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.

 

Adam (vs the Man) Kokesh organizing an armed civil disobedience march on D.C.

page: 13
56
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus
see, man, this isn't a PERCEPTION problem.....it's an ACCEPTANCE OF REALITY problem.....

it is not my OPINION that state, or municipal gun restrictions are illegal...it is FACT....NO state, county, city, town, municipality, etc may violate the constitution and bill of rights...it is the one universal set of rules EVERYONE MUST FOLLOW.

the supreme court has ruled that any law that violates the constitution is not legal, and is therefore unenforceable...i'm not making this up...


Apparently, the gun laws are not considered to violate the Constitution and, hence, are legal and enforceable. Just as free speech has limitations, so does the right to bear arms.
Interestingly, this is derived from British law, as I remember. Now, the criminals in Britain have the upper hand. Somewhere along the line, Parliament lost its way.


Lack of public outcry is what can be thanked for that...

there is such little public outcry, not because people agree with it, but because they submit to presumed, and assumed authority, and are ignorant of the law...so while they may not agree with it, they keep their head down, and say nothing about it, because really.....you don't question the government..they're the government, man...

silence is taken as consent, and we arrive where we are now.

FACT: the constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

FACT: all states, and all counties, cities, towns etc within the several states are subject the the supreme law.

FACT: the constitution states that only those laws made in accordance with the constitution shall be considered supreme law, alongside the constitution.

FACT: the supreme court has ruled that any law that contradicts or violates the constitution, is a, unenforceable non-law.

FACT: the 2nd amendment to the constitution states in part "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

FACT: permits are infringement, bans are infringement, limitation on style, caliber, type, etc are infringement.

FACT: infringement constitutes a violation of the provisions of the second amendment.

FACT: violation of the provisions of the 2nd amendment makes the offending law invalid.


honestly, where is the fault in the logic?




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 

The sad, but true fault in the logic is at step 1:

FACT: the constitution is still the supreme law of the land.


Rewrite it to read: The Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is still the supreme law of the land.

Now you can see the problem.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Daedalus
 

The sad, but true fault in the logic is at step 1:

FACT: the constitution is still the supreme law of the land.


Rewrite it to read: The Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is still the supreme law of the land.

Now you can see the problem.


I don't see a problem. That looks perfectly reasonable to me. If you don't like the fact that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, who do you think should be doing it instead?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Hand wave hand wave.

Your constitution, whether you like it or not, is not immutable. It was written a long time ago by people whose circumstances were very different. It is regularly reinterpreted and recodified and to suggest that its attitude to arms is set in stone is fallacious. You may dislike the notion of limiting gun ownership, but the argument that "some people said its the law" is the definition of an invalid point.


more of this "living breathing document" "open to interpretation, based on personal beliefs" horse-scat?

sorry, not buying it....the law is the law..

it is our nation's founding document, it's not just "some people said so"


and being dismissive is just so improper.....show a touch of class, would you?




It's not inconvenient at all. And that isn't the point I made. Cars are very dangerous, but we accept this because they have a high utility. Without them most of Western society would grind to a halt. If all guns disappeared Western society would continue. Some would argue it might be improved.

The point is that when weighing an object's legality we naturally factor in its usefulness. That's why even the strictest of libertarians rarely think private citizens should be allowed to own, say, biological weapons. There's just no upside in it.


it's not factoring utility to determine legality...that's just stupid...it's exercising common sense. there are of plenty of things that lack genuine utility, yet they are perfectly legal..that's NOT how it works...

of course everyone shouldn't have bioweapons...again, common sense...

if guns disappeared altogether, it would be complete anarchy....the criminals would run amok..there would be a lot more violence...it's a fallacious argument, and the national crime stats prove it.

guns have a high utility as well, but the difference between cars and guns is that cars kill MORE people than guns, and nobody seems to want to address, or even acknowledge that....

cars also cannot serve as a means to preserve personal liberty and the supremacy of we the people...guns can..you can't have tyranny if your citizens are armed, and opposed to it.




This is why other people in the world think Americans - certain strains of them anyway - are a bit odd. Why do so many of you assume you have this natural right, but not the right to drink unpasteurised milk, or abort a foetus, or smoke weed, or gamble?

