Dan Carpenter: We love our guns -- and have the deaths to show for it

May 11, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Indianapolis Star

Law enforcers at the city and federal levels have taken the offensive against rampant gun violence in several Indianapolis neighborhoods.

Comments (Page 8)

Showing posts 141 - 160 of223
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
1837
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam;

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
1789
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and 220 year old Spam.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148
May 22, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and 220 year old Spam.
"Baldwin, J. charged the jury.

"....he had a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary the protection or safety of either...."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, 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,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Now you're just throwing out irrelevant quotes--that didn't have any relevance at all.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the signing of the Constitution of the United States of America.
"Baldwin, J. charged the jury.
"... When the law ceases to be the test of right and remedy; when individuals undertake to be its administrators by rules of their own adoption the bands of society are broken as effectually by the severance of one link from the chain of justice, which binds man to the laws, as if the whole was dissolved. The more specious and seductive the pretexts are under which the law is violated, the greater ought to be the vigilance of courts and juries in their detection; public opinion is a security against acts of open and avowed infringements of acknowledged rights; from such combinations there is no danger; they will fall by their own violence, as the blast expends its force by its own fury. The only permanent danger is in the indulgence of the humane and benevolent feelings of our nature, at what we feel to be acts of oppression towards human beings endowed with the same qualities and attributes as ourselves, and brought into being by the same power which created us all; without reflecting that in suffering these feelings to come into action against rights secured by the laws, we forget the first duty of citizens of a government of laws; obedience to its ordinances..."[Pg. 579]
"...Jack was the property of the plaintiff, who had a right to possess and protect his slave or servant, whom he had a right to seize and take away to his residence in New Jersey by force, if force was necessary, he had a right to secure him from escape, or rescue by any means not cruel or wantonly severe--he had a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary the protection or safety of either; he had a right to come into state and take Jack on Sunday, the act of taking him up and conveying him to the Billet was no breach of the peace, if not done by noise and disorder, occasioned by himself or his party--and their peaceable entry into the house of Mrs. Kenderdine was lawful and justifiable, for this purpose in doing these acts they were supported by laws which no human authority could shake or question...."[pg. 598]
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, 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,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others. REPORTS OF CASES DETERMINED IN The Circuit Court United States, IN AND FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, COMPRISING THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. BY HENRY BALDWIN One of the Judges of that Court. "Sed melius et tatius est, petere fontes quam sectari rivulos.", 10 Coke 41 a; 117, b. VOL. I. PHILADELPHIA: JAMES KAY, JUN. & BROTHER, 122 CHESTNUT STREET. PITTSBURGH: JOHN I. KAY & CO. 1837.]

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150
May 22, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Now you're just throwing out irrelevant quotes--that didn't have any relevance at all.
<quoted text>
Quotes from UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? Really?

"If there were evidence of a merely friendly meeting, it be the same as if there were no assemblage. If they were to give evidence that Blannerhassett and some of those with him were in possession of arms, as people in this country usually are, it would not be sufficient of itself to prove that the meeting was military.

"Arms are not necessarily military weapons. Rifles, shot guns, and fowling pieces are used commonly by the people of this country in hunting and for domestic purposes; they are generally in the habit of pursuing game. In the upper country every man has a gun; a majority of the people have guns every where, for peaceful purposes. Rifles and shot guns are no more evidence of military weapons than pistols or dirks used for personal defence, or common fowling pieces kept for the amusement of taking game. It is lawful for every man in this country to keep such weapons. In England indeed every man is not qualified to keep a gun; but even to those who have not that privilege the possession of dirks and pistols is not unlawful. Surely their possession at that island, of such arms as every man in this country is legally authorized to keep, and which most people do keep, can be no more evidence of a military project, or an intention to subvert the government, than if they had not been there at all. What is the rule to distinguish in such cases" There must be such evidence of a hostile assemblage proved to the court, as if true in point of fact, would constitute a treasonable assemblage."

