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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Federal Judge obliterates anti-2A laws. Upholds the Constitution.

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012




As stated earlier, I cannot understand why people can live with such fear.


OBvious answers are OBVIOUS.

For those that read the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment, and comprehend what INALIENABLE rights are.

That are not up for debate so OPINIONS are irrelevant.

Rights are RIGHTS.

And rights don't come from the mob.

They don't come from the state.
edit on 24-10-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

We ALL can't be made of steel. That's where my Springfield comes in, fills that gap with lead.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Exactly like the religious...

Not up for debate, but here we are attempting to discuss it with projectvxn actually making some good points and bringing knowledge instead of "Cause I say so".

Projectvxn is trying valiantly to let me know where he is coming from without much of the usual bluster that comes from the pro-gun religious. Trust me, I do appreciate it.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Point out where the 'religion' is please.



Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


No religion there. Nor is that open to 'interpetation.

The RIGHTS of the people, The RIGHTS of the states,

The STATES have the RIGHT to form militias.

The PEOPLE have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

NEITHER shall be infringed.

Infringed/restricted/limited/DENIED/DISPARAGE. ALL mean the same thing.



Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The right of the people to be secure in the houses,papers, and EFFECTS AGAINST unreasonable search and seizures.

A firearm is an effect in the PEOPLES homes,

The STATE has exactly ZERO authoriity to make the PEOPLE prove their worth to the STATE before practicing their RIGHT.

Example the background check.



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 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.


That right there says IF a person commits a crime.

They are taken to court, and a jury of peers decides their fate. The fitfth also goes on to talk about being 'tried' for the same crime twice. as in double jepoardy.

Gun control violates this, GUN REGULATION violates this.

As the entire judicial system is predicated on INNOCENCE until proven guilty.



Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Theres some more DUE PROCESS. Something gun owners are denied every single day in this country, and have been for decades.



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


The people have the ultimate power in this country. Our rights are clearly defined, as those quoted, and others that are found in that piece of paper from where those came from.

Deny/Disparage same thing as INFRINGED.



Amendment X - 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


Firearm ownership has never been prohited.

That right, and those other RIGHTS are clearly speled out for ALL to read.

Opinions are IRRELEVANT.

IT's clearly spelled out.

jpfo.org...

And the infamous 14th.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law


www.law.cornell.edu...

So point out the religion by all means.

The only thing that has been pointed out is the highest laws in this country aren't open up for 'debate'.

Especially those listed that have endured for over two centuries.

edit on 24-10-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: superman2012

Point out where the 'religion' is please.



Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


No religion there. Nor is that open to 'interpetation.

The RIGHTS of the people, The RIGHTS of the states,

The STATES have the RIGHT to form militias.

The PEOPLE have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

NEITHER shall be infringed.

Infringed/restricted/limited/DENIED/DISPARAGE. ALL mean the same thing.



Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The right of the people to be secure in the houses,papers, and EFFECTS AGAINST unreasonable search and seizures.

A firearm is an effect in the PEOPLES homes,

The STATE has exactly ZERO authoriity to make the PEOPLE prove their worth to the STATE before practicing their RIGHT.

Example the background check.



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 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.


That right there says IF a person commits a crime.

They are taken to court, and a jury of peers decides their fate. The fitfth also goes on to talk about being 'tried' for the same crime twice. as in double jepoardy.

Gun control violates this, GUN REGULATION violates this.

As the entire judicial system is predicated on INNOCENCE until proven guilty.



Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Theres some more DUE PROCESS. Something gun owners are denied every single day in this country, and have been for decades.



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


The people have the ultimate power in this country. Our rights are clearly defined, as those quoted, and others that are found in that piece of paper from where those came from.

Deny/Disparage same thing as INFRINGED.



Amendment X - 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


Firearm ownership has never been prohited.

That right, and those other RIGHTS are clearly speled out for ALL to read.

Opinions are IRRELEVANT.

