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: 12
52
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


You might want to research some opinions of Justice Marshall. He sighted the Declaration of Independence in at least one opinion. That precedent essentially makes the Declaration of Independence a legal document.




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Treason? You're reaching. Goes back to my previous point. Just because someone doesn't agree with your point does not make it a crime, Electric. It's the same argument bible freaks use. Your argument is too emotional, and even a bit radical.

Like it or not, right or wrong, her interpretation on this point has merit, and when there's merit, the person's agenda is irrelevant.


She is not disagreeing with "a point of view", she is blatantly disregarding one of the rights given to every American by the forefathers... Two different things, and my stance still stands, she is nothing more than a traitorous old hag, for wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment because of her "too high morals".

What is radical is that people who are being put in power are not upholding, and defending the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, which they supposedly swore to uphold, and defend. instead they are working to destroy these rights, and freedoms which are guaranteed to every American.

Her stance, and yours if you agree with her is what is "radical". Her twin sister Janet Napolitano and the DHS already labeled Americans who want govenrment officials to uphold and defend these documents as "possible terrorists", so your words really mean nothing. people who have fought to preserve the rights of their country have been called "radicals" just like you did, the choice you have to make is whether you want to become another Judas and back those who want to forever destroy the Republic, or those who want to defend it.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Umm.... No? Old propaganda, and disproven by anyone with a High School History education, my friend.


Perhaps that is your problem, that you are only basing your stance on a High School education, no pun intended. Most children now-a-days that graduate from high School do not know the history of their nation much, if at all.


Originally posted by tommy_boy
Most of the founding fathers were deists (I'll describe it if you like), and for every document you can produce to seemlingly proves your claim, there are dozens others showing how little the founding fathers wanted religion as part of this republic. Christianity was not the dominant driver.


No need. First of all the forefathers "agreed" to what is written in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, despite their own personal opinions. Now you, Sotomayor and a few other Liberal gun-grabbers want to impose your moral ideas on Americans, and you want to change, or even abolish the right given to us by the forefathers of the Republic.



Originally posted by tommy_boy
Is anyone going to argue the point made previously about the 2nd and 14th amendments and the concept of Selective Incorporation, or is this just an whiny emotional complain thread? about "I want my guns! I want my guns!"


Ah, so trying to protect our rights according to you is "whinning"....right... If that is your way to discuss such a topic, i think others as well as myself would rather not have to read your rhetoric, because a certain right goes against whatever flawed moral principle you have.

BTW, the only ones whinning for years and stooping to their masters has been the gun-grabbers, who have been begging for the government to take away the right of every American to own and bear arms, and such people are stupid, and naive enough to think this is going to be for the betterment of the people....


The only ones trying to destroy a right guaranteed to ALL Americans because they want to impose their flawed ideologies on everyone are people like you.

If you like a society that has no right to own, and bear weapons go ahead and move to Britain.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Perhaps that is your problem, that you are only basing your stance on a High School education, no pun intended. Most children now-a-days that graduate from high School do not know the history of their nation much, if at all.

OK, well at least now I know who I'm arguing against: someone more into the insult than their content. Just good to know that as we proceed here.



No need. First of all the forefathers "agreed" to what is written in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, despite their own personal opinions. Now you, Sotomayor and a few other Liberal gun-grabbers want to impose your moral ideas on Americans, and you want to change, or even abolish the right given to us by the forefathers of the Republic.

It's like your shooting in the dark with some of these comments... I'm not debating the existence of the word "God" in some of our most critical documents. Had you actually read up on Deism, you'd know that they actually do BELIEVE in God. What they AREN'T are Christians, which was the point of the comment which you so eloquently missed. The US was not founded on Christian principles as it was not founded by Christians. Some believed in God, some didn't, but almost none were Christian.




Ah, so trying to protect our rights according to you is "whinning"....right... If that is your way to discuss such a topic, i think others as well as myself would rather not have to read your rhetoric, because a certain right goes against whatever flawed moral principle you have.

Once again, completely missed the point. Let me go slower for you. The argument in question, sweetie, is whether the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment. We are, after all a nation of laws, so figuring such things out, regardless of which side you fall on, is kinda important. Hey! I support your right to whine and moan. God knows your a pro at it. I just read your posts for some fact-based rebuttal. Haven't found one yet. Just the rantings of a guy that can't get enough of his guns, but doesn't bring much substance to the discussion. Let me speak for everyone arguing on your side of the debate: Your not helping them. Really... Your not.

