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: 7
52
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


From your original post on this issue, I am curious as to your definition of ".....shall not be infringed"

First, your judgement of others ability to own a firearm does not constitute point of fact, only an opinion that is open to argument.

Second, I would agree that criminals shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, but since they are criminals, I am sure this is would be one of many laws likely ignored that therefore define "a Criminal." Beyond that, substantiated and documented psychological problems, beyond your opinion, and certain minimum age requirements, there should be no restrictions whatsoever.




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Understand the MASONIC intrusion on our country. The Elite use the Masons to do thier dirty work locally. And by nominating an incompetent "judge" like this is typical.

BUT..........a gun is property and you have the NATURAL BORN RIGHT to OWN proeprty and the government, State or Federal, can in NO WAY restrict that right to own property.

Article 6 of the Constitution, read it!!! Obama has tried to use it to actaully subvert the Constitution by trying to make Treaties with Mexico and Canada. That would make those Treaties the Supreme Law of the Land and therefore give the Federal Government the ability to take away firearms.

People REALLY need to wake up and UNDERSTAND how the Common Law actually works. Does anyone know about the "yellow fringe" on the American flag? It is a Military designation and it is unconstitutional to fly it in any court, city council chambers or any other non-military establishment. It subverts the Constitution and violates your sovereign rights. It is the "Kings Law" flag.

Please, please educate yourself, research and investigate ALL that is going on. Do not be distracted by bullcrap happenings. Forget the news media, call your local stations and ream them about lying!!!!

We must all be vigilant now and MAKE things happen FOR freedom. Not just sit on websites discussing things. I am constantly in court fighting for our right to travel without licensure and tag restrictions. Many people are. Help out, do your part, lets stop this crap from continuing to happen.

english.pravda.ru...




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
First off, let me say that I love my guns. I love shooting as a hobby and I love hunting for sport. It's relaxing and therapeutic for me in general.

Having said that, I see no reason the second amendment shouldn't be restricted to ban fully automatic assault rifles - also, explosives that are not applicable in the hobby and sporting aspects of such.

As far as protection of body and home, there are plenty of arms available to the individual collector for such. If you can't protect yourself with automatic handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic assault rifles - then nothing you do is going to protect you from what ever is threatening your life.

Guns in general will never be banned outright in America. It's a feat that is unattainable in the real world, not matter how good they make it sound on paper. They can pass as many bills as they want banning guns, but good luck when you knock on a door and tell the owner of the home that you're there to take their arms. I feel sorry for the schmuck that gets that job order.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Gun ownership is a right...period. If you are worried about the potential violence that can be created with guns, then don't provoke people who have them into using them. Lock up all criminals, disarm all governments at every level, remove the claws from all Grizzley Bears, remove all aggressive dogs from homes across the world, and most importantly, stop trying to provoke law abiding citizens into using them to keep the right to have them.

Since none of the above are apparently going to occur anytime soon, why push the issue of gun control on the average individual?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I made a comment on the article at CNSNEWS.com that was critical of Obama. So far, they have refused to publish it. I guess we know which way they lean over there now don't we? So much for freedom of speech. I guess they are not big fans of ANY parts of the Constitution.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jsmappy
 


Perhaps that's a sign that the time for talk and discussion is over.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
``A man with a gun controls a 100 men`

This is a quote from a dictator and Tyrant.

Look it up!

I would recommend for the sheeple to wake up and smell the flowers and realize that guns are necessary for protection.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Apparently the statistics about gun possession are not the motivating factor here. From what I can see, California and Texas run similar stats on crime, yet they are at opposite ends of the position on gun possession. Have a look for yourself: www.infoplease.com... Ironically, California has a much higher murder rate per capita.

