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.

 

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

page: 10
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Why is it that people get mad when states get their rights taken away and replaced by federal control with it comes to the amendments about most things, but when it comes to gun control, it's not okay for the states to decide?

I mean, I don't think she's right about this. I'm just making a general observation. Don't most people (not me) want MORE state control and less federal control?


Because the Bill of Rights is for ALL of us.

It is not something the States have control over. What the States want is control over those things not specified in the Constitution and its amendments.




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Free speech doesn't kill innocent people.


Free speech DOES kill people, or at least those nations in which that right not present and protected. The 2nd amendment protects the right to free speech more than you give it credit for.

In fact, what I'm about to write here would certainly put me in a position to be executed in a nation without our rights.

It's quite clear to the framers of our constitution that bearing arms is a NECESSITY to maintaining a free state. That includes the very rights enumerated in the constitution. It can be deferred that it was indeed a commandment by our founding fathers for it's citizens to own some form of firearms as the last and final straw of power to the people. They understood that power corrupts, and revolutions are required to refresh freedoms.

The right to bear arms was not for protection against an_axe_murderer_01, hunting, a weird guy on a subway, or an outdated ideology ignoring technology. Instead it was for protection against a tyrannical government that wants to remove your rights and freedoms, regardless of technology, age, or date.

History has shown that removing the right to bear arms ALWAYS results in a tyranny from their own government, or an external government. The removal of arms is the first step to loss of freedoms. Oh, it won't all happen at the same time either. It's like a frog in boiling water much like this nation has sunk lower and lower with each administration, including the current. Gee, imagine that -- freedoms are lost as 2nd amendment infringements grow.

Do you really think your government would be stealing TRILLIONS of dollars from you this very instance if all the populous had firearms and were willing to march up to DC and force those 'represantives' from office and be willing to die for their beliefs of a free state? No, they wouldn't have stole trillions from all of us. Instead as they blatantly steal from you, they are looking to limit that ability even further to remove them from power.

In 2009, the right to bear arms is quite possibly the ONLY thing keeping the hungry ravenous lion that is the federal government chomping at the bit to liquidate all your freedoms. There is still a mild amount of fear with those that walk the halls of our nations capital that a mob of angry citizens all with firearms IS indeed still possible in this nation.

So whats next if a state can decide to follow the second amendment? Shall states infringe upon other rights enumerated in the Constitution? Does this mean California can banish religion totally so they can have gay marriages? Can New York abolish freedom of the press so we can have +300 Dow days every day? Can all the states abolish freedom of speech? Hell, lets just disobey the Constitution and elect our own regional presidents instead.

This is a slippery slope, and quite frankly this type of cut and paste job done on the Constitution by Sotomayor should immediately disqualify her from the bench and the supreme court. They take an oath as a judge to UPHOLD the Constitution, not what the current president wants, their own personal agenda liberal or conservative, or legislate law. They are simply to enterpret the plain language of the Constitution and make rulings in favor of it regardless of race, creed, ideology, allegiance, political power, or favoritism.

If Sotomayor can't read the simplicity of "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." then she deserves neither the supreme court seat, nor her appointment as a judge -- anywhere in this nation.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
this is what we get when we dont stand up for our freedoms, we let the govt intrude in so many matters that dont involve them and they take a little more and a little more until theres nothing left for us except our guns wait oops we dont got them either

everyone needs to wake up and be prepared to die for their freedoms and their kids freedoms

im young and if it came to it i would die defending the constitution and our freedoms but so many Americans just want to sit back watch mtv and comedy central eat their cheeseburgers and drink their coolaid



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by contemplator
 


All i have in response to that , is if you think for one millisecond that the patriots who fight and die for the freedom and well being of this country , would turn its arms, or allow the government to turn its arms, on its own countrymen you are dead wrong. I know alot of people dont have faith in this, but i have served in the military, and i know our men and women in uniform.

They would not turn the barrels of their guns on their own country, on their own brothers and sisters and their own fathers and mothers.

