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.

 

2nd Ammendment , Right to bear arms , Legally to be Challenged

page: 5
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


He won't change his tune... We have seen articles about the fact that gun grabbers have had to use their own guns to defend themselves yet they keep trying to take the right of all OTHER Americans to own and bear arms...

These people have a plan to disarm Americans... and they don't want to stop this plan...

Obama lied when he claimed he would never go after our Second Amendment right.... Since the beginning of his administration they have been trying to make excuses to infringe upon this right.

This man should not even be allowed to teach.... his twisting of the truth about the Second Amendment right is appaling, and alarming to say the least..... But of course Democrats/Progressives/Socialists etc will claim 'it is the civilized thing to do".... for them it is also civilized to give away our right to choose for ourselves......FORCED/MANDATORY Community Service....


We should not let them get even one finger from any of the rights as enumerated on the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights within it.




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrno1

There is The Senate and The House of Representatives you can call them houses all you want you are wrong!

No you are not stating fact because like i said before the senator and representatives of that state doesn't have to do what the "state governments" wants them to do!

Just as it comes down to the Electoral College to determine who becomes president not the people!


It's probably stupid of me to reply to this but frankly you don't know what you are talking about. The voice of the state is the state's legislature. It doesn't matter what the state senators or representatives want. Period. It's completely seperate. Even if a state's senators and representatives ALL voted against --or for-- an ammendment, a state could throw it's vote the opposite way.

I mean seriously, I'm trying to be polite, you should actually know how things work before you comment.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Whoa it feels good to post on here again, as its been quite a few years. But this time, it couldnt be helped. Recently I came across The Dick Act, which apparently/allegedly would protect our 2nd Amendment from the guva't.
Sorry if anyone else has mentioned this.
www.sodahead.com...


I guess I've been discouraged from posting, for concern of making the DHS list hahaha....
although not so funny.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by skull_bones

Originally posted by ClintK
Sigh...why do I have to educate you people every time?

A U.S. President CANNOT overturn an ammendment to the U.S. constitution. Period. It requires a 2/3rds majority of BOTH houses and that's just to start. Then it goes to the states and it reqires 3/4ths of the states. It only takes 13 states to NOT approve the ammendment and it's a no-go.

That's what happened to the Equal Rights ammentment. It passed with a 2/3rds majority of both houses but it couldn't get approval from 3/4ths of the states and there's a time limit on those things.

And it takes an ammendment to repeal an ammendment, like the 21st repealed the 18th (probibition).

When people float this nonsense --Obama is going to overturn the 2nd ammendment-- it' clear they are completely ignorant of how laws are made in their own country.

All it does is get ignorant people all upset, which frankly makes it clear it was done to serve a political agenda.


Get over yourself.

You are correct in what you say about repealling an ammendment.

However, if you would have bothered do some research and actually read Cass Sunstein's speeches and/or books, he is not advocating to repeal the 2nd ammendment he is challenging the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment as to whether or not it actually gives the "people" the right to own and bare arms.

And guess what, the intrepretation of law is done by the Supreme Court, it has nothing to do with Congress or the States.

Furthermore to make matters worse, Cass is already touted as being on Obama's short list to replace either Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now aged 75, who is likely to take retirement soon following illness, and or Justice John Paul Stevens now aged 90.

So before you start trying to educate us simpletons do some research and get your information correct first.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by skull_bones]


Evidently, you haven't done YOUR research. It's a done deal. The Supreme Court has ALREADY DECIDED that individual people DO have the right to bear arms. C'mon. Get up to date.

The only thing not yet decided is WHAT KIND of arms individual people have the right to own.

Consider yourself educated.

And dare I say, "get over yourself?"

Nah. I'm not that condescending. And it wouldn't have any effect anyway, I can tell.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by ClintK]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Actually its been kind of suprising lately that more people havent been mentioning arming themselves with bows, or crossbows. Silent, quick, inexpensive for the most part, and if you do your research... can sure pack a punch. Also, I think some of us can get quite creative with the design of the arrow tip, especially with what it may contain.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by skull_bones

Originally posted by ClintK
Sigh...why do I have to educate you people every time?

