Do you support the 2nd Amendment?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Meaning, how many pro-gun DU'ers do we have?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Depends on your reading of the 2nd Ammendment....

[RobertSeattle]

2. Yep --- Loaded question

And how do you "support" an Amendment in the first place?

[MrBenchley]

4. What's really being asked is: Do you swallow NRA propaganda

as if it were fact?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

40. No actually I was just asking whether you supported the 2nd Amendment.

I support it, and yet oppose the NRA. I left the question open-ended deliberately.

[MrBenchley]

44. So how does one support a Constitutional amendment?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

70. Simply by agreeing with the principles espoused therein.

I should have been more specific in my question.

[MrBenchley]

87. So you're asking who wants to repeal it?

Far as I know there's nobody anywhere even proposing that...

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

167. No that's not what I'm asking..

Look, it was a bad question. I'll just leave it at that.

[iverglas]

8. excellent

"how do you "support" an Amendment in the first place?"

You beat me to it.

What colour is orange: true or false?

[MrBenchley]

3. I certainly support the collective right of Americans

to have a well regulated state milita...which is what the Second Amendment confers.

All else is the ugly wet dream of fuckwits like John AshKKKroft and Ted Nugent.

[Not Me]

12. I agree...

but 200 years of developed precedent is awfully hard to undo.

[MrBenchley]

15. It's only been since the 1970s....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

[YNGW]

49. Let me ask you.

If the Constitution only allows guns to be held by a well regulated militia, then why didn't the federal government require that the soldiers and all the people turn in their guns right after the Revolutionary War? How come no one was arrested for possessing a personally-owned firearm?

Seems that if the founding fathers meant for the only guns to be kept by a militia, that would have been the perfect time to require all guns be turned in since the founding fathers were still alive to explain to the people what they means in the 2nd Amendment.

[MrBenchley]

58. Well, that is a hoot....

The Second Amendment says only that the people have a collective right to keep and bear arms (i.e., serve) in a well regulated milita for the defense fo their state. As the courts have affirmed again and again.

There is no individual right to own a gun. Gun ownership is subject to whatever restriction society wishes to put on it, same as every other possession.. That's why the NRA never goes to court to challenge any gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. That's never as in not ever, at any time, any where...

[YNGW]

63. Just answer the question.

So why didn't the founding fathers, after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, tell everyone to hand in their guns if there is no individual right to own a gun? Also, why the the founding fathers, you know, the one's who wrote the 2nd Amendment and signed the Bill of Rights, keep their guns?

[MrBenchley]

64. I answered the question....

Tough luck you don't like the answer....

[YNGW]

69. That was an answer?

>Gun ownership is subject to whatever restriction society wishes to put on it, same as every other possession.

Nice to know the founding fathers signed onto an amendment they obviously had no intention of enforcing and themselves openly violated.

No, the answer is this. The founding fathers meant for individuals to own guns, otherwise, they would have had them confiscated immediately after the Revolutionary War according to the 2nd Amendment. That they didn't speaks volumes about what they meant when they wrote the Amendment and signed the document. Volumes over anything you have ever said, are saying, or ever hope to say.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

TILT!?!

Play Again?

Tough luck you don't like the answer.

[MrBenchley]

72. Peddle it somewhere else....

"Nice to know the founding fathers signed onto an amendment they obviously had no intention of enforcing and themselves openly violated."
Even nicer to know that RKBA fantasy is alive and sick as ever....

[YNGW]

75. The founding fathers actions speak volumes.

If the 2nd Amendment did not allow individual gun ownership, why didn't they enfore the law, even on themselves?

Volumes.

[MrBenchley]

78. Pop Quiz...

Which of these terms does NOT appear in the Second Amendment?

A) People
B) well regulated
C) Militia
D) Individual

[YNGW]

81. Pop Quiz

Why did the founding fathers own and possess firearms as individuals when they had just signed a document which, according to you, forbid such actions?

Com'n. How hard can this be?

[MrBenchley]

82. What is really pathetic

is that you seem utterly unable to read or understand....

Tell us, tough guy...where did the Founding Fathers put the right to wear pants in the Constitution?

"How hard can this be?"
Seemingly impossible for you.

[YNGW]

83. Strawman arguments don't work with me. Try somewhere else.

What I'm saying is legit, and you're cornered.

According to you, the founding fathers never meant for citizens to have individual gun ownership rights, yet the founding fathers themselves, after signing the document, owned guns for their own personal use. According to you, they violated the very law to which they put their signature on the Bill of Rights. What an example they set for the citizenry, wouldn't you say?

[MrBenchley]

88. No arguments seem to work with you....

"According to you, the founding fathers never meant for citizens to have individual gun ownership rights"
Yeah? Show me where I said that.

"According to you, they violated the very law to which they put their signature on the Bill of Rights."
Yeah? Show me where I claimed they prevented the people of some state from having a well regulated milita.

"What an example they set for the citizenry"
Yeah...too bad we've got such a rancid bunch of fuckwits like John AshKKKroft and the Second Amendment Caucus running around spouting this dishonest "gun rights" rubbish, betraying pretty much everything they stood for.

[YNGW]

94. You haven't presented one worth considering.

>>What an example they set for the citizenry"

>Yeah...too bad we've got such a rancid bunch of fuckwits like John AshKKKroft and the Second Amendment Caucus running around spouting this dishonest "gun rights" rubbish, betraying pretty much everything they stood for.

In that case, so did the founding fathers. They owned guns for their own personal use beyond that of the malitia. You just can't explain why they did that after signing a document saying it was against the law.

According to you, the founding fathers never wanted citizens to possess guns except to be used for the malitia, yet the founding fathers used guns for things having nothing to do with defending the country against its enemies, having nothing to do with the malitia. And you have yet to explain how they got away with violating that law.

[MrBenchley]

96. Sure I have....

[YNGW]

102. Let's keep this on one thread.

Besides, all I want to know is if the 2nd Amendment meant that only well-regulated militias could possess firearms, why did the founding fathers possess and use guns for purposes other than for the militia? I'm confident I'm not asking too much.

[MrBenchley]

103. Why?

It's not like it hasn't been answered umpty-ump times....

[YNGW]

106. OK

I agree. The founding fathers possessed and used guns for reasons that had nothing to do with the militia, which means I can do the same thing.

Works for me.

[MrBenchley]

111. Try reading

It helps....

[YNGW]

116. Geo. Washinton did it.

If he could possess and use guns for purposes other than for the militia, then that's good enough for me. Whatda ya say?

[MrBenchley]

119. I say you look silly as hell without your pants....

[YNGW]

124. That's why they're on.

So I can strap a gun to my belt. ;-)

[MrBenchley]

126. Nope...bare legs only...

and somebody who can't explain his own tortured "logic" or whatever it is....

[YNGW]

131. Pants on, Pant off, Don't matter

Just as long as we agree that individuals can possess and use guns for purposes other than for the militia, just like the founding fathers did, then everythings O-tey, buckwheat.

[MrBenchley]

155. Well, then we don't agree, pantsless one....

[YNGW]

164. Guns

Hey, either I can possess guns for use other than for the militia just like the founding fathers did or I can't. I wish you'd decide.

[iverglas]

118. let's have the answer

if the 2nd Amendment meant that ***only*** well-regulated militias could possess firearms ...
(emphasis added)

WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT THIS IS WHAT YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT MEANT???

The assertion is that your second amendment says that (to use your wording, for convenience) WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS COULD POSSESS FIREARMS.

Who in this real universe said that your second amendment says that ***ONLY*** WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS could possess firearms??

Here's another logic tip for you. This:

Besides, all I want to know is if the 2nd Amendment meant that only well-regulated militias could possess firearms, why did the founding fathers possess and use guns for purposes other than for the militia?

-- is what's called a "loaded question". It is loaded with a FALSE PREMISE -- the bit between "if" and the comma. Your second amendment does not mean that, and NO ONE HAS SAID IT DOES.

So the correct "answer" to your "question" is the same as the correct answer to all loaded questions: "mu".

Grow up.

[YNGW]

122. It's all been worked out.

As a citizen of the USA, I'm permitted to possess and used guns for reasons other than for the militia, just like the founding fathers did. Isn't that great?

[iverglas]

140. and you're permitted to poop in holes on your property

just like your founding fathers did.

I've got it right, don't I?

When will you be telling your municipality that its by-laws requiring that your home have sanitary facilities is unconstitutional?

[YNGW]

143. Staying On Subject

The founding fathers used guns for purposes other than for the militia. We both agree that's it's OK to do so today. Let's leave it at that.

[mcgregor]

168. Just as soon as you

point out my constitutional right to poop in holes on my property.

I can find the one about worshiping without congress messing with me, or not to worship if thats my choice. I can find my right to own private property. I can find my right to speak in favor of the candidate of my choice, oops, guess I'm up against a time line on that one, My right to a trial, my right to habeas corpus, and yes my right to have a gun. I can find all of those, and more, if you care. But the right to poop in holes on my property eludes me. Maybe you could clarify

[iverglas]

169. oh dear

You mean your govt can pass a law prohibiting you from eating pizza for breakfast while wearing no pants?? (or was it while wearing pants ...) And, of course after being informed of your rights and having access to counsel and undergoing a trial by your peers, locking you up for doing it??

Poor you. You need to find a place with a constitution that doesn't let your govt do such awful things to you!

[iverglas]

112. let us have it

You just can't explain why they did that after
signing a document saying it was against the law.