So, if it isn't about crime, what is the real issue?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbarber
Gun ownership is a right...period. If you are worried about the potential violence that can be created with guns, then don't provoke people who have them into using them. Lock up all criminals, disarm all governments at every level, remove the claws from all Grizzley Bears, remove all aggressive dogs from homes across the world, and most importantly, stop trying to provoke law abiding citizens into using them to keep the right to have them.

Since none of the above are apparently going to occur anytime soon, why push the issue of gun control on the average individual?


Enitrely correct and astute, yet extremely funny in my opinion!!!


We the sheeple must wake up and become the people. The people that our forefathers would be happy with, not proud of but happy enough with. We CAN get this done. I encourage all of you to join thsoe patriot sites that are fighting this very thing on a daily basis in Washington.

It is only through support of these patriot organizations that real action will occur in returning OUR country to what it was originally intended to be, free of greedy whore mongers like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers!!!

Call your representatives today and ream them for being ignorant of their Constitutional oath. I do it daily and weekly. Congress...1-800-828-0498



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Of course it isn't. Anybody can tell you that gun laws do NOTHING to stop gun crime, because gun crimes are commited by criminals. And was we all know, criminals are defined as people who break the laws.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbarber
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.


Seriously, you guys have no grasp of what the Constitution actually means.

The FEDERAL Constitution and the Bill of Rights DO NOT not pertain to the STATES, except for Article I Section 10 and the 10th Amendment. A few of the additional Amendments pertain to the states (like the 11th, 17th, etc..)

When the Constitution was drafted, each and every State in the union had their own Bill of Rights (or something similar), as well as their own Constitution. In these documents, they had these rights secured..where the # do you think they got the idea for the FEDERAL Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights are the rights the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT cannot trample on.




THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES OF THE UNION, EXCEPT FOR WHERE IT SAYS SO (Article I, Section 10...10th Amendment). IT IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO ABIDE BY!

THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS CREATED TO TELL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHAT IT COULD NOT DO! IT DOES NOT TELL THE STATES WHAT THEY CANNOT DO! THE INDIVIDUAL STATE CONSTITUTIONS TELL THE STATES WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO!!!!!


Understand yet?
-----------




Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution.

- The State of Texas cannot completely take away your right to keep and bear arms unless the Texas Constitution is amended, but they can make laws to regulate them.




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.


- The Federal Government cannot take away your right to keep and bear arms, or regulate them at all, unless the Federal Constitution is amended.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Double Eights]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Double Eights]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Without historical data, stats are meaningless as it doesn't show whether trends are developing in one direction or the other. You might want to look at D.C. during the ban on guns and compare with a future time now that the ban was overturned.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JessicamsaIf 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?


If all the Constitutions of the 50 States have amended their Constitutions to take away their respected 2nd Amendment clauses, then there isn't anything the courts can do.

The Second Amendment makes sure the Federal Government can't take away your right to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with the individual States doing such. But, in order for a State to take away your right to keep and bear arms, the law must abide by the state Constitution....read your individual State constitution/Bill of Rights.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Double Eights]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbarber
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.


False, again.




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


The Bill of Rights pertains to the Federal Government only! I would think the first word of the first amendment would be indicator enough.

States have every right to limit your freedom of speech, if their Constitutions don't state otherwise.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I really dislike this racist judicial nominee, and I hope she doesn't get confirmed, but that's not likley. It's obvious where she stands on gun rights, but I don't think she's a threat to them on the whole, not yet anyway...states have always had the right to regulate guns as they see fit. Makes me glad to live in AZ, I can walk down the street with an AK over my shoulder if I wish...



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
Having said that, I see no reason the second amendment shouldn't be restricted to ban fully automatic assault rifles - also, explosives that are not applicable in the hobby and sporting aspects of such.

