Right to Bear Arms.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Why is my last paragraph your last paragraph also? Hmmm.




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
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.

The Heller opinion is NOT an amendment. The Supreme Court reviews legislation and issues opinions as to constitutionality of proposed laws. They have NO authority to amend the Constitution. There are only 2 ways any part of the Constitution can be amended. One is through a protracted process known as a Constitutional Convention (more properly called an Article V Convention). This must be called for by an established plurality of State Legislatures (the exact number escapes me at present) and ALL changes must be ratified by three quarters of the States. (As of this writing, this has yet to be called for.) The second method is by a 2/3 vote in BOTH the Senate and House and since those turkeys can't agree on anything short of their own pay raises, this is not likely.
Neither has been done regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Exactly what does the passage of time have to do with truth?
Technology changes, governments change, and the structure of societies change, but people do not.
And it IS unconstitutional 200 years ago and now.
My "stuff" has been learned in combat, in law enforcement, in University studying History and Psychology and through 7 generations of service to America by my family.
No one will "rationalize" away my right to keep and bear arms by proclaiming the 2nd Amendment to be anachronistic and out dated.
Freedom has no expiration date.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by spock51
 


Okay. Amendment means change, google the amendments and i promise youll be suprised. Im aware of everything you just stated. And agree that restrictions arent right in the land of the free, but perfectly legal.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by angrysniper
 

The federal government agents dont carry automatics.


What planet do you live on? Secret Service have been carrying Uzis since the 60s until they replaced them with MP5/P90s......they most surely have automatic weapons.


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.
So SWAT? Those aren't AR-15 or variants they use? ATF? Homeland Security? Border Patrol (ICE agents)?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
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)


They don't carry automatics? Scroll down in this image, I believe this is a federal agent.

Reagan Assassination Attempt

As far as ownership of the weapon, if you even attempted to take such a weapon off base they'd throw you in a stockade.
edit on 27-1-2013 by TurtleSmacker because: Clarification



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
I hear a lot of people saying, "It's against the Second Amendment to take our guns!", "they can take them from my cold, dead hands", or my favorite "that's unconstitutional!"

First off, amendments can be amended?
Secondly, they arent taking away our guns. They are regulating the militia, which ver batum:

The 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]
.

And thirdly, learn your stuff, they arent taking them away!

But I do see how they are slowly controlling EVERYTHING we do, say, or see, or even teach. George Orwell's "1984", anyone? And with www.abovetopsecret.com...
I see a Red Dawn scenario.


The United States Bullion Depository Fort Knox, Kentucky. Amount of present gold holdings: 147.3 million ounces. The only gold removed has been very small ...
(in 1940's it was at 700 million ounces)

Total gold value is $243,887,700,237.98.

You think china is gonna buy that? We owe them so much of our national debt.


TextTo put China's ownership of U.S. debt in perspective, its holding of $1.2 trillion is even larger than the amount owned by American households. U.S ...


We wont give them 1.2 trillion dollars of our gold, which we have a total of $243 septillion of, because the usd will plummet so fast, we wont be able to grab the falling money, or accumulated wealth of America(gold). They wont even be using the usd anymore! It wont be a high enough currency to be used internationally, and they will invade and eat us for breakfast. They have the largest, most well trained military in the world.

Whats the government got planned? Here's China's modern day Samurai...

m.youtube.com...#/watch?v=ru-xQac_sWw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dru-xQac_sWw
(Im on an iPad, might not work, if not, Google "chinese army youtube")




edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: Broken youtube link
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)


First, you are right, the constitution can be amended. It requires a 2/3rd majority of states to do so and a constitutional convention to be held.

Secondly, you state that they aren't 'taking away our guns.' I refer you to the text of the 2nd amendment in where it is plainly stated that the right to keep and bear arms 'shall not be infringed.' Note that the word 'should' is not used. While the government may not be proposing outright confiscation (yet.. in NY they DID initially propose outright confiscation when writing the SAFE act), the assault weapons ban is in effect 'taking away our guns' by preventing the transfer and manufacture of commonly used weapons. It is indeed taking away the ability of future generations to keep and bear arms for their foremost intended purpose: to safeguard the people from a tyrannical government.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by angrysniper
First, you are right, the constitution can be amended. It requires a 2/3rd majority of states to do so and a constitutional convention to be held.


Actually, it requires 3/4th of the States' Legislature to approve an amendment. No Constitutional convention is needed. That is merely a route that the States can take to propose amendments.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


read the preamble to the BIll of Rights.
It describes where the rights came from.

