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.
Originally posted by Wolf321
As we are seeing, as government become more and more oppressive, bordering on sheer tyranny, they abuse power and take away the rights of people. In doing so they always come to get the people. It is in those instances that the people should stand their ground, and their brothers and neighbors should be standing with them. Defense. Resist. Make them not want to risk their lives to enact their oppression. Sadly, in that aspect we are outgunned, contrary to the 2nd Amendment.edit on 13-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This is how much of a Pro I was in BF2, I played as good as this:
You must use skills like almost as good as mine to defend your neighborhoods
Originally posted by Wolf321
Why did they include that amendment to the constitution? Why was that right specified one its own?
The answer is simple; it is so the people have the tools to resist and overthrow a tyrannical and oppressive government.
Originally posted by Wolf321
To restrict and limit that right in a manner that prohibits its use is not in accordance with its purpose.
Originally posted by Wolf321
To allow restrictions or prohibitions that give the government the advantage, is to essentially not even have a 2nd Amendment.edit on 13-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Xcathdra
It was to allow the people protection from the government. While the constitution addresses changes in government, armed revolt is the last option. Participation in the process by voting and holding elected officals accountible is the first line of defense.
Its not enough to just bitch about the government not doing what they are suppose to. If you want them to obey the constitution then citizens must hold them accountible, using the correct process. Skipping that step / process violates the constitution just as badly as the government ignoring it.
Respectfully incorrect. The first amendment guarantees the the government cannot take away a person ability to free speech. However its not absolute and must change with the times. While I respect a persons right to speak their mind, I dont respect their right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, creating a panic when one does not exist.
It protects religious freedom however it does not allow for human sacrifice.
It protects travel but not the method..
It prohibits unlawful search and seizures but allows it to be waived by the individual.
The constitution prohibits women from voting but was changed by the people.
The constitution considers certain peoples 3/5th of a person but was changed by the people.
The 5th amendment protects against double jeopardy however the FEderal Government and state governments are separate sovereigns and as such a person can be charged at both levels.
It protects freedom of press however it does not protect illegal actions by the press when it comes to printing classified information.
The 2nd amendment does not cover specifics so to argue the 2nd amendment is being violated begs the question - how?
People seem to be ignoring the section of the constitution that discusses the military, the fact they operate under differing guidelines / laws than civilians etc etc.
Your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.
Originally posted by Wolf321
Well we seem to be in agreement here.
Originally posted by Wolf321
With the exception of the 5th amendment issue, everything you cited are issues where rights or freedoms of others are violated, which is NOT permitted under the constitutionally protected rights. The issues that were not recognized or not in accordance with individual freedom and liberty at the adoption of the Constitution, women voting and the 3/5ths person issue, were corrected to ensure and enhance freedom.
Originally posted by Wolf321
For the people to be permitted to buy and posses the same arms as the military, to include automatic weapons, explosives, tanks, jets, armor etc, VIOLATES NO PERSONS LIBERTY. If no persons liberty is being violated, no restriction is needed or should be allowed. The only reason to restrict and regulate such arms in a manner that empowers the government and limits the people, serves contrary to the 2nd amendment.
Originally posted by Wolf321
The only way the constitution should change with the times, is to further secure the blessings of liberty, to enhance the freedoms of man, or to restructure or redefine the responsibilities and restrictions of government. To do other than that is counter to the principles of our founding.
Originally posted by Wolf321
We are already in agreement that the 2nd amendment exist so the people can protect themselves from the government. If the government is allowed superior arms, and people restricted, then logically they cannot protect themselves from the government.
Originally posted by Wolf321
This has no bearing on the people being allowed the same arms as the military under the 2A.
Originally posted by Wolf321
Exactly. Once again we are in agreement. And I must reiterate, that for the people to be allowed to purchase and posses the same arms as the military does not interfere with the rights of others.
Originally posted by Wolf321
Now, some would claim that the misuse of such technology can violate another’s rights, but that applies to other rights as you have expressed. That is not the issue many in this discussion have argument with. Simply that the 2A, in regulating and restricting arms of the people, is not in accordance with the principles and ideals of the founders or in the spirit of the constitution.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Which supports my point that what was considered important and non important at the time of its inception have been changed / adapted to take into account changes in society. It acknowledges from the start that its a living document that is meant to change with the times and to take into account the unforseen. Our founders gave us a framework that we can change / build without destroying the foundation.
Again respectfully incorrect. Please show me where the 2nd amendment specifically states you have a right to own a F-16 Falcon or F-22 Raptor or deplested Uraniaum ammunition.
The part of the constitution you are ignoring is the part that states whatever is not spelled out to the federal government is reserved to the states. In case you have not noticed a peson ability to purchase differeing weapons depends on the state they live in.
The Constitution is a road map / guide, not a suicide pact.
While I understand your argument I dont agree with it. It skips over the requirement that the people are responsible for holding the government accountible and does this by being involved and voting / participating in the process. PEople want to skip over that step anytime the gtovernment does something they dont agree with.
It has massive bearing on this issue. Again the 2nd amendment makes no guarantee that you can own what the nmilitary has. It makes no guarantees that the population should be equal to or better armed than the military. That is a myth and does not exist.
Again there is nothing that states the people can have access to the exact same weapons the military uses.
It gurantees the right for an individual to bear arms, nothing more.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
No where does it state what is covered under the amendment. Anything not spelled out is reserved to the states, …
The 2nd gurantees the right to own and bear arms. It does NOT specifiy what arms are, are not, whats covered and whats not.
Originally posted by Wolf321
Originally posted by Xcathdra
No where does it state what is covered under the amendment. Anything not spelled out is reserved to the states, …
It doesn’t have to be spelled out because it is all inclusive.
Freedom of religion is included in the constitution, but it doesn’t specify which religion. It is all inclusive. We don’t let states start saying Islam is not a recognized as a religion in this state.
The 2nd gurantees the right to own and bear arms. It does NOT specifiy what arms are, are not, whats covered and whats not.
You keep getting hung-up on the lack of the word “arms” being defined in the document itself. Are you a lawyer or a congressman? Where is the common sense that Patrick Henry recognized?
Originally posted by something wicked
Arguably with the proper training, the user of a sidearm or knife can be discriminate against who it threatens, injures or kills. Taking the argument in this thread to its logical conclusion, a missile or a bomb cannot be as discriminate and the risk of collateral damage to civilian property and life is greatly increased. Is this in and of itself against the actual purpose of the constitution?
Originally posted by Wolf321
Originally posted by something wicked
Arguably with the proper training, the user of a sidearm or knife can be discriminate against who it threatens, injures or kills. Taking the argument in this thread to its logical conclusion, a missile or a bomb cannot be as discriminate and the risk of collateral damage to civilian property and life is greatly increased. Is this in and of itself against the actual purpose of the constitution?
First, I have made the point that to allow all civillians the same authorization for conventional weapons as the military does not violate anyones rights or freedoms.
You stopped short of making your argument that missiles and bombs cannot be discriminate and said cannot be as discriminate, which is a key distinction. Bombs and missiles are tools, just like guns. You pick the right tool for the job. When done so, each is as discriminate as it can be. To say tanks , jets, bombs are missiles should be restricted because the have the potential to harm more is the same as saying a gun should be restricted if it holds more than one bullet. Even then, based upon caliber and other factors, a single bullet can easily kill more than its designated target. The responsibility on its employment is up to the individual.
Interpreting the 2nd amendment as saying the people should not have the ability to protect themselves from tyranny, but merely some semblance of protection, is against the purpose of the constitution.edit on 16-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)