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.

 

Illinois Resolution Seeks Seizure of Privately Owned Weapons

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I'm not arguing for or against here, so no one get there knickers all in a knot... But in theory, if the government wanted restrictive gun control without violating the 2nd, couldn't they just seriously restrict who can buy ammunition?

The second just says you have the right to bear arms, doesn't say anything about the right to own ammunition... For all the loopholes the federal government have used in the past to get laws past (maijuana 1936 tax act, for example), I'm surprised they haven't gone down the path of restricting ammunition.

Anyway, totally banning guns in just one state, would be a total disaster of huge proportions. Also totally banning private gun ownership federally would just create a huge black market and create a whole set of social issues... Commonsense restrictions is all that's really needed. Like California's gun laws on a federal level.

Obviously proposing a total gun ban is just ridiculous in any country, especially the US.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I believe there is actually another comma as well.


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.


Cornell Law


You're correct, I completely missed that on my perusal of the COTUS app.

Starting to think it's a list rather than what I initially thought could be one of many interpretations.


The way it is written can be interpreted many different ways. That is one of the main problems with the 2nd and why someone that takes the position I do on this issue is not very popular.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I think people forget that the US is like a mini Continent rather than a Country...

It would be ridiculous to ban guns. For a myriad of reasons.


I'm not against regulation though...

And no one should be...

As its says in the 2nd, "a well regulated..."...

People should take heed of that.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well regulated means to function properly!
www.constitution.org...



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I am very pro-2nd and I believe the right should be well regulated.

"Shall not be infringed" contradicts the term "regulated" and that contradiction, without proper constitutional clarification, is what has allowed states and politicians to push their own political definitions/regulations.

The 2nd needs to be amended.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Thomas Jefferson :




Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


Samuel Adams:




And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)


George effing-Washington




“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” – Sentiments on a Peace Establishment in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, May 2, 1783; The Writings of George Washington [1938], edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ApparentlyStupid
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well regulated means to function properly!
www.constitution.org...


Agreed. But without certain protocols and stipulations, how can we define "well-regulated"?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

English dude! You are mistaken in your interpretation of regulated.
For the militia to function as expected == a well regulated militia.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I would suggest you do some research on the context of the words used in the amendment before entering in to a debate on it, bud.

When the amendment was written, "militia" meant all males of military age. It still does, according to the militia act of 1903, though the act codified it somewhat more strictly than it had been before that. The section of militia is considered to be the reserve militia. Furthermore, all prior military are considered to be part of "the unorganized militia."

Now, that doesn't mean "welp I'm in the militia so I can own a damn 155mm howitzer if I want!" or something but it does lay out who is considered militia. But at the end of the day, we can agree that it's a moot point. But it's Illinois, and they like to do things like this from time to time.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Who is the militia?




"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


Do you know what it was they were debating ratifying there?
edit on 26-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: added info



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ApparentlyStupid
a reply to: introvert

English dude! You are mistaken in your interpretation of regulated.
For the militia to function as expected == a well regulated militia.


Again, regulated in this sense still means to have specific criteria in place that must be met to achieve a satisfactory status.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert
The criteria is expressly stated. For the militia to be well regulated ie function properly, PEOPLE need to keep and bear arms.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ApparentlyStupid
a reply to: introvert
The criteria is expressly stated. For the militia to be well regulated ie function properly, PEOPLE need to keep and bear arms.


Define "function properly".



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ApparentlyStupid
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well regulated means to function properly!
www.constitution.org...


1) That's not an official source with a SC definition, it's one geezers opinion of what it means.

2) You should really read the comments section too, because he kinda gets his arse handed to him.

3) How would you describe "function properly" in a more elaborate and specific manner???
That's so vague it almost kills the debate.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The function of the militia is also expressly stated," being necessary to the security of a free State"



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ApparentlyStupid
a reply to: introvert

The function of the militia is also expressly stated," being necessary to the security of a free State"


What criteria must be met to ensure the militia is "functional" enough to defend the security of the free state?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I think many people interpret "regulated" to "automatically" be a government edict.

Goes with educational brainwashing.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Is not going to happen, the supreme court already had done the interpretation of the second amendment and is not a darn thing the states can do about it, just to make more stupid laws for gun owners to have a hard time getting them.

But to repeal is not.

So for those salivating on the possibility to have US citizens unharmed better wipe the saliva because is not going to happen.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

What criteria must be met to ensure the militia is "functional" enough to defend the security of the free state?



Ensure all threats be held in check.

Implied and real.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
I think many people interpret "regulated" to "automatically" be a government edict.

Goes with educational brainwashing.





Not a government edict, but a set of standards in place that defines the criteria needed to do a job effectively. That can apply to a clock, or a militia.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join