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.

 

Once and for all: Why you should vote for Obama

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Good points ..

Obama will no doubt put who he wants on the Supreme Court to align with his Marxist revamping of the Constitution.

Only a guy who had the Communist flag hanging on his wall at Harvard would want to do such things.




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by -Reason-
 


Reason....im sorry that you didnt take the time to read the entire discussion, and chose to chime in 1/4 of the way through...so allow me to catch you up


Obama supports local govts to decide for themselves
he does not think ALL GUNS should be banned
He, himself, when an IL senator, voted for a handgun ban


he does what government should do

he leaves it up to each individual state to decide for themselves.

I think you're overlooking this VERY SIMPLE fact for a very bad reason


Maybe you should try to 'deny ignorance' ?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

"right to bare arms" does not apply to ALL men

it applies to a militia - as they CLEARLY spell out for us.

I really dont see how you can argue this.


So in the Preamble is the "We the People" part referring to the Militia's? It's exceedingly obvious that they refer to the whole Public in the Second Amendment when they say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

[edit on 6-7-2008 by pavil]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
that's what scares me about Obama is that he does have marxist views. And right now, even if I did a 180 and believed in those type of views, I would still have to say that America just couldn't afford to run that type of government right now, we would be destroyed because of a money problem, which is the reason that ALL empires fall, no more money!

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Slazer]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin




A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Source? The constitution


So lets disect this for a moment

A well regulated Militia:

Websters defines "militia" as


1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


So lets see.

I dont see the word "individual" in there



"the right of THE people"

"the people" refering to the militia

to protect their freedoms, shall not be infringed



explain to me, in what way, a 50-cal long range sniper rifle is explicit to protect your freedoms?

First off, the 2nd amendment is so allusive, that one cannot precisely say what the founding fathers meant by their words.

Militia does not apply to you and me, because we are not in a militia.


Is your neighborhood participating in Neighborhood Watch programs? I would consider such programs as a well regulated militia and for the safety of the community I would prefer that career criminals feel threatened rather than safe or untouchable searching our streets for easy targets late at night. You won't find me defending the 50-cal long range sniper rifle or automatic weapons though.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


So now we are going to omit entire passages to try and prove me wrong?


okay. Lets try this

NO where in "we the people" does it mention "militia"

*sings*

We the people
in order to form a more perfect unnnnion
establish jsutice, ensure domestic tranquility!!!!!

Prooooviiide for the common denfense
promote the general welfaaaareeee annd

/end horrible singing (catch tune if you've ever heard it)

so "we the people" pertains to exactly that. We the people. All people involved (except for black people of course...founding fathers had to have their slaves and treat them unequally)

Onward:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Very sketchy wording.
I *am* willing to admit im wrong. But the *only* way to admit that im wrong is to have the founding fathers speak for themselves and tell us what the heck this si supposed to mean. Should it read like this (special attention to puncuation is required for demonstrative purposes)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

or

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed


and final choice

A Well regulated militia. Being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



It can be misconstrued in so many ways. SO i am merely offering my interpretation based on OTHER instances of the founding fathers that they have left for us to evaluate (all men are created equal)

Does it apply to "all people"

in my opinion - no

because they start it with a "well regulated militia"

and they add context to this militia by saying its necessary for protection, and they talk about the people OF that militia to keep and bear arms.

If they had written it as such


The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


then we would nto be having this argument, because "the people" becomes the only subject, and leaves out the confusing part of the militia

is it the people of the militia

or is it all people?

If its all people, whats the point of starting it with militia?


[edit on 7/6/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Andrew, that is the very essence of what I am talking about. He is trying to play both sides of the fence. He supports the 2nd but he also supports local governments making their own law about it. If they want to ban guns in their "sphere" well that is okay with him. This thought processes does not make sense. Either you are against something or you are for it. Which one is he?

You keep saying that he will leave the choice up to the locals but what he is really saying, to me, is I don't want to be responsible for that.

He reminds me of the Russian way of things, no clear leadership because no one wants to be responsible for the outcome.

So Jet, if the shoe fits...

And by the way Andrew, I read more that a quarter of the posts. In fact I read a little over half.


[edit on 6-7-2008 by -Reason-]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
There is nothing sketchy about it Andrew, you are like an 8th grader trying to twist and turn things around to support your view, when clearly it states otherwise.

You just keeping regurgitating the same BS about individuals vs. militias and what the founding fathers meant.

Is Obama going to do this for every clause in the Constitution so he can rewrite it as a different policy should be become POTUS?? Is this how he will change the Constitution into a Marxist one?

I'm glad more Americans are catching on. Even with all your help from Obama supporting mods (or namely one) giving you 13 applauses in one month for less than applause worthy material, you still cannot convince anyone with an IQ over 85 to believe such BS.