Perhaps you're right that I would understand if I came from the US. But given that a majority of US citizens support increased gun control I think it's safe to say that it's not just my nationality that makes me see it differently.


certain people are f**king insane....i'm all about personal responsibility, and personal liberty...so long as your exercise of such does not infringe upon my rights, or ability to exercise such...

if people wanna own a gun, drink raw milk, smoke herb, gamble, have sex with prostitutes, grow vegetables, get an abortion, eat a raw steak...whatever man...you're responsible for your own actions, and you take whatever consequences come with your actions...it's all good, man...

and that "majority of U.S. citizens support increased gun control" crap is just that...crap...

it's another fallacious argument, based on limited, biased, manipulated poll results....it's just not factual..




That's a novel approach. Don't answer questions because you don't like them. Fair enough, but as you attempt to rebuff tightening gun laws I wouldn't be surprised if that approach doesn't continue to cut it.



it's not a matter of not liking them...it's a matter of them being crap arguments....seriously....we should probably just agree to disagree...i KNOW i am correct, because i KNOW what my constitution says...you're not from here, you don't get it, and nothing i can say will MAKE you get it.....and that's not necessarily a BAD thing....i mean, you don't live here, this is not your country, why should you give a toss about our rights, and our laws? it's ultimately of no consequence to you, so why should it matter to you?

i'm not saying you're dumb, or bad, or anything like that...you're just different. you come from a different place than i do, it's two different mindsets..you were raised to believe certain things to be true, and so was i....it's just how it is...



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Daedalus
 

The sad, but true fault in the logic is at step 1:

FACT: the constitution is still the supreme law of the land.


Rewrite it to read: The Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is still the supreme law of the land.

Now you can see the problem.


the fault is that it is not the job of the supreme court to INTERPRET the constitution.....it is the duty of the supreme court to UPHOLD, and ENFORCE the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN...not as they wished it was written, or as they can twist an interpretation of how it is written
edit on 31-5-2013 by Daedalus because: winning



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I'm hearing that Kokesh is about to announce a new, revised July 4th protest campaign: he will get over 5 million Americans to link hands to make a 4,125-mile human chain that stretches from New York City to Long Beach; he's calling it Hands Across America.

His vision is for the chain to stay together for 15 minutes, long enough for participants to sing “We Are the World,” “America the Beautiful” and "MMMBop".

Kokesh feels that there is no better way to convince the governors of all 50 states to immediately initiate the process of an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property than forming a human chain across America and signing songs.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Daedalus
 

The sad, but true fault in the logic is at step 1:

FACT: the constitution is still the supreme law of the land.


Rewrite it to read: The Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is still the supreme law of the land.

Now you can see the problem.


I don't see a problem. That looks perfectly reasonable to me. If you don't like the fact that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, who do you think should be doing it instead?


given that it's written in plain english, so long as you can read, and are not retarded (and are, therefore, capable of conprehension), there is no NEED for interpretation. interpretation is just another word for "it means this because i said so"...the power to interpret the law gives far too much power to those doing the interpreting....because all you need is an agenda, and the authority to change the meaning of a word or two, and you can make something mean something it was never intended to..

i can read, i can comprehend...i don't need it to be interpreted.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 

Dear Sankari,

There might be some confusion here, sorry if I created it.

I thought Daedelus was making the argument that any gun restriction was unconstitutional. It seemed he was saying that the Constitution, alone, is the law of the land. From there it seemed that he put a literal interpretation on the words of the Constitution to reach his, I believe flawed, conclusion.

I was attempting to say that he had to consider the Constitution to mean what the Court interpreted it to mean.

I agree with you that it needs to be interpreted and the Supreme Court is the place to do it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NickDC202
I'm hearing that Kokesh is about to announce a new, revised July 4th protest campaign: he will get over 5 million Americans to link hands to make a 4,125-mile human chain that stretches from New York City to Long Beach; he's calling it Hands Across America.

His vision is for the chain to stay together for 15 minutes, long enough for participants to sing “We Are the World,” “America the Beautiful” and "MMMBop".

Kokesh feels that there is no better way to convince the governors of all 50 states to immediately initiate the process of an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property than forming a human chain across America and signing songs.


that is quite possibly one of the stupidest ideas i have ever heard...please tell me you're joking..



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Sankari
 

Dear Sankari,

There might be some confusion here, sorry if I created it.

I thought Daedelus was making the argument that any gun restriction was unconstitutional. It seemed he was saying that the Constitution, alone, is the law of the land. From there it seemed that he put a literal interpretation on the words of the Constitution to reach his, I believe flawed, conclusion.

I was attempting to say that he had to consider the Constitution to mean what the Court interpreted it to mean.

