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’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After the Holidays

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sounds like an enormous load of complete and total BS. Glad I didn't see the source article, I would hate for the mindless idiot original author to have gotten a page view for posting his/her paranoid fantasy, completely devoid of creativity or realism.




posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Obama is going to nothing, but lay low, until he can escape his failed presidency
Oh he'll run his mouth, but he cant afford the Patriots focusing on him



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo



Lets pretend that SCOTUS doesn't agree that the 2nd amendment gives the common person the right to bear arms. You need to read it again and think about the commas and why they are there, I mean its not word and punctuation salad.




I was trying to reason with rnaa without completely destroying his or her post. I could have simply said your post is garbage because SCOTUS said F YOU!


Well, no, SCOTUS did not say F YOU to me or anyone. Argue about commas anyway you like (it is, in fact, punctuation word salad - there are versions with two commas and four), punctuation was (and still is) a fluid thing in the 18th Century - neither Strunk nor White had been born yet. In English Common Law (and thus American Common Law) it was legal custom to ignore all punctuation for interpretation of the text. Commas are superfluous, a place where the author wants you to take a breath, not part of the meaning of the text.

To argue 18th century commas according to 21st century usage is nonsense. And to arbitrarily pick one comma out of three as important while the other two are not is equally nonsensical. Its a stupid idea to argue 18th century commas, and SCOTUS was stupid to rely on inane obscure arguments about it. Notice that EVERY noun is capitalized in the original hand written Constitution (except "people" in the 2nd Amendment!) - the phrase "Law of Nations" is not capitalized because it is the name of a book by some obscure Swiss legal theorist or a chapter in a book by an important English legal theorist, but because thats how the scribe happened to write it down - he capitalized nouns. Guess what - conventions change over time - today we tend to use the hyphen more than the comma or semicolon.

In checking my facts for the above I ran across this article which is perhaps better written then my poor attempt: Clause and Effect

In D.C. v Heller the Court clearly (according to me) ACCEPTED IN ERROR, the argument that a militia is 'the body of all citizens capable of military service'. That may describe those who are eligible for militia membership, but the Court clearly (according to me) IGNORED IN ERROR the Constitution where it specifically defined what it meant by a well regulated militia and gives Congress ABSOLUTELY CLEAR authority to regulate that militia as to membership, equipping, and training. Now if it is correct that 'the militia is the body of all citizens capable of military service' then it is also clear that Congress has the Authority to regulate that militia in its entirety.

I repeat - do not misunderstand me - I agree that there are lots of non-militia reasons for citizens to access guns - hunting, sport, self-defense.

I DO NOT AGREE that Congress (or subordinate governments) does not have the authority to 'regulate' access to guns for non-militia purposes.

Even though Heller found (incorrectly in my view) that access to guns for self-defense was embodied in the 2nd amendment it didn't say that one needed an entire armory for self-defense.

You argue that the position of commas in the text somehow negates the well regulated militia clause, but at least the clause is there, I ask you where is the self-defense clause?

Finally, even the majority opinion in Heller rejects the argument for open slather:



Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.


Since Heller, every gun control law challenged (and there have been about 50) has been upheld.

I think SCOTUS got it wrong in District of Columbia v. Heller, but I recognize it as the law of the land - at least for now. I also think SCOTUS got it wrong in Scott v Sandford, but it was the law of the land between 1857 and 1868.

SCOTUS is not infallible.


edit on 28/12/2015 by rnaa because: several times, spelling mostly, a couple of rephrasing fixes.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

SCOTUS is not fallible.


I think you mean infallible.

I just wonder where the "well-regulated" part of the militia comes into it. Where is the regulation?
edit on 28/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

SCOTUS is not fallible.


I think you mean infallible.


Yeah, caught it, you beat me to the fix.



I just wonder where the "well-regulated" part of the militia comes into it. Where is the regulation?


U.S. Constitution: Article I Section 8:

The Congress shall have power...

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;
...


That is what I call 'well regulated'.
edit on 28/12/2015 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Anyway, I still think that having the primary school curriculum involve a gun safety course is a good idea. That should drastically reduce the amount of accidental deaths and injuries, if not suicides.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



Anyway, I still think that having the primary school curriculum involve a gun safety course is a good idea.

I think a curriculum which effectively teaches math and science is a good idea too.
We can dream. If we really want to get freaky, we could include critical thinking skills.


edit on 12/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




Okay, barging into someone's home without a warrant isn't cool...but just imagine...


True.

And what is the OP's 'proof' that this has ever even been under consideration let alone to be implemented?

Nowhere - the OP invokes a 'source with in a source' - an anonymous person within an anonymous organisation (I guess).

How many levels of anonymous do you need before you realize it is complete horse manure?

(I know, you can't fool me, its 'anonymous' all the way down ).



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

How bad is the American math curriculum? The Australian one seems fine enough, though a lot of the more complicated subjects are severely backloaded.
We could do with better Science courses, however... Especially for primary.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
Based on performance...dismal.
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa




Nowhere - the OP invokes a 'source with in a source' - an anonymous person within an anonymous organisation (I guess).

Specifically, an anonymous source cited in a blog.


edit on 12/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Murgatroid

...

Citizens with hand weapons and long guns are not going to stop a modern war-machine, should one turn its baleful eye upon us.

I mean, let's get real.


Lets. You do realize that many citizens are former military don't you? And do you also realize that if our government did turn against the people, many military units would break ranks and stand with the people. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.


Being "former military" changes the laws of physics?

Feel free to keep living out your fantasy. Handguns and long guns, even in the hands of experienced users with tactical experience, will not "stand up to" the unleashed might of a modern military.

Besides that fact, your bloviating about what armed forces members would do ... tell me, what if they believe that the US Government is "in the right"? Eh? Following, just for a wild example, any of the mindless, crazed rhetoric that certain of the current Presidential hopefuls have spewed?

Again. Get real.


(post by franky2 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
(post by franky2 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Murgatroid

...

Citizens with hand weapons and long guns are not going to stop a modern war-machine, should one turn its baleful eye upon us.

I mean, let's get real.


Lets. You do realize that many citizens are former military don't you? And do you also realize that if our government did turn against the people, many military units would break ranks and stand with the people. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.


Being "former military" changes the laws of physics?

Feel free to keep living out your fantasy. Handguns and long guns, even in the hands of experienced users with tactical experience, will not "stand up to" the unleashed might of a modern military.

Besides that fact, your bloviating about what armed forces members would do ... tell me, what if they believe that the US Government is "in the right"? Eh? Following, just for a wild example, any of the mindless, crazed rhetoric that certain of the current Presidential hopefuls have spewed?

Again. Get real.



If, god forbid, a war broke out in America between its people and govt., I do not think it would be as simple as the US military might vs vets and non vets with hand guns amd rifles. I do suspect that branches of the military would break ranks from the generals down. The waters would be very muddy, and bloody, on both sides.
edit on 6/1/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join