Guest ratchethack Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 First off, that post was way to long to bother reading in its entirety. But I will assume it went on and on in support of your view.There are two parts of the 2nd amendment. The first part references a militia, the second part is the part gun rights people always quote. To me it says you have the right to bear arms in a militia in defence of your coutry, and you do. To you it says you have the right to own guns. But the reality of the amendment is there has been some control of arms for a long time in this country and you would have to be very far out of the norm to think that is wrong. The question for most is where do you draw the line? Are hand guns to be regulated? Are automatic assult rifles? Are 50 caliber machine guns? What about rocket launchers, cannons, or bombs? The line is drawn somewhere, exactly where depends on the individual. If you think all modern arms should be unregulated, then this is a waste of time and you are never going to listen to anyone elses opinion on this. GMoto, the content of my post above is not simply my opinon. You see, I've backed it up with the most credible original sources extant on the subject. Each of your questions are specifically addressed in the Supreme Court SUMMARY I provided above. I would think that you might at least use the bolded sub-headings as an obvious guide to the answers to the questions you've asked above. Now if a SUMMARY of the Supreme Court's latest and most comprehensive ruling on the 2nd Amendment (fully referenced above) is too much for you to read, I suspect that you're not sincerely interested in the 2nd Amendment after all, and you likely never read it once, let alone many times, as you claimed. If you can provide a source on the topic of the 2nd Amendment to back up your opinion that you believe refutes the Supreme Court, and is more credible than the official source document on the Supreme Court's latest rulings on it, the US Senate Home Page, and the official US Historical Documents Home Page, I'll read it. Promise. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're simply regurgitating baseless opinion and fermented propaganda. Here's a tidbit for you. "The norm" that you noted, aka consensus, has ZERO to do with the Constitution or the laws upon which our Nation is founded. Our Constitution was wisely, and very specifically constructed to make certain of this. If you don't comprehend this, please do yourself a favor before you attempt to debate any Amendment, and read it AND the Constitution first.
dlaing Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 First off, that post was way to long to bother reading in its entirety. But I will assume it went on and on in support of your view.There are two parts of the 2nd amendment. The first part references a militia, the second part is the part gun rights people always quote. To me it says you have the right to bear arms in a militia in defence of your coutry, and you do. To you it says you have the right to own guns. But the reality of the amendment is there has been some control of arms for a long time in this country and you would have to be very far out of the norm to think that is wrong. The question for most is where do you draw the line? Are hand guns to be regulated? Are automatic assult rifles? Are 50 caliber machine guns? What about rocket launchers, cannons, or bombs? The line is drawn somewhere, exactly where depends on the individual. If you think all modern arms should be unregulated, then this is a waste of time and you are never going to listen to anyone elses opinion on this. Nice Shot!
dlaing Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 District of Columbia v. Heller Original source document: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2823k - Adobe PDF - http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Syllabus. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ET AL . v. HELLER ... DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. Opinion of the Court ... Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Decision On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed, in a 5-4 decision, the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia (re-cast as District of Columbia v. Heller before the Supreme Court), that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, private, individually-held right, to keep arms and to bear arms, without regard to a person’s relationship to a militia. The Court held that the Second Amendment does not (as the District argued) protect a right to possess arms only while in service in a militia or (as others have argued) a “state’s right” to maintain a militia. (No dissenting justice endorsed the “state’s right” theory, putting an end to it once and for all, one can only hope.) The decision struck down the District’s bans on handguns and on having any gun in operable condition as violations of the Second Amendment, and prohibited the District from denying plaintiff XXXXXX Heller a permit to carry a firearm within his home on “arbitrary and capricious” grounds. Highlights of the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, follow: D.C. vs. Heller was a 5 to 4 decision. 1. Scalia was appointed by a Republican, Reagan. 2. Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by a Republican, G.W. Bush 3. Alito was appointed by a Republican, G.W Bush 4. Kennedy was appointed by a Republican, Reagan 5. Clarence Thomas was appointed by a Republican, GHW Bush vs. 1. Stevens was appointed by a Republican, Ford 2. Souter was appointed by a Republican, GHW Bush 3. Ginsberg was appointed by a Democrat, Clinton 4. Breyer was appointed by a Democrat, Clinton FWIW The decision of the Right wingers did say that "like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" http://publicservice.evendon.com/cgi-bin/H...c_v_Heller+s001 Following that logic, it might then be OK to to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for some purpose. LOL! Crazy idiots! They then went on to say that prohibitions for felons, mentally ill, concealed weapon, and in sensitive areas such as schools and government buildings, can be allowed. Which begs the question, how are Ratchet and Skeeve going to fight tyranny if they can't bring guns to government buildings?!? LOL! I guess they can use any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever to blow the crap out of the Federal buildings. Doh! The Breyer wrote a dissent which Stevens, Ginsberg, and Souter joined http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html which said, "We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not." "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests." "The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do." "the law imposes a burden upon gun owners that seems proportionately no greater than restrictions in existence at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. In these circumstances, the District’s law falls within the zone that the Second Amendment leaves open to regulation by legislatures." "The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court)." etc. Should these four justices "literally be dragged thru the streets & hanged for treason" as Skeeve suggested for some Democratic legislators of the US Congress?
