It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The piece is written by Adam Winkler, a U.C.L.A. School of Law professor. Winkler argues the secret court is a good idea because the same kind of court is already used for government surveillance, and historically, the U.S. has committed worse rights violations such as Japanese internment camps.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
Just going to run some numbers for this numb nuts that thinks they are qualified to teach law.
There are enough privately owned guns in the US for every man, woman and 3 minute old child to hold one. That does not count the ones owned by the police, national guard, branches of military and various local, state and federal agencies like the IRS for example.
The Battle of Little Bighorn was a bunch of swinging Petes that didn't realize just how woefully outgunned they were and that ratio is way better that the over 300 million privately held guns versus maybe 4 million if they all agree to go against that?
But let's clean this up a bit. The privately held is in the hands of around 185 million to 210 million, so let's just say 200. If only 1% stand to fight that is 2 million which twice the number of police officers, about five times the federal guys and around 500 thousand more than all current active military.
For those clambering to ban guns, forget waiting on laws to pass. I say go ahead and collect them and let me know how that works out for you.
Now all of a sudden we have a major MSM source suggesting the U.S. Congress should pass some kind of secret law that would effectively suspend 2nd Amendment rights !!!
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad
And it's not even the guns themselves.
It's the bullets.
Clearly the science states it's the gunpowder
(dramatically shakes fist in the air)
originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: xuenchen
Not knowing a lot about the "ins and outs" of this whole legal system I have to ask.
How could the government enforce a law which is directly unconstitutional?
How would the congress go about " suspending" an amendment to the Constitution?
originally posted by: smurfy
That house should have already had information about the Orlando killer given to them by the FBI, and could have acted on it..unless the FBI didn't do that, or that the house committee didn't act on any information received ?