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.

 

SCOTUS rejects challenge to Maryland gun ban

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Spoken like a true Marylander





posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Heh. I feel like I just exposed my nerd credentials.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Eshel


Some firearms I own do not get carried. Others do. My machinegun is carried frequently, in my trunk safe. Hasn't ever hurt a soul - including an animal.


Wow, you are seriously off the handle. Maybe some kind of anti-anxiety med would help.


Care to explain this one? I am pretty pissed off that our Constitution keeps getting torn to shreds. You should be too. This isn't about guns, or anything else. It is about our rights and sacred document being trampled upon by the very people it is supposed to protect us against. So I'm not unhinged, just ticked off.


And my point was nowhere what you are ranting about. My point was that nobody is taking away your second amendment right.


You're right. Because I'm old enough to blatantly ignore any such laws without too much concern for the consequences. However, my children, your children and everyone's children are not as fortunate. They will be subject to these same laws, which will only continue down a slippery slope.

The Constitution specified what the government can and can not do. If you haven't noticed, it skirts that this line 24/7 constantly probing what it can and can not get away with in terms of Constitutional abuses. Its own court systems and lawyers will determine if it acted correctly or illegally - what kind of checks and balances is that?


May I ask what firearm you carried as an "LEO"?


Started out as a model 19 S&W .38spl, then model 686 S&W .38spl or .357 magnum for certain instances. Last was the S&W 5906 in 9mm


And I do enjoy how quickly you attack other people's intelligence and knowledge. You do indeed sound like a LEO in that manner. Keep up the good work officer chuckles.


I apologize for that. This is a touchy issue to me. I am an ardent supporter of civil rights for all people. In that sense, I am a civil rights activist.


And I pray to god that if your militia rises up, you ask me for a place to sleep. I'd be happy to use my 3rd amendment right to tell you to go screw yourself


As is your right. I am too old for militia duty, nor am I suggesting they "rise up." Just that they should retain the capability to do so, as natural law and our DOI reserves that right to us - the people.


(PS: if you're rising up against the government, doesn't that imply that you are no longer recognizing that government's laws? Therefore quoting said government's constitution seems out of place)


I'm not rising up. We are nowhere near such a state yet. If you read the thread tagged in my signature, I oppose revolution - especially as it stands right now. But we must reserve the right and capability, otherwise tyranny could pop up unopposed.

Nevertheless, I apologize for the personal insults. It was uncalled for, and doesn't accurately reflect reality. That being said, I'm sick and tired of people only standing up for Constitutional rights when it involves the amendments they personally care about. Any infringement of any right against any person/people is too much.

If we remain silent while other's rights are trampled upon, who will speak up for ours when they are threatened? Who is going to stand up for the right to speak freely, speak truth to power or assembly lawfully? Who will uphold your freedom to practice any religion you choose (or none at all)? Who will stand up for you when soldiers show up at your door unannounced looking for a place to sleep/operate out of? Who will defend your right against unreasonable searches and seizures of your person and property? Who will stand up for your right to avoid self-incrimination? The right to remain silent? Who will ensure that an accused criminal doesn't sit in pre-trial detention for 10 years, because their right to a speedy trial was ignored? What about your right to examine witnesses in a criminal case against you? Who will ensure you have a fair and impartial trial by petit jury or grand jury based on the offense? Who will stand up for you if a court imposes a $200,000,000,000 bond?
edit on 11/27/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Great. A point I haven't contested so I don't know why you feel compelled to manufacture a debate about it.

I manufactured a debate about the mention of the "Founders" use of the BOR when some of them didn't even want it.


The problem is that that line of thinking is generally used when asserting the idea that the framers meant government controlled militia, rather than the people as individuals. Is that what that member meant? I dunno. But I do know that's usually when that line is used as a supporting statement. Which is why I stated what I stated.

I didn't see that in Introvert's post. Seems like you are arguing against something you heard elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


They didn't want it, but it is there regardless. The 9th and 10th amendments are very clear about things not enumerated in the BOR. Not only does the government have no Constitutionally provided authority to infringe on any amendment, but the second specifically protects RKBA.

Other issues may be handled with 9th/10th amendments, but not the second since 2nd is already specified. If it wasn't specified, then the question would go to the people or the states.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You did, but it was worth it. For me, anyway.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Well then all is good.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I manufactured a debate about the mention of the "Founders" use of the BOR when some of them didn't even want it.


Cool. It happened, so what they wanted is immaterial.


I didn't see that in Introvert's post. Seems like you are arguing against something you heard elsewhere.


Which is why I put "your" in quotation marks, and then talked about the point in general terms rather than attacking the member specifically. Seems like you should pay more attention to what people actually write before you rush off to argue with a fencepost.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I appreciate this being a touchy issue. It is for many many people. I just want people to debate it with less emotion and more reasoning.

I, for one, love my guns and frequently use them for practice to stay sharp. I'll admit, my family was not gun enthusiasts and I did not have the chance to use one until I joined the Army. (Can't think of a better firearm to start with though lol). My DOS in the service allowed me to fire many foreign weapons with the intent that we'd be familiar with them. And to be honest, there's a couple I prefer over the M16 but unfortunately getting them in the US would be "difficult" to say the least.

