US school shooting revives gun debate

[downhill246]

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>All-beef baloney! Hilarious in a way.
A "militia" is a body of citizens called out for military service in emergencies.
"Well regulated" means properly disciplined and supervised.
"The people" refers to the people collectively, not individually.
Put them all together, and you have the proper meaning of the second amendment.

Section IV.-- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

... The Right is General.-- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)

Thomas McIntyre Cooley, LL.D., was the 25th Justice and a Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, between 1864 and 1885. He was a charter member, and first chairman, of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
In 1877, Justice Cooley was appointed visiting faculty, by Sir William Osler, to the Johns Hopkins University. Cooley was appointed Dean of the University of Michigan Law School, a position he held until 1884.
Thomas M. Cooley Law School of Lansing, Michigan was named after Justice Cooley to recognize his contribution to American jurisprudence. A
Justice Cooley is recognized by the State Bar of Michigan as a "Michigan Legal Milestone".

[Voluntarist]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Section IV.-- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
... The Right is General.-- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)
Thomas McIntyre Cooley, LL.D., was the 25th Justice and a Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, between 1864 and 1885. He was a charter member, and first chairman, of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
In 1877, Justice Cooley was appointed visiting faculty, by Sir William Osler, to the Johns Hopkins University. Cooley was appointed Dean of the University of Michigan Law School, a position he held until 1884.
Thomas M. Cooley Law School of Lansing, Michigan was named after Justice Cooley to recognize his contribution to American jurisprudence. A
Justice Cooley is recognized by the State Bar of Michigan as a "Michigan Legal Milestone".

When you give that liberal facts he will ignore them.and ad hom attack.

[Norskejente]

Regarding our Bill of Rights it is not a free pass to do whatever we feel like. With those Bill of Rights comes responsibility and accountability. First Amendment is Freedom of Speech, we can say whatever we like but that doesn't mean we can't be held liable for the things we say. The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms and that too comes with responsibilties. Laws need to be followed and we can't just do as we please with those weapons. Along with responsibilities is accountability. If you fail to be responsible then you will be held accountable.
Now here is the thing, criminals are being supplied with guns some how, some way. How are they being supplied and who is supplying them with guns. I think we can all agree here it is NOT non gun owners. So is it manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, at gun shows,(selling guns in the parking lot) owners who sell to anyone off the streets and from irresponsible gun owners who don't lock their guns in a safe when they leave their homes allowing robbers to have access to them. Or is all of the above and other reasons why. Bottom line here is it is from those that either deal in guns or own guns that criminals are getting the guns from. Where is the responsibility here. What is the NRA and staunch gun advocates and owners doing to prevent criminals from getting the guns in the first place? I can tell you Absolutely NOTHING!!!!! Benefit of the doubt, well if they are doing something it is NOT working. The criminals are still getting the guns. Also the mentally disturbed are still getting access to the guns cause no on is preventing them from getting their hands on them.
When something goes amuck in society and people fail to be responsible on their own, that is when the government is there to step up to the plate and make people responsible and accountable for their actions. To do this they have to make laws because without laws you can not legally punish them for doing wrong. Hopefully the new laws might make gun owners and advocates wake up to their responsiblities. If these laws don't work and the killing continues then it is not the government to blame or non gun owners, but gun owners everywhere will continue to have blood on their hands from every innocent victim of gun violence.

[Respect71]

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>Why don't you explain the meaning of "a well regulated militia"?

Now you explain what you think it means.

[Respect71]

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>Why don't you explain the meaning of "a well regulated militia"?

"The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." "

[Voluntarist]

Norskejente wrote:

