| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Buy Bali Kratom Powder  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Red Vein Kratom  CBD Concentrates  Bulk Cannabis Seeds  Buy Kratom Extract  Bulk Substrate |
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
"Court upholds District of Columbia gun law prohibiting handguns
Thursday, January 15, 2004 Posted: 10:16 AM EST WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the District of Columbia's gun control law that prohibits ownership of handguns, rejecting a legal challenge by a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the 28-year-old law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that others, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks. Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership. "The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote. He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government. He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state. A gun control advocate welcomed the ruling. "It's a big victory for those who overwhelmingly believe that we need fewer guns on our streets, not more," said Matt Nosanchuk, a spokesman for the Violence Policy Center. Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said the group's lawyers had not seen the ruling on Wednesday night but noted that other courts have taken the opposite opinion." http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/1 (emphasis mine)  i guess people living in DC will just have to put up with living in the city with the highest murder rate in the country (with 1.5 violent crimes per 100 residents per year), while constitutional "interpretation" by an incompetant judge prevents them from defending themselves. i'm glad i don't live there.
| |||||||
 Anarkhos Without a Ruler Registered: 01/13/04 Posts: 47 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
Interesting. I wonder, how does DC's crime rate compare to cities that have right to carry laws?
-------------------- No masters, no servants.
| |||||||
|
d33p Welcome to Violence  Registered: 07/12/03 Posts: 5,381 Loc: the shores of Tr Last seen: 10 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Wastington, DC really isnt the worst place the us. In Gary, IN the murder rate is nearly double that of washington. Also the violent crime rate in Miami is 2.1 per 100 which is not even the highest. I do believe gun control does influnce the crime rate in an area but the type of inhabitants does have more of an effect.
Although i would say that the constitutional "interpretation" by this incompetant judge certainly does not help with the crime in DC. -------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
| |||||||
|
Anarkhos Without a Ruler Registered: 01/13/04 Posts: 47 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You hit the nail square on the head. The propensity for criminal behavior rests in the character of people, not in the tools at their disposal, neither does it rest in their economic situation. No direct correlation can be found between gun ownership and criminality, nor between poverty and criminality. -------------------- No masters, no servants.
| |||||||
 silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu   Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: But what influences the character of the people? Certainly everyone is an individual, but if a city has more violent criminals, there must be a reason. Poverty alone may not cause criminality, but I think perhaps standards of living and economic inequality can be major factors. --------------------   "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire 
| |||||||
|
Anarkhos Without a Ruler Registered: 01/13/04 Posts: 47 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
In a city as large as DC, I'm sure there are people who have never stolen a dime from anyone, while there are others who would murder their own mothers. Why do some living in identical circumstances, act as angels while others act as demons? Character is displayed in how we react to our circumstances. A sign of maturity is when an individual begins to take responsibility for his actions and the consequences of his actions (actions which are within his control) instead of laying blame on circumstances. Circumstances DO NOT determine behavior as is evidenced by the great diversity of individual human behaviors under virtually identical circumstances.
-------------------- No masters, no servants.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.
What else can you expect? That's precisely what the second amendment is.
| |||||||
|
kaiowas lest we baguette  Registered: 07/14/03 Posts: 5,501 Loc: oz |
| ||||||
|
right to bare arms!!!!!!!
anyway guess what? I see most people who have guns that use them regularly are illegal to begin with. so law isn't really gonna help much there. -------------------- Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
| |||||||
|
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: As a Sociology major I must disagree, as that statement is contrary to everything those in my field of study have found. We are the product of our experiences. NOBODY grows up under identical circumstances. We all live in different households with different incomes, different parents, different circles of friends, exposed to different media, etc. Genetics may play a part in personality as may other factors, but free will(if it does actually exist) plays little, if any role in who we are, at least when you look at society on a larger scale. No place has a high violent crime rate purely by accident. There are factors which lead people down the path of criminal behavior. -------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
| |||||||
|
MetaShroom 菌类  Registered: 06/02/02 Posts: 1,462 Loc: East Anglia UK Last seen: 16 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: When that was written the 'right to bare arms' meant the right to join an army.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?   Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Bullshit.
This has been demonstrated many times to you. If you choose not to believe the evidence, it's only because you do not wish to. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
I'd say more study on this would be good for you.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
What else can you expect? That's precisely what the second amendment is.
i think i did a pretty good job of demonstrating otherwise in this thread. at least, no one objected to what was said, including you. did you miss that or something?
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
including you. did you miss that or something?
It's not me you need to impress mush, it's district judges who've been studying the law their entire lives and have clearly reached completely different conclusions about this than you.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
not every decision handed down by a judge is a good one. this was not. the second amendment affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms. this is a fact. it is explicitly stated in the actual text.
do you think that the second amendment affirms the right of citizens to arm themselves? why or why not?
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
...Disgusting.... I would never live in D.C.
Gun control advocates quite possibly could cause the death of the 2nd amendment. The only way you will get my gun is by prying it from my cold dead hands.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
the second amendment affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms. this is a fact.
Sorry mush, but it isn't a fact. It's your opinion. It seems an awful lot of legal experts don't share it. it is explicitly stated in the actual text. It isn't. It explicitly refers to a state militia. Were the founding fathers really so dim they couldn't simply state "Every citizen has the right to own a gun"?
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Bullshit again. Every able bodied man was considered to be part of the militia. The evidence has been provided in the form of quotes from the founders.
You just don't like it. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
The evidence has been provided in the form of quotes from the founders.
Horseshit. Quotes from the founders are utterly irrelevant, it's what the amendment says that counts. You just don't like it. I'm not making the judgements luv, just telling you what the judges say.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Here ya go PinocchiALPO.... choke on them.
Quotes from the Founding Fathers and Their Contemporaries Introduction A pinch of wisdom from the Founders with a dash of commentary. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn't Jefferson's proposal of "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" adopted by the Virginia legislature? Click here to learn why. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character. ---Alexander Hamilton Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy. The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" [W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. Henry sneered, O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all? More quotes from the Virginia convention: [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... ---George Mason Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because: [T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984. The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
The following sentence is especially appropriate for you....
