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.

 

Texas A&M law prof: It’s time to repeal Second Amendment

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


i believe texas a and m needs to replace these looney old bat she doesn't understand what the constitution represents because she only looks at the laws but she doesn't understand the history that caused their creation. everyone says guns kill people that isn't true PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE ARE YOU GOING TO BAN PEOPLE what no why not? people have always done atrocities its in our nature as a whole if it wasn't guns it would be bombs or cars or sticks and stones . ikf you have a nut wanting to kill groups of people they will find away.




posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Bassago

That's kind of splitting hairs isn't it. While the constitution was crafted by men the rights of free speech or the right to protect yourself, etc, are natural rights and not given by men.

In drafting the constitution these men were acknowledging these rights, not granting them. Or did I read your post wrong?


Religiously orientated conservatives believe in natural rights.

Maybe these rights had to be enumerated for those that dont believe in natural rights. Atheists and agnostics believe in statutory law and thus do not accept natural, or god given rights.

America was founded as a secular country with tolerance for free speech and that includes religious beliefs as well.

It seems the drafters had to cover all the bases so to speak.

AFAIK a lot of the drafters were masons and masons tend to be very smart individuals. They are a secretive bunch but they dont often make mistakes.

edit on 17/11/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 



“Unfortunately, drastic times require drastic measures,” the professor said, according to CTNewsJunkie. “I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment.”

Penrose also noted that she tells students in her constitutional law courses that the entire United States Constitution is an obsolete document.


I think she is a regressive evil witch much like feinstein from california. I might as well not have argued any details about the second amendment if people like her are willing to show such profound disrespect for the nations constitution.

And what drastic times is she referring to?????????? Every year people get shot in liberal strongholds that have incredibly strict concealed carry permits that basically enable professional criminals to do anything they want with the unarmed populace.

Unreal and she is a professor of law too.... FACEPALM!



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

EarthCitizen07

pheonix358
The gun grabbers don't want to have a good look at real history. In the days when the 2nd was put in place, private citizens could and did own their own warships IF they could afford them.

The whole idea of the 2nd was to ensure a corrupt government could be tossed out by the people. If you bother to read the literature, news paper articles and the speeches made on the subject of the 2nd, the intent is clear.

So why the hell does someone like me, who does not even live in the US, know all this and yet idiots with law degrees don't. Only in America.

There is a way to alter the constitution, it is set out clearly, so why don't these people use it as it was designed, because they damn well know it would never happen. That is the crux of the matter. You are free to leave the US at any time.

P


Incorrect. Civilians could only own firearms, nothing else. Today its the same thing, although gungrabbers have illegally watered down everything.

Only the military can own anything it wants. "Militia" means military. "Well regulated" means well kept.

Even after americans gained independance from great britain, the military was still amateur in status, and I think that is why they used "militia" rather than military. Not sure when our military became professional.

Today militia gets confused with armed civilians to fight a corrupt government rather than professional military outfits.


As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[23]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Trying to superimpose yesterdays language and status quo upon today is a matter of interpretation.


According to SCOTUS ruling, "militia" is any able bodied male over 18 (or adult male, whatever the age is). "Well regulated" is the crux of the argument. My belief is the framers intended the owner of a weapon to know how to use it. Seems I am in the minority.

A standing military is, by some, believed to be unconstitutional. It removes the power of the people and states (who are responsible for the militias), along with the responsibility of the people, and puts it in the hands of the federal government.

The right to special weapons is another item that is viewed as unconstitutional, but it is mostly disregarded by all but real madmen because our government saw fit to introduce weapons that even they should not have.

It all crosses over, today, in the argument regarding the police. THe keeping of special weapons is an assertion that there is a monopolization of force. The discussion around the 2nd amendment is typically pushed towards "hunters rights", not "overthrow your government".

What did our framers intend? I think it is very clear. Hunting was just not worth putting in the constitution. It is a states rights issue (hunting permits to hunt the kings game are given by the state, not federal). So one can only presume that their intention was something other than hunting. That leaves one obvious choice. And it seems that it is thus implied that there was to be no monopolization of force, unless it was by the people.

I do not think that is true toda.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Don't worry about that "profersor in Texas" she chose the wrong state to make such statement, I am sure she will be out of job and moving to a real anti gun state that will welcome her, very soon if she wants to pursue her political career. he, he.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
First of all, it sounds like the Texas A&M School of Law is relatively new, so it is no surprise that they would bring somebody in that would ruffle feathers and encourage debate. What many of you do not seem to understand is that because she is a law professor, she clearly understands the legal process. She has every right to say what she said. What I love is people that get so emotional about 2nd Amendment critics. Here she was expressing an opinion (not teaching it to a class as fact) and some of you ostracize her for it. Hypocrite?

