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.

 

Hillary Clinton Says - "The Supreme Court is Wrong On The 2nd Amendment!"

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You don't draw the line. There is no line. If you want to draw the line and limit private ownership of something like nukes or a tactical jet fighter with missiles, then you need to get 3/4ths of the states and 2/3rds of congress to agree and do it the right way.

Until and unless that happens, shall not be infringed needs to be followed...

Jaden




posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

absolutely, the people are above the supreme court. Try reading the declaration of independence. Corruption does not stop at the hallowed halls of the supreme court. The final arbiters are ALWAYS the people, which is why the second amendment is SO important.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Do you imagine that the SCOTUS is always right?

No they are only right when they rule on social issues like abortion or gay marriage. Do you really understand the context of the militia in the 2nd Amendment? Don't go sprouting off garbage about it being a military thing for the States. That particular argument has been wrongly thrown about for too long. Actually look to the history of the US to see it. Don't worry I will tell you when you get it wrong.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth


How are the major parties running folks for POTUS that believe in depriving Americans of their rights?

We the people must rise and be ready to rise.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Where can I buy a submarine? I actually and honestly DO want a submarine to live in. Some people want an RV, I want a submarine. Put solar panels on it, hydroponic garden for lettuce/greens/veggies. Nets and a semi-rigid inflatable raft for catching fish. Yeah, I would also paint it yellow to keep the militaries of the world from destroying me.

"Oh, it's just that crazy hermit MystikMushroom in his tacky yellow submarine again...never mind guys!"




posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Masterjaden

Where can I buy a submarine? I actually and honestly DO want a submarine to live in. Some people want an RV, I want a submarine. Put solar panels on it, hydroponic garden for lettuce/greens/veggies. Nets and a semi-rigid inflatable raft for catching fish. Yeah, I would also paint it yellow to keep the militaries of the world from destroying me.

"Oh, it's just that crazy hermit MystikMushroom in his tacky yellow submarine again...never mind guys!"



The USSR had plenty of them for sale, in fact, they were selling for as little as 20k in the 90's. Some of the bigger subs were actually sold with nukes ready to go.

That good ole days.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'm just waiting for some politician to support the idea that the 2nd amendment means ALL ARMS, so I can go to my gun store and buy a nuke or some anti-aircraft missiles.

I mean seriously, where do you draw the line?

Furthermore, which person gets to decide where that line even is?


You can buy those now if you can afford them. Have fun with 'em, and don't spend 'em all in one place!



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

It goes to show, any new discovery will first be weaponised, then be monetised, then maybe, just maybe used (a little bit) for the good of the people.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Explosives ,and flammables are seperate licences,as are hazardous chemicals.
But you can buy deactivated equipment,if you wish to collect it..www.gunbroker.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

What IS an assault rifle EXACTLY?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Here you go, JUST a GOOGLE away..www.therichest.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Masterjaden

Where can I buy a submarine? I actually and honestly DO want a submarine to live in. Some people want an RV, I want a submarine. Put solar panels on it, hydroponic garden for lettuce/greens/veggies. Nets and a semi-rigid inflatable raft for catching fish. Yeah, I would also paint it yellow to keep the militaries of the world from destroying me.

"Oh, it's just that crazy hermit MystikMushroom in his tacky yellow submarine again...never mind guys!"





I think the DEA might have a few. Get it at an auction.

Need something a little bigger?

Maybe russia has one that needs a new reactor they can give you cheap?

Change the front end to make it look like the Seaview.

Cool!



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
removing the 2nd Amendment would lead to crime going up by 10 to 20 times what it is now.

why!!! because the one major thing criminals fear most is armed home and business owners.

53% of burglaries in the UK happen when the homeowner is home.
only 13% in the US as criminals fear armed home owners.

Armed citizens kill more criminals than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)

The democrats want to protect criminals.
Many that support the anti gun movement are criminals that can not own guns.

in the US Today, more than 8 million vetted and trained law-abiding citizens possess state-issued “concealed carry” handgun permits, which allow them to carry a concealed handgun or other weapon in public.

raise that to 25 million and crime would drop in a major way.
just look at Chicago Los Angeles, New Orleans where its very hard to get a concealed carry permit and states like Texas or Arizona (after 2010)where you do not need a permit
en.wikipedia.org...
www.gunpolicy.org...



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley
First, let me say that I'm a strong 2nd Amendment supporter. Like it or not, the US is soaked in firearms of all types. Firearms are part of our heritage, and that's not going to change.

However, I do believe that we do should whatever we can to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. For instance, there are certain mental illnesses that should preclude some people from purchasing or otherwise owning firearms.

The so-called gun show loophole, if it does in fact exist, should be addressed. I'm also in favor of requiring insurance, in some cases, for people who purchase new firearms. I think that would help promote responsible firearm ownership.

I think that there are ways that gun violence, as it is perceived, can be addressed without limiting the rights of responsible citizens to own firearms. It may encumber the ability of those citizens to quickly purchase these weapons, but it is a small price to pay to keep them away from those who should not have them.

Finally, one thing that annoys me about these videos, and other propaganda pieces, is when they push the idea that the government is coming after the firearms that responsible gun owners already possess. This is not the case; nor do I ever see this being the case. Such an action by the government would be tantamount to a civil war.