Anyone who gave the word to do so would find out quick, fast and in a hurry just how badly they misjudged the repercussions of that order.

you want to talk about shock and awe....imagine having thousands of soldiers, The Marines, NAVY SEALS, and other pissed off special forces on your hind end.



[edit on 29-5-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]


LMAO so.. if that is the case you've just blown your entire argument about why civilians need to be armed. You have stated the military are armed civilians. so... what gives?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Like all other political leaders.....(well...some at least
)


[edit on 29-5-2009 by muzik]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I am becoming more and more convinced that Government will likely not pursue any meaningful gun control legislation intended to disarm law abiding citizens. I believe they will achieve their fascist goals without firing a shot because we don't have the will to place ourselves or loved ones at risk, including me. It is sad to say, but true. I think they realize that their biggest threat would come if they tried to ban our weapons. That would ignite the battle and I think they know it and will just ignore it until all of their other goals have been achieved.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

The only problem would be the guy who had the gun to stop people like this from killing them would be less able to do so and this especially holds true for a woman as she would most likely not have the strength to fight off an attacker with a knife as well as her male counterpart could.


This statement is both subjective and somewhat sexist. My wife is a pro MMA fighter and I'm sure she could hold her own just as well if not better than a lot of males out there.

I am a strong gun advocate and believe what the constitution states should not be infringed upon by anyone, ever. I would also like to see a psych test mandated for every future purchase of firearms to ensure those who are purchasing them are in the right mind to own one.

But neither will never happen. Instead you will see a selective ban of weapons slowly starting on a small scale with individual rulings and then states, and before you know it, the general country is banned from owning them.

There is no way to enforce the ban of weapons and I believe the only way to remain relatively safe and protected is to carry one yourself. As some said before, criminals, terrorists, anyone who has the intent to break the law, isn't going to follow it to purchase a weapon... they're going to buy one from the black market.

Besides, if there we do not carry guns, who will protect us? The Government? Right...

People will find other ways to kill themselves and each other without guns. They will use knives, which will then be banned, then what? Ban sticks & stones, too?

It's not the weapon that's dangerous, it's the people using them. The same could be said for cars. Are they dangerous because they cause collisions, or is it the driver? Let's outlaw all cars and go back to using bikes!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

It seems I got the attention of some devoted individuals.


It also seems that you are very devoted to try to claim the Second Amendment does not give the right to Americans to own and bear arms, when the fact is the contrary.

No matter whatever moral conflict you, or some other individuals have with the right of all Americans to own and bear arms, the fact is that you, nor anyone else has the right to restrict, or take this right away because of your "moral conflicts".


Originally posted by MemoryShock
My opinion stands (context is everything).


It is still an opinion, and your opinion is wrong.



Originally posted by MemoryShock
Talk to me when you are more aware of more relevant 'weapons'...you can start with the implication that the following well researched topics in the 60's have for [url=modern day affectations on the human mind and experience.


Talk to you when I am more aware of other "relevant weapons"?... I have practiced several Martial Arts for over 20 years, not to mention the fact that I was in the military, and still the fact that there "might be other ways" does not give you any right to take away, or impose your ideals about the Second Amendment.

This claim of yours that because "there might be other ways" is just another red herring that you want to impose on others because your ideals conflict with a basic right which is given to all Americans, yet people like you want to restrict, or even ban...


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Shoot an ideal...Shoot propaganda...Shoot a lack of education (or manipulated medias).

You can't and the idea of defending oneself is more than securing your physical interaction with a physical offender...which is what the 2nd amendment was designed for.


Excuse me? now you are trying to claim the Second Amendment is not about the right of ALL Americans to own and bear arms, but rather about some other right only "you" know about?.... Care to explain what in the world you are talking about?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

...(1) the usofa was not founded on or under xtian principles - because - theres no such thing, since all xtian principles are merely adaptations of other religious and/or cultural concepts...


Wow, so I guess you better tell all Christians that their religion doesn't exist.