That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Here's the full text. The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment Summary Erroneous interpretations of the words in the Second Amendment occur from both sides of the debate. The meaning of the words "militia," "well regulated," "the people," "to keep and bear," and "arms," are discussed. The Second Amendment: 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. A Militia The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well regulated militia, and as mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to a militia let alone a well regulated one. (Once a member of the National Guard is ordered into active military service of the United States, that member is no longer under the command of a State Guard unit. See the Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) for a brief but good explanation of the evolution of the National Guard statutes.) For a definition of today's militia as defined in the United States Code, click here. A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.) Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or at the disposal of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned" by anybody, rather they are controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].) A brief summary of early U.S. militia history. Well Regulated Of all the words in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989): 1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc. 3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation. 4) To put in good order. The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate. This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29. "To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia. This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated: Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army. --- Saturday, December 13, 1777. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers: [obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1. 1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side. The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? The People This paragraph shouldn't be necessary. That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth. The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically enumerated individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that the first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" It is unlikely. Evidence of an individual right to keep and bear arms is presented throughout the Second Amendment section of GunCite, and will not be repeated here. However, additional evidence follows, showing that the "people" means the people as individuals (everyone) rather than some amorphous body or the state. The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2. (Source: Halbrook, Stephen, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984, p. 225) The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." The use of "people" in the Fourth Amendment obviously indicates an individual right. The Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Tenth Amendment above, distinguishes between the states and the people. One of James Madison's proposed amendments: "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." Would anybody in their right mind suggest Madison proposed a collective right to speak, write, or publish their thoughts? Looking at other declarations of rights from the time clearly shows that "the people," in other words everyone, were entitled to certain rights (freemen in those days). For example, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights states: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..." Article XII from the same declaration says: "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained." In both of the above examples, "the people" means each person. Would anyone seriously suggest that Article XII protects only a "collective right," or that the people's freedom of speech and writing is limited to those who posses a printing press or to works appearing in the news media? Let's look at Virginia's proposed Declaration of Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. From the preamble: "That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the People in some such manner as the following;" The Seventeenth article states: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms..." The Eleventh article: "That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by Jury is one of the greatest Securities to the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable." Was the right to trial by jury meant to be a "collective right?" Of course not; it applied to the people, each and every one of them. Article Sixteen: "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments; but the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and ought not to be violated." The above article appears right before the article mentioning the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Does the meaning of "the people" suddenly transform from an individual right of speech to a "collective right" to keep and bear arms? Comparing the Fourteenth article from Virginia's Declaration of Rights to the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights shows that Madison, who was from Virginia, substituted "the people" for "every freeman." "That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures..." (Fourteenth article) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." (Fourth Amendment) Yet, Yale law professor Akhil Amar claims, "when the Constitution speaks of 'the people' rather than 'persons,' the collective connotation is primary" (Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means). Amar's theory unravels when looking at all of the evidence. He tries to reconcile a portion of it writing "The Fourth Amendment is trickier... And these words obviously focus on the private domain, protecting individuals in their private homes more than in the public square. Why, then, did the Fourth use the words 'the people' at all? Probably to highlight the role that jurors--acting collectively and representing the electorate--would play in deciding which searches were reasonable and how much to punish government officials who searched or seized improperly." Amar's reasoning might sound plausible in today's context, however he fails to provide an appropriate example. In 1789 jurors did not issue warrants or determine whether a search was reasonable and they could not "punish government officials who searched or seized improperly." There was no method of suing the government in 1789 for damages resulting from the violation of civil rights. Also Amar fails to explain Madison's draft amendment protecting the people's right to speak and write, mentioned above. Some individual rights were protected for collective purposes, the Second Amendment being one of them, however this doesn't tranform the individual right into a "collective right" belonging to the states or the militia. Roger Sherman's draft bill of rights clearly refers to individual rights when referring to the rights of the people (article 2 [at 983]), (Sherman was a Founder, Senator, and lawyer): "The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into Society, such are the rights of Conscience in matters of religion; of acquiring property and of pursuing happiness & Safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common good, and of applying Government by petition or remonstrance for redress of grievances. Of these rights therefore they Shall not be deprived by the Government of the united states." From the Articles of Confederation: "The people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce..." Hopefully the reader does not interpret the above as referring to a collective right to travel. Lastly, even the Supreme Court agrees on the meaning of "the people" as used in the Bill of Rights (Adamson v. California, 1947). "The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government..." And the dissent agrees: "The first 10 amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties." To Keep and Bear To "keep" arms simply means keeping one's own arms for self-defense or militia use. "To bear arms" is thought by some to apply only in a military context. However, even at the time of the founders this wasn't true. For example in 1776, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights stated: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State." For a more detailed discussion of this interpretation see the 5th Circuit's Court decision in U.S. v. Emerson (Part V [Second Amendment], C [Text], 1 [Substantive Guarantee], b [Bear Arms] ). For the view that "bearing arms" signifies military service, see Guncite's "Is there Contrary Evidence?" Arms In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not. This off-site essay offers a differing and reasonable view that arms in the late 18th Century did mean the full array of arms and offers how that definition can be applied today "honestly (and constitutionally)." -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Not even man enough to say SOME judges PinocchiALPO? It amazes me you can't even understand the words.... the right of the people. Funny how it means 'the people" in other amendments but something totally different in the amendment you fear most. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
What relevance has any of this to what the AMENDMENT says? Cut and pasting from an NRA site does not an argument make, as the judges repeatedly demonstrate.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
 As I said earlier this week, the level of your dishonesty has never been more apparent. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
It isn't. It explicitly refers to a state militia. Were the founding fathers really so dim they couldn't simply state "Every citizen has the right to own a gun"?
they did. the 2nd amendment reads: "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." the subordinate clause containing the word militia lists one reason for guaranteeing the right of citizens to keep arms, that reason being that a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. if there is any question about the meaning of the word militia, it can be quite easily inferred from the amendment itself; it means all armed citizens. otherwise, it simply would not make any sense. "militia" does not mean only the state military apparatus, and "people" does not mean only those serving in it, otherwise what we have is an amendment in the bill of rights, which embedded amongst provisions for limiting government power over individuals, guarantees the right of military personel to keep weapons. whew. i'm glad they cleared that up... what would we do if the government tried to take the guns away from itself?  not only does "militia" not refer exclusively to the state military, but even if it did, it would not guarantee only the right of military personel to keep arms. consider an anaolgy: "a well-informed populace being essential to the workings of a democracy, the right of the people to print and read books shall not be infringed." now, the first thing to note is that this does not establish any new privilige which had not existed before. it merely guarantees against government intrusion of an existing right, and obviously, the "well-informed populace" clause does not mean that a person must actually be well-informed, and a registered voter, to read books. it doesn't mean that they can read books only about important political issues. it doesn't mean that the sole purpose of preventing government intrusion against the right to read and write is to ensure a well-informed populace. it is one reason among many. to say that the 2nd amendment doesn't refer to regular citizens and their right to arm themselves is utter nonsense. the bill of rights exists to prohibit the government from infringing upon what the founder's felt were essential liberties, such as freedom of religion and expression, freedom from unwarranted searches and siezures, from soldiers quartered in homes, freedom from torture, and yes, freedom to keep and bear arms.
| |||||||
|
Azmodeus Seeker  Registered: 11/27/02 Posts: 3,392 Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C Last seen: 19 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
That judge did what was appropriate. It amendment says the right to bear arms...not ALL arms..in this case handguns.
The argument that guns make safety and independance is laughable. -------------------- "Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Lest we forget. "
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
That judge did what was appropriate. It amendment says the right to bear arms...not ALL arms..in this case handguns.
handguns are considered "arms", by both contemporary definitions and the ones in use during the conception of the 2nd amendment, but i will admit that the word "arms" is a lot more open to interpretation than "people". i disagree with this interpretation, but i will accept it as a possibility. the judge not only ruled against handguns, but also stated in his comments, which were parroted by the media: "The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," reflecting an all-too common "interpretation" of the second amendment by anti-gun groups that is quite simply, total nonsense. his "interpretation" renders the second amendment null and void. that's really the part i am taking issue with here. The argument that guns make safety and independance is laughable. guns do not "make" safety and independance, but they can help restore it when it is threatened.
| |||||||
|
d33p Welcome to Violence Registered: 07/12/03 Posts: 5,381 Loc: the shores of Tr Last seen: 10 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
i still cannot fathom how people dont see that when a population is walking the streets and does not posses any handguns beyond a doubt how unsafe it makes them. Rape, murder, or just violent crimes become a great deal easier to preform.
 
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
whatever happened to dru sjodin? they find her body yet? she'd probably be alive today if she'd been carrying a handgun instead of a cell phone.
| |||||||
|
Granola bag lady  Registered: 05/18/03 Posts: 411 Loc: 50.0N-6.0E Last seen: 18 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
"911 can you hold" *clic*
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
she'd probably be alive today if she'd been carrying a handgun
And John Lennon would still be alive if people wern't carrying handguns. As would countless thousands of others.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
As I said earlier this week, the level of your dishonesty has never been more apparent
Instead of the same tired old flames can you actually defend your position? Or have you given up on that because you always lose whenever you try? Explain to me what relevance any of those statements has to what the second amendment says. (I ain't holding my breath  )
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Rape, murder, or just violent crimes become a great deal easier to preform
Didn't seem to put Ted Bundy off.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
No flame PinocchiALPO, your dishonesty is directly relevent.
The words of those who wrote the document directly support the right of the people to own and bear arms. The term "right of the people" does not suddenly switch meanings back and forth merely because you wish it to be so. That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
No flame PinocchiALPO, your dishonesty is directly relevent.
*yawn*, you're really living up to your luvdemlies tag today The term "right of the people" does not suddenly switch meanings back and forth merely because you wish it to be so. Where did you get the idea I wished it to be so? I didn't write the second amendment. Now will you ever point out what any of your posts have to do with what the second amendment ACTUALLY SAYS.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
PinocchiALPO, if the words of those who wrote the document aren't good enough to overcome your dishonesty, there's nothing I can say that will.