-dex


Apparently you have never heard of the safe act in NYS. That's what happens when one person in control gets what they want.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth


Really Hillary ?



www.cnsnews.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: jaynkeel


Apparently you have never heard of the safe act in NYS. That's what happens when one person in control gets what they want.
I didn't remember right off, so I had to go look. I found a good summary in Wikipedia.

I remember when NY State passed that ludicrous piece of garbage. They rushed it through without any adequate citizen review. They jumped through a bunch of hoops bypassing standard operating procedures. They implemented these new laws so fast it came across to me as criminal.

Now I don't know much about politics in New York State. But, it seems to me there is plenty of blame to go around. Cuomo had the help of a knee-jerk legislature in getting these draconian and uninformed laws passed.

The law limits the number of rounds in a magazine for any kind of weapon to 10. And it forces all law-abiding responsible gun owners to sell or otherwise get rid of any equipment that does meet the new standards. This strikes me as being unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment and the various "Takings" Clauses detailed in the Constitution.

If the government is going to force its citizens to rid themselves of anything newly defined as illegal, it should be required to pay for the property. I bet if they had to start adding a few million dollars to the budget to carry out this law, the NYS legislature would have given it a bit more thought.

From the above Wikipedia link, I thought this was interesting:

Ammunition background checks were scheduled to begin January 15, 2014,[11] but were put on hold indefinitely because the required "seamless" technology that would not inconvenience vendors or customers could not be put in place. The superintendent of state police, charged with creating such technology, is working on development, but a release date is still unknown
I think that's a perfect example of how this bill was rushed through without considering all of its consequences and repercussions. Furthermore, now that the state has to allocate a few million dollars to implement its ammunition tracking and background checks system, you see how really important this legislation is to them. I bet it will be quite some time before you see this implemented.

Here are parts of this legislation that make sense to me:

Requires designated mental health professionals who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her. Allows law enforcement officials to seize regulated types of firearms from an individual, provided the individual has been certified by a medical professional to be too mentally unstable to safely possess "spray" firearms, shotguns, or rifles.
I believe it's logical that a doctor or psychologist should be able to report their belief that a serious threat to others exists. However, I believe that there must be a rather high standard of mental instability that must be met before disarming anyone.

I think that the doctors' identities should be shielded from the person in question. However, I believe that the person should also have to right to challenge that classification.


Stolen guns are required to be reported within 24 hours. Failure to report can result in a misdemeanor.
Seems to me to be a no-brainer. A responsible gun owner would want to make the authorities aware of a stolen or lost weapon to reduce any liability they might have in the event the firearm is used improperly.


Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private sellers - except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family. Mandates that all purchases of firearms go through a licensed firearm dealer(FFL), unless it is an exempted transfer between family members
Unfortunately having tighter control of gun transfers is going to be necessary in order to enforce the mental health rules. Although I believe it should be limited to "modern models of firearms."


Guns must be "safely stored" from any household member who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. Unsafe storage of assault weapons is a misdemeanor.
Again, seems to me to be a no-brainer. I think responsible gun owners in general take care to make sure their weapons are properly stored. But, sometimes you need laws for stupid people.


Increases sentences for gun crimes, including upgrading the offense for taking a gun on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony. The state Penal Law section on aggravated murder was amended to increase penalties for murdering a first responder (the "Webster" provision) to life in prison without parole.
I'm all for harsher sentencing for violent criminals. I'm also for prison system reform that makes being incarcerated a lot more uncomfortable. Murdering a first responder is dealth penalty.


Requires pistol permit holders or owners of registered assault weapons to have them renewed at least every five years.
Just about every other permit or license we have has to be renewed periodically. Although it should be as easy as logging into a website, submitting the fee and getting an updated card in the mail.

There are a few others requirements I would put in place as well:
- I'd make it a little more difficult to buy your first gun, including a basic course in firearms. Maybe require a little web based refresher course when you renew your registration. Remember that a lot of times laws like these have to be put in place to protect everyone from the "stupid people." Think about the kids whose only exposure to guns has been in video games, movies, and television. Maybe these novices should have to show someone like an FFL holder that they know enough about handling a gun to not accidentally shoot themselves.

- Any current legal gun owner should be grandfathered into the new program without any additional requirements.

- Any legal firearm currently possessed does not have to be registered as long as it never leaves the owner's home.

For me the most important aspect of a law like this should be to make common sense changes to acquiring guns. Violent criminals and people with mental health conditions that make them a danger to society should not be allowed to easily acquire weapons through legal means. Although there are opportunities for these citizens to acquire guns via illegal means. But those actions are already illegal in other laws and need not be addressed in this one.

However these are changes going forward. For the most part, I think that any legal possession of a firearm before the new law is enacted continues to be legal afterward. If the idea is to reduce gun violence, it needs to be addressed at the source. Trying to retrofit the current culture into a new set of laws and behaviors is counter-productive.

I guess in summary you can see that I believe that some changes in the laws are necessary. But a complete overhaul so contrary to our gun culture that's mandated by the so-called NY Safe Act is overkill.

-dex



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join