It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by jimminycricket

Yes slowly watering it all down or dumping so much crap on it that one cant get to it anymore.

Oh and the generation of the enlighten modern mind, the "whole package top dog" thing, like its big time wrestling, now for our pleasure reinterpretation in the clear light of modern day what the founders ideas mean for us today. Freeing us from the twisting of the old white male mindset into a clearer day. Like a fresh pile of steaming hot philosophical sorcery fitting to the age of spineless men and arrogant women that simultaneously stand on the foundation laid down in a time of emancipation realities for man kind while taking a mental dump on same from the vast store house of their enlightened mind.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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".

Yes and leave it to the children of those with no skin in the game.

Many 2nd amendment advocates have skin going back to the founding of this country and so have the better perspective of its value. I am not only saying this becouse it is true, but the issue of "unique perspective" having been associated with her and brought up by her supporters then opens the door for a discussion about prospective.

Her education, it is well know, gives her no perspective of the value or understanding of the 2nd. It is well know that these bastions of modern intellect and historical interpretation have long ago jettisoned any realistic renderings in favor of a new world detachment that has no demonstrate reality in history as giving birth to anything but tyranny.

The founders were not lifted up beyond an application to the common man and the realities of government in the rendering of their ideas. What we have these days are the rendering of ideas by those that worship government and so guard it in interpretation and action from the rights of the people.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

You're missing the point of what it means to be a criminal, all firearms could be outlawed today and criminals will still have firearms, only difference is that the law abiding citizens would be unarmed and fresh for the slaughter.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by MemoryShock

the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."

Restricted is a much different term then "prohibited".

I certainly think that a citizens right to have the capacity to defend themselves and their homes does not translate into a free for all when it comes to gun ownership.

Seriously...there are very relevant reasons why ththe idea of restriction is a relevant topic. One cannot predict that all gun owners will demonstrate the responsibility necessary when keeping, storing and using a tool that has the potential to end life in a second.

I have known people that I wouldn't trust with a sharpened pencil much less a firearm...and in todays world of advanced technology it should be noted that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarentee the right of an individual to harbor the capacity to defend oneself with force if needed...not to hold a firearm for the sake of it.

A very relevant context, in my opinion...

Your opinion sucks. You need to re-study the second amendment and probably the whole U.S. Constitution. Better yet, take a course on American History.

2nd amendment is not for self defense or home protection. It is for chasing out the tyrants when necessary, and yes, killing them if they won't leave.

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:23 AM
reply to post by slimpickens93

Here's some detail to go with that.

Joseph Story, a supreme court member from the early 1800's, in his book "Commentaries on the Constitution" wrote:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers/

And here's the version passed by congress:

"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."

and the version ratified by states:

"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."

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:29 AM
I have to say I do wonder about the idea of restrictions vs prohibtions, it does make me wonder how far the right to bear arms goes. In reality, even an assault rifle may not be enough if people did have to confront the government someday. I don't see it any time in the near future, but if we theorized say, 2050, can you imagine the equipment the government would have? Although having many guns throughout the country would cause troops to be heavily bogged down, I think to realistically take them on, you'd need large bombs, anti-aircraft guns, heavy armored vehicles, and more. Should people really be allowed to keep the level of firepower necessary take on a modern government at home? It's a tough question. I believe someone pushed Ron Paul on this point once, and he felt it went all the way, even Nuclear weaponry was not out of the question, until it becomes a clear and present danger. I think he may be taking it a little too far, but I'm sure there are also many who would agree with him.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by jimminycricket

Well I'm with Dr. Paul. If they can have it then so should we. However, we don't need a nuclear arsenal. If our own government starts bombing our own nation, then what are they really fighting for? When the dust clears, there will be nothing but rubble, nor will there be a tax base to pay for rebuilding.

It's much too late to worry about these things now.

The strongest argument now for maintaining the 2nd amendment is so that when the government comes for me, I can fight them and die as a free man, with a little bit of dignity, knowing that I forfeited my life rather than my liberty.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:57 AM
Ok, I couldn't read through these 4 pages. I read the first 10 or so replies and couldn't take anymore. The 2nd Ammendment is for citizens to bare arms for a REVOLUTION, i.e in case of civil war, MARTIAL LAW, etc. It's not even necessarily for protection... it's for the event of an uprising, which, let's face it...may not be too far off..

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by physicalbeing

You have to take a gun into your possession before you can use it, obviously.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:44 AM
reply to post by MemoryShock

Agreed, I don't like Obama's anti-gun motives either, but I think some words are getting twisted here.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You are right on the Mexico example, I have a seen some information that stated the gun's traceable to the U.S. were a small fraction of the gun's Mexico confiscated. Hey everyone act's like the U.S. is the only country with gun's!

The main problem with Sotomayor is that she is racist and sexist! Her rulings are based on her inflated sense of self. If a white male made a similar comment he would be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Has anyone looked into any of her other rulings?

Her opinion on the role of judges was bad enough with her view on the second amendment it shows the current trend in political thinking.

top topics

<< 10  11  12   >>

log in