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.

 

US Supreme Court Judge wants to change wording of 2nd Amendment.

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   

daaskapital


"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."



"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say the right of the people in the militia to bear arms, it says the right of "The People" to bear arms. It is clear that you are supposed to keep arms just in case a militia is needed in the future and in order for this to happen the government will not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear said arms.




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Visitor2012
Why isn't this judge under arrest?!!!!!!!



Cause last time I checked YOU HAVE THE 1ST AMENDMENT!

Judge can what they like.

Politicians can propose what they like.

Its if they try and change it without that 2/3 vote in congress its illegal.

If you don't like them then don't vote them into office.
edit on 17-4-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


It takes more than just Congress, it also takes 3/4s of the state legislatures to approve of it, which, to say the least, is unlikely. So yes, the former Supreme Court justice can say or believe whatever idiocy crosses his mind, but that doesn't mean he's going to get his wish anytime soon.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


Bloomberg, this Judge, Obama, some senators and representatives. . . .

They all want to change the Constitution.

They can "want to" all they want, I suppose.

It isn't going to happen.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

vor78
reply to post by crazyewok
 


It takes more than just Congress, it also takes 3/4s of the state legislatures to approve of it, which, to say the least, is unlikely. So yes, the former Supreme Court justice can say or believe whatever idiocy crosses his mind, but that doesn't mean he's going to get his wish anytime soon.



Exactly.

That's my point.

The judge can say what he likes, its not illegal to propose a change in the constitutions.

But he has to go through all the processes and as you said a change is very unlikely.

Its only illegal if he trys to bypass those procedures. In which case lock him up for treason.

As far as law making is concerned your 2nd amendment is safe.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by txinfidel
 


Bloomberg, this Judge, Obama, some senators and representatives. . . .

They all want to change the Constitution.

They can "want to" all they want, I suppose.

It isn't going to happen.


I just which they would hurry up and put there proposal before congress and get it shot down just to put a end to the gun debate once and for all.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


My problem with this is it start with the second and moves to the rest like wildfire. I'm not okay with this at all.

-SAP-



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


Lawful 2nd Amendment supporters want to legally change supreme court justices in that case.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

KnightLight

daaskapital


"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."



"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say the right of the people in the militia to bear arms, it says the right of "The People" to bear arms. It is clear that you are supposed to keep arms just in case a militia is needed in the future and in order for this to happen the government will not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear said arms.



You are hitting the nail on the head there.

All one has to do is break the sentence down:

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,"

This part is saying that having a regulated militia (as opposed to just a mob with guns), is needed to keep your freedom.

"the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

This part is clear too: you can not take way people's guns.

The entire sentence is quite clear: you must not take away the people's guns, else they will not be able to form a militia, and that the ability of the people to form a militia is needed in order to keep a free state.

It does not say that you have to be in a militia in order to bear arms.
It does not say that a militia has the right to bear arms

It says quite clearly that "the people" have the right to bear arms, and that right "shall not be infringed.

It's really simple English.

Now we could argue all day about what we think they meant, but the sentence itself pretty much is simple and explains what they meant:

In order for a militia to be formed, you can not take away the arms of the people.

There's a good reason for that. It's because of what a militia is:




A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel.


Bold emphasis mine.

The military and National Guard is not the same thing as a militia. A militia depends upon the people that show up, to bring their own weapons. Not weapons issued to them, because a militia is made up on "non-professional fighters".

When they wrote the constitution, they knew what the difference was between a militia and a army. One has weapons issued by their government. The other is dependent upon the people in it having their own weapons.

It's very simple English, and I know people want to try and twist it to mean what they think it means, however, the way it is written, the words are quite clear:

You can not take away the people's weapons, because if you do so, they will not be able to form a militia.

Now, whether or not a militia would be effective in this day and age is another argument. Notice how I didn't say needed or not.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


I know plenty of people who have weapons that could hold off the military. It's tried & true that all you need is an AK-47 and an RPG. Maybe some AA of some sort.

OT:
Another liberal loon wanting to rewrite the constitution, eh? Not surprised. They know that many are talking about them and they're trying to stop the inevitable. The 2nd amendment is very clear and is so that the people can defend themselves against the tyranny of the US gov.. Forefathers knew that the gov would be infiltrated by foreign extremists and extremist loons. This was their solution to that little problem. This judge should be arrested for treason. Hopefully, a militia will arrest him. Trees and rope for all enemies of the US and it's citizens.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

madmac5150
The day they change the 2nd amendment to deny the right, there WILL be an armed uprising. You can mark my word on that one.


