Supremes Affirm Right To Own Guns

[keeblercrumb]

Soviet Era Condom

AMICUS

Some people are encased inside their natural personalities.

The one's who scream RACIST and TROLL today, screamed NIGGER-LOVER and QUEER fifty years ago.

Name calling is what they do. They sniff asses and choose their words.

hahahahahaha

Too bad, so sad, eat shit and die liberals.

So now…JB…. Do you appreciate the irony?



-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLER

You are such a dolt. In the 19th Century people did answer the door with loaded weapons, because most people lived on farms back of beyond. Indian scares were common, bandits were common, and in most places your religion was enough to get you assassinated.

 

[sr71plt]

So now…JB…. Do you appreciate the irony?



-KC

Yep

 

[sr71plt]

The 'militia' the Constitution refers to is the adult males of America. The 'active militia' is/was adult males in specific locations acting as a temporary military force. The 'organized militia' is the National Guard.'

Sorry, ladies. JB just cut you out of the action.

 

[TxRad]

Which, I guess explains why you take the Neanderthal position you do. Nuff said.

I can just feel all non-Americans (and, happily, some Americas as well) shaking their heads and rolling their eyes.

There's no need for name calling. People who kill other people should be hanged in the town square. Is that neanderthal enough for you.

What was written in the bill of rights has to be interrupted using the times and history of the men who wrote it. Most, if not all, were from England and wanted to set up a free society. One without a king (Queen) and with freedom of religion among other things. This was their way of insuring that the government would not take the people over by force.

No one is rolling their eyes but you, I'm afraid.

 

[sr71plt]

There's no need for name calling. People who kill other people should be hanged in the town square. Is that neanderthal enough for you.

What was written in the bill of rights has to be interrupted using the times and history of the men who wrote it. Most, if not all, were from England and wanted to set up a free society. One without a king (Queen) and with freedom of religion among other things. This was their way of insuring that the government would not take the people over by force.

No one is rolling their eyes but you, I'm afraid.

It was categorizing, not namecalling--and you have put yourself into that particular category.

Sorry that you can't keep up with the world.

 

[TxRad]

Sorry, ladies. JB just cut you out of the action.

No he didn't. The men who drew up the bill of rights in the 1700's did.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

Which, I guess explains why you take the Neanderthal position you do. Nuff said.

I can just feel all non-Americans (and, happily, some Americas as well) shaking their heads and rolling their eyes.

Quietly nods my head

 

[Carnevil9]

It's a shame we aren't having this discussion in person, all armed. It would have been over by now.

 

[sr71plt]

It's a shame we aren't having this discussion in person, all armed. It would have been over by now.

Don't be too sure. At The Farm I took a nifty course that taught me to use the most unexpected household implements that would work dandy with home invasion. Don't need no gun.

 

[TxRad]

It was categorizing, not namecalling--and you have put yourself into that particular category.

Sorry that you can't keep up with the world.

You know me so well.

As for keeping up with the world, well maybe the world does move fast but somethings remain the same. This right and several others are just as applicable today as at any time in history. It's just that some people don't want to take responsibility for theire own actions and negligence.

I raised two kids in a home with guns and the first thing they learned past the age of five was gun safety and what guns could and would do. Both are grown now and have kids of their own. Yes, they both own guns and have passed on what I taught them to their kids.

The old saying, guns don't kill, people do, is quite correct but you should also add that stupidity is the biggest killer of all.

 

[R. Richard]

As I have stated before. In the western US area where I live, home burglaries are rare. Most of the people around here are armed and know how to use the handguns found in most homes. On the other hand, auto break-ins are common. You can see inside a car and determine that there is no one in there with a gun, ready to kill a burglar.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Sigh indeed. Yeah it means something. Never said it didn't.

It could easily mean:

A well regulated militia, [which is] being necessary to the security of a free state, [and nessecary to] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So a well regulated militita shall not be infringed. And the right to bear arms is an effect of a well regulated militita...

I am sure that is it, that makes a lot of sense.

Or it could mean:

A well regulated militia, ([which is] being necessary to the security of a free state,) [and therefore also] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Meanning that they are two separate things, and niether shall be infringed.
...

And if it said [the moon is made of cheese] it could mean that too....

But since it did NOT say [and therefore also], perhaps it doesn't mean it [and therefore also], either.

You sure do read a lot into a comma, my friend.