Perhaps you have no idea about this but ALL religions are based on "adaptations of other religions, and cultures". This fact doesn't make Christianity any less real....

BTW, in case you didn't know many of the forefathers were Freemasons, and as Masons they HAVE to believe in a Supreme Being, "God".

The forefathers were not Muslims, or Buddhists, Taoists, or from any other religion, but Christian. Hence when they wrote about God, they were talking about the Christian representation of the Supreme being.

The forefathers never forgot that they left England, and Europe to start a new life, and many left because there was no freedom of religion in Europe, and the forefathers knew that people should be free to pursue, and believe in whatever religion they wanted to follow, hence they gave as a fundamental right, freedom of religion to ALL Americans, among other rights, but this still does not change the fact that the foundations of the Republic are based on Christian principles.


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...(2) the framers of the constitution didnt give anyone anything except the hope of possibly establishing a non-tryannical republic...


The forefathers of the Republic set in writing, and as LAW, gave certain rights to ALL Americans. With these laws, and rights given to All Americans, and by these rights, and laws the Republic should forever be ruled by.

They did much more than just "give hope", they set in writting the rights and laws which are the foundation stones of this Republic.


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...(3) your freedom of religion definition has no basis in reality - because - not all americans had the right to follow whatever religion they wanted to follow... the federal government continued to outlaw many indigenous sacred practices until the early 1970s - hardly ancient history...


Wow, apparently according to you pretty much nothing exists, religions don't exist because they were a merging of diffirent cultures, ideals, and morals, and now you are claiming the First Amendment doesn't exist either?

Just because "in the past" most white Americans were racist, and saw the rights given by the forefathers only applied to them, it didn't make them right.

The history of EVERY nation is similar to that of the U.S., it doesn't make them any less real, nor the laws, and rights given by the Constitution of such nations are less real because people were "racist in the past".


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...(4) you can claim any religious persuasion (or lack thereof) that you wish but, fact is, you jumped on my jest about the word "commandment" like a starving duck on a junebug and that strongly conveys (whispering) an agenda, lol...


It doesn't convey any "agenda", it conveys the "truth".


[edit on 29-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Ok, for illustrative purposes, I am a crackhead and I need money. I bust in on you because I have decided I want your's. Since I don't want you to call the cops after I leave, once you show me where your money is, I intend to put at least 2 rounds, of the 30 in my clip, in your head. If you tell me you have no money...same result.

So, since you see guns as an irrelevant weapon, I am curious as to what your "relevant weapon" of choice would be to prevent this tragedy?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevinquisitor
................
I am a strong gun advocate and believe what the constitution states should not be infringed upon by anyone, ever. I would also like to see a psych test mandated for every future purchase of firearms to ensure those who are purchasing them are in the right mind to own one.
.............


You do know that if such a test is given the gun-grabbers now in power would be the ones designing the test?

They can deny you, or anyone else the right to own, and bear arms because of "our beliefs in defending the U.S. Constitution, and every right given to us by the forefathers in the Bill of Rights".

Not to mention the fact that President Obama wants a "New Declaration of independence"....

For crying outloud Janet Napolitano and the DHS labeled Americans who want to defend the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, including and foremost the Second Amendment as "possible terrorists", and you think they would come up with a "fair test"?....




[edit on 29-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Yes I could see that test:

Do you want to own a firearm? If "yes" mentally unstable if "No" then why take this test, therefore mentally unstable.

Pretty much like the old DI question of do you like my wife?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

The question turns on an arcane but vitally important constitutional dispute: whether the 14th Amendment, adopted following the Civil War, "incorporates" Bill of Rights protections against state governments. Many constitutional scholars and lawyers (including me) believe the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the "privileges or immunities" of citizens incorporated all of the Bill of Rights. But in a display of muddled thinking, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a doctrine of "selective incorporation"--only "fundamental" rights are protected (as if anything important enough to list in the Bill of Rights is not fundamental).


