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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:25 AM

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?

The states already have control. I know this because I live in Chicago; this stinking socialist state already prohibits handgun ownership and places all sorts of silly restrictions on my rifle as well (no adjustable stock, no heat-shielding handguard, no bayonet lug, etc). The Sotomayor appointment is simply a favor...a favor that ultimately benefits Mayor Dick Daley of Chicago (perhaps he'll be able to more easily weasel out of the NRA lawsuit currently affecting Chicago and Oak Park, a suburb just West of Chicago).

Time to move to Montana!

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Don't most people (not me) want MORE state control and less federal control?

I think most of us want LESS control. Period.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:41 AM
The role of the Supreme Court is to apply the law based on the the spirit and intent of the Constitution. Where the problem occurs is when we human beings decide we want the law to mean something other than what it was intended to mean because we don't like it the way it is. I think they call it "interpretation". The US Constitution, last I read it, was written in english and the founding fathers wrote much concerning its meaning and intent. It should be of concern to all Americans that the various "interpretations" are overt and deliberate attempts ito distort the meaning of the law to fit an individual's ideology or world view because they don't like it the way it is.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:41 AM
Considering the second amendment is based on militia defense systems, the way in which colonists banded against the British in the 1700's, the second amendment has lost some meaning in translation as militias are no longer prevalent legitimized entities endorsed by the state. The question is where this nominee stands, does she want them taken away or just who can own them because in all honesty i support some gun restrictions... mostly those involving criminals or mentally unstable people owning guns. Everyone else, have at it. As far as owning a gun, growing paranoia about people's wishes to take guns away seems to be unfounded—at least for the time being. People dont want to take them away because they only care about gun-based violence when some little kid accidentally shoots and/or kills another by accident or some minority gang starts to wage war on another. Otherwise, owning a gun is a symbol of a craft, sorta like owning a watch, a watch made for killing

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"

And that folks should scare the bejeezus out of all of us U.S citizens because who can honestly say that they don't fear the Government?

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:07 AM
What is it with all these "high ranking" posters. They seem to be the only ones talking against our freedom.

1. All people are capable of violence.
2. The government has guns and much, much, more.
3. The government doesn't have the ability to protect a home from unauthorized intrusion as quickly and effectively as a Colt .45 does and it can't defend as well as an M4.
4. In Switzerland the government mandates that all militia citizens carry assault weapons. Crime rate is much lower there than most of the United States.
5. The power should be with the people, and as an infamous Chinese dictator once said,"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Hitler said,"One person with a gun can control 100 people who do not."
6. If everyone had guns the playing field would be fair.
7. Just before crazy gun control laws are enacted there always happen to be excuses like school shootings to tighten gun control. If someone on campus who was a friend of the students had guns or a gun he/she would have ended the calamity much sooner than any other person heading towards the scene.

**I would trust ME to protect ME before anybody else,** and that reason is the ultimate reason why I will hold a gun legally or illegally if it comes to that.

Only after we all have guns, can we feel truly safe in a world where guns are going to exist even if they were outlawed.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:14 AM

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.

So, if it were up to you, innocent people who are attacked will be forced to risk injury by having to battle it out with knives and rocks?

I guess this is the feeling of other liberals and anti-gun folks as well. I sure don't want any of them deciding how I am to live or die.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:31 AM
First, don't get me wrong--I DO NOT want a gun control advocate on the Supreme Court.

But isn't it Constitutionally correct that states have the powers to enact
their own laws? I would certainly think that the few states that have
declared sovereignty would have the right to enact laws any way they choose.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:38 AM
I don't see what the problem is. The Constitution is a Federal document. It was never intended to replace state constitutions. It says that Congress can't infringe upon a person's right to bear arms and that's different from a state attempting to do so.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I don't see what the problem is. The Constitution is a Federal document. It was never intended to replace state constitutions. It says that Congress can't infringe upon a person's right to bear arms and that's different from a state attempting to do so.

If all 50 states were to enact gun bans tomorrow, then what good is the 2nd amendment under your assumption?

How could anyone challenge a gun ban in the U.S. Supreme Court if states actually are allowed to ban guns afterall?

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by Jessicamsa

The RKBA is specifically protected in quite a few state constitutions even though some states have enacted some pretty obscene laws to the contrary.

CT, for example, one of the Brady's poster childs, has it in the states constitution that the RKBA is absolute though you'd never know it given the way they treat gun-owners.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:06 AM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by MemoryShock

And to feel so passionate about one aspect of self defense without consideration of others is a weakness I percieve...

Not saying you, GEN...I'm just saying...

Consideration of criminals? is that what you are concerned about?...

i guess according to you then people in general should not try to defend themselves because of the ideals of people like you about self defense...

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Why would you assume I was concerned about criminals?

Take a look at the context of what wrote..."others" as in other means to defend oneself. In a century or two it won't matter how many guns you have considering some of the tech already available to the military and law enforcement...

And careful with that assumption about "people like you"...and as well regarding my thoughts on the need for people to defend themselves. You went straight partisan on me and as such have demonstrated a lack of comprehension regarding the intent and motivations of my posts. We aren't necessarily in for the fact that I don't think that a fully automatic weapon with a flamethrower is necessary for hunting or self defense...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on Fri, 29 May 2009 10:20:36 -0500 by MemoryShock]

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Can we please have a small test for all elected officials and appointed positions in this country that you must be able to read and comprehend the US Constitution before being considered for the job?

Great idea!

I thought they required lawschool students to learn about the US Constitution. That must just be an elective class now.


posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:10 AM

Figuratively and literally, justice wears a blindfold. It cannot be a respecter of persons. Everyone must stand equally before the law, black or white, rich or poor, advantaged or not.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by MemoryShock

The Second Amendment isn't just for you to protect your home, it's also to fight against an abusive government. You should actually try to understand the Constitution before making ignorant comments like these.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by guidanceofthe third kind

Of course the militia is still government authorized it's just that they now go by the terms National Guard and State/Territorial Guard/Defense Force. Here in New York we have the New York State Guard and the New York State Naval Militia both fully combat capable and independent from the National Guard.

WE THE PEOPLE are the militia ... all able bodied citizens of these United States.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by ChrisF231]

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:08 AM
The ruling was based on Supreme Court precedent set in Presser v. Illinois, which ruled that the second amendment only applied to the national government, and not to the states.

It's the job of courts to follow precedents that come before, especially those that come from the US Supreme Court. But by all means, continue frothing at the mouth.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:08 AM

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The Second Amendment isn't just for you to protect your home, it's also to fight against an abusive government. You should actually try to understand the Constitution before making ignorant comments like these.


Deal. I'll try to understand the Constitution and avoid making ignorant comments if you go back through my posts and determine where I wasn't citing the potential for an abusive government and the advocation of other avenues for defense against such (psychological effects are pretty real).

Pen, Sword and all of that...

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:23 AM
this is for the guns are bad, people are violent, no one need to own guns people:
this will be simple.

guns have been around for hundreds of years.
they will never go away.
someone, be it gov, or mil will carry guns. if you dont how can you fight.
to me guns make fighting equal. an old lady can stop a 25 year old meth addicted rapist, where as if she had to cross swords with him i dont think she would fair to well.
a barrel, some gun powder and a projectile, thats all it takes to make one. ban them and their production and someone will make a cast to produce them overnight.
so there is no getting rid of guns. ok.
also we have the right to carry them no matter what any judge says. i dont care how old the document is, or out of date it is. if we followed it more today we would be in alot better shape.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Blarney63

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.

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.

I see what you are saying now. I was mostly referring to those who were arguing that "restriction" means "infringement." Those people are implying there should be NO restrictions at all. As you have pointed out, there should be restrictions on ALL of our Constitutional rights, such as your example when shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

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 guess it depends on where you live, and how readily available different types of guns are (supply and demand works, even with the black market.) Now, out in CA, there are many ganglands there, particularly in LA, so guns are naturally going to be a lot more readily available. However, in my hometown that is 100 miles from the next city of it's size, in the middle of the PA Wilds and farmlands, one cannot exactly walk out their down, down the street, and expect to be able to buy a gun, and if you were, that gun would probably be more expensive than you could in getting one at a retail price. Somebody had to have been payed pretty decent bucks to drive it form God-knows-where, so the price would rise.

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.

Duly noted. I was never this politically aware since before I joined this site. This point makes me realize the flaw in NOT paying strict attention to our leaders

There are two ways to amend any Constitutional amendment: (and a new amendment MUST be passed, in order to do away with another amendment, like the ban on alcohol in the 30s was done away by I think the 22nd if I remember correctly. Anyway, 3/4s of state legislaturehave to pass it, with 2/3 majority in each. The second approach has never been used (unless you count the first govenerment of the US, back in 1774 to 1780), and that is by having 3/4 of the states call for a Constitutional Convention, and an amendment gets passed iwth 2/3 votes there.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in