Never mind what you're pretending anybody else said.

Let's just see how what you're saying could make any sense in the universe we are living in at present.

Here's your 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.

*EVEN IF* the right in question is construed as a right to serve in an armed militia, HOW THE FUCK do you derive, from that statement of what the right consists of, the claim that other possession of firearms is "against the law"???

Are you enjoying making yourself look like an ass? Because -- whether or not you actually are an ass, about which I make no comment whatsoever -- that is the sum total of what you are doing.

According to you, the founding fathers never wanted citizens to possess guns except to be used for the malitia ...

Explain how an interpretation of the provision that guarantees the right to possess firearms for service in the militia means that it PROHIBITS anyone from possessing firearms for any other purpose. Do it now, please.

To simplify this for you, and as a warm-up exercise, you could try explaining how my permitting you to ride the bus in order to get to school could, in any universe you like, be interpreted as my prohibiting you from riding the bus in order to get to the shopping mall.

And you have yet to explain how they got away with violating that law.

Tell us what law they were supposedly violating, under whatever interpretation of said law you like, as long as you can give one.

(This one bit of your shtick exposes your pathetic ignorance of the whole concept of "constitution". A constitution is not a "law", and individuals can neither violate nor comply with it.)

[YNGW]

120. MB explained it to me.

It's clear now. The founding fathers possessed and used guns for purposes other than for the militia, i.e. hunting, protection, etc.... They did it, so I can, too.

[iverglas]

129. hot damn

The founding fathers possessed and used guns for purposes other than for the militia, i.e. hunting, protection, etc.... They did it, so I can, too.

They also pooped in holes on their properties.

You'd better get yourself down to your municipality's offices tomorrow morning and tell 'em that the founding fathers did it, so you can too.

[YNGW]

133. No, it's understood.

Does it bother you that individuals, by law, can possess and use guns for purposes other than for the militia, i.e. hunting, protection, etc?

[iverglas]

137. what rock have you crawled from under?

If you want to know the answer to the question of my personal position on actual laws governing firearms acquisition and possession, it's readily available, in multiple copies and versions, all over this forum. It's there for the finding.

Have a picnic, chum. Got a gold star? Might be difficult without it, but that ain't my problem.

Had you asked a CIVIL question, one that did not presume facts not in evidence and that was something more than an insinuation of a falsehood, you might have got an answer. Let that be a lesson to you, eh?

Be very sure that you do not persist in insinuating this falsehood. Making false statements about another poster that, if believed, would inspire hatred and contempt against that poster in the minds of others ... well, that just isn't very good form, is it?

Oh, and by the way, not only is your insinuation baseless, but you're still muttering that idiotic "by law" nonsense that makes your purported question gibberish. When you gonna learn something, and stop playing the class clown?

[YNGW]

145. It was a Yes or No question

Save your fingers and me the time of reading things you say that I could care less about. Besides, it's boring as hell. Atempting to talk down to me doesn't work. Never has. Water off the back. I just consider the source.

So, next time I see particular one's making comments about how gun possession and use is only for the militia, I've got you to source to say it isn't true. I accomplished what I wanted.

[iverglas]

161. you let us know

So, next time I see particular one's making comments about how gun possession and use is only for the militia, ...

... when next you see any "one's" doing that, and we'll set 'em straight. I suspect you'll be too cold to type at that point, for hell will surely have frozen over. And hell is the only place I can think of where you would be making sense. Or maybe someplace through the looking glass ...

http://jabberwacky.com
Jabberwacky initiates the discussion:
Where do you come from?
- Through the looking glass.
Really who is the author.
- I was just going to get google to remind me.
I know. What is 'psoridian'?
- a shade of green, as "verspacious skies" are a shade of blue.
<I just watched part 2 of a pretty good PBS documentary on schools, and must credit a woman who immigrated to the US as a child for this one>
What do you know?
- Quite a bit more than buddy what's his name.
What is the square root of 4?
- What colour is orange: true or false?
Orange.

And there ya have it, folks, and no, I am not making it up.

[iverglas]

89. which orifice are you pulling this shit out of?

Why did the founding fathers own and possess firearms
as individuals when they had just signed a document
which, according to you, forbid such actions?
(emphases added)

It's time for you to put up or fuck off, I'd say.

Copy and paste what MrBenchley or anybody else has said that can be interpreted or represented as meaning that your founding fathers signed a document that forbade the ownership and possession of firearms by individuals.

If you're going to be throwing guff like "strawman argument" around wildly as you're doing, you really need to learn what it means.

The correct term -- by your colleagues' standards -- for what MrBenchley wrote:

Tell us, tough guy...where did the Founding Fathers put the right to wear pants in the Constitution?

... is "apples and oranges", not "strawman".

Of course, it isn't really apples and oranges at all, UNLESS *you* can demonstrate that the A*N*A*L*O*G*Y he constructed is false.

On the other hand, when you pretend that people have said things they never said, and then triumphantly claim to have shown them how wrong they were ... *that*, you see, IS a strawperson argument. Ya stuff it up, ya knock it down, ya pat yerself on the back and hope ya've fooled somebody ... that is, that one's audience is as dim as one has just made one's self look by doing it. And you're in a strong lead for that very award-of-the-week, right now.

[MrBenchley]

91. I suspect we've got another park pooper here...

[Low Drag]

190. Yet another "Pop Quiz"

Which of these terms does NOT appear in the Second Amendment?

A) People
B) well regulated
C) Militia
D) Individual


Which of these terms does NOT appear in the First Amendment?

A) People
B) Assemble
C) Petition
D) Individual

News flash! The 1st A restricted CONGRESS.
The 2nd A states "shall not be infringed" in same sentence as the right of the people.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DavidMS]

201. What happens if we do the same to the forth amendment?

Which of these terms does NOT appear in the Second Fourth Amendment?

A) People
B) unreasonable searches and seizure
C) Warrants
D) Individual


From this little word game, I can reasionably argue that People in the context of the Federal Constution means individual and collective. Of cource certan opponents of gun controll (NRA) would have a much more coheasive argument by ceasing to treat the Constution like a chinese menu.

[Low Drag]

206. I think we agree

I would love for America (read both major parties) to take the BOR and entire US Constitution as a package deal. I think that is what you are saying and what I was attempting to illustrate.

I have recently learned some very distubing things on the Constitution and the "incorporation" of rights by the various states.

[Hef]

210. answer

How come the other Amendments refer to individual rights, but the concept of an individual RKBA should not apply to the 2nd Amendment? Why would they (our founding fathers) outline individual rights throughout the document but make the 2nd Amendment different?

And you are aware that the National Guard is not the "well-regulated militia", aren't you? They are federally funded and controlled. The state governors have no authority (though they used to) to decide whether or not their state's regiments will be involved in conflicts. They are basically a reserve force.

By definition, they are a standing army. The "militia" is made up of ALL able-bodied male citizens within the specified age range (I forget exactly what the range is).

[iverglas]

71. what nonsense is this?

The fact that your second constitutional amendment has nothing to do with an individual "right" to possess and carry firearms (yes, "bear arms" MEANS "serve") really just does not mean that the govt may round 'em all up. How obvious is that?

There's nothing in your constitution that expressly says you have a right to eat pizza. That doesn't mean that the govt can shut down all the pizza parlours in the land now, does it?

[MrBenchley]

73. Typical RKBA nonsense, I'm afraid....

[YNGW]

74. The actions of the founding fathers speaks volumes.

Volumes.

Hey, either USA citizens have the right to keep and bear arms as individuals or they don't. If they don't, they should have been required to turn them in right after the Revolutionary War ended since the 2nd Amendment didn't permit individual gun ownership. But guess what? The citizens kept their guns. Even the founding fathers who signed the Bill of Rights had guns in their possession. So, if they meant for guns to only be for the militia, why didn't they require everyone to turn them in after the war? Obviously, that's not what they meant.

Volumes.

[MrBenchley]

76. Hey, so do the courts, the ACLU and the Founding Fathers themselves....

and none of them back up your fantasy....

[YNGW]

79. You're the one arguing that the founding fathers....

.... openly violated their own law by not requiring everyone turn in their guns and by possessing guns themselves. I'm asking how they got away with it and the only thing you tell me is that "Gun ownership is subject to whatever restriction society wishes to put on it, same as every other possession." So, they wrote a law and then openly violated it. Who knew.

[MrBenchley]

84. No, that's your sick little fantasy

"I'm asking how they got away with it"
They knew that people with a gun fetish would be really really really dense. And they were right, it seems.

"So, they wrote a law and then openly violated it."
Yeah? When did the Founding Fathers prevent the people of any state from having a well regulated militia?

[YNGW]

86. HAHA

>They knew that people with a gun fetish would be really really really dense. And they were right, it seems.

So now your saying the founding fathers, who by the way owned guns for their own personal use, were people "with a gun fetish (who were) really really really dense." Thanks. That's all I needed to know.

>Yeah? When did the Founding Fathers prevent the people of any state from having a well regulated militia?

When did the Founding fathers prevent the people of any state from possessing a gun for their own personal use? And if individual gun ownership was against the law, why didn't they obey it?

[MrBenchley]

90. Nope...

I'm saying the sort of people around today with a gun fetish are really really really really dense. And I'm not having any problem looking for direct evidence.

When did the Founding Fathers prevent the people of any state from having a well regulated militia?

[YNGW]

97. Also....

>When did the Founding Fathers prevent the people of any state from having a well regulated militia?

They didn't.

