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: 4
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
They certainly do not have such right, and if they do so, the forefathers of this nation clearly deliniated what Americans should do, and that it is their right to do so....

But thank you for trying to twist away the fact that our rights should not be changed. You sound just like the gun-grabbing politicians...

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


Why are you pissed off at me?

Where did I advocate making gun laws? I pointed out the facts, no need to jump on my case. You know nothing about my stance on guns.




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...on another note, in the provided news snippet, the phrase "the second amendment's commandment" smells a bit off...




Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The forefathers did state clearly in the Declaration of Independence that they saw these rights as God given unalienable rights.


...the framers of the constitution didnt say which god they were referring to and they were intentionally inclusive of all creator concepts... all of that is truly beside the point, which is - there are NO commandments in the constitution of the united states or its amendments or its bill of rights, which is why i jested about that word's odor...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
BTW, do note the part which I increased in size clearly says and I quote

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form


That would mean laying the foundations on these same laws, and rights which the forefathers gave to us. Which is exactly what we need to do, protect, and defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence which most politicians apparently don't understand what it means when they take this oath.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


The forefathers were mostly Christian, they gave freedom of religion which means Americans have a right to follow whatever religion they want, but the country was founded under Christian principles.

BTW i am not Christian, but I am not about to lie, or change the truth because i am not Christian...



[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Super dumb cause all the criminals have guns.

The police having guns means nothing in stopping crime
and hardly used correctly.

So the gun makers win all the time.

When a store gets robbed a few times the owner gets
a criminal gun and shoots the next holdup and goes
to jail while his business gets wiped out and his family
suffers.

Yeah, law is a good thing to have.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Why are you pissed off at me?

Where did I advocate making gun laws? I pointed out the facts, no need to jump on my case. You know nothing about my stance on guns.


When you claim people lack an undertanding of our laws, and rights as given by the forefathers of this nation, and then you spouse the lies that politicians use trying to find loopholes in the system to take away the rights of Americans, it does seem that you agree with them.

BTW, you are wrong, and you lack knowledge on the rights, and the powers given to the states, and the Federal government by the forefathers of this nation.


Politicians, and those in power are supposed to serve us, not us serve them, and nowhere did the forefathers state that those in power can twist the truth just so they can control us more.
[edited to correct statement]


[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Double Eights

Why are you pissed off at me

Where did I advocate making gun laws? I pointed out the facts, no need to jump on my case. You know nothing about my stance on guns.


When you claim people lack an undertanding of our laws, and rights as given by the forefathers of this nation, and then you spouse the lies that politicians use trying to find loopholes in the system to take away the rights of Americans, it does seem that you agree with them.

BTW, you are wrong, and you lack knowledge on the rights, and the powers given to the states, and the Federal government by the forefathers of this nation.


Politicians, and those in power are supposed to serve us, not us serve them, and them being able to change, and twist the truth just so they can control us more.


Tell me how my assessment is wrong. Also your speech about politicians is irrelevant to this conversation.

The Constitutions (State and Federal) are able to be amended, and in doing such, they can strip away your rights. Do I agree with doing such, absolutely not. But does that mean that it is impossible? No, it's written in the Constitutions themselves.

All Federal gun laws which take away your right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional, as per the Second Amendment. However, as I am not versed in every State constitution, I cannot tell you whether they are unconstitutional on the state level or not.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Double Eights]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
.................
Yeah, law is a good thing to have.


Any society, and anywhere where large groups of peple live together there must be laws that everyone must abide to.

However, this does not give the state, or the feds the right to change the laws anyway they seem fit trying to control us more.

We will always need some laws, rules, and regulations, as well as defined rights that defend every individual.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


Oh boy. The forefathers were mostly Christian, they gave freedom of religion which means Americans have a right to follow whatever religion they want, but the country was founded under Christian principles.

BTW i am not Christian, but I am not about to lie, or change the truth because i am not Christian...


...(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...

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

...(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...

...(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...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Tell me how my assessment is wrong. Also your speech about politicians is irrelevant to this conversation.


Then why would the forefathers go through all the trouble, and all the ink to specify rights entitled to all Americans if they can be taken away?...

They did not give us those rights so that politicians can take them away.

Politicians have just found loopholes, and twisted the truth, and twisted the law to take away our rights.

