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 THELONIO
reply to post by ConservativeJack
you should listen to yourself, you sound like an idiot, i am not saying you are an idiot, you are just sounding like one, america sounds like a lovely place to live, i wish you well, over and out
Originally posted by ConservativeJackaren't Britain Gun Crimes up 40 percent since the weapon ban?
that sounds counter productive
Originally posted by jBrereton
Originally posted by ConservativeJackaren't Britain Gun Crimes up 40 percent since the weapon ban?
that sounds counter productive
Err?
"People are being charged more as the boundaries of what is legal shrink shocker!"
Originally posted by ConservativeJack
what?
Originally posted by TheDarkNight
Since we are on a conspiracy site: would it not be plausible the killer in question was an under cover "mind controlled" agent?
It would be naive to think this as silly. MK Ultra was a declassified psych ops run by a three letter agency in the nineteen fifties and sixties.
It is still thought, by some, as active today under a different code name. Who's to say that chaotic random shootings happening in the the US (the Beltway Sniper, Columbine and many others)
[edit on 26-1-2009 by TheDarkNight]
Originally posted by optyk phyba
neither the us magna carter or constitution is set in stone and both can be legally changed. arent there at least 12 amendments to the constitution so far?
Originally posted by optyk phyba
your rights and freedoms can also be suspended (regardless of the constitution) under marshall law and things like the patriot act.
Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."
Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologise to Mr. Mayfield and his family,[207] Mr. Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mr. Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[51][52]
Another group, the Humanitarian Law Project, also objected to the provision prohibiting "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. They succeeded, and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to cause a reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law or not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, and struck it down.[149][150]
Originally posted by optyk phyba
its still up to the people in power, and people still kill people.
Leading up to the ratification of the Second Amendment,[5] English and American political writers stated that society and government rests upon the popular possession of arms,[6] that arms are the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and political participation,[7] that arms are necessary for an individual to protect himself from vicious fellow citizens and corrupt authorities,[8] that citizens must be able to defend themselves against rulers[9] and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.[10]
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by ChocoTaco369
You are right. You didnt say "Republican." You will have to forgive me, I missed the memo indicating that "liberal" now officially stands for anyone you personally disagree with. Last time I checked, it was being applied most frequently to the Democrats by what was formerly known as the "conservative" Republican party.