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: 9
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by introvert removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
What's funny is Trump and Hillary have the same position on gun control, but his supporters refuse to accept the fact that they've been duped.

#shouldvepickedcruz


I'm guessing you spellbound Trump supporters are just going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you didn't read that. Lol

#surroundedbyidiots



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Keep on defending CLinton and her abject BULL SNIP.



“Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,” Clinton said at that event.


Epic cognitive dissonance is EPIC.

Any RIGHT that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it NO right at all!
edit on 1-8-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

They have had their day in court. States can impose regulations on the 2nd amendment.

You just don't like what the courts had to say.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

They have had their day in court. States can impose regulations on the 2nd amendment.

You just don't like what the courts had to say.


Try again.

How the HELL am I or any other American responsible for what Holmes, or the Lanaza's do ?

WE ARE NOT.

The only people responsible are those that do those acts.

NO ONE ELSE IS.

THATS how the justice system works.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.


The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.


Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?


What part of "bear arms" confuses you??

Geezus.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

except the argument for self defence was validated when states tried to infringe on freed slaves having weapons. The purpose of individual self defence concerning the 2nd is LAW.

www.firearmsandliberty.com...


edit on 8 1 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

They have had their day in court. States can impose regulations on the 2nd amendment.

You just don't like what the courts had to say.


Try again.

How the HELL am I or any other American responsible for what Holmes, or the Lanaza's do ?

WE ARE NOT.

The only people responsible are those that do those acts.

NO ONE ELSE IS.

THATS how the justice system works.



That has nothing to do with this. We are talking about SCOTUS rulings and your "day in court".

The states can place restrictions on the 2nd.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And many people will argue about issues that have nothing to be argued about, like gun control.

I guess the arguments are just for the heck of it.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Krakatoa

except the argument for self defence was validated when states tried to infringe on freed slaves having weapons. The purpose of individual self defence concerning the 2nd is LAW.

www.firearmsandliberty.com...



You misunderstand my post. I was correcting a misinterpretation of "well regulated". That aspect refers to the militia needing to be trained. This, in addition, is separate from the individuals right to keep an bear arms. Many combine the two ideas (dismissing that important comma) and incorrectly apply a 21st Century definition of "regulated".



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: introvert

And many people will argue about issues that have nothing to be argued about, like gun control.

I guess the arguments are just for the heck of it.




True. There really is not argument here. States have the right to regulate firearms to a certain extent as long as the laws are equally applied.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That piece of paper said NUMEROUS times that EVERYONE gets their days in courts of law.,

And CRIMES be PROVEN.

Stop IGNORING it.



Amendment V 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 offense 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.


READ IT.

STOP IGNORING IT.

www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

NO, everyone's getting BSed we know it to be true.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That has nothing to do with this. You are not being accused of any crime.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I KEEP running into people who say they don't understand what say,is it the CELLPHONES?
DO I EVER confuse YOU?
I'm talking a BIAS line where somehow there is a short circuit that CUT across the english language where they can't read ,with appropriate comprehension.
I DOUBT he's lying....



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

NO SIR, just a potential terrorist under the occupying regime...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
How about we discuss how she plans to use military grade weaponry to destroy the lives of millions of people in the middle east and Europe?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

NO SIR, just a potential terrorist under the occupying regime...


You guys really need to get a grip. You are a bigger threat to my right to bear arms than anyone else.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join