with all due respect; i can make a gun in an hour. it will be single shot but i can do it. the FBI has an entire room full of homemade guns that have been confiscated. imagine the number they haven't gotten.
not many cos who the fuck knows how, let alone would bother? and would said gun have been able to kill 30 people in a matter of minutes in virginia? you cant whip that kind of equipment up in a kitchen.
I just heard on the radio that this kid was commintted, by order of the state, to an institution for psychological evaluation back in 2005. If this is true than someone dropped the ball because the state of Virginia requires that the information be available when conducting a background check for a fire arm purchase. Either the information about his institutionalization was never entered into the system or the gun shop didn't think it was an issue.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
today; we have 1 million invaders crossing the mexican border each year alone. we have invaders crossing the canadian border and people invading our shores by boat. our government with spy planes and armed border guards is helpless in protecting us. our cities are run by gangs and the police are helpless. drug cartels remove billions from the american economy making our poor; poorer.
Isn't the real problem here that your country is in fact very rich and in the eyes of a lot of other people unwilling at the least to share this wealth? If the problem is that your cities are being run by gangs, isn't that also because these gangs have relatively easy access to fire-arms? If drug cartels remove so much from your economy, why not legalize it? After all, it's still anyones own choice to use or not...
Saw things so much clearer
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
because i type too fast and don't proof-read here. since spelling isn't an issue but content is; i simply don't worry about it.
I thought you were a scientist, now your an attorney too?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
let see...a car's main purpose is transportation...a gun's main purpose is to kill...
since you bring up cars...I'm pretty sure one has to take a test to obtain a license to drive a car, they pay yearly to keep that car registered, the car is inspected once a year, one has to pay insurance on that said car....
how about doing the same for guns...?
That right there is the best rebuttal to the ever-popular guns-to-cars comparision that I have come across. It would be great if people were forced to insure themselves if they are a legal owner of a handgun. Even better -- if you go to buy a gun, the guy behind the cash register just gets it over with and shoots you dead -- one less brain dead fuck in society to deal with.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
Isn't the real problem here that your country is in fact very rich and in the eyes of a lot of other people unwilling at the least to share this wealth? If the problem is that your cities are being run by gangs, isn't that also because these gangs have relatively easy access to fire-arms? If drug cartels remove so much from your economy, why not legalize it? After all, it's still anyones own choice to use or not...
now that's what pisses me off. my mothers grandfather immigrated here because he heard america is so wealthy the streets are paved in gold. we have more poor and starving than most nations. america can't afford to pay back the retirees that gave money to the government (social security) to be returned to them when they retire. america cannot afford to offer it's people socialized medicine. our national debt is in the billions because poland is the only country to pay back money it has borrowed. we have shared the wealth by not invading countries that refuse to pay their debt. so much that we cannot care for our own people.
i'm all for legalization. in fact; i'll smoke to that.
I thought you were a scientist, now your an attorney too?
i actually had 3 majors and fronted a band for many years. i am currently doing research in the nutritional field. my IQ is 2 points short of genius.
i fail to see how this is relevant to the debate though.
not many cos who the fuck knows how, let alone would bother? and would said gun have been able to kill 30 people in a matter of minutes in virginia? you cant whip that kind of equipment up in a kitchen.
if i wanted to kill 30 people i'd use a pipe bomb or two.
That right there is the best rebuttal to the ever-popular guns-to-cars comparision that I have come across. It would be great if people were forced to insure themselves if they are a legal owner of a handgun. Even better -- if you go to buy a gun, the guy behind the cash register just gets it over with and shoots you dead -- one less brain dead fuck in society to deal with.