- Mr. John Wickham, Friday, August 21st, 1807,[REPORTS OF THE TRIALS OF COLONEL AARON BURR (LATE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) FOR TREASON AND FOR A MISDEMEANOR, In preparing the means of a Military Expedition against Mexico, a territory of the King of Spain, with whom the United States were at peace, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Held at the city of Richmond, in the district of Virginia, in the Summer Term of the year 1807. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IS SUPPORT AND DEFENCE OF THE MOTION AFTERWARDS MADE BT THE COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES, TO COMMIT A. Burr, H. Blannerhassett and I. Smith, TO BE SENT FOR TRIAL TO THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, FOR TREASON OR MISDEMEANOR, ALLEGED TO BE COMMITTED THERE. TAKEN IN SHORT HAND BY DAVID ROBERTSON, COUNSELLOR AT LAW IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. I. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY HOPKINS AND EARLE. FRY AND KAMMERER, PRINTERS. 1808. Pg.582-83](Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court was present at the proceedings of this trial. Mr. Wickham, after the Revolutionary War, earned a degree in law from the College of William and Mary, where he became a close friend of John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the U.S.).

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Since I asked, "when did 3/4ths equal ALL?", no, nothing you posted addressed the question.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Quotes from UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? Really?
"If there were evidence of a merely friendly meeting, it be the same as if there were no assemblage. If they were to give evidence that Blannerhassett and some of those with him were in possession of arms, as people in this country usually are, it would not be sufficient of itself to prove that the meeting was military.
"Arms are not necessarily military weapons. Rifles, shot guns, and fowling pieces are used commonly by the people of this country in hunting and for domestic purposes; they are generally in the habit of pursuing game. In the upper country every man has a gun; a majority of the people have guns every where, for peaceful purposes. Rifles and shot guns are no more evidence of military weapons than pistols or dirks used for personal defence, or common fowling pieces kept for the amusement of taking game. It is lawful for every man in this country to keep such weapons. In England indeed every man is not qualified to keep a gun; but even to those who have not that privilege the possession of dirks and pistols is not unlawful. Surely their possession at that island, of such arms as every man in this country is legally authorized to keep, and which most people do keep, can be no more evidence of a military project, or an intention to subvert the government, than if they had not been there at all. What is the rule to distinguish in such cases" There must be such evidence of a hostile assemblage proved to the court, as if true in point of fact, would constitute a treasonable assemblage."
- Mr. John Wickham, Friday, August 21st, 1807,[REPORTS OF THE TRIALS OF COLONEL AARON BURR (LATE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) FOR TREASON AND FOR A MISDEMEANOR, In preparing the means of a Military Expedition against Mexico, a territory of the King of Spain, with whom the United States were at peace, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Held at the city of Richmond, in the district of Virginia, in the Summer Term of the year 1807. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IS SUPPORT AND DEFENCE OF THE MOTION AFTERWARDS MADE BT THE COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES, TO COMMIT A. Burr, H. Blannerhassett and I. Smith, TO BE SENT FOR TRIAL TO THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, FOR TREASON OR MISDEMEANOR, ALLEGED TO BE COMMITTED THERE. TAKEN IN SHORT HAND BY DAVID ROBERTSON, COUNSELLOR AT LAW IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. I. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY HOPKINS AND EARLE. FRY AND KAMMERER, PRINTERS. 1808. Pg.582-83](Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court was present at the proceedings of this trial. Mr. Wickham, after the Revolutionary War, earned a degree in law from the College of William and Mary, where he became a close friend of John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the U.S.).
more deaf than dumb

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
When did 3/4ths mean "all"?
<quoted text>
3/4 doesn't mean "ALL"...constitution ally speaking it means "Enough".

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Which wasn't what the poster claimed.
more deaf than dumb wrote:
<quoted text>
3/4 doesn't mean "ALL"...constitution ally speaking it means "Enough".

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157
May 23, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Which wasn't what the poster claimed.
<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

Did ALL insist on that amendment? No, the Quakers most certainly did NOT. It did however BIND ALL, did it not, traitor-troll? YES, IT MOST CERTAINLY DID.

