SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: coalkirk On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:21 pm

Ed.A wrote:As evidenced by CBS and the Like they are in with Chicago Mayor Daley and are screaming that Gun crime is going to EXPLODE anytime now. What they fail to realize ( of course they do, they just hope their viewers are to stupid) is people are not just going to be able to drop into any Gun shop, throw down some cash, walk outside and start shooting people.
Rediculous arguments by Feinstein and her cronies as well.....but I just laughed at them. It was great watching Wayne LaPiere talking about how suits would be filed that day across the country to force them to abide by the Constitution. :)

This entire Lawsuit was to determine if LAW ABIDING citizens could partake in the Rights given to us, not Criminals! Why are the Mayors of DC, SF and Chi-town so worried? becuase they lose their power over their populace from living or to die depending on Police reaction time or simply walking through a park without the right to protect themselves.


Guess who has a concealed carry permit??? Diane Feinstein!!!! Laws prohibitiing the concealed carry of firearms are for everyone but her. :bang:
coalkirk
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF3000
Coal Size/Type: antrhcite/rice coal

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: chemung On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:43 pm

I've been reading the opinion of the Court delivered by JUSTICE Scalia. There he writes the meaning of arms as:
"The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.”


:idea:Think I'll strap on my Bowie Knife and go to Charlie Browns for dinner tonight. :roll:
chemung
 

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Cyber36 On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:16 pm

I think I'll celabrate by going out in the backyard & shoot a couple of boxes ;)
Cyber36
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Marathon/Logwood


Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: spc On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:18 pm

Here is what a 180 looks & sounds like:

spc
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Yanche On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:23 pm

Were's the 180? Sure sounds like the same position to me.
Yanche
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:49 pm

Yanche wrote:Were's the 180? Sure sounds like the same position to me.



I agree......Exactly the same reasonable position in both videos.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: spc On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:51 pm

The Constitutional law scholar is right, he didn't say it in Nov. of 2007 he said it in Feb. of 2008. :roll:

In the 1st clip "June of 2008" he denies what he said the 2nd clip.
2nd clip "Feb. of 2008": He supports the DC gun ban & thinks it is Constitutional.

"Obama Embraces Supreme Court Decision, “that struck down the DC gun ban”, as "Well-Needed Guidance""

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -embraces/
Last edited by spc on Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
spc
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:30 pm

OK....I get the point now.....In the first clip he is facing to his left.....In the 2nd clip, facing right......Thus.......180* :jawdrop:
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: spc On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:03 pm

"Barack Obama is under hostile fire for changing his position on the D.C. gun ban.
Oh, I'm sorry. He didn't change his position, apparently. He reworded a clumsy statement.
That, at least, is what his campaign is saying. The same campaign that tried to spin his flip-flop in rejecting public financing as embracing the spirit of reform, if not the actual position he had once promised to embrace."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 18_pf.html
spc
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Richard S. On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:20 pm

Devil5052 wrote:I agree......Exactly the same reasonable position in both videos.


There is no position now.... He says he agrees with the decision with clauses and doesn't make it clear to how his position applies to D.C.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Duengeon master On: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:20 pm

Ed.A wrote:As evidenced by CBS and the Like they are in with Chicago Mayor Daley and are screaming that Gun crime is going to EXPLODE anytime now. What they fail to realize ( of course they do, they just hope their viewers are to stupid) is people are not just going to be able to drop into any Gun shop, throw down some cash, walk outside and start shooting people.
Rediculous arguments by Feinstein and her cronies as well.....but I just laughed at them. It was great watching Wayne LaPiere talking about how suits would be filed that day across the country to force them to abide by the Constitution. :)

This entire Lawsuit was to determine if LAW ABIDING citizens could partake in the Rights given to us, not Criminals! Why are the Mayors of DC, SF and Chi-town so worried? becuase they lose their power over their populace from living or to die depending on Police reaction time or simply walking through a park without the right to protect themselves.
What mayor Daley and the other mayors are really worried about is now they actually have to start fighting crime!! :wtf: or else we will. :taz: Most of these gun laws started in Detroit back in the 1960s. because Honest law abiding blacks were trying to defend themselves against the animals in the street. The racist democrats saw armed blacks as a threat and anacted the first gun laws. P.S. M.L.K was a republican.
Duengeon master
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harmon Mark III
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite pea and nut mix. Bituminous lump

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: pvolcko On: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:32 am

Devil5052 wrote:I think a little common sense here would work wonders.........I just can't imagine a legitimate reason for a municipality denying a law abiding, mentally competent, adult citizen the right to own a firearm, for any lawful purpose.
By the same token, I would favor denying that same citizen the right to carry a loaded flame thrower down the streets of Manhattan. (for those who would argue that he should have the right to carry a flame thrower in New York........How about if he wants a private, tactical nuclear weapon?!?.......is there any line here??)
"We The People" have a collective right to defend ourselves against the unnecessary dangers that such weapons pose, don't we?