Continue living in ignorance. It suits you. If the words "right of the people" doesn't work, nothing will. Continue living in ignorance. It suits you. If the fact that at the time of the writing of the constitution the militia was considered to be every able bodied man doesn't overcome your dishonesty, nothing ever will. Continue living in ignorance. It suits you. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
d33p Welcome to Violence Registered: 07/12/03 Posts: 5,381 Loc: the shores of Tr Last seen: 10 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Did you suffer some horrible accident that made you retarded or were you just born that way? -------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
aren't good enough to overcome your dishonesty
Luvdemlies, it's not me you need to worry about. It's the US supreme court who thinks you are talking shit. Convince them. the militia was considered to be every able bodied man Slaves too? Read it and weep luvdemlies: What The Second Amendment Really Says "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."--The Second Amendment "The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest piece of fraud, I repeat the word, 'fraud', on the American public. The distortion of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights by the gun lobby is glaring, as they focus their argument on the last half of the amendment, while ignoring the first half, on which it was based".--Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1991) Is There A Constitutional Right To Own A Gun? *According to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other opponents of rational firearms control measures, the Second Amendment guarantees the absolute right of every American to privately possess firearms without restriction. Although this interpretation is accepted as fact by many Americans, it has absolutely no basis in law. To the contrary, nearly 100 years of uncontradicted legal precedent make clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in connection with service to an organized state militia. In support of its interpretation, the gun lobby focuses exclusively on the words of the second half of the Second Amendment - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - omitting all reference to the first phrase - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - even though that language clearly links the right to bear arms to a "well regulated Militia". Based on this distortion of the constitutional text, the gun lobby insists that the Second Amendment is a barrier to virtually all proposed firearms regulations. The gun lobby has led many Americans to believe that rational gun control regulations are unconstitutional, significantly undermining efforts at the federal and state level to address the national epidemic of gun violence. However, the Second Amendment is not a barrier to laws regulating the private use, sale or ownership of firearms, whether enacted by federal, state or local governments. Historical Context When analyzing the Second Amendment, it is useful to understand the historical context in which it was written. Prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, each of the states operated independently under the Articles of Confederation. Each state had its own "militia" composed of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers to protect against external threats and internal insurrection. Individuals serving in the militia were required to supply their own equipment, including horses and guns, for militia use. The U.S. Constitution, as originally drafted, established a permanent army of professional soldiers controlled by the federal government. When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, the continued existence of the state-run militia was in question. Many colonial leaders, With the memory of British tyranny fresh in their minds, mistrusted centralization of power. Although they saw the continuation of the state militia as an effective counterpoint to the power of the standing army, these leaders were concerned that the federal government had excessive control over the militia. In The Federalist #46, James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, defines the militia as a military force "conducted by {state} governments". This state-run militia, he argued, would counterbalance the power of the federal army. Thus, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that every state would have the ability to maintain its own militia. It was not, as the gun lobby argues, intended to establish an unlimited, private right of gun ownership or possession. If the drafters of the Bill of Rights had intended to guarantee such an individual right, they could (and would) have done so. What the Second Amendment does is define limitations of the federal government's right to restrict--as opposed to a state's right to maintain--a "well regulated militia". Its purpose is to give the states responsibility and guarantee their right to train, maintain and to "keep and bear arms" for militias composed of state residents available to be called upon should there be a threat to security. The modern militia was officially created by the National Guard Act of 1902, in which all state militias were formalized under the authority of the National Guard. Gun rights advocates argue that since the militia included most able-bodied men, the militia is now everyone. However, because laws regulating firearms do not interfere with the modern militia, no gun control law has ever been overturned by the federal courts on Second Amendment grounds. Judicial Interpretation Legal history demonstrates that the Second Amendment is not a barrier to reasonable gun control laws. Six Supreme Court and forty lower court decisions have reaffirmed that there is no right of an individual to own a gun, and that it is a collective right of the militia, not the individual. The Supreme Court rarely speaks in this area and when it does, it begins with the idea that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep arms for the militia. Historically, the legal and judicial view has been that the Second Amendment only guarantees a state's right to be armed, with no explicit reference to the individual. Major Legal Decisions On Gun Laws U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876, The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms. U.S. v. Miller-1939, A defining U.S. Supreme Court case. Miller stated that restrictions on a sawed-off shot gun violated a person's Second Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court considered a Second Amendment challenge to the prosecution of two individuals who transported a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act. The court held that the "obvious purpose" of the amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Because there was no evidence that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun had any "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," the court found that the Second Amendment had not been violated. Subsequent cases have held that the modern equivalent of the "militia" is the National Guard. Miller has never been undermined. Eckert v. City of Philadelphia-1973, 6th Circuit Court, "it must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the U.S. Constitution." Lewis v. U.S.-1980, states that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relation to preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Quilici V. Village of Morton Grove-1982, In a nationally-watched case, a town in Illinois banned handguns. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment restricts federal authority in this area, not that of state and local governments, "We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment" and "The right is for the militia, not the right to keep handguns". The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Quilici. U.S. v. Hale - 1992, The Eighth Circuit read Miller (above) as protecting only those weapons which are actively being used by a militia member for a legitimate, militia-related purpose. A weapon is not constitutionally protected simply because it is "susceptible to military use". Indeed, as observed by the court, it would be difficult to find a lethal weapon which does not have a "potential military use". Instead, a plaintiff must prove that "his or her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia". Membership in an unorganized militia, or a private, nongovernmental military organization, is not enough to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test. The Legal And Legislative Future For Gun Control Eleven U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have analyzed the Second Amendment with this narrow view. Additionally, while the courts have chosen to apply many other provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, they have explicitly declined to do so with the Second Amendment. The Court is not going to expand any individual rights, so any personal right to bear arms would have to be balanced against the needs of the community. Therefore, the Second Amendment is not an obstacle to rational gun control laws, it does not preclude federal, state or local regulation of the sale, use or ownership of guns for private purposes. For the NRA, firearms equal freedom, and they want to change the subject from death, injury and statistics. There is a good chance, however, that the cost of violence is winning more converts than the "constitutional right" to "keep and bear arms"--especially when that right, as it affects gun ownership, is illusory. http://www.sbcoalition.org/second_amendment.html
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Did you suffer some horrible accident that made you retarded or were you just born that way?
Hey, I remember third grade too. Now can you tell me why the USA leads the world in serial killing? I think I read a figure that 76% of all serial killers are in the USA. If having an armed society makes rape and murder "so much harder to perform" what gives? Or were you just blowing it out your ass?
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day.
Is there an honest bone in your body? Seems not. As for lies, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the 2nd is an individual right. This is even apparent from your post. The truth doesn't hurt PinocchiALPO, embrace it. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
That sure quietened you down luvdemlies. Not even an attempt to address the overwhelming evidence that the US legal system rejects your NRA theories.
No surprises there then.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Toot your horn a bit louder and maybe someday you'll be listened to. But as most recognize you as the biggest liar in this forum, it's not necessary to spend a great deal of time.
Even your own posts defeat your arguements. That and your failure to explain why the words "right of the people" means just that in other amendments, yet magically mean something else in the second. There have been several threads on this very subject, all of which provide more than sufficient evidence for someone with the ability to be honest. All of which you ignore. And all which showed you as a fool. Keep living in your dream world. Keep posting your lies. I and others will be here to demonstrate just how truly dishonest you are. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
|
Alex here's a news flash for you. Politicians have been placing people on the courts that would help further their agendas since the beginning. They have also promoted the idea of the constitution as a 'living document' which is their code terminology for re-interpreting it to suit their power grabs, it is not their way of saying the constitution can be amended. Anyone with any sense can peruse writings produced across a time span and realize that meanings of words change over time. A few examples: 'gay,' 'bad,' 'liberal.' To read the constitution using current meanings associated with it's terminology, ignoring the original historical context and historical meanings of the words is in the least, ignorant. But more likely, it is dishonest and meant to avoid the true spirit and letter of the document as it was conceived at the time.
