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.

 

Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

page: 27
20
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

the constitution is not conditional, the 2nd amendment is not conditional. the constitution is not a living document, it is a rulebook...you don't get to change the rules, just because you can't play the game right.

the supreme court was supposed to be the final arbiter of the people, the supreme authority on matters of constitutional law...now they're just lapdogs, who, in concert with the federal government, have duped the people into believing that they have the authority to "interpret" the constitution...

as agustus said, the 18th amendment was something tacked on later....the first 10, that make up the bill of rights, are the most important, and really aren't to be screwed with...

now then, as much as i love discussing the constitution, this really is off-topic for this thread...




posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Wait wait wait, so I see it now. You are of this BS idea that the Constitution is a living document, and basically that the Supreme Court is a second level of legislation.

No wonder you willfully omit so much....in the use of statutes, presentation of law, situations, answering direct questions and how to read laws accurately. It all makes sense.

This is the only way your stance, of a living document can hold up. You have to omit and basically fabricate stuff to fit into this.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

The checks and balances system in this nation allow for the supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

This is why we had a assault gun ban for so long. Even though many argued against its constitutionally, it was held up in the courts.

There is a mechanism that allows for the changes to the constitution to be made, and this has been used several times. Hence why you can no longer own a human being.

I wonder if it's not time to fully enforce article I section 8 clauses 15 & 16 and the 2nd amendment and require firearms owners to be part of the militia and press them into service defending what many refer to as "the invasion" occurring on our southern boarder.

I wonder how well gun rights advocates would fair against the drug cartels?

Course, congress would be obligated to arm said militia for that service and i would suggest that since many gun rights advocates are constitutional literalists, they be armed only with muskets.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
I wonder if it's not time to fully enforce article I section 8 clauses 15 & 16 and the 2nd amendment and require firearms owners to be part of the militia and press them into service defending what many refer to as "the invasion" occurring on our southern boarder.


Well in that case, since we are going to fully enforce it, I want to order my SAW now since Congress is supposed to pay for my weapons.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, because apparently the constitution isn't a living document and must be applied as written at the time it was written, that means muskets only.

Can't apply a meaning to this day and age now can we?



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

nowhere in the constitution does it say that firearm ownership is conditional on militia membership...

furthermore, article one, section eight, clauses fifteen, and sixteen, do not say what you imply they say.

article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative powers of the congress....among them are


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


and


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;


this says nothing about conditional ownership of firearms either..nor is there anything to "fully enforce", as while, yes, we technically ARE the militia, we're not a militia at the moment....we are armed, so that we might organize into a militia, should the need arise...

further still, nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about muskets....nice try though..
edit on 7-18-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Well, because apparently the constitution isn't a living document and must be applied as written at the time it was written, that means muskets only.


So the Congress arms the military with muskets? Nice deflection. Not only do I want a SAW I want a couple of Javelins as well.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

oh, c'mon, if you're gonna get absurd, do it right..

ask for a nuke, and a fighter jet, lol



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
oh, c'mon, if you're gonna get absurd, do it right..

ask for a nuke, and a fighter jet, lol


As a Mason we already run DARPA so pardon me while I go retask a satellite.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The military is a completely separate entity than the militia. You know this.

There's nothing in the constitution that says that the militia gets military hardware. As the appropriations for said hardware is earmarked specifically for the military on a two year basis.

Can't cherry pick the constitution now can we?



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
The military is a completely separate entity than the militia. You know this.


Your disingenuousness does not allow you to see that all of the Founders who wrote about the Second Amendment understood its prime purpose was to depose a tyrannical government. You cannot depose a tyrannical government with muskets when they are more proficiently armed.

There's nothing in the constitution that says that the militia gets military hardware. As the appropriations for said hardware is earmarked specifically for the military on a two year basis.


There is nothing to say they do not. You obviously do not understand the Constitution. It is not a list of things the Citizens cannot do, it is a list of things the Government cannot do.

Can't cherry pick the constitution now can we?


Project much?



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, because apparently the constitution isn't a living document and must be applied as written at the time it was written, that means muskets only.

Can't apply a meaning to this day and age now can we?


Please show me where it reads "Right to Bear Muskets"?

Bud, you fail every time here.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
Please show me where it reads "Right to Bear Muskets"?
Bud, you fail every time here.


The whole 'living document' argument kills me because it only seems to selectively apply to the personal agenda that the person spouting that seems to desire.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok

The checks and balances system in this nation allow for the supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

Yes, new laws. It was not intended to redefine Rights put into existence by the founding documents.
Again, your Progressive stance, where legislation from the bench is the most bastardized view of our constructed Govt and framework is not only flawed, but pretty disgusting.


originally posted by: HauntWok
This is why we had a assault gun ban for so long. Even though many argued against its constitutionally, it was held up in the courts.

It was upheld due to activist Judges. Had nothing to do with the "constitutionally" of it. Since it hit the sunset time, and was never reinstated, nor acted upon, that should tell you everything you need to know.
Plus that whole Heller case would have blown it out of the water.


originally posted by: HauntWok
There is a mechanism that allows for the changes to the constitution to be made, and this has been used several times. Hence why you can no longer own a human being.

