Moms make case for gun control

Moms make case for gun control

There are 9248 comments on the usatoday.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Moms make case for gun control. In it, usatoday.com reports that:

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at usatoday.com.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#7262 Nov 2, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>You better visit...[Snipped for brevity]
NOTHING CHANGED concerning the original Constitution and the rights it secured, sycophant. The original Bill of Rights was 'incorporated' in 1791. The ONLY difference in the antebellum amendments, was to extend those rights to the freed slaves.

>YOU< are perversely attempting to prop up and support the LIE that was perpetrated against We The People. >YOU< are perversely attempting to uphold and defend the JIM CROW LAWS that were perversely passed by the states.

"For this reason, I am attaching to this dissent, an appendix which contains a resume , by no means complete, of the Amendment's history. In my judgment that history conclusively demonstrates that the language of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, taken as a whole, was thought by those responsible for its submission to the people, and by those who opposed its submission, sufficiently explicit to guarantee that thereafter no state [Page 332 U.S. 46 , 75] could deprive its citizens of the privileges and protections of the Bill of Rights...."

"These natural law arguments, so suggestive of the premises on which the present due process formula rest, were flatly rejected by a majority of the Court in the Slaughter-House cases. What the Court did hold was that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only protected from state invasion such rights as a person has because he is a citizen of the United States. The Court enumerated some, but refused to enumerate all of these national rights. The majority of the Court emphatically declined the invitation of counsel to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment subjected all state regulatory legislation to continuous censorship by this Court in order for it to determine whether it collided with this Court's opinion of 'natural' right and justice. In effect, the Slaughter-House cases rejected the very [Page 332 U.S. 46 , 78] natural justice formula the Court today embraces. The Court did not meet the question of whether the safeguards of the Bill of Rights were protected against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment. And it specifically did not say as the Court now does, that particular provisions of the Bill of Rights could be breached by states in part, but not breached in other respects, according to this Court's notions of 'civilized standards,''canons of decency,' and 'fundamental justice.'

Later, but prior to the Twining case, this Court decided that the following were not 'privileges or immunities' of national citizenship, so as to make them immune against state invasion: the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436; the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in civil cases, Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90; the Second Amendment's 'right of the people to keep and bear arms ***,' Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 584; the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' requirements for indictment in capital or other infamous crimes, and for trial by jury in criminal prosecutions, Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581. While it can be argued that these cases implied that no one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states as attributes of national citizenship, no one of them expressly so decided. In fact, the Court in Maxwell v. Dow, supra, 176 U.S. at pages 597, 598, 20 S.Ct. at page 455, concluded no more than that 'the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government.' Cf. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 329, 153...."

CONTINUED....

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#7263 Nov 2, 2013
"...After the Slaughter-House decision, the Court also said that states could, despite the 'due process' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, take private property without just compensation, Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S.[Page 332 U.S. 46 , 79] 97, 105; Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co., 13 Wall. 166, 176, 177; abridge th freedom o f assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542; see also Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, 543, 522, 27 A.L.R. 27; Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 10, Ann.Cas. 689; cf. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666, 629 (freedom of speech); prosecute for crime by information rather than indictment, Hurtado v. People of California, 110 U.S. 516, 292; regulate the price for storage of grain in warehouses and elevators, Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113. But this Court also held in a number of cases that colored people must, because of the Fourteenth Amendment, be accorded equal protection of the laws. See, e.g., Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303; cf. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313; see also Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

"Thus, up to and for some years after 1873, when Munn v. Illinois, supra, was decided, this Court steadfastly declined to invalidate states' legislative regulation of property rights or business practices under the Fourteenth Amendment unless there were racial discrimination involved in the state law challenged. The first significant breach in this policy came in 1889, in Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418, 702.8 A state's railroad rate regulatory statute was there stricken as violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was accomplished by reference to a due process formula which did not necessarily operate so as to protect the Bill of Rights' personal liberty safeguards, but which gave a new and hitherto undiscovered scope for the Court's use of the due process clause to protect property rights under natural law concepts. And in 1896, in Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226,[Page 332 U.S. 46 , 80] this Court, in effect, overruled Davidson v. New Orleans, supra, by holding, under the new due process-natural law formula, that the Fourteenth Amendment forbade a state from taking private property for public use without payment of just compensation.[Footnote 9]..."

