Mainly, Crooks and Fools Own Guns (Ot...

Mainly, Crooks and Fools Own Guns (Other Than Government Officials), Say Data

There are 151 comments on the The Huffington Post story from Nov 4, 2013, titled Mainly, Crooks and Fools Own Guns (Other Than Government Officials), Say Data. In it, The Huffington Post reports that:

Gallup headlined on 28 October 2013, "Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns," and reported that 60% of gun-owners chose "Personal safety/Protection" as a reason for owning a gun.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Huffington Post.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#86 Nov 9, 2013
"slander"

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#87 Nov 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's put that lie to the side and pin your "slader" assertion to NY state law.
Go for it.
I could care less whether you believe me or not. For you are utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Especially here on Topix. For you have been conclusively proven to be a liar and to deliberately misrepresent.

We'll just take this as an admission of your loss. GOODBYE troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#88 Nov 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't.
And slander doesn't cover "family" two hundred years after he is dead.
Or fifteen minutes later.
Wipe your chin, Davy.
Not quite, lying troll. That difference has been PROVEN abundantly here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/T483CGD6GA5SV...

And here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/T483CGD6GA5SV...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#89 Nov 9, 2013
"Slander and libel are both types of defamation, which refers to statements that damage another person's reputation. While there are similarities, each focuses on different types of defamation strategy. The primary difference between slander and libel is that libel is the written or otherwise printed public defamation of a person or entity, while slander is the spoken defamation of a person or entity. Slander can also include bodily gestures while libel can include published photographs."

Alive or dead, Davy?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#90 Nov 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
"Slander and libel are both types of defamation, which refers to statements that damage another person's reputation. While there are similarities, each focuses on different types of defamation strategy. The primary difference between slander and libel is that libel is the written or otherwise printed public defamation of a person or entity, while slander is the spoken defamation of a person or entity. Slander can also include bodily gestures while libel can include published photographs."
Alive or dead, Davy?
His family is VERY MUCH alive. And more than able to file suit.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#91 Nov 10, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet his family is VERY MUCH ALIVE.
Is Alexander Hamilton alive?

What state do you plan to file lawsuit?

One that allows for collecting for slander on someone who has been dead for 200 years.

WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLcher.....

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#92 Nov 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Alexander Hamilton alive?
What state do you plan to file lawsuit?
One that allows for collecting for slander on someone who has been dead for 200 years.
WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLcher.....
It's hard to fathom how one "welches" on a bet that one WON. Apparently that only occurs in your own little perverse fantasy world, eh troll?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#93 Nov 10, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to fathom how one "welches" on a bet that one WON.
No, GayDavy, you the loser, and you are welching.

Not nobody is surprised that you will try to welch out of this- we all know you have a big sticky mouth and no spine.

Is Hamilton alive or dead?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#94 Nov 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, GayDavy, you the loser, and you are welching.
Not nobody is surprised that you will try to welch out of this- we all know you have a big sticky mouth and no spine.
Is Hamilton alive or dead?
Your fallacious attempts at deflection aren't working, troll. Nor will they ever work. It's a matter of public record. And nothing will change that fact. You're caught in yet another of your repeated lies. All you are doing now, is looking even more foolish than previously. As well as tragically pathetic.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#96 Nov 13, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Soon to be overturned in the district courts.
~stomp stomp stomp~

Wipe your chin, dear.

They are real lawyers.

And real judges.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#97 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
~stomp stomp stomp~
Wipe your chin, dear.
They are real lawyers.
And real judges.
“Both Heller and McDonald suggest that First Amendment analogues are more appropriate, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, 595, 635; McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3045, and on the strength of that suggestion, we and other circuits have already begun to adapt First Amendment doctrine to the Second Amendment context.”--Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes, July 6, 2011, United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit,[RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#98 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
“Both Heller
Scalia will never be a hero to liberals, of course. But his emphasis on originalism and textualism seems to coincide with liberal interests on guns precisely because there were restrictions on guns during the colonial era; his reading of the original intent of the law was that it allowed an average person to have a typical firearm. Indeed, back in July, when he was promoting a new book, Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms.

Look at the syllabus of the Court’s brief that he wrote:

" 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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#99 Nov 14, 2013
(quoted)

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#100 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia will never be a hero to liberals, of course. But his emphasis on originalism and textualism seems to coincide with liberal interests on guns precisely because there were restrictions on guns during the colonial era; his reading of the original intent of the law was that it allowed an average person to have a typical firearm. Indeed, back in July, when he was promoting a new book, Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms.
Look at the syllabus of the Court’s brief that he wrote:
" 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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Hardly, troll:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#102 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly, troll:
Gosh... spooge sponge:

Who knows more about the US Constitution?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia or some high school dropout parasite who when not otherwise collecting welfare and living off the dole in Arizona spends all his time copy and pasting the same thing for four years, hardly rolling out of his tent long enough to take empties down to the recycle center to buy his 40 ouncers?

