It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 Full story: Truthdig 103,362

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Full Story
President Barack Obama

Englewood, CO

#108001 May 23, 2013
God........... bless uh............... America.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108002 May 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
INFRINGEMENT.

The civil and moral laws are infringed by those who act in opposition to them: treaties and engagements are violated by those who do not hold them sacred: the bounds which are prescribed by the moral law are transgressed by those who are guilty of any excess. It is the business of government to see that the rights and privileges of individuals or particular bodies be not infringed: policy but too frequently runs counter to equity; where the particular interests of princes are more regarded than the dictates of conscience; treaties and compacts are first violated and then justified: the passions, when not kept under proper control, will ever hurry men on to transgress the limits of right reason.
I hold friendship to be a very holy league, and no less than a piacle to infringe it. Howel.
No violated leagues with sharp remorse Shall sting the conscious victor. Somerville.
Why hast thou, Satan, broke the bounds pre-scrib'd To thy transgressions? Milton.
INFRINGEMENT, INFRACTION.
INFRINGEMENT and INFRACTION, which are both derived from the Latin verb infringo or frango (v. To infringe), are employed according to the different senses of the verb infringe: the former being applied to the rights of individuals, either in their domestic or public capacity; and the latter rather to national transactions. Politeness, which teaches us what is due to every man in the smallest concerns, considers any unasked for interference in the private affairs of another as an infringement. Equity, which enjoins on nations as well as individuals, an attentive consideration to the interests of the whole forbids the infraction of a treaty in any case.
- ENGLISH SYNONYMES EXPLAINED, IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER; WITH COPIOUS ILLUSTRATIONS AND EXAMPLES DRAWN FROM THE BEST WRITERS. BY GEORGE CRABB OF MAGDALEN HALL, OXFORD. SECOND EDITION, GREATLY ENLARGED AND CORRECTED. Sed cum idem frequentissime plura significent, quod ?????????? vooatur, jam sunt aliis alia honestiora, sublimiora, nitidiora, jucundiora, vocaliora. Quintil. Inst. Orat. lib. is. LONDON: PRINTED FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY, 47, PATERNOSTER-ROW; AND T. BOOSEY, OLD BROAD-STREET. 1818.[Page 600]
You clearly have no idea what the second amendment is really all about, why it's there, what it means, the original intent of the Framers when they wrote it, or even what the words in the amendment actually mean ... you think you know, but you don't. All of you gunloons are completely wrong. You clearly have no idea what you are posting about and are too friggen lazy to find out (copy and paste). You would be surprised to learn that in the first 224 years of the existence of the second amendment, the constitution it's part of, and the Supreme Court the constitution created, in every case, every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception, when having to rule on whether the second amendment conferred an individual right to own a gun, the majority ruled it did not. In every case. For 224 years.
The reason every Supreme Court in 224 years ruled that the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, is because there is absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt, that the purpose of the second amendment, the intent of those who created it, its very reason for existence, had nothing to do with someone's right to own a gun. And the true meaning of the words in the second amendment, for those who understand the words, reflect that.
While there is a mountain of proof that the second amendment's existence and purpose had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, and the true meaning of the amendment was not to confer any such right, you only have to know two facts about the second amendment to understand that.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#108004 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly have no idea (blah, blah, blah —big snip)
Someone with a far greater stature than yourself, and someone whom you can never hope to begin to measure up to, has some words to lay upon you in that matter which you may only pretend any degree of knowledge:

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defence was assumed by the Framers."

~ Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243,251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and individuals."

~ James Monroe.

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason,`Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

~ Cesare Beccaria

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108005 May 23, 2013
spider1954 wrote:
<quoted text>
Early retirement doesen't help matters either, I believe its around fifty years of age there. The money has to come from somewhere. Its interesting to think that a country like Greece can bob along for a few thousand years, only to find itself in serious trouble after adopting the Euro, they aren't the only ones either.
Regarding the murdered squaddie, the reports I have been reading state that the two terrorists did attempt to behead the victim. This is a threat that has been made and tried before. although the carrying of large knives and guns is illegal those scum were obviously unaware of the law (sarcasm). Fortunatley when they opened fire on the police, one of them managed to blow his own thumb off. They were apparently trying to commit suicide by cop.
I know, my daughter is traveling Europe for six months and some places are worse than others but they have faced many issues before and have survived, I just hope that it eases for them now, but I doubt it will stop there....people have lost everything and it is so much harder to pick yourself up when you are older with a family.

