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.
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.
FACT: the constitution is still the supreme law of the land.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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..
Originally posted by bg_socalif
If we're not going to sing "Kumbayaa", then i ain't doin' it.
You're right. IF the law is fluid and changed on a whim, then we are close to tyranny.
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?
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?
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...
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.