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.

 

Workbook teaches kids 2nd Amendment includes gun control

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Registration is by definition an infringement. Your prior comments in this thread have already shown you have extremely limited knowledge of this topic, but humor me for a moment....

Exactly what does registration achieve?




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   

NonsensicalUserName

Bassago

Well regulated in this context means in good working order and citizens are the Militia.

What does the whiskey rebellion, etc have to do with this? The topic is that the school is using a workbook that is telling blatant lies about what the 2nd amendment means. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean only certain weapons and they must be registered.


that's your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
There are several different interpretations, the one that's important is the interpretation the Supreme Court makes.


Crap! This amendment is so easy to read.

All the SC is become is a bunch of robe heads trying to figure out how everyone can have their cake on both sides of an issue like this. Find some middle ground that makes the gun grabbers happy while not totally choking of the right to keep and bear. That's not their job. What they have ended up doing is constantly infringing on what shall not be infringed.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I gotta disagree with you for once.

It is an all or nothing.

We either have free speech as written/designed/intended for, or we don't.

We either have freedom of the press, or we don't.

We either have the right to bear arms, or we don't.

This is a prime instance where black and white comes into play.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


And who is the militia as defined by the laws around that time?????



Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes.
All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia



So.....the militia, with a little "m", not Militia with an upper case "M", are the people. We, the people......


It was not an outline for establishing militia. You and Kali clearly don't understand how to read Law.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



We either have the right to bear arms, or we don't.


I have to disagree with you on this one.

If it's that absolute....then we need to just disband the Supreme Court, tell 'en it was all a mistake the founders didn't mean about their interpreting and adapting the law based on those rights, to the changing nation. We won't have a living document, if that be the case ...and what has really allowed our Constitution to stand while so many other nations through history have failed in much shorter times..will be lost.

The principle is absolute ..the wording? Well... If the wording were to be taken literal, with nothing OUTSIDE that document used to understand context? I don't have a Militia Card, therefore, I cannot own a gun.

Of course..we know that isn't the context and the DC vs. Heller case of 2009 made that into actual law of our land, for the future to come. It's all been by interpretation and that makes nothing absolute in that document. Usually....for the better.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

*Sigh* You clearly just disproved your statement.


Kali74
The text between the 2nd comma and the last comma should be considered as something like a side note or clarification, much like we use parenthesis. A free State can only exist if it can defend itself and can only defend itself if it is armed.

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.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms.


I don't see where on God's green earth it states "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms".


And yes, registration is infringement at the simplest and first form.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





The principle is absolute ..the wording? Well... If the wording were to be taken literal, with nothing OUTSIDE that document used to understand context?

Of course..we know that isn't the context and the DC vs. Heller case of 2009 made that into actual law of our land, for the future to come. It's all been by interpretation and that makes nothing absolute in that document. Usually....for the better.


Hmm, that sounds a little Animal Farmish to me. When we begin to interpret the Bill of Rights as anything but literal we seem to get into trouble. As we are now and not just with the 2nd Amendment. "Better" is always a subjective argument.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 

Never said it was an outline. I said it was the reason given.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Other people have different interpretations and they're perfectly right to have them.

If this proves unpopular enough, the people of CT will elect different representatives who will change the law back.

A militia, should not be an armed mob, not today anyway, that's essentially what you're saying a militia is, f*ck that's what your saying a militia ought to be, an angry mob with guns and little in the way of protocols, standards, or anything else that would make me think "well-regulated".

I do not care what the founders wrote in some prosaic pamphlet they likely wrote to get popular opinion to side with them. I do not care about your interpretation of the constitution that seems to negate limitations, and violate what is essentially common sense in regards to public policy, and yet fail to recognize that they are just one interpretation amoungst many and might not be the most popular one.

I do not care about past threads, I do not care about what you percieve as a "liberal/progressive" agenda, I do not care about some future tyranny that your guns would have failed to stop anyway. (thinking the government could be easily overthrown by an armed mob is overconfident at best)

If you don't like something, write to your congressman, run for office, donate to political causes you support and try to get the public on your side, think about what actually is being demanded and what needs to be done. You don't even have to run for federal office, just local or state office would allow your voice to be heard.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


nah brah; I can disagree with you there.

After all; how would we enforce laws against child-pornography, fraud/false advertising, intellectual property laws, etc. without some limitations or interpretations of the first ammendment?

What about mediums that have only appeared in the centuries following the constitution, such as film, photography, or software?
should I be able to broadcast hardcore pornography on public airwaves, regardless of how it may impact others? Am I allowed to yell fire! in a crowded movie theater, or start panic and stampede in another place? Should a company be allowed to make bogus claims without even having to have small print that debases it?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

SO, we don't have a living document is correct.

As for militia car, none is required. The militia was identified as all citizens, not just someone that signs up.

I can't help the fact that something as very simple as, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, needs to go before a Supreme Court for interpretation.

What a sad state we have come to, where we as a country take something like "Up is up and down is down" and need 9 people to tell us what it really means.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


And again, you are wrong.

It was not stated that this is/was for militia.

The outlining of militia would not be found in it.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NonsensicalUserName
 


And that is the reason why it is moronic in nature.

It is very simple and very easy not only to read, but to see it.

It is a single sentence. Has a very detailed point.

Only Progressives and Lawyers could take something like this, and turn it into something else.
It also takes some of the best use of semantics and verbal gymnastics to come up with "Well, it states arms, but not arms like assault weapons".



This is basically like stating Up really isn't up, because I walk on my hands a lot and therefore MY reality is UP is Down.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 

It's right there. I don't know how you can say it isn't.

I honestly don't care. They are not going to come take them from you and you are not going to change their interpritation of things so, in the end it is rather moot.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by Bassago
 


nah brah; I can disagree with you there.

After all; how would we enforce laws against child-pornography, fraud/false advertising, intellectual property laws, etc. without some limitations or interpretations of the first ammendment?

What about mediums that have only appeared in the centuries following the constitution, such as film, photography, or software?
should I be able to broadcast hardcore pornography on public airwaves, regardless of how it may impact others? Am I allowed to yell fire! in a crowded movie theater, or start panic and stampede in another place? Should a company be allowed to make bogus claims without even having to have small print that debases it?


Child porn is a recording of a crime. Producing child porn...they may have outlawed that. But the rub comes in the fact that the porn is a record of a crime being committed. THis is where any right an individual has must be stopped: the point where that right is infringing on anothers right (essentially, the childs right to have informed consent, which it has been deemed that they don't).

False advertising....that has some basis in contract law for the most part. Once again, it stops your rights where anothers are being infringed.

Intellectual property laws....totally bogus. A travesty.

So as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, we can absolutely agree that my right to own arms should be limited by your rights. Thus, I likely should not be shooting next door to your house while you are sleeping. I likely shouldn't shoot you or your property. And that is about where it ends. Beyond that, I should have the right to do whatever in the hell I feel like doing with my guns. I am not hurting anyone...why would any one care?

Now tell me...what rights are being infringed (or could be infringed) by gun ownership?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Bassago
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Hmm, that sounds a little Animal Farmish to me. When we begin to interpret the Bill of Rights as anything but literal we seem to get into trouble. As we are now and not just with the 2nd Amendment. "Better" is always a subjective argument.


I'm not sure I understand you here. "When we begin?" We've never stopped. Interpreting our Constitution to the issues and circumstances it's used to address defines the literal purpose and mission of the Supreme Court as our 3rd equal branch of Government.

Congress writes and passes law. Executive enforces and regulates based on those laws and the Supreme Court interprets those laws in relation to the document every one of our laws is ultimately based on or spawns from.

To every need a branch and to every branch a specific purpose.
edit on 27-3-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



What a sad state we have come to, where we as a country take something like "Up is up and down is down" and need 9 people to tell us what it really means.


I'm afraid I'm as confused in your reply as Bassago's, for different reasons. "What a sad state we have come to"? When did we "come to this"?? The 2009 DC vs. Heller case is where it was finally, and for the first time in that way, determined Militia referred to the American population in general as men capable of standing to fight if needed, and not requiring the establishment of a formal organization to be considered that.

Prior to 2009 and for at least as long as I've been alive and able to recall it, that Militia term has been a point of popular and actual legal contention. In fact, the National Rifle Association prevailed upon the 2nd Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America folks *NOT* to pursue the Heller or McDonald cases because ...just as they had won? So too, they could have LOST. Just as McDonald gave us the local nature of the 2nd and other issues settled while the Heller case made individual ownership an absolute in this nation .....a decision the other way on Heller would have been catastrophic for us. It would have been JUST as legal and JUST as binding as the decision which went 100% for gun owners.

VERY high stakes ...and that is what the Super Court exists, as a matter of Constitutional law, to do. Interpret the base document as it applies to current circumstance and laws on the books, in a changing nation.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521)

There are the cases, background, decisions and case law to have come from them. It's actually fairly short and easy reading, as these things go....and absolutely clear as to what the stakes were and just how well the outcome went for us.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




I'm not sure I understand you here. "When we begin?" We've never stopped. Interpreting our Constitution to the issues and circumstances it's used to address defines the literal purpose and mission of the Supreme Court as our 3rd equal branch of Government.


My point was that some things do not need interpretation. That we've never stopped interpreting and reinterpreting something as simple as the 2nd Amendment (and others) through varying conservative and liberal Supreme Court whims is how we got into this place (mess) in the first place. Just my opinion but the law seems to be about how to circumvent constitutional rights as much as support them. Somethings broken here. The 2nd doesn't say:
    "shall not be infringed..." except in gun free zones, New York, etc.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


reply to post by macman
 


Read the Federalist papers, the Congressional debates. You may be taking a firm position because you're afraid that if you aren't militant in your stance someone will come take your guns away and yes, I do know some people are actually trying to... and those I would stand by your side to defend against, though I may carry a sign instead of gun. But don't let your fear make you a jerk or worse, an ignorant jerk... My position isn't crazy or stupid, it is the position that stood from the beginning until 2008... and that whole time the debate raged in law schools, by politicians, by lawyers and Justices, the right that wasn't supposed to be infringed on, the right to form a Militia (not militia)... an actual trained military force, sworn to their State and not the USofA, just faded into wispy vapor.

I'm done trying to debate people who treat their position as a dog treats a bone, nothing else exists and no amount of logic will get the dog to realize that there's a whole world beyond that bone.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I'm a jerk regardless, so that isn't really anything to touch upon.


And you fail to see the issue. You have allowed lawyers and politicians to TELL you want something means.

Instead of looking at it for what it is.

It is not a formation statement of militia. It is a right of the people to bear arms. Not the right of the militia.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join