And hence you and other Progressives will never actually lawfully challenge the 2nd.
The cowardice shown with this, by legislating via Govt policy, EO, and the subversive local laws is the biggest fact to show it would never work, to either directly challenge or push for repeal of the 2nd.


originally posted by: HauntWok
I wonder if it's not time to fully enforce article I section 8 clauses 15 & 16 and the 2nd amendment and require firearms owners to be part of the militia and press them into service defending what many refer to as "the invasion" occurring on our southern boarder.

Didn't you get the memo. Militias are already forming, and have formed on the border. Seems that your beloved Govt is getting their collective panties all wadded up over this.
And again, your understanding of the statutes involved with such things, it about as correct as the "living document" argument you suggest.


originally posted by: HauntWok
I wonder how well gun rights advocates would fair against the drug cartels?

Probably better then the fake war on drugs the Govt has been fighting for years.


originally posted by: HauntWok
Course, congress would be obligated to arm said militia for that service and i would suggest that since many gun rights advocates are constitutional literalists, they be armed only with muskets.

Please, I beg you, with sprinkles, chocolate fudge, sugar and cream on top. Show me where anywhere it states muskets.

And I bet you will pitch the tired old "firearms of the times" response.
Please, while researching how to read statutes and laws, spare the time to actually learn what firearms were around the time of the construction of the Country.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is the fatal flaw for all Progressives.

Remember. Macman's first rule. "It is always different for Progressives. ALWAYS"



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
So wait, are we ignoring the fact that military appropriations do not apply to the Militia?

Article I Section 8 Clause(s) 12, 13, & 14:


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


Doesn't include the Militia for those appropriations that go to the Military. So why on earth do you think you would get military hardware if the government actually followed the constitution like they are supposed to and provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia?

Tell me where does it say you would get the same appropriation that the Armies get? Or even be included on that?

Sounds to me, and I might be mistaken, that it would have to be a separate appropriation for the Militia, maybe they could find some early Vietnam era M-16s for the Militia to use. After all, can't be adding to the deficit, and an appropriations bill expressly for the Militia to buy new gear wouldn't be paid for and so taxes would have to be raised right? And we all know that Americans are "Taxed Enough Already"

So, obviously buying new gear for the Militias would be out of the question. I guess they would have to make due with surplus gear, I think the early Vietnam era M-16 would be a perfect weapon. I'm sure they still have some hanging around right? I mean Reagan couldn't have sold them all to the Contras right?

That way, real Militias can be formed, with officers appointed by the state, and they can be Organized Armed, and Disciplined as prescribed by congress:

Course I love this lie:


Your disingenuousness does not allow you to see that all of the Founders who wrote about the Second Amendment understood its prime purpose was to depose a tyrannical government. You cannot depose a tyrannical government with muskets when they are more proficiently armed.


Yes, depose a tyrannical government (England) not the constitutionally elected body of the United States Government. Actually in fact, according to the United States Constitution that is REALLY illegal:

Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution:


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Hmm, declaring war against the United States would definitely qualify as Treason, and not really be a roll the Militia's are authorized to do.
edit on 18-7-2014 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
So wait, are we ignoring the fact that military appropriations do not apply to the Militia?

Article I Section 8 Clause(s) 12, 13, & 14:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


Did you read that? It says not to be funded for more than two years.

Do you know why? Because the House is voted upon every two years. This stipulation in the above clause is to prevent one session's military actions from carrying over into the next.

Sweet mother of Jesus and the Baby Jesus, do you even understand the basic functions of the United States?



edit on 18-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, in fact I do understand what I am reading, your insistence that I do not is frankly frustrating and irritating, because it's simply not true despite the amount of times you perceive it so.

Here, how about this, I'll let a conservative website explain it to you in terms that you might find more appropriate than how I really want to explain this.

Army Clause


For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England.
...


Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
...


The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.
...


Nonetheless, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike expressed concerns about a standing army, as opposed to a navy or the militia. Accordingly, this is the only clause related to military affairs that includes a time limit on appropriations. The appropriations power of Congress is a very powerful tool, and one that the Framers saw as particularly necessary in the case of a standing army. Indeed, some individuals argued that army appropriations should be made on a yearly basis. During the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry raised precisely this point. Roger Sherman replied that the appropriations were permitted, not required, for two years. The problem, he said, was that in a time of emergency, Congress might not be in session when an annual army appropriation was needed.


How odd on this issue I am taking the classic anti federalist stance, while you appear to be taking the federalist opinion.


edit on 18-7-2014 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
How odd on this issue I am taking the classic anti federalist stance, while you appear to be taking the federalist opinion.



The only reason I even mentioned buying me a few weapons was you decided to invoke the militia clause. You cannot invoke the clause without adhering to the entire piece.

You want it? Buy me a SAW.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



The only reason I even mentioned buying me a few weapons was you decided to invoke the militia clause. You cannot invoke the clause without adhering to the entire piece.

You want it? Buy me a SAW.


And we are back at that again are we?

And I said that it would have to be a separate appropriations bill from the military appropriations bill, and since we can't be having any unpaid for expenses, that would mean that arming the Militia would be through surplus equipment.

I say the early Vietnam Era M-16 would be appropriate for the Militia.




top topics



 
20
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join