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

Obama Nails Republicans For Hyper-Partisan Reversal On Supreme Court Nominees

page: 9
120
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Logarock




Yes well regulated militia like regulated organized not a mob ect able to assist regular troops.......but none of this has anything to do with personal possession.


The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with personal possession?!

I think you need to look up and compare the definitions of the words "regulated" and "organized".



Hay forgive me but I have you dummy. Yea meaning of the conduct of organized groups of men ad hock whatever from the citizens as organized fighting units had to be well regulated, well ordered, not a mob if they were going to be a standing state army. State had the right to form their own and still do. But and however this is not the limit of the right i.e. private persons maintaining weapons.




posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

That's your opinion of the meaning of "well regulated" as it applies to the 2nd Amendment. But many, including the courts and lawmakers, disagree with you. You can't, for example, own this grenade launcher, which is technically a type of "arms",



Or a rocket launcher like this.




posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, there is nothing unconstitutional about not approving a nominee that they have reason to believe is not going to uphold the constitution...

Jaden



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

yes you can... constitutionally, you can own and bear ANY arm... that the government has chosen to ignore the constitution does not belie that...

Jaden



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

oh...goodie!! I think I'll go out and buy a missile launcher and a few nukes for when my neighbor starts bugging me again!!

do you really think it was the founder's intention to give a crazy lady like me the same toys that our well, trained army is using on the battlefield???

I'll stand firm on the position that anyone who wants to hunt to save on their grocery bill, and even that the states have the right to raise up AND TRAIN their own private army if they feel the need....
but when it comes to private citizens, I think it stops when the guns they want can mow down a herd a deer in two minutes...sorry.

gee a few bomb dropping drones would be rather cool to have too!!! those danged vultures would leave and never come back!!!




edit on 8-11-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden




you can own and bear ANY arm... that the government has chosen to ignore the constitution does not belie that...


What do you mean?

Please allow me to edit your response in a way that I think makes sense, and then comment.

You can own and bear ANY arm... that the government has chosen to ignore. The constitution does not belie that...

Okay?

What arms has the government ignored? Can I own a nuclear war head, for example, or an old undetonated land mine I found on a beach some where?

If I'm a single person, not affiliated with any group, and I own an assault rifle, does that automatically mean that I belong to, or must participate with some local organized militia? What if it's a militia whose goals I may disagree with, like the "Oregon Militia?

As a gun owner, which I'm not in reality, what makes me and my weapon part of a militia?






edit on 8-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, there is nothing unconstitutional about not approving a nominee that they have reason to believe is not going to uphold the constitution...

Jaden

That is the dumbest reasoning... Being a liberal doesn't mean that they will not uphold the constitution. That is the most blatant partisan excuse I've ever heard.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Question: Do you think any laws should be enacted which limit or censor freedom of speech or freedom of religion?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Of course not. Why do you ask?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then I am going to assume that you also support none of our rights (referring to the Bill of Rights) being limited or censored. This includes the 2nd amendment. The judge Obama nominated is on the record to always vote against gun rights. Obama said he "wants to do something about guns".

If the people of the united states think this is very important, and they elect leaders to prevent any kind of action which infringes the second amendment, wouldn't those leaders be doing their job to prevent an appointment of someone who is openly anti second amendment?
edit on 8-11-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I think this is a loaded question that cannot be answered simply but you are trying to fish for a simple answer to try to paint me as a hypocrite.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join