Guns in general will never be banned outright in America. It's a feat that is unattainable in the real world, not matter how good they make it sound on paper. They can pass as many bills as they want banning guns, but good luck when you knock on a door and tell the owner of the home that you're there to take their arms. I feel sorry for the schmuck that gets that job order.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by tyranny22]


Most libs and MSM don't know the difference between "fully automatic assault rifles" and semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 that is not an assault weapon. Similarly, watch the news talk about any hunting rifle and it is immediately a "high powered sniper rifle."
Guns won't be banned, they will just tax them into oblivion, and make you jump through so many expensive and restriction hoops to purchase one, or purchase ammo, that eventually many will just give up on guns.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

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...


I agree with you about this. I don't understand why so many people interpret the second amendment to mean unfettered access to every type of firearm ever made. (Well, I actually do have some theories but I don't feel the need to insult anybody by voicing them today... )



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:11 PM
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?


The rights of the States are those that are not listed in the Constitution but also not prohibited by it.

The States rights issues that everyone has a problem with aren't the first 10 Amendments, Because the State and Federal Governments only job as far as those are concerned is to protect those rights, nothing more, nothing less.

The Federal governments powers are CLEARLY listed in the Constitution, if it's not on that list then simply put, they don't have the power to do it.

Those powers not listed in the constitution are left to the States.

And the problem doesn't fall fully on the Federal Government either, It falls on the States, The States accept what are nothing short of bribes "aka Federal Funding", from the Federal government so the states will follow the Feds lead...

Get your states to kick the IRS and Feds out, Keep your hard earned money within your state and you wont need Federal Funding, because your money never left your state..



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:11 PM
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?


Look, since you obviously know little about the Constitution, ill spell it out for you (even though you could just google it)


The Constitution restricts the POWERS OF GOVERNMENT from doing CERTAIN THINGS

States nor the Feds have the POWER to infringe upon any rules set forth in the Constitution, therefore they cannot make a rule that supersedes it

Please read the entire thing closely and dont just skim over it.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well, I am now officially ashame of this woman that actually is a Puertorican like me that have not respect for the Constitution of this nation that happens to be the one we have back home in PR.

This woman with those "opinions" should never be considered into a position of the supreme court.

Time to start your e-mails to congress to stop her appointment to supreme court.

She is nothing but another piece of trash.


I applaud you for your integrity to speak out against someone of your own heritage.

That being said, I would like to express my personal beliefs on race, religion, and gender.

These "groups" are only a means of division in this country because we allow the government to effectively control us with the related media and government propaganda. I have news for everyone in this country, especially those whom support a politician because they are the same heritage as themselves. It only matters to the peons like us. If you take note, the elites do not care if their counterparts are black, Mexican, German, female, gay, straight, catholic, protestant, or (place any divisive nomenclature here). They see the world in two groups only, the haves and the have nots. That is it. The only reason we as peons place so much importance on this is because that is what we are taught to do and we are good little students of the propaganda machine.

Who do you think the typical black, Mexican, Puertorican, Italian or anyone else has more in common with? Another person of the same color, gender, or nationality in politics, or the common man on the street? This is all done to keep the population divided because even if the people of this country don't understand Aesop's famous quote (United we stand, Divided we fall), the government certainly does and they will do whatever they can to ensure divisions always exist in the country.

As far as this woman's nomination, I applaud it. Not because I agree with it, because quite the contrary is true; but because I know it will bring about revolution much faster once the first such ruling is made by the SCOTUS. So don't fret over something that is in all actuality a bright spot for our future as a free people. This is just one more piece of the puzzle that must be put in place before we can see the picture.

Let's face it, we are not doing as well at educating the public as we would like to. The majority still live in fantasy land. Now it would seem that the government themselves is going to give us some help. I welcome the help. no matter from which source it comes. They are now working on our team, albeit, they do not understand it yet.

Everything they do that moves people from their side to our side is a good thing for us. Eventually, they will have given us the majority by their own hand. This just makes our job easier and the time for change shorter. They now are beginning to show us their arrogance as well as their ignorance. Like my father used to always say, "Give a man enough rope, and he will hang himself."

[edit on 5/29/2009 by DarrylGalasso]



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join