So although there was recently a case that held the opposite opinion of Sotomayor, it appears that, despite your religious need to have or not have a gun, her original opinion is not baseless. As I read on this, the argument seems to be whether the Second Amendment is to be applied federally unless otherwise explicitly incorporated by the 14th Amendment.

There's a reason why the judicial branch has steered clear of this. Because it's complicated. Seems childish to berate Sotomayor for doing the very thing that the conservatives want judges to do: Interpret the Constitution. You can't, then, kick and scream when you don't like the interpretation.

If it turns out that the Second Amendment only applies federally because of "Selective Incorporation," then all you gun nuts need to deal with it.

But to a deeper point on the fanatical nature of this argument...

Just because one disagrees with you doesn't make them radical. They can be, and should be, judged on the merit of their arguments and not our perceived ideas of their agenda. One's agenda is irrelevant if their logic is sound.

So help me genuinely understanding why her positions are wrong, and how "Selective Incorporation" does not apply here.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
The states no more have the right to restrict the right to bear arms than they have to restrict the right to freedom of speech, right to assembly, or separation of religion and state.

Clearly a decision by any judge that claims different is a serious threat to our liberties. States do not have the right or power to override the freedoms enumerated by the constitution.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
This women is a bitch. Simple as that. It's sad that I live in California and have to put up with this crap. I am tempted to secede my property from the US, and get my neighbors to join me and form a self reliant community. Yeah, its a radical idea but the United States are going to crap. I love my country but not my government. Should the government feel the need to stop secession, then they are going against one of the greatest American principles, self government. It's sad that most people are too busy with their daily lives to even care anymore. Few people, except the people on ATS, realize how much the government is taking away our rights. I have hope though people will wake up.

The United State's duty is to obey the Constitution and treat us right. If they could do that I would stay. However, they continue to break the sacred agreement between the people and the government. I would love to change this country, but for now secession is a very real option because too few normal people care. Not everyone, but a lot. I'm sure my phones are tapped now because I am considered a rightwing extremist.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Again we find that Obama is going against every promise he has made. Now he nominates to the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor, who ruled in january of this year in the Maloney v. Cuomo case that "the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."


Gripe gripe gripe... everyone complains about big brother and how we need to restrict the power of the federal government, yet this move puts more decision making power into the hands of local governments, without altering or infringing in the federal government's obligation to the 2nd Amendment - and all people want to do is complain how it's evil.

Make up your minds already.

I think many people underestimate just how large a role your local state and county governments have in your freedoms and liberties - well above and beyond the federal level. Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the bloated state governments, the stripping away of liberties by, and the evils of the "middle brothers"?

This reminds me of the senator who tried to introduce a bill to abolish presidential term limits (and he'd been pushing it for several decades, so it's not the plot of any one administration) - and people howled about tyranny... yet, there was never any law on the books to limit presidential terms until after FDR, and the only reason nobody ran or won a third term was out of respect for George Washington (or having people sick of them). FDR only ran and won a third term due to World War II.

Search Article II of the Constitution... there's nothing about Term Limits. You won't find anything either until the 22nd Amendment enacted in 1951. That amendment actually strips some freedoms by prohibiting Americans from voting for a president they may want to a third term.

Yet... somehow, because the same suit monkey proposed it to a new congress, it's somehow "Obama's plan to bring NWO tyranny to America".

Pffft.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I predict that just about the time Obama declares himself gay and proud, Sotomayor will declare herself the first gay (or is it giddy) lesbian on the bench.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by yayap3
 




The United State's duty is to obey the Constitution and treat us right.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Government has to kiss your butt. It's only there to protect your rights and liberties, which isn't to say all of your rights and liberties. It's a balancing act in which some citizens must forfeit certain rights and liberties in order to preserve the broadest spectrum of rights and liberties for all... as to grant unlimited rights and liberties to everyone would only result in anarchy and effectively - rights and liberties for none. Nor is the United States government supposed to do what it can to help you pursue happiness - merely grant you the "pursuit of happiness". This doesn't mean you will obtain it, you merely get the chance to pursue it. Even if the odds are stacked against you, and you fail miserably, you had a shot... unlike, say, slavery which offered no hope for personal pursuit of dreams or ambitions. The Constitution, even in the days of the founding fathers, wasn't perfect and wasn't adhered to.