They also didn't prevent the people of any state from owning and using guns for purposes that had nothing to do with the militia.

In fact, they did so themselves.

[MrBenchley]

101. So in other words...

Your claim they violated a law is so much horseshit....

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, therecan be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)"

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

"Judge Sullivan wrote: "his Court would be in error to overlook sixty-five years of unchanged Supreme Court precedent and the deluge of circuit case law rejecting an individual right to bear arms not in conjunction with service in the Militia." ...The Parker case is the latest decision rejecting challenges to gun laws on Second Amendment grounds following Attorney General John Ashcroft's reversal of longstanding Justice Department policy regarding the Second Amendment, now stating that it protects an individual right to bear arms. Ashcroft's "individual rights" interpretation has been rejected in more than 100 cases, including federal court of appeals decisions in Chicago, Cincinnati, and San Francisco. ""

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=49341

[YNGW]

105. Good to know

>Your claim they (founding fathers) violated a law is so much horseshit....


So since the founding fathers possessed and used guns for reasons other than for the militia, then I have every right to do so, too.

I'm good with that.

[MrBenchley]

108. Wow....can you really be this obtuse?

"So since the founding fathers possessed and used guns for reasons other than for the militia, then I have every right to do so, too."
Subject to restriction. And not under the Second Amendment, which concerns only collective rights.

[YNGW]

110. No, it's all quite clear.

I'll use my guns the same way they used theirs; for hunting and for protection.

[iverglas]

115. damn ...

For a minute there, I thought enlightenment might be achieved. Oh well.

[MrBenchley]

121. No, it's standard RKBA crap...

Keep repeating a blatant lie and then eventually claim that your opponent agrees with you.

Meanwhile, all it does is show how utterly dishonest the RKBA cause really is.

[YNGW]

128. But, we agree.

Are you saying you agree that the founding fathers possessed and used guns for purposes other than for the militia and did not violate any law?

Because if you are, then we're on the same page.

On the other hand, if possession and use of individual firearms for purposes other than for the militia is not permitted, then Geo. Washinton and the boys got some 'splaining to do.

[MrBenchley]

130. I say you look silly as hell without pants...

[YNGW]

132. Not as silly as you....

... trying to claim that the founding fathers only wanted guns to be possessed and used for a well regulated militia.

[MrBenchley]

156. Nope....still no pants on those bony legs of yours...

[iverglas]

162. now this

Not as silly as you....
... trying to claim that the founding fathers only wanted guns to be possessed and used for a well regulated militia.

... is no longer a pseudo-question, or an insinuation. It's an assertion. And it's false. And no one is surprised. But all the same, what do we call people who make false assertions about others?

Yes, well, there are two options, as always. False assertions about others, that are made notwithstanding the speaker's possession of the facts, could be made as a result of (a) the speaker's inability to understand very simple things, or (b) the speaker's unwillingness to say true things. (Now that's just an hypothesis, and I'm always open to hearing other theories, of course.)

Sometimes it's very difficult to know which set a speaker belongs to -- and the sets do intersect, and a particular speaker could therefore belong to both sets. Each member of the audience must simply make up his/her own mind, I guess, and one must just hope that the audience doesn't belong to one or both of those sets itself.

Well -- if one's aim isn't in fact to deceive the audience, that is.

[MrBenchley]

163. "It's an assertion. And it's false."

A "pro gun democrat" saying something that isn't true? Who could have seen THAT coming? (snicker)

[iverglas]

85. explain what you're not getting, and maybe help will come

So, if they meant for guns to only be for the militia, ...

Has someone actually asserted that this is what your founders & framers meant? I've just never heard anyone say any such thing, myself. Perhaps you could quote someone?

(If you were considering offering "Gun ownership is subject to whatever restriction society wishes to put on it, same as every other possession" in response, perhaps we can just agree that MrBenchley doesn't always put things quite, uh, right. There *is* a right to acquire and possess "every other possession", and the restrictions that society places on acquiring and possessing anything are in fact restrictions on the exercise of that right. His point, that firearms are just like everything else in this respect, is correct.)

Hey, either USA citizens have the right to keep and bear arms as individuals or they don't. If they don't, they should have been required to turn them in right after the Revolutionary War ended ...

Can you think of some other rights you have, your exercise of which is subject to restriction and regulation?

The right of free speech, maybe? It "shall not be abridged", as I recall that first amendment. And yet you can be tossed in prison for giving false evidence under oath, for advertising snake oil to cure cancer, for selling state secrets to the enemy, for conspiring to commit a crime, for uttering threats against the head of state, for shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre ... amazing, isn't it??

... since the the 2nd Amendment didn't permit individual gun ownership.

Who on earth has said that the second amendment doesn't "permit individual gun ownership"?? What earthly sense does *that* make anyhow?? Why are you making things up? Because it's so much fun to knock 'em down? Trust me; it's old and boring.

Do you not, really and truly, think that you have the right to eat pizza? Do you actually think that the govt. is entitled to prohibit you from eating pizza, and to toss you in prison if you defy the no-pizza-eating law? And yet ... your constitution doesn't "permit" you to eat pizza, am I right?

Saying that your second amendment is simply *irrelevant* to individuals' possession of firearms for private purposes, i.e. does not express a right to do so, is NOT the same as saying that individuals do not have a right to possess firearms for private purposes.

Individuals have the right to do hundreds of millions of things that are never mentioned in constitutions. Like eat pizza. Or knit socks. Or play hockey. Or bake brownies. Or have children. Or spend the winter in Miami.

And every single right that every single individual has, to do every single one of those things, is subject to justifiable restriction.

What earthly sense would it make to say that the exercise of the right of free speech expressly enshrined in your constitution (in the most absolute terms, btw) *may* be regulated and restricted, but the acquisition and possession of firearms may not??

Use your loaf, friend. There's just no good reason to make yourself look either so dim as to actually think that what you're saying makes sense, or so disingenuous as to know it makes no sense but say it anyway. But unfortunately, that's about the net effect of your current course of action: you are evidently at considerable lengths to portray yourself as one or the other, and it hardly matters which.

[YNGW]

92. Here's something.

>Who on earth has said that the second amendment doesn't "permit individual gun ownership"??

Post #58

MB - "The Second Amendment says only that the people have a collective right to keep and bear arms (i.e., serve) in a well regulated milita for the defense fo their state."

"Collective right" vs "Individual right". Keep up.

>Who on earth has said that the second amendment doesn't "permit individual gun ownership"??

Ask MB.

Hey MB, does the 2nd Amendment permit individual gun ownership for purposes other than a militia?

If the answer is "No", then can you tell us why the founding fathers kept guns in their possession for their own individual purposes?

[MrBenchley]

93. Wow....

So which Constitutional Amendment permits individuals to own pants?

[YNGW]

95. Whoo Hoo

Which Constitutional Amendment says it's a violation of the law to own pants?

And how come the founding fathers possessed guns and used guns for reasons other than the militia?

[MrBenchley]

98. Take off your pants then...

and see if I care....

[YNGW]

99. I'll keep them on.

Keeping them on doesn't violate any law.

Just like using guns for purposes other than the militia doesn't violate any law. The founding fathers used guns for purposes other than the militia, and they wrote the document, they should know.

[MrBenchley]

104. But there's no Constitutional Amendment

giving you the right to have pants, so they must obviously be forbidden, according to your "logic," or whatever the fuck it is...

[YNGW]

109. Whoops!

Who said you had to have a Constitutional Amendment? You brought up that "sick fantasy". The constituion doesn't mention paper money? Do you use it?

If the founding fathers possessed and used guns for purposes other than for the militia, then so can I.

[MrBenchley]

113. "Who said you had to have a Constitutional Amendment?"

Look in the mirror, binky. That was your sick little fantasy fromn beginning to end...

[YNGW]

117. Nope

That was the words you tried to put in my mouth.

Why were the founding fathers permitted to possess and use guns for purposes that didn't involve the militia? That's all I've ever asked. Still waiting for an answer.

[MrBenchley]

125. "That was" the words that came out of your mouth...

"Why were the founding fathers permitted to possess and use guns for purposes that didn't involve the militia? That's all I've ever asked."
And it's still as silly and disingenuous a question as when you asked it the first time. And it was answered then.

[YNGW]

134. Negative.

And "Gun ownership is subject to whatever restriction society wishes to put on it, same as every other possession." is a really bad answer. Sleep on it and try something else.

I need some thing like "You're right. Individual Americans have a Constitutional right to possess and use firearms for purposes other than for the militia."

You see, because anything less is not admitting that we as citizens have the right to possess and use guns for purposes other than for the militia. Not that it matters whether you belive it, because it's our Constitutional right whether you ever see it or not, but admitting it would be healthy for you.

[MrBenchley]

157. I don't give a shit what YOU need....

Facts are facts....

"because it's our Constitutional right"
Nope. But some of the scummiest politicians on earth try to pretend it is.

[iverglas]

139. why

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

... are you permitted to have the assistance of counsel for anything other than defence against a criminal charge??? Hmm. I guess you aren't.

C'mon, you tell us. You can do it. I'm counting on you. Don't let me down.

Hint: the sixth amendment to your constitution only protects the right to the assistance of counsel for your defence "in ... criminal prosecutions".

Ergo, if you retain a lawyer for any purpose other than your defence in a criminal prosecution, you are "breaking the law".

Haven't I got that right?

C'mon. Explain this strange universe of yours to us.

[YNGW]

146. Courts in Secession.

>>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

... are you permitted to have the assistance of counsel for anything other than defence against a criminal charge??? Hmm. I guess you aren't.<<

Why not? Where is it stated that this is the only reason to retain counsel? If one were to retain counsel outside these purposes, which Amendment does it violate?

If I were to ever get a divorce, would you be the counsel for my wife? With you representing her, it'd be an easy victory for me.

Now, back to my question, in which you already agreed that the founding fathers had every right to possess and use firearms apart from the militia. Good enough, same page.

[iverglas]

159. guess we've got the quote we need

Like we'd waste our time quoting this one.

moi: why ... are you permitted to have the assistance of counsel for anything other than defence against a criminal charge??? Hmm. I guess you aren't.

what's his name: Why not? Where is it stated <in the sixth amendment> that this is the only reason to retain counsel? If one were to retain counsel outside these purposes, which Amendment does it violate?

Now, mutatis mutandis.

what's his name: Why are you permitted to possess and use firearms for anything other than serving in the militia? Hmm. I guess you aren't.

moi/MrB/any sensible person in the vicinity: Why not? Where is it stated <in the second amendment> that this is the only reason to possess and use firearms? If one were to possess and use firearms outside these purposes, which amendment does it violate?

If only buddy here would answer that second set of questions there ... or stop pretending that anyone ever said you aren't permitted to possess and use firarms for anything other than serving in the militia in the first place. Or that anyone has said that the exercise of any right, this one included, cannot be restricted and regulated.

As our Brit friends would say: what a waste of space. And they wouldn't be talking about bandwidth.

[iverglas]

100. you're off the team

If that's your best shot, your contract is hereby terminated.

Hey MB, does the 2nd Amendment permit individual
gun ownership for purposes other than a militia?

When are you going to tell us? Does your constitution permit you to eat pizza and wear pants?

Have you ever read the second amendment? Did you notice that it doesn't "permit" ANYTHING?

In fact, take a gander at the whole lot of it:
http://lab.pava.purdue.edu/pol101/Reference/Constitution/constitution.table.html
and see what you can find -- anything at all -- that your constitution PERMITS.

In point of fact, it doesn't PERMIT people to speak, or PERMIT people to assemble, or PERMIT people to do much of anything.

What it mainly does is PROHIBIT governments from interfering in the things that people choose to do, at least without meeting certain requirements.

Your second amendment PROHIBITS the government from doing something; what it is prohibited from doing is anybody's guess, as far as I'm concerned.

You ARE NOT entitled to take someone's statement about what that provision prohibits the government from doing and pretend that the statement was about something else altogether.

<me> Who on earth has said that the second amendment
doesn't "permit individual gun ownership"??

Ask MB.

I asked you. You are evidently acknowledging that you pulled your allegation out of an orifice.

MB - "The Second Amendment says only that the people
have a collective right to keep and bear arms (i.e., serve)
in a well regulated milita for the defense fo their state."

"Collective right" vs "Individual right". Keep up.

Irrelevant noise from you. Shove up.

Hey MB, does the 2nd Amendment permit individual
gun ownership for purposes other than a militia?
If the answer is "No", then can you tell us why the
founding fathers kept guns in their possession for
their own individual purposes?

Hey, whatever your name is, does your first amendment permit individuals to attend religious services?

If the answer is "no", then can you tell us
why your founding fathers went to church?

Fuckin' duh.

[MrBenchley]

107. Well, this fetched 'em out of the woodwork

didn't it?

[YNGW]

114. Let me ask you.

Which Amendment permits gun ownership and use by individuals for reasons other than the militia?

I'm confident the founding fathers would like to know which law allowed them to use guns for hunting, protection, etc...... I know I would.

Or, if not permitted, why they weren't arrested for violating the law for using guns for unintended purposes.

[iverglas]

127. NONE

Which Amendment permits gun ownership and use by individuals for reasons other than the militia?

NO AMENDMENT "permits" it.

Just exactly as no amendment "permits" you to eat pizza or wear pants, for the love of dog.

The amendments to your constitution DO NOT PERMIT YOU TO DO ANYTHING.

NO AMENDMENT to your constitution permits you to do anything.

If we were talking about *my* constitution, I would say "section 7 -- the fundamental right to liberty and not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". But I have learned that your constitutional guarantee of liberty is construed much more narrowly than mine, so I won't get into that here.

Your constitution was written and amended in a primitive time. But I gather that the amendment that goes

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

might be the one you're looking for -- not as something that PERMITS what you're after, but as something that prohibits the government from denying it.

On the same basis as every other right you have, of course.

Or, if not permitted, why they weren't arrested for violating the law for using guns for unintended purposes.

People who want to spend so much time saying so much stuff about "the law" ought to learn something about it. And as I said, the very first thing you probably need to learn is that INDIVIDUALS NEITHER COMPLY WITH NOR VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONS. Constitutions govern what GOVERNMENTS do, not what individuals do.

What you're saying in the sentence quoted above makes as much sense as "ilsmgope poemtpa dkwoqm dieamt kiqwma". The fact that you think it makes sense is what makes this conversation about as meaningful and interesting as a chat with a two-year-old about nuclear physics.

[YNGW]

135. You answered the question the best you could.

For making the attempt, a Bronx Cheer.

As I have stated, I can possess and use a firearm for reasons other than a well regulated militia.

So, why all the big fuss on this forum about whether or not people have the right to use guns for purposes other than the militia (i.e hunting, protection, etc) when we all agree it's OK?

[iverglas]

136. AS *I* HAVE STATED

As I have stated, I can possess and use a firearm for reasons other than a well regulated militia.

NOBODY has said otherwise.

So, why all the big fuss on this forum about whether or not people have the right to use guns for purposes other than the militia (i.e hunting, protection, etc) ...

Damn, if only anybody but you had seen any such fuss in this forum. What colour did you say your sky was over there?

... when we all agree it's OK?

Yup, we are indeed (almost) all agreed that it is okay for people to use firearms for purposes other than the militia. In my case, those purposes include "hunting", but not "protection" except in certain specific situations.

I'll bet that you might think that it is *not* okay for people to use firearms for certain purposes, too ... like, oh, "robbing banks", or "killing people".

But that's just a tangent. The purposes for which people use firearms are not particularly relevant in most firearms control schemes. The issue is generally the possession, not the use, of the firearm.

And I'll bet you'd be of the opinion that it is *not* okay for certain people to possess firearms. Like, oh, convicted bank robbers. You might even be of the opinion that it is *not* okay for anybody to possess certain firearms. Like, oh, machine guns.

Now, where in your constitution does it say that bank robbers may be prohibited from possessing firearms? Or that anyone's access to machine guns may be interfered with?

You let me know, 'k? I'll be heading home for some delicious onion soup and caesar salad pretty soon. but I'll check back tomorrow.

[YNGW]

142. Eat Hearty.

So, if you and MB and CoLib and others agree that individuals can possess and use guns for purposes other than for the militia, all this discussion about whether or not it falls underneath the 2nd Amendment is all water under the bridge and pretty much wasted space since the end result is that everyone agrees individuals can possess and use guns apart from the militia. That is unless someone just enjoys arguing about the same damn Amendment over and over for days without end. If anyone believes that the 2nd Amendment is only speaking of the use of guns for the militia and does not address individual ownership and use outside that realm, that's their problem, not mine. I don't have time babysit fools, which includes those who feel the need to reply to my opinion of them.

[iverglas]

144. say what?

I don't have time babysit fools, which includes those who feel the need reply to my opinion of them.

I'm afraid something was lost in translation there, and the net effect is pretty much the opposite of what you intended, I'd say.

That is unless someone just enjoys arguing about the same damn Amendment over and over for days without end.

Oddly enough, I seldom have anything at all to say about your precious amendment, and in fact have had virtually nothing to say about in in this thread. Where did you say your galaxy was, again?

the end result is that everyone agrees individuals can possess and use guns apart from the militia.

Yup. And we all agree that you may poop in holes, right?

Make sure you start on getting those by-laws repealed bright and early, now.

[YNGW]

147. Huh!?!

>>I don't have time babysit fools, which includes those who feel the need to reply to my opinion of them.

>I'm afraid something was lost in translation there, and the net effect is pretty much the opposite of what you intended, I'd say.

Lost in translation? No, it's clear. Don't comprehend it? Not my problem.

>>That is unless someone just enjoys arguing about the same damn Amendment over and over for days without end.

>Oddly enough, I seldom have anything at all to say about your precious amendment, and in fact have had virtually nothing to say about in in this thread. Where did you say your galaxy was, again?

Did I say you, or did I say "someone"? And did I limit my comment specifically to this thread? Reading is fundamental.

>>the end result is that everyone agrees individuals can possess and use guns apart from the militia.

>Yup. And we all agree that you may poop in holes, right? Make sure you start on getting those by-laws repealed bright and early, now.

What is it about pooping in holes with you and MB? If it's that important to you, go poop in holes, I don't care.

Again, I have the references I wanted. When needed to confront those nasty people who would say that guns are only to be used by the militia, I'll show em what you had to say. Should be fun.

[library_max]

177. You said you got it before, but I don't think you got it.

Let's try it again. Just because something is legal (for the time being), that doesn't mean that it's constitutionally protected. There is no law against eating a ham sandwich, for example. But if ham became a public health hazard because of some strange food-borne disease, it could be banned by law or by regulation, without any need for a constitutional amendment. If, on the other hand, someone wants to ban flag-burning, that does require a constitutional amendment, because political expression is constitutionally protected.

So the question is not whether or not guns are legal. Many kinds of guns are legal in many places. That doesn't mean that anyone has a constitutionally protected RKBA, any more than they have a constitutional right to eat a ham sandwich. It just isn't illegal at this point in time. And before anyone point it out, yes, you do have a right to do anything that's not illegal - we don't do ex post facto law in this country. But it could be made illegal tomorrow without touching the Constitution. That's what keeps it from being a constitutional right.

[iverglas]

180. that just isn't quite it, in my ever so humble

There is no law against eating a ham sandwich, for example. But if ham became a public health hazard because of some strange food-borne disease, it could be banned by law or by regulation, without any need for a constitutional amendment.

That's right -- but it could NOT be banned on a whim. I don't know exactly where a US constitutional scholar would derive the right to eat a ham sandwich from, in the US constitution, but I really really do think it is there.

Up here, it would be regarded as an exercise of the constitutional rights to liberty and/or security of the person. Down there, you might call it one of those rights the folks had before 1789 that were recognized by your Constitution. Whatever. I just can't imagine how it could *not* be regarded as an exercise of some right or other.


If, on the other hand, someone wants to ban flag-burning, that does require a constitutional amendment, because political expression is constitutionally protected.

No, actually, it doesn't -- it requires circumstances in which banning flag-burning is constitutionally justified. There really are circumstances, extremely limited and unusual thought they may be, in which interference with constitutionally protected freedom of speech is constitutionally permissible.

Maybe flags are all made with some toxic chemical in the fabric; banning the burning of flags would be justified in the interests of public health and safety. Maybe the burning of flags has led to enormous riots and many deaths, when battles erupted between burners and objectors to burning; banning the burning of flags might very possibly be justified in the interests of public safety and order. Maybe the burning of flags has caused vast forest fires; banning the burning of flags in particular circumstances, e.g. in national forests, would very likely be justified.

Amending a constitution to incorporate a provision that conflicts with other provisions of the same constitution is just insane idiocy, of course.

Political expression is constitutionally protected, but that just doesn't mean that there are *no* circumstances in which it can be limited.


That doesn't mean that anyone has a constitutionally protected RKBA, any more than they have a constitutional right to eat a ham sandwich. It just isn't illegal at this point in time. ... But it could be made illegal tomorrow without touching the Constitution. That's what keeps it from being a constitutional right.

I just find this analysis intellectually distressing and counter-productive.

Do you really think that your Congress (or whatever legislative body has jurisdiction in the matter) could pass a law tomorrow prohibiting you from eating ham sandwiches, and the law would not be struck down as an unconstitutional interference with some constitutional right or other? May your governments really legislate your diet on a whim?

Ditto possessing firearms -- the second amendment could disappear off the face of the earth, and whatever level of government in the US wanted to limit the possession of firearms would still have to justify the limitations it was imposing, the same as it would have to do if it wanted to limit the possession of fireflies or fireplaces or fire extinguishers.

What that doesn't mean, of course, is that it would have to PROVE that the limitation it wanted to impose was the only way of solving the problem it wanted to solve, or that it was guaranteed to solve that problem. That isn't the standard of proof that applies to constitutional scrutiny of legislation.


I dunno -- I could be completely wrong and it could be that your governments could pass laws tomorrow prohibiting you from eating ham sandwiches, and that the law would pass constitutional mustard. (Okay, I couldn't resist.) I just really doubt it.

[library_max]

141. Try and get it straight.

Many things are legally permitted that are not constitutionally protected. The Second Amendment does not "permit" anything - nothing in the Bill of Rights does. It establishes a constitutional protection for possession of arms for the purpose of the citizen militia. That's all it protects and guarantees. But permitted? Anything's permitted unless it is prohibited by law. Nobody has ever argued that the Second Amendment forbids any kind of ownership or use of weapons - only that it doesn't protect them from legislation, regulation, and restriction.

[YNGW]

148. Understood.

Yeah, yeah, I know all that. In an attempt to shorten the postings, I write things in such a way that cuts to the chase. I figured all these things were understood already, so no need to have to restate them. The average person reading this knew the point I was getting at, and that's all that matters. All these others going into detail about Constitutional Law are saying things I know already, but I guess it makes them feel better. C'est La Vie.

[library_max]

149. So what was your point again? /nt

[YNGW]

150. Quantified.

I said the average person. I've generally found on message boards that anything I write above that loses way too many readers.

[library_max]

151. But what was your point? /nt

[YNGW]

152. You'll see.

I got the quotes I needed. When the time comes, I'll use them.

Gotta run.

[library_max]

153. So, no point at all then. What a surprise. /nt

[MrBenchley]

158. Having failed with outright lies, it appears

the newest RKBA tactic is bone density...

[skippythwndrdog]

173. Read the Federalisr Papers for a little background.

You'll find the intent is clear enough.

Help me out here RKBA'ers : my memory is a little rusty, but I think it's Federalist 49.

[iverglas]

174. love those Federalist Papers

http://www.thestranger.com/2003-07-03/ex7.html

The United States is a one-myth culture. The Federalist Papers read like John Locke having a conversation with himself, and your history is just an extended working out of the philosopher's ideas about individualism, private property, and the state. In the United States, the capitalists have acquired a monopoly on patriotism, and your response to other ideologies alternates between xenophobic isolationism and messianic internationalism. (See the recent resumé of George W. Bush for achievement on both alternatives.) The upshot is a country where the political ideology of market populism masquerades as nationalism, and where there is a free market in everything except good ideas.

... Both countries are trending away from traditional values, are becoming less deferential to authority and more individualistic. But while Canadians are moving toward values associated with idealism and personal self-fulfillment (e.g., creativity, tolerance, and cultural sampling), Americans are moving away en masse from the trends associated with civic engagement and social and ecological concern. You are becoming paranoid and isolated, more likely to see society as a war of all against all. America is becoming a nation of survivalists.

The failure of socialism to get any grip in your country is usually referred to as "American exceptionalism." But when you consider American values in light of the determined openness and internationalism emerging in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere, this "exception" is starting to look more like an aberration. Take a look around, America. Soviet Canuckistan is the new world order.

Yeah, I knew you'd like it.

Nothin' like a good myth to keep the oil pumping and the profits flowing. And the bullets flying. And the rich richer and the poor poorer.

If my national myth were producing the crap yours is, I'd be shopping for a rather less outdated one, myself.

[MrBenchley]

175. Yup, the intent is clear....

The Second refers to state militias only....

[MikeG]

5. I'm not pro-gun. I'm pro-leave the Constitution alone for now.

[amber dog democrat]

6. That is an ingrained part of American culture now.

even if the culture has changed considerably since it was written.
I am gratified that both candidates are not opposed to the 2nd .
Still for Kerry however.

[Hoosier Democrat]

7. I'm a proud gun owner

My father taught me gun safety from an early age. I keep my guns locked in a gun cabinet and the ammo is lockled in a separate cabinet in another area of the house. I keep the only keys on me at all times. I'm not a hunter, I keep the guns for sentimental value (they belionged to my Dad and Grandfather), and I do have one handgun for personal protection.

I also, however, support waiting periods for the purchase of any gun and closing the gun show loophole. As for assault weapons, there is no need for a private citizen to own one. If you need to use one for hunting, you really have no business hunting.

Unfortunately, too often "Gun Owners" are lumped together with the NRA-wackos. These people use "gun rights" to mask irresposible attitudes which are not only far-out, but are downright dangerous. My father HAD a lifetime membeship in the NRA. he was also a State Trooper. Once the NRA spoke out against banning "cop killer" bullets, my father tore up his card and told them to "Shove It".

[iverglas]

11. the only problem is

Unfortunately, too often "Gun Owners" are lumped together with the NRA-wackos.

The people doing that lumping are the NRA wackos and their fellow travelllers.

They're the ones pretending to speak for "gun owners".

And they're the ones pretending that anybody who advocates stronger firearms control feels the same way about "gun owners" as s/he feels about the NRA wackos.


I do have one handgun for personal protection. ... As for assault weapons, there is no need for a private citizen to own one.

And your sentiment about assault weapons is mine about handguns. No one needs one, and the harm that results from widespread easy access to handguns far outweighs any individual's interest in possessing one.

[LQQKR]

53. oh...

I see you're in Canada... say what you want, your opinion means nothing as far as American gun laws are concerned. EOM.

[TX-RAT]

54. Oh

I see your(nothing) guess your opinions worthless.

[LQQKR]

56. ha!

yeah, but my dog loves me!

[TX-RAT]

57. Well thats one.

[MrBenchley]

59. Most dogs don't really understand what's said....

[LQQKR]

60. mine

Mine knows 'sit'. 'stay' and 'fetch'... and he's even learned 'reload' means to retrieve me a new box of ammo from my stock pile, nice huh!

[TX-RAT]

61. But can he bring the right caliber?

[LQQKR]

62. Of course...

of course!

[MrBenchley]

66. Smart dog...

Wish he was on your keyboard....

[LQQKR]

67. LMAO!

Good one.

[iverglas]

65. ha hee har

I love having a fan club.

(Of course the rules might call this behaviour something other than an expression of admiration, and the word from which "fan" is derived might spring to some minds ...)

Your opinion of my opinion might mean something if I'd ever said my opinion meant anything "as far as <US>American gun laws are concerned".

That not being the case, your opinion of my opinion would appear to be worthless.

Eh?

