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 planeman
How is a nation "under" Islam any different in this regard to a nation under God*. And at any rate, since when has AlQeada's aim been to install Muslim law in USA, I thought their aim was to remove the infidel (Christains etc) from the land of the two holy places (i.e. the Arabian peninsular)
Originally posted by Roper
No, he wants to make the USA a nation under Islam. His revolution is not one of freedom.
Roper
But more importantantly, where does the constitution limit the acceptable motivations for the civilian militia that we've been talking about?
Amendment 9 and Amendment 10...These are not under federal jurisdiction if you read these amendments carefully...THey belong to the people or the states...which are the people.
As to the goals of Islam or AlQueda...notice that historically the Goal of Islam has always been to spread the religion by the Sword.
Islam was invading into France where they were finally stopped in 732AD by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. Notice this is some 300 years before the first crusade!!?? Check this out it is on the Web..under "Battle of Tours. France is a Islamic Holy site yes???
Later on we see Islam moving again and taking another route into Europe where they were stopped at Vienna...another Islamic Holy site.
Astonishing...dont worry...you wont see this in the media either while they are holding all these talk sessions on religion and Islam today. They will avoid this one.
Originally posted by planeman
Serious question:
Does a US citizen AlQeada operative have a constitutional right to go about attempting to overthrow the government by violent means, bearing arms as a "militia", as provided for in the constitution. If not, why not?
Originally posted by jaguarmike
Ugh, Troll? It's people like you who seriously ruin any big discussion. People die as a result of making statements like that-> next thing you know militia members are labeled terrorists, and then they are put in jail, tortured, and executed.
An Al Qaeda US Citizen in a militia by the US people is completely contraditory to the aims and goals of that terrorist group. They want to see us all dead, our culture destroyed, and Islam to be a mandatory religion for our country.
A state militia's goal is to ensure freedom and that our government is upholding it's promise to value the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Simple in theory.
Originally posted by nextguyinline
Thanks Orangetom.
Though I am a staunch supporter of stronger state power, I agree with these notes, and believe, that at least now, senators have somewhat of a concern for satisfying their constituents. Whereas with the original protocol, senators may have only been concerned with a few hundred legislators that elected them.
I agree, that this has left the states, somewhat voiceless concerning the federal government. Especially because I believe that the people of the United States ironically, probably identify more with being an American, rather than that as a
Georgian, or Ohioan, or Californian. (Texas excluded )
Anyone with a firearm is a greater danger to your family and innocents than someone without a firearm.
Originally posted by jaguarmike
If a terrorist, despite his nationality, chooses to obtain a weapon- this is a risk. For you, my yours, and innocents.
Originally posted by planeman
Anyone with a firearm is a greater danger to your family and innocents than someone without a firearm.
Originally posted by jaguarmike
If a terrorist, despite his nationality, chooses to obtain a weapon- this is a risk. For you, my yours, and innocents.
what ids the constitutional PURPOSE of firearms ownership again?
Originally posted by jaguarmike
Sorry to say our founding fathers didn't calculate human stupidity and gullibility into their equation. Just because they were of extremely high moral and ethical intellects doesn't mean the next guy will be, or the next generation will be. This is the biggest flaw in the Constitution we have as I see it. As far as i'm concerned, Wilson ruined America back in 1913 when he gave America over to the bankers. It's been a slow generation by generation plan since then to take over America completely and head towards globalization. This is seriously an ugly problem, and is massive in scale.
I agree...intellect does not necessarily factor in to the concept that all peoples of high intellect will be moral and ethical. For some reason it was years after high school before I began to get a grasp on the concept that our Jails are full of people with high intellectual/knowlege abilitys. What a revalation when I hit the brick wall on this one.
Intellectualism/knowlege does not equal ethical and moral.
I also agree...that what happened in 1913 under Woodrow Wilsons administration and the Federal Reserve Act...is textbook of intellectualism/knowlege brokers. A system of "unjust" weights and measures...replacing and verses a system of "just" weights and measures as outlined in the Coinage Act of April 2, 1792.
Not many people are fully aware of what this portends.
Thanks,
Orangetom
Game on.
[edit on 13-12-2006 by jaguarmike]
Originally posted by planeman
Anyone with a firearm is a greater danger to your family and innocents than someone without a firearm.
Originally posted by jaguarmike
If a terrorist, despite his nationality, chooses to obtain a weapon- this is a risk. For you, my yours, and innocents.
what ids the constitutional PURPOSE of firearms ownership again?