dlaing Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 If you can provide a source on the topic of the 2nd Amendment to back up your opinion that you believe refutes the Supreme Court, and is more credible than the official source document on the Supreme Court's latest rulings on it, the US Senate Home Page, and the official US Historical Documents Home Page, I'll read it. Promise. Is the dissent of four greater than the verdict of five? No, but it is more righteous, brother! Read the bloody dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
Guest ratchethack Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Is the dissent of four greater than the verdict of five?No, but it is more righteous, brother! Ah, here's Dave now with his trademarked trifecta 3 posts in a row, clanking up with his similarly trademarked, infamous, always ready, 'Demon and Angel Buckets' again, pointing out which political party appointed each of the Supremes, and trotting out the dissenting opinions, as if any of this would be either a surprise to anyone, and as if it were somehow relevant here. Since the vote was clearly not strictly along Party lines, there would seem to be little point. But in the most myopic, simplistic, and hopelessly distorted of perspectives, it seems that any Supreme Court Justice appointed by a Republican automatically goes in the 'Demon Bucket', and any SCJ appointed by a Democrat automatically goes in the 'Angel Bucket'. This, from someone who regularly refers to Yours Truly as "partisan". "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't read." - Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain ...that post was way to long to bother reading in its entirety... Hm. For the willfully self-disadvantaged illiterate, perhaps a short video clip would take less effort (see link below), and therefore get some mileage from those whose interest in the Second Amendment is more superficial (for the typical purpose of GROUPTHINK posturing), but not quite enough to actually elicit the effort to read either it, or the Supreme Court SUMMARY of the most significant judical decision in US history on said Amendment. NOTE: Just to head off the dimmest of dim-wit knee-jerk GROUPTHINK propaganda-poisoned reflexes at the pass: No, gun bans don't prevent either criminals or psychotics from obtaining guns. Not now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. SOURCE: More Guns, Less Crime, the most definitive compilation of long-term, credibly and scientifically conducted studies on the devastating results of gun control laws on the planet ever published, by John R. Lott. Yes, I have a copy, and yes, I've read it. NOTE (Part II): As I have been compelled hereabouts to pre-emptively note countless times, I AM NOT a Republican, nor would I consider ever associating myself with that corrupt, ineffective, and now, more than ever, rudderless Party, which I hold in significant part responsible for the punishment that our Nation has endured for decades, and will now and for the forseeable future continue to suffer to a far greater degree than ever before, as a direct result of that Party's disgraceful malfeasance, most recently under the lack of leadership of the hapless, and woefully misguided Dubya. As a result of the aforementioned lack of leadership, an ObamaNation Dept. of Justice, under the most extreme anti-gunner Attorney General in our Nation's history, Eric Holder, is now poised to inflict the most serious threat yet to the Second Amendment in US history upon our Nation, with predictible results. Anyone with a sincere interest in the Second Amendment best be aware of what is certain to follow with 100% probability, according to the clear historical record. This video clip takes just short of 4 minutes to view. It's testimony before the US Senate by Dr. Susan Gratia-Hupp, State Representative of Texas, wherein she explains the Second Amendment to the likes of Senator Chuck Schumer, (D-NY). Now this is just me, but I find the expression on Chuckie's face simply priceless. DON'T MISS Dr. GRATIA-HUPP'S CLOSING SENTENCE! IT'S THE CORNERSTONE OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT THAT ALL TOO MANY FAIL TO GRASP! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...p;p%20r=goog-sl
dlaing Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Ah, here's Dave now with his trademarked trifecta 3 posts in a row, clanking up with his similarly trademarked, infamous, always ready, 'Demon and Angel Buckets' again, pointing out which political party appointed each of the Supremes, and the dissenting opinions, as if any of this would be either a surprise to anyone, and as if it were somehow relevant here. Since the vote was clearly not strictly along Party lines, there would seem to be little point. But in the most myopic, simplistic, and hopelessly distorted of perspectives, it seems that any Supreme Court Justice appointed by a Republican automatically goes in the 'Demon Bucket', and any SCJ appointed by a Democrat automatically goes in the 'Angel Bucket'. This, from someone who regularly refers to Yours Truly as "partisan". "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't read." - Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain Hm. For the willfully self-disadvantaged illiterate, perhaps a short video clip would take less effort (see link below), and therefore get some mileage from those whose interest in the Second Amendment is more superficial (for the typical purpose of GROUPTHINK posturing), but not quite enough to actually elicit the effort to read either it, or the Supreme Court SUMMARY of the most significant judical decision in US history on said Amendment. NOTE: Just to head off the dimmest of dim-wit knee-jerk GROUPTHINK propaganda-poisoned reflexes at the pass: No, gun