I agree with you that it needs to be interpreted and the Supreme Court is the place to do it.

With respect,
Charles1952


chuck, that's idiotic...

if the law can be so fluid, and open to interpretation, and changed on a whim....then explain to me, exactly, what is the point of even HAVING any of it? why even pretend to be a republic? why pretend states exist, and that mayors, governors, senators, congressmen, reps, etc still matter? why pretend the congress or senate matter? why pretend that this system of our means a damn anymore, if the law can just be reinterpreted, and twisted to fit agendas?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by NickDC202
I'm hearing that Kokesh is about to announce a new, revised July 4th protest campaign: he will get over 5 million Americans to link hands to make a 4,125-mile human chain that stretches from New York City to Long Beach; he's calling it Hands Across America.

His vision is for the chain to stay together for 15 minutes, long enough for participants to sing “We Are the World,” “America the Beautiful” and "MMMBop".

Kokesh feels that there is no better way to convince the governors of all 50 states to immediately initiate the process of an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property than forming a human chain across America and signing songs.


that is quite possibly one of the stupidest ideas i have ever heard...please tell me you're joking..


If we're not going to sing "Kumbayaa", then i ain't doin' it.

I'll be too busy anyway, drinking beer, grilling meat, shooting my guns and shooting off illegal fireworks.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bg_socalif
If we're not going to sing "Kumbayaa", then i ain't doin' it.


Apparently "Kumbayaa" was deemed too religious and didn't make the cut...



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 

The Founders were very careful about the second amendment. John Adams wrote "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
This means that arms could only be used for self-defense and militia duty and not for mob action of any sort.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 

Dear Daedalus,

Sorry for not responding sooner. I'm also sorry that you saw my idea as idiotic. I try to be half-way reasonable, but yes, I probably do slip into idiocy from time to time. Anyway, to your question.


if the law can be so fluid, and open to interpretation, and changed on a whim....then explain to me, exactly, what is the point of even HAVING any of it?
You're right. IF the law is fluid and changed on a whim, then we are close to tyranny.

But is that actually the case? To get the Supreme Court to decide on a case is an extremely difficult proposition. May I simply say that if some one says "I'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court," they are fooling themselves? Court challenges at the lower levels are costly, take time, and are subject to appeal. Laws aren't struck down all that often.

As to why any are struck down at all, I think history helps us. Marbury v. Madison may be the first case that any law student gets. In that case the Supreme Court said, "Yes, we do have the right to declare laws unconstitutional, and therefore null and void."

As circumstances change, some laws are forced to change. The Court will be hearing gay marriage arguments. That was something that was never dreamed as an option by the people who wrote the Constitution. They could never foresee the possibility the question would come up, so they never specifically wrote "one man, one woman" into it. Now we have to deal with it.

Questions like "What rights do felons lose when they're convicted" are still an issue. And if the Court doesn't play with the Constitution, the people do. We've got what, 16, 17 Amendments past the original 10? And at the time of writing the Constitution, some Founders thought even those were unnecessary because it was obvious that the federal government had no power to violate any of them. Times change.

My thought, though you haven't asked for it, is that there is far too much power in the hands of the feds, and far too little in the hands of the States.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
So what happened to this? Did they all find themselves in fema camps before the march? Or is there a gag order on the media?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So what happened to this? Did they all find themselves in fema camps before the march? Or is there a gag order on the media?


www.infowars.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
So the "armed civil disobedience march on D.C" was one man hiding in a corner......
edit on 5-7-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So what happened to this? Did they all find themselves in fema camps before the march? Or is there a gag order on the media?


www.infowars.com...


Wtf
That's it? That's the "armed march on dc"? That's the armed revolution? That's like the biggest anti-climax of the decade.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 




The reason your allowed to express your opinion here on ATS or in this country in general is because people shot other people with guns so you would have the right to do so.


That is a rather simplistic view of the world, I grant it that it may have been a general outcome but you should also realize that some people do not all have the right to speak and not all speak at the same level whatever conflict you may think you are referring too...

Sadly the only bottom line is that those that won the conflict got to have their way and in general some freedoms happened only as a byproduct and often even by chance since they quickly stop being propagandized as the points of discord...



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


communities.washingtontimes.com...
www.outdoorlife.com...

Kokesh called it off a few weeks ago and told people to, instead, march on the state capitals and according to the news, reaffirmed it was called off by Kokesh. Dude shot himself in the foot and the media helped him aim. Reminds me of the little boy who calls wolf in a weird way.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join