Gun Debate

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

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.

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.

onelongsong

UKDave wrote:

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...

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

onelongsong

UKDave wrote:

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...

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.

Songburst

onelongsong wrote:

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.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

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.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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."

hippiemom

soulsinging wrote:

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?"

69charger

Songburst wrote:

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

soulsinging

hippiemom wrote:

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?"

but he's probably not a genius rock star/medical miracle... so what does he know eh?

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

why would the nra respond at all? this is not a second ammendment issue; it is a criminal issue. jack daniels doesn't respond to drunk driving incidents nor does chevrolet.

I imagine there are a lot of people who are turning against NRA and people who protect gun laws so feverishly, or is it just on the pit? I was just wondering how big the impact of the anti-gun people is, and where the NRA stands on the whole school shootings. If a lot of people are turning against me I will respond even if I have nothing to do with it.

Songburst

69charger wrote:

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

Why the hell would you buy a handgun if you don't intend on using it? Most people buy handguns to protect themselves from the bogeyman or the black man because everyone has been taught to fear both the bogeyman and the black man. Are you telling me that someone who goes out and buys a Glock is doing it for some reason other than to inflict harm on another person? Most of them are buying it so their kid can find it and go and play Columbine at their school.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kevlar....it's the new denim...

mammasan

I would like to pose a question to the people on here who are against tougher gun restrictions. In New Jersey it is a lengthy process to own a gun. You have to apply for a permit first by filling out an application at you local police department. Then they start conducting an extensive criminal and psychological background test. This is followed by interviews and signed consent forms from any other adults living in the same residence as you. Once you are approved for the permit you may purchase a fire arm. My question is how is this restricting anyone from purchasing a fire arm. If you pass the background tests and you spouse, partner, roommate and/or parents sign the consent form you have no problems purchasing a weapon. It is only if you fail the check and or one of the people I mentioned above does not wish for any type of weapon to be inside the residency are you denied. It seems to me that this is a pretty safe way to conduct the sale of fire arms to make sure that people like the VT shooter do not obtain the weapon with such eletive ease. How is this infringing on a person's right to own a weapon?

farfromglorified

mammasan wrote:

I would like to pose a question to the people on here who are against tougher gun restrictions. In New Jersey it is a lengthy process to own a gun. You have to apply for a permit first by filling out an application at you local police department. Then they start conducting an extensive criminal and psychological background test. This is followed by interviews and signed consent forms from any other adults living in the same residence as you. Once you are approved for the permit you may purchase a fire arm. My question is how is this restricting anyone from purchasing a fire arm. If you pass the background tests and you spouse, partner, roommate and/or parents sign the consent form you have no problems purchasing a weapon. It is only if you fail the check and or one of the people I mentioned above does not wish for any type of weapon to be inside the residency are you denied. It seems to me that this is a pretty safe way to conduct the sale of fire arms to make sure that people like the VT shooter do not obtain the weapon with such eletive ease. How is this infringing on a person's right to own a weapon?

You've already answered your own question: you're restricting people based on your tests. Should I be able to run a background check on you and determine if you have a right to speak here?

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

You've already answered your own question: you're restricting people based on your tests. Should I be able to run a background check on you and determine if you have a right to speak here?

Do you honestly think the two can be compared? Freedom of speech and the freedom to bear and keep arms?

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

Do you honestly think the two can be compared? Freedom of speech and the freedom to bear and keep arms?

Of course they can be compared. Both a freedoms and both are specifically gauranteed in the Constitution. They are certainly not the same thing, but when someone proposes breaching freedoms based on background checks, they need a much more complete argument to void a comparison.

mammasan

farfromglorified wrote:

You've already answered your own question: you're restricting people based on your tests. Should I be able to run a background check on you and determine if you have a right to speak here?

My speach will not kill 32 people needlessly. While a weapon is an inanimate object and is not to blame for the deaths the person using it is. Is it not in the best interest of society as a whole to at least try to make sure that the person purchasing that weapon is responsible. You wouldn't give a driver's license to a blind person or to someone who has multiple DWI arrests. You wouldn't give a pedophile a job in a childrens day care center. We run checks on people to make sure they are qualified for what they are applying for why should something as dangerious as a fire arm be any different.

farfromglorified

mammasan wrote:

My speach will not kill 32 people needlessly.

Neither will a gun. However, your speech and a gun can both contribute to a person killing 32 people needlessly.

While a weapon is an inanimate object and is not to blame for the deaths the person using it is. Is it not in the best interest of society as a whole to at least try to make sure that the person purchasing that weapon is responsible. You wouldn't give a driver's license to a blind person or to someone who has multiple DWI arrests. You wouldn't give a pedophile a job in a childrens day care center. We run checks on people to make sure they are qualified for what they are applying for why should something as dangerious as a fire arm be any different.

It shouldn't be any different. You certainly have established precedent for it.