IT's clearly spelled out.

jpfo.org...

And the infamous 14th.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law


www.law.cornell.edu...

So point out the religion by all means.

The only thing that has been pointed out is the highest laws in this country aren't open up for 'debate'.

Especially those listed that have endured for over two centuries.

The religion aspect was brought up as an analogy over how vehemently the pro-gun will defend their stance. Nothing to do with religion at all. Only one way to see it with that group.

We weren't discussing the laws in the US, we were discussing the 'need' for it. Not the same thing. I understand it is a right and that right should be guaranteed, but is this a right everyone needs? For what? For protection? That's what I was trying to understand and gain some knowledge on. So far the answer is because bad guys might hurt you so you need something to protect yourself with. I can't understand how someone can live with that fear their whole life.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
QUOTE:
"The 9th Circus (which includes the Northern Mariana Islands) ruled that there is no Constitutionally protected right to concealed carry (WTF)."

"WTF", you query?

At the time the Constitution was ratified there were already laws against carrying concealed in the colonies, and those laws were not "automatically overturned". The prevailing thought then was, "If a man be armed then let the world know it". Only scalawags, 'scape gallows and ne'er-do-wells would conceal weapons to prey upon the innocent. Pillars of the community had no need to conceal weapons, (or carry in pubs) and the black crime wave (which now necessitates concealed carry) was centuries in the future. And, in a time when fully 50% of the citizens suffer some degree of mental illness, should concealed carry be an absolute right?

Order the House Sub Committee Report on The RKBA (available from the GPO)


And the seat of the 9th circuit is California. If the govt of the islands appeals to the whole court en banc (all judges) any parts of the decision that the govt can't live with will likely be overturned. In the mean time the decision will have no effect on the mainland US.


a reply to: gladtobehere



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

The issue of "need" was addressed in the 1980's. As one scholar said, "It's not a question of need, it's a question of rights". Just as one does not discuss the "need" for a 1st amendment right to free speech or freedom of the press. One could ask, "Should non journalists enjoy the right?"

As T. Jefferson said, "From a democracy of opportunity comes an aristocracy of achievement." I practiced by writing letters to the editor and ended up writing opinion columns for local fishwrappers.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Unfortunately, the Constitution either aided in the creation of the tyranny we presently endure, or it failed to prevent it.

It required extreme diligence to protect our rights, and the citizenry fell asleep at the wheel before we were even born.

So, quoting abstract constitutional theories means little when they must be applied (by judges) to circumstances in the present day. What is a federal judge? Why, it's a lawyer who knows a president.

Does that inspire your confidence?

edit on 25-10-2016 by HOUNDDAWG because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: HOUNDDAWG
a reply to: superman2012

The issue of "need" was addressed in the 1980's. As one scholar said, "It's not a question of need, it's a question of rights". Just as one does not discuss the "need" for a 1st amendment right to free speech or freedom of the press. One could ask, "Should non journalists enjoy the right?"

As T. Jefferson said, "From a democracy of opportunity comes an aristocracy of achievement." I practiced by writing letters to the editor and ended up writing opinion columns for local fishwrappers.


The first amendment protects your right to free speech which would be limiting to your mind and thoughts if not allowed. So a person could argue that you do need free speech as it would otherwise keep a society stagnant. Without free speech or thought put to words, how would a society flourish? What does the second do for you as a person? Is it just protection against bad guys? Or is it really a need for society? How does it make society better?

As I have said before, I do understand that it is a right, but what function does it serve?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: HOUNDDAWG




Unfortunately, the Constitution either aided in the creation of the tyranny we presently endure, or it failed to prevent it.


Generally speaking, we asked for it. We became quiet, compliant, and complacent. Liberty can't be held together by words on parchment.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: HOUNDDAWG
a reply to: superman2012

The issue of "need" was addressed in the 1980's. As one scholar said, "It's not a question of need, it's a question of rights". Just as one does not discuss the "need" for a 1st amendment right to free speech or freedom of the press. One could ask, "Should non journalists enjoy the right?"

