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.
originally posted by: projectvxn
At least she's being honest.
We know liberals don't give a crap about the constitution when it gets in the way of their agenda.
This is not about guns, the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturer profits, or how old the Constitution is. To marginalize it that way is deleterious to the cause of maintaining respect for and adhering to the Constitution.
Our elected officials should not only know and follow the tenets of the Constitution, they should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the common man, whom they are sworn to represent in regards to Constitution and the law of the land. When those sworn to uphold the Constitution become the greatest threat to it, change is no longer an option but a necessity.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen
I'll agree to the limits that the leftists want to put on guns when I get to place the same limits on their rights to free expression.
Or their rights to vote.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen
I'll agree to the limits that the leftists want to put on guns when I get to place the same limits on their rights to free expression.
Or their rights to vote.
So your idea of upholding the Constitution is to deny rights to others because they disagree with you? Isn't that what PC is about?
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen
I'll agree to the limits that the leftists want to put on guns when I get to place the same limits on their rights to free expression.
Or their rights to vote.
So your idea of upholding the Constitution is to deny rights to others because they disagree with you? Isn't that what PC is about?
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Vroomfondel
This is not about guns, the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturer profits, or how old the Constitution is. To marginalize it that way is deleterious to the cause of maintaining respect for and adhering to the Constitution.
Our elected officials should not only know and follow the tenets of the Constitution, they should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the common man, whom they are sworn to represent in regards to Constitution and the law of the land. When those sworn to uphold the Constitution become the greatest threat to it, change is no longer an option but a necessity.
Where was this self righteous rhetoric when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as human beings and can therefore give unlimited funds to politicians? If you don't think everything in Congress is about corporate profits, you have not been paying attention. The Constitution gives you a right to own a gun so you can serve in a militia; that way, we won't have a standing army. Things have changed a bit since the document was written, wouldn't you say?
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Vroomfondel
This is not about guns, the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturer profits, or how old the Constitution is. To marginalize it that way is deleterious to the cause of maintaining respect for and adhering to the Constitution.
Our elected officials should not only know and follow the tenets of the Constitution, they should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the common man, whom they are sworn to represent in regards to Constitution and the law of the land. When those sworn to uphold the Constitution become the greatest threat to it, change is no longer an option but a necessity.
Where was this self righteous rhetoric when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as human beings and can therefore give unlimited funds to politicians? If you don't think everything in Congress is about corporate profits, you have not been paying attention. The Constitution gives you a right to own a gun so you can serve in a militia; that way, we won't have a standing army. Things have changed a bit since the document was written, wouldn't you say?
originally posted by: babybunnies
Well, in reality, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most misquoted piece of the Constitution.
By the NRA.
The actual text reads
"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."
However, according to the NRA, the text reads "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
They completely ignore the first part.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: babybunnies
That's because those are two separate entities.
1. A well regulated Militia
2. the right of the people
originally posted by: babybunnies
Well, in reality, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most misquoted piece of the Constitution.
By the NRA.
The actual text reads
"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."
However, according to the NRA, the text reads "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
They completely ignore the first part.
I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.
originally posted by: babybunnies
Well, in reality, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most misquoted piece of the Constitution.
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: babybunnies
That's because those are two separate entities.
1. A well regulated Militia
2. the right of the people
Didn't you learn anything from the Senator?
The Constitution isn't valid in questions of Constitutionality.
What are you? Some kind of liberty freak or something?