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.

 

Dems stage sit-in on House floor to push for gun vote

page: 4
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: shredderofsouls
Why do guns owners act like the 2nd amendment is set in stone? It has the word amendment, which means the fore fathers thought that at some point it and other amendments may need to be changed with the times.


Why do journalists act like the First Amendment is set in stone?


If the first was treated like the second.

We would all be using books,pencils, and paper.

Instead of the internets and other 'stuff'.




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I guess they can do that if they want, but they look like idiots for it. The Democrats wanted a vote on the issue. They got it and they lost. They need to get off their butts, stop with the pandering and the clown show, and get back to work.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Were the framers Fascists?


No, but the US government has undergone a drastic shift in procedural goals since the ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, in principle, defines more restrictions on the government than it does restrictions on the People. When was the last time DC passed anything which restricted or removed power from the federal government and granted power directly to the People?

The definition of fascism is essentially consolidation of power and authority to the highest levels of national government... the complete opposite of the Framer's plan. The 10th Amendment:

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.

Federal gun control is in direct violation of the 10th, as nowhere in the Constitution does it provide Congress any authority to do anything related to firearms EXCEPT defense of the 2nd Amendment's sanctity.


SM2

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

old hand crank flat bed printing presses that took days to set up to print one page. ya know, no one needs to be able to prints hundreds of pages a minute with their assault printing presses and high powered words of war



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

What would he treason be?

Protesting what their constituates want?

Maybe we should do a better job as gun owners not selfishly worrying about our rights but explaining to the left this is a distraction issue. That gun violence in its massive numbers in the us are related to drugs, poverty, and organized crime. That the poor won't be effected by this type of legislation and it's possibly extremely classist and racist to not address the issues of violence in parts of big cities but focus on guns.

That mental health issues will still slip through the cracks and the people that may even require assisted living have no where to go.

That we haven't stopped the flow of people who can slip over the boarder (where guns easily come with these folks).

And all the other actual problems creating gun violence. .


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So you don't think the amendments can be changed through a vote?

You don't think people can protest the co rotation or laws?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's not. Look I think it's far too late to implement but the words well regulated do mean something. Were the framers Fascists?

It means 'in good working order' . The same term was used to describe a clock back in those days.

And the Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" , not "the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms".



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: AmericanRealist

What would he treason be?

Protesting what their constituates want?

Maybe we should do a better job as gun owners not selfishly worrying about our rights but explaining to the left this is a distraction issue. That gun violence in its massive numbers in the us are related to drugs, poverty, and organized crime. That the poor won't be effected by this type of legislation and it's possibly extremely classist and racist to not address the issues of violence in parts of big cities but focus on guns.

That mental health issues will still slip through the cracks and the people that may even require assisted living have no where to go.

That we haven't stopped the flow of people who can slip over the boarder (where guns easily come with these folks).

And all the other actual problems creating gun violence. .





When lawmakers VIOLATE the constitution, (which is the one document that ALL laws are given authority from), then they have committed treason..... Subverting our laws outside the framework of the constitution is TREASON!

It can't be stated any simpler than that..



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: neo96

So you don't think the amendments can be changed through a vote?

You don't think people can protest the co rotation or laws?

It does take a bit more than 'a' vote.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Do you understand the philosophy in the two Treatises of government by Locke?

Because being able to have a voice of opposition without being beheaded by the king was a pretty big deal.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Sure but there is a process.

And honestly if the 2/3 of the public feels like controlling guns there just isn't really a valid fight against stopping that.

However I don't think people have been zombified that badly yet.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: neo96

So you don't think the amendments can be changed through a vote?

You don't think people can protest the co rotation or laws?


Not any in the Bill of RIGHTS.

Those are set in stone.

The ones that came after it can be.

Notice how NONE of those dealt with special interest groups.

Notice how they singled out NO GROUP ?

The Bill of RIGHTS was a universal standard for the STATE to live by.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Look, they want to claim that mass shootings are an epidemic, but less than 500 people have been killed from mass shootings in 25 years! And most of those were NOT with rifles at all which is what Communists disguised as Democrats are trying to ban!



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Every lawmaker since I have been alive has violated the constitution with a few exceptions. Even the ones standing up for gun rights.

GWB completely ignored the constitution most of his presidency but he was a friend to gun rights. So what do you so with guys like that?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

I agree. I know this and I probably support your arguement.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's not. Look I think it's far too late to implement but the words well regulated do mean something. Were the framers Fascists?


It did mean something.

That' regulate' in the second spoke about the RIGHT of the STATES to have militia's.

Regulate meant it basically being combat effective.

As it was necessary to the security of a FREE state.

It went on to talk about the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms.

Because a militia without arms.

A people without arms.

It's just target practice for any would be aggressor.

Either foreign or domestic.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: butcherguy

Sure but there is a process.

And honestly if the 2/3 of the public feels like controlling guns there just isn't really a valid fight against stopping that.

However I don't think people have been zombified that badly yet.

I believe in controlling guns.
I don't think children should be allowed to purchase guns.
I don't believe that mentally ill people should be allowed to own or possess guns.
That doesn't mean that I think that the government should be able to put anyone they feel like on a list and deny them the right to keep and bear arms.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Thats not true. You can use the amendment process to change specific functions of the bill of rights. You can make amendments that supersede prior ones .



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Neither do I. Or most any gun control measures.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: neo96

Thats not true. You can use the amendment process to change specific functions of the bill of rights. You can make amendments that supersede prior ones .


Is that so?

Then people can take womens right to vote away, and make AA's slaves again if they wanted.

Of course NEITHER of those are in the BILL of RIGHTS.
edit on 22-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join