But, as I said before, I don't so much believe in gun regulation as I believe in gun owner regulation. And until we are able to make sure the weapons are getting into the hands of knowledgeable and capable people, the only solution we have at the moment is to limit what is available to all the "Timmys" out there


Perhaps an "FOID Advance level" for certain weapons would be a route. I don't know. But I'm open to anything at the moment that saves lives. And yes, reloading negates capacity in most situations. But I'd rather a person be clumsy with that reload than fire off that many without.

And your list of duty related firearms does show that you should be able to protect yourself with the "assault" weapons. (for lack of a better word atm)

I appreciate your defense of the Constitution. But we must defend all parts. For example, I don't see many people getting nearly as heated about the 1st, 4th, etc etc that are being violated on a regular basis by our government. (or at least being slowly pushed).



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Yeah, I wasn't talking about working within the system so all that is irrelevant?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Cool. It happened, so what they wanted is immaterial.

Not to the point I was making.


Which is why I put "your" in quotation marks, and then talked about the point in general terms rather than attacking the member specifically. Seems like you should pay more attention to what people actually write before you rush off to argue with a fencepost.

I took "your" to indicate that you were talking about "their" point specifically, since you did reply to their post, and not some argument you heard somewhere outside their post.


edit on 27-11-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Not to the point I was making.


Cool.


I took "your" to indicate that you were talking about "their" point specifically, since you did reply to their post, and not some argument you heard somewhere outside their post.


Cool.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Cool.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns



Correct, security of the free state. If government becomes a threat to that security, then they absolutely exist to carry out revolution or any other remedy they choose. The point is that it is independent of government and not subject to its oversight. If it was, the government would vote to disband and disarm the militia (much like they do today, only through media and popular culture vs. codification).


Then what is meant by the 'well-regulated" part of the 2nd amendment?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

As I said, it has been widely debated. In my opinion, much of it hinges upon the definitions of specific words within the 2nd.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Agreed. And we (as in people in general) can't even agree on the definitions of specific terms. Does militia mean organized militia or all able-bodied citizens? Is well-regulated supposed to mean controlled by code and law, or simply in good order? All we can do is try to interpret things using context from letters and so on.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Now you have brought up a point, which is within the 2nd amendment, of a well-regulated militia, and the court did look at. So apart from the civil war, how many times in the past has the population found it necessary to raise up, and take arms to march against the US federal government?

And if one is going to use that argument, then should not the same rules and regulations that the US military also apply to those wanting military grade hardware? That is a member of the US military, who is not on duty, normally does not take home the firearms that is used in the course of his job, which it is in another location, under lock, key and guard. That all of the weapons and brass are accounted for.

Having firearms is not the issue. The issue is that people should not have any sort of military grade firearms, either the regular kind or copies that can do the same kind of damage. And that is what the courts ruled on.
The courts, when it comes to things in the bill of rights, are usually very conservative in its views, erring in favor of the rights of the individual. In that case, the justices normally come up with 3 tests, questions, to determine if something is or is not within the protection of the constitution. And from the original case, that is what the court did, and it was strict and looking at all of the arguments to such. In that point, the case brought on by the NRA, failed said test. And the US Supreme court, but not hearing the case, pretty much is stating that the case was within the law, and that they would rule the same as the lower court.

Do you not agree that it is part of the governmental mandate to protect and ensure the general wellbeing of the citizens of the country? It is there in the US constitution. It is plainly stated within the opening lines of that document. And would you also not agree, that the idea that the safety and well being of children should be also considered?

There are many places that firearms should not be allowed, would you now advocate that a teacher have firearms in the school rooms? Or parents open carry anything that they want where there are a lot of children?

Now I do support the law, including the right to own firearms, however, I also know that there has to be a balance to prevent tragedy from occurring, and perhaps there should be some weapons that the everyday law abiding citizen should not have, and those firearms that copy military grade weapons, may not be such a good idea, rather should be regulated and denied to law abiding citizens.

Actually I am correct in my last point. The state does have an obligation to protect the citizens. It is one of the very principles and bases of the laws that govern the country. Or are you wanting to totally scrap the Constitution of the USA? It is within that document that the very obligation is found.
Here is where you can find it:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

55 mass shootings since Las Vegas: www.massshootingtracker.org...



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert

Agreed. And we (as in people in general) can't even agree on the definitions of specific terms. Does militia mean organized militia or all able-bodied citizens? Is well-regulated supposed to mean controlled by code and law, or simply in good order? All we can do is try to interpret things using context from letters and so on.


I think militia means militia. But hasn't the Supremes ruled on this to mean citizens?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: daskakik


They didn't want it, but it is there regardless. The 9th and 10th amendments are very clear about things not enumerated in the BOR. Not only does the government have no Constitutionally provided authority to infringe on any amendment, but the second specifically protects RKBA.

Other issues may be handled with 9th/10th amendments, but not the second since 2nd is already specified. If it wasn't specified, then the question would go to the people or the states.

I read through all of this thread to finally come to this.

This is all that needs to be said; this should end the thread

Yes, the 10th Amendment gives the states the right to control things for their own citizens, but ONLY IF it doesn't infringe on anything in the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment. I don't think that the SCOTUS was correct in not taking this up, as it's a state law that is so close to pissing on the 2nd that ignoring it is unhealthy for our nation.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join