It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Truthdig

“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

Comments (Page 5,021)

Showing posts 100,401 - 100,420 of103,227
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107719
May 20, 2013
 
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but in Connecticut they had full bipartisan support...that has got to hurt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/politics...
Connecticut is one the States that has some of the strictest gun control laws here in the US compared to other states besides just think in 1999 the Democrats 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban was the Law of the Land and it didn't stop the Columbine Massacre from happening and proved restrictive gun control laws to be a failure.

Columbine High School massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_S...
GoGoBar

Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107720
May 20, 2013
 
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
The Miller case was about suitability of a weapon in military use. It was found a sawed off shotgun did not meet that definition. So there is some hope.
LOL Archaism

Some jurisdictions claim that a bottom loading weapon is a machine gun.

you can see there will be a showdown.

The lawyers run the country. They love it.

Especially the Judges.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107721
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
The Miller case was about suitability of a weapon in military use. It was found a sawed off shotgun did not meet that definition. So there is some hope.
I agree. I believe an M-16 was mentioned specifically, but a dangerous weapon wasn't defined.

I always thought selective incorporation under the 14th amendment was an erroneous power the court granted itself. More about the growth of a central power than the Bill of Rights. It was not needed in the Heller decision because "the people" was indicated in the second amendment. The court only needed to strike down the local law banning handguns as unconstitutional. It always had that power. Now, the federal government can define which arms the people can bear. What works in my state would be an imposition and force on a state like Louisiana or Texas. The federal government only needs to concern itself with interstate commerce. Just call me a tenther.:-)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107722
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I believe an M-16 was mentioned specifically, but a dangerous weapon wasn't defined.
I always thought selective incorporation under the 14th amendment was an erroneous power the court granted itself. More about the growth of a central power than the Bill of Rights. It was not needed in the Heller decision because "the people" was indicated in the second amendment. The court only needed to strike down the local law banning handguns as unconstitutional. It always had that power. Now, the federal government can define which arms the people can bear. What works in my state would be an imposition and force on a state like Louisiana or Texas. The federal government only needs to concern itself with interstate commerce. Just call me a tenther.:-)
Basically the 14th amendment left the US Bill of Rights in the US Constitution up to the SCOTUS to specify which of the Federal Bill of Rights of the US Constitution that the states had to guarantee and the 2nd amendment was the last one to be incorporated & forced down to the state & local level which we can thank the Republicans for the 14th amendment.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1868 (passage of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution's due process clause), the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

The Fourteenth Amendment: The Framing of America's Second Constitution

http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107724
May 20, 2013
 
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Basically the 14th amendment left the US Bill of Rights in the US Constitution up to the SCOTUS to specify which of the Federal Bill of Rights of the US Constitution that the states had to guarantee and the 2nd amendment was the last one to be incorporated & forced down to the state & local level which we can thank the Republicans for the 14th amendment.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1868 (passage of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution's due process clause), the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
The Fourteenth Amendment: The Framing of America's Second Constitution
http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/
This 14th amendment gets complicated. I don't really disagree with your post. I'm looking at it from a negative perspective always looking out for the possibility of a totalitarian central government taking over every aspect of our lives. It's been doing a pretty good job of it in other areas.

The supreme court always had the power to nullify a state or local statute since Marbury vs. Madison. The court had the capability to strike down the Chicago law. Why didn't it simply strike down the law as unconstitutional? It didn't have to go further and legislate from the bench.