Additionally, I've yet in my posts to tell you what my position is on gun rights, but your so blinded by your own words and ideology, you'd rather just insult people. That's OK. A rational discussion will go on AROUND you, unless you'd like to actually post something substantive to the discussion.



The only ones trying to destroy a right guaranteed to ALL Americans because they want to impose their flawed ideologies on everyone are people like you.

Again, lambchop, haven't yet stated my position on gun rights, but the salient point here is: Is there merit to Sotomayor's argument or not? You can scream about your gun all day, wouldn't you rather do or say something constructive to keep them? Looking for something meaningful from you here... Try again...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
She is not disagreeing with "a point of view", she is blatantly disregarding one of the rights given to every American by the forefathers... Two different things, and my stance still stands, she is nothing more than a traitorous old hag, for wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment because of her "too high morals".

I know you care more about empty rhetoric than on legal facts, but I still believe there is hope for you... So let's try again.

If you look at her argument objectively, lambchop, you will see that, whether you agree or not, there is a question on whether the Second Amendment applies F-E-D-E-R-A-L-L-Y (slow enough?) or to all levels. Her argument is that, because the Second Amendment is not incorporated by the Fourteenth, then the right to bear arms is applied federally and not at the state or local level and, therefore, gun rights are a state's rights issue WHEN dealing with state and local law...

That's called:

I-N-T-E-R-P-R-E-T-T-I-N-G- T-H-E C-O-N-S-I-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N.

You know, the thing that righties want judges to do. Ohhhh, or you only wanted that when it's convenient to your abnormal obsession to own a gun?

Sorry, that's the way it's written. That's what needs to be decided. Keep screaming though. Maybe someone will listen.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


So, do states have the right to violate the Eighth Amendment as well? After all, the ability of the state to torture somebody is arguably far more dangerous than the ability of the common man to defend himself. I say it does. Let the states start torturing people because the Bill of Rights only applies on the Federal level.

After a few hundred people have been drawn and quartered, we'll see how much longer this "The States don't have to follow the Bill of Rights" nonsense lasts as an argument.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

OK, well at least now I know who I'm arguing against: someone more into the insult than their content. Just good to know that as we proceed here.


So now you claim i was trying to insult you, when you made the comment about "high school knowledge"?... I studied for 10 years in Europe, and also in the U.S. i graduated from high school, and College with honors. It was you who decided to claim "anyone with high school knowledge can refute what i stated". If you don't like it when people respond to your half-assed responses, then try to make a concise arguement, instead of trying to belittle anyone you disagree with.


Originally posted by tommy_boy
It's like your shooting in the dark with some of these comments... I'm not debating the existence of the word "God" in some of our most critical documents. Had you actually read up on Deism, you'd know that they actually do BELIEVE in God. What they AREN'T are Christians, which was the point of the comment which you so eloquently missed. The US was not founded on Christian principles as it was not founded by Christians. Some believed in God, some didn't, but almost none were Christian.


The only one shooting in the dark are people like you trying to twist history, and the truth for your own agenda.

BTW, if the forefathers of the nation did not found the Republic under Christian principles then why, oh why are Christian bibles still used to this day in the court of law to solemnly swear the truth? (or at least until recently)

I hate having to derail my own thread, but when someone such as yourself tries to twist the truth for whatever agenda you have in mind, i have to respond with the truth.

Lets see what the forefathers fo this nation have to say about this.



The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. (John Quincy Adams, sixth President)




It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. (John Adams)




Lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits. Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens. (Daniel Webster)




Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. (John Jay, founding father and America's first Supreme Court Chief Justice and Co-Author of the Federalist Papers)




Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. (Fisher Ames, framer of the First Amendment)




We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism. (Benjamin Rush)




Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. (Charles Carroll of Carrollton, signer of the Declaration of Independence)


And even Thomas Jefferson himself.


"To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."


The forefathers of this nation had many different ideas on religion, at the end they decided to agree not to build a nation only for Christians, as this was one of the main problems in Europe, and hence why they gave freedom of religion as one of the many rights which Americans have, to follow whatever religion they want to. However the Republic was founded with Christian principles, and with the guidance of the bible, otherwise the bible would have never been used in a court of law, but since back then most Americans were from one or another denomination of Christianity, this is the reason why the Republic is/was based on Christianity.

