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.

 

Obama urges gun control after Colorado Springs shooting: 'Enough is enough'

page: 23
70
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Respectfully, I must disagree. There's never really been a formal interpretation of 2A by the Supreme Court prior to '08. The most notable prior gun rights case was probably the 1939 US vs Miller case, but even that didn't touch on the issue of private ownership directly, rather that the weapon Miller owned was illegal under the 1934 NFA and that 2A didn't apply since the weapon itself couldn't be found to have an application to a militia (which itself is an extremely interesting point when applied to the whole 'assault rifle' debate). The only thing we know for certain is that since the country's inception, a large percentage of private citizens have owned firearms for their own individual use and the federal government has, to this point, never challenged that right to private firearms ownership beyond limited classes of weapons. Given that, I don't see the 2008 Heller decision as being out of line at all with the past traditions of the country regarding firearms ownership.
edit on 30-11-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

As you well know, the declaration of Independence was issued in 1786.


It would appear that you do not really know all that well. The Declaration of Independence was issued in 1776.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg




Let's see, I quoted the 2nd too, didn't I? "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." By putting this in the very same line, it is clear to me that the authors meant that bearing a gun should only be done in that context: as part of a well regulated Militia.


I'll post it again then...



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm sure they will pass some other SKETCHY bill while everyone is up in arms about gun control talk. That's how it's usually done



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
They're siittng on information AGAIN like they did with the Oregon Campus shooting. No word on the weapon used, what the guys psychiatric and medical history was and only tentative attempts at trying to paint him as anti abortion. news flash for you guys. He moved to Colorado where marijuana is now legal. Was he a pot head stoner and did that have an effect on his mental state? No word on that. Also, Obama is a lackwit.
edit on 30-11-2015 by Dutchowl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

TPP? The deadline for it should be soon...



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: FamCore

TPP? The deadline for it should be soon...



I thought that already passed ?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Wait, what? No way. There's meant to be a 90 day period before that happens. I thought it was only released a few weeks ago. November 5th, it seems.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Obviously you haven't read all the other documents which clearly show the second amendment isn't just about a well regulated militia, but about the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If the Second Amendment was just about a well regulated militia, the founding fathers wouldn't have specified, and put in between commas, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Here, let me try to make this easier for you.


Amendment II

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

I am doing this step by step so it is easy for you to understand.

See the commas that separate the part about the "well regulated militia", and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The commas are there for a reason, and not just to take space.

But the founding fathers didn't stop there.


Amendment II

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.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Noticed something about the phrase I put in bold above? The founding fathers stated in specific the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is very specific and shows they were not talking about "a well regulated militia", but about the people having the right to keep and bear arms.


edit on 30-11-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
really, when the delegates wen't back to their respective states to argue for ratification and said that they meant it to mean regular private citizens that means that's what the 2nd amendment means. There is no alternate meaning possible when the writers said plainly what they meant by it. I cited several of them. i also cited several of their contemporaries on the meaning of it. They all knew what it meant. You cannot find one of them that said it didn't mean gun ownership was an individual right.

What is frightening is men and women who are constrained by their own stare decisis on how the constitution ought to be analysed when determining it's meaning are divided along ideological lines 5/4 in heller for example.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: HighFive
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Background checks on private sales and online sales does not equal " gimme ya guns"
I hope mental health records become available to the agencies that do background checks, but what's the point If the crazy person or criminal can go around the background check? That's why we call it common sense gun control. That's why even most NRA members support universal background checks.




Any self respecting gang banger and or nut job doesn't want a legal gun. They want a machine gun like this JB weld special.
www.gunbroker.com...

These are special because they come with no checks whatsoever, and delivered to your front door. JB weld because that's all your need to have a full auto UZI.

The favorite of all US gangs is the good ole Full Auto Chopper (AK-47). AK kits poured in during the Clinton ban era as those affected just cut their guns and shipped twice as many.



Runner up would be any HK. Like this kit.
www.gunbroker.com...



Counting kits I have heard that AK-47/74's alone outnumber the populous here. P.S. You never see machine gun mentioned on the news just assault rifle. Incidents happen all of the time. Oh, and nut jobs can be creative. I am more than certain that snapping and killing a mass of folks does not require a gun, just imagination.

I don't believe its possible to legislate away the problem. Just sayin



edit on 30-11-2015 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
really, when the delegates wen't back to their respective states to argue for ratification and said that they meant it to mean regular private citizens that means that's what the 2nd amendment means. There is no alternate meaning possible when the writers said plainly what they meant by it. I cited several of them. i also cited several of their contemporaries on the meaning of it. They all knew what it meant. You cannot find one of them that said it didn't mean gun ownership was an individual right.

What is frightening is men and women who are constrained by their own stare decisis on how the constitution ought to be analysed when determining it's meaning are divided along ideological lines 5/4 in heller for example.


I'm quoting myself; -aren't I special?

it is in large part these individual gun right arguments that the delegates used that persuaded the former colonies to ratify the constitution and bill of rights. So obviously they meant it and the ratifying bodies agreed. Therefore 4 robe wearing fools obviously have issues with determining what the founders meant in the face of the evidence. terrible.
edit on 30-11-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

So, let's see: consensus here seems to be that the 2nd amendment mentions TWO things:


  1. a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
  2. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms


Any ideas on why the framers did not make TWO amendments?



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Donkey_Dean

You are right: regulations won't stop outlaws. But it will stop the 85 deaths cause by fire arms related accidents - each day.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: Donkey_Dean

You are right: regulations won't stop outlaws. But it will stop the 85 deaths cause by fire arms related accidents - each day.


Giving a group a monopoly on violence is a very bad idea! The cat is already out of the bag. You should not walk unarmed in the wild west, sir. It could kill ya! I never travel unarmed and I think only fools do. Course here in Arkansas you can carry anyway you like as long its not in commission of some criminal activity. We is ah all packin down hera!
edit on 1-12-2015 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I don't understand how gun violence is supposed to be controlled? Unless there is some magic spell that will make all guns evaporate once a law is invoked, I just don't get it. Or maybe this dolt in the white house just doesn't get it. Yeah I think that's it.
edit on 12/1/2015 by Brainiac because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

There was no need for two amendments. Your point #1 was already addressed in the original Constitution, granting Congress the authority to arm, organize and discipline the militia in Article 1 Section 8. The true purpose of 2A was to ensure that the militias could never be disarmed by guaranteeing a right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms for their own defense and in common defense of the country. The individual right protected by 2A is therefore certainly related to the militias, but it is not dependent upon them.


edit on 1-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: ForteanOrg
The true purpose of 2A was to ensure that the militias could never be disarmed by guaranteeing a right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms for their own defense and in common defense of the country.


It's a bit like anarchy: it's a perfect idea that can only be made reality if you have perfect people. If all only would just use their guns to defend themselves against evil forces, all would agree on what these "evil forces" were.. but alas, as we see on a daily basis, that's not how it works. So, my interpretation of the 2nd remains opposed to the 2008 decision and I remain - respectfully - of the opinion that the 2nd should be read as "only to ensure that we can have a proper armed militia to defend our country are citizens allowed to own a weapon". But I am aware of the rulings of the court, so I guess I'm overruled. Nevertheless, thousands and thousands of innocent people that were shot dead by legal weapons owners will not come back from the dead, regardless we change the laws or not.

I am, indeed, very happy to be a Dutchman. We don't really own guns here, they scare us



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join