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.

 

Witless for the Prosecution: New York DA Forces Staff to Forgo Second Amendment Rights

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

www.abovetopsecret.com...

READ.

Constitutional rights are Constitutional RIGHTS.



Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It makes no damn difference.

What word is used to describe them.




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Who was mad about this btw?

Was it the lawyers themselves or is someone else being mad for them?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

www.abovetopsecret.com...

READ.

Constitutional rights are Constitutional RIGHTS.



Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It makes no damn difference.

What word is used to describe them.


Your Constitutional rights protect you from Government not other people. If I say you can not cuss or carry a gun into my home you can not claim the Constitution and do it anyway. If you join the military you can not carry your private weapon on base and claim the Second Amendment protects you when you agreed to follow military rules and regulations. If you want to go to Church on Sunday and you employer says you have to work you can not claim Constitutional protection.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad




Your Constitutional rights protect you from Government not other people.


Actually it's the same thing.

The constitution was meant to be a protection from the state, and the people from themselves.

As this is a 'democracy' meaning mob rule.

Where mob might makes right,and legislation merely comes from whatever the mob wants.

This is why the constitution is so important.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hey Neo's.......

Wanta go to tete eh tete in the debate forum?

Your choice of subject......

Caveat is, it must only be the same poster

edit on 26-9-2015 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96
No need to get your feathers ruffled - the way you phrased it made it an obvious question

You still aren't being clear

Are you saying the the order of the amendments is arbitrary and unimportant? They are all of equal value? That might be technically and historically true, but I think most people are willing to argue about their favorites

I think it's interesting how many years later they figured out that the 14th was kinda necessary

Are you saying that within the 14th is an argument for gun owners too - above and beyond what all is said in the 2nd? Because in addition to being a free and equal human - we needed to have one more amendment that says you are also a free and equal human that deserves to have a gun that cannot be taken away from you?

:-)

Sometimes I forget how important guns really are

Words are funny things neo



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

This a prime example of what religious activist look like in positions of power, take a good look, because it can happen anywhere and under any religious believes

She is toasted, bye, bye Madeline Singas. She just killed her political career




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MrSpad

Well if they agree to it when they take he jon, then I guess it really isn't as bad as it sounds.



Wow Sremmons, looking at your previous posts I actually thought you might not be defending this dingbat DA, you weren't (up until this point) supporting the 2a rights of Prosecutors, but you didn't appear to be defending the DA, then you had to go and say this.


What would you say if an employer told people that if they had any sort of tattoos, they could not have a specific job, would you support the employer as you are supporting to DA?



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

Is interesting when you find out that a person uses its power to take away people's constitutional rights.

And is still those that support this practice.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

Who was mad about this btw?

Was it the lawyers themselves or is someone else being mad for them?



If you don't see what a slippery slope this could become, you are either painfully *shortsighted* (nicest word I can come up with), ignorant, have your head buried in the sand, or you have an extremely bias point of view, or some combination of the aforementioned.

If you can't see what a slippery slope this could become, your opinion has no right to carry any weight in serious discussion. This cannot be simply dismissed. If this zealous, criminal over reach were to be un-challenged and successful, other anti-gun zealots who didn't have the courage to take that fateful first step would fall in line and start trying to do this, and given enough time would expand far past state jobs and eventually spill over into the private sector.
edit on 27-9-2015 by chuck258 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

If you agree to something when you take the job then how much of a right do you have to be mad about it?
Maybe avoid ad homs and arguing from a slippery slope.

All I am defending at this point is if it is a clause in a contract they sign then they willingly allowed this to take place. That isn't having rights taken away, that is giving it up.

Oh and I guess the free market would decide if this were to spread no?
edit on thSun, 27 Sep 2015 13:06:02 -0500America/Chicago920150280 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join