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.

 

Illinois city bans assault weapons (any semi-auto), imposes fines up to $1,000 per day

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry



So much for the "SHALL NOT be infringed".


It's just too easy these days for someone to make a law that counters another law and judges just forget the previous law exists without ratifying it like it should be before that law is undone or replaced. Doesn't matter that one law is 'supposed' to be upheld from the lowest to the highest court, the new one will trump it.

Sometimes I wonder the point of LAWS in the US. They shouldn't even bother and just dictate what they want when they want it and we obey. We're too afraid to stand against it anyways so we may as well put on our collars now and start baaaaying.




posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They definitely need to define it better, that’s for sure. As much as we’d like them to, I don’t know that they’ll ever take up a broad enough case to give us a broad-reaching definition though.

For whatever reason, they’re happy to give us a patchwork definition every couple of decades. Perhaps slapmonkey can drop in and offer some insight as to why they take cases the way they do? I certainly don’t know.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
SCOTUS has always ruled the 2nd is an individual right rather than a collective one, and has done so going back all the way to Dred Scott.


Only for the last 10 years.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

As someone else already said, if they have no problem simply writing an ordinance to remove one right, then they won't have any trouble removing any of the others. So why on earth would the 4th mean anything to protect you?



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I certainly don’t know.


Some of it certainly appears to be politics although they are supposed to be above that. There have been a few recent cases which I thought would present the avenue to finally put almost all of this to bed but they refused to hear them, sometimes by a surprising margin. They do continually reaffirm that them not hearing a case does not mean they agree with the ruling since they only take about 1% of the cases petitioned each year.

I still think the Cook County case may be headed there as these local ones are too numerous (last count I believe 40 Illinois towns have something similar) and a larger governmental body may be what they are waiting for.




edit on 4-4-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The comment was


I don't care if the constitution forbids it, it should be done and I'm glad trump is doing it.

This was about military action at border and our soil.

Thanks for responding. It rubbed me the wrong way cause if I would have said that lots of people and possibly you would have been on me.

That didn't happen though. Instead it was just mocking me, stars and flags for the mocking and people giddy about possible action.

Again I know you didn't say it but it just struck a cord.

Thanks again for answering. I do appreciate it.

I don't agree with a lot of your views and I know you feel same but open honest discussion is a good thing.

The thread is trump says military will guard border.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm sitting here trying to decide how to respond to your response, hence the delay.

On the one hand, the whole 'collective' versus 'individual' right discussion is central to the whole 2nd Amendment discussion. And, fundamentally, this was not the essence of DC v Heller, yet the SCOTUS took occasion to offer an opinion on it (which was inappropriate, IMO). Hence my 'tip-toe' analogy.

On the other hand, the rabbit hole we could go down dissecting this is very deep indeed, and likely would lead us well astray of the topic at hand. Consequently, it may just be best to leave it alone. Perhaps it might even be worthy of a thread of it's own discussing specifically this.

For the moment I am choosing the latter.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

And, not to go too far off-topic, but still respond briefly to your question... As I noted above, unless the action at the border is a military invasion by another country then the Constitution prohibits the use of regular US military forces on US soil. If Trump or anyone else orders such action then they would be absolutely wrong to do so.

Does this respond to your question suffiently?

ETA...I wouldn't say I disagree with your opinions in general (I do on the ones about firearms ownership, but many disagree with me too, so no biggie there). In any case, I always attempt to respond fully and explain any assertion I make, and if i failed to do that then it was an oversight on my part. Equally, I am not above admitting being incorrect on a factual point either. Yes, we are perhaps cut from different political cloth, but what a boring world it would be if everyone agreed all the time, right?


edit on 4/4/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Precisely my point.

In the case of the 4th, I doubt they'd even attempt to remove it...they'd just ignore it altogether!



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes.
Thanks



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: TinySickTears

Is this how you view your Constitution and Bill of Rights...just as some superfluous document which can be changed on any whim based on how some people 'feel' on any given day???



Not on a whim and not all casually like that cause some knee jerk #.

I do feel like sometimes changed are warranted though.

Let's be clear. I do not think the right to bear arms should be taken away.
I do not feel like they should take citizens guns.

I do think the entire system needs an overhaul though from background checks to certain restrictions.

