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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:36 AM
reply to post by contemplator

I see you are being a smart hole about this. You may have a point, as far as their weapons.; But, would you rather be armed for "The Fight" with your 44, or sticks and stones?

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:39 AM
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]

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

I may have misunderstood the post of yours that I quoted.

I agree that anyone given the order to fire on American citizens, would end up turning those weapons against the people giving the order. It just really sucks that we have to even bring this type of topic up.

I am scared

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:16 AM
reply to post by Cale, Logan

Its very unfortunate indeed. I hate that something like this is even in the realm of posibility, but what are we as a country to do. We cannot sit by idly while the government becomes an oppression on the people it was designed to protect, and to serve.

The greed of the people charged to look after the well being of this country has reached a breaking point. Whether you are liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, it doesnt matter, this hurts all of us and dissolves all party lines.

Gone are the days when we could battle it out over party lines. It is fast becoming a nation when having those two sides was a luxury. Now we have to chose to stand together so that our children and grand children will have the opportunities we were afforded.

But in the aftermath there is always hope, should the time come we have to stand once again as our forefathers did against tyranny and oppression , we will, and we will prevail, because deep down we all know its the future of our ways of life we wish to pass on to the next generation. It is in our blood,it is our responsibility,it is what we were charged with by our founding fathers as Americans to rise when we are called upon to do so.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:40 AM
I don't even know what to say. We vote these people into office, yet they flip flop on their precedences. They promise one thing yet end up doing the exact apposite. TPTB have found a way to circumvent the rules of this Republic, and twist it to their twisted desire. And they have done it in such a way that most Americans don't really see it happening. As long as one can go here and there to buy this and that, no one complains.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:21 AM
It seems to me that in any discussion of the Second Amendment, people in favor of some form of reasonable regulation restricting guns tend to make arguments, many sound, about why regulation is necessary. For example, some argue that gun related crimes would be reduced (which I personally disagree with because criminals by definition don't follow the law), or that some people are so reckless that it would be too dangerous for such reckless people to have guns, to name only a few.

Those opposed to gun restrictions tend to argue against the soundness of any proposed gun control regulation and the argument, thusly, gets off point.

Whether any proposed law restricting guns is sound, rational, or seemingly necessary, is immaterial. The Constitution is pretty clear in its language regarding the right to bear arms regardless of the soundness of any proposed legislation restricting that fundamental right.

IMO, certain judges, politicians, and lobbyists, are trying to circumvent the proper mechanism to attack the Second Amendment; that is, by an amendment modifying or withdrawing same. The reason the proper method is not being used to attack the Second Amendment is because it is too hard, if not impossible, to amend the Constitution in relation to gun control. There will never be sufficient votes.

It is okay for one to be for gun control. In that event, lobby for amending the Constitution and vote for politicians that support same. But to try and circumvent the Constitution by enacting gun control laws that are unconstitutional on their face is improper. Likewise improper is for judges to stretch the rules of interpretation to such an extent that they are effectively bypassing the amendment procedure.

Just my two cents worth.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:40 AM
There is ALREADY gun control, as there should be. Nobody should be able to jsut walk up to a dealer and purchase an uzi, a rocket launcher, an M16 or what have you anytime they want (yes, I am exagerating here, but isn't making those weapons a form of gun control? I highly doubt that even the most staunch supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights would disagree with making most weapons straight-up illegal, such as sawed off shotguns and other already mentioned.)

But as for the more conventional guns, such as most handguns, rifles, and shotguns, no, there should be SOME restriction. After all, you wouldn't want jsut anyone to own a gun. And yes, even though guns are readily available on the black market, they are usually much more expensive, and a tad bit harder to come across.

I used to work at a Dick's Sporting Goods store. I got licensed to sell guns in the hunting/fishing section (even though I know nothing of that sort of thing. I was officially the fitness trainer.) But the head manager wanted me to get licensed to sell gun in order for him to have more flexibility with his employees, so I agreed.

Well, the 3rd customer that I was selling a gun to, doing background check on, a message pops up on my screen saying something along the lines that the FBI has been notified, and is on their way.