A U.S. President CANNOT overturn an ammendment to the U.S. constitution. Period. It requires a 2/3rds majority of BOTH houses and that's just to start. Then it goes to the states and it reqires 3/4ths of the states. It only takes 13 states to NOT approve the ammendment and it's a no-go.

That's what happened to the Equal Rights ammentment. It passed with a 2/3rds majority of both houses but it couldn't get approval from 3/4ths of the states and there's a time limit on those things.

And it takes an ammendment to repeal an ammendment, like the 21st repealed the 18th (probibition).

When people float this nonsense --Obama is going to overturn the 2nd ammendment-- it' clear they are completely ignorant of how laws are made in their own country.

All it does is get ignorant people all upset, which frankly makes it clear it was done to serve a political agenda.


Get over yourself.

You are correct in what you say about repealling an ammendment.

However, if you would have bothered do some research and actually read Cass Sunstein's speeches and/or books, he is not advocating to repeal the 2nd ammendment he is challenging the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment as to whether or not it actually gives the "people" the right to own and bare arms.

And guess what, the intrepretation of law is done by the Supreme Court, it has nothing to do with Congress or the States.

Furthermore to make matters worse, Cass is already touted as being on Obama's short list to replace either Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now aged 75, who is likely to take retirement soon following illness, and or Justice John Paul Stevens now aged 90.

So before you start trying to educate us simpletons do some research and get your information correct first.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by skull_bones]


Evidently, you haven't done YOUR research. It's a done deal. The Supreme Court has ALREADY DECIDED that individual people DO have the right to bear arms. C'mon. Get up to date.

The only thing not yet decided is WHAT KIND of arms individual people have the right to own.

Consider yourself educated.


Well atleast you admit that the Supreme court interprets the laws and your arguement about repealling the ammendment has nothing to do with this issue.

Now to educate you on how the courts work.

You seem to believe that once the Supreme Court has ruled on something then its written in stone never to be revisited again. Well thats not the way it works.


As Justices retire and new ones are appointed to the Court oppinions/decisions can and do change.

With 2 Justices set to retire within the next few years, Obama will nominate Justices that have a world view similar to his.

As stated above, Sunstien is on Obamas short list to replace one of the Justices set to retire.

Now, just because the court ruled in past in favor of the peoples rights to own and bare arms in respect to the 2nd ammendment doesnt mean the will do so in the future.

I believe it was a 5-4 vote last time around, so if Obama has the opportunity to replace 2 Justices with his nominees the decision next time around may not be in the peoples favor.





[edit on 17-1-2010 by skull_bones]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by skull_bones

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by skull_bones

Originally posted by ClintK
Sigh...why do I have to educate you people every time?

A U.S. President CANNOT overturn an ammendment to the U.S. constitution. Period. It requires a 2/3rds majority of BOTH houses and that's just to start. Then it goes to the states and it reqires 3/4ths of the states. It only takes 13 states to NOT approve the ammendment and it's a no-go.

That's what happened to the Equal Rights ammentment. It passed with a 2/3rds majority of both houses but it couldn't get approval from 3/4ths of the states and there's a time limit on those things.

And it takes an ammendment to repeal an ammendment, like the 21st repealed the 18th (probibition).

When people float this nonsense --Obama is going to overturn the 2nd ammendment-- it' clear they are completely ignorant of how laws are made in their own country.

All it does is get ignorant people all upset, which frankly makes it clear it was done to serve a political agenda.


Get over yourself.

You are correct in what you say about repealling an ammendment.

However, if you would have bothered do some research and actually read Cass Sunstein's speeches and/or books, he is not advocating to repeal the 2nd ammendment he is challenging the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment as to whether or not it actually gives the "people" the right to own and bare arms.

And guess what, the intrepretation of law is done by the Supreme Court, it has nothing to do with Congress or the States.

Furthermore to make matters worse, Cass is already touted as being on Obama's short list to replace either Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now aged 75, who is likely to take retirement soon following illness, and or Justice John Paul Stevens now aged 90.