Regarding our Bill of Rights it is not a free pass to do whatever we feel like. With those Bill of Rights comes responsibility and accountability. First Amendment is Freedom of Speech, we can say whatever we like but that doesn't mean we can't be held liable for the things we say. The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms and that too comes with responsibilties. Laws need to be followed and we can't just do as we please with those weapons. Along with responsibilities is accountability. If you fail to be responsible then you will be held accountable.
Now here is the thing, criminals are being supplied with guns some how, some way. How are they being supplied and who is supplying them with guns. I think we can all agree here it is NOT non gun owners. So is it manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, at gun shows,(selling guns in the parking lot) owners who sell to anyone off the streets and from irresponsible gun owners who don't lock their guns in a safe when they leave their homes allowing robbers to have access to them. Or is all of the above and other reasons why. Bottom line here is it is from those that either deal in guns or own guns that criminals are getting the guns from. Where is the responsibility here. What is the NRA and staunch gun advocates and owners doing to prevent criminals from getting the guns in the first place? I can tell you Absolutely NOTHING!!!!! Benefit of the doubt, well if they are doing something it is NOT working. The criminals are still getting the guns. Also the mentally disturbed are still getting access to the guns cause no on is preventing them from getting their hands on them.
When something goes amuck in society and people fail to be responsible on their own, that is when the government is there to step up to the plate and make people responsible and accountable for their actions. To do this they have to make laws because without laws you can not legally punish them for doing wrong. Hopefully the new laws might make gun owners and advocates wake up to their responsiblities. If these laws don't work and the killing continues then it is not the government to blame or non gun owners, but gun owners everywhere will continue to have blood on their hands from every innocent victim of gun violence.

Answer; see fast and furious

Fact; twice as many people got killed with blunt objects than rifles.

[Voluntarist]

Ps

The bill of rights is a limit on goverment power, the people are free to do as they please, their freedom to do ends where another ones rights begins.

[Voluntarist]

The loving liberal psychopath control freak went into hiding.

[Norskejente]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Answer; see fast and furious
Fact; twice as many people got killed with blunt objects than rifles.

Show me an instance where 20 or more people ( or even 5) got killed with a blunt object or even a knife by one person in less than 3 minutes.

[Norskejente]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Answer; see fast and furious
Fact; twice as many people got killed with blunt objects than rifles.

BTW are we talking about just rifles or any gun?

[Respect71]

Norskejente wrote:

<quoted text>Show me an instance where 20 or more people ( or even 5) got killed with a blunt object or even a knife by one person in less than 3 minutes.

Frankly, it doesn't matter. The second amendment of the bill or rights allows gun ownership.

[Voluntarist]

Norskejente wrote:

<quoted text>Show me an instance where 20 or more people ( or even 5) got killed with a blunt object or even a knife by one person in less than 3 minutes.

There are instances where one with a gun was stopped by another with a gun.
Why do you want to disarm victims?

[Voluntarist]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
Frankly, it doesn't matter. The second amendment of the bill or rights allows gun ownership.

If i can just tweek your response, the 2nd amendment affirms the right that is god given unalienable.

[Respect71]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
If i can just tweek your response, the 2nd amendment affirms the right that is god given unalienable.

thank you, as are ALL of the Bill of Rights.

[The Infantile left Winged]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
If i can just tweek your response, the 2nd amendment affirms the right that is god given unalienable.

The 'left'? They are both aliens, and not right or about rights!!!
That is why they go by being the left!
Left out, left field, left not right, etc...

[Trolli]

Duhh, Righty rhymes with whitey duuh dar dum

[Respect71]

Trolli wrote:

Duhh, Righty rhymes with whitey duuh dar dum

Topix should not allow children on this site.

[Lawrence Wolf]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
So are you saying the "people" only have freedom of speech when more than one person is present or the people don't have relifious freedom when by themselves?
The following wording-
'A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the common defense, shall not be infringed.'
was voted down by the Senate and " for the common defense" was removed from the final wording of the 2nd Amendment.
"Annals of the First Senate."(1820)
Library of Congress
Research -David T.Hardy
"They [the proposed amendments] relate first to private rights .."
James Madison

The first amendment simply says the government cannot curtail the right to free speech. The only mention of "the people" in the amendment has to do with peaceful assembly, something difficult to do by a single individual.

[Norskejente]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
Frankly, it doesn't matter. The second amendment of the bill or rights allows gun ownership.

And with your second amendment rights comes responsibilities and accountability for your actions. Your right to bear arms has limitations. It does not mean you can own a tank or a cruise missle, yet they are weapons. If you want assault weapons join the military which will then give you access to those kinds of weapons. BTW Even the military has limitation. They can not just do as they please, as they too have to answer to the President and Congress.

[Lawrence Wolf]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Objection non-responsive
sir please answer the question.

I suggest you plead insanity for your client.