The forefathers wanted to avoid as much as possible the corruption that comes with power, even in religion, but your claim that most were not Christian, or were not of any Christian denomination is a lie.


Originally posted by tommy_boy
Once again, completely missed the point. Let me go slower for you. The argument in question, sweetie, is whether the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment. We are, after all a nation of laws, so figuring such things out, regardless of which side you fall on, is kinda important. Hey! I support your right to whine and moan. God knows your a pro at it. I just read your posts for some fact-based rebuttal. Haven't found one yet. Just the rantings of a guy that can't get enough of his guns, but doesn't bring much substance to the discussion. Let me speak for everyone arguing on your side of the debate: Your not helping them. Really... Your not.


BS, there are no "small letters' in any of the rights in the Amendments within the Bill of rights which state such right can be taken away if the corrupt politicians find a way to do so.

BTW, I bring more substance than you will ever will with your excuses to take away the Second Amendment by proclaiming "politicians can do so if they want". Sorry to tell you the forefathers stated that We, the People can take back the country if there are usurpations of rights, including the right to own, and bear arms which has no "small letters" claiming it can be voided by some loophole found by corrupt politicians.


Originally posted by tommy_boy
Again, lambchop, haven't yet stated my position on gun rights, but the salient point here is: Is there merit to Sotomayor's argument or not? You can scream about your gun all day, wouldn't you rather do or say something constructive to keep them? Looking for something meaningful from you here... Try again...


It is too late, you already have stated your position on gun rights nomatter how much you now try to claim you are in favour of them.

Pretty much what you are claiming is that as log as the law is used our rights can be taken away. Sorry but none of the rights as deliniated in the Bill of Rights make any claims about "this right can be taken away if corrupt gun-grabbers decide to use the law to take away any, and every right. Which is what you are implying.

The corrupt gun-grabbers in Britain used the law to take away the gund of the British, and the British allowed it to happen, yet they decided to do the biggest peacefull protest in the history of that country because they rights were taken away "by the law", yet crime has risen dramatically.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

If you look at her argument objectively, lambchop, you will see that, whether you agree or not, there is a question on whether the Second Amendment applies F-E-D-E-R-A-L-L-Y (slow enough?) or to all levels. Her argument is that, because the Second Amendment is not incorporated by the Fourteenth, then the right to bear arms is applied federally and not at the state or local level and, therefore, gun rights are a state's rights issue WHEN dealing with state and local law...
......................


Tommyboy, we know by now that you are too slow for your own good, no need to keep showing us this.

Perhaps you think that there were more than one nation founded when the forefathers wrote the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Since obviously you are too slow for your own good, let me try to do you a favour...

EVERY STATE has to abide by the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and the powers, and laws not delegated by the Constitution, and Bill of Rights is free reign for every STATE. This does not mean any state can decide to abolish any of the rights given within the Bill of Rights, even though several states have been able to get away with puting heavy restrictions in some of these rights, such as the Second Amendment thanks to the corrupt politicians.

What this woman, and you apparently are claming is that the states don't have to obey the Second Amendment, which literally means she claims, and apparently so do you, that the STATES don't have to abide by the Constitution, and the BIll of Rights, which is a L.I.E. and W.R.O.N.G.

If you could think with that melon you call a brain of yours then perhaps we could have avoided all this unpleasantry, but instead you decided to claim anyone with a High School education could refute what I stated, which obviously was an attempt by your feeble mind trying to dismiss my argument, which obviously you could only awnser by making nothing more than belittling, and making a condescending ad hominem attack at me.



[edit on 1-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Actually, it is true that the Bill-of-Rights originally applied only to the Federal Government. "Congress shall make no law....". However, the Supreme Court has ruled since that most of the Bill-of-Rights applies to the States. Most recently, this year, the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. This would seem to contradict our new Supreme Court nominee's view on the issue.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrbarber

Actually, it is true that the Bill-of-Rights originally applied only to the Federal Government. "Congress shall make no law....". However, the Supreme Court has ruled since that most of the Bill-of-Rights applies to the States. Most recently, this year, the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. This would seem to contradict our new Supreme Court nominee's view on the issue.


Yeah, about 3-4 years ago there was a similar ruling in which the Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment does give the right to ALL Americans to own, and bear arms, but the entire Obama administration are nothing more than gun-grabbers corrupt politicians. This is not to say that the previous administration was not corrupt, in fact it is quite the contrary. However, we are now at a stage in which we will have to fight in any legal way possible what these corrupt administration has been trying to do.

They already tried to claim that Americans should be banned from having semi-automatic weapons because the MEXICAN DRUG LORDS have AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Anyone with any measure of intelligence knows first of all the difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and a fully automatic weapon. Even then most, if not all of the weapons the Mexican drug lords, and most criminals get are from the black market and not from legal gun stores. But the gun-grabber politicians don't care about this, they just want to ban all Americans from owning weapons. Once that happens we will be further into a dictatorial Socialist regime in a country that has always prospered, and it's people too, thanks to Capitalism.



[edit on 1-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
She is not disagreeing with "a point of view", she is blatantly disregarding one of the rights given to every American by the forefathers... Two different things, and my stance still stands, she is nothing more than a traitorous old hag, for wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment because of her "too high morals".

I know you care more about empty rhetoric than on legal facts, but I still believe there is hope for you... So let's try again.

If you look at her argument objectively, lambchop, you will see that, whether you agree or not, there is a question on whether the Second Amendment applies F-E-D-E-R-A-L-L-Y (slow enough?) or to all levels. Her argument is that, because the Second Amendment is not incorporated by the Fourteenth, then the right to bear arms is applied federally and not at the state or local level and, therefore, gun rights are a state's rights issue WHEN dealing with state and local law...

That's called:

I-N-T-E-R-P-R-E-T-T-I-N-G- T-H-E C-O-N-S-I-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N.

You know, the thing that righties want judges to do. Ohhhh, or you only wanted that when it's convenient to your abnormal obsession to own a gun?

Sorry, that's the way it's written. That's what needs to be decided. Keep screaming though. Maybe someone will listen.


This argument or apparent question is simply logical nonsense. You need to read the Federalist Papers before forming an opinion about modern day readings and interpretations.

Constitutional rights cannot be kicked down to the states for interpretation. The Constitution is not only a restriction on federal bodies but all state bodies as well.

Representatives to congress represent the people of their several states and so.....a little logic here please.

Besides it has been show time and again that federal powers can step in to insurer states adhere to to larger issues named in the Constitution. The fact that this lady wants to kick a Constitutional right back down to states for clarification and local interpretation is a clear example of her blithering lack of qualification for the job. Maybe she can kick slavery back down to the states for a modern day interpretation?

And whats this "abnormal obsession with your gun" thing? I suppose all constitutional rights can be termed "abnormal obsessions" by people that defend them.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrbarber

Actually, it is true that the Bill-of-Rights originally applied only to the Federal Government. "Congress shall make no law....". However, the Supreme Court has ruled since that most of the Bill-of-Rights applies to the States. Most recently, this year, the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. This would seem to contradict our new Supreme Court nominee's view on the issue.



The term "Congress shall make no law..." is not some sort of restriction or confinement of the federal Constitution to federal bodies only. Its amazing that the Supreme Court has to remind of this from time to time. Becouse Congress cant doesn't mean that states can when it comes to the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
All right I got stumped on the "Restricted by State Government" ... did anyone else have trouble understanding what that meant?

I read it as you have the right to bear arms unless the state you reside in abolishes it.

Of course I'm not worried because its legal in Texas to carry a concealed weapon on most college campuses

[edit on 11/03/2008 by Skydancer]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


There is no merit to her arguments according to the 9th Circuit and the 14th amendment.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"

“Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’ Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

Additionally the Dick Act of 1903 cemented citizens as the unorganized militia in law, long before Sotomayor was even born. You are part of the unorganized militia, and hence you fall into the Militia clause 2nd amendment by law. This establishes a precedent that cannot be lightly overturned. Strike 2.

And for strike 3, as another poster has so tried to explain, the Constitution did NOT grant any individual rights. Instead the Constitution is a trust between the States limiting Federal power, with de facto rights originating from the Creator. In English, in practice but not necessarily ordained by law.