CONTINUED...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#7264 Nov 2, 2013
"Following the pattern of the new doctrine formalized in the foregoing decisions, the Court in 1896 applied the due process clause to strike down a state statute which had forbidden certain types of contracts. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 Cf. Hoope ston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U.S. 313, 316, 318, 319, 604, 605, 606, 145 A.L.R. 1113. In doing so, it substantially adopted the rejected argument of counsel in the Slaughter-House cases, that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the liberty of all persons under 'natural law' to engage in their chosen business or vocation. In the Allgeyer opinion, 165 U.S. at page 589, 17 S.Ct. at page 431, the Court quoted with approval the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley in a second Slaughter-House case; Butchers' Unions Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762, 764, 765, 656, 657, 658, which closely fol-[Page 332 U.S. 46 , 81] lowed one phase of the argument of his dissent in the original Slaughter- House cases-not that phase which argued that the Bill of Rights was applicable to the States. And in 1905, three years before the Twining case, Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 3 Ann.Cas. 1133, followed the argument used in Allgeyer to hold that the due process clause was violated by a state statute which limited the employment of bakery workers to 60 hours per week and 10 hours per day.

"The foregoing constitutional doctrine, judicially created and adopted by expanding the previously accepted meaning of 'due process,' marked a complete departure from the Slaughter-House philosophy of judicial tolerance of state regulation of business activities. Conversely, the new formula contracted the effectiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection from state infringement of individual liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Thus the Court's second-thought interpretation of the Amendment was an about face from the Slaughter-House interpretation and represented a failure to carry out the avowed purpose of the Amendment's sponsors.[Footnote 10] This reversal is dramatized by the fact that the Hurtado case, which had rejected the due process clause as an instru-[Page 332 U.S. 46 , 82] ment for preserving Bill of Rights liberties and privileges, was cited as authority for expanding the scope of that clause so as to permit this Court to invalidate all state regulatory legislation it believed to be contrary to 'fundamental' principles...."

CONTINUED...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#7265 Nov 2, 2013
"...The Twining decision, rejecting the compelled testimony clause of the Fifth Amendment, and indeed rejecting all the Bill of Rights, is the end product of one phase of this philosophy. At the same time, that decision consolidated the power of the Court assumed in past cases by laying broader foundations for the Court to invalidate state and even federal regulatory legislation. For the Twining decision, giving separate consideration to 'due process' and 'privileges or immunities,' went all the way to say that the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 'did not forbid the states to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments ***.' Twining v. New Jersey, supra, 211 U.S. at page 99, 29 S.Ct. at page 19. And in order to be certain, so far as possible, to leave this Court wholly free to reject all the Bill of Rights as specific restraints upon state actions, the decision declared that even if this Court should decide that the due process clause forbids the states to infringe personal liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, it would do so, not 'because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.' 211 U.S. 78, 20.

At the same time that the Twining decision held that the states need not conform to the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights, it consolidated the power that the Court had assumed under the due process clause by laying even broader foundations for the Court to invalidate state and even federal regulatory legislation. For under the Twining formula, which includes nonregard for the first eight amendments, what are 'fundamental rights' and in accord with 'canons of decency,' as the Court [Page 332 U.S. 46 , 83] said in Twining, and today reaffirms, is to be independently 'ascertained from time to time by judicial action ***.' 211 U.S. at page 101, 29 S.Ct. at page 20; 'what is due process of law depends on circumstances.' Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 84, 236. Thus the power of legislatures became what this Court would declare it to be at a particular time independently of the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights such as the right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly, the right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose, the right to jury trial or the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Neither the contraction of the Bill of Rights safeguards[11] nor the invalidation of regulatory laws[12] by this Court's appraisal of 'circumstances' would readily be classified as the most satisfactory contribution of this Court to the nation. In 1912, four years after the Twining case was decided, a book written by Mr. Charles Wallace Collins gave the history of this Court's interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment up to that time. It is not necessary for one fully to agree with all he said in [Page 332 U.S. 46 , 84] order to appreciate the sentiment of the following comment concerning the disappointments caused by this Court's interpretation of the Amendment.'..."