bans don't prevent either criminals or psychotics from obtaining guns. Not now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. SOURCE: More Guns, Less Crime, the most definitive compilation of long-term, credibly and scientifically conducted studies on the devastating results of gun control laws on the planet ever published, by John R. Lott. Yes, I have a copy, and yes, I've read it. NOTE (Part II): As I have been compelled hereabouts to pre-emptively note countless times, I AM NOT a Republican, nor would I consider ever associating myself with that corrupt, ineffective, and now, more than ever, rudderless Party, which I hold in significant part responsible for the punishment that our Nation has endured for decades, and will now and for the forseeable future continue to suffer to a far greater degree than ever before, as a direct result of that Party's disgraceful malfeasance, most recently under the lack of leadership of the hapless, and woefully misguided Dubya. As a result of the aforementioned lack of leadership, an ObamaNation Supreme Court, at the urging of an ObamaNation Dept. of Justice, under the most extreme anti-gunner Attorney General in our Nation's history, Eric Holder, is now poised to inflict the most serious threat yet to the Second Amendment in US history upon our Nation, with predictible results. Anyone with a sincere interest in the Second Amendment best be aware of what is certain to follow with 100% probability, according to the clear historical record. This video clip takes just short of 4 minutes to view. It's testimony before the US Senate by Dr. Susan Gratia-Hupp, State Representative of Texas, wherein she explains the Second Amendment to the likes of Senator Chuck Schumer, (D-NY). Now this is just me, but I find the expression on Chuckie's face simply priceless. DON'T MISS Dr. GRATIA-HUPP'S CLOSING SENTENCE! IT'S THE CORNERSTONE OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT THAT ALL TOO MANY FAIL TO GRASP! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...p;p%20r=goog-sl "Nothing is as terrible to see as ignorance in action." ~~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
dlaing Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 "Nothing is as terrible to see as ignorance in action." ~~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Maybe it has digressed to a pissing match.... shameful.
dlaing Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~~Robert Heinlein
dlaing Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Was that a Trifecta, or more of a Hat Trick? Maybe a Turkey?
GuzziMoto Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 First off, that post WAS way too long for me to bother reading, sorry. Learn to be more concise and I'll read your posts. Second, I am not against guns, I keep them myself. All I said was that the second amendment does not say that the goverment shall not enact laws that regulate or restrict the gun trade. What it says is "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.". How you interpret this is up to you. You posted evidence of other people backing up your interpretation of this. That is fine. But you did not even address my point, which was that in the end it comes down to how our society interprets this or any other constitutional amendment. They, like all our laws, are only words. It is the meaning given to words that means something. What it means to you may not be the same as it means to me. But it is how they are interpretted that counts. My point was that there have been restrictions, thru law, on guns since atleast the mid 19th century in this country. We as a society have decided that the goverment can regulate arms in this country. If you do not agree with that I'm sure you will post another novel on how wrong I am. But the fact is there have been laws regulating guns for a long time. How much the goverment is allowed to regulate guns is where the issue of opinion comes in. Some people opinions count more then others, but everybody is allowed to have their own opinion on this. That is one of the most important aspects of this country. It is what makes America what it is. Freedom of thought. Now, while your opinion on how the second amendment should be read has been made reasoably clear (but not completely as you never answered the question on whether you think the goverment has any right to regulate arms at all or if you are just of the normal right wing approach) please do not attack my interpretation of it, since I have not even told you what it is. Again, my point was not HOW the second amendment should be interpretted, but that it IS interpretted and will always be interpretted (and that interpretation may change as times change).
dlaing Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 As president he has not yet breached his oath of office. As senator, he has [voted yes for unconstitutional (not to mention unnecessary) federal firearms laws], and he has publicly stated his intent to do so while campaigning. So, what federal firearm law do you mean? Is this the bill you are talking about? I don't see anything unconstitutional about it: S.Amdt. 1615 to S. 397 SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 13, after line 4, insert the following: SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION. (a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)( of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end; (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or ``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''. ( DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar. ``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile. ``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''. (As printed in the Congressional Record for the Senate on Jul 27, 2005.)
