militia, some say that it strengthened the states rights to form them. i see it as the strengthening of the states.

there have been many changes made through the years, and some say that the fed has over stepped it's bounds it some of the changes. but that is for another time.

here are to link

first a couple of quotes from the act.





All Three Pages Militia Act 1792



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Many go down the path of what can a man hold or "bear" as a form of protection and it has been rather well defined that arms means firearms/guns, the type of arms one man can operate. If we look at the framers world back in the day they had two types of weapons, guns and artillery, and they didn't say "the right to bear arms and artillery", so applying their views to what we have today, we can assume that arms means only guns and not rocket launchers, flamethrower, battle ships or nukes too.

The other argument is how good of a gun should the citizen be able to acquire and we have seen from the start to just resent times that citizens have had the same or better guns then the military has had. This is an important point in if we limit what gun, then why not just say BB guns? And since one of the main purpose to bear arms is to fight a tyrannical Goverment then that means the citizen should have access to guns that the military has, hence the term "shall not be infringed".

With the restrictions of what guns a citizen can own goes down the path to obsolete guns in the attempt to defeat our right, something that is defined as being infringed on.



edit on 3-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

Focus on the subject and not one another.

You have been warned, posting bans are next.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by macman
 


You have failed to answer my question as to the confidence level that a sample size of 1100 provides and failed to give me a sample size that is adequate. Only a fool argues with a fool and I will not respond to you unless you have something worth addressing. You are "talking out of your anus", as it were.


There is absolutley no way that you can honestly say that 1 in every 28,536 people can properly represent any idea. It is an educational nightmare that somewhere someone decided that this is a valid sampling of people for any idea or opinion. That is a waste of good money if you paid for the teaching of such logic.


Clearly some education in the area of statistics is called for here. For example here is an online Statistical Sample Size calculator. You can see from entering a 99% confidence level, a confidence interval (also called margin of error) of 4% and a population of 314,000,000 (slightly higher than the current US population) that the required sample size is 1040. This shows conclusively that the sample size of 1100 used in the previously mentioned polls is more than adequate to provide a 99% confidence level with a margin of error ±4%. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of the Mathematics of Statistics.

edit on 4-6-2013 by TheFlash because: correct spelling error



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by TheFlash
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


Don't know how clear I need to be, but being the "simpleton" that I am, I guess that I need to spell it out.

I don't rely on statistics on matter of law. Have the populace vote on it.


Now, since I answered it very plainly, care to enlighten us as to your answers to my statements???

I do love the cop outs of the Progressives. If you don't get the answer you are fishing for, attack the person and ignore, as you have nothing else to argue with.



edit on Mon Jun 3 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)


It is not practical to vote on every issue. The way our government is supposed to work in the USA is that we elect representatives to vote on issues for us. They are supposed to do what their constituents want them to do - that's why they put them there. As the studies have shown, and I have demonstrated the Statistical validity of those polls in my previous post, the VAST majority of people want expanded background checks for those buying guns. I can not help but wonder what sort of person would NOT want a guy buyer to be checked out. I suppose only those who have bad things in their own history that they don't want revealed.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


You won't get very many sensible responses, because many Americans will absolutely refuse logical thought in their defence of their second amendment. And now that I have pointed out this fact, I will be attacked by those people, and they'll use whatever they can to shout me down and try to shut me up.

But there are a couple of things that no sane person - however much they want to defend their amendment - can possibly refute and keep a straight face... the second amendment was written at a time when the US government could be easily overthrown by an armed insurrection. This would not be possible now. The people are out-gunned in the extreme and there is no possible way they could use their guns to remove any government. I don't care how many fantasists like to sit back chewing their tobacco and scratching their beard on their front porch while thumping their Bible in one hand and stomping their rifle in the other, there is NO WAY an armed population could even remotely fight back against drones, fighter jets, propaganda, a standing army, the DHS... NO WAY IN HELL. Face it, grow up, put that fantasy to bed, it ain't gonna happen without another country like China or Russia physically arming you with tanks, jets, rocket launchers... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Also, those who scream about defending the second amendment also ignore the FACT (and yes, it is a fact) that those who wrote it could never have imagined the kind of firepower the people would be allowed to have thanks to their amendment. If any of those people back then could see the kind of weapons their little amendment have allowed, and the crimes they have assisted in, they would be disgusted.

If any American thinks that those people back then would come back now and say that someone murdering a hundred kids in a school would be perfectly okay as long as some red neck gets to shoot cans, they are ignorant beyond belief. They would be sickened to see some of the crimes carried out and they would be the first to be calling for stricter gun laws.

