Yet ANOTHER shooting

[elvis]

That's in his VIEW, he is no longer on the Supreme Court, and the SC ruled on it, so deal with it, Obamabot.

Ah shucks, 'Obamabot' what wonderfully brilliant come back. Thanks for thinking.

Sorry, I didn't have time to post. But again, you use the interpretation of one person to demonize an entire group of people who believe a different interpretation.

 

[xotoxi]

Let me get this right You are not and US citizen if you are I might
listen to you but if not I could care less what you and Australia think

planinly Go Fuckyour self

Diuretic,

Please accept my apology for the above statement.

His opinions do not reflect those of TRUE AMERICANS.

- Xotoxi

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Second Amendment is only clear to those whose reality glasses are badly smudged.

“In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all. ” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ’state armies’–’the militia’–would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger’s words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television.”

The Most Mysterious Right

Today's debate over the second amendment is not a debate at all...

There is no debating that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The basis of the mandate that is IRRELEVANT...

If the basis had been "A well Fed Citizenry being necassary to the security of a free state..." or "A gaggle of Rednecks with large oversized conveyances being necessary for a free state..." NONE of it would be relevant to the mandate that THE RIGHT ... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Those, including Berger, who want to focus upon the basis in reasoning as the point of relevance, do so because of their stark intellectual limitations... the fact is that they "FEEL" that if the basis in reason which established WHY THE RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED can be shown to be no longer necessary, then they feel that there's good cause to lift the mandate and infringe upon the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT for the necessity of a secure collective.

But let's remember that the US Constitution does NOT provide rights... as the US Constitution is merely a Constitution created by men; a set of rules... Men do not have the means to give rights to anyone...

Our Rights are what they are without regard to the US Constitution and the LIMITS UPON THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO INFRINGE AND USURP THOSE NATURAL, PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS.

Where the SCOTUS may determine that the 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable, thus the Constitutional Prohibition set upon goverment power to NOT INFRINGE ON THE PRE-EXISTING RIGHT of the individual to bear and use arms in defense of themselves, their rights and those of their neighbors... THUS ENSURING THE FREEDOM OF THEIR NATION... OKA: The State were determined to be null and void; this would IN NO WAY EFFECT MY RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS... it would simply place the US Government in direct contest of my rights and thus make it necessary for me and those of like mind to alter that government by whatever means is necessary...

The simple fact is that in the final analysis, the State Militia, the last reserves in defense of any state, is the well equipped and armed (OKA: REGULATED) citizenry... and that is BEYOND any standing armies which the state and or Federal Government may be maintaining.

 

[WorldAHope]

Sorry David, this isn't an increase in shootings, it's an increase in coverage only. Media hype and nothing more.

Tell that to the family members of the those who were gunned down by a lunatic with a fire arm set to automatic and extended clips. That its just the driveby media exaggerations. Poo poo.

The police officers in Pittsburgh and Oakland all had guns. Didn't protect them, at all.
Would more guns have protected those children who were all shot by their own father ?

The old slogan "Guns don't kill people, People do" applies, and a lot of law enforcement officers are examining in great detail what exactly contributed and influenced and triggered those people who killed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Second Amendment is only clear to those whose reality glasses are badly smudged.

“In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all. ” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ’state armies’–’the militia’–would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger’s words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television.”

The Most Mysterious Right

The argument fails miserably because the Court HAS ACTUALLY ruled on the matter and found it is a PERSONAL RIGHT. Maybe you should join the present?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me get this right You are not and US citizen if you are I might
listen to you but if not I could care less what you and Australia think

planinly Go Fuckyour self

Diuretic,

Please accept my apology for the above statement.

His opinions do not reflect those of TRUE AMERICANS.

- Xotoxi

Ahh another ass kissing supposed American. Did you learn your technique from the current President or have you always been a dumb ass?

 

[WillowTree]

Let me get this right You are not and US citizen if you are I might
listen to you but if not I could care less what you and Australia think

planinly Go Fuckyour self

Diuretic,

Please accept my apology for the above statement.