The fact is that the constitution is a dead letter in this country and we are on the slide towards dictatorship. This is precisely because of people who slavishly support almost every power grab of politicians in the name of protecting their subjects, people who will blithely go along with new meanings assigned to terms by the power brokers. Orwellian doublespeak and propaganda are alive and well and your arguments are a shining example of how well they work to control the masses. Have a nice day. 
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
And John Lennon would still be alive if people wern't carrying handguns.
or perhaps the man with a psychological urge to murder john lennon would have found another way to do it, like a knife perhaps. i very much doubt that not being able to legally purchase a firearm would stop him. As would countless thousands of others. i doubt it. considering that most violent crimes are commited by repeat offenders using either an illegal firearm or no firearm at all, and that peaceful armed citizens are able, thanks to private gun ownership, to actually defend themselves from hundreds of thousands of these attacks every year, it would seem to me that taking guns away from peaceful, law-abiding citizens would probably cause much more harm than good. have you anything to say about my comments on the second amendment? we all know what the judges have said, and they're wrong. the second amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. did you miss my post?
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Slaves too?
it's interesting that you mention that. the first gun control laws were actually enacted to prevent freed slaves from keeping guns. What The Second Amendment Really Says "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."--The Second Amendment minus a few commas, but close enough i guess. *According to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other opponents of rational firearms control measures, the Second Amendment guarantees the absolute right of every American to privately possess firearms without restriction. Although this interpretation is accepted as fact by many Americans, it has absolutely no basis in law. it is a fact, and it does have basis in law, the constitution in fact. To the contrary, nearly 100 years of uncontradicted legal precedent make clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in connection with service to an organized state militia. no, it just means that a lot of judges don't like what the second amendment really means. to honestly believe that the second amendment exists to guarantee that the military can keep weapons takes a complete moron. In support of its interpretation, the gun lobby focuses exclusively on the words of the second half of the Second Amendment - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - omitting all reference to the first phrase - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - even though that language clearly links the right to bear arms to a "well regulated Militia". and gun control advocates focus on the first part and ignore the second. the thing is that unlike the second part, which expresses a complete idea, the first part is only a subordinate clause. it gives one reason that that citizens should be able to keep and bear arms. the militia clause does not mean that only those in the state military aparatus can keep arms. to believe this displays a glaring ignorance of the rules of grammar (amongst many other things). what's more, the fact that one reason for preserving the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is to maintain a "militia" clearly indicates that the militia means armed citizens, and not just those in the state military. from the text of the amendment alone, you can either infer the intended definition of "militia" from the word "people" or you can infer the intended definition of the word "people" from the word "militia". it takes a fool with an agenda to do the latter. The gun lobby has led many Americans to believe that rational gun control regulations are unconstitutional, significantly undermining efforts at the federal and state level to address the national epidemic of gun violence. pppbbbttth. gun control hasn't even been shown to reduce crime. and newflash for the SB coalition... the "gun lobby" is tens of thousands of peaceful, law-abiding, owners of legal firearms. In The Federalist #46, James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, defines the militia as a military force "conducted by {state} governments". This state-run militia, he argued, would counterbalance the power of the federal army. the full sentence: "To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence." and two sentences later in that same document: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." seems like the SB coalition got madison's message a little mixed up. well i'm sure it was an honest mistake. Thus, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that every state would have the ability to maintain its own militia. nope. the SB coalition is wrong again. the second amendment was written to preserve the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, one reason being that it would facilitate the presence of a militia. as i've said, the meaning of "militia" can be inferred from this alone, but it's really beside the point. even if the militia is to mean only the state military, as twisted an interpretation as it is, it still does not mean that only those serving in the militia can keep arms. as for what the judges have said, i am aware of it and they are wrong.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Well done.
Sadly, it won't matter. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
probably not. there are always those that don't let reason get in the way of how they like to look at things.
| |||||||
|
Mushmonkey shiftlesslayabout  Registered: 09/25/03 Posts: 10,867 Last seen: 5 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
"And John Lennon would still be alive if people wern't carrying handguns. As would countless thousands of others"
Nope sorry. He would have been stabbed or shot with either a bow or crossbow, or possibly blown up by explosives. John Lennon was killed by a man who set out with the intent to kill. In such a situation one of the first things you do is work out how you would be able to accomplish such a thing, by examining what you have available to you. You don't look at a handgun, and say "Oh crap, I just realized I can kill someone! John Lennon, here I come!" "Now can you tell me why the USA leads the world in serial killing? I think I read a figure that 76% of all serial killers are in the USA. If having an armed society makes rape and murder "so much harder to perform" what gives? Or were you just blowing it out your ass? " Oh my sweet bejebus of idiocy, please tell me you didn't just go there. You DO KNOW that serial killers almost universally DO NOT USE firearms? It's not part of the psychosis, baby, yeah! If you knew anything about serial killers you'd know that. don't throw about facts that you know nothing about, especially when they have absolutely nothing to do with the points you are trying to prove. Aside from that, did you know that nearly all serial killers are white men? BAN WHITE MEN BEFORE THEY KILL US ALL! In fact, it's even debatable that there has never BEEN a female serial killer! BAN MEN! MEN BAD! .. do you see what you're actually arguing here, though? That American society ITSELF is to blame? We're one fucked up society. Guns aren't what's causing us to be fucked up, or there would be more serial killers using guns. And yes, the definition of a serial killer is very narrow -- the beltway snipers? They're not serial killers, they're mass murderers.. perhaps terrorists. Your argument is completely fubar duder. Good lord, I don't even know