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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
A ragtag bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan did a pretty damn decent job of it.
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?
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.
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.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
A ragtag bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan did a pretty damn decent job of it.
Without a standing federal government, the Constitution could still exist and be upheld, but without the Constitution, there is no legitimate government, period.
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?