Wait- let's give a hint: the same guy doesn't know the difference between libel and slander, even after he is given the definitions a half dozen times and with his knowledge of law in the US insists that one can slander someone... by writing... who has been dead for over 200 years.

Let me know if you need more hints, troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#103 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh... spooge sponge:
Who knows more about the US Constitution?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia or some high school dropout parasite who when not otherwise collecting welfare and living off the dole in Arizona spends all his time copy and pasting the same thing for four years, hardly rolling out of his tent long enough to take empties down to the recycle center to buy his 40 ouncers?
Wait- let's give a hint: the same guy doesn't know the difference between libel and slander, even after he is given the definitions a half dozen times and with his knowledge of law in the US insists that one can slander someone... by writing... who has been dead for over 200 years.
Let me know if you need more hints, troll.
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

"...More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went...."

"...A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

"For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

"Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

"These powers, and others in relation to rights of person which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government, and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care."--Chief Justice Roger Taney, United States Supreme Court,[Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).]

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#104 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh... spooge sponge:
Who knows more about the US Constitution?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia or some high school dropout parasite who when not otherwise collecting welfare and living off the dole in Arizona spends all his time copy and pasting the same thing for four years, hardly rolling out of his tent long enough to take empties down to the recycle center to buy his 40 ouncers?
Wait- let's give a hint: the same guy doesn't know the difference between libel and slander, even after he is given the definitions a half dozen times and with his knowledge of law in the US insists that one can slander someone... by writing... who has been dead for over 200 years.
Let me know if you need more hints, troll.
"...Baldwin J charged the jury...."

“The first section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania declares that all men have the inherent and indefeasible right of enjoying and defending life and liberty of acquiring possessing and protecting property that no man can be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land Sect 9 That the right of citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned Sect 21 The second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United States declares the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The tenth section of the first article prohibits any state from passing any law which impairs the obligation of a contract. The second amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"...We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union--in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable--so recognised by all our fundamental laws. "The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws."--U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States, PENNSYLVANIA, APRIL TERM, 1833.[Johnson v Tompkins,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833), and others.]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#105 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh... spooge sponge:
Who knows more about the US Constitution?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia or some high school dropout parasite who when not otherwise collecting welfare and living off the dole in Arizona spends all his time copy and pasting the same thing for four years, hardly rolling out of his tent long enough to take empties down to the recycle center to buy his 40 ouncers?
Wait- let's give a hint: the same guy doesn't know the difference between libel and slander, even after he is given the definitions a half dozen times and with his knowledge of law in the US insists that one can slander someone... by writing... who has been dead for over 200 years.
Let me know if you need more hints, troll.
"...Inasmuch as the Constitution provides a peaceable and regular mode whereby it or the U. S. laws may be amended, there can be no other rightful mode of effecting that end known either to the Constitution or law. As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed, it is evident that an assemblage for the mere purpose of procuring peaceable redress of supposed grievances cannot be treasonable; nor can a free and full discussion of the acts of public men or public measures, whether such discussion be in private conversations, public meetings or the press; nor can a military gathering when assembled for no purpose or design of interfering, by force or intimidation, with the lawful functions of the government or of its constituted authorities, or of preventing the execution of any law, or of extorting its alteration or repeal, or of overthrowing the lawful supremacy of the United States in any State of Territory...."-- CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY BY THE COURT, JULY 10, 1861. PRESENT: HON. JOHN CATRON, An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States. HON. ROB'T W. WELLS, District Judge of United States for Western District of Missouri.[ ST. LOUIS: PRINTED AT THE DEMOCRAT BOOK AND JOB OFFICE 1861.]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#106 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
Not part of the US constitution, troll.

Wipe your chin!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#107 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
1861
\
Waitress: You mean spam spam spam spam spam spam...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News No wedding for Bristol Palin Sat La Femme Accident 38
News Lowering the Confederate flag Jun 27 Get Out 16
News Federal court to rehear concealed weapons cases Jun 27 Truth and Facts 9
News Why are assault weapon sales jumping? Because t... Jun 27 payme 46
News Why assault rifle sales are booming Jun 27 payme 91
Truth About Reloading Jun 25 payme 22
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) Jun 24 Baron von Sanchez 120
More from around the web