Well, I told the guy, after this popped up, to hang on a second so I can take a phone call real quick. I ran into the back storage area where we keep the extra ammo in stock, and locked the door behind me. Got on the walkie talkie, and told my manager. He told me to stay where I was, and he will evacuate the other employees and customers and such from the store as discreetly as possible. FBI finally arrives, throws the guy onto the counterm and hauled him off. I never did find out what this man did, or was wanted for, but apparently he musta been quite dangerous.

My point being: Who knows what this man woulda been capable of, ya know? If not for the background checks, and being connected directed to the FBI office, he coulda walked right outta the store with a brand new gun, and killed someone a few minutes later somewhere.

Now, you gotta understand, I live in a small city of about 70,000, which is a good 90 mile radius from any medium-sized city. My city is in the middle of the Pennsylvania Wilds (nothing but woods). There is no black market for guns in this area, so this coulda been just a local man, looking for a quick weapon for whatever reason, and had no other outlet for one.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:38 AM
reply to post by MemoryShock

When you start excluding who can and who cant (other than criminals and non-citizens) own weapons, you make it that much easier for them to tell US we cant either!

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:10 AM
Even with Sotomayor anti-gun rhetoric her "opinion" wasn't considered when the the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history:

Meaning that others with more insight knows what really the second amendment means and they try to keep that meaning intact.

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.

Sotomayor is an anti gun advocate and with Obama anti gun agenda and seat in the supreme court she can cause a lot of damage from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government.

Sonia Sotomayor on Gun Rights and Racial Preferences

[edit on 29-5-2009 by marg6043]

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:15 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I don't agree with you on about half of your posts, however I completely agree with this. Being a responsible gun owner lowers crime, we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms according to the constitution. How many examples do we have of countries disarming their citizens which is immediately followed by mass murder of those citizens? I was encouraged to see more people exercising their second amendment rights during the last year. These people could very well mean the difference between absolute tyranny or freedom (which we are losing rapidly as this clearly demonstrates. I for one am fed up with bills introduced to restrict growing our own food, to 'watch what we say'. The attacks on our first and fourth amendment rights are unprecedented, and I expected this as well. Better to have a firearm and not need it than to need it and not have it.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:16 AM
Of course it's utter BS that states don't have to abide by the BOR but part of me sort of like this idea. IT means that states wouldnt have to tolerate or enact any federal level crap.

Let slave states like CA, MA, CT and NY go totally ban crazy and put their residents in leg irons and states like NH, MT, SD, ND, ME, VT, NE, etc... can give back their residents all of the liberty the fed stole away.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:22 AM
I have searched the thread and found no reference to this that I now contribute, apologies if it has been and I missed it - it is a particularly pertinent point I feel.

The case of Maloney v Cuomo is not about guns or firearms of any variety its about a guy arrested for owning nunchaku - the two sticks linked by chain/chord possession of which has been a misdemeanor (for those without a criminal record, a felony for those with one) in NY State since 1974.

One story has it that nunchaku were adaptations of a threshing tool made by the residents of Okinawa when the invading Satsuma daimyo banned weapons.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:25 AM
you know that America has reached the tipping point for it's civliisation as we know it when the President promotes this sexist racist woman to this sort of position, which will help shape the direction of America's culture

[edit on 29-5-2009 by blueorder]

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:30 AM
Why does this surprise anyone? Of course he will nominate a socialist moron who wants the government to rule everything we do. That is why I DID NOT vote for obama and that is why I hope he doesn't get re-elected next term, hopefully at that point the next President can undo some of the mess he is making out of this country.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by RisKFactoR
But as for the more conventional guns, such as most handguns, rifles, and shotguns, no, there should be SOME restriction. After all, you wouldn't want jsut anyone to own a gun. And yes, even though guns are readily available on the black market, they are usually much more expensive, and a tad bit harder to come across.

Perhaps "some" restriction. After all, freedom of speech cannot be infringed because of the First Amendment but one cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater as a joke to watch the people stampede; nor can one defame another without risking legal consequences.