This is where Sotomayor fails with her anti-gun arguments. First was that the 2nd amendment did NOT make firearms illegal on the State level as she contends and has stated as a matter of public record. She was half correct in that States could have decided on gun control (without the 14th amendment in place), but she forgot that as a Republic, I can bear arms unless otherwise denied by the State. So in States that the right of bearing arms was not explicitly expressed in their own constitutions, they still were legal and de facto.

She flips that over, and shows her she thinks all rights must be de jure before granted. That alone is a terrifying ideology by itself. She fails Constitution 101 and should be immediately rejected as a justice from all aspects of our legal system.

Second she ignored the 14th amendment. Although late to the party, the 14th amendment is all inclusive to the previous rights given, as it BOUND the States to the Federal Constitution, including the first 8 amendments, and in our case namely the right to bear arms. This can be seen throughout testimony of Congress regarding the drafting, purpose, and ratification of the 14th amendment that it was to be all inclusive, and bind the States to follow the bill of rights including the 2nd amendment even if not expressed in their own Constitutions. The Supreme court has been slow in incorporating the intent of the 14th amendment, but history is clear as to why it was drafted.

Sorry Tommy, but Sotomayor fails and does not show a concept of our nation and what a Republic is. Therefore it should invalidate her consideration for a seat on the Supreme Court. It's a clear anti-gun bias that today has no basis in law given her past rulings and ignoring precedents, and at best this is an attempt by the Feds to get around the 2nd/14th amendment and railroad a federal type of gun control throughout the States.

And personally, the last thing I want on the Supreme Court is one that has expressed feelings that you have no rights, unless otherwise placed in law. Seriously, why stop at the 2nd amendment if the 14th means nothing?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment


www.cnsnews.com

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
(visit the link for the full news article)


By that logic, the states don't have to obey federal court rulings either, because they apply to the federal government and not the states.

If Sonia Sotomayor were consistent, I might not oppose her. I think she should be impeached, not promoted to the Supreme Court.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


That's because of a human flaw. Humans are violent. I don't think they should have guns. It's just a cool weapon used to kill other people. If you really want to kill someone, you should battle it out the hard way with knives and rocks. Guns are too easy.


Done with this thread.


Holly #balls! Their is no way in hell you should be allowed to vote in the united states of America....What you just said is breath taking, not in the good way either.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Oh Jesus...I had a feeling, and knew this broad would not be my choice for the future of the country's path and laws....



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The second amendment, was penned by our fore fathers "fresh" from the fight against tyranny. They knew full well the value of an armed populace. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or "self defense"! It is in place to allow an oppresesed populace the means to to throw off a tyranical government.

I can't see our brilliant fore-fathers expecting us to perform this function with one hand tied behind our backs. Gun banners imply "They wrote a beautiful near perfect, farsighted document , they just screwed up this one amendment and didn't mean it to say what it does.
Common flintlock muzzleloading guns were the "assault rifles" of their day! Every bit the equal or better than the British military arm ( musket). So when a senator says "this evil black gun has no sporting purpose" Or you don't "need" this gun with a 30round clip for "self defense" (he could theoretically be right, but that's not the criteria our founders had in mind!). You can be sure he has crossed the line to thinking unconstitutionally (read as: "illegally"). Like Switzerland the whole idea is to maintain an armed populace, this is not a bad thing. But the force is there, as is the duty of the citizen when and if it is needed . to retake our liberty.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I think you all have missed the real horror of this decision. It is not simply the abolishment of the single right to bear arms.

It is the abolishment of ALL constitutional and human rights.

If states can abandon any single constititional right at their discretion, they can abandon any and all. There is no difference specified in the government's obligation to respect any of our individual rights.

We either have rights, or we do not have rights.

These are God given and inalienable rights we are speaking of, our forefathers told us what we must do, should our government one day move to infringe upon those rights.


[edit on 2-6-2009 by Cyberbian]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
This seems pretty ridiculous to me, after the supreme court essentially upheld the 2nd amendment recently, it seemed the argument was mostly over for at least a decade or so, except perhaps for some mild regulations by states.

After all these times in the courts, and years of the 2nd amendment being interpreted as giving citizens the general right to bear arms (even if they do restrict the types a little), I really believe the only legitimate way they could get rid of the 2nd, is by constitutional convention, or an amendment, but of course, these idiots don't want to actually go the legitimate route to changing the constitution, because they'd never be able to! Instead they just make a mockery of the constitution as usual, and just trample over it.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join