8 times more people are killed with cars each year than with guns. maybe the car dealer should run over anyone wanting to buy a car and get it over with then and there.
if i wanted to kill 30 people i'd use a pipe bomb or two.
don't worry dude, i don't question your knowledge of terrorist tactics. im just saying, most people don't share your enthusiasm for learning many different ways of killing other people.
because i type too fast and don't proof-read here. since spelling isn't an issue but content is; i simply don't worry about it.
you can't use that excuse because you consistently spell it a particular way. it's not a typo. by the way, whatever happened to all that case law about being unable to amend the constitution you were going to provide? i while i admire your willingness to openly be a pussy and run away and ignore the challenge, i was still hoping id get some real answers, seeing as how you're such an impressive and unbeatable attorney and everything.
you can't use that excuse because you consistently spell it a particular way. it's not a typo. by the way, whatever happened to all that case law about being unable to amend the constitution you were going to provide? i while i admire your willingness to openly be a pussy and run away and ignore the challenge, i was still hoping id get some real answers, seeing as how you're such an impressive and unbeatable attorney and everything.
in 228 years; not one of the first 10 amendments have been changed so how can there be case law? in a normal session of congress; an average of 200 amendments are presented. i did present several posts but as i said; your inability to understand them is not my concern.
if i had the time to research it; i believe amendments ratified before 1808 cannot be changed; but don't hold me to that.
don't worry dude, i don't question your knowledge of terrorist tactics. im just saying, most people don't share your enthusiasm for learning many different ways of killing other people.
but the point remains that if someone wanted to kill; they don't need a gun. a simple trip to the hardware store will do it. you can get everything you need to make gunpowder there too. remember oklahoma city?
i actually had 3 majors and fronted a band for many years. i am currently doing research in the nutritional field. my IQ is 2 points short of genius.
i fail to see how this is relevant to the debate though.
I guess it's because we're all astonished at the pomp and rubbish that comes out of your posts....
I guess it's because we're all astonished at the pomp and rubbish that comes out of your posts....
BTW.. I beat you by one point :D:D
Good night....
Jeez Rita you still on this? been out, played footie, had an indian and lots of beer and you're still on this........?
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
nope... just came back a few minutes ago... just couldn't resist....
Stopped getting involved this pm as everything is just being rehashed over and over again.. But with onelongsong.... sorry... . Note I didn't even respond to the hitler and WWII posts or the ones about america being invaded so many times (by the french and british as well - the bastards), that now they all need their little guns to protect themselves from future invaders... gotta laugh dave...
nope... just came back a few minutes ago... just couldn't resist....
Stopped getting involved this pm as everything is just being rehashed over and over again.. But with onelongsong.... sorry... . Note I didn't even respond to the hitler and WWII posts or the ones about america being invaded so many times (by the french and british as well - the bastards), that now they all need their little guns to protect themselves from future invaders... gotta laugh dave...
I didn't have lots of beer.... :(
Not read back on all that....
isn't that what an organised army is for? it has no relevance to gun ownership in the general public...
yeah like who the fuck is gonna invade America???
I have had lots of beer and now have hiccups
Time for bed...
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
in 228 years; not one of the first 10 amendments have been changed so how can there be case law? in a normal session of congress; an average of 200 amendments are presented. i did present several posts but as i said; your inability to understand them is not my concern.
if i had the time to research it; i believe amendments ratified before 1808 cannot be changed; but don't hold me to that.
What Article V has to say about 1808 is this:
"... no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ..."
So the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of Article I couldn't be amended before 1808. The whole Constitution is fair game now, including those clauses. The reason the first 10 amendments haven't been changed is because there's been no will among the people to do so, which no one is disputing. What we're disputing is your assertion that it can't be done. It can, if the people want to do it.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
"... no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ..."
So the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of Article I couldn't be amended before 1808. The whole Constitution is fair game now, including those clauses. The reason the first 10 amendments haven't been changed is because there's been no will among the people to do so, which no one is disputing. What we're disputing is your assertion that it can't be done. It can, if the people want to do it.
the people can't do it; congress has to. and it is congress that claims the first 10 amendments cannot be changed because altering one would require altering others at the same time. also; it was the supreme court that deemed the words "shall not be infringed" as meaning cannot be amended.
isn't that what an organised army is for? it has no relevance to gun ownership in the general public...
yeah like who the fuck is gonna invade America???
I have had lots of beer and now have hiccups
Time for bed...