As T. Jefferson said, "From a democracy of opportunity comes an aristocracy of achievement." I practiced by writing letters to the editor and ended up writing opinion columns for local fishwrappers.


The first amendment protects your right to free speech which would be limiting to your mind and thoughts if not allowed. So a person could argue that you do need free speech as it would otherwise keep a society stagnant. Without free speech or thought put to words, how would a society flourish? What does the second do for you as a person? Is it just protection against bad guys? Or is it really a need for society? How does it make society better?

As I have said before, I do understand that it is a right, but what function does it serve?


Historical reasons aside, in a land teeming with wild animals and hostile natives the right to keep and bear arms was considered such a fundamental right that it was not the sole purpose of the amendment. In fact, when the US House of Representatives Committee on The RTKBA studied the issue they went back through ancient history to study the rights of passage when young men were initiated and given the tools of survival. (swords, shields, pikes, axes, etc.,.) (As validation the committee pointed out that the SCOTUS went back 4,000 years to research the Miranda decision.)

The purpose of the 2A was to guarantee that the national govt couldn't disarm the militias by refusing to fund or issue (or try to confiscate) arms. The militias were independent of the Federal govt, and the militias consisted of two distinct groups: The Select Militias, which were men in actual state service, and the regular or un-organized militias which included all males from age 16 to age 65.

This amendment was a direct result of April 1775, when British troops were sent to confiscate colonial weapons, at the arsenal of Concord in Massachusetts, which led to "The Shot Heard 'Round The World."

The house committee research confirmed that "Protestants valued personal arms more than Catholics", and they went into every facet of the gun "control" debate. (This included the difference between the national guard which is by law limited in its power inside our borders and the militia. The act creating the guard explicitly states that the guard is not to be confused with, or a substitute for, the state militias)

The militia act also differentiated between the Colonial Army and the militias, with the latter electing or nominating its own officers.


The house concluded that "there can be no doubt that what is ultimately protected by the (second) amendment is an individual right.

This was also supported by the fact that the constitution never used the words "right" when referring to the national govt. Only people have rights, and govt has powers.

The practice and proficiency with firearms was considered so important that T. Jefferson discouraged games with balls and bats because kids needed more rifle practice. And in two world wars The US was the only nation that did not have to train riflemen from the ground up. ("NO NO, the barrel points the other way!"

Simply put, the 2nd amendment is to keep an all powerful govt from reducing us to subjects, and it's the reason that Imperial Japan considered and rejected the idea of invading our west coast. (opting for submarine-launched fire balloons instead)

Jefferson said, "Let's have no more talk about faith in men but bind them down with the chains of the constitution." And, the 2A is the amendment upon which all freedom rests.

And finally, the 2A ain't about crime. It's about political ambition and those who today wish to rule us as subjects. (Read Rockefeller's News States Of America Constitution, which is just waiting in the wings to replace our rights with privileges which can be suspended by any one of the twelve regional commissars for any reason. The 12 zones are the existing federal reserve bank districts, and the new document conveniently removes the 2nd amendment.)

What most folks don't understand is, those born into great wealth are bored with boats cars, jewellery, drugs, etc., by the time the reach adulthood, and the only thing left that gets them high is power. This is why Ted Kennedy (and his brothers) died in office. "If I had his money I'd be partying all over the world", people say. But it gets old, and there's only one aphrodisiac left for the filthy rich.

Even those who don't own guns benefit from it because criminal home invaders (which are numerous in gun-free England) don't know which homes have trained and armed residents inside. If you wish to test this, simply put a sign in your yard that reads, "Attention Criminals, there are no firearms in this house!"