[LQQKR]

68. And then..

And then the world became a cold, dark and empty place.

[Johnnyvegas1965]

171. My $.02

I do have one handgun for personal protection. ... As for assault weapons, there is no need for a private citizen to own one.


A private citizen cannot own an asssault weapon, by definition an "assault weapon" has selective (full automatic) capability, and they were outlawed when Al Capone was still around. What we can own are semi automatic copies of said assault weapons. I myself am a law abiding firearms owner, as I cannot rely on the police (not knocking them, their job is tough enough as it is) to respond to an emergency where I may be required to defend my, or my family's lives

My $.02

Johnnyvegas1965

[FeebMaster]

172. Assault weapons are not machine guns.

The Assault Weapons Ban affects only semi-auto weapons.

Machine guns were not outlawed when Al Capone was still around. They are still legal to own. Reagan banned future civilian production of machine guns in 1986.

[enfield collector]

35. what do you mean by assualt weapons and gun show loophole?

have you read the text of AWB and what exactly is the gun show loophole that you want closed? also what is a "cop killer" bullet? how does it discriminate cops from the rest of us citizens?

[Hoosier Democrat]

36. Some answers...

The gun show loophole is the loophole which allows cash-and-carry sales of guns at gun shows. I believe that all gun purchases should be subject to a background check. I have no qualms about waiting a few days to take delivery of my gun.

"Cop Killer" bullets got their name because they have armoured jackets that are designed to penetrate a flack jacket or bulletproof vest. The first time i ever heard the phrase was many years ago on "Nightline" when I listened to the NRA mouthpiece du jour talk about how effective they were for deer hunting. Yep, just hate it when my round bounces of a buck's body armor.

[LQQKR]

55. most any

Most any steel core, high velocity round will penetrate body armor. The whole 'armor piercing' pitch we heard about in the 80's was mostly marketing.

[Wickerman]

166. You don't mean, do you, that the Gun Industry LIED, do you?

Lied to sell more ammo? Now whines when folks call their product excessive?

[iverglas]

39. What do you mean by THAT?

What do you MEAN by that?

WHAT do you mean by that?

What do YOU mean by that?


what do you mean by assualt weapons and gun show loophole? have you read the text of AWB and what exactly is the gun show loophole that you want closed?

What do you mean by "AWB"? What has the Australian Wheat Board got to do with anything? Who was talking about the Average White Band?

What exactly is this "text" you're wanting somebody to read? Is "text" like "book" or "poem"?

What do you mean by "want", and "closed", and "what", anyhow?

also what is a "cop killer" bullet? how does it discriminate cops from the rest of us citizens?

Also, what is a "citizen"? How does a bullet discriminate between citizens and non-citizen residents and tourists? Are you advocating bullets that would discriminate against people based on their nationality?


Have you considered a career in teaching? You seem to be well-versed in the Socratic Sophistic method.

[goju]

43. Said the pot to the kettle

"You seem to be well-versed in the Socratic Sophistic method"

I think the moderators should issue merit badges for such things down here
:P

[iverglas]

47. you just feel free now

... to copy and paste, whenever you feel that I'm being sophistic.

(Sophisticated I'll admit to. Sophistication is the hallmark of Canadian.)

Or hell, you could just keep up the unsubstantiated assertions of wrongdoing.

[goju]

51. Oh come now

We see it every day...in nearly every post...are you HONESTLY saying you dont engage in sophistry?

[Kenergy]

9. I don't support the NRA,

but I do support the original purpose behind the amendment.

And I'm voting for Kerry because shrub doesn't have a clue
what principles are embodied in the Constitution.

[MercutioATC]

10. I don't feel it applies to private gun ownership today but I'm not against

it...

[markbark]

13. I support the whole friggin' document! (N/T)

[iverglas]

22. hmm

"I support the whole friggin' document!"

Presumably you mean "the whole friggin' document" as it now reads.

So presumably you would say that it was once (or at various times) imperfect -- since it has undergone quite a lot of change to reach the form it now takes -- but has now reached the pinnacle of perfection.

Was it perfect when it contained Amendment XVIII?
http://lab.pava.purdue.edu/pol101/Reference/Constitution/constitution.amendmentxviii.html

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

How about before it contained Amendment XIX?
http://lab.pava.purdue.edu/pol101/Reference/Constitution/constitution.amendmentxix.html

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on
account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Or Amendment XXIV?
http://lab.pava.purdue.edu/pol101/Reference/Constitution/constitution.amendmentxxiv.html

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(I don't actually know what the need for that last one was, but if there was a need for it, it strikes me that things might not have been as they should be, without it.)

If it was in fact perfect before, what was the need for Amendment XXVI?
http://lab.pava.purdue.edu/pol101/Reference/Constitution/constitution.amendmentxxvi.html

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Somebody seems to have thought it was imperfect before that one was added.

So -- how do you know when the US Constitution has achieved perfection? Does your support for it depend on what it actually says? Or would you support the whole friggin' document pretty much no matter what it said?

But basically, the point is this: the US Constitution has been altered in the past to correct perceived imperfections, and so its mere existence as it is constituted at any given moment just doesn't seem to be proof that it can't be improved on.

Perhaps it is your opinion that, as it stands, it can't be improved on. But that's just your opinion, and not any authority, or based on any authority, for the proposition. Evidently, there is long-standing authority for the opinion that the US Constitution may require improvement from time to time.

The question then becomes whether it requires improvement in any particular manner and instance. And a general expression of belief that it is perfect isn't an answer to any specific proposals for change.

[harperscrossing]

32. yes I am just a little dissrupter

but what the hey!

You quoted ammendments to the constitution, proving that the constitution can be ammended. So? Why not do that, instead of hiding behind the robes of Judges?

[iverglas]

33. an early award

[iverglas]

37. helloooooo ... did somebody hear something?

[goju]

48. Ok, i dont get it

Color me an idiot and take a free shot, but what the hell is that cheese reference all about?

[goju]

46. hay is for horses, but what is straw for?

"The question then becomes whether it requires improvement in any particular manner and instance. And a general expression of belief that it is perfect isn't an answer to any specific proposals for change."

Of course it isnt perfect and it never will be, but I never read that particular assertion anywhere. Are you misquoting people, making wild inferrences, or putting words in their mouth? Oh wait, I know what you are doing....you're pulling out that ole straw man again!

[iverglas]

50. are you talking to me?

Funny, I wasn't talking to you. Or about anything you said. Okay, I'm bored now. If you need help figuring out what I was actually talking about, you'll have to ask someone else.

[goju]

52. Oh I did "figure" it out

It really wasnt hard to spot that straw man, just wasnt sure others did also. Thought I might be of service. Sorry youre bored, I was hoping I could help with that too ;)

[library_max]

154. Sorry, my fault.

I told him to go buzz around somebody else's head a few days ago, and apparently he took me seriously.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RobertSeattle]

16. Bye Bye

:hi:

BTW - What ia a CheneyTard?

[MrBenchley]

17. Tell it to the marines....

[WMliberal]

18. hit alt+tab and go back to freerepublic. n/t

[Gunsforme]

19. ha!

And that's where you're all so terribly misguided... anyone who doesn't walk the party line around here is a 'freeper'. Trust me, I'm hardly a freeper.

[TX-RAT]

20. Happy trails to you

You know the rest of the song.

[Gunsforme]

21. LOL...

Smoking my last cigarette.

[delhurgo]

23. If youre banned for being right about the second amendment

then there's something wrong with this site. Its the 'gun grabbing fucktards' that should go, heh. ;-)

You probably shouldnt of said that you'd never vote for a democrat though; that went a little too far.

[Gunsforme]

25. yes...

Honest opinion is under fire at DU.

[MrBenchley]

26. Honest?

There's a BIG fucking laugh....

[BlueEyedSon]

27. Since when is name calling the same as honest opinion?

Maybe not everyone, but people like you SHOULD be banned from owning guns!

[Gunsforme]

28. ha!

yes, great policy....... anyone that ever called someone a name shall forever be banned from owning a firearm! I LOVE how you think!

[BlueEyedSon]

29. No, just YOU

:)

[Gunsforme]

24. C'mon...

C'mon mods... get off your lazy asses and do your job, jeebus!

[Hoosier Democrat]

38. Thank you

Nice to see somebody else here shares my opinion that responsible gun ownership does not make one a "Freeper". Sometimes far-left paranoia is as ridiculous as far-right paranoia.

I would also remind people that one of the Democrat's with the most pro-gun records is Howard Dean. I'd hardly consider Dean a "Freeper" or a "Fucktard".

[iverglas]

41. well well well

Nice to see somebody else here shares my opinion that responsible gun ownership does not make one a "Freeper".

How unfortunate for you that your new little friend actually WAS a "Freeper", eh?

Sometimes far-left paranoia is as ridiculous as far-right paranoia.

Funny. The only thing I'm seeing in the immediate vicinity that resembles "paranoia" is the notion that holders of the opinion that responsible gun ownership does not make one a 'freeper' are members of some (persecuted? hated?) minority.


I would also remind people that one of the Democrat's with the most pro-gun records is Howard Dean. I'd hardly consider Dean a "Freeper" or a "Fucktard".

What the hell is a "pro-gun record"? Does he not support renewal of the assault weapons ban? Was his position not essentially "let the states do it"? Is that actually qualifying as "pro-gun" these days?

Perhaps you missed the fact that the expression second term you cite was used in the expression "gun grabbing fucktards" -- i.e. BY, not ABOUT, the freeper friend in question ...