BTW, my statement has everything to do with this topic.

Time for bed.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You said "BTW, incase you didn't know the main reason why our foreafathers put this as a right for ALL Americans was to defend ourselves against a dictatorial government, and this government is turning dictatorial by the day."

I couldn't agree more, in fact, I believe we should have the right to defend ourselves with the same grade weapons being slung around by our tyrannical government. Level the playing field! I also agree on the statement concerning gun crime, a criminal is much less likely to try and rob some one with a pistol on their hip, and as far as I'm concerned we should throw the concealed permits out the window as well. Nothing deters a violent act by a criminal like being able to see my nice shiney .40 cal.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Then why would the forefathers go through all the trouble, and all the ink to specify rights entitled to all Americans if they can be taken away?...

They did not give us those rights so that politicians can take them away.

Politicians have just found loopholes, and twisted the truth, and twisted the law to take away our rights.

BTW, my statement has everything to do with this topic.

Time for bed.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


Because they didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to sign away their rights? So far they're right, as the Constitution hasn't been amended, but the possibility still looms.

The only way for the Federal Government to legally violate the 2nd Amendment is to amend the Constitution, and the only way for a State government to violate their version of the 2nd Amendment is to amend their constitution. The amendment process is quite difficult, so it's unlikely for the 2nd Amendment/State 2nd Amendment to be violated legally.

All I originally said was that the States do not have to adhere to the Second Amendment. They DO on the other hand, have to adhere to their own Constitutions...all of which (I assume) have their own version of the Second Amendment.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I dont know about you all, but the ruling says that she would want to prohibit weapons the State prohibits. I think its quite prudent for the govt to prohibit MP5's and Uzi's from coming into the hands of people. There is too much of a probability for something to go wrong.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:14 AM
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?


"More state control" is a good thing, but you got to remember: In order for you to remain a state of the UNITED STATES of America, you have to comply with our CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!

As a side note. I think California should secede and take the people like Judge Sotomayor with it. (My two "Ameros" worth).



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Things are getting ugly in the USA. You know something isn't right when this never made headline news.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I'm not violent, yet I own guns. I have bought them with the intention of hunting/self preservation. I would not like my rights PROHIBITED. When the SHTF I want to be able to provide food for my family and myself. I don't relish the idea of having to hunt for food "Rambo style" by falling from a tree with knife in hand to to kill a pig. I might break my legs doing that. We need to eat. I have been a hunter for a good 17 years, and have only fired a gun for target practice or hunting.

If the internet was available 300 years ago, I'm sure there would have been people bitching about bow and arrows. That is until it came time to eat. Then those protesters would start pissing their pants when the realized the only tool the had to procure food with or save themselves from invaders was taken away by the government

Why do I need to have my tools taken from me when all I use them for is food procurement or self defence?

Deal with the criminals using weapons illegally. If someone wants to use a weapon in the commission of a crime, apply harsh punishment when they are found guilty of said crime. Quit messing with the law abiding US citizens.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:40 AM
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.

People never complain about how violent we are. They never complain about the fact that violence is generally an everyday thing and when someone is shot on the news, it's not a big deal.

People only speak up when someone wants to make sure they're qualified to handle a murder weapon.

Done with this thread.


Keeping a gun at home for protection is not a totally bad thing, i am sure some older people, single mom and so on would feel more safe that way. I dont live in the US and have never owned a gun in my whole life so i fear them of course, you on the other hand can in some states buy guns and ammo if you are the right age.

electric, yes, moving the trade with firearms to the black market is not a good idea, that way only criminals will have access to guns. Would be interesting to see statistics on different crimes involving firearms, a multi state comparison.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits"


“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

And lastly and most pertinent

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it"

Seems to me pretty clear, and pretty darn accurate.....
(bonus if you know who said these without googling them)



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Beautifully stated!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
That is a crying shame. I was looking forward to taking my country back. I felt my 44 Magnum would have fared well against EMP's, Microwave Beams, Sonic Beams, predator drones with sidewinder missiles, nuclear subs, tactical nukes, f22 raptors, m1 tanks, stealth bombers, gatlin guns, bio weapons, white phosphorous, poisoned water supply, no food, apache helicopters and more. How can I possibly reclaim my country without my 44mag!?




top topics



 
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join