Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Right to Bear Arms.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TurtleSmacker
 


See, if you were to take that up with the supreme court, you could probably get them to appeal and rephrase whats going on. I mean, dont hunt with a pistol. Thats dangerous. Good point. But off premise.
its not uncostitutional! Just dangerous.

And i dunno. Its info, its happening while they are taking away guns. In the movie red dawn, wasnt that the case?




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


No? Just read that. Give it a good read. Just that part.


TextThe Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1] In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]


Thus the Heller case Amendment to constitution, says that we are no longer using militia. I mean, for real. Do i need to wipe your nose too? Lawl. Thirdly, learn your stuff. Its not uncostitutional. Maybe 200 years ago, but not today.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Mythfury
Aha! My logic is stated right there. They are limiting our guns, not taking away our right to bear arms...


We should clarify here. The Second Amendment explicitly states that the "right... to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed". This means, in the strictest sense, any laws or regulations made by the Federal Government pertaining to the limitation of the arms (read: guns) is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.


The heller amendment makes militia outdated.


What amendment would that be?! Heller was an opinion; not an amendment.


Leave america. Which is pretty much impossible. xD


Are you drunk? Because this sounds like my Friday night banter here on ATS that I am prone to do.

ETA-- refers to the mention it is impossible to leave: You can leave. Go. No one is going to stop you unless you owe some massive child support. I have never had a problem obtaining a passport nor a visa. So.....it isn't impossible.

ETA == To continue your recent reply:


And how the 2nd amendment has been amended, and how gun control isnt unconstitutional if they are regulating the guns of an ever ready to fight society.


I wasn't aware that the Second Amendment was amended. Care to point to the Amendment that amends it?! Seriously...is this how other posters see me when I am on a binge? Obtuse?
edit on 27-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)


Yeah, the "xD" indicates a joke was made and im smiling cause im not gonna be a prick like you. If you would take some time to clear your head, amd really read over this thread, you would see.

Okay, an amendment has to go through the supreme court. I.e. a case. The Supreme court case of DOC vs Heller. Thus, the heller amendment. For the constitution to be amended, it has to be a viable case.

You cut off my sentence trying to make yourself look good. I would if I had the money. Which, i dont. So sorry, your stuck with me brocacho.
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
Thus the Heller case Amendment to constitution, says that we are no longer using militia. I mean, for real. Do i need to wipe your nose too? Lawl. Thirdly, learn your stuff. Its not uncostitutional. Maybe 200 years ago, but not today.


You have no concept on how American civics work do you? Or what or where judicial review was derived from? An opinion by the Supreme Court does not amend the Constitution; rather it interprets the meaning. In the context of America today, the term militia is not as it was in the 1780s when the Constitution was ratified.

The opinion however did recognize that the Amendment itself did not limit the right to "keep and bear arms" solely to militias, but rather also to the People.

For context, we should understand that the originally, James Madison saw no need to include an enumeration of Rights and also had a fear of doing so (his fear being realized in the modern version of the United States) would give an opening for such interpretation that we see today.

Given that the Constitution is not directed towards the People or the States, but rather establishes the framework of the Federal Government, it could easily be determined that since no such authority is given to the Federal Government to limit or infringe upon a citizens' ability to own firearms, such authority is unconstitutional.

You want to continue whelp? I am having fun.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
Okay, an amendment has to go through the supreme court. I.e. a case. The Supreme court case of DOC vs Heller. Thus, the heller amendment. For the constitution to be amended, it has to be a viable case.


What?! You are wholly ignorant (I gave the benefit of the doubt earlier; not now) on our Federal System and the Constitution. Amendments (to clarify, the amendment process) are not beholden to the Supreme Court. They have no say at all. Brush up on Article V of the Constitution and when you find the authority of the Judiciary in it, let me know, because it isn't there.
edit on 27-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


To digress from my own various points for a moment, I must agree with your enumeration on the various legalities in regards to the federal government restricting the second amendment, they really have no authority on the issue at all, even though they've seized the power without regard to the law of the land.

I don't care if anyone believes they should limit or restrict the right, to suggest such is to suggest augmenting the federal government with power to which they have no right at all. Is it not up to the states to decide?

The GCA of 1968 was illegitimate in and of itself, perhaps more so than the current gun control bills in circulation.
edit on 27-1-2013 by TurtleSmacker because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2013 by TurtleSmacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Haha. Right. Um. You defied the logic of yourself within the same post. From the top!

Its not unconstitutional because
1. They changed militia to people and officially revised the amendment to say that they can limit our guns with the Second AMENDING case. Are you reading this thread?
2. They arent taking our guns away. And righht to bear arms isnt limited to guns.
3. Thirdly, learn your stuff.

I mean, by calling me a whelp, i can see you have no idea whatsoever of perception, and you made me perceive that youre ignorant. I am now denying you. Dont get mad when i dont reply TO YOU again. Not my fault english baffles you.

Btw, yes i do understand the paralegal department, not civics, lawl.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TurtleSmacker
 


Now that, yes. State should override federal. Never said they were right to do what they are doing. Just by definitions of their country, its not unconstitutional. So people should really stop their rantings about unconstitutionality when its perfectly legal. Just restricting to our freedoms.
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TurtleSmacker
 


As such was clearly expressed by Madison in his letter to Jefferson.


My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration.



... if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are ever likely to be by an assumed power. ...


And speaking from the grave to what we are faced with today....

In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.


With all of that, Madison had the foresight to include probably the two most and oft ignored Amendments; the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th, stating that rights held by the People are so numerous that they could never be enumerated and the 10th of course, ceding power to the States and the People, that which has not been give authority to the Federal Government.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Other amendments have been amended too. Are you reading the current version of those? or going back 200 years to letters of our forefathers. Heres a reality check, man. Its not their country, anymore. In fact, its the peoples country now. So do what you gotta to fight back with letters of our forefathers. But in reality, you have the country you want, your just letting other people have their way with it.

