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 NightFlight
reply to post by beezzer
So, you Beezer, is going to implement a monkey trial to subvert or even abolish the second amendment? Or, will you try to establish the inalienable right to keep and bear arms is correct and appropriate? Or are you to stay ambivalent and impartial?
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by NightFlight
reply to post by beezzer
So, you Beezer, is going to implement a monkey trial to subvert or even abolish the second amendment? Or, will you try to establish the inalienable right to keep and bear arms is correct and appropriate? Or are you to stay ambivalent and impartial?
Ambivalent and impartial.
I'm the judge.
means, motive, and opportunity. The only thing I will allow.
Originally posted by eXia7
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by NightFlight
reply to post by beezzer
So, you Beezer, is going to implement a monkey trial to subvert or even abolish the second amendment? Or, will you try to establish the inalienable right to keep and bear arms is correct and appropriate? Or are you to stay ambivalent and impartial?
Ambivalent and impartial.
I'm the judge.
means, motive, and opportunity. The only thing I will allow.
Will we also be looking into a trial towards free speech?
Just wondering, since this is a silly concept to actually debate our rights as if it's criminal to have them. I don't think I appreciate your angle here.edit on 1/11/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by eXia7
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by NightFlight
reply to post by beezzer
So, you Beezer, is going to implement a monkey trial to subvert or even abolish the second amendment? Or, will you try to establish the inalienable right to keep and bear arms is correct and appropriate? Or are you to stay ambivalent and impartial?
Ambivalent and impartial.
I'm the judge.
means, motive, and opportunity. The only thing I will allow.
Will we also be looking into a trial towards free speech?
Just wondering, since this is a silly concept to actually debate our rights as if it's criminal to have them. I don't think I appreciate your angle here.edit on 1/11/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)
Far enough. But many here DO think that the 2nd Amendment is criminal.
Lets have a trial to determine the validity of their claims.
Originally posted by NightFlight
reply to post by beezzer
I cannot participate in such folly. To even contemplate putting the second amendment on trial will accomplish nothing and possibly lead to lessening the meaning of such a right. If you proceed with this pseudo trial, you will soon be forced to place the first amendment on trial followed by the third through tenth amendments.
I am not sure that you are an American citizen, but if you are, please think about this long and hard before proceeding.
ATS is watched by many alphabet agencies within the US. Some of these agencies have direct ties to the Presidency. Don't write anything here you don't want happening in real life...
Originally posted by eXia7
The "many" people you speak of are usually not even from the US, so how is MY right a criminal offense to somebody that doesn't even live in my country?
As for the other half, they can't help their view on guns, because they've never even shot one in their lives, so they live in fear of them. Most people who argue against guns do not understand how a gun works, and that it is a tool. Yes crazy people can get guns, but nobody ever looks at the other factors that contribute to tragic outcomes, they just jump on the anti gun wagon, blatantly ignoring the fact that most of these shooters are on some types of drugs for mental instability.
There are far more responsible gun owners in America than the outside population may believe. Our 2nd amendment right is not up for debate for people who don't even originate from a country that fought to have the rights it has now.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by eXia7
The "many" people you speak of are usually not even from the US, so how is MY right a criminal offense to somebody that doesn't even live in my country?
As for the other half, they can't help their view on guns, because they've never even shot one in their lives, so they live in fear of them. Most people who argue against guns do not understand how a gun works, and that it is a tool. Yes crazy people can get guns, but nobody ever looks at the other factors that contribute to tragic outcomes, they just jump on the anti gun wagon, blatantly ignoring the fact that most of these shooters are on some types of drugs for mental instability.
There are far more responsible gun owners in America than the outside population may believe. Our 2nd amendment right is not up for debate for people who don't even originate from a country that fought to have the rights it has now.
Sounds like a valid argument for the Defense. Wrabbit is on board, care to join him?
Originally posted by superman2012
...with guns. Now creationists are getting in on the 2nd amendment rights?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. ~ Ben Franklin