The "people" were protected from the federal government with the second amendment. Now that the federal government is incorporating, it can define what an arm is or what is unusual or dangerous. Basically, the central government that the second amendment was to protect us from can now define what weapons we can use to protect ourselves from them.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107725
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
This 14th amendment gets complicated. I don't really disagree with your post. I'm looking at it from a negative perspective always looking out for the possibility of a totalitarian central government taking over every aspect of our lives. It's been doing a pretty good job of it in other areas.
The supreme court always had the power to nullify a state or local statute since Marbury vs. Madison. The court had the capability to strike down the Chicago law. Why didn't it simply strike down the law as unconstitutional? It didn't have to go further and legislate from the bench.
The "people" were protected from the federal government with the second amendment. Now that the federal government is incorporating, it can define what an arm is or what is unusual or dangerous. Basically, the central government that the second amendment was to protect us from can now define what weapons we can use to protect ourselves from them.
Your right about the negative perspective if you go back during the time of Lincoln when the 14th amendment was written by the progressive Republicans, the progressive Republicans & Lincoln had to contend with the US Constitution which prior to the 14th amendment Blacks weren't considered equal to whites and the 14th amendment was the start of Lincoln & the progressive Republican's weakening & rewriting of the US Constitution along with the implementation & experimentation of Communism & equality in the US because in True Communism in Theory everyone is equal which is why Lincoln & the Republicans favored Communism over Capitalism which is what the south or the confederate states were for and Washington DC became the totalitarian central which was the reason behind why the Civil War started to begin with because of the progressive republicans forcing change on the Southern states way of life and after the Civil War the southern states lived under Totalitarianism under the Control of Washington DC & the progressive Republicans.

An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln

http://www.versobooks.com/books/954-an-unfini...
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107726
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Your right about the negative perspective if you go back during the time of Lincoln when the 14th amendment was written by the progressive Republicans, the progressive Republicans & Lincoln had to contend with the US Constitution which prior to the 14th amendment Blacks weren't considered equal to whites and the 14th amendment was the start of Lincoln & the progressive Republican's weakening & rewriting of the US Constitution along with the implementation & experimentation of Communism & equality in the US because in True Communism in Theory everyone is equal which is why Lincoln & the Republicans favored Communism over Capitalism which is what the south or the confederate states were for and Washington DC became the totalitarian central which was the reason behind why the Civil War started to begin with because of the progressive republicans forcing change on the Southern states way of life and after the Civil War the southern states lived under Totalitarianism under the Control of Washington DC & the progressive Republicans.
An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln
http://www.versobooks.com/books/954-an-unfini...
You got your history seriously bungled old chap; The Communist Party of the Soviet Union did not emerge until the end of the Bolsheviks and the bloody civil war in 1922. The Bolsheviks orchestrated the October Revolution which overthrew the Provisional Government, thus transferring all governing power to the workers' councils (Russian: soviets). Immediately thereafter, the Bolsheviks founded the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic - the world's first constitutionally socialist state. After a bloody civil war, at the end of 1922 the Bolsheviks emerged victorious and unified territories of the former Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). I seriously doubt that your man Lincoln had anything to do with it :-)

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107727
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that is what the Democratic rep has done in Conneticut.
Not for long:

"If, then, the arms-bearing right of the people is, as Blackstone says, an integral and inseparable part of their absolute rights as individuals, it follows that any and every constitution which assumes to protect life, liberty and property, necessarily insures the right of all the people to keep and bear arms, unless the contrary intention is clearly expressed, Hence the right is in nowise dependent upon the clause asserting that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The right exists whether the constitution contains that clause or not...."

"...But "these instruments," he says, "measure the power of the rulers; they do not measure the rights of the governed:" Cooley's Constitutional Limitations 37. "Neither military nor civil law," says the same high authority, "can take from the citizen the right to bear arms for the common defence. This is an inherited and traditionary right, guaranteed, also, by state and federal constitutions...."

"....... For all these repugnances of our statute to the acts of congress, I must pronounce the former unauthorized legislation in all its parts. Let the relator be discharged."

- Judge William Henry Barnum,[People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt. Illinois--Cook County Circuit Court. 1879.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107728
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's going to challenge it?
"Not that the right to keep and bear arms owed its origin to the constitution, for none knew better than the framers of that instrument that the right was pre-existent, and older than any and all constitutions. Therefore, as maintained in the argument, those profound and erudite statesmen chose for their purpose, not the language by which some new boon was to be created or bestowed, but that by which an old and immemorial right was to be recognized and fortified--"the right of the people *** shall not be infringed."

"Blackstone says: "The principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature." That those absolute rights are the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property; that these are "usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind," liberty "more generally talked of," he says, "than thoroughly understood." "auxiliary" and "subordinate" to these, he continues, are certain other rights, which serve principally as outworks, or barriers, to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property: 1 Blackstone Com. 141.

