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.

 

California passing lots of anti-second amendment bills!

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Hate to burst your bubble but none of those violate the constitution. The second amendment is open to alot of interpretation as to what types of arms a person may have or how they may carry them. Your only right is to "bear arms" and the founders left the rest up to future congress's to debate.


Well if you feel free to "interpret" than I can too.

When thesecond amendment was written: the flintlock blackpowder muzzle loading rifle or smoothbore musket was a commonly issued military arm, and the "assault rifle of its day". The founders wrote "the second" purely from the standpoint of a citizenry throwing off a future oppressive tyranny.
It doesn't have a "darn" thing to do with "sporting purposes"or hunting. I don't believe these brave men still bloodied from the field of the revolutionary war; would expect their descendants to throw off those inevitable future oppressors with one hand tied behind their backs by legislating substantially inferior weapons only.and even then owned at the will of the state.
it clearly defeats the purpose of the second amendment..

I hate to:" burst your bubble": but I don't see the constitution as "up for debate" by anybody.Itis the law. Written so we would maintain our gift of freedom.

edit on 4-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


How 'bout you check this law from 1902 www.knowthelies.com.../3949 it's called the Dick act you'll find it listed on the right side of the page click and read.


edit on 6/4/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/4/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I find it interesting to watch this sort of state.
It is the biggest drag on our economy and they have the b@lls to try and restrict more freedoms we were granted by our Constitution?

I would like to see all Federal funding stopped to this state,since they want to keep pushing their progressive agenda.Our Federal tax dollars should not be supporting this state. We have been for years disguised under government BS programs. They areb broke and we should not be bailing them out!



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Originally posted by kro32
Hate to burst your bubble but none of those violate the constitution. The second amendment is open to alot of interpretation as to what types of arms a person may have or how they may carry them. Your only right is to "bear arms" and the founders left the rest up to future congress's to debate.


BS

My blood is boiling and the bubbles are bursting every passing minute.

The US Constitution doesn't read "bear some arms"
It doesn't read "bear sanctioned or approved arms"
It doesn't read "bear legal arms"
It doesn't read "bear only non-armor piercing arms"
It doesn't read "bear only rainbow colored arms with numbered ammo"
and it certainly doesn't read "bear arms unless you live in California"

IT READS:

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Fricken period.

That includes ANY AND ALL arms.

Fricken period.

If the second amendment wasn't clear enough, there was the ninth:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Do you expect a well regulated militia to be armed with rainbow colored bb guns loaded with registered and serial numbered bb's?

Sri Oracle
edit on 4-6-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)


I'm sure you'd like to lace your front lawn with anti-personel mines and carry a rocket launcher to work but be a little bit realistic.

Some arms people shouldn't have and if you'll notice in that amendment you bring up, nowhere does it say that people will have the right to bear "all and any" arms.

It was left open for it to be dealt with as the need arises. The founders were very good about wording language to be just specific enough while leaving room for future congress's to adapt to the issues of their day.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
the orginal intent of the second ammendment was to have the people armed as well as its government

the fact of the matter is today the government could wipe us all out without much effort.

mutually assured destruction if you will.
edit on 4-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Dude, I sure as a heck hope it wouldn't ever actually come down to that. I would at least hope that many parts of your military would side with the people and drive the rogue government into the ocean, especially the Marine Corps. The best thing militia groups can pratice and teach are time tested guerilla tactics if such an event ever took place.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I'm so sorry if you live in California.I guess you are to be the key landing point for an invasion, as are many gun fearing coastal cities.
However there seems to be a growl coming from us in the South West.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


i am not so sure about that.

our government tells us that a bunch a "bad dudes" living in a cave are our enemies.

the police tell us "some nut" with a bunch of guns or drugs need to be taken down with a swat teamed armed with full auto weapons and apcs.

you would think they would side with you or me but take a good look at any news source of :"terrorists" or "malcontents"

and it gives you great reason to take pause and reflect and ponder when will they come after me?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I hang my head in shame, knowing that you and others like you are out there.

The right to 'bear arms' is just that. There was no restrictions set forth and the constitution is not set as what the citizen can do, but what the limit the Govt can do.
Just because you and others like you have a misguided idea that you can restrict US citizens, does not mean you are correct.


edit on 5-6-2011 by macman because: Stupid Grammar. Thanks 46Ace



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Somebody should go back to take Jeffersons musket from him and tell him he can have it hack when he fills out the proper paperwork, pays the appropriate fees and exhibits competency in front of a recognized instructor.

