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.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The constitution works as a whole.

Each amendment reinforces the other.

The one that holds it all together ?

The second.

Because the founders in their infinite wisdom knew that words fail sometimes.




You know, that whole "due process" thing you were just so excited to find? Yeah.


I wonder why gun owners don't enjoy that 'right'.

Because of a crime a person comitted. The whole has to pay penance.




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

but they don't even know who that candidate is yet, and they are denying!!! that's the problem. how do they know if the candidate can do the job adequately or not if they have no idea who it is. what they did was express their intention of leaving that post empty, it doesn't matter who obama offers as a candidate.... hey, I got an idea, let's decrease the number of justices down to five, fire a few of them, that will eliminate the chance of there being a tie and also save us some money! and we can eliminate them so that we have the same balance as we did before...which means kennedy can't go. there's solves the problem, now there isn't any position to fight over...
my, god, kids!!!



1) Obama might actually nominate a solid justice. I won't hold my breath, but it is possible.
2) There is nothing in the COTUS that says there must be nine justices. It's been less than 9 before, and I think it's had 10 in the past.
3) Honestly, I thought Obama was going to try and stack the COTUS with more justices, ie add a 10th and 11th liberal judicial activist.
4) Loony conspiracy: Obama will nominate himself so he can go down in history as a federal Senator, the President, and a Supreme Court Justice.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
neither is eliminating a few positions and bringing the number down to five.... and hey next time someone suggest that they just wait till election in hopes that their side will get to pick instead, well, we can do it again!!



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm not being obtuse Teiki ... you're totally missing the point of the conversation you butted into.

Neo and I were initially quibbling about the actual "wording" of the Constitution.

I made a statement about the LITERAL words used. I was, in a sense, pulling Neo's chain about guns and arms.

But as I said, between you and I ... you display the general characteristic of ignoring what is actually said in favor of what you interpret as being said. I never said that the restriction on search precludes the idea of property nor privacy (which is actually what the positive right clearly implies), I simply said it doesn't include the WORD property.

You missed the point. It's okay.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Ludicrous. The Second only "holds it together" for the post-70s adherents of the NRA's successful marketing schemes.

Gun owners don't enjoy what "right" exactly? Words Neo ... they have meanings.

What right are you claiming that gun owners are being denied? And by whom?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy
neither is eliminating a few positions and bringing the number down to five.... and hey next time someone suggest that they just wait till election in hopes that their side will get to pick instead, well, we can do it again!!



Isn't government fun!




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

well according to some republicans, the candidate could be solid as a rock, and they don't intend on allowing it...so, well, what can I say. i am kind of hoping he nominates a moderate republican, just to see what they do. ten to one, the person wouldn't be conservative enough. but a moderate republican would be the best they could hope for, and it would provide much needed balance in the court. we don't need a majority of overly left leaning liberals any more than we need a majority of overly right leaning conservatives, what we need is justices that will be willing side with justice, the laws, and the constitution, weather it means going right, or going left. the supreme court isn't supposed to be a politcal force.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

ya, and when one of the three leave, well, we can bring it up to five, and insist that one be left, one be right, and one be independant...



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Let's see.

Clinton's ASWB.

Clinton's Brady law that violates the 4th,10th, and 14th amendments because that became the first time Americans in this entire countries history had to prove their worth to the state before they could practice their constitutional right.

The Ironic part there is the Scotus declared the background check only unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

But it gets upheld anyway.

Back to due process where a person has to commit a crime, and it be proven beyond ALL reasonable doubt, and every amendment that deals with it gets thrown out with the bath water.

Supposedly we are guaranteed due process and crimes be proven.

The reality is not so much.

Even double jepardy doesn't seem to apply because gun owners keep getting tried over, and over.

To the tune of over 70+ years of their RIGHTS being infringed by the state because the mobs says so.

Which ironically was the entire reason that piece of paper, and the Bill of Rights, and amendments like the 14th were created.

To basically flip the middle finger to the mob, and say,' Oh hell no you don't'.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

gee, I don't know, personally I am rather dismayed they won't let me have my own missile launcher and nuke!! I mean we have the right to bear arms, don't we, isn't a nuke and a missle launcher arms?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Gryphon66

Except far more entertaining considering liberal millennials abhor military service, most of them don't know the first thing about firearms, and none have the fortitude required for war.



... or could it be that you are grossly generalizing based on your own rather petty political biases?

But stay focused on the actual topic you brought up, rather than pointlessly ragging on what you think "librals" are like.

Of the social media posts invoking "Civil War" as a result of political dissatisfaction, are you really disagreeing that is far, far more prevalent on the Right than on the Left?

Of course, I do understand that you're only offering your anecdotal evidence regarding social media ... but still.

Let's be reasonable, shall we?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

gee, I don't know, personally I am rather dismayed they won't let me have my own missile launcher and nuke!! I mean we have the right to bear arms, don't we, isn't a nuke and a missle launcher arms?



