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 tommy_boy
Treason? You're reaching. Goes back to my previous point. Just because someone doesn't agree with your point does not make it a crime, Electric. It's the same argument bible freaks use. Your argument is too emotional, and even a bit radical.
Like it or not, right or wrong, her interpretation on this point has merit, and when there's merit, the person's agenda is irrelevant.
Originally posted by tommy_boy
Umm.... No? Old propaganda, and disproven by anyone with a High School History education, my friend.
Originally posted by tommy_boy
Most of the founding fathers were deists (I'll describe it if you like), and for every document you can produce to seemlingly proves your claim, there are dozens others showing how little the founding fathers wanted religion as part of this republic. Christianity was not the dominant driver.
Originally posted by tommy_boy
Is anyone going to argue the point made previously about the 2nd and 14th amendments and the concept of Selective Incorporation, or is this just an whiny emotional complain thread? about "I want my guns! I want my guns!"
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Perhaps that is your problem, that you are only basing your stance on a High School education, no pun intended. Most children now-a-days that graduate from high School do not know the history of their nation much, if at all.
No need. First of all the forefathers "agreed" to what is written in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, despite their own personal opinions. Now you, Sotomayor and a few other Liberal gun-grabbers want to impose your moral ideas on Americans, and you want to change, or even abolish the right given to us by the forefathers of the Republic.
Ah, so trying to protect our rights according to you is "whinning"....right... If that is your way to discuss such a topic, i think others as well as myself would rather not have to read your rhetoric, because a certain right goes against whatever flawed moral principle you have.
The only ones trying to destroy a right guaranteed to ALL Americans because they want to impose their flawed ideologies on everyone are people like you.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
She is not disagreeing with "a point of view", she is blatantly disregarding one of the rights given to every American by the forefathers... Two different things, and my stance still stands, she is nothing more than a traitorous old hag, for wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment because of her "too high morals".
Originally posted by tommy_boy
OK, well at least now I know who I'm arguing against: someone more into the insult than their content. Just good to know that as we proceed here.
Originally posted by tommy_boy
It's like your shooting in the dark with some of these comments... I'm not debating the existence of the word "God" in some of our most critical documents. Had you actually read up on Deism, you'd know that they actually do BELIEVE in God. What they AREN'T are Christians, which was the point of the comment which you so eloquently missed. The US was not founded on Christian principles as it was not founded by Christians. Some believed in God, some didn't, but almost none were Christian.
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. (John Quincy Adams, sixth President)
It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. (John Adams)
Lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits. Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens. (Daniel Webster)
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. (John Jay, founding father and America's first Supreme Court Chief Justice and Co-Author of the Federalist Papers)
Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. (Fisher Ames, framer of the First Amendment)
We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism. (Benjamin Rush)
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. (Charles Carroll of Carrollton, signer of the Declaration of Independence)
"To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."
Originally posted by tommy_boy
Once again, completely missed the point. Let me go slower for you. The argument in question, sweetie, is whether the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment. We are, after all a nation of laws, so figuring such things out, regardless of which side you fall on, is kinda important. Hey! I support your right to whine and moan. God knows your a pro at it. I just read your posts for some fact-based rebuttal. Haven't found one yet. Just the rantings of a guy that can't get enough of his guns, but doesn't bring much substance to the discussion. Let me speak for everyone arguing on your side of the debate: Your not helping them. Really... Your not.
Originally posted by tommy_boy
Again, lambchop, haven't yet stated my position on gun rights, but the salient point here is: Is there merit to Sotomayor's argument or not? You can scream about your gun all day, wouldn't you rather do or say something constructive to keep them? Looking for something meaningful from you here... Try again...
Originally posted by tommy_boy
If you look at her argument objectively, lambchop, you will see that, whether you agree or not, there is a question on whether the Second Amendment applies F-E-D-E-R-A-L-L-Y (slow enough?) or to all levels. Her argument is that, because the Second Amendment is not incorporated by the Fourteenth, then the right to bear arms is applied federally and not at the state or local level and, therefore, gun rights are a state's rights issue WHEN dealing with state and local law...
......................
Originally posted by mrbarber
Actually, it is true that the Bill-of-Rights originally applied only to the Federal Government. "Congress shall make no law....". However, the Supreme Court has ruled since that most of the Bill-of-Rights applies to the States. Most recently, this year, the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. This would seem to contradict our new Supreme Court nominee's view on the issue.
Originally posted by tommy_boy
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
She is not disagreeing with "a point of view", she is blatantly disregarding one of the rights given to every American by the forefathers... Two different things, and my stance still stands, she is nothing more than a traitorous old hag, for wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment because of her "too high morals".
I know you care more about empty rhetoric than on legal facts, but I still believe there is hope for you... So let's try again.
If you look at her argument objectively, lambchop, you will see that, whether you agree or not, there is a question on whether the Second Amendment applies F-E-D-E-R-A-L-L-Y (slow enough?) or to all levels. Her argument is that, because the Second Amendment is not incorporated by the Fourteenth, then the right to bear arms is applied federally and not at the state or local level and, therefore, gun rights are a state's rights issue WHEN dealing with state and local law...
That's called:
I-N-T-E-R-P-R-E-T-T-I-N-G- T-H-E C-O-N-S-I-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N.
You know, the thing that righties want judges to do. Ohhhh, or you only wanted that when it's convenient to your abnormal obsession to own a gun?
Sorry, that's the way it's written. That's what needs to be decided. Keep screaming though. Maybe someone will listen.
Originally posted by mrbarber
Actually, it is true that the Bill-of-Rights originally applied only to the Federal Government. "Congress shall make no law....". However, the Supreme Court has ruled since that most of the Bill-of-Rights applies to the States. Most recently, this year, the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. This would seem to contradict our new Supreme Court nominee's view on the issue.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
That's because of a human flaw. Humans are violent. I don't think they should have guns. It's just a cool weapon used to kill other people. If you really want to kill someone, you should battle it out the hard way with knives and rocks. Guns are too easy.
Done with this thread.