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.
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator
Yeah i am curious too.
Do we have a well regulated militia?
I know there are little militia type groups here and there.
But as per what it says do we have that?
We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.
This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...
The national effing Guard.
Are state militias.
So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.
I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.
See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.
That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.
You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?
I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.
I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.
First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.
Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.
Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.
The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?
Reuters is facing ethical questions after admitting that reporter Joseph Menn sat on an unfavorable story about media darling Beto O’Rourke until after his crucial Senate race against Ted Cruz.
“So Reuters had evidence in 2017 that Beto may have committed multiple felonies -- which Beto confirmed on the record -- but deliberately withheld the story for over a year to help him win his Senate race? But when he’s running against Bernie etc, NOW it’s news?” Cruz tweeted.
“That was OK: I wanted the full story for my book, which spans decades, rather than 1 scoop ahead of a state vote. I offered O’Rourke the same terms. He accepted, and we spoke,” Menn wrote. “No one thought he would lose the Senate race & immediately enter onto an even bigger stage, but here we are, and the embargo is up. The book is out soon, O’Rourke is running for president, and people should hear the missing part of his story.”
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator
Yeah i am curious too.
Do we have a well regulated militia?
I know there are little militia type groups here and there.
But as per what it says do we have that?
We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.
This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...
The national effing Guard.
Are state militias.
So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.
I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.
See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.
That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.
You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?
I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.
I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.
First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.
Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.
Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.
The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?
Again you are picking and choosing the rulings in that case....aren't you? That case was NOT just a ruling regarding the limitations of firearms. It ruled that the PEOPLE had the right, regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.
Now, I've stated that twice....please try to grasp that concept...as I will not say it a 3rd time to satisfy your willing ignorance.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: neo96 I don’t know that we should raise the age for buying an AR-15 I just don’t think we should be selling AR-15s in this country.”
Thanks to God all mine are M4s....
That would be a bloodbath.
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator
Yeah i am curious too.
Do we have a well regulated militia?
I know there are little militia type groups here and there.
But as per what it says do we have that?
We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.
This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...
The national effing Guard.
Are state militias.
So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.
I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.
See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.
That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.
You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?
I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.
I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.
First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.
Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.
Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.
The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?
Again you are picking and choosing the rulings in that case....aren't you? That case was NOT just a ruling regarding the limitations of firearms. It ruled that the PEOPLE had the right, regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.
Now, I've stated that twice....please try to grasp that concept...as I will not say it a 3rd time to satisfy your willing ignorance.
Come on Krakatoa, be honest with yourself, you QUOTED me agreeing with that part of the ruling for crying out loud! The SCOTUS ruled that individuals have the right to have firearms. 100%, I agree. It's incredibly frustrating to have you keep repeating something that I've already addressed multiple times, acting like I'm skipping over it because I don't agree. That's patently, 100% false. I am 100% in agreement with the SCOTUS that individuals have the right to own firearms.
Now it's your turn. Address the point I've brought up that you keep skipping over by falsely accusing me of ignoring something I've already commented on in at least 3 other comments.
For what it's worth, I own 7 guns, including an AR-15. So I'm not sure what you think my dogma is. I'm a gun lover, that is 100% pro-regulation of firearms.
Now that that's out of the way, please answer the question I've posed to you, as I've answered yours a couple times now.
originally posted by: MisterSpock
Beto is a moron.
Beyond the fact that this will never pass, there are many other similar rifles that aren't AR-15 patterned(like the ar10) that would skirt by because of his inability to have any clue as to what he's talking about.
He skates though and was a hacker.
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service.To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people.
Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns for self-defense purposes. Instead, the most natural reading of the the Amendment is that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes but does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: pavil
He doesn't even have the guts to take existing guns away from owners.
I wouldn't bet on it.
That is their end game.
Get a gestapo to go house to house and take them by force.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator
Yeah i am curious too.
Do we have a well regulated militia?
I know there are little militia type groups here and there.
But as per what it says do we have that?
We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.
This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...
The national effing Guard.
Are state militias.
So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.
I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.
See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.
That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.
You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?
I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.
I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.
First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.
Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.
Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.
The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?
Again you are picking and choosing the rulings in that case....aren't you? That case was NOT just a ruling regarding the limitations of firearms. It ruled that the PEOPLE had the right, regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.
Now, I've stated that twice....please try to grasp that concept...as I will not say it a 3rd time to satisfy your willing ignorance.
Come on Krakatoa, be honest with yourself, you QUOTED me agreeing with that part of the ruling for crying out loud! The SCOTUS ruled that individuals have the right to have firearms. 100%, I agree. It's incredibly frustrating to have you keep repeating something that I've already addressed multiple times, acting like I'm skipping over it because I don't agree. That's patently, 100% false. I am 100% in agreement with the SCOTUS that individuals have the right to own firearms.
Now it's your turn. Address the point I've brought up that you keep skipping over by falsely accusing me of ignoring something I've already commented on in at least 3 other comments.
For what it's worth, I own 7 guns, including an AR-15. So I'm not sure what you think my dogma is. I'm a gun lover, that is 100% pro-regulation of firearms.
Now that that's out of the way, please answer the question I've posed to you, as I've answered yours a couple times now.
OK, I misunderstood your follow ups, which is why I thought I answered it already. So mote it be.
As for the related ruling on limitations, I personally do not agree with that aspect of the ruling. I think it is unconstitutional, and should be challenged with reference to the full context of the 2nd Amendment, as written. Especially focused upon the correction of the interpretation of the words "regulated" and "infringed".
Using modern interpretations of those words with regard to the 2nd Amendment is disingenuous at best, and outright wrong at worst. Aiding or abetting the use of laws to limit or otherwise slow the exercising of the 2nd Amendment are unconstitutional on their face.
On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off. So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.
originally posted by: knoxie
oh damn, y 'all better go out and get more guns!! use your last dollars if necessary - they're really coming for them this time!! you'll need 'em too, the big bad scary dems might get ya. lol
suckers..