"Among these auxiliary rights and outworks of natural liberty, the distinguished commentator ranks, along with the "regular adminstration of justice" and the "right of petition," the co-equal "right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." The context leaves no doubt of the author's meaning, that the people's right to keep and use arms, was a barrier against the encroachments of rulers as well as others...."

- Judge William Henry Barnum,[People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt. Illinois--Cook County Circuit Court. 1879.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107729
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are a law abiding citizen what have you got against blanket background checks, unless you aren't so law abiding...a background check still allows you to have as many guns as you want you just have to prove you are law abiding....get it...
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107730
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Basically the 14th amendment left the US Bill of Rights in the US Constitution up to the SCOTUS to specify which of the Federal Bill of Rights of the US Constitution that the states had to guarantee and the 2nd amendment was the last one to be incorporated & forced down to the state & local level which we can thank the Republicans for the 14th amendment.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1868 (passage of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution's due process clause), the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
The Fourteenth Amendment: The Framing of America's Second Constitution
http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/
ALL of the decisions of the USurpreme Kourt have been erroneous on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right pre-exists all American constitutions. And was a reserved right of the people from ALL government 'control'. We held it as British subjects, and brought it with us when becoming citizens of the United States of America. To Wit:

"Not that the right to keep and bear arms owed its origin to the constitution, for none knew better than the framers of that instrument that the right was pre-existent, and older than any and all constitutions. Therefore, as maintained in the argument, those profound and erudite statesmen chose for their purpose, not the language by which some new boon was to be created or bestowed, but that by which an old and immemorial right was to be recognized and fortified--"the right of the people *** shall not be infringed."- Judge William Henry Barnum,[People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt. Illinois--Cook County Circuit Court. 1879.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...

(That court case was removed from public record. For the Judge went into discussion of our right in better fashion,(for the most part), than any case I've ever seen).

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Black, along with Justices Douglas and Swayne made the same basic argument in Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.

The right is in no wise dependent upon a piece of paper for existence. It is ours whether our governments want it to be or not.
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107731
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
A powerful lobby provides a consistent noise into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment .... Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment was designed for no other purpose than to keep alive the militia.
Justice William O. Douglas

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107732
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
A powerful lobby provides a consistent noise into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment .... Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment was designed for no other purpose than to keep alive the militia.
Justice William O. Douglas
"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments,[Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."

"'Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."

- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107733
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments,[Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."
"'Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."
- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.
You are actually a good thing to the gun debate by representing the gunloons, the people that misrepresent the causes and costs of false consciousness regarding the constitutional concept of the "right to bear arms." You make others aware of the deceit, misperception, and dereliction of responsibility that have characterized America's dysfunctional gun debate coming from the loons. The only problem is you are boring us to tears with your poor, poor juice of copy & past crap from 200 years past!
spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107734
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments,[Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."
"'Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."
- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.
You are actually a good thing to the gun debate by representing the gunloons, the people that misrepresent the causes and costs of false consciousness regarding the constitutional concept of the "right to bear arms." You make others aware of the deceit, misperception, and dereliction of responsibility that have characterized America's dysfunctional gun debate coming from the loons. The only problem is you are boring us to tears with your poor, poor choice of copy & past crap from 200 years past!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107735
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You got your history seriously bungled old chap; The Communist Party of the Soviet Union did not emerge until the end of the Bolsheviks and the bloody civil war in 1922. The Bolsheviks orchestrated the October Revolution which overthrew the Provisional Government, thus transferring all governing power to the workers' councils (Russian: soviets). Immediately thereafter, the Bolsheviks founded the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic - the world's first constitutionally socialist state. After a bloody civil war, at the end of 1922 the Bolsheviks emerged victorious and unified territories of the former Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). I seriously doubt that your man Lincoln had anything to do with it :-)
You got your history seriously bungled old chap Karl Marx was dead when Vladimir Lenin implemented the so called communism in Russia which was no where near True Communism but a form of Socialism that incorporates totalitarianism with no chances of achieving Communism but what is known today as Leninism and not Communism and why sociologist defined what Lenin said was communism but as Leninism and when Lenin died Stalin took over and implemented the worst form of Socialism that incorporates totalitarianism which sociologist call Stalinism which is not even close to true communism.

