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.
Common Good
I equate gun grabbers with 3 year old kids at dinner time complaining about "I dont like it-I dont want it".
Well kids, just because you dont like it, doesnt mean mean squat to the rest of the family.
The only ones who say the second amendment is misunderstood- are those who dont want to understand it; because its written-in plain english.
[...]
so even in the 1600s breach-loading repeating fire arms existed
The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—named for a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in America, using separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half-cock.
signalfire
THAT's what the Second Amendment was talking about. Not freekin' machine guns.
RalagaNarHallas
the first semi automatic rifle was in 1885 and semi pistol in 1892 so the technology is not as "new" as people think
"I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment.”
pheonix358
The gun grabbers don't want to have a good look at real history. In the days when the 2nd was put in place, private citizens could and did own their own warships IF they could afford them.
The whole idea of the 2nd was to ensure a corrupt government could be tossed out by the people. If you bother to read the literature, news paper articles and the speeches made on the subject of the 2nd, the intent is clear.
So why the hell does someone like me, who does not even live in the US, know all this and yet idiots with law degrees don't. Only in America.
There is a way to alter the constitution, it is set out clearly, so why don't these people use it as it was designed, because they damn well know it would never happen. That is the crux of the matter. You are free to leave the US at any time.
P
Mon1k3r
I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.
A lot of people will argue that a well armed militia would need these weapons in case the government got froggy. But if they did, these people and their assault weapons just wouldn't do the trick. The second amendment doesn't allow civilians to own and operate hand grenades, M240B,G, or D, vehicle mounted MaDeuce, artillery, not to mention all of the non-lethal yet effective means that the government has and may employ against the populace in the event of all out tyranny.
I love the idea of the constitution, it's purpose and intent... But I do think it needs to be revamped, and it has to now include an amendment that says if you are a public servant, and you serve a corporate master rather than the public, and if you lie to the public in order to press an agenda that has more to do with profit than the people, then you should be dealt with appropriately.
APPROPRIATELY!
DJW001
reply to post by Bassago
Please read what she actually said:
"I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment.”
First, she is correct in stating that the Second Amendment is misunderstood. It is intended to establish a citizen militia, yet people seem to think it is designed to enable citizens to kill one another or even overthrow the government by force. She does not say that no-one should be allowed to own guns, she thinks the Second Amendment should be replaced, ie; have its intent made more clear for modern comprehension. You may now resume your knee jerk Liberal bashing.edit on 17-11-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
Modern comprehension? You mean, liberal comprehension, right?
Mon1k3r
I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.
A lot of people will argue that a well armed militia would need these weapons in case the government got froggy. But if they did, these people and their assault weapons just wouldn't do the trick. The second amendment doesn't allow civilians to own and operate hand grenades, M240B,G, or D, vehicle mounted MaDeuce, artillery, not to mention all of the non-lethal yet effective means that the government has and may employ against the populace in the event of all out tyranny.
I love the idea of the constitution, it's purpose and intent... But I do think it needs to be revamped, and it has to now include an amendment that says if you are a public servant, and you serve a corporate master rather than the public, and if you lie to the public in order to press an agenda that has more to do with profit than the people, then you should be dealt with appropriately.
APPROPRIATELY!
Ex_CT2
Common Good
I equate gun grabbers with 3 year old kids at dinner time complaining about "I dont like it-I dont want it".
Well kids, just because you dont like it, doesnt mean mean squat to the rest of the family.
The only ones who say the second amendment is misunderstood- are those who dont want to understand it; because its written-in plain english.
[...]
Exactly. These amendments are God-given rights that we claim, not privileges that have been accorded to us and subject to removal by statute.
That's why the 2nd doesn't say something like: "Well, if the whiners insist, they may have one firearm, of limited utility, as prescribed and approved by the federal government, and if no one else objects"....
DJW001
reply to post by 2ndthought
Modern comprehension? You mean, liberal comprehension, right?
Your quotations underline my point. The rebels who wrote the Constitution were certainly not Conservatives. They were proud Liberals.
EarthCitizen07
Ex_CT2
Common Good
I equate gun grabbers with 3 year old kids at dinner time complaining about "I dont like it-I dont want it".
Well kids, just because you dont like it, doesnt mean mean squat to the rest of the family.
The only ones who say the second amendment is misunderstood- are those who dont want to understand it; because its written-in plain english.
[...]
Exactly. These amendments are God-given rights that we claim, not privileges that have been accorded to us and subject to removal by statute.
That's why the 2nd doesn't say something like: "Well, if the whiners insist, they may have one firearm, of limited utility, as prescribed and approved by the federal government, and if no one else objects"....
Actually they are afforded priviledges given to us by the people who drafted and signed the constitution. We dont live in a religious country to be dominated by god given scriptures like iran for example.
It is misleading to imply "god given rights". Heck even in religious countries the clerics interprate the scriptures and often make mistakes.
ItCameFromOuterSpace
reply to post by Bassago
The private citizen should be allowed to have tanks, howitzers, B-52's, etc. We don't really need them, but what the hell..edit on 11/16/2013 by ItCameFromOuterSpace because: (no reason given)
Actually they are afforded priviledges given to us by the people who drafted and signed the constitution. We dont live in a religious country to be dominated by god given scriptures like iran for example.
It is misleading to imply "god given rights". Heck even in religious countries the clerics interprate the scriptures and often make mistakes.
pheonix358
The gun grabbers don't want to have a good look at real history. In the days when the 2nd was put in place, private citizens could and did own their own warships IF they could afford them.
The whole idea of the 2nd was to ensure a corrupt government could be tossed out by the people. If you bother to read the literature, news paper articles and the speeches made on the subject of the 2nd, the intent is clear.
So why the hell does someone like me, who does not even live in the US, know all this and yet idiots with law degrees don't. Only in America.
There is a way to alter the constitution, it is set out clearly, so why don't these people use it as it was designed, because they damn well know it would never happen. That is the crux of the matter. You are free to leave the US at any time.
P
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[23]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.