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Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed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: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

You can legally by pass the 4th by simply setting up a false SWAT'ing event. Have a fellow law enforcement officer call 911, and claim that there is a criminal activity there involving children hostages. SWAT comes out, house gets stormed, evidence gets collected/planted.




posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere

i simply do not agree
not much else to say to you about it



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
IT...in a nutshell....



twitter.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: caf1550

it always amuses me when people bring up the fact citizenry cant win against a government when there are more then a few examples in even recent history such as you cited Vietnam (and they kicked china out after they kicked us out) ,Afghanistan which is no where near as armed or as industrialized as the usa is.egypt over threw 3 governments in the past 10 years i think alone.

its not like it would be field army's where citizens form ranks or attempt to fight from pick up trucks and engage military forces whole sale, it would be what amounts to terrorism/an insurgency . you dont attack the tank collom you attack the tank manufacturing centers ,fuel refineries and ammunition production facilities or in an extreme the training centers of crews for the tanks.

the citizenry wouldn't fight against aircraft with crop dusters or privately owned planes . they would attack run ways drone production centers and computer chip manufactures and power plants that power defense infrastructure

citizenry wouldn't fight against the army in the field it would be like iraq an insurgency ,and even the entire army would not be unified in such an ordeal. salting ammo,making parts just not to spec enough to interfere with reliability ,sabotaging tax income and attacking logistic centers or usefull items like bridges ,flood control centers etc wouldnt be a cake walk for either side and would probably be one of the most terrible things to happen to the country as a whole in its entire existence. you dont have to kill the drone just the pilots of the drones, or keep them from wanting to go to work due to the risk involved

non combat options could include trucker strikes on a national level massive protests (looks bad when you bomb protestors with jets least in the northern hemisphere) work walk outs in key areas like refineries and oil extraction look at Syria there are what over 12 seperate factions fighting the government of syria which has Russian backing and they are still fighting and its been going on over 10 years now and syria is VASTLY smaller then the usa and vastly smaller population levels. for people on each side of the argument remember civil wars are rarely a "civil" affair,and no one should want such events or take them lightly



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
He is entitled to his opinion, the only issue I have with it is the way some members of the press are presenting his opinion with titles such as Supreme court justice says the 2nd should be repealed, when it should say retired supreme court justice.

"You are not entitled to your opinion . You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to ignorance" - Harlan Ellison
This applies even if a person was once an SJC



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

You're talking about people who have no sense of tactical thinking. They think someone armed with a handgun can't stop someone armed with an AR-15.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I am just blown away by the stupidity of people who are against the right and ability to defend themselves. Idiocracy is here!



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

An amendment cannot override the ability to amend.

I consider this a breath of fresh air. Finally, someone who understands the concept of the Constitution! There can be no legal law restricting weapons of any kind as long as the 2nd Amendment stands as written. Every single firearm restriction, including those against sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons is illegal.

If we want to restrict firearms, there is only one legal way to do it: amend the Constitution.

Now, the real question is: what do we want to change it to? Personally, I'm fine with restricting weapons capable of destroying entire structures, as in RPGs or nukes, and I can see some reason in restricting fully automatic firearms. But if I even get a whiff someone wants to get rid of my pistol or one of my hunting rifles, the conversation is over. There's you a new steep hill of public opinion to climb over.

I would also oppose simply removing the 2nd Amendment. But at least finally someone realizes that is what it takes to restrict firearms in the USA.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Ironically, Stephens actually made a great argument to NOT repeal the Second Amendment.

He says:


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.


His argument is that the Second Amendment addressed the "concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states."

AND he argues that it is so EFFECTIVE in addressing that concern, people are not concerned "that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states" and haven't been since the Second Amendment was ratified.

Sounds like the Second Amendment does exactly what it was meant to do according to his own interpretation on its intent.


***


But, of course, then he goes on to say..."Hey, let's repeal it because no one is going to ever have any concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states," ever again, even if we repeal their rights."

That's where his logic all falls apart.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: shawmanfromny

An amendment cannot override the ability to amend.

I consider this a breath of fresh air. Finally, someone who understands the concept of the Constitution! There can be no legal law restricting weapons of any kind as long as the 2nd Amendment stands as written. Every single firearm restriction, including those against sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons is illegal.

If we want to restrict firearms, there is only one legal way to do it: amend the Constitution.

Now, the real question is: what do we want to change it to? Personally, I'm fine with restricting weapons capable of destroying entire structures, as in RPGs or nukes, and I can see some reason in restricting fully automatic firearms. But if I even get a whiff someone wants to get rid of my pistol or one of my hunting rifles, the conversation is over. There's you a new steep hill of public opinion to climb over.