Scalia said no in Heller ... that was my point. Their hero being ostensibly eulogized here firmly stated that there are reasonable and significant limits on the continually argued "unlimited" grant of the Second Amendment, and this was historically known and accepted. (Limits on concealed weapons, weapons purchased by the mentally ill, felons, etc.)

I just wondered if they knew that about dear Antonin.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

There's the good ol' shotgun technique ... I'll try to hit the high spots.

Almost every gun control statute is at the State level, Neo. Are you saying you disagree with States Rights?

Are you saying the States don't have the right to make laws regulating commerce? The Constitutions disagree with you.

The mobs say so? There are an estimated 320 Million guns in the hands of Americans, Neo. That's a HUNDRED MILLION MORE THAN THERE ARE AMERICANS. No "mob" has kept your right to own a gun away from you.

That "piece of paper" ... you mean the Constitution? You're starting to remind me of GW.

Funny ... those Founders seemed to have a different view toward your "mob" ... they called them "We the People ..."



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

you mean I can't have my missile launcher and nuke?? darn....
actually I just think it would be fun watching the crazy who is annoyed by the chirping birds in the apartment down stairs from him nuke a few city blocks instead of just stabbing the guy, but that's just my sick humor. but if they want to arm themselves to the point where they are a well armed militia that can stand up to the gov't forces... um.... they have nukes, and battleships, and way bigger, more expensive guns than we the people can afford... and I highly doubt if there is anyone who can't think of someone they know that they really wouldn't want with those kinds of weapons. so to say that there shouldn't any restrictions is rather nutty. I'm all for gun rights to the extent that it will provide protection if needed and will enable a person to hunt for their own food... but that is about as far as I am willing to go. and, you don't need an automatic rifle for either of those.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




... or could it be that you are grossly generalizing based on your own rather petty political biases?


No I am actually basing that entirely on the demographics of the US military, recent polls stating liberal millennials are unwilling to serve in the armed forces nor do they have the stomach for war.

Liberals, the VAST majority, don't know a damned thing about guns. The modern liberal male is encouraged to be a passive-aggressive beta male.

I'm not at all worried about liberals starting a war. I just find it entertaining.

Edit:

I mean, the people who brought us "micro aggression" and "trigger warnings" are gonna ground pound against people like me who actually know how to play that game? Come on dude.

I am being reasonable since I can only find this whole notion humorous.
edit on 14 2 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... you display the general characteristic of ignoring what is actually said in favor of what you interpret as being said.


Funny, I think the same of you.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I drive 50 miles a day through Atlanta traffic and the surrounding interstates.

I am VERY FAMILIAR with the desire for a rocket launcher, LOL. Dear Antonin said no, though.

That's why I found it so humorous that the perennial "they're coming for my guns" shtick came up in this thread.

I do hear you though. I've often asked the gun adherents how they'll use their 15 guns to stop the Hellfire missle sent by drone from five miles away. Forget nukes, airstrikes, assault helis, and the like.

I'm all for gun rights too. I believe in the Constitution and that includes the Second. It's pretty clear that they were referring to the duty of militia service but there is a substantial individual right in the English Common law to bear arms in defense.

Scalia and the SCOTUS have repeatedly acknowledge that every right granted in the Constitution is limited, usually by the individual rights of other people. I hear you though.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... you display the general characteristic of ignoring what is actually said in favor of what you interpret as being said.


Funny, I think the same of you.


Well, good. We now know what we think of each other, and I'd wager, we're the only two that cares.

Back to the topic, eh?



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

The Army queries soldiers on their political beliefs? That's a new one on me, I'll admit.

Do you have a link to the study you're referring to?

Have you personally taken a poll of liberals nation-wide to determine their gun knowledge?

Isn't that a funny thing though ... I'm not worried about those "hillbillies" you mentioned earlier starting a war either, particularly if the recent "militias" in the news are any indication.

I guess we're good on that count.
edit on 14-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




The mobs say so? There are an estimated 320 Million guns in the hands of Americans, Neo. That's a HUNDRED MILLION MORE THAN THERE ARE AMERICANS. No "mob" has kept your right to own a gun away from you.


They sure like to think they do.

And for the record I can only buy a gun only if I whipped out that ID. Fill out a piece of paper, and according to a given set of rules I might be granted the 'honor'.

ONLY if the STATE says I can.

So yeah they have. Feel free to live in denial though.




That "piece of paper" ... you mean the Constitution? You're starting to remind me of GW.


And someone reminds me of Sargent Schultz. 'I see nothing, I hear nothing. I know nothing'.




Funny ... those Founders seemed to have a different view toward your "mob" ... they called them "We the People ..."


They sure did. Since they created a Republic where the minority is protected from the mob.

And Gun control should not even exist.

Or the background check. Which someone was ignoring.



new topics




 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join