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 DavidsHope
reply to post by tetra50
People are not hatred: I suspect I didn't make it clear. People are the problem.
It is the hatred of certain people that cause them to kill. Did you even look at my link?
Of the killing in the UK of children alone over a 5 year period? You don't even allow guns there, and still you have people that hate: They kill. they don't need guns, they can kill easily without them and clearly they do.
There are those in the UK that are killed with guns including if I recall recently Two police officers in the line of duty?
I could find many many more links to point out the murder going on in the UK and around the world.
Most people do what is just good and right, but there are some that simply hate: And kill.
. It is only the actions of a few lunatics that are the problem.
I am protected by my constitution allowing me the right to bear arms. You don't have that right.
It has been taken from you.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by AdamLaw
Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?
Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?
Originally posted by SLAYER69
So, You're against firearms?
That's cool.
Do yourself a favor and don't come into my home unannounced in the middle of the night.
I'm pro firearms.
Originally posted by AdamLaw
“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.”(Constitution of the United States Of America, 2nd Amendment)
Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?
Proponents of the individualistic interpretation hold especially the second part of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." According to them, citizens have the right to arm themselves in a threefold purpose: to defend their property and their families, to preserve a possible tyrannical government and participate in the defense of the state against foreign aggression. But the proponents of the collective right are to make cheap limitation of the clause above. Insofar as there is talk of a militia, that is to say, in the language of the time, a reserve army, the right of the states to organize such a armed force that is recognized. It was to protect at the time of ratification, was the opportunity for each State to ensure its own defense without resorting to a professional federal army. And for them this invalidates the theory of the Second Amendment right to open a vigilante. In addition, the reference to a "free state" and its security does not allow the interpretation that citizens have the right to arm themselves to resist a government deemed too authoritarian.
Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?
United States v. Miller 1939, the supreme Court took a position that could not be more ambiguous. If it upholds the constitutionality of the federal law of 1934, it is for a reason that is not likely to set a law: the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the type of weapon involved in the case considered (a sawed-off shotgun), because it is not part of the usual weapons of a militia.
Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
Can you imagine the spike in home invasions if guns were illegal? The risk of the home owner pointing a gun in your face is probably the #1 deterrent to home robberies. Clearly the police can't do much of anything to prevent it, it's up to the homeowner.
Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by AdamLaw
Let me help you out. The 2nd amendment was to guarantee the of the civilians to have the same weaponry as the government. That's right. The same. You have a problem with Americans Carrying a gun or whatever new agenda you may be on.. It Stinks. and as a vet I question who and where you come from..Little govt cheer leaders