Yes, we are getting the same news here it appears they have arrested two more people involved in the incident...and the name and photo of the soldier. These people seem homegrown?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108006 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception
REALLY?

"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."--Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, U.S. Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108007 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception
“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

- Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Constitutional scholar,[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833; Book III at 746,§ 1890)]

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108008 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception
"301. Among the defects which were enumerated, none attracted more attention, or were urged with more zeal, than the want of a distinct bill of rights, which should recognise the fundamental principles of a free republican government, and the right of the people to the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It was contended that it was indispensable, that express provision should be made for the trial by jury in civil cases, and in criminal cases upon a presentment by a grand jury only; and that all criminal trials should be public, and the party be confronted with the witnesses against him; that freedom of speech and freedom of the press should be secured; that there should be no national religion, and the rights of conscience should be inviolable; that excessive bail should not be required, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; that the people should have a right to bear arms; that persons conscientiously scrupulous should not be compelled to bear arms; that every person should be entitled of right to petition for the redress of grievances; that search warrants should not be granted without oath, nor general warrants at all; that soldiers should not be enlisted except for a short, limited term; and not be quartered in time of peace upon private houses without the consent of the owners; that mutiny bills should continue in force for two years only; that causes once tried by a jury should not be re-examinable upon appeal, otherwise than according to the course of the common law; and that the powers not expressly delegated to the general government should be declared to be reserved to the states. In all these particulars the constitution was obviously defective; and yet (it was contended) they were vital to the public security.[1]

[1] 2 Amer. Museum, 423 to 430; Id. 435, &c.; Id. 534, &c. 536. 540. &c 553, &c 557; 3 Amer. Museum, 62; Id. 157; Id 419, 420, &c The Federalist No. 38.]

- JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, A PRELIMINARY REVIEW, or THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COLONIES AND STATES BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION JOSEPH STORY LL D DANE PROFESSOR OF LAW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY.(Mr. Story was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court).

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108009 May 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why are you working towards seeing Americans disarmed by our perverse tyrannical government? Are you familiar with the term HYPOCRITE? Do you actually think tyrants will listen to WORDS? I guaran-damn-tee they listen to bullets.
I am not working to disarm you against your government because your government was elected by the people as the forefathers wanted...it is not a foreign self determined government.....I am working to remove guns that have and can be used to kill innocent citizens en masse'
You are naive there, because if your elected government chose to attack you, they will use drones not guns and more sophisticated weapons than you could muster with all your guns, so you are already outgunned there Pacha!
If and I say if, your freely elected government wished to do such a thing(and they don't else you would all be toast by now) it would be done with the least amount of collateral damage, they have the know how and the means already.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108010 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception
United States Circuit Court,

DISTRICT OF MISSOURI,

SPECIAL JULY TERM, 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.

HON. SAMUEL TREAT,
District Judge of United States for Eastern District of Missouri.

CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY
BY THE COURT,
JULY 10, 1861.

ST. LOUIS:

PRINTED AT THE DEMOCRAT BOOK AND JOB OFFICE

1861.

"TO THE GRAND JURY...."

"...A brief reference to some of the offences of which you have cognizance, and a succinct statement of the law concerning them, may aid your investigations, and serve for your guidance:

"The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Coustitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom...."

"...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...."

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108011 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception
"But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""

- U.S. Supreme Court, KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR, Footnote 10, 366 U.S. 36 (1961), Decided April 24, 1961.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108012 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception
Circuit Court of the United States.

PENNSYLVANIA, APRIL TERM 1833.

BEFORE

Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court.
Hon. JOSEPH HOPKINSON, District Judge.

Johnson v. Tompkins and others.

.... Baldwin, J. charged the jury.

The facts of this case are not complicated, nor is there much contest about those which are material to its decision; the questions of law however are of the last importance, involving the rights of property and the personal rights of the citizens of this and other states, to an extent which calls for a plain expression of our opinion, in order to have the law finally settled by the supreme court, on the interesting subjects now before us....

...We will now inquire whether there was any lawful cause to arrest on any other ground.
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.”....