Bring on the pro-gun BS. Seen it all, read it all and dismissed it all as complete rubbish.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

It is not practical to vote on every issue.

And who said every issue. Not I.
This is very simple, and is seen by many, as it is the truth.
People like you, Progressives, will not ever argue that something as big as the 2nd Amendment should be voted on, because you and others know that the vote will not fall in your favor. So, what do you and others like you do?? Push policy, change rules and manipulate history to achieve your goals. That is about the most cowardly and dishonest way to go about it as it gets.


Originally posted by TheFlash

The way our government is supposed to work in the USA is that we elect representatives to vote on issues for us. They are supposed to do what their constituents want them to do - that's why they put them there.

Yes, I am very well aware of the civics process in our Country. Thanks for the reminder, as me too dumb to know this.



Originally posted by TheFlash
As the studies have shown,

Oh, so now polls are studies??? Now you are just redefining words. A poll, while using your beloved "mathematical science" of statistics, is not a "study". You of all people should know this. Even me, the "simpleton" knows and understands this.



Originally posted by TheFlash

and I have demonstrated the Statistical validity of those polls in my previous post,

No, no you have not.
You have stated that you believe that it is fact, as taking a polling of 1100 people, and use it as a blanket truth for the people of the US.
Again, I bet I could poll 1100 people and get them to state that they believe the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't make it so. But, because you hold "statistics" as a religion, and absolute truth, it therefore means that the moon is made of cheese.
But, let's hold to your truth, and what have you to say of the PBS poll I put up. Seems to show the opposite of what you pitch as truth. I guess you will gloss over that, for the fifth time now and go on about how statistics are this or that.



Originally posted by TheFlash
the VAST majority of people want expanded background checks for those buying guns.

As per 3 news articles, 2 of which point to the same telephone poll and is a sampling of 1100 to 2400 people. So, you truly believe that this is an accurate snapshot...
How about this. What percentage of the US population is represented in those "scientific polls" you have used??



Originally posted by TheFlash
I can not help but wonder what sort of person would NOT want a guy buyer to be checked out. I suppose only those who have bad things in their own history that they don't want revealed.

Ah, the old "well if you have nothing to hide" argument. Again, another Progressives way of trying to twist things into something it is not.
I never stated I did not want background checks.
I stated as the 2nd Amendment is written, there are no restrictions.
If you want background checks, then it should have been an Amendment. But, since you know it would be almost impossible to do it the right way, you prefer that the Govt just policy it as such.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


I do love how you pre-face your statement that you will be attacked, as if you will just innocently defend more restrictive gun laws, and then go on to bash, name call and attack others not of your view point.

You are about as dishonest as they come.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Based on what some people have written here, it appears that you are absolutely correct. Sense, facts and numbers mean absolutely nothing to some people.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by spock51
All references arguing the inapplicability of the Heller decision are from the Washington Post.


You are the wrong one my friend. First of all, the ruling occurred in Washington in a case in Washington DC. Which paper did you think it should be reported in - The Miami Herald? The second thing you were wrong about was that all the references I posted with regard to this legal issue were from the Washington Post. My 7:50 AM post on 5/31 linked to the Touro Law Review as a reference which states:


it leaves unresolved the incorporation issue-whether the Second Amendment applies to the states or only to the federal government. That basic question was not presented or resolved in Heller because at issue in Heller was a D.C. law, and the District of Columbia is a federal enclave.


If you believe otherwise please share your legal degrees with us. I hope that you were more observant in your time as a law enforcement official.

I have clearly shown here that you are in error and that the things you say should are to be doubted at the very least.


Pardon me for my erroneous claim that ALL your references quote the Post. My bad. We all know that the Touro Law Group is the DEFINITIVE authority on matters of constitutionality and in no way a liberal enclave expressing a legal OPINION on a ruling.
I do not have a law degree, but I will bet you that I have spent more time with lawyers and judges in courtrooms trying actual cases than you have. I have seen first hand some of the absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous and downright STUPID sh*t lawyers espouse as fact in open court. You will have to do a hell of a lot better at refuting my argument than that, sonny. American law is dynamic, complex and most definitely open to debate. If every single legal opinion espoused by every single lawyer choosing to express one were to be considered fact, we would be in a helluva fix now wouldn't we?
When you come to debate and your base consists of legal opinions, be adult enough to openly state that they are opinions but you feel they are logical, sensible and applicable to your position. When you come here and try to smack down people who disagree by portraying these legal OPINIONS as fact, you marginalize your argument and your credibility. You become irrelevant.
You did not open this thread to debate the 2nd Amendment. You opened it to bash ":gunners" and to be snarky with those who disagree.
Knock yourself out kid.
I have better things to do these days.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by spock51

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by spock51
All references arguing the inapplicability of the Heller decision are from the Washington Post.


You are the wrong one my friend. First of all, the ruling occurred in Washington in a case in Washington DC. Which paper did you think it should be reported in - The Miami Herald? The second thing you were wrong about was that all the references I posted with regard to this legal issue were from the Washington Post. My 7:50 AM post on 5/31 linked to the Touro Law Review as a reference which states:


it leaves unresolved the incorporation issue-whether the Second Amendment applies to the states or only to the federal government. That basic question was not presented or resolved in Heller because at issue in Heller was a D.C. law, and the District of Columbia is a federal enclave.


If you believe otherwise please share your legal degrees with us. I hope that you were more observant in your time as a law enforcement official.

I have clearly shown here that you are in error and that the things you say should are to be doubted at the very least.


Pardon me for my erroneous claim that ALL your references quote the Post. My bad. We all know that the Touro Law Group is the DEFINITIVE authority on matters of constitutionality and in no way a liberal enclave expressing a legal OPINION on a ruling.
I do not have a law degree, but I will bet you that I have spent more time with lawyers and judges in courtrooms trying actual cases than you have. I have seen first hand some of the absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous and downright STUPID sh*t lawyers espouse as fact in open court. You will have to do a hell of a lot better at refuting my argument than that, sonny. American law is dynamic, complex and most definitely open to debate. If every single legal opinion espoused by every single lawyer choosing to express one were to be considered fact, we would be in a helluva fix now wouldn't we?
When you come to debate and your base consists of legal opinions, be adult enough to openly state that they are opinions but you feel they are logical, sensible and applicable to your position. When you come here and try to smack down people who disagree by portraying these legal OPINIONS as fact, you marginalize your argument and your credibility. You become irrelevant.
You did not open this thread to debate the 2nd Amendment. You opened it to bash ":gunners" and to be snarky with those who disagree.
Knock yourself out kid.
I have better things to do these days.


I await your references to reputable, legal sources proclaiming that the ruling in question applies to all US states and not just to Federal Enclaves. I have seen no such evidence and until I do, my evidence stands.

If you have any shred of evidence showing that the "Touro Law Group is ... a liberal enclave" and not just your opinion then share that also.
edit on 4-6-2013 by TheFlash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Statistics,legal jargon and progressives lack one itty bitty little fact. What happens when bad shows up in your face?
Do you debate? No they either want to rob or kill,thus rendering all posts to to contrary expressions depicted here mute by basis of logic.
To say we can't oppose US military force.I'm afraid YOU wouldn't know because YOU haven't learned how.I know how to do so and yes my little children,it does require 30 rd magazines.Yes I will probably be killed but thats a small price to pay to stop a military coup now isn't it? Unless I wish to join you and surrender to whatever comes down the pike. Maybe you haven't got the ability to see beyond progworld but Detroit,New York,Chicago and Southern Califorina are crimeholes you don't see in other parts of the country.Because of GUN CONTROL and a reliance on strickly law enforcement.You lack the common sense to understand they will not be there to stop you from being hurt or killed,that is YOUR problem. And if there are more that one? A 30 rd magazine might just come n handy.But wait what about the murdered children your types like to lay at gun owner's feet? Taking my defenses will not stop evil or crazy.Show me statistics on that,no wait don't they are worthless tools of collective logic and a failure when dealing with everyone.
You are aware politics are cyclical right? After you lefties have taken such a huge jump ,when the rightwings jump in it just showed them how far they can go to get away with THEIR ideas genuses.

Now on to the idea of the citizenry VS our military yet again.
I alone can kill an M1A3 main battle tank after the support infantry is taken out,in fact anyone can destroy ANY armored vehicle. It's easy.
Drones,fighter and bomber take off from things called BASES where they are vulnerable to mass attack,again no big deal.The Airforce is not as well armed as the Army.
And now the bonus round.Who would take the orders? I would have shot my command if they tried this.so will MOST of all combat arms personel. Well shucky darn that only leaves DHS and federal agents now doesn't it?
That may take about a month depending on where they hide.
Do you think the rest of the world will go along with a military coup?
In the US?

I run circles around you with your academics which at this point is ALL they are.
We will keep our guns,whine as you will it is still the current law.
Funny....almost ALL of these prog children don't have their locations listed on their profiles,like they are ashamed or it weakens their position somehow.Makes you go hmmmm

edit on 4-6-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: mISsplled

edit on 4-6-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
It is true everything will boil down to the vote of elective officials. One thing to think about is our forefathers made it a huge undertaking to change the constitution, and we should pause for a moment to consider why.