His opinions do not reflect those of TRUE AMERICANS.

- Xotoxi

 

[Yukon]

NRA to the crazies of America: "Guns are good, controls are bad"

 

[Diuretic]

Of Course,Freedom is Freedom no matter how you slice it, we only have one problem our leaders keep trying to change what the Founders established.

Can you post something other than a slogan?

Freedom is not freedom no matter how you slice it at all. Freedom isn't an absolute. The issue is where to draw the limits. Come on let's have more than sloganeering for crying out loud.

Let me get this right You are not and US citizen if you are I might
listen to you but if not I could care less what you and Australia think

planinly Go Fuckyour self

So, can't handle the point so it's a descent to nationalism and personal insult?

Piss fucking weak effort

 

[Diuretic]

Let me get this right You are not and US citizen if you are I might
listen to you but if not I could care less what you and Australia think

planinly Go Fuckyour self

Diuretic,

Please accept my apology for the above statement.

His opinions do not reflect those of TRUE AMERICANS.

- Xotoxi

I'd never take a post from one or two fuckwits as being representative of anything or anyone X - besides I know that we're pretty damn xenophonbic here and more than once I've seen this coming from one of my countrymen. Thanks for the reassurance.

 

[Diuretic]

Let me get this right You are not and US citizen if you are I might
listen to you but if not I could care less what you and Australia think

planinly Go Fuckyour self

Diuretic,

Please accept my apology for the above statement.

His opinions do not reflect those of TRUE AMERICANS.

- Xotoxi

Ahh another ass kissing supposed American. Did you learn your technique from the current President or have you always been a dumb ass?

Rock - you are a unique individual.

Thankfully

 

[midcan5]

Jeez, why do some people think a large font in bright colors makes stupidity smart?Sorry folks but the second amendment was long ago and while it came to mean something else through that wonderful gift of interpretation, it does not mean I can keep a cannon in my yard, or bombs, or nuclear weapons. You simpletons do realize, these too should be allowed since they too constitute arms. So sanity and reason will take a backseat because of tradition, not that misconstrued second. And while America will for a long time remain the land of too many gun deaths that is a price we pay for ideas. Even when they are wrong.

And so I repeat for those who can think.

“To understand the problem, we must begin with the text of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”"

“In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all. ” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ’state armies’–’the militia’–would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger’s words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television.”

The Most Mysterious Right

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are the cumb ass, the 2nd provides two protections, ONE is to the State, providing a right to maintain militias since they are barred from having standing Armies. The ESCOND is to the people that the Government can not and will not prevent them from owning, keeping and carrying Firearms.

And again you dumb ass, the recent Supreme Court made a ruling on the issue and RULED that the Second Amendment IS an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. It does not matter one whit what some one said almost 20 years ago. They have no legal standing on the issue at all, in fact he refused to hear cases on the 2nd Amendment most likely.

Isn't it touching that some of our fellow board members can not read and understand plain English. The sentence is constructed so that 2 not one main point is present. Several of the Bill of Rights Amendments are constructed in such a fashion, providing protection to the citizenry and the State at the same time.

I find it simply hilarious that gun grabbers think that every where else in the Constitution where the term "the people' is applied conveys an individual right, EXCEPT in the 2nd Amendment.

If we use the logic that " the people" is not conveying an individual right the Government can grab all kind of power by claiming the term just means the Government. After all "the people' are the Government.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Second Amendment is only clear to those whose reality glasses are badly smudged.

“In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all. ” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ’state armies’–’the militia’–would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger’s words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television.”

The Most Mysterious Right

The argument fails miserably because the Court HAS ACTUALLY ruled on the matter and found it is a PERSONAL RIGHT. Maybe you should join the present?

The right was determined to exist in the 1780s, when the US Constitution obliged the power of the Federal government to NOT INFRINGE upon THE RIGHT.

