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 Hopechest
The term arms is considered to be directly related to firearms by the Supreme Court based on many of the writings from the people that put the second amendment together as well as the language of the time. As you stated however, it is not an unlimited right and can be regulated by Congress.
The Heller case did apply to States because it overturned the long standing ban on handguns in the District of Columbia and even though its a federal enclave the precedent applies to all States. This is why no state will try to outright ban guns again because they know the first court it goes to will strike it down based on the Heller case.
Prior to the Heller case it was assumed, and rightly so, that the second only applied to the federal government but the Courts decision expanded the right to states no matter how you decide to interpret it.
Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country...
Originally posted by DAVID64
reply to post by TheFlash
Guns are staying. Get over it.
Obviously the entire purpose of this thread is to take a shot [ no pun intended ] at gun owners and those who stand for the 2nd Amendment. Why it hasn't been s**t canned as political trolling, I don't know.
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by DAVID64
reply to post by TheFlash
Guns are staying. Get over it.
Obviously the entire purpose of this thread is to take a shot [ no pun intended ] at gun owners and those who stand for the 2nd Amendment. Why it hasn't been s**t canned as political trolling, I don't know.
You are mistaken. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA and related gun laws. Thank you for illustrating how people misconstrue reality in accordance with their own desires.
Originally posted by spock51
All references arguing the inapplicability of the Heller decision are from the Washington Post.
it leaves unresolved the incorporation issue-whether the Second Amendment applies to the states or only to the federal government. That basic question was not presented or resolved in Heller because at issue in Heller was a D.C. law, and the District of Columbia is a federal enclave.
Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Another group who seeks to become our superiors are academicians and legal pukes. They are a VERY small group that is a thorn in our sides when they go all political.
Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. Alternatively, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly, and perhaps more accurately, used description for this phenomenon. In public discourse, anti-intellectuals usually perceive and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk — populists against political elitism and academic elitism — proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. Because "anti-intellectual" can be pejorative, defining specific cases of anti-intellectualism can be troublesome; one can object to specific facets of intellectualism or the application thereof without being dismissive of intellectual pursuits in general. Moreover, allegations of anti-intellectualism can constitute an appeal to authority or an appeal to ridicule that attempts to discredit an opponent rather than specifically addressing his or her arguments.[1] Anti-intellectualism is a common facet of totalitarian dictatorships to oppress political dissent. The Nazi party's populist rhetoric featured anti-intellectualism as a common motif, including Adolf Hitler's political polemic, Mein Kampf. Perhaps its most extreme political form was during the 1970s in Cambodia under the rule of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, when people were killed for being academics or even for merely wearing eyeglasses (as it suggested literacy) in the Killing Fields.
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country...
Popular opinion does NOT run the country. A perfect example is the issue of background checks for gun licenses. Over 90% of people want it [RFERENCE], yet the politicians in Washington vote against it because they are paid off by lobbyists.
Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country...
Popular opinion does NOT run the country. A perfect example is the issue of background checks for gun licenses. Over 90% of people want it [RFERENCE], yet the politicians in Washington vote against it because they are paid off by lobbyists.
You are arguing with leftist propaganda sites which BLATANTLY distort facts. That 90% figure is rediculous, it was created in polling that gave people the impression that you could just walk into a gun show and buy whatever, and by giving the illusion that 40% of purchases are done without background checks. Both of these are lies, but in order to know this you would have to get off of your agenda fed, propaganda painted pedestal who's composition is emotional garbage and fear.
How about this, instead of just sitting at your computer whining about your fears and trying to impose your ideas on others (which the second amendment crowd does not do, they just want to be left alone) how about you show us how easy it is to purchase guns the way that it is being portrayed by the media and the socialists... Show us how easy it is to order a gun online and have it shipped to your house... Find someone who doesn't know you to go make a straw purchase... Go to a gun show and just mention an under the table deal and see where it gets you...
Or are you just as scared to do those things because of the possible consequences as you are of other people and life in general?
I always love this argument.
Unless I am mistaken, assault-type, semi-automatic weapons were 'not in common use at the time' that the Amendment was written.
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country...
Popular opinion does NOT run the country. A perfect example is the issue of background checks for gun licenses. Over 90% of people want it [RFERENCE], yet the politicians in Washington vote against it because they are paid off by lobbyists.
You are arguing with leftist propaganda sites which BLATANTLY distort facts. That 90% figure is rediculous, it was created in polling that gave people the impression that you could just walk into a gun show and buy whatever, and by giving the illusion that 40% of purchases are done without background checks. Both of these are lies, but in order to know this you would have to get off of your agenda fed, propaganda painted pedestal who's composition is emotional garbage and fear.
How about this, instead of just sitting at your computer whining about your fears and trying to impose your ideas on others (which the second amendment crowd does not do, they just want to be left alone) how about you show us how easy it is to purchase guns the way that it is being portrayed by the media and the socialists... Show us how easy it is to order a gun online and have it shipped to your house... Find someone who doesn't know you to go make a straw purchase... Go to a gun show and just mention an under the table deal and see where it gets you...
Or are you just as scared to do those things because of the possible consequences as you are of other people and life in general?
See the facts in my last post. Then let's see if you are man enough to admit that you are wrong. I doubt it.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by TheFlash
I always love this argument.
Unless I am mistaken, assault-type, semi-automatic weapons were 'not in common use at the time' that the Amendment was written.
You know what else wasnt in common use back then? twitter, facebook, television, mass media, mass communication....guess its time to start redefining free speech, too?