where to start. I've been arguing this argument over and over since I was 10 years old and thoroughly trouncing anyone in my way, and really, it's not hard. Most anti-gun folks have about the logical prowess of a basset hound. First off, I certainly hope that we don't believe that judges are some kind of unbiased body of old folks who examine what a law truthfully means and makes a judgement based off empirical data and evidence and the ideals of freedom that this country was based on. Because that would be naive. And I'd have to call you Naive Nancy, and sell you some beach-front property in Nebraska. What a judge is, is someone who can cleverly word things. That's it. They have their own opinions about things, that's why there are appeals.. you know, a second opinion? Remember Brown vs. Board of Education? That one got through. Bet you don't remember there were a lot of judges that ruled that 'seperate but equal' WAS valid. Holy shit! Was that their own personal prejudice against blacks influencing their rulings? I think it was, Tommy! And I bet they worded their rulings so they sounded all legal and valid, not just "Keep dem niggers outta our WHAITE SCHOOLS!", even though that's what they actually meant. And you know what, I'm not going to go any further into the second amendment, because everything that really needed to be said has. Thanks to you guys who defended it for what it really is -- MY right to own MY own firearms so long as I don't use them to harm others. Honestly I'm surprized at the rest of you. You all want drugs to be legal, because they don't harm anyone else.. victimless crime, right? And when someone, let's say, drives their car into some old lady and kills her because they were all fucked up on coke or mushrooms or tryin to shoot up behind the wheel, that's THEIR fault, and not the drugs, right? And yet when it comes to firearms, you view them like tiny devils causing us to be violent people, causing us to kill others, to rob them.. and it's just not true. I've owned guns since I was 6. SIX. SIX YEARS OLD. I'm 22 now. Do you know how many times I've violently struck people in those 16 years? NONE. How many times have I shot someone? NONE. Fucking christ, my cousin went to jail for selling crack, and guess what? He's never shot anyone either, even though he owned a pump 30-06. It's just a case of people not wanting to take personal responsibilty for their actions.. or rather, a case of people not wanting to place personal responsibilty on others for what they have done. There are awful, violent people in this world, whether or not they have a gun. Taking their guns away will not cause them to be peaceful hippies. They'll just be awful, violent people with knives, and guess what, if a thug has a knife and so do you, you're still going to get stabbed, and you're still probably going to die. You have a better chance of defending yourself against a thug with a gun, if you can also have a gun, than if the both of you had knives or clubs. Not to mention, at least if you get shot, there's a very loud report that should hopefully get the attention of someone who would be able to very quickly call the police and an ambulance for you. If you get stabbed, no one would hear, and you'll just bleed out in about a half hour, and no one would know until the morning. Those who would trade their freedom for security, deserve neither freedom or security. It's true. Why is it true? Because they're feeble in mind and can't understand what they're doing. -------------------- i finally got around to making a sig revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might grar. 
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Those who would trade their freedom for security, deserve neither freedom or security.
i agree, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. gun control does not increase security.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
or perhaps the man with a psychological urge to murder john lennon would have found another way to do it, like a knife perhaps.
Nah, the doorman would have jumped on him if he'd been wrestling with Lennon for 10 minutes trying to knife him. Mark Chapman wasn't exactly Mike Tyson was he. Harrison got attacked by a guy with a knife in his own house. He lived. i doubt it What do you doubt? The thousands of gun deaths in america? to actually defend themselves from hundreds of thousands of these attacks Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Unless you are carrying the gun on your hip 24 hours a day I've got grave doubts guns are being used to "defend" that many people. have you anything to say about my comments on the second amendment? we all know what the judges have said Like I say mush, I'm not in charge of the US judicial system. The people who are don't buy your theories. What more is there to say?
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
He would have been stabbed or shot with either a bow or crossbow, or possibly blown up by explosives
Come on man, Chapman wasn't delta force. What's he gonna do, stand around in front of the building with a fucking 6' bow under his arm? You think security are gonna notice that maybe? He ain't gonna rush Lennon with explosives either - the whole point of doing it was to make himself a star not blow himself up. I think gun control almost saved Lennon actually - Chapman couldn't buy bullets in New York. He had to fly down south somewhere to buy them. Wonder what would've happened if there was nowhere to buy bullets at all.. You DO KNOW that serial killers almost universally DO NOT USE firearms? Think you're missing the point here monkey. I was replying to a guy who said legal guns made it much harder to commit rape and murder. You have a better chance of defending yourself against a thug with a gun, if you can also have a gun, than if the both of you had knives or clubs. Nah, I'm not buying that. You have a better chance in all those cases if you are AWARE someone is going to attack you. Unless you are carrying the gun in your hand ready to shoot 24 hours a day. And how many states in america are you allowed to carry guns on you? Last time I was in America you had to keep the gun in the boot of the car locked in a case. That's really gonna save your ass isn't it.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Your ignorance is mind boggling.
Quote: People are killed with knives all the time. Most people are not the superman you seem to think you are. Wrestling? All Chapman would have had to do is just walk up behind him and stab him had he been so inclined. Quote: 2.5 million Quote: How do you stand the smell of the bullshit that spews from yourself? A crossbow is not that large and Chapman could easily have just sat in a car and only raised the bow at the last minute. Ever hear of a car bomb? No rushing involved. Or a suicide bomb strapped under clothing? The bullet thing has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say. Bullets are for sale all over New York state. Not to mention every state surrounding NY and NYC. Quote: This comes pretty close to being as dumb as the last..... Ohio can be colored red as well. New law. Concealed carry: A Proven Crimestopper -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
I cannot find a single sentence in your post worthy of a reply.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Yes. We all know you can't admit you're ever wrong, but that's OK. It's obvious.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Give me something worth replying to man. Not just the same tired old third grade flames you've been posting for months.
Are you seriously saying it would have been as easy to kill John Lennon with a knife as a gun? I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after that peice of utter idiocy.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Yes PinocchiALPO, it's obvious you don't do much reading.
Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can tell us why a person determined to kill someone cannot just walk up behind someone and stab them? Or why they can't just run over the person they want to kill with a car? I mean after all, we're well aware of your superhuman abilities and that you can fight off any one that threatens you. Hell.... I'm guessing you even have eyes in the back of your head. However, most mere mortals have no similar abilities and as such, are not all that tough to kill. At least judging by how many people are murdured each year. And perhaps while you're composing your next ever so foolish response, you can include a quote showing where I said it would be as easy? You do realize what a quote is? That would be the actual words used by the person you're quoting. Not your moronic interpretation of the words. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
George Harrison, aged 56, weak and suffering from cancer is attacked with a knife in the middle of the night. He lives.
John Lennon is shot 5 times with hollow point bullets. He dies. What bit don't you understand?
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Your inability to ever admit your wrong and you're bizarre thought processes. Harrison got lucky. Lennon did not. People can get shot and live. People can die when stabbed. I hope you never get stabbed. If you live through the attack you die from realizing your not as omnipotent as you think. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Bullshit. If Chapman had attacked Lennon with a knife the 6' doorman standing 5 feet away would have jumped on him together with the other guys in the security office. He would've been incredibly lucky to be able to kill Lennon with a knife. That's why he chose a gun.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Only if he had your mind reading abilities.
Walk up behind, whip out the knife, plunge. Of course someone with your abilities would know the attack was about to occur and could be prepared at a moments notice. Golly, you're so wonderful! 
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Nah, the doorman would have jumped on him if he'd been wrestling with Lennon for 10 minutes trying to knife him. Mark Chapman wasn't exactly Mike Tyson was he. Harrison got attacked by a guy with a knife in his own house. He lived.
wrestling for 10 minutes? it takes an instant to mortally stab someone with a knife, and it doesn't require any wrestling. just ask anna lindh. mortally stabbing an unsuspecting person with a knife is easier than sucker punching them. a mortal wound to a neck or a kidney takes an instant to inflict and will kill someone before the ambulance even arrives. What do you doubt? The thousands of gun deaths in america? no alex. what i am doubting is that banning guns would reduce the problem of violent crime. if you actually examine the statistics, most violent crimes are commited by a person with either an illegal firearm or no gun at all, the majority of whom are repeat offenders. legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens help prevent far more crime than they help commit. what should be done is that violent criminals and those who supply them with illegal guns should serve much longer prison terms. taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not help the problem, but make it worse. why must i always repeat myself when addressing you? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Unless you are carrying the gun on your hip 24 hours a day I've got grave doubts guns are being used to "defend" that many people. absolutely, but i have a feeling that it won't matter if i provide it though, because you won't believe it anyway. but here it goes nonetheless: US Department of Justice: 1.5 million per year 13 Other Independant Studies: 800,000 - 3,000,000 per year Like I say mush, I'm not in charge of the US judicial system. The people who are don't buy your theories. What more is there to say? the debate here has never been about what the judges have said (i will start another thread about that); it's been about the lack acumen shown in some of their rulings, hence the title of the thread in response to one such ruling. as we are debating the prudence of the rulings, and not the content of the rulings themselves, there is quite a bit more to say than "the people who are don't buy your theories". i am aware of that. they are wrong, and i think i've done a pretty good job of explaining why. if you actually agree with their interpretation (as you have stated), then surely you must have some kind of logical rebuttal to what i've been saying, along with a solid case in support of the interpretation (it appears you have neither). do you think the judges are correct in their interpretation? what say you to my second amendment arguments?
| |||||||
|
MightyQuinn Eskimo Registered: 04/22/02 Posts: 187 Loc: United States Last seen: 19 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Yeah, a knife is DEFINITELY A REAL WEAPON, just a like a gun is. Anyhow Chapman got pretty close to Lennon only a matter of minutes before he shot him, close enough to have a record autographed...
I say, a gun is not the only means to kill. A determined person could have killed John Lennon with a knife... a determined person can hijack an airplane with a boxcutter while outnumbered like 50 to 1.... guns are not what we need to remove here what we need to remove... is the DETERMINATION TO KILL, whatever it is that instills in us the need to act violently against someone in vengeance or anger or spite, or for personal gain, or over a difference in beliefs... I've heard and used to use the argument that it's so much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife... with the knife you gotta get in there and maybe cut them more than once, you get dirty, meanwhile pulling the trigger on a gun is a one second point and click decision... so the act is easier, sure, but it SHOULDN'T BE EASY TO POINT A GUN AT ANOTHER PERSON AND SHOOT THEM EITHER... KILLING SOMEONE SHOULD BE HARD NO MATTER HOW YOU DO IT... or else there's something WRONG WITH YOU. the reason we have gun murders is because we have MURDERERS, not because we have guns... "I really, seriously want to kill that guy, but there aren't any legal firearms, so I'm not going to..." NO! if it's a harder decision to make to break the law getting an illegal gun than it is to decide to kill someone, our problem isn't the availability of guns, okay? Can't get a gun at a store? I'll run him over with my car, that takes about the same amount of commitment as pulling a trigger on him... Do people think that making guns illegal will make them disappear from the planet? It sure worked for marijuana, LSD, cocaine, prostitution ummmm... It's people who are making these guns... and people who want guns will continue to make them if they're made illegal. There's no magic secret to gunsmithing that the government keeps hidden from everyone except for loyal tradesmen. Just like right now there are people with the skill and the drive to build labs for synthesizing LSD and other weird chemicals, to set up and conceal massive marijuana grow operations... etc, etc, etc! As long as people want to kill other people, they will find ways to do it. There were even murders before guns were invented! Gol-ly! If you expend all your energy trying to control guns then you're wasting your time when there's a much larger festering open sore on the collective consciousness of our species right now... I say we keep guns legal and instead control our urge to kill! Once most people don't find the need to act with violence, the ones who still do will eventually just get gunned down in self-defense by a peaceful law abiding citizen... Why does pacifist have to mean doormat anyway? Why should a peaceful person feel bad about deciding that their life takes priority over the life of someone who would move to actually inflict violence on someone over ... well, over just about anything? Fuck that... fuck the violent, hooray for defending yourself from a violent person though, even with violence... -------------------- everybody's gonna want a dose.
| |||||||
|
Mushmonkey shiftlesslayabout Registered: 09/25/03 Posts: 10,867 Last seen: 5 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
"You DO KNOW that serial killers almost universally DO NOT USE firearms?