So here we have a law professor saying radical things to bring attention to a new law school (publicity, yay!) and to encourage debate. Have any of you ever been on a debate team? You often have to argue topics that you do not believe in for the sake of learning how to effectively vet ideas and persuade based on evidence.

So now that I got that off my chest, I would like to point out a few things to the droves of gun nuts that love this site and swarm to threads like this foaming at the mouth:
1. You like to talk about "gun grabbers" and usually fold them into the same mix as democrats and the Obama administration while gun laws (and the enforcement thereof) are less strict under Obama than Bush - not that it matters because they both clearly pander to the same Ma$ter.
2. The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed.
3. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was clearly directed at protecting the states and the people from the federal government. State militias are the closest we could ever come to trying to protect the states and the people from a tyrannical federal government however I think the ship sailed with the advent of attack fighters, precision drones, and nukes thanks to our insanely large military industrial complex. If you wanted to protect the 2nd Amendment, you need a time machine. Federal powers were expanded dramatically under the 'power' the people gave them under the guise of 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' and we would have to go back to that time to stifle the military industrial complex - impossible mission there.
4. Similar to point #1, the Obama administration (and the way the gun industry turned duped all of you into going nuts) is the BEST thing to happen to the gun industry in quite some time.

Quit letting your emotions get the best of you and open your eyes to see how the strings of manipulation are being pulled!



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by Bassago
 


Don't worry about that "profersor in Texas" she chose the wrong state to make such statement, I am sure she will be out of job and moving to a real anti gun state that will welcome her, very soon if she wants to pursue her political career. he, he.



In some countries you can actually go to jail for saying such things. I am happy for freedom of speech not having any limits though so we can see who the real traitors are. I may have over-reacted a bit in my previous post but had I read those two sentences I wouldnt have replied at all in this thread and just star and flagged it.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You have not done nothing wrong, like you say we have freedom of speech and should be grateful for it, but sometimes it extend as long as it doesn't step on somebody else political correctness of their version of what offensive means, we always going to find somebody that will disagree with us.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Texas A&M will miss Mary Margaret, cause she'll have here walking papers fairly soon with that attitude.

She'll be able to find a great job in California soon.

She can help Senator Feinstein clean up her bonfire.
edit on 17-11-2013 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


I am sure that wherever Mr. Bloombug is I mean Mr. Bloomberg, (former Major of NY), he will be welcoming her with open arms in his "Majors for gun control group", I am sure that he will be moving to Colorado sometime in the future. he, he.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mon1k3r
 


You can kill someone with any gun. What is it about assault rifles that's so scary? Oh!!!! It's because those are the weapons that will level the playing field against the government!!!!! LOL I bet Thomas Jefferson, along with many others, would love that Americans can, and always will, own assault rifles. It will never happen. An uprising will happen if they are dumb enough to try it. The same with giving illegal invaders citizenship.

This professor needs to be posted on every billboard and newspaper in America. These kinds of anti-American filth need to be escorted to the border and told to never return. She is an enemy of the United States and it's people. Anyone with a brain need to leave that college until she is removed and no one else should ever go to that college in the future. Let'em go bankrupt even though I'm sure their friends in the US gov will bail them out. She's obviously part of "that little group". I would love to see her and her extremist, radical friends come where I live and try and take peoples guns. I will pop a big bag of popcorn for that event.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000 to 310,000,000

Total number of gun Deaths: 2011: 32,163
Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 People 2011: 10.31
Considering this info from www.gunpolicy.org...

That means that 1 out of 8394 or 1 out of 9638 weapons cause death. Looking at it a different way if a weapon was used once the other 269,967,836 or 309,967,837 weapons cause no problems.
Did we make the abacus illegal when computers work faster? Are we going to outlaw knives because they can kill?

There are 247,000,000 cars in the US by estimates. 2010 shows the number of deaths at 32,627. I expect the next big deal from the activists will be demands to make all autos in the US run automatically. After all if these accidents are caused by mans errors removing drivers from the equation would make living safer.

