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.

 

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

page: 5
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Solarskye
 


Amen to that. Its a sad statement of the political environment of our country that it ever reached this point. Anyone with any common sense realizes that the Bill of Rights declares rights protected for the people. A quick read of the arguments presented by the founders at the time flat-out confirms it.

And yes, as I stated earlier, the four justices who dissented should be impeached by Congress. They should have to explain, at the potential loss of their posts, why they ruled against the original intent of the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, as well as the rights of the people of this nation as protected by that amendment.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bamaoutlaw
i commend the supreme court on their decision. however its a shame there was 4 people with their head up their arse. the right to own a gun is a freedom i will always have and no law will ever change that, too many people died so i could have this right and for that i think them...


That is no crap! It was close, but at least it passed. I had no idea The Supreme Court was even voting on this until I heard the decision was coming up on TV. I just knew they would vote the other way. Thank God they didn't. This is a wonderful day for The United States Of America. God bless the U.S.A.!!!!!



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


The justices in this case should not be automatically removed, but I do think that there should be more checks exercised on their power. That means one word: impeachment. Congress should hold them accountable for questionable decisions.

As it stands, the judicial branch of government is running wild and unchecked in this country. We're just lucky that they got this one right.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cale, Logan

Originally posted by SystemiK
I'd say this calls for a 21,000,000 gun salute.


Great news here, something that seems to be in short supply lately.....



Just in time for the 4th Of July!!!!!


Amen brother, I'm going to spend quite a bit extra this year to celebrate this freedom. It's better than just about any show in my neighborhood. Fireworks going off constantly for four hours.

Don't forget all of our brothers and sisters overseas when celebrating the 4th of July.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Solarskye
 


Amen to that. Its a sad statement of the political environment of our country that it ever reached this point. Anyone with any common sense realizes that the Bill of Rights declares rights protected for the people. A quick read of the arguments presented by the founders at the time flat-out confirms it.

And yes, as I stated earlier, the four justices who dissented should be impeached by Congress. They should have to explain, at the potential loss of their posts, why they ruled against the original intent of the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, as well as the rights of the people of this nation as protected by that amendment.


I will second that motion! They should have to account for why they voted against the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


The justices in this case should not be automatically removed, but I do think that there should be more checks exercised on their power. That means one word: impeachment. Congress should hold them accountable for questionable decisions.

As it stands, the judicial branch of government is running wild and unchecked in this country. We're just lucky that they got this one right.


They should have term limits. Just like Congress should have term limits. It would help prevent some of these life long crooks from ruining our country due to an apathetic constituency.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I still say they will go after the ammo. Did the 4 other justices disagree with the right to bear arms or did they feel that we do have the right but that the government also has the right to regulate? I seem to understand the latter but I still disagree with the four on their opinion.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   




Right on bro!!!! I'm going to shoot off a lot of fireworks/ammo to celebrate this decision. I usually don't spend much money on fireworks because I've never seen much of a reason to do so. This year will be different however!



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Well, I live in DC, and my political and ideological position is against guns.
But with everybody packing in the near future, I guess I'll have to buy a gun. Not gonna be the one sucking his thumb when the chips are down.
Thanks Supreme Court.
Now, any suggestions as to what gun I should get and how to stop my bulldog from shooting me on my bottom?



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Solarskye
The only way to have it declared unconstitutional (which I agree it was/is) is for the Supreme Court (or a lower Federal Court) to take the case. What worries me is the split decision.

I say we need an amendment to somehow allow a popular supermajority vote to remove 'Justices' when they go illiterate, like these four did.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Under this rationale, do you think that the four justices who were in the minority in the child-rape case should be removed for not keeping with the Constitution?


Actually, I have not yet been able to find where the Constitution gives the Feds the right to set limits on the death penalty. It does state that rights not mentioned specifically are to be handled by the individual states, so in this case, I would say we need to kick 5 of them off the bench.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
The justices in this case should not be automatically removed, but I do think that there should be more checks exercised on their power. That means one word: impeachment. Congress should hold them accountable for questionable decisions.


To an extent, you are right. However, we should not be seeking their impeachment for the simple crime of being in the minority of a decision.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by on_yur_6
 



You might want to look into joining 'THE GOA". They are more militant than the NRA, of which I am a life member. The NRA lately has been a differant organization than when I joined in 1962. I'm not sure for the better. GOA (Gun Owners Of America) has a more pointed attitude towards no colusion with 'sensible gun laws' like the NRA has been doing lately. Just a thought you might want to check out!

www.gunowners.org...

Zindo



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
"God bless our brothers and sisters fighting for our rights!" I could not thank you enough. Interesting times to say the least!!!!



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by on_yur_6
 


Works for me. I'm a big supporter of term limits. In fact, I believe that no nationally elected official should be able to serve more than one term. It would eliminate a lot of the paybacks and favors we see today. Once in office, the politicians wouldn't be held hostage to campaign finance and big money donors to the degree they currently are.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


I'm only advocating impeachment because its the only Constitutional remedy that we have. They still would have the right to defend themselves before Congress and if Congress is unable to get a 2/3rds majority against them, they retain the post.

We need a better system of judicial accountability, no doubt.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

just so you all know where we are headed

Obama On the Second Amendment Don’t Believe Him!

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I could go on and on and on and on....But I won't. This is the best thing that has EVER happened for gun owners. Time to go...............I have to do THE HAPPY DANCE!!!!!



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


First rule is HAVE A GUN. After that take it and go to a class to learn how to use it. Plenty in VA.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


If you're not comfortable with it, you probably will be better off not buying a firearm. The vast majority of people affected by this law are just like you: law-abiding citizens who have no intention of committing crimes.

Otherwise, for home defense, its hard to go wrong with a 12 gauge shotgun. If you've never handled a gun before, find a local gun safety course.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, I have not yet been able to find where the Constitution gives the Feds the right to set limits on the death penalty. It does state that rights not mentioned specifically are to be handled by the individual states, so in this case, I would say we need to kick 5 of them off the bench.


The "feds" are not limiting the death penalty. The 8th Amendment does. It prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. That itself imposes a limit on what punishments a state may inflict, including in how the death penalty is applied. See Coker v. Georgia, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, or the commentary in Wilkerson v. Utah




top topics



 
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join