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.

 

The scandal in Washington no one is talking about (Fast/Furious was about gun control)

page: 6
61
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I see you are still ignoring my post which tells me you have no desire to learn why your argument doesn't hold up. Again please educate yourself on our laws, judicial system, the concept of separate sovereign's, the roll of SCOTUS and constitutional questions and the Constitution itself.

Absent that I fail to understand why you are continuing to defend your un-defendable position.

What country are you from?




posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I paraphrased.

I said it before,
Please feel to come down and remove the offending arms from the citizens.

But remember to do it while you are unarmed, because that is what you are preaching.

After you give that a whirl, I think you may appreciate the meaning of the Second Amendment.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The meaning of the Second Amendment, the right to shoot an unarmed man. Sounds cowardly to me.

Do you ever go on holiday? How do you leave the country without your precious guns? Since they seem so paramount to the protection of your family.

Since its been well documented that guns don't actually help protect homes and you are more likely putting your family on more danger, I can't see why you so desperately want one.

Must be an ego thing, overcompensating.

My Dad's Gun is Bigger than Your Dads - said one child to his best-friends grave

It's a disease in America, a sickness, its sad and humiliating.

You value your interpreted right to own a gun given to you by an antiquated, out-dated and primitive document over the safety of your family.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Lets take his rational, apply it to other amendments and see how he argues against his own stance.

1) The First Amendment only applies to News-Papers & Periodicals. Actual citizens have no right to free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If The Right of the people, in the 2nd amendment applies only to Militia, then the first amendment only applies to News-Papers & Periodicals. There is no free speech for the private citizen, nor anything else listed. Only Reporters, citing the news can assemble ( I assume to produce news) and pray, but only while reporting the news or producing news reports.

2) Second amendment applies only to militias, covered..

3) Only the person in ownership of an army, can ok the quartering of troops in private homes.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

So only the person who owns the army in question, can consent to quartering in private homes. The person who actually lives there and owns the property has no say in the matter. And since we, do not practice private-armies in these days, that means the owner of that previously stated military body would be the Federal Government. Only the Federal Government may consent & 'ok' the quartering of troops in private homes.

4) I am not sure who the fourth applies to, it reads 'The Right of the People to be secure", but we've already established 'Of the People', does not actually mean, 'the people, or citizenry.' As such, undefined protections cannot be afforded lightly. In order to make sure we error on the side of original intent, it must mean the militia as laid out earlier. Only the militia, has a right to be secure in it's papers, effects, and persons.

If you want, to not have your house ransacked, your car search, or your-self stripped search at random, you must join The Militia. In short, you the citizen have no right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers or effects.

5) Only the Army, the Navy, and the Militia enjoy the right to not be compelled into testimony, nor be subject to the same trial twice, nor can they be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The only entities mentioned, are naval, land and militia forces. This protection does not apply to private citizens. They aren't even mentioned in the 5th...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It doesn't even use the ambiguous term, of the people....

6) The Sixth Amendment, we get alittle sunshine. This one is very clearly defined who it applies to, 'the accused'. This would include anyone who has been accused of a crime. So we finally get 1 protected right enjoyed by the general population at large...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

7) Here we have the same problem we found in the 4th. It's not defined who it's applying to, there is no clearly defined subject matter. With that in mind... No one has the right to trial by jury in Federal cases. However, it is still clear that judges may not overrule findings of fact by juries in federal civil trials.

8)Man, this one again... Here there is no clear directive of whom it pertains to ! Excessive fines & bails & punishments by whom and against whom ? Again, those fools attempting to create a theocratic slave-state forgot to make this clear to us. With that in mind, it cannot be enforced.

There is no functioning 8th amendment...

9) Here we get the concept that there are other rights, than what is listed in the first 10. But it is not overly clear who it applies to, yet again ! It says the people, but that does not mean the citizens or the general public at large according to the 2nd amendment. Perhaps it means the state governments have rights and authority not clearly listed. This interpretation makes sense, as it explains the states and federal government being able to enact, enforce and make real laws & powers not originally listed in the main body of the constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10)Here we have another amendment supporting the 9th amendment enjoyed by the state and federal government. Not only according to the 9th, do state governments and the federal government have rights in addition to the listed, they also enjoy other powers over the citizenry not defined, nor prohibited by the constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


So of those 10 amendments, only one by sudonim's interpretation applies to the general public. Even those crazy gun slinging Texan cowboys he was worried about. The rest are reserved for the Militia or the various levels of government.


edit on 27-5-2016 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2016 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim



The meaning of the Second Amendment, the right to shoot an unarmed man. Sounds cowardly to me.

If that is what you got out of my post, I have a better understanding of what little I am dealing with.

My point is that the right to keep and bear arms is mine, staked out and protected by me. If you think you can take an armed person's right away without using force, you need professional help.

I am not a bully, I am not paranoid and I am not violent.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Still no response... why?

Afraid you might learn something that would require you to reevaluate your position?



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: SudoNim



The meaning of the Second Amendment, the right to shoot an unarmed man. Sounds cowardly to me.

If that is what you got out of my post, I have a better understanding of what little I am dealing with.

My point is that the right to keep and bear arms is mine, staked out and protected by me. If you think you can take an armed person's right away without using force, you need professional help.

I am not a bully, I am not paranoid and I am not violent.



I was just paraphrasing.

You sound paranoid the way you keep mentioning people coming to take your guns away. Not once have you acknowledged that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one. I'm guessing your more interested in what your entitled to than what is best for your family.

Do you sleep with your gun, stroking it to make sure no-one sneaks in to take it.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim




You sound paranoid the way you keep mentioning people coming to take your guns away. Not once have you acknowledged that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one. I'm guessing your more interested in what your entitled to than what is best for your family. Do you sleep with your gun, stroking it to make sure no-one sneaks in to take it.

I don't even carry any more, except when hunting.

I haven't written many of the things that you blame me for, including mentioning people coming for my guns.
Read my posts again, sometimes after some people read things multiple times, it starts to become clear what the writer is trying to convey.
edit on b000000312016-05-27T12:03:48-05:0012America/ChicagoFri, 27 May 2016 12:03:48 -05001200000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

The point is that you own your gun completely. You do not own your car. The state is the actual owner of your car. If you move to another state, you transfer ownership to that new state.

And yes, there are far more uses for a gun than killing people. You can collect them like coins or stamps as they retain and increase in value. Historical collections are another reason. Target shooting in which only paper targets are harmed. Hunting for food or sport (although I personally don't like sport some do). But perhaps the most important reason goes directly to the point of the Second Amendment itself...to be part of that sword of Damocles that hangs over the government lest they should conspire to remove other rights. Which incidentally is exactly the reason that neither the Federal nor State Government is to keep and maintain a standing army in times of peace. So that the people can remain the final check and balance to the system. What keeps the people in check is the difficulty in getting an agreement that the government has gone too far.

See also Prohibition and the public reaction.
edit on 27-5-2016 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: SudoNim

The point is that you own your gun completely. You do not own your car. The state is the actual owner of your car. If you move to another state, you transfer ownership to that new state.


The only thing the state owns is your driver's license. When you move from one state to another your vehicle is registered in the new state, just as your driver's license. Since we hold dual citizenship when we move from one state to another we have to transfer to that new citizenship. As such your vehicle transfers along with it.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join