So before you start trying to educate us simpletons do some research and get your information correct first.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by skull_bones]


Evidently, you haven't done YOUR research. It's a done deal. The Supreme Court has ALREADY DECIDED that individual people DO have the right to bear arms. C'mon. Get up to date.

The only thing not yet decided is WHAT KIND of arms individual people have the right to own.

Consider yourself educated.


Well atleast you admit that the Supreme court interprets the laws and your arguement about repealling the ammendment has nothing to do with this issue.

Now to educate you on how the courts work.


As Justices retire and new ones are appointed to the Court oppinions/decisions can and do change.

With 2 Justices set to retire within the next few years, Obama will nominate Justices that have a world view similar to his.

As stated above, Sunstien is on Obamas short list to replace one of the Justices set to retire.

Now, just because the court ruled in past in favor of the peoples rights to own and bare arms in respect to the 2nd ammendment doesnt mean the will do so in the future.

I believe it was a 5-4 vote last time around, so if Obama has the opportunity to replace 2 Justices with his nominees the decision next time around may not be in the peoples favor.

gee thanks for your "education." It was very logical for you to assume that someone very familiar with the constitutional process would have no idea how justices are appointed. That was just brilliant on your part. Never knew that. But, wow, now I have a much better understanding of how things work than I did before.

The idea that we're somehow going to get some really radical decision from the court because Obama appoints 1 (or possibly even 2) justices indicates an eagerness to subscribe to paranoia, and an ignorance of the individual writings of the current justices, all of whom have given VERY strong support to gun ownership.

If you're at all in touch with reality, you know all this nonsense simply CAN'T HAPPEN. But if you love the paranoia --and some of you definitely do-- then go ahead and believe it and go to heaven.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ClintK
 


When there is only a total of 9 Justices and Obama might have the opportunity to replace 2 of them with his nominiees that has his same socialist ideology it most certainly is a major concern which has nothing to do with with being paranoid.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by skull_bones]

[edit on 18-1-2010 by skull_bones]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by skull_bones
reply to post by ClintK
 


When there is only a total of 9 Justices and Obama might have the opportunity to replace 2 of them with his nominiees that has his same socialist ideology it most certainly is a major concern which has nothing to do with with being paranoid.



It's no more of a concern with Obama than it was with other presidents. Reagan, Clinton and Bush (Jr.) all appointed 2 justices.

Hitting the panic button because it's "Obama" who appoints next is either stupidity or partisan paranoia. I didn't like Bush's apointees, but I didn't take the position that they were going to "ruin the country" or fundamentally change traditional interpretations af the constitution because I knew they couldn't even if they wanted to.

I know paranoia is fun, I've engaged in it myself and I actually consider it useful. But under the analytical eye it often (not always) becomes ridiculous.















































































































































[edit on 18-1-2010 by ClintK]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by EliThebrave
Whoa it feels good to post on here again, as its been quite a few years. But this time, it couldnt be helped. Recently I came across The Dick Act, which apparently/allegedly would protect our 2nd Amendment from the guva't.
Sorry if anyone else has mentioned this.
www.sodahead.com...


I guess I've been discouraged from posting, for concern of making the DHS list hahaha....
although not so funny.


We had some fun on one of my threads
"UP with DICK" If you can trust the socialists to recognize it.
They're pretty limp.
BTW cross bows load way to slow.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Well, I hope your ready to start making swords. You know what I mean soldiers.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Cass is a rather interesting character. A rather suspicious looking one so far, I might add.

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal


In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.


Here here Abstract.


Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.


Although I don't worry about this kinda thing. He can challenge whatever he wants if that's what he has been doing, it's not gonna work.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I think the video was edited in a way that makes it seem as if he is making a different point than what he was actually making to those in class. That said, he may very well be out to get our guns. We all know that those in the gov't are the last people we want to be trusting with our rights (or money). Well that's not exactly true either, we all should know that, but many of us are clueless.