As an American you take stability in govt for granted. But consider Italy which has had over 100 governments since World War Two. An objective study of the issue (such as the Vancouver Study) showed that Vancouver WASH. has a lower rate of gun crime than gun controlled Vancouver BC (Canada) if you factor out the black crime wave. America is an amazingly civilized country once the street corner nickel bag murders are factored out.

And why should a law abiding majority of folks surrender fundamental rights because blacks cannot responsibly exercise them? Even Kweisi Mfume (former NAACP President) said, "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms."

In the infamous Dred Scott Decision of 1857 (which led to the Civil War) the court ruled that "If blacks were citizens they'd be able to keep and carry firearms everywhere they went." And everyone knew that "them hot blooded other people" couldn't use guns responsibly. This is a fact that gun banners refuse to acknowledge today, choosing to use the black crime wave as an excuse to disarm us, for purely political reasons.

Finally, millions of Americans target shoot and compete with clay and metallic targets every weekend. In the us there are billions (with a "B") of rounds of .22 cal rimfire ammo loaded and consumed each year. If the mere act of ownership caused crime then America should be a much more deadly shooting gallery than drug gang-plagued Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, etc.,.

I've fired countless thousands of rounds of ammo and I've never shot anyone. But on more than one occasion my life has been spared and thugs have been deterred by the mere presence of a firearm.

And, did you know about the The Civilian Marksmanship Program? The CMP is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearm safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. Any U.S. citizen who is not legally prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase a military surplus rifle from the CMP, provided they are a member of a CMP affiliated club.[1] The CMP operates through a network of affiliated shooting clubs and state associations that cover every state in the union.

edit on 7-11-2016 by HOUNDDAWG because: (more info)


edit on 7-11-2016 by HOUNDDAWG because: more info...



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: HOUNDDAWG




Unfortunately, the Constitution either aided in the creation of the tyranny we presently endure, or it failed to prevent it.


Generally speaking, we asked for it. We became quiet, compliant, and complacent. Liberty can't be held together by words on parchment.
Well stated, my friend.

Ben Franklin said, "in a democracy we get the govt we deserve." Allowing govt to seize control of education resulted in schools teaching students "why Dick and Jane must file a tax return" but not how to recall a crooked congressman, mayor or governor.

The shadow govt is testing the people now, by naming a department "Homeland Security". If we didn't rise up then, well, we're asleep at the wheel and will accept any tyranny in graduated steps.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: HOUNDDAWG

A piece of paper does nothing to prevent or cause things to happen.

If there is a tyranny, and that's open to debate--though less than there used to be, it's the fault of the citizens who failed to live up to the expectations of the men who wrote the words on that paper.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: HOUNDDAWG

A piece of paper does nothing to prevent or cause things to happen.

If there is a tyranny, and that's open to debate--though less than there used to be, it's the fault of the citizens who failed to live up to the expectations of the men who wrote the words on that paper.


Roger that, seagull.

Well said.

Although a solid one percent of patriot resistance would field about a million militiamen, we'd still have to contend with the psych warfare of TV news showing people dutifully stacking their Krieghoff and Perazzi skeet guns to avoid "losing their social security checks."

Even your own parents may betray you: "Well son, the nice men said that you weren't in any trouble, they just wanted your guns. So, I showed them the false wall you built. They told me to tell you that it was very clever, and they probably wouldn't have spotted it! Oh, and they also found the map to the hidey hole you dug in the Pontius Despot National Forest!"
edit on 26-11-2016 by HOUNDDAWG because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: HOUNDDAWG

You have a way with words.


Pontius Despot Nat'l Forest?
I'll be remembering that one!

Too true about your premise, though. Many would go along to get along. Truth to tell, it's not hard to understand that, either. When one is living check to check, and those checks are govt? That's rock and a hard place territory, for sure. I don't think anyone can be sure how they'll react in such a situation, 'til they're in that situation.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Just goes to show that not all US judges are bent or puppets.

Good for her, better for freedom.

Nice.
edit on 26 11 2016 by MysterX because: typo




top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join