However, if I were to define "staunch" supporters of gun control, I would refer to those who create and lobby for laws designed to banish guns. As only one example, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 passed in the District of Columbia. This law banned certain handguns (except those owned prior to its enactment), automatic firearms and high capacity semi-automatic firearms. This law also mandated that all firearms in the privacy of one's own home must be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock." This law remained in placed and was enforced for over thirty years until the total ban and trigger lock provisions were struck down in the Heller case by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Portions of the above law were akin to allowing freedom of speech but mandating that you must wear tape across your mouth if you say something others might not like.

There should be no mistake here, the staunchest supporters for "gun control" want to get rid of guns altogether - it is to those people that I am referring to when I opine they are trying to circumvent the Constitution.

As for guns on the black market, I live in California just outside of Los Angeles. It is quite easy to get a gun here illegally. And it is usually less expensive than guns in the gun stores.

I legally own a gun and did not find the law requiring a waiting period to conduct a background check to be too much of an infringement of my Constitutional right. I agree with you that "some" restriction on handguns, rifles and shotguns does not unduly infringe on the Second Amendment. A felon or the insane should not have guns, for example.

My main point was that regardless of the soundness of any proposed legislation banning guns (like the law in D.C. which was created based on the pretext that it would lower the crime rate), the only constitutional way to substantially alter or strip away a fundamental constitutional right is by way of constitutional amendment which requires, I believe, ratification by 3/4 of every states' legislature.

I recommend keeping your eyes on any judge, politician, or lobbying group that blatantly tries to avoid the ratification process by any purported federal law passed by Congress, regulation, or local law/ordinance. If one fundamental right goes, so may go the others.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:53 AM

Originally posted by contemplator
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!?

Lucky for you there are those Americans who have more than a 44mag to help defend you when our own govt begins using Predator Drones with sidewinder missiles against it's own citizens.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:54 AM
Hahaha. Don't you get it? He's supposed to make a mess, and it's not supposed to be undone. Here's how it really works: One political party gets into power, and they have a list of horrible, stupid policies to enact. They victimize the population for a few years, until the OTHER big political party promises to put a stop to it. We the Sheeple soak it up like brain dead sponges and put that other party back into power. And what do they do? They repeal some of the least destructive and least popular of the old policies just for show, and then they enact their own crooked agenda.

In other words, the Dems raise taxes, ban the crap out of our guns, and spend money. The Reps will promise to lower the taxes again and quit spending money. Like idiots, we'll put them back into power. They'll lower taxes by about a 10th of what they went up, they'll quit spending a 10th of whatever the budget increases were (by cutting programs that are actually good for the people,) and then they'll leave guns banned. Meanwhile, they'll wage more imperialist wars and give more tax breaks to their rich friends and pretend that greedy businessmen will actually let the money "trickle down."

So the people will get fed up, the Dems will promise to hold out the olive branch and make peace with the world, they'll promise to bring back the social programs and start actually helping the middle class. Like a bunch of gullible, gullible fools we'll put them back into power. At this point, they'll leave guns banned, increase spending god-knows-what-fold again, bring back the social programs but implement them in an unsustainable manner, and let all the wars the Reps started rage on.

Meanwhile everyone will still be broke, unarmed, overtaxed, underpaid, wondering where their rights went.... and, oh yeah, they'll still be stupid, gullible, and blaming the other political party for all of it.

"Hopefully the next President will fix it..." Pfuhhh. Don't make me laugh.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:00 AM

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

You are quite right about that. But consider the source. ( frequently cited by OP)
CNS News Service is the "brainchild" of Brent Bozell. A right wing propaganda monger.

Always.........consider the source.

I'm not biting.

I think she will make a fine judge. She adds diversity and perspective and hopefully.....objectivity.


posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:03 AM
As usual I'm late to a thread. I can't believe this is already five pages. At any rate, Sotomayor's ruling has another, and probably unintended, component to it. If state's can restrict gun ownership by creating their own gun laws, then the logical inference is that states can also liberalize gun ownership by creating their own gun laws. What a ruling like that basically says is that gun laws are a state's rights issue. Enter Montana: Montana challenges Federal gun laws

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:04 AM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Under the US Constitution, the States cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution. In other words, Free Speech is guaranteed all US Citizens and can't be revoked by the States individually.

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in