CONTINUED...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#7266 Nov 2, 2013
"...*** It was aimed at restraining and checking the powers of wealth and privilege. It was to be a charter of liberty for human rights against property rights. The transformation has been rapid and complete. It operates today to protect the rights of property to the detriment of the rights of man. It has become the Magna Charta of accumulated and organized capital.' Collins, The Fourteenth Amendment and the States,(1912) 137, 138. That this feeling was shared, at least in part, by members of this Court is revealed by the vigorous dissents that have been written in almost every case where the Twining and Hurtado doctrines have been applied to invalidate state regulatory laws.[Footnote 13]

Later decisions of this Court have completely undermined the phase of the Twining doctrine which broadly precluded reliance on the Bill of Rights to determine what is and what is not a 'fundamental' right. Later cases have also made the Hurtado case an inadequate support for this phase of the Twining formula. For despite Hurtado and Twining, this Court has now held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects from state invasion the following 'fundamental' rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights: right to counsel in criminal cases, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 67, 63, 84 A.L.R. 527, limiting the Hurtado case; see also Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, and De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U.S. 663; freedom of assembly, De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364, 259; at the very least, certain types of cruel and unusual punishment and former jeopardy, State of Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459; the right of an accused in a criminal case to be in-[Page 332 U.S. 46 , 85] formed of the charge against him, see Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105, 332, 90 A.L.R. 575; the right to receive just compensation on account of taking private property for public use, Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226. And the Court has now through the Fourteenth Amendment literally and emphatically applied the First Amendment to the States in its very terms. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639, 1186, 147 A.L.R. 674; Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 268, 196, 159 A.L.R. 1346...."---Justice Black, Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.

Thus, it is CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN that >you< are upholding and continuing to perpetrate a FRAUD on We The People and our rights.

>You< are espousing and perpetrating a LIE. One of the longest running FRAUDS carried out against a FREE PEOPLE.

TAKE A HIKE, traitor.
Gun Control Does Not Work

United States

#7267 Nov 2, 2013
huntcoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>FYI, no one is going to open your links, sport- we aren't interested in what rings your bell...well maybe the Closet Homosexual will look.
I am told the princeofdrag's links come from his family photo albums with some selfies thrown in for good measure.

“gun control takes two hands”

Since: Mar 13

outdoors

#7268 Nov 2, 2013
It's my understanding that the 10th Amendment was written for the states. It's also my understanding that the 14th was so poorly written that it has been unjustly used as a loophole for illegal immigrants. We may die of old age waiting for the SCOTUS or Congress to fix it.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#7269 Nov 2, 2013
huntcoyotes wrote:
It's my understanding that the 10th Amendment was written for the states. It's also my understanding that the 14th was so poorly written that it has been unjustly used as a loophole for illegal immigrants. We may die of old age waiting for the SCOTUS or Congress to fix it.
Which is why We The People MUST not continue to allow the fraud to be continued. We MUST not swallow the LIE. Rather, we must INSIST upon our Constitution being OBEYED. Rather than continuing to allow the fraud to be perpetrated.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7270 Nov 2, 2013
huntcoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it, Closet Homosexual. There are books full of things you think you know but you're too stoopid to realize it.
You mean like when you insisted that you served in the Army but didn't know what PFC was?
huntcoyotes wrote:
"I have no idea what a PFC is...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7271 Nov 2, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
We MUST not swallow the LIE.
We already know what you swallow, dear: we can see some of it on your blouse.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7272 Nov 2, 2013
huntcoyotes wrote:
It's my understanding that the 10th Amendment was written for the states..
ah, so now it's your UNDERSTANDING...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7273 Nov 2, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
TAKE A HIKE, traitor.
My, you copy and paste and pretend to understand and insist they must be right!