Further, the Government holds no special obligation to preserve in tact the Constitution - though they ideally and legally must follow it even through the process of changing it. Hence, Article Five which details the Amendment process. This process of change was added in because the Founding Fathers knew the nation and the society which inhabited it would change radically over the course of it's life - and the Constitution needed a way to change to accommodate the future, while staying obtuse enough to prevent frivolous amendments/repealings.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




but this still does not change the fact that the foundations of the Republic are based on Christian principles.


There is no mention of god or gods in the Constitution. Even if the Declaration of Independence or Mayflower Compact may have included mention of a god or even specifically the Christian religion - those documents were prior to the Constitution's ratification and hence, not legally binding or US legal documents... even if they are historic US documents. So what if some of the founding fathers were masons? Masonry doesn't describe who that god is, and each member is allowed to worship whatever god they want - even no specific god - so long as it's monotheistic and a creator god. Even so, their particular religious affiliations would have no bearing on the drafting of the Constitution without violating the very first of it's Amendments before it was even ratified.

Many of the more famous and influential founding fathers were not Christian, or at the very least held very unconventional views of Christianity. For example, Thomas Jefferson who - while Christian - held very unconventional views on Christianity. He was a signer of the Treaty of Tripoli which stated in no uncertain terms that "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.

Keep in mind also that while America's government was designed to be nothing but secular rule of law, it's population at the time was predominantly Christian. So how our Founding Father's addressed the citizens was with a heavy Christian slant - even if their actions were not reflective of this. For example, take Thomas Paine. The first amendment doesn't just protect you against religious persecution, but religious sponsored government tyranny. Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" was a debasement of the monarchy by challenging the justification of the divine right of kings. He used the Bible and Christian rhetoric to argue to a Christian populace against the institution of monarchy and instill within them the confidence that they could govern themselves.

By just a cursory reading of Common Sense, you'd get the impression that Paine was a Christian. However, that's not the case. A few years later while awaiting the guillotine in France, he penned "Age of Reason" - which is a scathing diatribe against Christianity. He felt that now that men were throwing off the oppression of kings, perhaps they could also begin to throw off the shackles of religion and tyrannous gods and churches. He knew speaking out on this would end his career, so he waited until he thought his death was imminent.

Many of the founding fathers had rather negative opinions about religion and Christianity - but few dared to speak out against it as vehemently to an audience of their fellow citizens. This is why you see the apparent skizm in Thomas Jefferson's views on Christianity. Indeed, quite a few of our founding fathers were either deist or sympathetic to the deistic arguments. Notice how in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson makes explicit reference not only to the "Laws of Nature" - but to "Nature's God". Nature's God is a blanket term covering such loose philosophies from Deism to rigid dogmatic religions such as Islam and Christianity... and all points in between. Even Pantheism which states that the universe IS god, either as an intelligent whole or as a poetic anthropomorphizing of a material and inert universe in regards to Einstein's/Spinoza's God.

But I suppose you're correct in stating that America was founded on Christian morals - if not explicitly by it's government (or at least, condoned approvingly), then by it's people. Morals such as puritanism (which we can still see culturally today), hypocrisy (in it's regard to slaves), the endorsement of slavery, misogyny, violence, genocide, etc.

Oh no... it's not just the good bits. If you want to acknowledge Christianities impact on American culture and government policy, you have to acknowledge all of it. Warts (OT) and all.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mrbarber
 





Ok, for illustrative purposes, I am a crackhead and I need money. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.... So, since you see guns as an irrelevant weapon, I am curious as to what your "relevant weapon" of choice would be to prevent this tragedy?


The answer is obvious. Bear traps baited with crack coc aine in your yard.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join