Skeeve Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 First off, that post was way to long to bother reading in its entirety. But I will assume it went on and on in support of your view.There are two parts of the 2nd amendment. The first part references a militia, the second part is the part gun rights people always quote. To me it says you have the right to bear arms in a militia in defence of your coutry, and you do. To you it says you have the right to own guns. But the reality of the amendment is there has been some control of arms for a long time in this country and you would have to be very far out of the norm to think that is wrong. The question for most is where do you draw the line? Are hand guns to be regulated? Are automatic assult rifles? Are 50 caliber machine guns? What about rocket launchers, cannons, or bombs? The line is drawn somewhere, exactly where depends on the individual. If you think all modern arms should be unregulated, then this is a waste of time and you are never going to listen to anyone elses opinion on this. All right, as indicated by the Miller '38 decision[1], arms that a single militia member would be expected to employ are protected. So, no crew-served weapons weapons, tanks, jets, etc. Anything which one soldier/militiaman[2] could be expected to hump along with a minimum load out of the required ammunition is protected from federal[3] interference under the 2nd amendment. BTW, as an aside: the federal prosecutor arguing before the Supremes in Miller '38 misrepresented the govt's. case and lied to the justices when asked if short-barreled shotguns had military value, as they had been in use by the U.S. armed forces since before WWI, and were extensively used within that conflict. But of course he just said "No." Yet another example of your "public servants" only "doing their job," no matter how wrong... Anyway, this discussion is heading into the "But we showed you..." "No! We refuse your arguments! Lalalalalala (fingers in ears)" phase, so I'm outta here. Ratchethack can argue this stuff much better than I can anyway. Besides, I flat out refuse to put that much of my limited lifespan arguing w/ people who don't want to hear it, wouldn't admit the truth if it bit'em on the - er - nose, and think it's all a (gasp) Republican (eeewww!) conspiracy [as if the Republicans wouldn't all sell us out as quickly as their Democrat opponents have, given the opportunity!] to overthrow the New World Order they're only trying to bring to us benighted reactionaries "for our own good." [it's "for the children" you know!] Remember, once they ban your guns, the motorcycles are next! Can't have some minority of outlaws putting the public at risk with their daredevil antics and drain on medical resources, can we? Ride on! [1] - which is flawed in itself; if there had been any amicus curiae briefs filed, it's likely that the 1934 act that Miller was being charged under would have been struck down. Since Miller didn't show, he automatically lost and an entire nation's future has been put at stake due to the fact that it is now "embedded" law... [2] - and let's get it straight right now, that the terminology used is not subject to reinterpretation based upon modern language usage! At the time, the "militia" consisted of every able-bodied male from 16-60 (ie, those who could own property and sign contracts on their own behalf; essentially, the voting population.) Lest any smart-@ss socialist interpret the foregoing to mean that the elderly can be disarmed: the cutoff of 60 was just a shorthand for "anyone old w/ fight still left in them" - at the time the average life expectancy was only in the mid-40s: being 60 years old and still hale was an exceptional feat! Since nobody else alive knew how old you really were, you just stopped counting after 60, unless you chose to make a big deal out of it! [3] - The "unlimited freedom ain't good for us" crowd seem to be getting their panties in a twist about this subject, so let's refresh: the federal govt. is forbidden to regulate small arms, but the state governments are not. This was the intent of the founders, as the local governments were all answerable to their local populace, and would likely be lynched, or at least tarred and feathered, for trying to disarm their constituency. At the very least, they'd be voted out and replaced with right-thinking folks at the 1st opportunity. And if not? There were still other states to move to; at least by preventing the federal govt. from being involved with any such nonsense, the free states couldn't be bullied by any number of misguided neighbors...
dlaing Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 Anyway, this discussion is heading into the "But we showed you..." "No! We refuse your arguments! Lalalalalala (fingers in ears)" phase, so I'm outta here. c'mon mate, it ain't so hard to pull your fingers out of ears!
John in Leeds Posted February 1, 2009 Author Posted February 1, 2009 I've saved the last 3 pages in case they get pulled. Lots in here to get my head around when I sort out 'the my facts your opinion' smoke in the middle from the information. Thanks to all
dlaing Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 I've saved the last 3 pages in case they get pulled. Lots in here to get my head around when I sort out 'the my facts your opinion' smoke in the middle from the information. Thanks to all "Those who do read have advantage over those who can read." - David Laing My brilliant quote is inspired by what Ratchet posted "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't read." - Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain It is good to see people actually reading! But at the same time, I think it is rude to insult people for not reading Ratchet's long posts and select linked readings. I have read most of what he has linked to from this forum and a good deal of it is crap. PS Go Steelers!
Recommended Posts