U.S. versus Miller indicated that the weapons protected were weapons "commonly in use by soldiers". This would mean that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of not only semi-automatic "assault weapons", but also actual military assault rifles, which can fire either semi-automatic, three-shot bursts, or fully automatic mode
isn't that what an organised army is for? it has no relevance to gun ownership in the general public...
yeah like who the fuck is gonna invade America???
I have had lots of beer and now have hiccups
Time for bed...
in addition:
This understanding of the militia and who belongs to it is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in US vs. Miller: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In determining the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, the use of the phrase "security of a free state", rather than "security of The State", in the 2nd Amendment is very crucial and much misunderstood. This phrase is sometimes taken to refer to the protection of the the United States, or of individual States, but this focuses only on the words "security of a ... state". The militia was also to make sure the state remained a "free state". A country formed with less concern for the liberty of its citizens could be defended with an army or select militia, but a FREE state's only defensive option that did not threaten the freedom of the people was considered to be a militia. The militia to be formed by the armed citizens was as much to guard against tyranny from our own government as it was to guard against foreign invasion.
8 times more people are killed with cars each year than with guns. maybe the car dealer should run over anyone wanting to buy a car and get it over with then and there.
You really can't be that dense mr 2 points short of genius. People generally don't buy a car with the sole intention of inflicting harm on someone or something. The only reason someone buys a gun is because they intend to hurt someone. The gun may be purchase under the guise of protection, but make no mistake, it is always purchased with the intent of hurting someone else.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
the people can't do it; congress has to. and it is congress that claims the first 10 amendments cannot be changed because altering one would require altering others at the same time. also; it was the supreme court that deemed the words "shall not be infringed" as meaning cannot be amended.
Well obviously Congress has to do it, and they would if the people had the will to make it happen.
Congress does not, however, have the power to override the Constitution, which is what it would be doing if they said that the first ten amendments cannot be changed. The Constitution makes no such claim.
Unless you can cite the opinion, I'm going to maintain that you're just plain wrong regarding your interpretation of "shall not be infringed." I am not aware of any ruling by SCOTUS claiming that any portion of the Constitution is immune to the amendment process as detailed in Article V, and it's inconceivable to me that the Court would rule as such. They would basically be declaring Article V null and void ... that would be right up there with Marbury v. Madison on the list of best known decisions, and I'd have heard of it. I'm quite certain that soulsinging would be studying it as we speak.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
in 228 years; not one of the first 10 amendments have been changed so how can there be case law? in a normal session of congress; an average of 200 amendments are presented. i did present several posts but as i said; your inability to understand them is not my concern.
if i had the time to research it; i believe amendments ratified before 1808 cannot be changed; but don't hold me to that.
no, you're thinking of article 5 which states certain parts of the previous articles cannot be amended UNTIL 1808. there is no case law eh? then, please, put on your scotus hat and tell me, looking at the constitution, what part of it would you point to in an opinion to say that the first 10 amendments cannot be ratified, not even by the procedures set forth in the constitution? and why does it apply only to the first 10? they didnt have much trouble repealing the 18th amendment. you did present several posts, none of which were relevant not convincing, let alone binding.
but the point remains that if someone wanted to kill; they don't need a gun. a simple trip to the hardware store will do it. you can get everything you need to make gunpowder there too. remember oklahoma city?
i do, quite well. but they planned that one pretty well. it took time. they didn't go out one day, buy a gun, and kill 30 people a few days later.
i actually had 3 majors and fronted a band for many years. i am currently doing research in the nutritional field. my IQ is 2 points short of genius.
i fail to see how this is relevant to the debate though.
what band? i like how you're never willing to say. nor where you went to school. nor anything else besides wild, self-aggrandizing claims without support. you don't have the intellectual firepower to back that claim up dude, and we all can see that clear as day. you're getting your ass kicked in a constitutional debate by a 1L and 2 regular citizens, yet you claim to be an attorney.
and if you're going by the mensa standards, i AM a genius. but no, it's not relevant. what is relevant is your inability to provide any compelling proof for your bullshit constitutional "scholarship."
what band? i like how you're never willing to say. nor where you went to school. nor anything else besides wild, self-aggrandizing claims without support. you don't have the intellectual firepower to back that claim up dude, and we all can see that clear as day. you're getting your ass kicked in a constitutional debate by a 1L and 2 regular citizens, yet you claim to be an attorney.
and if you're going by the mensa standards, i AM a genius. but no, it's not relevant. what is relevant is your inability to provide any compelling proof for your bullshit constitutional "scholarship."