Something that bothers me terribly is the fact that nobody ever asks this question: Why does the American gov't have a Czar? Although the term is synonymous with King, I realize those Czar's in America have less authority than a monarch. However, I'm pretty sure that the founders of this country purposefully left that term and the position it defines out of the constitution. Their authority is appointed and directly opposes that of elected authority both in theory and practice.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
Sounds to me like there could be a challenge of the 2nd Amendment.

It's definitely a challenge. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that the 2nd Amendment does specify that the individual Citizen does have the Right to own & Bear Arms, not merely the military or Militias. Another "control freak" who sees the inherent danger of violating the Supreme Law of the Land against the People...And wants to cover his own butt. Supporting the "status quo" that advocates being a career criminal & trying to avoid accountability for those crimes is more dangerous than simply obeying the Oath of Office, after all.



Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
One of their prime goals is to rewrite the U.S. Constitution by bypassing the amendment system laid down in it.

This is perhaps one of the primary initiatives that has nearly half the States calling for a Constitutional Convention...This is a convention with the goal of re-writing the Constitution. I would suggest people contact their State governments & oppose the convention altogether...We don't need a new constitution because it's getting hard to make them obey the one we have now! The only enforcement mechanism the Constitution really has is We the People & they must be made to obey it, as per the Oath of Office.



Originally posted by phattyphatmatt
I'm sure most of you have heard "I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."- Isoroku Yamamoto.

Hey, I've used that quote before in several posts...He was a Japanese General during WW2 who was asked about the possibility of invading the US & that was his answer. I forgot the source of that quote, so thanks for finding it for me.



Originally posted by ventian
They will soon try and remove powers of the congress then they will pass laws that further destroy the Bill of Rights.

Congress already has lost of lot of its Powers, some even voluntarily! The Federal Reserve has taken the Power to "coin" our money & determine its value, Congress refuses to use the Power to punish counterfeiters. The Executive Branch consistently starts wars even without Congress to declare such. They raise money to support Armies, but with no consideration to the 2-year time limit. Post Offices are not truly government anymore, having been turned into a Federal "Commerce." They've given up the lawful use of Militias to the President. Seems to me that the overall goal of the Executive Branch is to render Congress meaningless.
Hmmm...Where have I heard of something similar?...
"The last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away."
"Impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?"
"The regional governors now have direct control."
After all, the government wants to set up another (expensive for taxpayers) layer of 10 regional governors between the People & themselves...I think that once such a new layer is set up, they'll just disband Congress altogether. So much for "job security."



Originally posted by Signals
Someone should perform a Citizen's Arrest on Czar Sunstein immediately, he is a traitor.

Well, according to the Constitution's definition of Treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

But then again, weren't Waco, Kent State & Ruby Ridge but a mere few examples where the government has already attacked Citizens? It seems to me that these were some "test runs" for the government, to see if they could BS their way out of accountability for such blatant attacks. Sad to say, it worked at the time, but I doubt they can get away with it for much longer.


Originally posted by Kieithsage
No guns is one step closer to martial law..

because we wont have anything to fight back with.

This much is true...There are numerous examples in history. Countries that actually succeed in disarming the population have initiated mass slaughter. Giving up the Natural Right to defend yourself is just begging to have the government shoot you. That's right...The 2nd Amendment is not what grants us that Right, it merely points it out as a Natural Right that the government has zero authority to mess with.


Originally posted by ClintK
When people float this nonsense --Obama is going to overturn the 2nd ammendment-- it' clear they are completely ignorant of how laws are made in their own country.

True, Obama has no legal authority to overturn an Amendment & neither does the Judiciary or Congress...But look at how well the past few administrations in government have actually obeyed the laws so far...

As for Congress, take a look at all of the gun regulations they've "passed," & then you should start to wonder; exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" do they have trouble understanding?



Originally posted by itsawild1
they can try--but they will find out different, so dont worry all they can do is impose a tax.

Even though the Supreme Court has ruled against the taxation, licensing, or any other kind of fee-structure on any Rights? Yes, when that ruling came out, the SCOTUS knew that the lawful exercise of a Right could never be subjected to regulation or taxation of any kind, because they knew that if it could be done, then all or our Rights could simply be taxed into oblivion by making our Rights too expensive to keep. But look what has already been done against pretty much all of our Rights at this point.


