It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Realtruth
Let's look at what our founding fathers had to say about this Hillary.
The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
2nd Amendment and "Well Regulated Militia"
I think a manditory test for all politicians in US history, The Constitution and Bill of Rights every 6 months is necessary, if they fail they lose their positions, and are exempt from running for office for another 2 years.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Realtruth
Wha? "Living a lie?" Uh, no I don't feel that I'm "living a lie." My opinion about the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. I'm also confident enough in my own ability to reason that I don't defer to the SCOTUS justices to tell me what I should believe. Note, this isn't the same as saying I don't respect their role or their authority.
originally posted by: lunatux
a reply to: Realtruth
Seriously? 99.8% of what a President does is NOT focused on the private ownership of firearms. If you vote solely on the basis of a candidates position on gun control, you are seriously screwing yourself.
That said, what document of the founding fathers does your highlighted section reference? You do not identifiy it and your link merely goes to a current day pro-Gun rights site.
It is simply clear that in the 2nd Amendment the founders were trying to do two things; prevent the rise of a standing army and do cheap defense spending by means of BYO-Gun. If the founders were around today to take in the advances in arms and their lethality, I'm quite sure being prudent and wise men they would favor legislation mandating significant background checks, firearm safety training and mandate that the gun owner have a demonstrated legitimate need of a weapon.
Moreover, if the founders were present today they would see that the militia is handled by the national guard. They would also undoubtedly note the size and competence of the US Armed Forces. The founders mayhaps would not be happy that their creation developed a standing army afterall. But they would certainly see that small groups of armed citizens opposing the US Armed Forces as an alleged agent of tyranny would not stand a chance. Not wanting to encourage slaughter they undoubtedly would refute those currently arguing that the point of the 2nd Amendment was to fight against our forces.
Hillary Clinton Says - "The Supreme Court is Wrong On The 2nd Amendment!"
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: DBCowboy
So, if I want biological weapons, nukes, missiles ect ... There should be some kind of open market for them?