Leninism

In Marxist philosophy, Leninism is the body of political theory for the democratic organisation of a revolutionary vanguard party, and the achievement of a direct-democracy dictatorship of the proletariat, as political prelude to the establishment of socialism. Developed by, and named for, the Russian revolutionary Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, 1870–1924), Leninism comprises political and socialist economic theories, developed from Marxism, and Lenin’s interpretations of Marxist theory, for practical application to the socio-political conditions of the agrarian Russian Empire (1721–1917) of the early 20th century. In February 1917, for five years, Leninism was the Russian application of Marxist economics and political philosophy, effected and realised by the Bolshevik party, the vanguard party who led the fight for the political independence of the working class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

Stalinism

Stalinism is a theory and practice for developing a communist society, conceived and implemented by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union whilst officially adhering to Marxist–Leninism. Some criticize Stalinist practical measures, such as repression and economic policy, as a deviation from both Marxist and Leninist philosophy.

Stalinist policies in the Soviet Union included: rapid industrialization, socialism in one country, a centralized state, collectivization of agriculture, and subordination of interests of other communist parties to those of the Soviet party - deemed to be the most forefront vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107736
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's ANOTHER clue for the clueless. There are MILLIONS of them in the hands of law-abiding citizens that will NEVER be used to kill anyone.
Well, that is not true now, is it?...How many law abiding husbands, fathers, friends, cops wives use their legally bought guns to top themselves or to murder their siblings, wives mother in-laws kids, fathers, father in laws, lawyers and innocent bystanders annually in Yankee land? With an average of 30,000 gun deaths a year, quite a few I would say, eh? You are so bloody stupid.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107737
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for long:
"If, then, the arms-bearing right of the people is, as Blackstone says, an integral and inseparable part of their absolute rights as individuals, it follows that any and every constitution which assumes to protect life, liberty and property, necessarily insures the right of all the people to keep and bear arms, unless the contrary intention is clearly expressed, Hence the right is in nowise dependent upon the clause asserting that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The right exists whether the constitution contains that clause or not...."
"...But "these instruments," he says, "measure the power of the rulers; they do not measure the rights of the governed:" Cooley's Constitutional Limitations 37. "Neither military nor civil law," says the same high authority, "can take from the citizen the right to bear arms for the common defence. This is an inherited and traditionary right, guaranteed, also, by state and federal constitutions...."
"....... For all these repugnances of our statute to the acts of congress, I must pronounce the former unauthorized legislation in all its parts. Let the relator be discharged."
- Judge William Henry Barnum,[People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt. Illinois--Cook County Circuit Court. 1879.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...
Yada, yada, yada, you are still losing ground, you gun toting tit.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107738
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Not that the right to keep and bear arms owed its origin to the constitution, for none knew better than the framers of that instrument that the right was pre-existent, and older than any and all constitutions. Therefore, as maintained in the argument, those profound and erudite statesmen chose for their purpose, not the language by which some new boon was to be created or bestowed, but that by which an old and immemorial right was to be recognized and fortified--"the right of the people *** shall not be infringed."
"Blackstone says: "The principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature." That those absolute rights are the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property; that these are "usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind," liberty "more generally talked of," he says, "than thoroughly understood." "auxiliary" and "subordinate" to these, he continues, are certain other rights, which serve principally as outworks, or barriers, to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property: 1 Blackstone Com. 141.
"Among these auxiliary rights and outworks of natural liberty, the distinguished commentator ranks, along with the "regular adminstration of justice" and the "right of petition," the co-equal "right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." The context leaves no doubt of the author's meaning, that the people's right to keep and use arms, was a barrier against the encroachments of rulers as well as others...."
- Judge William Henry Barnum,[People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt. Illinois--Cook County Circuit Court. 1879.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...
Can you feel the center of your world moving beneath your feet yet? It is moving soooo slow you can barely feel it, but moving it is.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107739
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
It doesn't have to be to, to change laws about the typy of weapons you idiots need to kill a squirrel.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 100,401 - 100,420 of103,227
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

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.

•••
•••
•••
•••