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Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed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

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Any other parts of the Bill of Rights that are "hundreds of years old" that you're not cool with?


All of them.

The first doesn't go far enough to address freedom of speech, and it gets very murky with the concept of the press and weaponized information.

The second doesn't address or apply to cyber weapons. It also makes no provisions for defensive equipment, only offensive.

The third makes it impossible to deploy the miltiary to any city without massive logistics to move troops. It essentially prevents the military from ever stopping an invasion if it were to happen.

The fourth doesn't consider electronic information such as text files and pdf's to be documents and effects. It also has no concept of personal data or metadata.

The fifth has been defeated by mass media, and invoking it will instantly cause you to lose a civil trial that's just as damaging as a criminal trial, regardless of actual guilt.

The sixth no longer exists due to a failure to fund the public defender system, and budget cuts which have encouraged plea bargains.

The seventh doesn't work at the scale of the legal system anymore. Even if we were to adjust the $20 limitation for inflation it just isn't feasible to call that many juries. The fact that the jury system actually discourages voting doesn't help.

The eighth has failed because many minor crimes now carry lifelong penalties. A drug conviction for example will end your earnings potential over your lifetime, to the point that you would be better off in jail than as a private citizen.

The ninth has been completely discarded. Just look at the people who say we shouldn't have health care because the Constitution doesn't guarantee it. Half the population outright speaks against rights and protections for society because they aren't enumerated in the Constitution.

The tenth doesn't scale to the scope of the US. 50 states and lots of interstate commerce makes it impractical to do anything across state lines. It actively divides us as a people.




posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
Our right to vote is also in the constitution and it's actually sill relevant.


Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to vote. Only criteria by which a vote cannot be denied. Voting is implicit, but not explicit.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

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


I've tried explaining this to people over and over but they don't get it. These are the same people who think if Trump ordered the military to nuke someone because they were mean to him on Twitter, they would actually do it. They think the military are like robots. Years of insinuation that the Iraq War was "illegal" but the military just blindly followed unlawful orders has them brainwashed.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Sookiechacha



I think gun ownership rights would be left to the states.


I think if they repeal the 2nd, the States should be allowed to secede from the Union!


States are allowed to secede from the Union. It's just about as hard to do as it is to repeal amendments.


I love it when you Constitutional scholars tell someone they're uninformed than immediately spew forth some misinformation.

It is NOT legal for states to secede:


The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[53]There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[55] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[56] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question.


en.m.wikipedia.org...
edit on (3/27/1818 by PistolPete because: Added link.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

One semi talented hacker can ruin 100 million peoples financial situation for the next 100 years by messing up the credit system. Play with leverage rates and the Goldman Sachs goes ass up erasing generations of property ownership. A few million people playing dress up and thinking they're cool or special because they can shoot a gun, can only kill a few million people primarily having a local impact.

Soldiers are just cannon fodder. He was a couple decades early, but Kissinger nailed it. The only thing soldiers can do is kill a few people, bringing down a government these days is near impossible.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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.


Its not a fine line comparing gang members doing illegal stuff to people fighting against a tyrannical government trying to take away peoples rights.


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.


Its not about guns, but you include them in what bearing arms could mean..
There is no could mean about it.

Yes our military does have a formidable stockpile. Would certainly be an interesting turn of events if pilots and tankers decide to commandeer those weapons in the fight against a tyrannical government eh?


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.


I'd have to disagree with that first part.



edit on 27-3-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

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.


And now you realize the slow erosion of the second amendment with assault weapons bans.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Yes our military does have a formidable stockpile. Would certainly be an interesting turn of events if pilots and tankers decide to commandeer those weapons in the fight against a tyrannical government eh?


I think that's an interesting scenario and thought provoking what if question, but I don't think it would ever come to that. Perhaps if we had state militias we would see state vs state fighting over specific issues, but with a single federal military and professional army, it would never happen. At the end of the day, a soldier needs a base to live on, or the income to live off base as well as an income to provide necessities (and hopefully more) for their family. Pilots and tankers would ultimately side with whoever was willing to pay them. That's primarily going to be the government with an established currency.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 08:58 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.


And you cannot possibly see where that might be abused, huh?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Yes our military does have a formidable stockpile. Would certainly be an interesting turn of events if pilots and tankers decide to commandeer those weapons in the fight against a tyrannical government eh?


I think that's an interesting scenario and thought provoking what if question, but I don't think it would ever come to that. Perhaps if we had state militias we would see state vs state fighting over specific issues, but with a single federal military and professional army, it would never happen. At the end of the day, a soldier needs a base to live on, or the income to live off base as well as an income to provide necessities (and hopefully more) for their family. Pilots and tankers would ultimately side with whoever was willing to pay them. That's primarily going to be the government with an established currency.


It wouldn't matter who is paying what, if all hell is breaking loose and you're told your neighbors are now the enemy.

ETA: Or members of your own family for that matter.
edit on 27-3-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
It wouldn't matter who is paying what, if all hell is breaking loose and you're told your neighbors are now the enemy.

ETA: Or members of your own family for that matter.


Food and other supplies still need to be purchased. Rent may still need to be paid. Soldiers will be forced to side with only those that can cover their families necessities. Unless a rebel group can do so (and doing that as a decentralized group is nearly impossible) the people won't turn.

Let me give an example, lets say an entire military base turned against the government. How is that base going to support soldiers with no supply lines?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears


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

That is exactly what I am saying. It states in the Declaration of Independence (paraphrased) that men are disposed to suffer evils while evils are sufferable. Violent revolution occurs when evils become unsufferable.

We have a Constitution which was not written in legaleeze. It is written in plain, simple English that should be easily understandable to the average person. Yet, so many have translated "shall not be infringed" as "can be infringed with a good enough reason" that we are actually in danger of losing our protections against tyranny. It is not those who claim to support peace through ignorance of the 2nd Amendment who are the ones trying to avoid violence... it is those who demand the law be enforced as written, fairly toward all people of all classes and backgrounds.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

How is the army of the US going to be able to literally lock down and control the entire area of Red State US?

It's not like the enemy they would face is concentrated in urban areas, and even then there are far too many medium size cities for the army to control. Then you have the issue if protecting all those army non-coms when the locals get upset over being preyed upon by the military. Never forget that many of the rebal partisans are former military themselves.

Then you to wonder how lines of supply will be secured across the entire country.

Then you have to wonder how you compel rural folks, many of them Red Staters, to produce for the urban Blue folks.

Understand what we'd be looking at is a city/country battle.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

1 and 3. defending against a govermnent who goes against the constitution in the US makes them the good guys.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny




What part of "not be infringed" does he not get?


What part of


The Constitution of the United States of America

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


Which part of Article 5 do you not understand?



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Add Fast and furious into the equation and it paints a pretty bleak picture.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 04:15 AM
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?


But this isn't about opinions when people attack our freedoms, and when they can be very influential like a retired supreme court justice (judge). What he is doing is inciting civil war that will only lead to much bloodshed. It would lead to vigilante gangs and political assassinations right here in good ole America.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

i could just as easily say the crowd shouting youre never gonna get my gunz and some a take em and on and on are inciting a civil war.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

the fact is people on both sides from nobodies like u all the way up to constitutional lawyers do interpret the constitution. this is nothing new.
fact is people from nobodies like us all the way up can not agree on what the wording even means.

just cause you say a thing does not make it so.
same goes for me

so we are all caught in this weird state of limbo

like it or not that is how it is.

clearly it is not plain and simple or there would be no interpretation. but there is


and if gun rights are so important to so many how come you all are not loading up and getting to it militia style to fight that illegal shotgun law.
your rights are being infringed.
go forth and fight tyranny my friend.

that one not important? important but not important enough to do anything about it?

im very curious



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

i could just as easily say the crowd shouting youre never gonna get my gunz and some a take em and on and on are inciting a civil war.


Yeah, but the difference here is the MSM plastering this old judges words all over the news on prime time national headlines, and look at the press just having a field day promoting it in a big way.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join