Again with the flame throwers and nuclear weapons. Please stop throwing out these insane arguments for "reasonableness". You, I, everyone knows that some cities and states will attempt to hang their hat on "reasonableness" by shaving things as closely as they possibly can, requiring years if not decades of further court actions, rights denied, and innocent lives destroyed as these jurisdictions ignore any semblance of reasonableness in their effort to maintain the unconstitutional spirit of their gun laws.

What am I talking about? DC saying that they will (at some point, who knows when) allow people to purchase revolvers and single shot handguns. No semi-automatic handguns, though. Those are apparently "unreasonable". The type of firearm which constitutes at least half the modern, common handguns available for purchase today. Is that reasonable? I don't think so, and I bet not too many other gun owners and potential gun owners would either. No this measure of "reasonableness" will be set be effete liberal snobs and a largely unthinking, brainwashed local citizenry who, after 30 years of being denied their constitutional rights and told guns, all guns, are bad bad bad while their violent crime rates have gone up up up probably couldn't even hope tell you the practical functional differences between the types and styles of handgun.

What other "reasonable" hairs will they split? Only double action, no single action? This is often a recommendation for personal defense handguns most likely to be used in close quarters situations, but is very bad for target shooting, hunting, and other such common "precision" uses that are equally protected uses under the constitution. Is it reasonable?

Is it reasonable for a jurisdiction to allow permit issuing officers (judges or sheriffs, most often) to use subjective, ill-defined criteria (indeed barely defined criteria in many counties and some states) in their decision to issue a premises, sportsman, or carry permit or not? What about in a state where the subjective criteria are literally different for two people in two different counties whom are separated and distinguishable by nothing more than 2 miles distance between their dwellings? Is that reasonable?

How about games played with understaffing issuing offices and other support apparatus for the issuance of permits, resulting in ridiculous lengths of time to process an application and issue the permit? How about playing games with the number of recognized instructors for mandated instructional lectures and courses? Or fee schedules? Reasonableness?

How about calibers. .45ACP will be allowed, but .50DE will not? .357 fine, but a handgun that shoots 410 gauge shot shells, forget it? Reasonable?

Magazine capacities, attached lights or laser sights, the mere presence of an accessory rail of any kind (hell, they consider a bayonet lug to be a defining characteristic of an assault weapon, why not?), etc. Reasonable points of restriction?

Bet your life that all these and more will be tried and each and every one will require years of legal wrangling and total tens of millions of dollars or more pissed away on the process.

In light of the presence of the 2nd amendment there should be a default to the more liberal (as in individual freedom) structuring of gun laws, requiring the case to be made to impose a restriction and enacted as a law (definitely not by a judge). This implies that the restrictions should come slowly, one careful piece at a time in the direction of more restrictions from a starting point of maximum individual liberty. But it hasn't and won't happen that way for a great many people. Instead some cities and states have opted and will continue to opt to impose the maximum restrictions they possibly can, wait for a judge to rule the restriction too strong, and then shave a very little bit away and claim they made a good faith effort to comply, and then wait another 5-10 years for it to work its way through the court system. Rinse, repeat. And, as this case has proven, 5-10 years is probably an underestimate. The DC handgun ban has been in effect for something like 25-30 years!

If this kind of effort and progression to find the edge of reasonableness from the starting point of maximum liberty curtailment allowed under the constitution was made against the freedom of religion or to vote or against the 5th amendment rights, damn near every person in this country would be in a furious uproar over it. And rightly so. But because its guns, and guns are bad, guns do nothing but kill, gun owners are irresponsible, gun ownership results in stolen guns used to kill people, and on and on with that mindless blather... well, then that's alright to take that inverted, never otherwise taken path to defining the rights of gun ownership and the limits of the 2nd amendment. It's appalling.

