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.

 

Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Celebrate this piece for what it is: an admission from a liberal Supreme Court Justice that gun control cannot happen within the boundaries of the Constitution without repealing the 2nd Amendment. His call to repeal the 2nd is loud and clear... he's admitting that it is sacrosanct to preservation of the free exercise of the right. They can't do jack snip about it, and that's just the way it should be.





posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Celebrate this piece for what it is: an admission from a liberal Supreme Court Justice that gun control cannot happen within the boundaries of the Constitution without repealing the 2nd Amendment. His call to repeal the 2nd is loud and clear... he's admitting that it is sacrosanct to preservation of the free exercise of the right. They can't do jack snip about it, and that's just the way it should be.



At least they're starting to be honest. At the gun control march the other day one of the speakers said if we give an inch, they'll take a mile.

We all knew this already, it's nice they're coming out and saying it though and aren't trying to trick people into thinking they just want one or two more reforms.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Yes, it is a relic. 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting, nor is it about shooting burglars in your home.

If people support the right to hunt and defend themselves then they should support repeal and replace with an amendment ensuring those two things (hunting and self-defense).

The history of militias in North America starts in the 1600s colonies. The Militia Acts were passed in response to the overwhelming U.S. losses at St. Clair's Defeat in 1791.


The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack

These definitions and requirements of militia members (muskets and flints and such) were superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.

If the old time militia wants to pretend that the National Guard is not the constitutional militia then let them keep their muskets and spare flints. No AR-15 required.

The overthrow of the tyrannical government established by the U.S. Constitution in order to uphold and defend the U.S Constitution seems quite ironic.

Back to St. Clair's Defeat:

The 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary War (a war in which American Indian tribes were overwhelmingly allied with the British and were treated as defeated powers, following the American victory over the British), recognized United States sovereignty of all the land east of the Mississippi River and south of the Great Lakes. The Indian tribes in the Old Northwest, however, were not parties to this treaty and many of them, especially leaders such as Little Turtle and Blue Jacket, refused to recognize American claims to the area northwest of the Ohio River. The young United States government, deeply in debt following the Revolutionary War and lacking the authority to tax under the Articles of Confederation, planned to raise funds via the methodical sale of land in the Northwest Territory. This plan necessarily called for the removal of both Native American villages and squatters.

The old style militias were all about killing and driving out non-whites who lived on land that the U.S. (with the permission of Britain) wanted to seize and sell.

But now what? Doesn't the White Man have it all from sea to shining sea? What now, in 2018?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux




It's interesting that all the posters for gun control keep making claims we couldn't beat our military, without realizing that our military relies on air support, artillery support, and heavy armor. None of which would be usable in a war against the gun owners.


The government wouldn't even need to unleash its full military force onto its citizens, if they decided to rebel en masse against them... Just a few local police forces dressed & armed in full military gear would suffice.

They'd then just wait it out... let the citizens march down the main street strapped with their AR-15, all hyped up, well they burned down the local Walmart, or whatever...

After a few days, the majority of people would just lose interest... Since after all, they have a job they have to get back to... Mortgage repayments they have to pay, credit card and car repayments... Also, lets not forget, kids to feed and provide for.

lol, after 3 days, the only people that would be left on the streets, would be a few groups of unemployed criminals... who they can easily pick off and arrest.

Just face it! In the 21st century, the people can't take on a "tyrannical" government by brute force... Not when the people are quite literally 'owned' and rely so heavily on TPTB to sustain their cushy little lifestyles.
edit on 27-3-2018 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
The overthrow of the tyrannical government established by the U.S. Constitution in order to uphold and defend the U.S Constitution seems quite ironic.


The government is not the Constitution. Without a standing federal government, the Constitution could still exist and be upheld, but without the Constitution, there is no legitimate government, period.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lab4Us

a reply to: yuppa

Which of these deffinitions of militia apply to the second amendment, in your opinion?

MILITIA

NOUN
1) a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2) a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
3) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

#2, right? Because, you all need your guns to fight against the US government/military, in the case of "tyranny". Right?

I don't trust peranoid doomsday gun stockpilers to form a militia that protects me any more than I trust inner city gangs to protect my nieghborhood.


One would probably help you, the other would probably take your valuables and kill you/leave you for dead.

But they are the same thing because guns. /s


Not because "guns", because "tyranny". And because one man's tyranny is another man's law and order. The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, it's about the people forming a militia to protect themselves against tyranny.