I ran a few of these posts past my husband, who actually does have a law degree from an accredited law school and has been a practicing attorney for 30 years. His response? Laughs, and "He's a lawyer? On what planet?"
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
People generally don't buy a car with the sole intention of inflicting harm on someone or something.
Neither do the vast majority of gun owners
The only reason someone buys a gun is because they intend to hurt someone. The gun may be purchase under the guise of protection, but make no mistake, it is always purchased with the intent of hurting someone else.
Really? Now you are able to see into the minds of gun buyers and determine intent?
I have never purchased any gun "with the intent of killing someone else". That's the reason I bought my car
Comments
not many cos who the fuck knows how, let alone would bother? and would said gun have been able to kill 30 people in a matter of minutes in virginia? you cant whip that kind of equipment up in a kitchen.
And don't you think better regulation or registration is a form of people control?
Isn't the real problem here that your country is in fact very rich and in the eyes of a lot of other people unwilling at the least to share this wealth? If the problem is that your cities are being run by gangs, isn't that also because these gangs have relatively easy access to fire-arms? If drug cartels remove so much from your economy, why not legalize it? After all, it's still anyones own choice to use or not...
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
because i type too fast and don't proof-read here. since spelling isn't an issue but content is; i simply don't worry about it.
I thought you were a scientist, now your an attorney too?
That right there is the best rebuttal to the ever-popular guns-to-cars comparision that I have come across. It would be great if people were forced to insure themselves if they are a legal owner of a handgun. Even better -- if you go to buy a gun, the guy behind the cash register just gets it over with and shoots you dead -- one less brain dead fuck in society to deal with.
if you think making more laws for people to ignore does any good; look at past legislation.
now that's what pisses me off. my mothers grandfather immigrated here because he heard america is so wealthy the streets are paved in gold. we have more poor and starving than most nations. america can't afford to pay back the retirees that gave money to the government (social security) to be returned to them when they retire. america cannot afford to offer it's people socialized medicine. our national debt is in the billions because poland is the only country to pay back money it has borrowed. we have shared the wealth by not invading countries that refuse to pay their debt. so much that we cannot care for our own people.
i'm all for legalization. in fact; i'll smoke to that.
i actually had 3 majors and fronted a band for many years. i am currently doing research in the nutritional field. my IQ is 2 points short of genius.
i fail to see how this is relevant to the debate though.
if i wanted to kill 30 people i'd use a pipe bomb or two.
8 times more people are killed with cars each year than with guns. maybe the car dealer should run over anyone wanting to buy a car and get it over with then and there.
we cain't be bothered to do some stupid background check, Cletus! gets their money and give' em the gun and the ammo.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
don't worry dude, i don't question your knowledge of terrorist tactics. im just saying, most people don't share your enthusiasm for learning many different ways of killing other people.
you can't use that excuse because you consistently spell it a particular way. it's not a typo. by the way, whatever happened to all that case law about being unable to amend the constitution you were going to provide? i while i admire your willingness to openly be a pussy and run away and ignore the challenge, i was still hoping id get some real answers, seeing as how you're such an impressive and unbeatable attorney and everything.
in 228 years; not one of the first 10 amendments have been changed so how can there be case law? in a normal session of congress; an average of 200 amendments are presented. i did present several posts but as i said; your inability to understand them is not my concern.
if i had the time to research it; i believe amendments ratified before 1808 cannot be changed; but don't hold me to that.
but the point remains that if someone wanted to kill; they don't need a gun. a simple trip to the hardware store will do it. you can get everything you need to make gunpowder there too. remember oklahoma city?
I guess it's because we're all astonished at the pomp and rubbish that comes out of your posts....