Nah. The 2nd has been infringed upon in dozens of ways in every jurisdiction in the land. Gradually it has been rendered useless by permits and restrictions galore and not once has a single citizen ever done anything in response. The Founding Fathers gave us this Amendment SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT GOVERNMENT OVERREACH and we have yet to use it as intended. Now its too late. The gov has grown in power and reach and technology such that even if the citizenry weren't a bunch of big-talking, yet do nothing whiney pussies, any uprising would be quickly and bloodily snuffed.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Funny I thought that right wingers were die hard guns for everybody people. At least this guy is no longer a judge and even if he was it wouldn't matter because the Supreme Court doesn't write the laws anyway. Funny how people want to scream when a person exercises their right to free speech.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
How such a thing is debatable is silly, of course the intention was for individuals to have the right to own firearms. Because if you bother to look at Article 1, Section 8 you find the following:


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;


Also you can find:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


In that we maintain a full time standing army in times of peace (against the powers limited to Congress) any attempt to change or circumvent the Second Amendment in order to disarm the population is sedition at the very least and could be considered treason. And while elected officials do have retain the right of free speech (and freedom of opinion by extension of freedom of expression) and even petition; official cannot take overt acts that violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. The wiggle room that keeps such elected officials from becoming legal and viable targets under the Second Amendment is that freedom to petition and the amendment process itself. However, if an order was issued to begin disarming citizens that wiggle room would become very, very narrow in scope. In other words, an Executive Order by a sitting President to disarm the people would paint a big old target on his chest and any federal agent protecting him or trying to carry out that order would be guilty of conspiracy to commit treason. The same would be true if either the House or the Senate produced a bill to become law that bypassed the amendment process.

Which also means that Obamacare is by definition unconstitutional because the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power of mandated purchase of anything. Even though all three branches have colluded in obtaining this power while bypassing the amendment process, the people can objected it by force of arms if the people organize themselves into a militia to do so. The lone gunman approach was never the intent of the Second, btw. Interestingly enough, there does not have to be an armed march on DC to prove that point. Militias within states can petition their state to disallow federal laws, recall elected officials and various other acts to oppose federal overreach or face removal from their state offices under threat of arms if need be.

As for the above paragraph's actions to be determined legal...that would be up to a jury of peers to decide if it was measured response of force or an insurrection. But such an after the fact decision would mean little to those that died in the circumstances of the event. That is the Sword of Damocles over the government that the Second Amendment was intended to be. An example of this done is the Battle of Athens, TN and here are Eleanor Roosevelt's words on the matter. link



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Visitor2012
Why isn't this judge under arrest?!!!!!!!



Because the 1st Amendment to the Constitution says that people have the right to express their opinions, even if those people are so ignorant that they don't even know who is on the Supreme Court and who isn't.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


This is propaganda. It's the author's (perhaps someone else's as well) intent to present the writings of an "authority figure" that has "experience" and believes the 2nd Amendment needs to be changed.

The irony is it was written/presented during the Bundy Ranch protest/standoff where militias got involved.

Gun control is only good for the government. It serves no one else's purpose. Even if you got rid of all guns in the country people would still find a way to kill another person. The manner in which a person kills another person is irrelevant. Just fact check Australia and their rise in knife deaths/crime, or New York City which has also seen an increase in knife deaths/crime.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Aint them same folks who go around arresting, and storming militia's all over the country ?

Who use entrapment, and do things like Waco, and Ruby Ridge ?

I do believe it is.

The second amendment is clear, as well as the other amendments in the bill of RIGHTS that people like them clearly ignore.

The 'rationale' behind that epic stupidity is for the public 'safety'.

When we already have laws addressing the harm or murder of another person.

Hell why don't they rewrite the 1st amendment ?

Thall shall worship no 'god' before me-(government)

Thall shall have 'free speech' only when it agrees with the agenda of government !

Why stop at the second ?

Hell rewrite them all.

That is what fascists do.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: txinfidel

Just for clarity FORMER Supreme Court Justice. He retired in 2010. Nominated by Ford (R) in 75.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

All Animals Are Equal, Just Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
It depends on what your definition of the word IS, IS.

Seems like a very important comma in the 2nd. Not hard for me to understand.

And to the guy trying to say that the founding fathers could never have imagined modern weapons, don't be dense. The founding fathers were comprised of some of the smartest most forward thinking people at that time. They were living in a time that weapons were improving at a fast rate, they should have been very familiar with how arms were improving since they were in an arms race of sorts with the British at the time.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The second amendment meant for everyone to have weapons not just one militia. The concept that a well organized militia is going to overcome a corrupt tyranny, and not be infiltrated itself is not realistic. Think how easily someone can defeat that. These men were not stupid it was common sense and didn't require 5,000 more words to describe what was clearly being said.

Oh, you think a new word needs to be inserted to make this read your way? Yeah... let's go ahead and take you to your new cell.
edit on 19-4-2014 by ezwip because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join