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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

For me...its because its nonstop. I get sick of this same topic every few months.

Patience doesnt last forever.


I'm about out of patience with both sides.

Ignorance all around.

I wish the Left would back the # off and I wish the Right had a clue about the constitution and how to defend a right they claim to cherish.




posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




And to keep it up to date with the times what do we have to do?


Adhere to the GD Bill of RIghts.

No person shall be held answerable to a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

No state shall make or enforce any law that abrides(denies,disparages,INFRINGE) their RIGHT to life,LIBERTY, and PROPERTY without take them to court and PROVE their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in front of a jury of their peers.

AKA. Leaving the guns, and giving them their GD day in court like several amendments say to do.

But that's still too complicated for the so called smart people to comprehend.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Lumenari



That's all I needed to know about liberals and gun control. Pretty much an Animal Farm mentality. We are all the same only some of us are better. Right?


No. You example is absurd and is a logical fallacy.

In fact, you're being hypocritical because you are doing exactly what you claim of liberals.


No, my example is what is called reality. Like, it actually happened and I didn't have to resort to a debate tactic in the conversation to attempt to minimize it like you did.

Back to your previous post, there is an easy way that rights can be changed, modified, etc.

Amend them.


edit on 31-3-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: introvert

Allow citizens to buy main battle tanks.


Some would agree. Some would not.

Without a very specific 2nd amendment, we allow states and governments to decide what we are allowed to possess.

Not much of a right then, is it?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Sure Neo.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
she is brave to talk like that in la.

they have a bunch of gators



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari



No, my example is what is called a reality. Like, it actually happened, I didn't have to resort to a debate tactic to minimize it.


It's an anecdotal fallacy in which you used to paint Liberals as a whole.



Back to your previous post, there is an easy way that rights can be changed, modified, etc. Amend them.


That may have to happen, unless you want the state to further define your rights.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So your point is since you haven't ability to defend yourself without one that you don't care for others to have sense of security provided to them? Against equality much?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That's EXACTLY what those amendments say.



The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.




Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


www.law.cornell.edu...



Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


www.law.cornell.edu...



Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.law.cornell.edu...

What part of that GD piece of paper/ LAWS is confusing?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I absolutely DO believe you are a Marxist based on what you say and do on this very site. As far as clearly defining our rights, the only folks trying to limit free speech and the right to bear arms are the people on your side of the aisle. Apparently you all can't understand the clearly written statement 'shall not be infringed'.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert




My right to defend myself exists and can be done with or without a firearm.


How did that work out for those students in florida?


Nice appeal to emotion.

My point still stands.

Our right to defend ourselves is not defendant upon the right to bear arms.


Yes, because when a home invader busts through my front door brandishing a 9mm semi auto handgun, he/she will fully understand when I say “Sir/Ma’am, you have to put down the gun and put on the boxing gloves so I can attempt to defend my and my spouses lives and property”...yep, that will work, I’ll bank on it from now on!

To be serious, one must have the means available to defend against what is being used to inflict injury/attempted murder. Pretty sure the thugs aren’t going to follow your “turn all guns in immediately” narrative.
edit on 31-3-2018 by Lab4Us because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Lumenari



No, my example is what is called a reality. Like, it actually happened, I didn't have to resort to a debate tactic to minimize it.


It's an anecdotal fallacy in which you used to paint Liberals as a whole.



Back to your previous post, there is an easy way that rights can be changed, modified, etc. Amend them.


That may have to happen, unless you want the state to further define your rights.


Look, from my perspective you are trying to frame both sides of the debate and from the looks of it you are losing to yourself.

Have fun with that.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
We need a 2nd amendment conversation in this country.

Time to repeal the Brady Act, and the creation of a carrying permit system, and the act of removing the right to protect your life when you are deemed a crimminal over whatever the gov decides.

The rights are already being infringed.

Tactically, from every angle possible, with big money backing it.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
There should be 2nd amendment welfare adopted. Every proven citizen gets a path to gun ownership with assistance in purchases and safety training. Shotguns and bolt actions could start at age 16, handguns at age 18 and semi auto rifles at age 21. Welfare could cover aid in purchasing each type so that every citizen has a well rounded defense.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
The DNC...

It feels like they can't win with any good ideas, they are failing at their social media propaganda attempt, while everyone is uncovering they are just a bunch of organized pedos.

It feels like an attempt to start a civil war before they all go to prison.

Sink the boat before they slither off to their islands they bought with ill gotten gains.

Someone needs to arrest these little sh!ts.





posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: VashTheStampede



2. Surrender my right to defend myself,friends,family, and neighbors.


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.

We need to come up with better arguments and prepare pro-2nd supporters to intelligently articulate their rights.

As of now, it's pathetic and embarrassing.
How is my grandmother supposed to defend herself? Muay Thai classes?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I demand she has her citizenship revoked and immediately deported with orders of kill on sight for ever stepping on US soil again. See, I can make moronically meaningless demands as well as the vice-chair of the DNC.

Bet neither of us see their demand met.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   


...it is that the lack of clarity in the 2nd amendment that have given courts the fuel to say that it is within the power of the states to regulate arms as they so choose...


If I am following you correctly, you are implying the lack of clarity in the amendment has led to the states reducing the types of weaponry the average citizen can legally posses? So in cases of states like California or local jurisdictions like Chicago countering the Constitution, we could somehow avoid this?

IMHO, the amendment is already pretty clear. SCOTUS has tacitly allowed infringement by simply ignoring it. The 2nd Amendment is not the only victim of this.

Short of Article V, what is your recommendation to ensure the Constitution is allowed to do what it was intended to do?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

That's EXACTLY what those amendments say.



The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.




Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


www.law.cornell.edu...



Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


www.law.cornell.edu...



Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.law.cornell.edu...

What part of that GD piece of paper/ LAWS is confusing?


Alot actually is confusing. This is why we have a Supreme Court. If things were perfectly clear we would never need them to make judgement on things.

Also look into how "District of Columbia v. Heller" and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) changed things. The second Amendment as it now isnt really how it was for the 200+ years before those cases.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
its like the DNC are trying to lose



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join