Just a thought or two. Facts just the facts. Interpretation of them is up to us not politicians.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


completely unsure about b52 (think you could buy one that fly's but with almost no gear) but you CAN own shells for your tank and machine-guns can legaly be mounted on it assuming you pay the tax stamp for destructive devices(50?$ per shell)or the 200$ tax stamp for a full auto but i have yet to hear of some one getting permits for a missile or rocket,tank shells and MG rounds sure but unsure about rockets and the like.hell there is a teenager with his own garage nuclear reactor you would be surprised at some of the things we can own

en.ria.ru... link for the reactor claim.

www.thehighroad.org... thread that touches on the tank issue wont quote as it would violate cross posting rules i think

www.cracked.com...

lazer's,lol what they call a "light saber" a tank(t72) exotic animals,grenade launchers,anti tank guns rpgs etc


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com... one of my personal favorites


www.youtube.com... here is a quad fifty anti air craft gun in private hands...... we can own all kinds of fun things assuming we jump through the federal hoops



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

According to SCOTUS ruling, "militia" is any able bodied male over 18 (or adult male, whatever the age is). "Well regulated" is the crux of the argument. My belief is the framers intended the owner of a weapon to know how to use it. Seems I am in the minority.

A standing military is, by some, believed to be unconstitutional. It removes the power of the people and states (who are responsible for the militias), along with the responsibility of the people, and puts it in the hands of the federal government.


This is just my opinion on how it should be, and I'm probably not the first to think this way; I know it isn't the way things are and you can argue with me all you want, all I'm saying is it's just my opinion, nothing else.

I do believe in the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN'S right to keep and bear arms for self-protection. However, when it comes to standing military, I believe each individual state should have it's very own military, or "Militia", funded by the taxpayers of that state and trained on the use of military equipment that is not feasible to have in the average citizen's hands.

We are, after all, the United STATES of America. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE..."; IMO this refers to the individual states, not the federal level of government. Just as we have our congress to represent the states. I don't believe there should be a federal-level military, it should be up to every state to train and keep their own military. When our country goes to war, the people of the states vote on whether or not their state will participate. All participating states are allied and fall under federal-level command much like our military is today. In a Civil War-like event, forbid that ever happen again, the states could ally with other states they are in agreement with-similar to how the Civil war actually happened.

Basically this would mean that the federal government would have no military power with the exception of the participating states granting them their military power in time of war. Every state would have it's own army, air force, and navy if applicable under state-level command, not centralized government command like it is today.

Just my opinion on the subject.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


That anti-tank gun is AWESOME! Thanks for the video.

Definitely every local militia needs one of those for every platoon, minimum. One per squad would be preferable. That might restore a bit of the balance of power.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Aldakoopa

bigfatfurrytexan

According to SCOTUS ruling, "militia" is any able bodied male over 18 (or adult male, whatever the age is). "Well regulated" is the crux of the argument. My belief is the framers intended the owner of a weapon to know how to use it. Seems I am in the minority.

A standing military is, by some, believed to be unconstitutional. It removes the power of the people and states (who are responsible for the militias), along with the responsibility of the people, and puts it in the hands of the federal government.


This is just my opinion on how it should be, and I'm probably not the first to think this way; I know it isn't the way things are and you can argue with me all you want, all I'm saying is it's just my opinion, nothing else.

I do believe in the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN'S right to keep and bear arms for self-protection. However, when it comes to standing military, I believe each individual state should have it's very own military, or "Militia", funded by the taxpayers of that state and trained on the use of military equipment that is not feasible to have in the average citizen's hands.

We are, after all, the United STATES of America. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE..."; IMO this refers to the individual states, not the federal level of government. Just as we have our congress to represent the states. I don't believe there should be a federal-level military, it should be up to every state to train and keep their own military. When our country goes to war, the people of the states vote on whether or not their state will participate. All participating states are allied and fall under federal-level command much like our military is today. In a Civil War-like event, forbid that ever happen again, the states could ally with other states they are in agreement with-similar to how the Civil war actually happened.

Basically this would mean that the federal government would have no military power with the exception of the participating states granting them their military power in time of war. Every state would have it's own army, air force, and navy if applicable under state-level command, not centralized government command like it is today.

Just my opinion on the subject.


I have no comment upon your post itself; although there are points that could be argued. However, I do feel obligated to point out the intended meaning of "the State."


The Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard
[...]

One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern "Ruritania," a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself "King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania"; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the "family of nations," and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.

[...]