I do not know what the best action is and am not decided on even my own opinion. I'm in the process of forming the particulars now.

I just feel like # is broken. Something is wrong.

Does that answer yours?



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes, it responds sufficiently to the question I asked. Thx.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

However, in almost all recent cases, it has been demonstrated that failures in the system led to the problem rather than some perceived gap in the system itself.

I wonder how we can expect to fix a system that doesn't work by making it more complicated?

For example, how can you expect a system to guard against people who should have been there but were intentionally left out of the system for reasons of compassion ... and money.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That's a serious problem

There are a lot of strands. Resources are one.
On one hand we hear that the fbi shoulda coulda did this.
Manpower is finite and when they have to investigate stupid non issue bull# it hurts other things.

Like I said. The system is not working. Wish I knew what the answer is but I dont
edit on 4-4-2018 by TinySickTears because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TinySickTears

However, in almost all recent cases, it has been demonstrated that failures in the system led to the problem rather than some perceived gap in the system itself.


This bears repeating. Creating more laws to address systemic failures will only create more systemic failures, with the source issue going unchanged.




I wonder how we can expect to fix a system that doesn't work by making it more complicated?


Bottom line; we can't. It only creates more problems and solves nothing.


For example, how can you expect a system to guard against people who should have been there but were intentionally left out of the system for reasons of compassion ... and money.


And this is the crux of the problem...that it's not an "easy" problem to solve, no matter how you slice it. Fundamentally, we as a society have to realize we are trying to "push a rope", or have the proverbial "cat chasing its tail"; some of the same laws which protect our freedoms work against those trying to enforce other laws. Systemic failures only compound this problem. Those who believe there is a simple fix here are mistaken, the solution cannot be found by cherry picking at one symptom without addressing the underlying disease.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

In Cruz's case, both the local police and the FBI knew about him. In the case of the local level, he had multiple referrals via both the school and to law enforcement for things most folks would end up in the system for, but there was a new program instituted at the behest of the Obama era DoJ and DoE to try to keep kids out of the system and Broward schools made a practice of ignoring incidents that would ordinarily result in criminal referrals in favor of "stopping the school to prison pipeline." By drastically reducing their statistics, they pulled in phat money in federal grants and ended up chalking up 17 cold bodies.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry



Uh, Misleading, you can still have guns. Just not high capacity magazines and assault weapons. Pretty sure you wont need any of those if you are protecting yourself from an intruder. A shotgun or handgun would work just fine.





posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

So, in the "woulda / coulda / shoulda" category, here's an example of why this problem is so complex:

How many times in some of the recent events have we seen where law enforcement (at whatever level) had repeated dealings with the suspect in the months, days or even hours preceding an incident? Yet they did nothing, either because they couldn't...or they wouldn't...or they didn't. The difference here is important, and we as a society need to ask some hard questions (and not be misled by propaganda in the process). Was it that officials "couldn't", or was it that they "wouldn't"? OR, was it just that they "didn't"?

"Couldn't" is a problem we as a society can deal with by enacting new or modifying existing laws. "Wouldn't" is an altogether different matter which no laws will fix, only people can fix this problem. And then there's "didn't"; 'didn't' is an example of a systemic failure where the correct laws were in place, but people just didn't do their jobs properly or correctly. In only one of the (3) scenarios above are new or modified laws applicable.

I truly and honestly wish people could understand what I've just posted here. It is so critically important to the solution. And, until we can all understand these differences there will be no effective solutions only just more media induced rhetoric.


edit on 4/4/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I understand but this obama did this and trump did thst # is not good either. We as a people are getting nowhere.
I'm not talking more laws per say.

Efficiency will go a long way.
This but Obama and but trump and lefties and right wing pissing # is cause all this to fail as well.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Bottom line though
Couldn't? Well it needs to be figured out
Wouldn't? Same. Why the # not
Didn't? Again. Wyd

I don't have the answers on how to fix but it needs fixed
Seems like people, not just us here but I'm the world too are more interested in their 'side' being right and making sure the other is wrong than fixing #.

I don't ever remember being this much left vs right #. It's always been there but not like this

Left blames right
Right blames left
Right blames last president
Left blames this president and all the while nothing is getting done



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join