created by: American Patriot | Jan 12, 2013

Columbus, OH

364 votes

Are you in favor of a ban on assault style rifles?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
Comments
401 - 420 of 718 Comments Last updated Jan 26, 2013

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#439
Jan 18, 2013
 
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Constitution is not a living, breathing document that changes with the times.
It is to be changed only by Amendment."
<Kemo wants to bang head against table at the inherent contradiction and idiocy of the above two statements>
Hey Einstein, the Framers put in the amendment provision so that the Constitution COULD keep up with the times.
Dude, seriously, you need to go back to school and LISTEN or READ.
You're not worthy of a response.
Go back to school...or get a refund.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#440
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be taking this example far too literally.
The example of yelling fire in a crowded building is usually used to demonstrate to folks without a great deal of experience in the law what the limits to the first amendment are. It is not the consequences, if any, which make the utterances illegal, but the act of producing them.
To look at other examples of limits to free speech, there are several examples which might help outline the concept that there can be limits to constitutional rights. Obscenity cases, defamation, speech in which a conspiracy is developed or threatening speech would also demonstrate that constitutional rights do have limits imposed by and enforced by legal processes.
I believe you are confused. The only reason why yelling fire in a theater would be a limit is because the result would obviously be a panic. This is because of theaters being notoriously a death trap in the past in which they are not now. Without that context, the entire example falls apart. It's a dated example. The entire point of the example was what would happen because of the speech. It did not suggest anyone do anything illegal, it did not suggest anyone do anything specific. What it did was create an alarm and panic the crowd and served no other purpose then doing so. It is the results of the speech that can make the speech illegal, not the speech itself.

The only other example you brought up which might be the speech itself is the obscenity. The rest are due to the likelihood of violating the laws or harming persons as a result of the content of the speech. You and I conspiring on how to rob a bank is not illegal, we can even print it in a book without retribution. But when either you or I gather the tools or take steps to bring that conspiracy to action, then we have problems. Do you see how this works?

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#441
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as thick as a whale omelette.
From the MA Court ruling:
"While we are cognizant that unlicensed possessors of firearms may use firearms unlawfully, unlicensed possession of a firearm itself is a regulatory crime," Spina wrote. "It is passive and victimless." Spina added: "That a person possesses a firearm without a valid license does not itself pose a substantial risk that physical force against another may result. Rather, it is the unlawful use of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."
Unlawful USE -- not POSSESSION.
It is crystal clear that gun bans abrogate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
So it is your position that this ruling, which serves to classify *which type* of crime illegal possession of a firearm is, while upholding the criminality of the act, serves to undermine the ability of the government (here represented by the state of MA's courts) to enforce the gun laws which this ruling clarifies.

You're unlikely to ever be in one of my classes. And for that, both of us are very lucky.

I'm not trying to denigrate you for your lack of knowledge but I'm curious, what level of education did you complete? Do you have some sort of legal background? I must admit that your...enthusiasm has impressed me far more than your working knowledge or ability to show your reasoning.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#442
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
The second amendment being interpreted as the right of an individual to own firearms is a pretty recent development! 2009, maybe? I'm too lazy to look it up.
If you follow a strict interpretation of the constitution, you get state administered militia and firearms in the context of those.
No you do not get a state administrated militia. For one, when the constitution was created, the stated were not allowed to have militias or standing armies except in a time of war. Go ahead and read it, it is in the US constitution still.

You are also wrong about the individual right to a fire arm. It hasn't been until somewhat recently that the right has been claimed to mean only a military. If you weren't too lazy to look it up, you would realize that in the opinions, they relied heavily on the understandings of the right back when the constitution was fresh and understood without all this living breathing bullshit that essentially allows it to be changed without amending it. They looked at writings by founders, writings by politicians, states and territories who enacted the same constitutions and amendments and came to the conclusion that it always was a right of the person.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#444
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is your position that this ruling, which serves to classify *which type* of crime illegal possession of a firearm is, while upholding the criminality of the act, serves to undermine the ability of the government (here represented by the state of MA's courts) to enforce the gun laws which this ruling clarifies.
You're unlikely to ever be in one of my classes. And for that, both of us are very lucky.
I'm not trying to denigrate you for your lack of knowledge but I'm curious, what level of education did you complete? Do you have some sort of legal background? I must admit that your...enthusiasm has impressed me far more than your working knowledge or ability to show your reasoning.
You consistently refuse to acknowledge the legal difference between gun possession and criminal gun use...or, as a comparison, free speech and criminal action based on that free speech.

Logic doesn't elude you.
Like all leftists, you simply reject it.

As Selwyn Duke once said about liberals, "Ideology isn’t rejected when it conflicts with truth; truth is rejected when it conflicts with their ideology."

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#443
Jan 18, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
You and I conspiring on how to rob a bank is not illegal, we can even print it in a book without retribution. But when either you or I gather the tools or take steps to bring that conspiracy to action, then we have problems. Do you see how this works?
Awesomely, wikipeda uses the same bank robbery example as you've provided.

