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: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

page: 15
39
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

That was, as best I know, portions of the govt. against other portions of the govt., a wide spread insurrection it was not.

Gun guy? Nope. Plural--guns. As in multiple. More than one.




posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Thinking that it wasn't that is like thinking that we happened to give Iran 400 million while they were releasing three hostages because it was THEIR money...lol... I'm sure you swallowed that line too...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Quiz time. What's the third word of the 2nd amendment?



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CyberGarp

"regulated". Do I win a prize?

Now then, tell me the meaning of that word in the context of the times in which the word was used.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Martin75

All to many of our fellow Americans want that "nanny" state. They don't want to grow up, they want to be safe and taken care of with the least amount of effort.

I suppose that there's really nothing "wrong" about that, but that's not my preference, I prefer to earn my way as best I'm able.


Nanny state? How paranoid are you? Why not just similar rules and regulations as other civilised countries. Ones that have much lower murder and suicide rates.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to have fellow Americans kill each other every day, makes you feel more manly.


originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: CyberGarp

"regulated". Do I win a prize?

Now then, tell me the meaning of that word in the context of the times in which the word was used.


Tell me what the word "arms" meant in the context of the times in which the word was used. Everyone trade in your pistols for muskets. Or the fact that "bear arms" was a phrase for those in the military? Or do you take certain words literally and express flexibility on others to make the 2nd Amendment fit?

I mean before 2008 there was a different 2nd Amendment, the NRA changed its meaning and now your all happy, but when someone suggests changing it back its unconstitutional?



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Oh, goodie. Another "Here come the lefties for our guns! Again!..., For REALZ this time...No, seriously!!"

Meanwhile, at my gun-rack...'crickets'. Gunsafe in the barn?...'crickets'. Well surely, they are after my rifle in my saddle, and the one in my truck...'more crickets'. But when I go to town for ammo, I will surely get shut down...*crickets*

Has no paranoid "gun-grabbin', looney-tunes" ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", or "Chicken Little"?



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
Oh, goodie. Another "Here come the lefties for our guns! Again!..., For REALZ this time...No, seriously!!"

Meanwhile, at my gun-rack...'crickets'. Gunsafe in the barn?...'crickets'. Well surely, they are after my rifle in my saddle, and the one in my truck...'more crickets'. But when I go to town for ammo, I will surely get shut down...*crickets*

Has no paranoid "gun-grabbin', looney-tunes" ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", or "Chicken Little"?


Have you read the Boy Who Cried Wolf? You do know how it ends right?



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Yes, the point of the story is to shut your pie-hole until there is an actual emergency to talk about or nobody will take you seriously.

There is a country full of Pie-holes that need to grab their skirts, wipe their moist eyes and calm the heck down. Nobody is coming for your guns.

Cut it out.

Panicking does NOT equal vigilance.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: SudoNim

Yes, the point of the story is to shut your pie-hole until there is an actual emergency to talk about or nobody will take you seriously.

There is a country full of Pie-holes that need to grab their skirts, wipe their moist eyes and calm the heck down. Nobody is coming for your guns.

Cut it out.

Panicking does NOT equal vigilance.


I'm guessing you've forgotten this is a forum on the internet where people discuss and debate issues.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

By all means, discuss...



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Weird. Usually the ones who've actually been somewhere and done something and have some level of ability don't have to go around telling everybody where they've been and what they've done and what a badass they are. Sounds like a fobbit to me.

I like quotes, too. Quotes like "facta, non verba."

You can have the last word now. Clearly you need it more than I do.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I'll take a canon and a mortar please!!!!

LOL:

Jaden

p.s. Arms in that context meant anything that the government could have to deny people their liberties. Also, we do have restrictions on carrying swords right? Well, arms would have included pikes and swords then as well, so any law restricting the bearing of swords and pikes should also be deemed unconstitutional...

edit on 4-8-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

LOL... Last word has nothing to do with it... And PLEASE tell me where I've talked about what I've done. I gave a generic been there done that. i've talked about being a military intelligence operative but only when the context called for it as in Hillary's mishandling of classified data.

Actually I take keeping the secrets I swore to very seriously so it isn't likely you'll hear me refer to any of my exploits specifically...

Jaden
edit on 4-8-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

The justices cannot make decisions contrary to the intent of the constitution.

The constitution is the law of the land that everyone falls under the jurisdiction of.

Everyone.

And re-interpretation of it is unlawful, it is not a "living document".

Once we start being idiots by allowing these #heads to set precedent and pick and choose what they please, and re-interpret it to suit their goals, we are lost.

Wait, we already are lost....

Never Mind.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Do you have some ingrained need to be insulting to people who happen to disagree with you? Or is it just me?

Just curious.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

Who's panicking?

I don't thing "they're coming for my guns".

I think they would if they could...but they can't. Why you ask? C'mon, you know you want to...

Because noisy folks like myself, who keep running their pie-holes keep those who would aware of the fact that they can't.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: SudoNim

Do you have some ingrained need to be insulting to people who happen to disagree with you? Or is it just me?

Just curious.



I'm sorry...


fellow Americans want that "nanny" state. They don't want to grow up, they want to be safe and taken care of with the least amount of effort


Just because you surround your insults in the most condescending tone that you can come up with doesn't make them less of an insult.

I'd rather be blunt about my opinion.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SudoNim

I'll take a canon and a mortar please!!!!

LOL:

Jaden

p.s. Arms in that context meant anything that the government could have to deny people their liberties. Also, we do have restrictions on carrying swords right? Well, arms would have included pikes and swords then as well, so any law restricting the bearing of swords and pikes should also be deemed unconstitutional...


Oh can you point me to the text in the constitution or amendment that clarifies that shows


Arms in that context meant anything that the government could have to deny people their liberties


Or is that just your intrepretation?

Why stop at guns, why aren't you complaining that you can't buy nukes from Wal-mart?



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: superman2012

Thinking that it wasn't that is like thinking that we happened to give Iran 400 million while they were releasing three hostages because it was THEIR money...lol... I'm sure you swallowed that line too...

Jaden

Cool, as long as you bring up facts relevant to the post instead of attempting to draw parallels that have nothing to do with the other.... lol



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: superman2012

That was, as best I know, portions of the govt. against other portions of the govt., a wide spread insurrection it was not.

Gun guy? Nope. Plural--guns. As in multiple. More than one.

Exactly how I see the hypothetical situation in the US happening. Quick and easy. Everyone says that the armed forces won't fight eachother than try to compare other countries to theirs to support their opinion, but dismiss it quickly when the same is done that doesn't support their claim. Confirmation bias all over ATS today!


ps- I said gun guys. I know one is never enough.

edit on 4-8-2016 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
39
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join