Being in a gang and breaking laws agreed upon by the majority of society is not tyranny. Being arrested for words is tyranny.

A gang is not a militia. They do not fit any one of the definitions you provided.


It's a fine line. Anyone who goes against perceived government tyranny is gonna break laws. You can't have an insurrection without breaking some laws.

Again, the 2nd Amendment isn't about guns. It's about the people forming a militia to defend themselves against the government. Bearing arms can mean a number of things, guns, knives, cross bows, cannons, torpedoes, bombs, incendiary devices, and our military has a formative stock pile of dverse weaponry that guns alone can't match.

We have our military and state and local police to protect us. And, as many of you have said, if ordered to, most would not fire upon the people and violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, but would protect "The People" in a constitutional crisis against illegal government tyrrany.

The people need guns to hunt for food and for their personal protection and the protection of their homesteads and businesses, that's all, in my humble opinion. No anti-government militia at the ready is needed. But, I do agree with the poster that said that we must never give up our right to overthrow our government, or that would not allow the military and law enforcement individuals to refuse unlawful orders and defend the constitution.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

A ragtag bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan did a pretty damn decent job of it.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lab4Us

a reply to: yuppa

Which of these deffinitions of militia apply to the second amendment, in your opinion?

MILITIA

NOUN
1) a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2) a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
3) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

#2, right? Because, you all need your guns to fight against the US government/military, in the case of "tyranny". Right?

I don't trust peranoid doomsday gun stockpilers to form a militia that protects me any more than I trust inner city gangs to protect my nieghborhood.


One would probably help you, the other would probably take your valuables and kill you/leave you for dead.

But they are the same thing because guns. /s


Not because "guns", because "tyranny". And because one man's tyranny is another man's law and order. The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, it's about the people forming a militia to protect themselves against tyranny.





You don't get it.

Suppose the government decided that "X" segment of the population was simply intolerable to have in this country and the only way to deal with it was to remove it. And the removal meant rounding up all members of X and incarcerating them in forced labor camps until they either died or were incapable of work at which point they were murdered?

I suppose because some people would no doubt be all for it, you don't label that as government tyranny?

Or you don't actually believe that could ever happen in a modern government?

Just keep your eyes on South Africa. They may not be rounding people up in camps, but they are freely making use of government military power against the citizens to forcibly confiscate property without compensation. I suppose you don't think that's an example of any kind of government tyranny?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

A ragtag bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan did a pretty damn decent job of it.


Yeah, but most of them probably didn't even have a electricity bill to worry about... We're talking about 'first world issues' here... its a whole other ball game.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Poor guy is 97.
Poor guy is not a justice
It's an opinion piece

Can people still have opinions?


Um, isn't the OP just an opinion as well?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You're only allowed to have opinions if they include censorship or banning guns.


It was in the memo.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


You don't get it. I'm not saying there is no risk of tyranny. I'm saying that the 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, it's about the right of the people to defend themselves against governmental tyranny, and to overthrow said government/administration. Guns alone wont cut it.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny


Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.”

Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.


Uh, yeah, thanks to the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Second Amendment will just return us back to a time where people had those concerns.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
study.com... S.html


The field of constitutional law deals mainly with the interpretation and implementation of the rights, rules, and amendments outlined in the United States Constitution. Constitutional law is often applied to cases that are argued in federal courts, including the Supreme Court.


its amusing that people think they have it all figured out. they seen to know just what the ole founding fathers meant and what they had in mind.

key word being interpret

no matter what people think the constitution is open to interpretation.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The police? Are you joking or being serious? You think they will do anything against a fighting force that knows where they live, who their families are, and far outnumber them? If the government thought it would be a successful campaign, they would have already tried.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

A ragtag bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan did a pretty damn decent job of it.


Not only our forces, but did a decent job of it with the Russians too.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This is almost funny. I dont have any guns to take. My neighbor does. If someone tries to takes his away, I will have to borrow one to help him out.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Without a standing federal government, the Constitution could still exist and be upheld, but without the Constitution, there is no legitimate government, period.

Without a vital, living, changing with the times(progressive) government, the Constitution might as well be a holy relic in a box.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Poor guy is 97.
Poor guy is not a justice
It's an opinion piece

Can people still have opinions?


Um, isn't the OP just an opinion as well?



um, did i say the OP couldnt have an opinion?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

The 2A should remain in force for as long as the Government of the United States of America exists.

The government of the United States of America is obsessed with killing and controlling all the humans on the planet - the day to 2A dies, is the day 1984 becomes reality.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join