Im aware not all supreme court cases get passed to amend amendments. But seriously? You call me ignorant. You called paralegal, civics. Civil suits, not civics, are household disputes. Wow. I dont know where to start besides, google will even sow you your wrong if you look up, up to date stuff, not 200 year old things



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Other amendments have been amended too. Are you reading the current version of those? or going back 200 years to letters of our forefathers. Heres a reality check, man. Its not their country, anymore. In fact, its the peoples country now. So do what you gotta to fight back with letters of our forefathers. But in reality, you have the country you want, your just letting other people have their way with it.

Im aware not all supreme court cases get passed to amend amendments. But seriously? You call me ignorant. You called paralegal, civics. Civil suits, not civics, are household disputes. Wow. I dont know where to start besides, google will even sow you your wrong if you look up, up to date stuff, not 200 year old things



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by TurtleSmacker
 


Now that, yes. State should override federal. Never said they were right to do what they are doing. Just by definitions of their country, its not unconstitutional. So people should really stop their rantings about unconstitutionality when its perfectly legal. Just restricting to our freedoms.
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)


That's one of the major problems though, the federal government has been preempting state laws with their own regulations for decades now regardless of state and local law. They've been doing it with marijuana as well. I assume they'll do the same with any new laws they pass. Now that is unconstitutional.

An example would be the NICS background checks, the feds enforce them in all states, yet I assure you the people of Arizona would not enforce such a law if the choice was left up to them.
edit on 27-1-2013 by TurtleSmacker because: Clarification



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
1. They changed militia to people and officially revised the amendment to say that they can limit our guns with the Second AMENDING case. Are you reading this thread?


The People is included in the Second Amendment. Maybe you need an unabridged copy to refer to. States have the Right to keep militia and the People themselves the Right to keep and bear arms. What is so hard to understand?


2. They arent taking our guns away. And righht to bear arms isnt limited to guns.

I never said that either of those were occurring. However, you excluded the "keep" from the above. This is important in the debate. Put it simply, if they say "We aren't banning guns, but we are keeping them from the average citizen" then your logic is correct; except it is wholly unconstitutional.


3. Thirdly, learn your stuff.

I mean, by calling me a whelp, i can see you have no idea whatsoever of perception, and you made me perceive that youre ignorant. I am now denying you. Dont get mad when i dont reply TO YOU again. Not my fault english baffles you.


Ha! Okay. I am not mad. It takes a lot for me to be mad and by the looks of my screen, with red lines under nearly all that you wrote, it would seem English is what baffles you. You want to play this game? I never attacked you and calling you a whelp means you are a pup; obviously green when it comes to understanding not only the Constitution, but also the meaning and intent behind it. Read the Federalist, Anti-Federalist, and the letters from the time of ratification. Until then, you are simply a troll with no intelligence to this subject to me.

Btw, yes i do understand the paralegal department, not civics, lawl.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TurtleSmacker
 


Now, texas state leg is trying to pass medical marijuana. It was on fox. Unfortunately, but its not a lie, because its there. Washington and colorado have legal weed. Even though federally, its illegal. Federal government wants to be in control of two different wavelengths. We shouldnt even have two governments. Just a fair one.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Yeah, im on an iPad, i dont want to hit the symbol button for the apostrophe. Yeah, again! Living in 200 year ago land! Dueces bro.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Other amendments have been amended too. Are you reading the current version of those? or going back 200 years to letters of our forefathers. Heres a reality check, man. Its not their country, anymore. In fact, its the peoples country now. So do what you gotta to fight back with letters of our forefathers. But in reality, you have the country you want, your just letting other people have their way with it.


Maybe we have a comprehension problem then. What Amendments have been amended? I know the 18th Amendment was amended by the 21st, but outside of that, the other amendments changed original clauses within the original Constitution.

ETA: Then don't try to knock my English. Glass house and all....I will fire back and point out flaws when they are pointed out towards me.
Again, Supreme Court opinion is that; opinion. It is based on precedent and the writing of the past 220+ years(so knock those all you want).

I will agree with you that Supreme Court opinion holds weight that it gives the impression that an Amendment has been amended, but it isn't. Amending such would change the wording. As it is, at most, the Supreme Court can only interpret what is written and established within the Constitution. All those opinions will point back to reasoning as to how they arrived at them. They didn't change the wording or amend the Constitution.

Im aware not all supreme court cases get passed to amend amendments. But seriously? You call me ignorant. You called paralegal, civics. Civil suits, not civics, are household disputes. Wow. I dont know where to start besides, google will even sow you your wrong if you look up, up to date stuff, not 200 year old things
edit on 27-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


It is restricting to our freedoms. Buuuuut mot unconstitutional. Sorry..



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by LetsGoViking
 


A well regulated militia. You think people having whatever gun suits them is well regulated? I'm sorry, but i disagree. We have three main military branches, with national guard and the reserves not included. Want a big gun, run with the big boys. Its not being infringed, but its being regulated due to technological and societal advances.


The problem here is that you think well regulated means something that it doesn't. Well regulated refers to the militia being able and ready to be called into action.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


An amendment is a change. I.e. my bandage got amended to a better one. Every single one has been reworded by feds. So they can control us. But its legal, and constitutional due to age of documents invalid terminology, and an ever changing, growing society.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by angrysniper
 

But we have 5 militaries. We dont need a militia. Join the militia of the national guard and own your own assault rifle, until then citizens are limited to the federal government. The federal government agents dont carry automatics. They have a pistol, pepper spray, and a baton. We now have the same freedoms as them as the people so desired. Hence, well- regulated.
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join