Read it with a dictionary in your hand.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TurtleSmacker
 


Seems you guys are correct. The federal government can carry automatics. But this is what they want. A fight between people over this stuff. People arent reading the whole thread before commenting, though. So Im done. Constitutional, but not right!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
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.



Well, I'm reading the thread, and from what I see, you're getting pwned, to use the modern vernacular, just sayin'.

You seem not to understand the essential differences between high-powered automatic assault rifles, and the "assault-style" weapons that are marketed to us, the common people. This doesn't surprise me at all, thanks to the ignorance (or intentional lying) displayed by the mass media which keeps referring to these weapons as "assault rifles".

See, the "big guns" (your words) that the armed forces use, true assault weapons, are significantly different in how they operate vs. the "scary black guns" that are being demonized on TV these days.

The boring reality however, is these "assault-style" weapons operate just like their traditional looking "hunting" counterparts, and are as much true "high-powered assault rifles" as a stock Dodge Neon with an aftermarket bolt-on spoiler, low profile tires, and a fart-can muffler is a true "race car".

All I see these days is opportunistic "gun grabbing" politicians and their puppet media putting the scare into nice people who don't know better, in order to further their devious agenda, whatever that may be.

There must be something going on, because common sense seems to have been tossed right out the window these days, and the world seems to have gone to full-on crazy.

Maybe 2012 really WAS the apocalypse, it's just unfolding much slower than we anticipated!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


Haha you pwned me by showing me your vernacular, but not how this gun control stuff is not constitutional. Because it totally is. Sorry.

Even re-read it. Another one-upper. My point on the legality and my stand point on this, are done! If im so pwned, how come I started the thread and pulled the information from a simple google search. You based that on nothing, absolutely nothing but this thread.

Haha a picture of a sheeple. I like it,

Not about you, just a funny picture
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


If you wanna keep telling us that mass media is lying to us. Nice. Wanna twist my words? Nice. This was supposed to be a discussion of the legality of it. Not whether media spreads ignorance, or whatever you were attempting to say.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by spock51
 


Okay. Amendment means change, google the amendments and i promise youll be suprised. Im aware of everything you just stated. And agree that restrictions arent right in the land of the free, but perfectly legal.


Amendment, in terns of the Constitution, has a specific meaning; not what you want it to mean. While the meaning is to change or legally modify a document, it also has a specific method in which that can occur. In terms of Heller or McDonald, those do not qualify as Amendments. Neither do the Patriot Act, Civil Rights Act, or the Federal Reserve Act. Those are merely legislation, but do not modify the basic framework of the Constitution.

In theory, in a perfect world, all legislation and actions by the Federal Government fall under the the responsibilities and authority prescribed by the Constitution. Of course we do not live in a perfect world so checks were put into place to help guide the various branches to conform with Constitutionality. It isn't perfect but if allowed to work, it does its job.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


No. Amendment means what it means, and they use meaning in their legislature. Denotations not connotations. You understand them. Not the otherway around. Again, i dont agree with it, but it is what it is.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Actually, those acts, do modify the framework. Think of a house, constitutions the framework. Acts are the walls, and legislation is the paint. It stems from it. If people dont wanna learn what legislation has to say about the amendments. I say learn your stuff.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


how old of a person are you?
you do not have any comprehension
of the subject being discussed.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Why yes. Yes, I do. Been in Paralegals a while now.
Age has nothing to do with it. A kid in high school could understand this.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by spock51
 


Okay. Amendment means change, google the amendments and i promise youll be suprised. Im aware of everything you just stated. And agree that restrictions arent right in the land of the free, but perfectly legal.

Exactly what am I to be surprised about? The constitution has been amended several times by qualifying act of Congress, never by Article V Convention. At those times, Congress found concensus to do what they were lawfully empowered to do and did it. Abolishing slavery, women's suffrage, etc. NEVER a core principle of the Bill of Rights. The original 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, has NEVER been changed.
It is a matter of opinion as to the legality and constitutionality of current gun laws. Greater minds than yours or mine are wrestling with this issue and NO consensus has been reached.
The Heller opinion said that that PARTICULAR case had nothing to do with militia. It did NOT say that the 2nd Amendment was no longer about militia or that militia had no further relevance to any future Judicial Review.
The pure and unassailable fact is that the 2nd has NEVER been amended by due process of law as established by the Constitution.
The laws currently in effect have either been determined by the Court to be within boundaries of the Constitution or no Writ of Certiorari has been issued by the Court and the laws, ergo, have not been reviewed.
This issue is far from serttled.
It will not be settled here. Either in the halls of justice or the field of battle, but not here.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
"The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist No. 46

Enough said.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights




Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join