BTW.. I beat you by one point
Good night....
Jeez Rita you still on this? been out, played footie, had an indian and lots of beer and you're still on this........?
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Stopped getting involved this pm as everything is just being rehashed over and over again.. But with onelongsong.... sorry...
I didn't have lots of beer.... :(
Not read back on all that....
isn't that what an organised army is for? it has no relevance to gun ownership in the general public...
yeah like who the fuck is gonna invade America???
I have had lots of beer and now have hiccups
Time for bed...
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
"... no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ..."
So the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of Article I couldn't be amended before 1808. The whole Constitution is fair game now, including those clauses. The reason the first 10 amendments haven't been changed is because there's been no will among the people to do so, which no one is disputing. What we're disputing is your assertion that it can't be done. It can, if the people want to do it.
the people can't do it; congress has to. and it is congress that claims the first 10 amendments cannot be changed because altering one would require altering others at the same time. also; it was the supreme court that deemed the words "shall not be infringed" as meaning cannot be amended.
U.S. versus Miller indicated that the weapons protected were weapons "commonly in use by soldiers". This would mean that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of not only semi-automatic "assault weapons", but also actual military assault rifles, which can fire either semi-automatic, three-shot bursts, or fully automatic mode
in addition:
This understanding of the militia and who belongs to it is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in US vs. Miller: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In determining the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, the use of the phrase "security of a free state", rather than "security of The State", in the 2nd Amendment is very crucial and much misunderstood. This phrase is sometimes taken to refer to the protection of the the United States, or of individual States, but this focuses only on the words "security of a ... state". The militia was also to make sure the state remained a "free state". A country formed with less concern for the liberty of its citizens could be defended with an army or select militia, but a FREE state's only defensive option that did not threaten the freedom of the people was considered to be a militia. The militia to be formed by the armed citizens was as much to guard against tyranny from our own government as it was to guard against foreign invasion.
You really can't be that dense mr 2 points short of genius. People generally don't buy a car with the sole intention of inflicting harm on someone or something. The only reason someone buys a gun is because they intend to hurt someone. The gun may be purchase under the guise of protection, but make no mistake, it is always purchased with the intent of hurting someone else.
Congress does not, however, have the power to override the Constitution, which is what it would be doing if they said that the first ten amendments cannot be changed. The Constitution makes no such claim.
Unless you can cite the opinion, I'm going to maintain that you're just plain wrong regarding your interpretation of "shall not be infringed." I am not aware of any ruling by SCOTUS claiming that any portion of the Constitution is immune to the amendment process as detailed in Article V, and it's inconceivable to me that the Court would rule as such. They would basically be declaring Article V null and void ... that would be right up there with Marbury v. Madison on the list of best known decisions, and I'd have heard of it. I'm quite certain that soulsinging would be studying it as we speak.
no, you're thinking of article 5 which states certain parts of the previous articles cannot be amended UNTIL 1808. there is no case law eh? then, please, put on your scotus hat and tell me, looking at the constitution, what part of it would you point to in an opinion to say that the first 10 amendments cannot be ratified, not even by the procedures set forth in the constitution? and why does it apply only to the first 10? they didnt have much trouble repealing the 18th amendment. you did present several posts, none of which were relevant not convincing, let alone binding.
i do, quite well. but they planned that one pretty well. it took time. they didn't go out one day, buy a gun, and kill 30 people a few days later.
what band? i like how you're never willing to say. nor where you went to school. nor anything else besides wild, self-aggrandizing claims without support. you don't have the intellectual firepower to back that claim up dude, and we all can see that clear as day. you're getting your ass kicked in a constitutional debate by a 1L and 2 regular citizens, yet you claim to be an attorney.
and if you're going by the mensa standards, i AM a genius. but no, it's not relevant. what is relevant is your inability to provide any compelling proof for your bullshit constitutional "scholarship."
Neither do the vast majority of gun owners
Really? Now you are able to see into the minds of gun buyers and determine intent?
I have never purchased any gun "with the intent of killing someone else". That's the reason I bought my car