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108013 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly have no idea what the second amendment is really all about, why it's there, what it means, the original intent of the Framers when they wrote it, or even what the words in the amendment actually mean ... you think you know, but you don't. All of you gunloons are completely wrong. You clearly have no idea what you are posting about and are too friggen lazy to find out (copy and paste). You would be surprised to learn that in the first 224 years of the existence of the second amendment, the constitution it's part of, and the Supreme Court the constitution created, in every case, every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception, when having to rule on whether the second amendment conferred an individual right to own a gun, the majority ruled it did not. In every case. For 224 years.
The reason every Supreme Court in 224 years ruled that the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, is because there is absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt, that the purpose of the second amendment, the intent of those who created it, its very reason for existence, had nothing to do with someone's right to own a gun. And the true meaning of the words in the second amendment, for those who understand the words, reflect that.
While there is a mountain of proof that the second amendment's existence and purpose had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, and the true meaning of the amendment was not to confer any such right, you only have to know two facts about the second amendment to understand that.
Clearly it is >you< which has NO IDEA of what you are talking about.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108014 May 23, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>watch the phone video and if anybody is a sensationalist whore it would be you because the way parade around here in your Topix post about how affective the Gun bans in Australia and the UK have been which are not as Sensational at all as you make it out to believe in you Post which was proven from articles from the Perth & other Australian Newspapers that I posted several links to confirm it that the criminals in Australia still have guns & crime has exploded ever since you just cant handle fact that the UK & Australia are now the breeding grounds for Crime & Violence as we have seen in the UK and I would say the UK & Australia have something to worry about since there is no threat to the Muslims and the Muslims know it.
Woolwich attack: terrorist proclaimed 'an eye for an eye' after attack
A British soldier has been butchered on a busy London street by two Islamist terrorists, one of whom proclaimed afterwards:“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
By Gordon Rayner and Steven Swinford
10:00PM BST 22 May 2013
In the first terrorist murder on the British mainland since the 7/7 suicide bombings of 2005, the men attempted to behead the soldier, hacking at him like a “piece of meat” in front of dozens of witnesses, before both were shot by police who took around 20 minutes to arrive.
After the killing, one of the men, believed to be a British-born Muslim convert, spoke calmly into a witness’s video phone.
Speaking with a London accent, holding a knife and a meat cleaver and with his hands dripping with blood, he said:“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. Your people will never be safe. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.
“We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think your politicians are going to die?
“No, it’s going to be the average guy like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we, so you can all live in peace.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terror...
Nope! I am not parading around anymore than you, I simply oppose your gun mentality and am giving my opinion just as you have, which because of this forum gives me the same entitlement to verse my distaste for your overuse and over supply of weaponry as you do in favour of it. It is logical that I would use a successful gun control policy, is it not? Australians have reduced our death rate, that is a given.
In regards to our crime rate it is a lot easier to deal with when we and the cops are not faced with an arsenal or a bushmaster every time their is a robbery, drug induced frenzy or an assault. It is impossible for you or anyone to compare the crime rate in our country verses your or anyone else's because we list all crimes in our crime rate, and we do it using three major sources. Our crime rate is therefore more accurate than any other in the world and yet our crime bureau says it is far from accurate, so what would that make yours?
Yes I have watched the British killer give his speech but it is a confused speech as he talks about his women in his country, then goes on to say we should bring our soldiers home? I will wait till I have all the info, but I know that the soldier wasn't beheaded as you claim...it was an attempt, or so it has been reported...so you are the one that sensationalised that particular part of the story for effect, and failed dismally.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108015 May 23, 2013
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone with a far greater stature than yourself, and someone whom you can never hope to begin to measure up to, has some words to lay upon you in that matter which you may only pretend any degree of knowledge:
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defence was assumed by the Framers."
~ Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243,251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and individuals."
~ James Monroe.
A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason,`Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.
~ Cesare Beccaria
I realize I couldn't possibly match your brilliant intellect and capacity of your copy and paste skills. What you are posting are someones opinions not court decisions - ye brainless moron!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108016 May 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly it is >you< which has NO IDEA of what you are talking about.
What - no copy and paste? You slacker ...:)