Another successful device was to instill fear of any alternative systems of rule or nonrule. The present rulers, it was maintained, supply to the citizens an essential service for which they should be most grateful: protection against sporadic criminals and marauders. For the State, to preserve its own monopoly of predation, did indeed see to it that private and unsystematic crime was kept to a minimum; the State has always been jealous of its own preserve. Especially has the State been successful in recent centuries in instilling fear of other State rulers. Since the land area of the globe has been parceled out among particular States, one of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State's advantage. If "Ruritania" was being attacked by "Walldavia," the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defense of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them. This device of "nationalism" has only been successful, in Western civilization, in recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets of nobles.


Note that "Ruritania" is used in the political and social sciences in a whimsical manner to refer to a notional State, or Nation. (Ruritania was the name of the nation in Anthony Hope's The Prisoner of Zenda and a couple of other of his books.)

To be sure, in the days of the Founders, the separate "Several States" were considered to be sovereign nations in their own right. A view that has fallen out of favor since Mr. Lincoln's unfortunate illegal incursion....

ETA: The second paragraph in the Rothbard quote above has nothing to do, per se, with the creation of the state; I just included it because it's rather humorous....



edit on 11/17/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

EarthCitizen07
Actually they are afforded priviledges given to us by the people who drafted and signed the constitution.


Nothing was afforded; the Bill of Rights grants nothing and prohibits the Federal Government from encroaching upon Natural Rights -- Rights that need no religion to have bearing as they are part of being alive; to speak and to defend oneself are two of the most basic and natural things that are human.

Post Script:
The very fact that we have these discussions gives validity to James Madison's fears regarding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights; mainly that not only Government, but the People also, will see it as an affirmation that such rights are granted and "afforded" to them.

edit on 17-11-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


It is written in plain English that people who read history interpret differently from those who don't. It clearly implies that the whole purpose of carrying arms is to keep a well trained militia, not to fight the government. And those who read history know that the well trained militia was firstly Southern white landowners forming groups to hunt down and control their slaves. Secondarily, it was to support the United States against foreign powers and native Americans. If the Second Amendment is so clear and plain, why do people disagree so much on the implication that the purpose of arms is to keep a well trained militia? Most people who want gun rights totally ignore both the "well trained" part and the "militia" part. In that respect, as long as we had a National Guard, even though we outlawed private gun ownership, we would still be following the Second Amendment. So, yes, it is not clear. Yes, the Constitution needs to be revised so that it is clear. What we would revise it to is not yet clear, because the people obviously would disagree on exactly what our rights in this regard should be. And the Bill of Rights are not inalienable rights, they can be changed, according to the Constitution itself.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   

sorgfelt
It is written in plain English that people who read history interpret differently from those who don't. It clearly implies that the whole purpose of carrying arms is to keep a well trained militia, not to fight the government.


Quite true, but you neglected the second clause, in which it clearly states, according to your "plain English", the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." You are connecting two separate clauses, as identified with a comma.


And those who read history know that the well trained militia was firstly Southern white landowners forming groups to hunt down and control their slaves.


Errr...you mean the militias that famously became "Minutemen" right? Those who were protecting their free States against the British?


Secondarily, it was to support the United States against foreign powers and native Americans.


The first part is true; but interestingly you cannot fathom that it was to defend against an internal threat?



If the Second Amendment is so clear and plain, why do people disagree so much on the implication that the purpose of arms is to keep a well trained militia? Most people who want gun rights totally ignore both the "well trained" part and the "militia" part.


Who? Who denies or ignores this part?


In that respect, as long as we had a National Guard, even though we outlawed private gun ownership, we would still be following the Second Amendment.


By only allowing the Government to be armed and its citizenry to not be? How can you be well-armed and regulated if you cannot own and be proficient of the use of those arms?


And the Bill of Rights are not inalienable rights, they can be changed, according to the Constitution itself.


This explains your stance...Article V was debated without the knowledge that a "Bill of Rights" would be tacked on, in which Rights that were to be absolutely protected, were enumerated. Such enumeration does not insinuate that said Rights are derived from the Government but are in fact, in need of specific protection of said Government.

The Rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights are in fact, inalienable. Did your mother or father seek approval of the Government to allow you to speak? To defend yourself? To be secure in your persons? To be treated fairly? To be judged by your peers? Even if stripped from the Constitution, they still remain.

Answer those and we shall have a great debate.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sorgfelt
 



"It clearly implies ..."


It doesnt imply anything...

It states.


It doesnt need revision. Only illiterate morons dont get it.

the rest of your comment = bla bla.

The founding fathers were a lot more intelligent than these clowns we have in congress today.
I wouldnt trust them to amend a parking ticket.

edit on 17-11-2013 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join