Originally posted by Realtruth
American people can be led and controlled very easily, by means of financial slavery or media manipulation.

Well, I already addressed "financial slavery" just above, but the problem with MSM is that they've allowed (by just "going along" with it) the government to falsely lead us into a Democracy, when it's in violation of their Oath of Office to do so...America is a Republic under Common Law & cannot be a democracy, even with an overwhelming public mandate! In short, the Constitution doesn't allow us to forfeit our Rights for any reason. The Constitution doesn't give any part of the government any leeway to mess with our Rights, even if we choose to waive them vountarily! So any time you hear any government pundit talking about "upholding our democracy" or "the spread of democracy worldwide," they're already acting in Breech of Oath & committing a felony crime by doing so!


Originally posted by mrno1
The entire population of that state can vote against something, and the sen. and rep. can vote yes!

Ah, but you seem to forget that the States have the power to nullify US government infringement within State boundaries...And many are doing so, right now, on various issues. Best place to start is right in your home State...As the US government has been trying to effect tyrannical rule from the "top-down," We the People can counter it from the "bottom-up." But we also must not forget that all political power originates from the People; We the People ordained & established the Constitution, delegating specific limited powers through the US government, but then (with the 10th Amendment) granted Powers to the States & then came full circle back to the People! The Feds have been ignoring their limits & the ultimate source of their delegated powers all this time, but I feel that a serious "wake up call" is coming.


Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
Don't kill the 2nd ammendment. Modify it. Nobody is going to bitch and moan if you take firearms away from the gangbangers except maybe the gangbangers and they don't vote anyway.

The 2nd Amendment needs no modification; The Law itself has the means to remove guns from those who abuse their Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that no lawful exercise of Rights can be converted into a crime. However, this also means that exercising a Right in an unlawful manner constitutes a lawful revocation of Rights...In essence, with each Right comes the inherent responsibility to not violate the Equal Rights of others. As long as you do not violate someone else's Equal Rights under Law, the government has absolutely no lawful authority to mess around with your Rights.

---------Concluded Below---------------



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
------Concluded From Above---------


Originally posted by skull_bones
And guess what, the intrepretation of law is done by the Supreme Court, it has nothing to do with Congress or the States.

And even the power of Interpretation is a stolen power...Where in the Constitution say that any Branch, Agency or Tribunal has been granted the Power of Interpretation? NOWHERE! The Executive Branch must execute the laws, the Legislative must make laws & the Judicial must arbitrate the laws, but none of them were granted the power of Interpretation.

Of course, the Power of Interpretation can be used as a major tool in the "checks & balances" system, but that is not a power granted to use against the People! For example, if the Judiciary rules against the Constitution, the Executive can refuse to enforce it & the Legislative can pass legislation to counter it. If the Legislative passes something Unconstitutional, the Executive can refuse to enforce it or the Judiciary can rule against it. If the Executive enforces something Unconstitutional, the Judiciary can rule against it or the Legislative can begin Impeachment proceedings. But guess what each Branch of the government has been working at eliminating?...The checks & balances!

In truth under Law, a jury in court has the power of Law Nullification, as it's the jury's duty to judge both fact & law in all cases. The court & the judge have no interpretation power, but are restricted to arbitrating the law according to the case at hand. The judge cannot make a judgment...The jury makes the judgment. Why else do you think the rest of the government tries so hard to keep as many cases as possible out of court?


Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Also, these "powers that be" as they implement these hair brained ideas and scams upon us, who among them will, or whom will they assign to enforce these edicts?

This is the key point that TPTB have always overlooked, down throughout the history of human civilization...They have no power at all unless people support them! If they have no "voluntary helpers" to enforce laws, then their ability to make laws crumbles. With no money to pay for any of their oppressive edicts, then the whole structure falls around them. The government has become a ravening beast that can only continue to exist as long as people keep feeding them support & money...Without food, the beast starves to death.

Right now, the population is being taxed so hard that there's nearly nothing left to feed the beast's growth, but it still keeps terrorizing people into giving more. The bigger the government grows, the more it will take control. Stop feeding the beast & it will die, but there's still far too many people who don't really understand this basic Law of Nature, having been swayed to the "party line" for so long. The key is in educating people so that they can understand & make a decision if this is a beast they want to endure looming over their shoulders.

reply to post by Dometheus
 

Here's somebody who's got it right! Jurisdiction is the key & the government has been illegally extending the jurisdiction of the legislated statutes beyond its limits. The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution & the Common Law...Nothing else can be legally enforced on American Citizens, because Federal Laws stop at State borders! People need to understand that every law passed by Congress has legal limits on jurisdiction; the new Health Care Reform, for example, can only be enforced on United States citizens. The difference lies only in those people who live/work on Federal Territories & Possessions! This also includes such Federal properties that the States have ceded to the Federal Government, such as Post Offices, buildings where Federal Agencies have offices, military bases & Washington D.C. itself. By the 16th Amendment, this also includes Immigrated/Naturalized citizens, but natural-born Citizens are outside of Federal Jurisdiction! But if you look at D.C.'s gun control laws (the most strict in the nation) & then notice the statistics concerning murder, what does that say about the relationship between gun control & a rise in crime statistics? The you look at the Municipal Codes like Kenesaw, GA & check their crime statistics (check back through several years of crime stats), they show a gradual decrease in violent crimes the longer that the 2nd Amendment hold precedence. The actual statistics over time show that the more people who are allowed to own & bear Arms, the more that crime actually drops!

Yes, there are two classes of citizens & there is a specific difference between them...The difference in the legal definitions are designated by whether or not the word "citizens" are capitalized or not. A capital "C" designates a natural-born Citizen, whereas the lower-case "c" designates a Federal Citizen. There's much more described over in this thread but it's a long read & it's not practical to go into further detail here.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
We should not let them get even one finger from any of the rights as enumerated on the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights within it.

Don't stop defending Rights at the Bill of Rights...They were derived directly from the Common Law (in legal terminology, it's referred to as "Natural Law" & "Natural Extension of Law") & the 9th Amendment doesn't let the listing of our Rights end with the Bill of Rights.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
This is my take on the situation. They might make this a law, but it would never work. At least not in my neck of the woods. You see, they would need the military to come in a remove said guns, because most civilian authorties would never enforce this. Now, knowing they would need more military, I wonder where they would get it? Not from the American people"I hope not!" There is just no way they can get all the guns. Not IMHO.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
This is the same guy advocating 'cognitive infiltration' of conspiracy groups. My god, what purpose is he trying to serve? It's as if he had some moral agenda to take away peoples' freedoms.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Don't these idiots learn from other countries?

Here in the UK, it was always difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun of any kind, there were many rules on storage and criminal background checks and gun crime was low.

They then decided to make it totally illegal to own a gun (other than farmers who are allowed shotguns). Gun crime is now at an all time high with kids and adults alike getting shot every week from inner-city gang rivalries. They say there are now more guns on the streets of the major cities, such as London and Birmingham, than there was when guns were legal!

You have to wonder about the mentality of these people...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClintK


It's probably stupid of me to reply to this but frankly you don't know what you are talking about. The voice of the state is the state's legislature. It doesn't matter what the state senators or representatives want. Period. It's completely seperate. Even if a state's senators and representatives ALL voted against --or for-- an ammendment, a state could throw it's vote the opposite way.

I mean seriously, I'm trying to be polite, you should actually know how things work before you comment.


State legislators can do whatever they want it still has to go through congress!

If your statement has any validity...Then why were MMJ dispensaries getting raided in California, even though state law says its legal, federal law overtakes state law! And the raids kept happening until a, federal, law says that they couldn't raid the dispensaries!

So let me get this straight they will Bust in a 70 year old man's ,who has cancer, house and take him to jail but they wont take your guns away even if the state says they can't? You know what...Forget it, your right!

[edit on 18-1-2010 by mrno1]



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join