I would also oppose simply removing the 2nd Amendment. But at least finally someone realizes that is what it takes to restrict firearms in the USA.

TheRedneck


I pretty much agree with all of this. Sadly, many of the gun grabbers will never be happy. As I posted on the first page, up to 1/3 of Democrats agree with repealing the 2nd. Even a small percentage of Republicans agreed. The "assault weapons ban" in Congress right now would ban almost every semi-auto rifle and handgun. It's absurd. Then they wonder why they can't pass anything.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

See, that's where the train wheels lose contact with the rails. It seems lately that too many people in politics want to just dictate policy regardless of democracy, our republic principles, or even codified law. California thinks it is fine to conspire to nullify Federal immigration law. Obama wanted marijuana legal, but he didn't bother to pass a law to say so. The Congress just passed a massive slab of pork spending almost overnight before anyone could even read it.

That don't cut it with a Constitutional Amendment.

Furthermore, the idea of compromise seems to be, "Give me what I want." Sorry, no. Pundits could come up with a wonderful amendment to the 2nd Amendment that contains one word or phrase indicating a possibility of restricting pistols or semi-auto firearms and my support will change 180 degrees. No more compromise unless I get something I want.

And I already have what I want: the 2nd Amendment.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   
THe second definitely needs to be update, that is for sure. States should be able to determine what kinds of weapons people can have, and set some requirements, such as age or veteran status for owning weapons.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Every single firearm restriction, including those against sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons is illegal.




no sarcasm here so know that

what does this even mean

restrictions on sawed offs are illegal. but there are restrictions on them and people do go to jail for this correct?
but its illegal?

unjust law? unjust law people choose not to fight?

you are saying people busted for a short barrel are being busted illegally?

this must be there interpretation part
^^^sarcasm



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
THe second definitely needs to be update, that is for sure. States should be able to determine what kinds of weapons people can have, and set some requirements, such as age or veteran status for owning weapons.


I am asking anyone who may share this mindset.

Why should we pass new laws when we can see in the past 8 years or so, only about 1 % of people that tried to iullegally purchase guns were prosecuted?

What good will new laws do if we refuse to enforce them?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
THe second definitely needs to be update, that is for sure. States should be able to determine what kinds of weapons people can have, and set some requirements, such as age or veteran status for owning weapons.


Then start a movement to pass an Amendment to #amendthe2nd



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: CB328
THe second definitely needs to be update, that is for sure. States should be able to determine what kinds of weapons people can have, and set some requirements, such as age or veteran status for owning weapons.


I am asking anyone who may share this mindset.

Why should we pass new laws when we can see in the past 8 years or so, only about 1 % of people that tried to iullegally purchase guns were prosecuted?

What good will new laws do if we refuse to enforce them?


You're not supposed to bring that up, in the interest of fairness. Nor should you ask why felons with gun convictions were getting their sentences commuted if we're serious about gun control.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
American's are fortunate that this is happening in that it will show that the state, at times, can not or will not protect some of it's citizens and that the only thing the citizens can rely on is a "well regulated militia" and the right to own and god damn fire arm they choose, including automatics. There will be resistance to this, but the dems will dodge any debate as usual and hide behind talking points.


Guns are no longer an effective method of fighting back. The best defense is encryption. The best offense is disrupting commerce, which basically means a combination of credit fraud against the people to disrupt their disposable income, hacking companies to leak information to discourage sales, disrupting ecommerce websites to stop virtual sales, car bombs in shopping centers to stop physical sales, and assassinations of ceo's, politicians, and celebrities.

Army vs Army doesn't care about any of this. The military is too small to occupy the country as a police force.

if you want to maintain the spirit of the second, the things you should be pushing for are data protections, a weaker police force, and much better education. Militia's of people with rifles is an outdated concept.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Another Victim of Creamed Corn and Old Timers Disease , So Sad......



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah ! Hey Kids , take a Look at the New and Improved ARMY ! Uncle Jarvis Wants You !







posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Everything you said is completely true, but people who spout for gun reform and disarmament apparently have never read a history book or understand tactics. These people have never heard of the Peninsular wars of the early 19th century when Spanish and Portuguese guerillas fought literally “the guerilla” or little war against the much superior and my technology advanced French armies. Everything thinks it’s always going to be ordinary people fighting against tanks planes and drones, they fail to realize the real implications of what would happen. The disarmament of the American public I strongly believe would lead to either a civil war or a outright revolution, I do feel strongly though that that will not happen under Trump, but he can only stay in office for so long so we shall see what happens when he either looses or leaves after 8 years.

Side note: The US military and police would be so disorganized because there are so many in both ranks who are very pro 2A.




top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join