Just to see what he'd say.

Shall not be infringed my ass.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
reply to post by neo96
 


Dude, I sure as a heck hope it wouldn't ever actually come down to that. I would at least hope that many parts of your military would side with the people and drive the rogue government into the ocean, especially the Marine Corps. The best thing militia groups can pratice and teach are time tested guerilla tactics if such an event ever took place.


"Dude": Nobody hopes it will come to that and if we are well armed they will think twice or more.If they treat us like untrustworthy problem children instead of adults and citizens; They are responsible for the inevitable backlash.
I believe it should be the cvic duty of every citizen to own at the least one bolt action center fire rifle and minimally 4-5 boxes of cartridges.Those sheer #'s and minimal tools would be enough to put the odds in favor of the people remaining free. No you can't really effectively fight off apache helicopters; but you're correct there are tactics and strategies apropriate for all situations.

added: And there are simply no guarantees ;Sometimes your buddy dies. Sometimes you die.
edit on 5-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by kro32
 


I hang my head in shame, knowing that you and others like you are out there.

The right to 'bare arms' is just that. There was no restrictions set forth and the constitution is not set as what the citizen can do, but what the limit the Govt can do.
Just because you and others like you have a misguided idea that you can restrict US citizens, does not mean you are correct.

Bro' "bear" (i.e. carry) arms"bare" is (to show) I Respect your posts otherwise.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Yep, little sleep, early start will do that.

Thanks



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I want to purchase HK P30L but I can't in California. It's a 9mm pistol but just because of some ridiculous law about it's megazine holding more than 14 or 15 bullets, it's illegal. This bull#'s gotta stop.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
stupid is as stupid does and california is the epitomy of that statement

ban guns and make your only means of defense a 9-11 call and the people coming to the rescue are the "rodney king beaters"

only in california.

i just thank god i dont live in california.


I concur with your statement. After living in California for 50 years, the only sane conclusion to draw was to move out of the state. I now live 2000 mile away, where gun rights are honored, and there are more trees than people.

The view of the lake doesn't make me miss the view of the Pacific Ocean.

I should have done this long ago.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I missed the part where they passed law saying you could not bear arms



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


and the founding fathers could never have imagined tactical nukes, f-22's or drones armed with hellfire missiles. Even with fully automatic machine guns with armor piercing rounds, you're toast if the US military has you in it's sights. which is also true in many, many countries around the world of course.

so if that's the case, lets make the streets a wee bit safer since the only way to stand up to a modern military is through facebook



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Can we just get rid of california? I mean just cut it loose and let it float out to sea. Too bad it is not that simple. We would be better off with california. Trace all bad stuff back and see how much of it started in california. The gangs, the drugs and so on all started in california. What is it about california that makes it to this to rest of the country? Now if we could just get Bugs Bunny to take care of california




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


I agree.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by 46ACE
 


and the founding fathers could never have imagined tactical nukes, f-22's or drones armed with hellfire missiles. Even with fully automatic machine guns with armor piercing rounds, you're toast if the US military has you in it's sights. which is also true in many, many countries around the world of course.

so if that's the case, lets make the streets a wee bit safer since the only way to stand up to a modern military is through facebook


Heard that sorry,"weak kneed" rationalization a thousand times before.

BUT, The Founders didn't deal in technology!!

They legislated over the prime military weapons of the day; However; by today standards those are slow to load; heavy and inaccurate. It doesn't change the intent of the law.

The " Guess you'd want an Apache attack chopper in every carport" argument is an extremist position of desperation.Of course it is not necessary.

Sorry the principles are valid. individual weapons are tactical decisons:Tactics can be debated and adapted but just because I can't fight off an apache helicopter doesn't invalidate the entire thinking behind the second amendment.The idea is: "NOT to have to EVER "go to guns" in the first place.

I'm more than a little bit cranky; older; slower; less fit; and don't shoot what I own near enough.The last thing I want is to fight( anybody).
"safer streets"? Move. I don't know where you live but my biggest threat comes from the "district of coruption".
edit on 5-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join