Think you're missing the point here monkey. I was replying to a guy who said legal guns made it much harder to commit rape and murder. " How many people who have been a victim of a serial killer were carrying a firearm? I'd wager it's been none (aside from possibly the Zodiac Killer, who surprized people with a shot to the head.. but the Zodiac's one of the most bizzarre serial killers ever). And that comment I made was not in responce to any comment about rape or murder, it was made in responce to a comment that brought up serial killers. "Now can you tell me why the USA leads the world in serial killing? I think I read a figure that 76% of all serial killers are in the USA. If having an armed society makes rape and murder "so much harder to perform" what gives? Or were you just blowing it out your ass? " that was the original quote I was responding to. You brought up the number of serial killers in America as proof that our owning guns doesn't make us any safer from serial killers. I was pointing out the utter hollowness of that argument. Serial killers do not use guns, and their victims do not have guns. To use such a statistic to anchor up your argument.. well it's careless. The two are totally irrelevant. The percentage of serial killers that are in America has nothing to do with firearms at all.. what it DOES have something to do with is some deeper, unknown problem in American society that creates such deeply disturbed individuals. "Like I say mush, I'm not in charge of the US judicial system. The people who are don't buy your theories. What more is there to say" So you're saying you think judges are completely unbiased, and base their decisions off of nothing but the law and the constitution? Huh. Then why are rulings overturned? And can you explain why many judges in the South upheld "Seperate but Equal" as valid, and in fact fought against the Brown vs. Board of Ed. ruling, and fought FOR segregation? Because they're unbiased? That's the ideal, but it's not reality. You have to understand both, and what the differences are, before you should even think about walking out the door into the outside world. "gun control does not increase security." Give me a day or two to look up some hard numbers. The UK and Australia have passed draconian gun control laws, banning pretty much all firearms. If you are indeed correct, the rate of violent crime in these countries SHOULD have dropped since such laws were passed. What's actually happened is the reverse. Alas I don't have the actual statistics in front of me, but I guarentee you I'll set down in the next few days and search for at least 4 hours to find them. If they're on the internet, I should be able to find them. There's also statistics to support my opinion available on individual states. Many of the states who have passed right-to-carry laws have experienced a lull in violent crimes.. hmm. makes you think. "Nah, I'm not buying that. You have a better chance in all those cases if you are AWARE someone is going to attack you. Unless you are carrying the gun in your hand ready to shoot 24 hours a day. And how many states in america are you allowed to carry guns on you? Last time I was in America you had to keep the gun in the boot of the car locked in a case. That's really gonna save your ass isn't it. " Ok.. starting at the top. People just don't blindside you with a gunshot to the back to rob you. They'll brandish it in your face, and make you comply, because they know you can't do anything about it. How many states? More than half. I think 37 states now have right-to-carry laws on their books.. which means that ANYONE over the age of 21 who is not a convicted felon and does not have a past history of severe mental disturbances is allowed to apply for a concealed carry permit. Which means that they are allowed to carry a handgun, concealed on their person and loaded, wherever they want.. with the exception of certain places and events, such as into courthouses and the like.. obviously. I've got one. I haven't carried yet, because I don't have a concealable firearm, but I am considering buying one. Why? I'll never need it, right? Hopefully no.. but if I ever did, it would be there. And if anyone else ever was being attacked, I could help them. The police are not a proactive protection force, they are reactive. You've got to call them. They don't prevent crimes.. they only get there after crimes have been committed. And no, you don't have to keep them locked up or anything. Were you in Jersey, or NYC or something? Some cities and some states have their own peculiar gun control laws, but in most of the country, including where I am, just having a gun in your back seat is completely legal. It does have to be unloaded for safety reasons -- so it doesn't accidentally discharge and kill you or someone in another vehicle -- but it can just be sitting out, with ammunition nearby. That's legal in most places.. but as I said, some states and some cities have their own ideas about things, and when there you have to abide by their laws. "The bullet thing has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say. Bullets are for sale all over New York state. Not to mention every state surrounding NY and NYC. " Heh.. exactly. In NYC itself I think you may need a permit.. but that's the city's laws, not the state's. And, even IF it was a state law (which it's not), Pennsylvania is only an hour at MOST from the heart of NYC, and christ, you can walk into a Walmart here and buy ammunition. And as for John Lennon, a stab to the heart or to the kidney will kill you in a very short time, even a stab that only penetrates 2". That would not have been that hard to accomplish. Perhaps at a different location, at a different time, but to honestly think that Chapman would not have killed Lennon had he not had a gun is just naive. -------------------- i finally got around to making a sig revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might grar.
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Red Vein Kratom CBD Concentrates Bulk Cannabis Seeds Buy Kratom Extract Bulk Substrate |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR DENOUNCES ANTI-GUN-OWNERSHIP MOVEMENT |  MagicalMystery |
1,658 | 14 | 09/07/05 10:50 AM by MagicalMystery |
|
|
Jefferson's 11th Ammendment |  FrankieJustTrypt |
1,483 | 9 | 02/19/04 08:50 PM by FrankieJustTrypt |
|
|
Thank god for gun ownership... (  1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
 Xlea321 |
5,783 | 86 | 10/22/02 12:47 AM by Boglyn |
|
|
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america |  mabus |
1,392 | 13 | 03/15/04 07:25 PM by Phred |
|
 |
Even Jefferson violated the Constitution |  silversoul7 |
434 | 3 | 09/03/04 10:59 AM by DoctorJ |
|
 |
A Material Breach of the Constitution |  Ellis Dee |
1,107 | 7 | 02/19/03 05:44 PM by BowlKiller |
|
|
"Constitution" Restoration Act.... A new low in Act naming.. | FrankieJustTrypt |
988 | 5 | 11/08/04 07:09 AM by Phred |
|
 |
Let's write a new constitution |  Lightningfractal |
615 | 7 | 06/18/04 09:53 AM by Ancalagon |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 3,932 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