[Wickerman]

30. Thanks for playing, Bob

we'll be waiting, such wit and intelligence, we'll be waiting...

[TX-RAT]

31. Good shot Dead eye

[Redneck Socialist]

34. Lordy!

It doesn't take much for their little brains to explode does it?

[FeebMaster]

42. No.

The second amendment turned out to be useless as far as protecting the right to keep and bear arms went. So, since the 2nd amendment is more or less dead and since the RKBA exists independently of the 2nd amendment I'd have to say I don't support the 2nd amendment, but I most certainly do support the RKBA.

[MrSandman]

80. Or support bot the 2A and the RKBA...

I wonder if the results would be different in GD?

:think:

On the other hand, I do not wonder.

[LQQKR]

45. Yes.

I whole heartedly support the second amendment as it affords us, in ink, the unalienable right to self defense. It's no more, or no less important than any other right in the document, however... the 2nd amendment is the 'teeth' in the document that gives us the power, as the people, to ensure our other rights are not trampled on. It is our responsibility to protect our own rights... and from time to time, governments get out of hand, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out many times. To dismiss the second amendment is to dismiss one of the biggest responsibilities of being a citizen. Cheers.

[MrSandman]

77. Especially the part about...

the right of the people shall not be infringed.

[iverglas]

165. yeah, just like the part about

... "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble".

Amazing how your govts do make such laws, and they are enforced every day of the week with nary a constitutional quibble being quibbed.

Laws prohibiting perjury ... conspiracy to commit a criminal offence ... misleading advertising ... divulging state secrets ... shouting fire in crowded theatres ... and providing for people who do them to be punished ... noooo, those aren't laws abridging the freedom of speech. They're, um, oranges, I'll bet.

[MrSandman]

187. More of your oranges...

Laws prohibiting firearms on commercial aircraft, in courthouses, in schoools, in National Parks.

All without Constitutional quibbles.

[iverglas]

188. there ya go

Laws prohibiting firearms on commercial aircraft, in courthouses, in schoools, in National Parks.
All without Constitutional quibbles.

On YOUR part.

Laws requiring registration of firearms, laws requiring licensing of firearms owners and users, laws restricting access to certain types of firearms.

All without constitutional quibbles on loads of other people's part.


Amazing, eh??

[MrSandman]

189. What speech did you say was registered?...n/t

[iverglas]

200. what poop did you say was registered?

And yet ... pooping in the park isn't permitted. Hmm. I wonder whether "registration" just doesn't apply to some things.

Free speech, yes sir. Tried setting up your own radio station and broadcasting without A LICENCE lately?

But since you asked ...

Tried exhibiting the short National Film Board of Canada film "If You Love This Planet" in the US lately without REGISTERING with the US Dept of Justice as an agent of a foreign power lately?

[MrSandman]

203. Nice strawman...

The license for a radio broadcast are because the RADIO SPECTRUM is public property, not because one has to have to register what one will say.

Don't know whether registering with the DoJ has to do with content either?

And I made no scatalogical references. Some do love em.

[iverglas]

204. jayzus bleedin christ

Don't know whether registering with the DoJ has to do with content either?

You're kidding me, right?

You don't know what that requirement might have to do with CONTENT?

What the heavenly hell do you SUPPOSE it has to do with???

Read all about it, and maybe comment when you have a better idea of what you're talking about than you appear to have at this point.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=481&invol=465

The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (Act) requires registration, reporting, and disclosure by persons engaging in propaganda on behalf of foreign powers. The Act uses the term "political propaganda" to identify those expressive materials subject to its requirements, and defines the term as, inter alia, any communication intended to influence the United States' foreign policies. Appellee, a member of the California State Senate, wished to show three Canadian films identified by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as "political propaganda" under the Act, but did not want to be publicly regarded as a disseminator of "political propaganda."

... The Act requires all agents of foreign principals to file detailed registration statements, describing the nature of their business and their political activities. The registration requirement is comprehensive, applying equally to agents of <481 U.S. 465, 470> friendly, neutral, and unfriendly governments. Thus, the New York office of the NFBC has been registered as a foreign agent since 1947 because it is an agency of the Canadian government. The statute classifies the three films produced by the Film Board as "political propaganda" because they contain political material intended to influence the foreign policies of the United States, or may reasonably be adapted to be so used.

... In determining whether a litigant has standing to challenge governmental action as a violation of the First Amendment, we have required that the litigant demonstrate "a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm." Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 14 (1972). In Laird, the plaintiffs alleged that the intelligence-gathering operations of the United States Army "chilled" the exercise of their First Amendment rights because they feared that the defendants might, in the future, make unlawful use of the data gathered. We found that plaintiffs lacked standing; the Army's intelligence-gathering system did not threaten any cognizable interest of the plaintiffs. While the governmental action need not have a direct effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights, we held, it must have caused or must threaten to cause a direct injury to the plaintiffs. Id., at 12-13. The injury must be "`district and palpable.'" Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (citations omitted). <481 U.S. 465, 473>

Appellee's allegations and affidavits establish that his situation fits squarely within these guidelines. To be sure, the identification as "political propaganda" of the three films Keene is interested in showing does not have a direct effect on the exercise of his First Amendment rights; it does not prevent him from obtaining or exhibiting the films. As the District Court recognized, however, "hether the statute in fact constitutes an abridgement of the plaintiff's freedom of speech is, of course, irrelevant to the standing analysis." 619 F. Supp., at 1118. While Keene did not and could not allege that he was unable to receive or exhibit the films at all, he relies on the circumstance that he wished to exhibit the three films, but was "deterred from exhibiting the films by a statutory characterization of the films as `political propaganda.'" 569 F. Supp., at 1515. If Keene had merely alleged that the appellation deterred him by exercising a chilling effect on the exercise of his First Amendment rights, he would not have standing to seek its invalidation. See Laird, supra, at 13-14.

We find, however, that appellee has alleged and demonstrated more than a "subjective chill"; he establishes that the term "political propaganda" threatens to cause him cognizable injury.

The requirement that individuals/organizations REGISTER themselves before engaging in expressive activity (remember that the right of free speech in your constitution is *not* restricted to citizens of the US), and the LABELLING of the expression -- political expression -- in accordance with a government directive ...

You don't call this "registration of speech"??

And you don't know what it "has to do with content"??

Well I just don't know what colour the sky is.

[MrSandman]

205. I believe foreign nationanls are held to a different standard...

to be eligible for firearms possesion. At least there is an additional question on the 4473.

What about the broadcast licenses registering content?

[iverglas]

207. honest to dog

I believe foreign nationanls are held to a different standard...
to be eligible for firearms possesion.

The person who was found to have standing to complain about the legislation in question was a US national -- a US state senator, in point of fact.

It was HIS expression -- the conveying by HIM of a political message in the form of HIS exhibition of the film in question -- that was being labelled "political propaganda" by the US fed. govt. And HE was the one being required to stamp that label on HIS expression.

Would he be required to wear a big scarlet "H" on his forehead if he decided to carry a concealed handgun?

Well goldarn it ... isn't the very release of such information to the public something that throws the firearms control opponents hereabouts into frothing fits??

And yet we are seeing no objection to a law requiring a US citizen to stamp his/her political expression with the label "political propaganda". Quelle surprise.


What about the broadcast licenses registering content?

What is it that you do not understand / are purporting not to understand about the issue at hand?

The issue is not whether REGISTRATION may be required in order for a right to be exercised.

The issue is WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT MAY BE MADE SUBJECT TO REGULATION OR RESTRICTION.

A registration requirement is ONE FORM of regulation/restriction.

A restriction on WHERE a right may be exercised is another form.

A restriction on WHO may exercise a right is another form.

A restriction on THE MANNER IN WHICH a right may be exercised is another form.

You do not require a licence in order to exercise your right to poop -- but you may not poop in certain places.

You do not have to register the alcohol you drink in order to exercise your right to drink it -- but not everyone is permitted to drink.

You do not require a licence in order to speak aloud -- but you may not tell lies to a court.

As I did say, very clearly:

I wonder whether "registration" just doesn't apply to some things.

The fact that registration just doesn't apply to some things is what makes "what poop did you say was registered?" a loaded question and a risible attempt to pretend that something was said that was never said.

Here's what WAS said. In response to your:

<I> Especially <support> the part about...
the right of the people shall not be infringed.

I said:

yeah, just like the part about
... "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
Amazing how your govts do make such laws, and they are enforced every day of the week with nary a constitutional quibble being quibbed.


Your assertion was plainly and simply that the "right" enshrined your second amendment "shall not be infringed".

I could think of no meaning you could have intended to convey other than that the exercise of that right may not be made subject to regulation or restriction.

My response was that your first amendment said the same thing, and yet the right to freedom of speech is regulated and restricted all the damn time. AS IT IS.

Regulation/restriction takes many forms. You have been very eager to attempt to refute my assertion of the broadcast licensing requirement as an example of such regulation/restriction -- and yet I notice that you have had nothing at all to say about what I cited in the very first place:

Laws prohibiting perjury ... conspiracy to commit a criminal offence ... misleading advertising ... divulging state secrets ... shouting fire in crowded theatres ... and providing for people who do them to be punished ... noooo, those aren't laws abridging the freedom of speech.

Those there are not oranges. They are analogous restrictive/regulatory activities, and they stand as analogous since no sensible distinction between them and regulations/restrictions placed on the possession and use of firearms has yet even been advanced.