Read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28cr...

It links to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....

which easily, lazily tells us that "This ruling indicated that conspiracy alone can be criminal."

I appreciate you trying to be helpful but I'm already pretty well stuck into the broad strokes of a lot of this! I've offered it to some other folks who may have been more interested than hearing themselves talk than being able to say something of value, but if you're interested in doing some foundation work on the basics of US law, there are loads of lectures and courses free online. I would be really happy to help you find someplace to start.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#445
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
AZ: Patrons may not purchase for on premises consumption more than 40 ounces of beer, 1 liter of wine or 4 ounces of distilled spirits at one time.
FL: No retail sale of wine in containers larger than 1 gallon.
PN: Beer can be purchased at beverage outlets (cases only), or restaurants (six-packs/restricted quantities) with Liquor Control Board–issued licenses
for places with a limit on the actual units you can get, almost every state has a limit on how much you can have, ABV for each type of booze, as well.
The entire beer verses guns argument is a little lost in the first place. The repeal of prohibition specifically allows the states to create their own laws, rules and regulation concerning the subject of alcohol. It is entirely constitutional for a state to require limits on the amount of open container served or that alcohol only be purchased from certain places and so on. The second amendment makes no provisions for this.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#446
Jan 18, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
It's not my area either! It's not even a proper question, just me fussing over something that really bothered me a bit.
I was looking at the Christopher Handley case. He imported a number of comics from Japan and got hit under the PROTECT act, which specifically bars the possession of drawn depictions of under-age figures which meet the Miller test. He's been the only person to get hit for possessing only drawings.
This makes me exceedingly uncomfortable! I'll admit I hate the Miller test in almost any circumstance (the idea that a jury's immediate, physical community should act as the standard in a digital age seems absurdist to me) but I'm not really seeing a solid reason for this kind of case to ever develop.
I'm not sure if my being extremely uncomfortable with this case is part of my continued discomfort with obscenity charges or my distate for the sexualization and corresponding hyper-vigilance against sexually contextualizing minors.
I'm just having a really hard time seeing what cause is served by this case.
While you didn't address this to me, I can't help but chime in.

Several years ago I recall a case (don't remember the details) but one was found to be in possession of a notebook with writings and I believe even drawings depicting minors involved in sexual encounters with him.

They tried to charge him based solely on the contents of that notebook. The final ruling tossed out the notebook on the basis of it being sheer fantasy and no proof of any actual crime.

I'm no legal scholar but it would seem to me that case would have established a precedent. On the other hand, John DeLorean got off on his cocaine entrapment deal based on it being entrapment. Not long after some Congressmen got busted in an entrapment called ABSCAM and it stuck.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#447
Jan 18, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should operate in reverse for a moment and look at the post that I was responding to.
woof
If you said something you didn't intend to, then I do not know what you are talking about. I said in that post you were responding to that the government could not seek civil action in a way that violates a protected right under the constitution, not that no one could.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#448
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>No you do not get a state administrated militia. For one, when the constitution was created, the stated were not allowed to have militias or standing armies except in a time of war. Go ahead and read it, it is in the US constitution still.
You are also wrong about the individual right to a fire arm. It hasn't been until somewhat recently that the right has been claimed to mean only a military. If you weren't too lazy to look it up, you would realize that in the opinions, they relied heavily on the understandings of the right back when the constitution was fresh and understood without all this living breathing bullshit that essentially allows it to be changed without amending it. They looked at writings by founders, writings by politicians, states and territories who enacted the same constitutions and amendments and came to the conclusion that it always was a right of the person.
In Heller?

It goes back to the foundation documents while slogging through the Miller, which every gun case gets to. While the popular reading of the second amendment as a right for an individual to bear arms has existed for longer, these are some of the first times (I'm going to triple check this on Monday, this is not my department!) that the court has weighed in this explicitly. With the rulings both being in the last 10 years or so, I can imagine that we'll see it crop up several more times before getting a clearer picture of what the courts are going to see as an appropriate balance between public interest and the 2nd

(Also, "always" the right of the person? You may want to reread the transcripts...)
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#449
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as thick as a whale omelette.
From the MA Court ruling:
"While we are cognizant that unlicensed possessors of firearms may use firearms unlawfully, unlicensed possession of a firearm itself is a regulatory crime," Spina wrote. "It is passive and victimless." Spina added: "That a person possesses a firearm without a valid license does not itself pose a substantial risk that physical force against another may result. Rather, it is the unlawful use of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."
Unlawful USE -- not POSSESSION.
It is crystal clear that gun bans abrogate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
Tippy head:

That ruling was made in the context of a dispute over whether a "dangerousness" hearing was required under the Mass. State rules of criminal procedure in order to determine whether the accused should be held in jail until trial. It has absolutely no bearing upon Constitutional questions regarding gun restrictions.

You really should stick to expounding upon your expertise in the field of "Karl Monday".