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108017 May 23, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope! I am not parading around anymore than you, I simply oppose your gun mentality and am giving my opinion just as you have, which because of this forum gives me the same entitlement to verse my distaste for your overuse and over supply of weaponry as you do in favour of it. It is logical that I would use a successful gun control policy, is it not? Australians have reduced our death rate, that is a given.
In regards to our crime rate it is a lot easier to deal with when we and the cops are not faced with an arsenal or a bushmaster every time their is a robbery, drug induced frenzy or an assault. It is impossible for you or anyone to compare the crime rate in our country verses your or anyone else's because we list all crimes in our crime rate, and we do it using three major sources. Our crime rate is therefore more accurate than any other in the world and yet our crime bureau says it is far from accurate, so what would that make yours?
Yes I have watched the British killer give his speech but it is a confused speech as he talks about his women in his country, then goes on to say we should bring our soldiers home? I will wait till I have all the info, but I know that the soldier wasn't beheaded as you claim...it was an attempt, or so it has been reported...so you are the one that sensationalised that particular part of the story for effect, and failed dismally.
Good luck with your forthcoming slavery. Hopefully your 'masters' won't be to hard on you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#108018 May 23, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope! I am not parading around anymore than you, I simply oppose your gun mentality and am giving my opinion just as you have, which because of this forum gives me the same entitlement to verse my distaste for your overuse and over supply of weaponry as you do in favour of it. It is logical that I would use a successful gun control policy, is it not? Australians have reduced our death rate, that is a given.
In regards to our crime rate it is a lot easier to deal with when we and the cops are not faced with an arsenal or a bushmaster every time their is a robbery, drug induced frenzy or an assault. It is impossible for you or anyone to compare the crime rate in our country verses your or anyone else's because we list all crimes in our crime rate, and we do it using three major sources. Our crime rate is therefore more accurate than any other in the world and yet our crime bureau says it is far from accurate, so what would that make yours?
Yes I have watched the British killer give his speech but it is a confused speech as he talks about his women in his country, then goes on to say we should bring our soldiers home? I will wait till I have all the info, but I know that the soldier wasn't beheaded as you claim...it was an attempt, or so it has been reported...so you are the one that sensationalised that particular part of the story for effect, and failed dismally.
instead of worrying about bushmasters or assault weapons and I can bet more people today have gotten killed by an automobile than a bushmaster or assault weapon beside for one I am not for a Police state like you are which I prefer to be able to defend myself vs be a victim like the Soldier in UK who was a Law abiding and couldn't carry a gun for personal protection and was murdered in daylight while everybody else stood there and watch the soldier be victimized because no body was to be armed except the criminals with the knives & gun and why they did it because there was no threat and I am not the one that claimed that the soldier was beheaded that was in the news article that I posted & News Media claiming that which here is a different article claiming the same thing too that the soldier was beheaded and like I told with that article Murder in America you posted from the Wall Street Journal confirms that the states here in the US that have strict gun control laws and lean to the Radical Left have the highest homicide & crime rates just like why there has been explosion in violent crime in Australia & UK after the guns bans.

In wake of soldier’s beheading, UK authorities on alert for anti-Muslim backlash

Beheading puts UK on alert for anti-Islam backlash

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mosq...

England’s Crime Rate Nearly Four Times Higher than United States

http://capoliticalnews.com/2013/01/14/england...

U.K., New Zealand & Australia: higher rates of violent crime than the U.S.

http://blog.uritraining.com/...
Gray

Powhatan, VA

#108020 May 23, 2013
TexasStar wrote:
Wow the anger here is scary. The founding father's were referring to a Kentucky Flintlock gun (most common) when they wrote the Constitution.
The rest of the Second Amendment talks about housing soldiers in time of
war - I never hear anyone complain they just can't find a soldier to house.
I guess we pick and choose what appeals to us out of the Constitution.
Just a thought, yesterday I was scared - really scared and had only seconds
to think. I pulled into a strip mall that I only frequent on rare occasion for the Dollar store. As I looked for a parking space I notice the black SUV in front of me crawling along with lots of spaces open. It pulled to the left abruptly and
I stopped to check out the driver. A young man, wearing long sleeve black shirt, skinny jeans and boots in 86 degree weather flung the door open and turned to stare at me while reaching for something with his right arm. He proceeded to slowly pull out the largest black rifle I have ever seen, looked like something from a war movie. I saw it had one of those tripod stands near the end for support so I am sure it was an automatic - but he kept staring at me and I decided if I should keep going, back-up or make a hard right and call the police. I was sure I was seeing someone about to enter a
store and shoot it up. When he turned his back - I proceeded forward and
when parked on the other side of the lot tried to compose myself. I saw the
Dollar store and tried to see were he went, the rug store, Pizza, nail salon,
tanning bed - then I notice a tiny, tiny storefront that stated "Mike's Guns"
we finance here!
What scared me then, if I had a gun on me .. he looked and acted suspicious, one of my thoughts would be to shoot him first .. the police would take 20 minutes to arrive, if at all and I would be saving lives -- my own included .. Travon Martin got killed for holding Skittles - surely I would have no problem explaining why I felt threatened by a 3' gun .. and a man in black long sleeves on a hot day...
just a thought all you gun lovers - I am going to by a gun but I will make sure that MY RIGHTS are protected, I will make sure it is from a gun show with no record or use the ID I found 2 years ago in a Six Flags bathroom, I
mean if I shot your son or you for that matter - don't think for a second I would hang around or identify myself .. what is good for the goose - is good for the gander.
Hay, thanks all you gun loving no background check dudes .. you have given me a good idea - if I do get caught, watch for the Ted Nugent defense.
Check your OWN anger and overreaction !

