Unbelievable, anti gun crap.

[RetiredGySgt]

Wis. dealer sold gun extras to health club shooter - Yahoo! News

This company did absolutely nothing wrong nor illegal, yet people want to blame them. This piece is nothing but an attack piece on this business. The people involved in the shootings did not even buy the weapons from this guy. Just magazines and accessories. Yet we are to now witch hunt him for having a viable, LEGAL business?

How about we get a story on the car dealers that sold these people cars to drive to their shooting locations? Maybe one on the police that failed to be in the right place at the right time? Perhaps we should blame their parents as well?

Absolutely retarded.

 

[WillowTree]

Wis. dealer sold gun extras to health club shooter - Yahoo! News

This company did absolutely nothing wrong nor illegal, yet people want to blame them. This piece is nothing but an attack piece on this business. The people involved in the shootings did not even buy the weapons from this guy. Just magazines and accessories. Yet we are to now witch hunt him for having a viable, LEGAL business?

How about we get a story on the car dealers that sold these people cars to drive to their shooting locations? Maybe one on the police that failed to be in the right place at the right time? Perhaps we should blame their parents as well?

Absolutely retarded.

well honey,, you gotta consider who and what we are stuck with..

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Rules for radicals
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Yeah, it's only gonna be about an hour or so
'til they take your guns and ammo boy
And you'll be left all alone with no defense
And all of those migrant immigrant workers
gonna be camped out in your yard boy
All because they won't let us have a border fence

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=ftg2UJmBPa8]YouTube - NoCountry[/ame]

 

[anna]

Who needs guns?? We can take over without violence!!! White is right!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

I guess they would rather the gun was a stolen one??? Of COURSE someone sold the gun. Duh.

I like guns. I kicked ass at the NRA booth at the fair today.

 

[garyd]

Why not doing some half way intellgent for once and blame the shooters. I am not responsible for what you do with something I freaking sold you unless you told me in advance exactly what you were going to do with it.

 

[strollingbones]

as long as the ussc reaffirms time after time...my 2nd adm rights...i am good to go

 

[RetiredGySgt]

as long as the ussc reaffirms time after time...my 2nd adm rights...i am good to go

You are aware I hope that since the Courts do not create law nor amendments to the Constitution that that defense is foolish in the extreme? You are aware that the trend over the last 70 years has been to legislate away the rights of the Bill of rights and has been supported by the Supreme Court more then not, that depending on 9 people in black robes where only 5 are needed to take away your rights is a foolish endeavor?

 

[alan1]

Wis. dealer sold gun extras to health club shooter - Yahoo! News

This company did absolutely nothing wrong nor illegal, yet people want to blame them. This piece is nothing but an attack piece on this business. The people involved in the shootings did not even buy the weapons from this guy. Just magazines and accessories. Yet we are to now witch hunt him for having a viable, LEGAL business?

How about we get a story on the car dealers that sold these people cars to drive to their shooting locations? Maybe one on the police that failed to be in the right place at the right time? Perhaps we should blame their parents as well?

Absolutely retarded.

Lets not forget the gas they put in their cars so their cars could spew out global warming carbons as they traveled to the killing spree location of choice. ExxonMobile should be held doubly responsible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

as long as the ussc reaffirms time after time...my 2nd adm rights...i am good to go

The fundemental problem is that the Supreme Court has yet to incorporate the 2nd amendment, which would mandate that it applies to the states.

We now have another Justice who believes that it remains a non-incorporated amendment.

 

[Luissa]

this is just like how they got Kmart to stop selling guns and ammunition after columbine which was two years later during the Bush admistration.

 

[alan1]

as long as the ussc reaffirms time after time...my 2nd adm rights...i am good to go

The fundemental problem is that the Supreme Court has yet to incorporate the 2nd amendment, which would mandate that it applies to the states.

We now have another Justice who believes that it remains a non-incorporated amendment.

I know lots of liberals that are pro gun rights.
For some reason, they forgot about SCOTUS appointments when they cast their POTUS vote.
Short sighted indeed.

 

[Luissa]

as long as the ussc reaffirms time after time...my 2nd adm rights...i am good to go

The fundemental problem is that the Supreme Court has yet to incorporate the 2nd amendment, which would mandate that it applies to the states.

We now have another Justice who believes that it remains a non-incorporated amendment.

I know lots of liberals that are pro gun rights.
For some reason, they forgot about SCOTUS appointments when they cast their POTUS vote.
Short sighted indeed.

I wouldn't say I am Pro Gun because I would never own one but I don't believe in making that choice for someone else. I believe like drugs making guns illegal would just make the problem of gun violence worse.

 

[MaggieMae]

Rules for radicals
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Thank you for confirming your rules.

 

[MaggieMae]

as long as the ussc reaffirms time after time...my 2nd adm rights...i am good to go

The fundemental problem is that the Supreme Court has yet to incorporate the 2nd amendment, which would mandate that it applies to the states.

We now have another Justice who believes that it remains a non-incorporated amendment.

The United States Constitution trumps any State Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

as long as the ussc reaffirms time after time...my 2nd adm rights...i am good to go

The fundemental problem is that the Supreme Court has yet to incorporate the 2nd amendment, which would mandate that it applies to the states.

We now have another Justice who believes that it remains a non-incorporated amendment.

The United States Constitution trumps any State Constitution.

The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718


But this sentence had and continues to have long-lasting implications on the application of the Bill of Rights to the states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Known as "incorporation," the application of the Bill to the states did not come all at once, nor is incorporation complete. Even today, there are some parts of the Bill which have not been incorporated. In Adamson v California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]), the Supreme Court began to accept the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment).
Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The distinction has practical implications in the judicial views of Justice Sotomayor:

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.

“And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”

In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court’s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups. The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Sotomayor’s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a “conceivable” reason would be upheld by her court.

“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights … carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,” the appeals court concluded. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote, “provides no relief
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718

Would you like to restate your post?

 

[BrianH]

Why not doing some half way intellgent for once and blame the shooters. I am not responsible for what you do with something I freaking sold you unless you told me in advance exactly what you were going to do with it.

Yeah, I always hate it when my student's pencil's fail the spelling test...

 

[BrianH]

The fundemental problem is that the Supreme Court has yet to incorporate the 2nd amendment, which would mandate that it applies to the states.

We now have another Justice who believes that it remains a non-incorporated amendment.

I know lots of liberals that are pro gun rights.
For some reason, they forgot about SCOTUS appointments when they cast their POTUS vote.
Short sighted indeed.

I wouldn't say I am Pro Gun because I would never own one but I don't believe in making that choice for someone else. I believe like drugs making guns illegal would just make the problem of gun violence worse.

The reason you are absolutely correct in this estimation is not because guns are bad, but because criminals get guns illegally now. This aspect of the criminal society will not change, no matter how many gun laws are made. You're right, violence will increase because the government (in illegalizing guns) will disarm citizens and give criminals a free pass to do what they want.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

 

[Gudrid]

I think claiming that the second amendment doesn't protect the right to gun ownership is absurd. It's a pretty clearly written sentence. Never quite understood the logic of opposing that one. Some reasonable controls are certainly allowable constitutionally, particularly as the word "infringed" had less stringent connotations in that time period as I understand it - but using controls as bans is flat out unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned.

And, of course, blaming a store for selling such items is insane. I've owned a couple guns, even carried one with me regularly for a while when going downtown alone at night. And yet, I never once went on a shooting spree. Nor did little voices from the gun tell me to go on a shooting spree. I completely agree with Brian as well; the main people who get affected by gun bans are the folks who own them legally for sport or to defend themselves. Nutjobs will get a weapon legally or not.