You know nothing about law.

woof
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#450
Jan 18, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Awesomely, wikipeda uses the same bank robbery example as you've provided.
Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28cr...
It links to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....
which easily, lazily tells us that "This ruling indicated that conspiracy alone can be criminal."
I appreciate you trying to be helpful but I'm already pretty well stuck into the broad strokes of a lot of this! I've offered it to some other folks who may have been more interested than hearing themselves talk than being able to say something of value, but if you're interested in doing some foundation work on the basics of US law, there are loads of lectures and courses free online. I would be really happy to help you find someplace to start.
Actually, wikipedia is misleading. Simply conspiring to commit an act is not enough. A step needs to be made to show intent to carry that act out. Otherwise, all the consultant who ever helped write a book or produce a movie or whatever with no intent of actually doing it would be guilty of conspiracy. Perhaps two convicted bank robbers release from prison discussing how to knock off first national bank on West James could be perceived as having intent to carry it out by being known as bank robbers. But if nothing connect them to a likelihood of carrying out the act, it isn't criminal.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#451
Jan 18, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Well, first off, civil liability is meaningless unless the government acting in it's official capacity is bringing the action. Second, penalties happen only if something else happen.
As I said, yelling fire in a crowded theater has a different meaning today because theaters are way more safe. You can yell it and escape any penalties the majority of times in today's environment. Theaters are no longer death traps waiting for something to happen.
So knowing that, we have to look at the situation, did the statement cause action to happen. if Yes, people panicked and were injured trying to needlessly exit the building, then consequences for the resulting panic and injury or deaths. If the people ignored it, then nothing. If the theater was really on fire, then nothing. If everyone existed and no one was hurt but the theater shut down and fire trucks arrived, then probably consequences.
So it's not just the words, it's the results of those words. Likewise, it would need to be the result of you keeping and bearing arms.
Inducing panic has pretty much the same meaning. And I believe that is the sort of legal wording that has always applied to the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire)--which is a regulation on the right of free speech.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#453
Jan 18, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
In Heller?
It goes back to the foundation documents while slogging through the Miller, which every gun case gets to. While the popular reading of the second amendment as a right for an individual to bear arms has existed for longer, these are some of the first times (I'm going to triple check this on Monday, this is not my department!) that the court has weighed in this explicitly. With the rulings both being in the last 10 years or so, I can imagine that we'll see it crop up several more times before getting a clearer picture of what the courts are going to see as an appropriate balance between public interest and the 2nd
(Also, "always" the right of the person? You may want to reread the transcripts...)
Browse through it now..lol

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290....

The syllabus makes it clear, but it goes into quite a bit of detail in the actual opinion.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#454
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Tippy head:
That ruling was made in the context of a dispute over whether a "dangerousness" hearing was required under the Mass. State rules of criminal procedure in order to determine whether the accused should be held in jail until trial. It has absolutely no bearing upon Constitutional questions regarding gun restrictions.
You really should stick to expounding upon your expertise in the field of "Karl Monday".
You know nothing about law.
woof
Possession of a gun [in this case, an "illegal" gun] was deemed not to be "dangerous."

In fact, possession was deemed to be "passive and victimless," with the Judge restating the plain fact that "it is the unlawful USE of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."

Citizen possession of firearms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Nothing -- outside of criminal USE -- should "infringe" that constitutional right.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#452
Jan 18, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Try purchasing a six pack of Budweiser in Robbinsville North Carolina.
woof
Or in Georgetown, KY.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#455
Jan 18, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Try purchasing a six pack of Budweiser in Robbinsville North Carolina.
woof
Or anywhere in the Town of Williamson NY

“Hi-Yo Silver! Away!”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456
Jan 18, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not worthy of a response.
Go back to school...or get a refund.
Don't need to, I'm the one who understands logic, you can't even see the self-contradictory statements you put up.

Abject capitulation on your part. Pitiful. But it's to be expected because your posts are so ignorant.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#457
Jan 18, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Inducing panic has pretty much the same meaning. And I believe that is the sort of legal wording that has always applied to the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire)--which is a regulation on the right of free speech.
What physical restrictions have been enacted to prevent such a crime?

Exactly NONE.

It is the USE of one's speech that draws the law into play, not the possession of a larynx.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#459
Jan 18, 2013
 
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't need to, I'm the one who understands logic, you can't even see the self-contradictory statements you put up.
Abject capitulation on your part. Pitiful. But it's to be expected because your posts are so ignorant.
If you would bother yourself to read this thread, you would find that I have suggested numerous times that all of you in favor of gun restrictions should prepare and pass an Amendment.

Reminder: 38/50 states

Good luck.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

46 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 1 hr Logan 829
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 4 hr Old Guy 29,340
Colorado unveils Obamacare tax to boost struggl... 4 hr They cannot kill a Spook 2
Michael Moore, movie-making critic of capitalis... 4 hr They cannot kill a Spook 2
Obama seen as threat to Constitution 5 hr Male 46
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 5 hr Male 2,904
palin: americans will support impeachment if...... 6 hr Duke for Mayor 8
•••
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••