Sandy Hook Massacre....How the world sees us

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll take World Opinion seriously when the adopt a Constitution like ours.

The constitutions of many countries are, in one way or another, based on ours.

But it's not ours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure Scalia took it into consideration. Paragraph 1 [F] of Heller certainly is aware of the precedence.

Scalia will do for me. Your questions is immaterial.

I will when and if the time comes, But I'm asking you has Miller vs. US and Lewis vs, U.S. been over turned?

So precedence has no bearing on any issues?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am sure Scalia took it into consideration. Paragraph 1 [F] of Heller certainly is aware of the precedence.

Scalia will do for me. Your questions is immaterial.

So precedence has no bearing on any issues?

For a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and be the kind of weapons in common use at the time, and must be supplied by the citizen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And if all that is so, the legislatures still have the right to regulate and restrict.

The next major SCOTUS decision will take Miller, Lewis, and Heller into consideration.

No automatic exception for assault weapons and large capacity magazines exists.

I am sure Scalia took it into consideration. Paragraph 1 [F] of Heller certainly is aware of the precedence.

So precedence has no bearing on any issues?

For a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and be the kind of weapons in common use at the time, and must be supplied by the citizen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And if all that is so, the legislatures still have the right to regulate and restrict.

The next major SCOTUS decision will take Miller, Lewis, and Heller into consideration.

No automatic exception for assault weapons and large capacity magazines exists.

I am sure Scalia took it into consideration. Paragraph 1 [F] of Heller certainly is aware of the precedence.

For a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and be the kind of weapons in common use at the time, and must be supplied by the citizen.

They cannot restrict the efficiency of a well regulated militia

 

[JakeStarkey]

They can determine just how "the efficiency of a well regulated militia" will work and I doubt they will call on you for help in deciding.

 

[Unkotare]

I'll take World Opinion seriously when the adopt a Constitution like ours.

The constitutions of many countries are, in one way or another, based on ours.

But it's not ours.

That's true.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They can determine just how "the efficiency of a well regulated militia" will work and I doubt they will call on you for help in deciding

You cannot restrict the amount of ammo that a magazine carries without restricting the efficiency of a well regulated militia, you cannot restrict the type of firearms from the militia that are accessible by the military without restricting the efficiency of a well regulated militia. Precedence is the government cannot restrict anything that would be a detriment to the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

[quote)I doubt they will call on you for help in deciding

[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are irrelevant. SCOTUS won't be calling on you forhelp. .

They can determine just how "the efficiency of a well regulated militia" will work and efficiency of a well regulated militia

You cannot restrict the amount of ammo that a magazine carries without restricting the efficiency of a well regulated militia, you cannot restrict the type of firearms from the militia that are accessible by the military without restricting the efficiency of a well regulated militia. Precedence is the government cannot restrict anything that would be a detriment to the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

efficiency of a well regulated militia

Irrelevant

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, you are irrelevant. SCOTUS won't be calling on you forhelp. .

They can determine just how "the efficiency of a well regulated militia" will work and efficiency of a well regulated militia

You cannot restrict the amount of ammo that a magazine carries without restricting the efficiency of a well regulated militia, you cannot restrict the type of firearms from the militia that are accessible by the military without restricting the efficiency of a well regulated militia. Precedence is the government cannot restrict anything that would be a detriment to the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

I doubt they will call on you for help in deciding

Irrelevant

I doubt they will call on you for help in deciding

This part of your comment is irrelevant to the discussion It does not matter if they do or don't call me they cannot restrict the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No SCOTUS soup for you, bigrebnc.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No SCOTUS soup for you, bigrebnc.

This is how you do when you've been proven wrong you start talking stupid. The federal government cannot restrict the efficiency of a well regulated militia. There is precedence and past court rulings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or crackers, bigrebnc.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Or crackers, bigrebnc.

Strike three

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or water.

bigrebnc has a simple fail here, nothing new.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Or water.

bigrebnc has a simple fail here, nothing new.

Jake you should not drink and post at the same times you say some of the stupidest shit and you lie more when you do that.
How did I fail have you disproved my statement?

The federal government cannot restrict the efficiency of a well regulated militia. There is precedence and past court rulings.

Can you and I have a discussion with out you trolling and saying stupid shit? How about doing this. Instead of trading stupid little comments disprove what I said. Using facts and not your opinion.

 

[Wicked Jester]

The Connecticut school massacre: How the world sees us - The Week

Canada's The Globe and Mail:

There is something inexorable about the phenomenon of mass shootings in the United States. We have been forced to write about it with tragic regularity for years. We have exhausted adjectives to describe our horror and revulsion. We have stated and restated the problem…
The time for platitudes is past, Mr. President. It’s time the U.S. cured its gun sickness.

Nooooooooooo, it's time this country realizes that the generation of those committing these crimes is the worst we've ever seen....We are seeing the effects of the liberal view that "every child gets a trophy", whether they deserve it or not.......We are seeing the effects, of the video game generation, where idiotic parents use video games and TV as pacifiers instead of actually being parents......We are seeing the effects that broken families cause. That baby momma drama causes. That fatherless households cause......We are seeing the effects of lousy teachers and school administrators who are clueless in recognizing broken minded children and teens, or are affraid or don't care to report their concerns......We are seeing the effects of a country that is losing its moral values.

And let us not forget what Obama's beloved Chicago and its strict gun laws have accomplished.........Absolutely nothing.

 

[Papageorgio]

Only in as much as is your opinion....

Your opinion is irrelevant when discussing issues of America. My opinion is relevant because I have a vested interest in this country. You don't

Most of the world has a vested interest in the USA,,....unfortunate, but true

To bad for you, not us. What country you from? Never mind, it doesn't matter and we really don't care.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your opinion is irrelevant when discussing issues of America. My opinion is relevant because I have a vested interest in this country. You don't

Most of the world has a vested interest in the USA,,....unfortunate, but true

To bad for you, not us. What country you from? Never mind, it doesn't matter and we really don't care.

New Zealand I believe

 

[idb]

No SCOTUS soup for you, bigrebnc.

This is how you do when you've been proven wrong you start talking stupid. The federal government cannot restrict the efficiency of a well regulated militia. There is precedence and past court rulings.

Are you part of a well-regulated militia?
Where are you based, what's your rank and specialty?