Take a hike, O' woefully deaf, dumb, and blind one.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You can't bluster through your ignorance, pissant.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
Did ALL insist on that amendment? No, the Quakers most certainly did NOT. It did however BIND ALL, did it not, traitor-troll? YES, IT MOST CERTAINLY DID.
Take a hike, O' woefully deaf, dumb, and blind one.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159
May 23, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
You can't bluster through your ignorance, pissant.
<quoted text>
Typing to yourself in the mirror again, eh traitor-troll? It's good that you realize your own ignorance. Now if you can comprehend the depth of your ignorance. Then there might be some hope of you climbing out from such a huge chasm. Good luck, traitor-troll.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Quotes from UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? Really?
JusticeScalia 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.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
{click}

Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.

If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162
May 24, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
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."

And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:

1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.

Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.

What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
(1875)
2008
JusticeScalia 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.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
2008
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
United States Constitution: Second Article of Amendment; Restrictive Clause;

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

Avon, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#165
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Why does the democrats and President Obama want gun control? One reason. Law abiding citizens will be free of weapons so criminals can run wild without the fear of being shot. And I am sure most of Obamas voters fall in the criminal categories.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#166
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

T Ron wrote:
Why does the democrats and President Obama want gun control? One reason. Law abiding citizens will be free of weapons so criminals can run wild without the fear of being shot. And I am sure most of Obamas voters fall in the criminal categories.
PRECISELY.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
United States Constitution: Second Article of Amendment; Restrictive Clause;
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
Not part of the US Constitution, buttercup.

No matter how many knobs you polish.

Wipe your chin.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#168
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not part of the US Constitution, buttercup.
No matter how many knobs you polish.
Wipe your chin.
"William Henry testified substantially as follows:

"I arrived at Bethlehem on the evening of the 6th of March, 1799. We had heard that there was a party of men would collect, for the purpose of rescuing the prisoners who were there in custody of the marshal; in consequence of that, I went to assist the marshal, and, if possible, prevail on the people to desist. I was one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Northampton. About ten o' clock on the morning of the 7th, two men, with arms, arrived at the tavern where we were; who, when inquired of by the marshal as to their intention in coming armed, appeared to be diffident about answer; after first saying that they came upon a shooting frolic, one of them said they were come in order to see what was best to be done for the country. After that, came in several others, armed and on horseback, two of them in uniform, with swords and pistols...."

"...I also walked out for the same purpose, requesting them to withdraw, and not appear in arms in order to obstruct the process of the United States laws. They answered, that they were freemen, and might go where they pleased with their arms. I told them that they ran great risk by appearing in arms for such a purpose as I feared they were come. They came in a number, but I don t know how many particularly, as they mixed among the crowd. We requested them to deliver up their arms; but they refused. I also, at the same time, told one of them that it would be best for him to surrender himself, and not oppose the process; the others gave me answer, that they had come to accompany their friend, and to see that no injury was done to him. After this I returned into the lower back room of the house; by this time there were a number more collected round the house, but mostly armed. I don't recollect whether it was before these three men arrived, or not, that the marshal had sent off four men of his posse in order to meet the men with arms who were coming forward; and after we were up stairs three men arrived as a deputation from the armed body, making inquiry as to the intention of the marshal in taking these prisoners; with these three men, the four deputed by the marshal had returned from the armed body that was the other side of the bridge, in order to learn the marshal's object. The marshal assured them of the legality of the process, and reasoned with them as to the consequences of opposition, or threats to him, or preventing him from executing his duty; but I believe he liberated the two men that were first put in confinement, and returned them their guns. During the time that these two men were in confinement, we examined their guns, and found them loaded...."

- TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON INSURGENTS, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT PHILADELPHIA, 1799-1800, James Iredell, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 141 - 160 of223
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

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

28 Users are viewing the Indianapolis Forum right now

Search the Indianapolis Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Time to spit in Gays food 1 hr The Great One 1
Israel Nazi's wiping out women and kids 2 hr The Great One 1
Officer Renn isn't dead 2 hr One Big Lie 2
It's time Jewish schools admit Blacks and Hispa... (Feb '13) 9 hr Please 23
Excuse Me. Excuse ME! 20 hr Suzanne Sugarbaker 1
Will the real Craig please stand up 20 hr Last name 2
Heather Koiro 21 hr Miss Beasley 1
•••
•••
•••
Indianapolis Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Indianapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Indianapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Indianapolis News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••