It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by seeker1963
I actually don't have an issue with that. lol You're right, they should have to take a psychological examination. I would also go further and reduce their pay to minimum wage. I also would bar them from receiving any money from any source other than directly from their job in congress.
Would fix this country up I think.
reply to post by neo96
FIne then let's have psych tests to vote them.
That wouldn't be fair to conservatives.
I don't personally see how a tracking device would make it past a SCOTUS ruling. I don't think that it would be a good idea myself.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
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.
It would also keep guns out of the hands of those that would do harm with them. Why? Because if you were a part of the militia in your state then obviously you have every right to have a gun, not a part of the militia? Then what are you doing with that gun? Guess what, now they can take those guns away from those who would do people harm. Instantly distinguishing a lawful law abiding gun owner from the nutcases, drug dealers, gang members, criminals who give all gun owners a bad name.
reply to post by liejunkie01
None of this is new law. None of it. All this is, is fulfilling the founding fathers vision of what they wanted America to be.
Yes, criminals will always get ahold of guns. What this does is better protect the people from not only being harassed by federal influence, but give law enforcement of a state a better tool to use to go after those that would give law abiding gun owners a bad name.
It's not even new, it's right there in the US Constitution.
Your argument is completely invalid.
It would also keep guns out of the hands of those that would do harm with them. Why
Yes, criminals will always get ahold of guns.
Your argument is, we shouldn't have laws against murder, cause people will murder anyway.
It's a failed idea.
people are going to murder other people. So why have a law against it?
That law doesn't stop people that are intent on murdering someone else right? They are going to do it despite the law. So let's get rid of those murder laws.
Why follow what the constitution spells out in the case of gun rights? People will still use guns for bad things anyway.
Do you see how your argument fails
Experts Explain Why the Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder
Following the release of a new study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health concerning the failure of deterrence in drug use, medical experts commented that deterrence also fails in the area of capital punishment. "It is very clear that deterrents are not effective in the area of capital punishment," said Dr. Jonathan Groner, an associate professor of surgery at Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health who researches the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
"The psychological mind-set of the criminal is such that they are not able to consider consequences at the time of the crime. Most crimes are crimes of passion that are done in situations involving intense excitement or concern. People who commit these crimes are not in a normal state of mind -- they do not consider the consequences in a logical way," Groner observed. Deterrents may work in instances where the punishment is obvious and immediate, neither of which are true for the death penalty.
What this does is also gives law enforcement better tools to use to prosecute those that would use guns for harm.
Na neo, here's the thing. Part and parcel to the 2nd Amendment and the reason that a well REGULATED militia is necessary for the security of a free state is the responsibility of the people. That's the founding fathers intent, that's what won us the revolutionary war, not selfish psychopaths off on their own mini wars. But a well regulated militia.
Fact of the matter is, I think that it's a great idea. You want a gun? Fine, show up at this National Guard post for your six weeks of training, and then you'll have to be on base 2 weeks a year, 1 weekend a month. And if there's a national disaster that comes up, guess who gets to do deal with it? That's right YOU!
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was ratifi ed on December 15, 1791. It reads, "(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."3 History shows, however, that this simple amendment is anything but. Over the years, much debate has centered on whether the right referred to in the Second Amendment is an individual or a state right.4
In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court offered some insight as to the context of the Second Amendment in deciding United States v. Miller.5 The case involved the interstate transportation of an unregistered shortbarreled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.6 The Court decided that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia forces."7 The Court further stated that only weapons with a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effi ciency of a well regulated militia" would come under the Second Amendment defi nition of arms.8 Explaining that the militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," the Court advised that these men would commonly provide their own customary arms when called to service.9 The Court, thus, upheld the ban of weapons having no connection to the militia or to the common defense.
Explaining that the militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," the Court advised that these men would commonly provide their own customary arms when called to service.9 The Court, thus, upheld the ban of weapons having no connection to the militia or to the common defense.[
militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," the Court advised that these men would commonly provide their own customary arms when called to service