Somehow a handful of states and cities have gotten things backwards, forcing millions of people to suffer unconstitutional restriction of their fundamental rights for decades. Those backward thinking forces will continue to act to maintain unreasonable, ineffective, unconstitutional gun control laws, even in the face of this rebuke of their unconstitutional policies and their overall spirit of minimizing a critical individual freedom. Of course, I'm assuming the goal is to reduce the number of violent crime victims and maximize personal liberty and not simply to "defang" the law abiding populace. They've certainly have made great strides in the later while failing miserably at the former.
pvolcko
 

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:22 am

pvolcko wrote:Again with the flame throwers and nuclear weapons. Please stop throwing out these insane arguments for "reasonableness". You, I, everyone knows that some cities and states will attempt to hang their hat on "reasonableness" by shaving things as closely as they possibly can, requiring years if not decades of further court actions, rights denied, and innocent lives destroyed as these jurisdictions ignore any semblance of reasonableness in their effort to maintain the unconstitutional spirit of their gun laws.


LOL.....I sometimes think that you just want to argue for it's own sake Paul. I was simply pointing out that I think the S. Court's ruling was sound & that some "common sense" restrictions are advisable or even unavoidable when it comes to firearms ownership. I fail to see where this position is unreasonable or offensive to most gun owners in a crowded society such as ours.What is the crux of your position then.........That there should be no reasonable restrictions at all??? :wtf:
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: pvolcko On: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:54 am

Maybe I'm being oversensitive here, Devil, but when you trot out straw men examples like nukes and flame throwers and given our discussions on this in the past I sense that your notion of reasonableness may be in line with the likes of the DC Mayor, NYC mayor, and the permitting authorities in a number of other NY state counties, among others. I don't consider them reasonable and I hope you don't either. Indeed I hope you don't merely find them unreasonable, I hope you'll be part of the solution by advocating against these overreaching, unreasonable, subjectively and capriciously enforced, and (I believe demonstrably) ineffective restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights.

I do not enjoy arguing for arguments sake. I have a point when I argue and I hope to sway the opinions of others through my arguments. I just hope I'm not nudging people to the other camp due to my zealousness. :)

And to be clear, I support a number of reasonable, sensible restrictions on gun ownership and gun use. I do think there are too many restrictions which are quite unreasonable in places like NY state, certainly in NYC, and in Chicago, the state of Illinois, and of course DC, and in a number of other places. I also think that in those places where there aren't total bans or effective bans on functional firearms in place there are efforts underway to impose ever more restrictive, unreasonable policies. There are a few which have come down the pike that I believe are reasonable, such as laws to better communicate forced psych confinements to the background check databases (and very importantly to strengthen the mechanisms by which a person can get such "red marks" cleared from their database records). I'm also for mandating free instant background checks for all gun sales, private or otherwise, with the only exception being for firearms that are permanently disabled from firing. To be mandatory, though, the checks must be free, must be instant and there must be reasonable hours of availability for the checks (like a full 8 hours a day, every day, including weekends).

Such reasonable laws are rarely the ones proposed, though. For example, the DC mayor's statement that they will seek to maintain a ban on all semi-automatic handguns, allowing only revolvers and single shot handguns (though I expect they'll probably continue to outlaw those too since they typically are hunting pistols of relatively high power or starter pistols of too little power) and will supposedly seek to "meet" the constitutional requirement for the new storage restrictions they will be drafting in emergency legislation over the next month. In my state there are annual (sometimes twice annual) attempts to put in place a set of about 8 new gun restriction laws that are all unreasonable in one way or another, for example banning all guns with a bore size larger than 50 caliber (including shotguns, hunting rifles, blackpowder rifles, etc.) and forcing all gun store employees to get a pistol permit (it is unclear if they mean all employees of a store that happens to sell pistols or only those employees that are involved in the handling and sale of the pistols, either way it is unreasonable).

The fight goes on against these unreasonable laws. I apologize if I'm preaching to the choir.
pvolcko
 

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Richard S. On: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:07 pm

Well I can say the gun laws in my neck of the woods are quite tame, for example I sold to my brother a 9mm Sig. Walked in the gun store and we were done in about 20 minutes. Moslty paperowrk, we each had to provide ID and they did the phone call to make sure he wasn't mass murderer. Getting a concealed permit in this area is pretty easy as well, I've never gone through the process but if you have never been in trouble with the law it's pretty much done deal.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite