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: 8
52
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Obama has always banned gun owners from serving in his administration since day one, so this shouldn't come as such a shock.




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Well it seems to me that the American forefathers all spoke of tyrants and dictators. They did not want to see the evil take over the US as it did other countries in their time ie. Napoleon. So I believe they wrote the constitution to avoid being consumed by the one leader rules all.

Now your supreme courts and governments will slowly but surely take away rights and freedoms. The stock market took a little time to crash, it wasn't in one night. The people can't really do much about it either. It is kind of funny in a way. Back then, they had no TV or internet yet it seemed like word traveled faster then today.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


You are nuts. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Niether the US Congress nor the individual states may pass any law in violation. That's why the Constitution and each amendment must be ratified by the states prior to implementation. Rights not granted to the people by the Constitution are left to the states. You have no idea what you are talking about so I figure you must be in State Government in either California or Illinois.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

I think that the American arm of the Illuminati wanted to make sure the European arm didn't try to come over and take this land from them (I am pretty sure they were illuminati because the founding 'fathers' were, for the most part, Masons, one of the top control groups created by the illuminati).

Since they perceived themselves to be a much nicer bunch (which is why they fled europe being lower ranking and abused), they didn't worry that the people would rise up against *them*, if they left them armed. They just wanted to be able to fight off the European bunch, who they knew would be after the rich resources and such of this great country just as soon as it got it's feet under it.

Sadly, something went awry with their plans, because it seems that the NWO bunch has kinda joined those two arms together again under one plan, although my sense of things is that the 'alliance' isn't all that solid.

So now that the American arm is either too weak to keep a solid hold over things, or they have been corrupted, doesn't really matter. All that matters is that they are going to try to get our guns away from us now, because they KNOW we will fight off any attempt to blatantly take over our country, and with most of the average citizens armed, that makes an obvious attempt way too risky.

Sure they might succeed, but it will be at a huge cost to their cowardly selves. Even the Japanese during WWII knew better than to tackle America. One of their leading generals even said "If we had tried, we knew there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

So I would say, "Please-Please-Please! Don't let the NWO bunch and their lapdog, big media, spin you into thinking we don't need or shouldn't have or should allow the 'states' to decide who has guns. I mean, seriously, things are more dangerous now than ever. What kind of nut thinks they are safe these days??? Love that saying "Better to have a 9mm in hand than a policemen on the phone". Get real, people. Do you really think the NWO in power is going to be a kindly democracy??


[edit on 29-5-2009 by DragonriderGal]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I thought I would drop this in here as I am from Tennessee... and proud this has been signed on May 21 2009...

H R 1788...assigned public chapter number 288.......Link to Bill...


wapp.capitol.tn.gov...




Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, prohibits confiscations of lawfully possessed firearms and ammunition during periods of martial rule; clarifies firearm and ammunition restriction prohibitions during any state of emergency, major disaster, or natural disaster. - Amends TCA Title 58, Chapter 1, Part 1 and Title 58, Chapter 2, Part 1.


Thank you Tennessee for making me feel a little safer at least...

Now all other States need to do this if they haven't...


Sorry had to fix some spelling...

[edit on 29-5-2009 by sapphirearaidia]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbarber
You are nuts. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Niether the US Congress nor the individual states may pass any law in violation. That's why the Constitution and each amendment must be ratified by the states prior to implementation. Rights not granted to the people by the Constitution are left to the states. You have no idea what you are talking about so I figure you must be in State Government in either California or Illinois.


I am nuts?

You lack a complete and correct understanding of the Constitution. Do your research, buddy.

The Bill of Rights is a list of rights the Federal Government can't trample on. The Federal Government can't create laws which abridge your freedom of speech ("Congress shall pass no law..), the Federal Government can't disarm you, the Federal Government can't place troops in your home, the Federal Government can't unreasonably search and seize your possessions....and so on and so forth.

"The New York State Bill of Rights is a list of rights the State of New York can't trample on. The Texas Bill of Rights is the list of rights the State of Texas can't trample on. The California Bill of Rights is the list of rights the State of California can't trample on.

The Federal Bill of Rights (to the Federal Constitution) have nothing to do with States trampling on your rights. The minute your State amends its Constitution to take away your First Amendment right...it's legal. The same for the Federal Constitution.


Do your research, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Then why did the Supreme Court overturn the DC gun ban? Why did the 9th Circuit just rule that the 2nd amendment applies to the States? You are the one with no grasp of the Constitution. Just another effort to make it say what you want and ignore what is.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:00 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...


There are more people who drive irresponsible and take more lives than legal gun owners. You get a DUI and kill someone, you still can get your drivers license back. Any crime, not even gun related and you are no longer eligible to have a weapon. Should we enact similar rules that are already existing for legal gun owners and if you get in an auto accident that is your fault, have your vehicle taken?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbarberThen why did the Supreme Court overturn the DC gun ban? Why did the 9th Circuit just rule that the 2nd amendment applies to the States? You are the one with no grasp of the Constitution. Just another effort to make it say what you want and ignore what is.


Is Washington DC a State? Last I checked, it was a Federal territory, and thus the second amendment pertains to it.

The court makes unconstitutional decisions all the god damn time. You can't honestly use them as a source for telling me what truly is constitutional and what isn't.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by mrbarber
You are nuts. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Niether the US Congress nor the individual states may pass any law in violation. That's why the Constitution and each amendment must be ratified by the states prior to implementation. Rights not granted to the people by the Constitution are left to the states. You have no idea what you are talking about so I figure you must be in State Government in either California or Illinois.


I am nuts?

You lack a complete and correct understanding of the Constitution. Do your research, buddy.

The Bill of Rights is a list of rights the Federal Government can't trample on. The Federal Government can't create laws which abridge your freedom of speech ("Congress shall pass no law..), the Federal Government can't disarm you, the Federal Government can't place troops in your home, the Federal Government can't unreasonably search and seize your possessions....and so on and so forth.

"The New York State Bill of Rights is a list of rights the State of New York can't trample on. The Texas Bill of Rights is the list of rights the State of Texas can't trample on. The California Bill of Rights is the list of rights the State of California can't trample on.

The Federal Bill of Rights (to the Federal Constitution) have nothing to do with States trampling on your rights. The minute your State amends its Constitution to take away your First Amendment right...it's legal. The same for the Federal Constitution.


Do your research, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.


WTF are you talking about? The federal constitution supercedes the sate constitution. A state could NEVER take you 1st amendment rights away! A state CANNOT deny accused criminals the right to a trial by jury, as assured by the U.S. Constitution's 6th Amendment.

Exclusive Powers of the National Government

Under the Constitution, powers reserved to the national government include:


Print money (bills and coins)

Declare war

Establish an army and navy

Enter into treaties with foreign governments

Regulate commerce between states and international trade

Establish post offices and issue postage

Make laws necessary to enforce the Constitution
Exclusive Powers of State Governments

Powers reserved to state governments include:


Establish local governments

Issue licenses (driver, hunting, marriage, etc.)

Regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce

Conduct elections

Ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Provide for public health and safety

Exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S.
Constitution (For example, setting legal drinking and smoking ages.)
Powers Shared by National and State Government

Shared, or "concurrent" powers include:


Setting up courts

Creating and collecting taxes

Building highways

Borrowing money

Making and enforcing laws

Chartering banks and corporations

Spending money for the betterment of the general welfare

Taking (condemning) private property with just compensation



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


They should ban freedom of speech in your state and get you some meds through the new national healthcare program. Second thought, don't wait, get the meds now!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack
WTF are you talking about? The federal constitution supercedes the sate constitution. A state could NEVER take you 1st amendment rights away! A state CANNOT deny accused criminals the right to a trial by jury, as assured by the U.S. Constitution's 6th Amendment.


You still do not understand the difference between the Federal Constitution and individual State Constitutions.

The Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791) are rights that the Federal Government cannot infringe upon. The New York State Bill of Rights are rights that the State of New York cannot infringe upon.

New York has a First Amendment....State can't infringe
US Constitution has a First Amendment....Feds can't infringe.

The Federal Constitution limits the FEDERAL government. The FEDERAL Constitution only limits the State government as per Article I, Section 10. Reading is your friend.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by MemoryShock

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.


To restrict means to infringe upon, and the Second Amendment makes it clear there shall not be any infringement upon our second amendment right.



The guns rights movement has crossed into sillyness...at least on ATS...and I own guns.

So by your definition of "infringe" or "restrict" the developmentally disabled should be able to own guns? Children? Convicted criminals? Those folks with Psychological disorders?

For that matter...."bare arms" does that include rocket luanchers?

Sillyness.................



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Show me where NY Bill of Rights violates US Bill of Rights



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbarber
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Show me where NY Bill of Rights violates US Bill of Rights


What?

What are you asking?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
I am nuts?

You lack a complete and correct understanding of the Constitution. Do your research, buddy.

The Bill of Rights is a list of rights the Federal Government can't trample on. The Federal Government can't create laws which abridge your freedom of speech ("Congress shall pass no law..), the Federal Government can't disarm you, the Federal Government can't place troops in your home, the Federal Government can't unreasonably search and seize your possessions....and so on and so forth.

The Federal Bill of Rights (to the Federal Constitution) have nothing to do with States trampling on your rights. The minute your State amends its Constitution to take away your First Amendment right...it's legal. The same for the Federal Constitution.