They saw the 2nd amendment as part of our inalienable rights that basically equates to, no armed citizenry = no free state.

For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies to vote in the affirmative. It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative, and the day this happens one can truly claim that the people have spoken with their vote for the elected officials at all levels.

We been talking about statistics and how big of a polling pool is needed to provide the accuracy that correctly represents all and we need to be carful with that. Right after Sandy Hook the polling was as high as 80% and now it is well below 50% as to any kind of fundamental changes to our 2nd amendment. It even had a quick death for support on the democrat side as well. The old "garbage in garbage out" line should be in everyone's frontal lobes every time a statistical analysis is presented.

I remember back in the day a supplement that was suggested to increase testosterone by 40% or more was very popular. One thing they didn't tell anyone was the testing group was made up of 60 plus year of women, and a man under the age of 50 saw close to zero increase. WELL statistical sampling can be and are often much like this too.

This brings me to the point I need to ask the OP what is your objective here? I see you live by statistics but it seems you avoid the statistics on the fact that anything less that full banning of all guns does not work, so gun control is basically moot. Limiting the type of guns owned or how many bullets it can hold also doesn't change a single thing dealing with safety or security. We also know statistically that the gun friendly states have less crime.

So once again where are you going with this? Are you in fear of the AR that has less than 50 deaths per year, but see the hammer that has 100s of deaths per year as a great tool? Do you cringe from 10,000 deaths due to guns but the 40,000 in car accidents are fine since you need to get to work and don't want to do it at 25 miles per hour to greatly reduce that number? Do you not believe in supporting the uncountable gun laws already on the books while seeing any control would ONLY affect the honest citizen?

You try to come off all logical but it seems your motivation is driven by an illogical foundation of beliefs, so once again what is it that you want to prove here?




edit on 4-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Statistics,legal jargon and progressives lack one itty bitty little fact. What happens when bad shows up in your face?


Ummm, that is not a fact, that is a question.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
my college education = computer science + minor mathmatics + minor physics... I own my own business, 2 houses 3 cars and many guns.

So lets stop with the "how illogical 2nd amendment people are" conversation. All i keep on seeing you do flash is make an arguement based off of skewed polls that represent a microscopic part of the population. The only way that numbers like that work is if some one with enough money campaigns in areas where people will believe anything spoon fed to them. Those numbers work on uneducated people who cannot use logic to refute them. Roughly half of the population will recieve "some" college. This means that at best the other half will acheive a diploma which we know to not be even close to the truth. They do not teach statistical polling in high school, most of the college educated will not study to any significant amount, statistical mathmatics. So what we have here is exactly what the socialist movement wants, an uneducated population that has been told "you can't understand how this smart stuff works so just trust us" and the uneducated masses do as such.

Polling people (no matter how many you poll) after a constant barage of emotional manipulation, of course, produces results based off of knee jerk reactions rather than logic. It is pretty funny that once the emotional manipulation stops and people's attention is aimed elswhere, they become complacent on the topic that was portrayed so "emotionally charged" by those who have an agenda and tend to start leaning on the side of inaction rather than action.

If it wasn't for emotional manipulation by just a few, the few would never get to have the opportunity to push their special interest agendas. I have yet to see a topic which the socialist push in which they did not use emotional manipulation to achieve their desired results. The special interest groups will never present both sides of the arguement, so as to lead to a proper discussion of such matters, which would lead to a logical and truthfull discussion rather than a manipulation of facts and emotions.

When it comes to the "second amendment" discussion, very few who are for gun control are willing to accept that there are two sides to the topic, and as such are not willing to study both sides. If you want to have a discussion about such heated topics then by all means do, but understand this first and foremost, you have to present ALL of the facts, not just the ones that promote your agenda. Guns represent such a tiny percentage of deaths caused by "unatural" causes that it loses its momentum as an important matter. The good part about that is people are starting to see that gun control solves nothing. If anything it makes things worse. Those facts are based on actuall percentages not polling by the way.

So study the facts, study all angles of guns and their impact on societies, communities, and individuals. Look at cold hard facts, real percentages not polls. This takes a very long time, it isn't something that a simple internet search will resolve. It will take months of data compiling. Instead of taking the emotional and socialist route to decide on our rights as a population, how about we try the factual path, the one that leads to logic discussion, the one that leads to death for the gun control agenda.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join