"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."

Justice Scalia
from the Supreme Court of the United States
Still alive...

“gun control takes two hands”

Since: Mar 13

outdoors

#7274 Nov 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
ah, so now it's your UNDERSTANDING...
Yeah, just as the result of all your demented posts gives us the understanding that you are a closet homosexual. Since you don't deny it, it's true. Watch this, I'll make irrefutable using your own rule: "Barefoot is a closet homosexual."

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7275 Nov 2, 2013
huntcoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, just as the result of all your demented posts gives us the understanding that you are a closet homosexual.
I am proud that you stepped out of the closet, shug.

I would not be judging you for your alternate lifestyle, Poochacha.

If only you kept it to consenting ADULTS.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#7276 Nov 2, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, the rats are abandoning ship alright. But, the crooks WILL be called into account when we take our country back. And with the most advanced military in the world backing us up. We shall hunt every one of them down. And seize all of their assets. As well as force them to pay reparations. It will be like another set of Nuremberg trials. The world seems to have forgotten just how determined Americans can be when they're angry. And right now, we are very, VERY angry. Of course those that left rather than fight, will be denied reentry.
Rats?
Seize assets?

I am sorry but you are sounding like oslama??

I earned my money and paid my taxes on it and now I will chose where and when I will invest it and spend it

The billionaires are leaving because they know the liberals are running out of other people's money to spend and will be grabbing even more of it...

I left because I don't want my children to be raised around these liberals... I don't want them to be indoctrinated in the schools......

Mexico is like the USA was in the 50s
We don't have retirement homes because people respect their parents and return the favor and take care of them just like the parent did the child

God is not banned in schools or public places

When was the last school shooting in Mexico??? Never..........

Even the narcos at the border don't attack children

Bottom line is people are jumping ship because they don't trust their government and they want a place to invest their money without being punished for making a wise investment

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#7277 Nov 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>Which is by design. He stated MANY times while on the campaign trail that his ultimate goal was for a single payer system. What they are trying (and currently failing) to implement is just a stepping stone to the end. What better way to help get there than to tell you that your current policy (which he lied and said you can keep) doesn't meet the minimum requirements of HIS new standards.

Make no doubt about it.......this was PLANNED.
Agree 100 percent and millions understand this and they are leaving the USA

More people turned in their passports in the last 4 years than in the last 50 years.......

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#7278 Nov 2, 2013
PrinceofDarkness wrote:
<quoted text>movie stars have owned homes in Puerto Vallarta for the last 100 years you dumb inbred moron...the only thing leaving are you neurons every time you take a $-hit...
Caught in another lie..........

The first stars here was for the shooting of the movie night of the iguana

Punta De Mita is not even 20 years old

Thanks for proving how stupid you are again

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#7279 Nov 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I guess it's hard to read a paper when your mustache is buried in the Cabana boy's dark and curlies, Homo One.

PS: world leader's don't get to vote on who is POTUS.
Just as I told the world
More gay sex fantasies from our animals

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#7280 Nov 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>They pay US taxes, Homo One.

At least the Democrats do.

Wipe your chin, dear.
More gay sex fantasies

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#7281 Nov 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>2011.

Anything else, dear?

There are some people in the world who don't like Americans?

Stop the presses?

Are you going to go back on topic?
No president in the history of the USA has had more world leaders scold them publicly..........

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 Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban 9 hr Jagermann 200
News 'How many more tragedies' asks mayor, after 11-... 11 hr payme 3
News American Outdoor Brands Corp: Time to Move On? 12 hr payme 13
News Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by th... 15 hr jimwildrickjr 2
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Wed Sentry Watch 120
News Official Heckler And Koch 22Lr Replica Rifles (Jan '10) Mar 20 okimar 5
News 'Veteran Second Amendment Act' under fire right... Mar 19 FormerParatrooper 7
More from around the web