Do your research, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.


The 14th Amendment Binded the States to follow the Bill of Rights, All but I think 4 of those 10 rights have been included for the States to follow, until recently the 2nd Amendment was one of those 4 rights the States "technically" didn't have to follow, The DC ruling changed this and recognized the 2nd Amendment as a right of the people, which the States had to follow, The remaining rights have not yet been observed simply because no court case regarding them has made it to the Supreme Court.

Yes free speech is a right that the States must follow, It was observed in Githlow vs. New York 268 U.S 652 (1925) which was the very first case which used the 14th Amendments due process clause as protection for fundamental rights and liberties.

After this the incorporation of the bill of rights into the 14th Amendments Due process clause.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by Bearack
WTF are you talking about? The federal constitution supercedes the sate constitution. A state could NEVER take you 1st amendment rights away! A state CANNOT deny accused criminals the right to a trial by jury, as assured by the U.S. Constitution's 6th Amendment.


You still do not understand the difference between the Federal Constitution and individual State Constitutions.

The Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791) are rights that the Federal Government cannot infringe upon. The New York State Bill of Rights are rights that the State of New York cannot infringe upon.

New York has a First Amendment....State can't infringe
US Constitution has a First Amendment....Feds can't infringe.

The Federal Constitution limits the FEDERAL government. The FEDERAL Constitution only limits the State government as per Article I, Section 10. Reading is your friend.


Honest question, so so Federal cannot infringe on the US constitition but the states can?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le

Originally posted by Double Eights
I am nuts?

You lack a complete and correct understanding of the Constitution. Do your research, buddy.

The Bill of Rights is a list of rights the Federal Government can't trample on. The Federal Government can't create laws which abridge your freedom of speech ("Congress shall pass no law..), the Federal Government can't disarm you, the Federal Government can't place troops in your home, the Federal Government can't unreasonably search and seize your possessions....and so on and so forth.

The Federal Bill of Rights (to the Federal Constitution) have nothing to do with States trampling on your rights. The minute your State amends its Constitution to take away your First Amendment right...it's legal. The same for the Federal Constitution.


Do your research, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.


The 14th Amendment Binded the States to follow the Bill of Rights, All but I think 4 of those 10 rights have been included for the States to follow, until recently the 2nd Amendment was one of those 4 rights the States "technically" didn't have to follow, The DC ruling changed this and recognized the 2nd Amendment as a right of the people, which the States had to follow, The remaining rights have not yet been observed simply because no court case regarding them has made it to the Supreme Court.

Yes free speech is a right that the States must follow, It was observed in Githlow vs. New York 268 U.S 652 (1925) which was the very first case which used the 14th Amendments due process clause as protection for fundamental rights and liberties.

After this the incorporation of the bill of rights into the 14th Amendments Due process clause.


That is a common misconception of the 14th Amendment, which has been paraded around as truth for ages. The courts believe it, the people believe it, the governments believe it.

Truth be told, the 14th Amendment created a new citizen. It gave citizenry to the newly freed African Americans who had been released from slavery. It had nothing to do with binding States to the Bill of Rights, that's a myth that is now considered truth.

More can be found on the 14th Amendment from the book: "The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights " by Raoul Berger.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


I am asking you to show me an example in the NY Constitution of something that is contrary to the Rights and/or Laws guaranteed by the US Constitution. I just read the NY Bill of Rights and see nothing that is contrary to or in conflict with the US B-o-R.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by BearackHonest question, so so Federal cannot infringe on the US constitition but the states can?


The Federal Constitution has nothing to do with the States, except for Article I, Section 10.

The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) are all secured by the States in their OWN Constitutions and Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech, bearing arms, search and seizure, et al can be found in your own Constitution and your own Bill of Rights.

The Federal Bill of Rights was created to ensure that the Federal Government didn't infringe upon your rights, because the Federal Constitution never said anything about your rights.

The Federalists didn't want a Bill of Rights, as the Federal Constitution never said the Federal Government could be involved with Speech or guns in the first place. Since the Federal Constitution says what the Federal Government can do, and since there was nothing about speech, search/seizure, guns, et al...the Federalists didn't feel a need for a Bill of Rights (If it wasn't mentioned, Feds had no power over the subject).

The Anti-Federalists wouldn't ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added, because they were weary that not mentioning the Feds couldn't be involved with rights might lead them to believe they could get involved. So, in order to appease the Anti-Federalists, a Bill of Rights was created. The Bill of Rights is redundant though, as the Constitution mentions nothing about the Federal Government getting involved with rights...and since it doesn't mention such, it should be obvious they had no power to get involved with rights in the first place. The Bill of Rights is overkill.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join