[edit on 6-7-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by beaverg
 


a WELL regulated militia

that doesnt mean any yokel with 20 hill billy friends can start a militia and condone having automatic weapons

neighborhood watch? Hmm, well i guess if you want to call it that, i would support the use of arms for such a program, as long as it were regulated, and organized



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
he does what government should do
he leaves it up to each individual state to decide for themselves.

I guess Mr. Hussein does not understand how our system works.
What you don't understand, or maybe you do, is that the U.S. Constitution supersedes state laws. Since the supreme court just ruled individuals can have guns, States cannot make laws to the contrary.
Things not specifically addressed by the Constitution is where individual state rights take precedent.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


No no no.

They ruled that the DC handgun law is thrown out

Not that all laws are


TRUE: Lawyers all across the country will be able to use this ruling to support a case for abolishment of gun control.

But it doesnt make it automatically so.

They ruled for Washington DC
not for the united states of America



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
So i believe it is safe to say:

I am not going to budge on this until the founding fathers themselves show up and tell me "oops, sorry we wrote that so sketchy...here's is what we meant" and then explain to me why all men who are created equal, can also be slaves of unequal treatment


And you will not be swayed by my interpretation of their writing and mentality.

So

Safe to say can we agree to disagree and move on to the next subject?

Anyone else got anything to challenge me on Obama's stances (other than 2nd amendment) Or is this your only real issue?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
No no no.
They ruled that the DC handgun law is thrown out
Not that all laws are

They did not throw anything out.
The court ruled that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional which means a gun ban is unconstitutional in any city. Do you get it yet?
This is why immediately after the court ruling lawsuits against other cities that had similiar bans like DC were filed.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
That is because DC was going against what the Constution says. They only ruled on DC because that was the cause before them. Any city that came to the Supreme Court with the same laws would also be made a fool of. So why do you keep shout, "They only ruled on DC." I don't understand your logic.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Andrew, I applaud your effort to make a rare pro-Obama thread.

What I've noticed unfortunately, is despite how much Pres. Bush is despised, people will STILL vote for McCain on this site more than Obama due to false rumors and disinfo being spread.

I applaud your efforts, brother, but I fear they are in vain.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Safe to say can we agree to disagree and move on to the next subject?

Anyone else got anything to challenge me on Obama's stances (other than 2nd amendment) Or is this your only real issue?

Well, I already posted a list of his leftist policies and beliefs about why Obama is bad for this country. Did you purposefully ignore them?

Here you go, I will list them again:

A) Drivers licences for illegals
B) More government regulation
C) Bigger government in general like more social programs
D) Socialized Medicine
E) Higher taxes
F) Income Redistribution
G) Defense policy plans
H) Halt to manned space missions
I) Against domestic drilling
J) Provide terrorists with the rights of a U.S. citizen

[edit on 6-7-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Hmm
i am curious

and this is a real question, so please dont flame


I remember (and its been a long time) hearing something about Washginton DC has a different set of "laws" or something like that when the constitution is brougth up?

Basically - they're not a state, so different things can happen in DC

?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by beaverg
 


that doesnt mean any yokel with 20 hill billy friends can start a militia and condone having automatic weapons



Andrew, it seems we have finally gotten to the heart of the matter...you seem to be parroting an earlier Obama speech...

so if we do not agree with your stance reagarding the 2nd amedment, hillbilly and yokels is what we are?...

now you can be seen for what you are...an elitist!

edit - full quote not necesary

[edit on 6-7-2008 by deadbang]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory


A) Drivers licences for illegals
B) More government regulation
C) Bigger government in general like more social programs
D) Socialized Medicine
E) Higher taxes
F) Income Redistribution
G) Defense policy plans
H) Halt to manned space missions
I) Against domestic drilling
J) Provide terrorists with the rights of a U.S. citizen

[edit on 6-7-2008 by WhatTheory]


no, not purposefully.

Let me start with this one first:

E.) higher taxes. He plans to tax rich, not middle class. Anyone who makes more than ( correct me if im wrong) 200k or 250k gets more tax

I.) Against domestic drilling. While im not AGAINST domestic drilling, i do agree with Obama. It will not lower gas prices. George hershel walker Bush imposed the current moratorium on Domestic Drilling....were you aware?


J.) touchy subject. I agree. However; were the founding fathers saying in "all men are created equal" that this only applies to US territories?

Are "terrorists" not men as well?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Good point, but Andrew works for Obama (really). He joined the day Obama's "fight the smears" campaign started for Internet Blogsphere.

He'll just come back and say he is poor, this that and the other, but how do you really know?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join