Please derive the proper intended interpretation, without a shadow of a doubt, will ya?...

How about... A well regulated militia being necessary to the protection of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Strikes me as pretty unambiguous.... they MUST be read together, or they would not be in the same sentence. There is no other rational interpretation.

But you know what? I am not such a strict constructionist that I would insist on hanging my hat on words written when the very meaning of "arms" has little to do with the subject at hand. The ludicrous proliferation of hand guns in our society.

Our "well regulated militia" IS used to protect the STATE... not your house. And they got much bigger and deadlier shit than hand guns, thank God.

You can insert words and torture the logic all you want. It does not change the carnage we face in our streets everyday because of rulings like this.

I understand how passionate people are on this subject.... and I do respect your opinion, despite my sarcasm....

I only hope that this nightmare of gun violence in our society will end someday.......

-KC

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's a shame we aren't having this discussion in person, all armed. It would have been over by now.

Not at all - we would all be much more polite, is all. You know - "And armed society is a polite society." (Heinlein, of course. )

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I believe "regulated" in the 18th C meant "trained."

Or in the context of the American colonies, having developed the skill to load-and-prime a flintlock musket or rifle while hiding behind a stone wall, pop up to snap off a ball at a Redcoat, then drop down and start over. Repeat until Redcoats are run out of the country, then return to farm and make whiskey.

 

[keeblercrumb]

KEEBLER

You are such a dolt. .

And you are stinky poo-poo head!

Ah the give and take of witty repartee, it is so invigorating...



-KC

 

[Pure]

i think the original idea was that a militia was necessary. when it [now, the Guard] is called up, each man grabs a gun from his cupboard and goes to serve. he has a right to keep the gun there, consequently, and presumably use it for other lawful purposes.

now, of course, the Guard have armories and weapons. IF that's the sole reason there is a right to keep a gun in your cupboard, then the right has vanished. but that would be a hard argument to make.

i think the close 5-4 decision is a good sign and, though i haven't read it the decision in full, the court did NOT recognize the idea of UNregulated gun ownership as a right** [it did not rule out a registration requirement, for instance], and nor did the court forbid the prohibition of private persons bearing [owning, carrying] certain types of arms, basically military ones; e.g anti tank weapons.
---

**eat your heart out ami and cohorts.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[excerpt from the majority decision supporting my points above]

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, con*cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire*arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Opinion of the Court
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons thatwere not specifically designed for military use and werenot employed in a military capacity.

 

[oggbashan]

I read recently that "hot burglaries" - ones in which the resident is home - are rare in the U.S., but comprise the majority of UK burglaries. Coincidence?

The number of burglaries in the UK is decreasing and has been dropping for some time. Perhaps part of the reason is that expensive electrical appliances have become cheaper and larger. Removing a 42 inch plasma TV is more difficult than a 14 inch TV used to be. A burglar can hardly conceal a large TV about his person.

Ordinary burglaries and "hot burglaries" are usually to obtain car keys because car security systems have been increasingly complex. A typical UK "hot burglary" is to get the car keys from downstairs while the occupants are asleep upstairs.

Street robbery, however, is increasing because people carry/wear highly portable and expensive electronic equipment such as mobile phones and iPods.

Og

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The number of burglaries in the UK is decreasing and has been dropping for some time. Perhaps part of the reason is that expensive electrical appliances have become cheaper and larger. Removing a 42 inch plasma TV is more difficult than a 14 inch TV used to be. A burglar can hardly conceal a large TV about his person.

Ordinary burglaries and "hot burglaries" are usually to obtain car keys because car security systems have been increasingly complex. A typical UK "hot burglary" is to get the car keys from downstairs while the occupants are asleep upstairs.

Street robbery, however, is increasing because people carry/wear highly portable and expensive electronic equipment such as mobile phones and iPods.

Og

Burglaries have declined in the US too.

I imagine it's unconscious, but that tendency in casual conversation to ascribe changes in the frequency of certain crimes to purely material factors, including fairly trivial ones ("appliances cheaper and bigger" not "bread shortages") is somewhat off-putting. Not that I don't doubt that is one factor, but the real cause of such crimes is the absence of personal and social constraints which are the real source of peace, security and order in a society. Like shame, for example.

 

[oggbashan]

Burglaries have declined in the US too.

I imagine it's unconscious, but that tendency in casual conversation to ascribe changes in the frequency of certain crimes to purely material factors, including fairly trivial ones ("appliances cheaper and bigger" not "bread shortages") is somewhat off-putting. Not that I don't doubt that is one factor, but the real cause of such crimes is the absence of personal and social constraints which are the real source of peace, security and order in a society. Like shame, for example.

Our few local burglars are driven by the need to fund drug addiction.

What we need are accessible rehab centres for those who are addicted. Unfortunately if a local drug addict says "I want help" it takes six to twelve months before a place is available and then it is usually too late.

Og

 

[freshface]

Which, I guess explains why you take the Neanderthal position you do. Nuff said.

I can just feel all non-Americans (and, happily, some Americas as well) shaking their heads and rolling their eyes.

Some of my German friends look at the news from the US and simply can't understand how we can keep having massacres without imposing stricter gun control laws. I feel much safer living here, where no one is armed and we never have drive-bys.

Before someone makes the inevitable observation that maybe guns would have stopped Hitler, I would point out that Germans could have weapons before Hitler. A lot of those Germans joined the Nazi party in the late '20s and early '30s. His party had well armed and trained troops long before he took control of the German military.

And, of course, the US military is a professional force that gets to see up close and personal what happens in a country when the military gets involved in politics. Is anyone here seriously suggesting that an armed populace is going to keep the military in line?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We have drug control laws. How have they reduced illicit drug use?

We have traffic laws. Do they stop speeders?

Gun control wont stop the illicit use of guns. All it will do is disarm law abiding citizens.

 

[Elianna]

I live in Arizona. I grew up around guns. I've shot guns. I've never shot anyone.

I don't have a gun in my house, but dad keeps offering me one of his shotguns "just in case" and I've considered it.

Guns are a weapon, true. But butcher's knives are a weapon, mix the right chemicals under your sink and you'll get a weapon, drive your car recklessly and you've got a weapon.

When you come to think about it, cars kill more people than guns; more kids, more pregnant women, more of everyone that seems so vulnerable. Never have we even considered denying cars to people. There are many things that can kill people, guns being one of them. It's about the responsibility we use when operating these tools.

I can guarantee that the number of teenagers killed with guns is far overshadowed by the number of teenagers killed driving recklessly in their own cars.

The number of accidents of children shooting each other is overshadowed by the number of kids hit while not paying attention when they crossed the street.

Now do I believe that EVERYONE should have a gun. No. Drunk drivers can't drive cars, violent offenders shouldn't own guns. I don't have a problem with a license... we have to get one for driving cars which are just as powerful and deadly as guns. Now... does everyone need a fully automatic assault rifle that can tear off body parts... um... there are limits. But hey, people ARE driving Hummers... so. (That was an attempt to be funny)

Just a thought and my opinion.

I think that our "right to bear arms" is what makes us unique.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Some of my German friends look at the news from the US and simply can't understand how we can keep having massacres without imposing stricter gun control laws. I feel much safer living here, where no one is armed and we never have drive-bys.

Before someone makes the inevitable observation that maybe guns would have stopped Hitler, I would point out that Germans could have weapons before Hitler. A lot of those Germans joined the Nazi party in the late '20s and early '30s. His party had well armed and trained troops long before he took control of the German military.

And, of course, the US military is a professional force that gets to see up close and personal what happens in a country when the military gets involved in politics. Is anyone here seriously suggesting that an armed populace is going to keep the military in line?

It's culture that determines violent crime rates, not the presence or absence of guns. Do you feel threatened when you visit Switzerland? I doubt it, yet there every householder has had a fully automatic battle-rifle in the closet for most of the past 60 years (I don't know if that is still the case). So why did citizens and visitors not feel endangered there? By the logic of your post everyone should have been terrified.

Over the past 15 years most US states have liberalized their concealed pistol laws, allowing law abiding citizens who pass a background check and get a few hours of training to carry a concealed weapon in public. In every case, before the fact opponents assured the population that carnage would ensue, and every fender-bender would turn into a shootout. The outcome was nothing of the sort - crime rates went down or stayed the same. Yet none of those opponents - among them many of the same law enforcement officials who resist any liberalization of the nation's drug laws - have given an inch in their opposition, showing themselves to be entirely impervious to empirical evidence. Given that, why should anything they say be given any credence whatsoever?

 

[Liar]

Just come bursting into my home unannounced and I'll show ya... .....Carney (with no kids and no trigger locks)

That's not a militia. That's a dude with a gun.