Your persistence in pretending that the only form that the regulation/restriction of an exercise of a right can take is "registration" is nothing short of puerile.

[MrSandman]

208. Persistence?

Did I not acknowledge that the right to bear arms is limited/restricted/regulated?

Did I not acknowledge licensing prior to some bearing of arms?

Laws prohibiting perjury ...

How can perjury be part of a free speech argument? Is not perjury doing something that you have sworn or affirmed not to do? If you swear or affirm to give facts, then you have waived your right of creative license.

conspiracy to commit a criminal offence ... misleading advertising ... divulging state secrets ... shouting fire in crowded theatres ... and providing for people who do them to be punished ... noooo, those aren't laws abridging the freedom of speech.

And laws proscribing the brandishing of weapons, use of weapons in a criminal endeavor, the discharge of a weapon within 500' of a dwelling and providing for criminal punishment are not infringing the RKBA.

I can travel over 600mi. through five states to get to the Capital of PA, and can be legally armed the entire way except for the 12 between the Potomac River and the Mason-Dixon Line. Does that mean MD infringes on my RKBA? Or does that state choose to regulate the RKBA differently?

Before I purchase a firearm, the dealer must have me complete and sign a form, under penalty of perjury, and complete a NICS check. Is this an infringement on my RKBA? I do not think so.

All that regulation without registration.

And your persistence in scatological references is nothing short of putrid.

[iverglas]

209. abject nonsense

How can perjury be part of a free speech argument? Is not perjury doing something that you have sworn or affirmed not to do? If you swear or affirm to give facts, then you have waived your right of creative license.

What is it about you folks and this convenient forgetting of the UNALIENABILITY OF RIGHTS?

If you sign on to serve as a galley-slave for the next ten years and run away after 6 months, can you be prosecuted?

Or does that UNALIENABLE right to liberty come into it somehow?

UNALIENABLE rights CANNOT BE WAIVED. That's what the damned word means.


And laws proscribing the brandishing of weapons, use of weapons in a criminal endeavor, the discharge of a weapon within 500' of a dwelling and providing for criminal punishment are not infringing the RKBA.

SEZ YOU, as I started out by saying. As far as I can see, that's just your little personal private opinion.

The right may not be infringed ... but when MrSandman doesn't object, it can go right ahead and be infringed.

That's all I'm seeing. I mean, I sure have yet to see anything that resembles something like a fact or an argument to back up that opinion.

Does that mean MD infringes on my RKBA? Or does that state choose to regulate the RKBA differently?

Well, if you're asking *me*, I would of course say that Maryland infringes whatever right you're asserting, with justification.

Just exactly the way laws against perjury infringe your right of free speech with justification.

And if you don't know what I mean by "justification", you're in need of more education in rights theory and the constitutional scrutiny of government action than I about to try to offer just now.

Before I purchase a firearm, the dealer must have me complete and sign a form, under penalty of perjury, and complete a NICS check. Is this an infringement on my RKBA? I do not think so.

And you think wrongly. But there ya go.


All that regulation without registration.

What on earth is your point? I have yet to discern it.

All that regulation without registration. Yes indeed. So?

Does the existence of *those* forms of regulation somehow prove that no *other* forms of regulation are permissible?? I don't think so.

I have a right to go from here to there. Going from here to there is an exercise of the right to liberty. And yet if I wish to get from here to there by driving a motor vehicle, I must be licensed to drive and the thing I'm driving must be registered.

I have a right to acquire food. Acquiring food is an exercise of the right to life (and the right to security of the person widely recognized in the world today). And yet if I wish to acquire food by shooting it with a firearm, I must be licensed to shoot and the thing I'm shooting must be registered.

See how simple it is?


And your persistence in scatological references is nothing short of putrid.

And I care deeply.

Nonetheless, your opinion of my choice of language is entirely irrelevant to what's going on here. Your evasion of issues, on the other hand, is not.

[MrSandman]

192. Almost forgot...

I do need a license and there are laws restricting access to certain types of firearms(see NFA and FOPA).

FOPA

[turnkey]

179. The right is an individual right.....

and I exercise it on an everyday basis. Academia can misinterpret it all it wants, but the actual meaning wont change and it doesn't fade with time.

[iverglas]

181. "The right is an individual right....."

"and I exercise it on an everyday basis."

Yeah.

Sorta like wearing pants and eating pizza, eh?

[turnkey]

182. Pretty much...

it's part of my job.

[iverglas]

185. well there ya go

The right is an individual right.....
and I exercise it on an everyday basis.

Yeah.
Sorta like wearing pants and eating pizza, eh?

Pretty much...
it's part of my job.

Sorta like performing surgery to remove tonsils is part of some people's jobs.

I guess this means we all get to hang out our surgeon shingles now.

Or hmm ... could our right to perform surgery be subject to reasonable conditions imposed in the public interest?

Do you have a point yet?

[turnkey]

195. Do you have a point yet?

Yep!...I'm in Law enforcement...hence the username.

[iverglas]

197. still looking for that point

Yep!...I'm in Law enforcement...hence the username.

Yep.

And hence the fact that your use of firearms has precisely bugger all to do with anyone's "right" to possess or carry firearms.

And hence the fact that -- if what you were referring to when you said that you exercise your right to possess/carry firearms "on a daily basis" was your possession/use of firearms in your alleged capacity as, from what one can tell, some sort of prison guard -- what you said was false.

The doing of something by someone authorized by law to do it, for a public function that s/he is employed by the public to perform, really does have precisely bugger all to do with any alleged right that s/he or anyone else has to do it.

People who are employed to move furniture have a "right" to walk into your house and walk out with your stereo. Do I?

[turnkey]

198. Typical anti logic....

and a complete waste of my time.

[iverglas]

199. awwwww

"How else do you respond to those
who have a persecution complex,
repeatedly insult you, and then
conveniently drop out of the debate,
just as they're losing, while citing
BS excuses?"
http://winace.andkon.com/pics

Any challengers for the coming week's award?

[MrBenchley]

183. Not even close to true...as the courts have decided

again and again and again....

"the actual meaning wont change"
No matter how desperately the gun lobby lies about it.

[library_max]

184. We're not talking about academia, we're talking about the courts.

You know - the people who interpret the law for a living? The people whose interpretation of the law is binding and enforceable? They are in full agreement that the Second Amendment applies only in the context of the militia.

[MrBenchley]

186. In fact, it was our "pro gun democrats"

who dredged an essay out of academia by Sandy "Torture is okay with me" Levinson to support their dreary lies....

[-..__...]

123. Yep.

BTW... pro-gun DU'ers (or democrats), should be in " " IE: "pro-gun DU'ers/democrats".

O8)

[library_max]

138. Legally, the Second Amendment is dead and buried.

All the standing US court cases, from Miller on down, restrict the relevance of the Second Amendment to the armed militia. And there hasn't been an armed militia anywhere in the United States in decades. It exists only as an abstraction, which might arguably support a right to own abstract guns, but not real ones. And to underscore this point, there is not one single standing US court decision which has upheld any gun-owner's right on Second Amendment grounds. Every single one has upheld the gun control measure at question instead.

[MrBenchley]

160. Which is why the gun lobby wants to wedge

dishonest pieces of crap like Scalia and Pickering on to the courts...it's the only hope they have of getting the dishonest verdict they wish....

[MrSandman]

170. I believe the limitation in Miller...

is on firearms not suitable for the military. Miller was given standing as an individual.

BTW, if the federalized national guard desired to park in my drive overnight without my permission, would that be a violation of the 3A that was proclaimed obsolete since they are not in my home?

[library_max]

176. Miller states clearly

that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to continue and make effective the militia, and that it can be interpreted only in the context of that purpose. That applies to the types of firearms and to all other considerations. If the militia is unaffected, the Second Amendment does not apply. This is how Miller has been applied in every subsequent case. There is no case in which the Second Amendment has been invoked to overturn a gun control measure or protect the rights of a gun owner.

In 1939 when Miller was decided (before World War II, when some soldiers still rode into battle on horseback), the armed civilian militia was still a viable proposition. It isn't any more.

How long has the national guard been parked in your driveway? Or, to look at it another way, how many angels are dancing on the head of that pin?

[UpsideDownFlag]

178. of course- who doesnt support having a well regulated militia?

that would explain why the national guard is so popular.


oh...you meant do i support the right of any random person to own a streetsweeper? my bad.

[slackmaster]

202. The National Guard isn't always there when you need them

Like when they're off in Iraq. Sometimes it comes down to a militia of one.

[library_max]

211. Fascinating.

What the hell is a "militia of one" going to do that would otherwise be worthy of the attention of the National Guard? Or are just enjoying the Christmas Story/Red Ryder fantasy again?

[udeligv]

193. oogle gbibble

How many replies do you have to post before this stupid thing will let you post a new message of your own?

I came here wanting to post an announcement of interest to at least some users of this forum and I'm damn near ready to give up. Registering in the first place was a monster drag - these pages load like cold molasses - and now I'm posting all these silly replies trying to make whatever the quota is so I can make my announcement and GET OUT OF HERE....

But it does seem to me that at the very least it ought to tell you HOW MANY of the damn things you have to have to make the nut.

And yes, I realize this is totally OT; but this particular T is so silly it deserves to be gotten O.

[FeebMaster]

194. 10 or so. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

196. Jeeze, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out....

He don't like the forum, and he don't like the rules....

[Wickerman]

212. Locking - over 200