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: 8
27
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
This is so good, I don't think you can make it up. The kicker to ask of this, is that the supreme Court has already established that any citizen of sound body and mind is already a "militia member" of their respective state of residence, and this was decided since decades ago. This bill is nothing more than political theater, it's dead in the water, and they know it. Then again, the way Illinois is, I would in fact believe their politicians are willfully ignorant of any constitutional, or historically established law




posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
This is so good, I don't think you can make it up. The kicker to ask of this, is that the supreme Court has already established that any citizen of sound body and mind is already a "militia member" of their respective state of residence, and this was decided since decades ago. This bill is nothing more than political theater, it's dead in the water, and they know it. Then again, the way Illinois is, I would in fact believe their politicians are willfully ignorant of any constitutional, or historically established law


Illinois, the state that sent four of it's governors to prison, got caught selling a senate seat to the highest bidder, and oh yeah, brought us obama. Illinois is the only state that could find a brain tumor during a colonoscopy.

You would be right to not be surprised by anything these people do, including ignoring the Constitution.
edit on 27-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, to be fair I was simply responding to a meme that made the claim that anyone who doesn't like guns needs a prescription for two testicles from Dr House... lol.

I was simply making the point that it has nothing to do with how so called 'manly' you are, if you either want to own a gun or not own a gun.

So we're probably just saying the same thing here... it was just probably lost in translation because of the different perspective of the same conclusion.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



You will notice there is a comma between "state" and "the" denoting two separate clauses?


Actually there are THREE commas in the official text. Count 'em. THREE.


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.


Why did you leave out two of them, and what significance do they have that you would seek to misrepresent the text with such an egregious error? Why do you hate the Constitution?

With or without your silly comma, the meaning of the amendment is clear: the right to bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE they are needed for the civilian militia. Furthermore Article I Section 8 gives Congress the authority to regulate the civilian militia.

Several states ratified copies of the amendment with differing numbers of commas, two, three, or four. Why so? Because the scribe that wrote down the amendment and posted it to the various states for ratification made each copy by hand, he did not have a photocopier or internet available to him, and comma usage in 18th century America was not the same as it is in 21st century America.

Here is the thing: commas do NOT affect the text, then or now. They are decoration. Period. They are spots where the author suggests you pause, perhaps for a breath, or where a series of clauses may be difficult to scan. They do not affect the meaning of the text, in legal matters, commas are routinely ignored completely when studying the text.

Why did SCOTUS take on that argument then? Simple: because they made an error of judgment and the majority needed an excuse to go against the plain meaning of the text.

I suggest that if this law gets up, the motive is to challenge the result of D.C. v Heller. And I suspect it will succeed - and then we can go back to regulating firearms as has been traditionally in the USA for over 200 years.

Did you know: The "Gunfight at the OK Corral" was triggered by Wyatt Earp's insistence on enforcing the City of Tombstone's ban on guns in the city limits and the Clanton Gang's insistence on their 'right' to shoot up the town? City's all over the 'Wild West' had gun bans. This bull pucky that it is traditional American custom just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


edit on 28/12/2015 by rnaa because: spelling, grammar, expansion of thought

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



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
some one needs to ask who this bill is for because the lack of gun rights means only criminaks will have them which is why a little while ago shytown had 500 gun deaths because only the criminals where armed. so who does this bill actually help the crookedt politicians who are afraid of the angry mobs or the mafia that actually controls the state



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

While we laugh, there are those that work at getting the 2nd revoked.

I wonder how many would scoff if the 1st Amendment was treated the same?


It is. Usually the people defending the second are the first to throw away the first.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

It is. Usually the people defending the second are the first to throw away the first.





What?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I'd call it an attempt at misdirection. With the gang violence, shootings and crime in that state, the politicians need to redirect the anger to guns and off their failure to lead and clean up the mess.

They are simply trying to protect their own asses and jobs. Propaganda for local consumption.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DBCowboy

Difference is people don't add to the 1st Amendment that which isn't written.

Home invasions, hunting, and overall jackassery "carrying because I can" isn't written in the 2nd.



Before you assume I'm against the above, I'm not.
If I want a gun for any of those reasons, I'll buy one... or two...



Did you move to the USA ?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Actually commas are important to the meaning of a text. They add clarity.

Notice how the meaning changes depending on the comma:

"I saw that she was busy and prepared to leave."

"I saw that she was busy, and prepared to leave."

Was she busy and prepared or was she simply busy and "I" is the one preparing to leave? The comma can change your perspective on that. So to simply dismiss a comma as a sign of a pause shows that you know little about their uses.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Commas ripped me a new one in college.

I THOUGHT I knew what a comma splice was...



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

While we laugh, there are those that work at getting the 2nd revoked.

I wonder how many would scoff if the 1st Amendment was treated the same?


"If things were different they wouldn't be the same". Profound analysis there...



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rnaa

Actually commas are important to the meaning of a text. They add clarity.


Commas also save lives..

"Let's eat grandpa."

"Lets eat, grandpa."



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
[Snip]
edit on 12/28/2015 by eriktheawful because: Off topic



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

One problem is that if your male and over 18 your ARE part of the militia. You are required to submit you Sective Service paperwork at 18, hence you are a member of the militia. Which is a group of people that are available for military duty.

Sorry ladies, you can't use this one.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I don't think this kind of kneejerk attempt at legislation would fly much outside of Cook County. Even Illinois has a lot of people with legit claims and rights relating to firearms. It's mostly rural west of Rockford and south of Kankakee, and many people in the rest of the state do like to hunt. The real problem with guns being used in the state for crimes are by those that obtain their guns illegally anyways. It's a bunch of B.S.

And even if that guy somehow did manage to get this through (unlikely), you'd have people running guns through the butthole of Chicago (Gary, IN) and the problems with guns used in crime would remain the same.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
"I hate Illinois Nazis."

---Jake Elwood.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
As a resident of one of the most crooked states (Illinois) in the country, I could care less what laws or bans they put in place. They have to come get the guns for it to work. The IL gov't is so out gunned it is pathetic. There is probably more firepower in the south and west part of the city than the Chicago PD has in their arsenal.

It is the insanity of this state why it is going bankrupt. It is this insanity why I am currently looking at properties in Arizona and Texas to move. It is this insanity that will drive all other like minded thinkers to leave also. This will leave the state with a bunch of Liberal Twits and Gangstas and then we will see how long the Twits survive because they won't have a gun too defend themselves. This will leave a thug gov't to run thug gangs or visa-versa.
edit on 29-12-2015 by Oldsguy because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2015 by Oldsguy because: Spelling errors



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join