I'm a combat vet who collects WW 1 & WW 2 rifles. Some of the Russian ones are over 5' long including the bayonet.

Would THAT make you wet your pants too, missy?

Lighten up, not everyone is as squirrely as you!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108021 May 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly it is >you< which has NO IDEA of what you are talking about.
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. It’s the court that gave us Citizens United which said a corporation is a person and money is speech, who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and last year ruled that it did. You would be surprised to learn that they invoked, not the constitution of the United States or the second amendment itself, but Blackstone's Rights of Englishmen, a document not only not the constitution, but a document not even American in origin which was written 100 years before the United States was created.
Imagine the hue and cry of conservatives in and out of congress if five liberal justices had ruled the same way and based their decision on something other than the constitution. Conservatives in and out of congress would be screaming for the justice’s impeachment since conservatives are always complaining about "activist" judges who find rights in the constitution that aren't there. That is exactly what the five current conservative and loony Supreme Court justices did with their decision.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108022 May 23, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
instead of worrying about bushmasters or assault weapons and I can bet more people today have gotten killed by an automobile than a bushmaster or assault weapon beside for one I am not for a Police state like you are which I prefer to be able to defend myself vs be a victim like the Soldier in UK who was a Law abiding and couldn't carry a gun for personal protection and was murdered in daylight while everybody else stood there and watch the soldier be victimized because no body was to be armed except the criminals with the knives & gun and why they did it because there was no threat
A: I think even you would find it hard pressed to produce a weapon after you had been hit by a car?
And those UK killers didn't do it because there was no threat, that is just idiotic as the threat was there in the form of police who shot them, they did it because they had an agenda(It is believed but yet to be verified)...If the people had have had a gun I gaurantee there would have been more than one innocent victim..
A of I wrote: and I am not the one that claimed that the soldier was beheaded that was in the news article that I posted & News Media claiming that which here is a different article claiming the same thing too that the soldier was beheaded and like I told with that article Murder in America you posted from the Wall Street Journal confirms that the states here in the US that have strict gun control laws and lean to the Radical Left have the highest homicide & crime rates just like why there has been explosion in violent crime in Australia & UK after the guns bans.
In wake of soldier’s beheading, UK authorities on alert for anti-Muslim backlash
Beheading puts UK on alert for anti-Islam backlash
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mosq...
A:Perhaps you should vet your reading material more closely because they are wrong which makes you wrong for repeating it...I never once read that he was actually beheaded all the news I listened to or read online stated that they "tried to behead" him...a tad different methinks...and my source has been right to date.
England’s Crime Rate Nearly Four Times Higher than United States
http://capoliticalnews.com/2013/01/14/england...
U.K., New Zealand & Australia: higher rates of violent crime than the U.S.
http://blog.uritraining.com/...
A: Your really should vet your sources better..this is crap, as the crime rate in any of these countries are not accurate...we Australians have the most up to date and accurate source of gathering statistical crime information and even then the experts say they are far from accurate....as I have told you before...

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
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 2 hr OccupyThis 11,478
SAF lawsuit challenges Illinois CCW statute 6 hr Tory II 1
Ferguson, Clive Bundy, and the Second Amendment 7 hr Kentucky-Mitch 361
3 year old shoots AR and survives 10 hr Kentucky-Mitch 15
The Well Armed Woman Program - where the femini... 12 hr Get Out 79
Eric Frein manhunt turns up explosives Thu Explain yourself 13
Florida's 55 Bloomberg Anti-Second Amendment Ma... Oct 21 Squach 8

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE