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.

 

DNC Vice Chair Publicly Demands Repeal of the 2nd Amendment

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




That is not a very good argument. An anti-2nd advocate could easily tear that to pieces. Your right to defend yourself is not defendant upon a right to bear arms.


What is a person suppose to defend themselves with during a home invasion?

Use harsh words?

Dial 911 and wait until they get done eating donuts to come save you only to get shot by them instead?




posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Full steam ahead with The Plan, even without Hillary as POTUS, eh?




posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
It's amusing, and a little frightening, that a man who was a Justice on SCOTUS would claim this:


In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.


As far back as Scott v. Sanford (the Dred Scott case) the SCOTUS mentioned that if blacks were to be considered citizens, then they would have the right to carry arms with them wherever they went.


"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right...to keep and carry arms wherever they went."[179]


Yet somehow Jones would have us believe that up until the late 20th century, it was commonly accepted to be a collective right rather than an individual right. That's a strange stance to take, given that the court has consistently ruled in favor of an individual right since the early 2000s. If the court always viewed the 2nd as being a collective right protection, then that (the rulings in favor of individual protection) would be a complete 180 from over 200 years of interpretation.

I think not.
edit on 31-3-2018 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

It is extremely clear. Shall not be infringed. It didnt qualify thay statement in any way. Shall not be infringed.



It did not specify what the states can do and it has been upheld that states do have the right to regulate because the constitution does not specifically define what the states can do in regards to an individuals right to bear arms.

That is what has given way to the regulations we have seen put in place.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963



That was all blatant sarcasm to prove a point!


I think you forgot to hint at what your point was and how it relates to what I posted.



Seig Heil!


Was that sarcasm as well, or were you just practicing?


I am literally Hitler dude! How do you think I know you and your kind were full of it calling Trump Hitler? Reincarnation is NO JOKE! roflmao

Try again comrade!


Day drinking is not a good idea.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   
The United States is in more danger of losing Citizen Rights than ever before.

Many powerful forces at work to defile Citizens.

Very Dangerous 👋



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Full steam ahead with The Plan, even without Hillary as POTUS, eh?



I want a puppy! I want to pay tribute to CountDankula in Scotland who was arrested for hate speech for teaching his puppy to hold out his paw when he heard Sieg Hiel!

Never posted a Youtube video EVER, but by God I NEED A PUPPY! ITZ WAR!!!! lmao



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Strong suggestions coming from a DNC official about the 2nd Amendment.

Karen Peterson Tweeted a New York Times op-ed story by John Paul Stevens (you know him right?)

Repeal the 2nd is the message.

My God what's next ?


KarenCarterPeterson

DNC Vice Chair Publicly Demands Repeal of the 2nd Amendment

The Vice Chair of Civic Engagement and Voter Participation of the Democratic National Committee has called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Louisiana Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Carter Peterson on Tuesday issued a four-word tweet as she shared a link to a New York Times op-ed written by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that advocated for the Second Amendment’s repeal.

“Repeal the Second Amendment,” she tweeted.






They better be careful. I know a lot of dems that really like their guns too.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: introvert

The problem is you Marxists have no respect for the Bill of Righs or restricting the scope of those rights . It’s dangerous and a slippery slope I have zero interest in negotiating away ANY of my rights. No one in their right mind would try to take away rights guaranteed in the Constitution.


Your rights are already being taken away and that is because the constitution was not completely specific on the 2nd amendment.

Unless we specificy and make our rights perfectly clear, you are part of the group that continues to allow people to infringe on our rights.

As far as your Marxist comment, it cannot be taken seriously. Sometimes I wonder if people say such things because they are trying to be confrontational pricks, but I have quickly learned it's because you actually believe that nonsense.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The United States is in more danger of losing Citizen Rights than ever before.

Many powerful forces at work to defile Citizens.

Very Dangerous 👋


The only corporate product we are not entitled to is a firearm.

But get all the abortions and weed you want.

God bless 'Murica!



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari



Rights should not be eroded and degraded, clarified and expanded. They are our rights.


I hope you read what you posted and realize the error in such thinking.

We should always be looking to clarify and expand our rights.

What you posted contradicts itself.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Full steam ahead with The Plan, even without Hillary as POTUS, eh?



I want a puppy! I want to pay tribute to CountDankula in Scotland who was arrested for hate speech for teaching his puppy to hold out his paw when he heard Sieg Hiel!

Never posted a Youtube video EVER, but by God I NEED A PUPPY! ITZ WAR!!!! lmao


Here have a therapy puppy:

Its a new breed ketsuko developed.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963



That was all blatant sarcasm to prove a point!


I think you forgot to hint at what your point was and how it relates to what I posted.



Seig Heil!


Was that sarcasm as well, or were you just practicing?


I am literally Hitler dude! How do you think I know you and your kind were full of it calling Trump Hitler? Reincarnation is NO JOKE! roflmao

Try again comrade!


Day drinking is not a good idea.


Ummm drinking any time of day is better than pretending you are more intelligent than anyone else because you spent THOUSANDS of dollars to be indoctrinated in our so called educational system in the US?

But I am quite sure what I just said in your eyes is hate speech, so thank our founders for that Constitution you guys want destroyed???



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert




That is not a very good argument. An anti-2nd advocate could easily tear that to pieces. Your right to defend yourself is not defendant upon a right to bear arms.


What is a person suppose to defend themselves with during a home invasion?



Whatever they have to. Can you not defend yourself without a firearm?

I can. I can use my hands, among many things.

The argument is that one's right to defend themselves is not defendant upon the tool they use to do so.

That is universally true.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963




Ummm drinking any time of day is better than pretending you are more intelligent than anyone else because you spent THOUSANDS of dollars to be indoctrinated in our so called educational system in the US?


They still haven't figured out money doesn't buy intelligence.




posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Your rights are already being taken away and that is because the constitution was not completely specific on the 2nd amendment.


Correct! I mean obviously that whole bit about the "right to keep and bear arms", they were talking about you have the right not to be drawn & quartered. Duh!
edit on 31-3-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963



Ummm drinking any time of day is better than pretending you are more intelligent than anyone else because you spent THOUSANDS of dollars to be indoctrinated in our so called educational system in the US?


I've neither said, not pretended any such thing.

A wise man once told me that you should never give your ass it's own set of vocal chords. It appears in your case to have taken over the conversation.



But I am quite sure what I just said in your eyes is hate speech, so thank our founders for that Constitution you guys want destroyed???


Hate speech?

No.

Just stupid.

That is your right.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The old adage.

God created man.

Colt made them equal.

Man, woman, gay,straight,rich, poor.

The ultimate equalizer.

The firearm.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: introvert

Your rights are already being taken away and that is because the constitution was not completely specific on the 2nd amendment.


Correct! I mean obviously that whole bit about the "right to keep and bear arms", they were talking about you have the right not to be drawn & quartered. Duh!


Does the 2nd amendment define arms?

Do I get to define it how I see fit?

If so, and we get to define it as we each see fit, any law or regulation that disagrees with my definition is an infringment.

Do you see the fallacies we have to deal with?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

The old adage.

God created man.

Colt made them equal.

Man, woman, gay,straight,rich, poor.

The ultimate equalizer.

The firearm.



Men are equal in the eyes of the law, with or without a firearm.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join