What subsequent courts find, speaks PURELY to the degree of protections which the government respects in the way if PROTECTIONS for that RIGHT. In other words the RIGHT remain constant... as the real standard of the RIGHT is determined against a changing subjective opinion of appropriate protections.

 

[Yukon]

PubicHair,

You are wrong my son, dead wrong.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PubicHair,

You are wrong my son, dead wrong.

Am I?

How so? And be specific... and of course, as always, where you fail to specify a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument... you will ONCE AGAIN... concede to my point, that you're a worthless sychophant of left-think, counter productive to the common good of humanity...

 

[jillian]

Diuretic,

Please accept my apology for the above statement.

His opinions do not reflect those of TRUE AMERICANS.

- Xotoxi

Ahh another ass kissing supposed American. Did you learn your technique from the current President or have you always been a dumb ass?

Rock - you are a unique individual.

Thankfully

I apologize for him.

(now watch him REALLY throw a tantrum)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sorry David, this isn't an increase in shootings, it's an increase in coverage only. Media hype and nothing more.

True.

Americans shooting their neighbors and family and committing suicide by police is as American as apple pie and motherhood.

Nothing to see here folks, just another senseless shooting spree.

Just go on about your business and remember to all you have to really worry about is Arab terrorists.

The NRA has killed more Americans than AQ.

Over 1,000,000 since 1960.

THERE SHE BLOWS! The Great Grey specter of idiocy which haunts reason to the extent of her existance...

ROFLMNAO... Whatta LOAD! Could we see a show of hands of those who agree with Chris on this one?

Hands... Please People...
.
.
.
A show of hands from those who agree with Chris that the NRA has killed a million US Citizens since 1960...

(Someone help me count the idiots...)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And for those who argue everyone should be armed - they are either immature or plain crazy. I have been in too many fights, arguments etc with people in public areas to want any of them armed. The death rate would simply increase. And if I want to walk or hike someplace, I do not want your average paranoid human aiming at me or my family for fear I am a home robber etc. Arming lots of people would be the last solution in a sane sensible society. Too many children die now where guns are in the house.

Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine

I have been around many people that should not be allowed within ten feet of a gun. And there are all too many others that are careless enough that their ownership of guns presents a danger to themselves and their family.

As stated before, I have been a gun owner since I was 12 years old. I hunt, and am proficient with the weopons I own. I have even been in a situation that having a gun and showing that I was ready to use it probably saved my life. It was not a one on one situation, it was myself against 10 in an isolated environment.

However, against the crazies that we have seen this last month, it is doubtful that you would even have the chance to use the gun. Most of these people had guns legally. And the people they killed, with one exception, had little to do with their resentments.

The problem here is that you gun nuts are addressing the sympton of the fear that this kind of insanity results in, rather than the cause. And creating even greater anger among citizens that do not agree with you.

A caring society and ready access to mental health aid will do more to reduce these kinds of horrors than arming a bunch of people that have little knowledge or caring about the safe handling of guns.

ROFLMNAO...

Yet another screed which opens with the declaration by the author that they're a 'responsible' gun owner and ends by quickly trotting out a sophistic rant which can only undermine her means to legally defend herself through the ownership and use of a firearm; which serves as all one needs to judge this farce as a LIE. The supporting premise, does not follow her stated conclusion... thus the premise was designed to lend her conclusion legitimacy... wholly distinct from the goal presented in her conclusion.

There is no increase in crazies killing innocent people over the last month... it happens everyday, in everyway in every state... on earth.

What we've seen over the last month is merely the intentional amplification of such; the reports by the sychophant anti-gun media; reports designed to give the impression of a CRISIS!

And as we know this Marxist administration is on record as being of the mind that they '(will) never let a CRISIS! go to waste... and this manufactured CRISIS! is designed to provide the public impetus to induce 'reasonable regulations' on the ownership and use of a firearm, which are designed to do nothing less than the infringe upon the means of the free individual to exercise their God given responsibilities to defend their lives and in so doing maintain their God given rights.

All Rock has stated in effect, is that there are crazy people living amongst us bound to injure the innocent... to FAIL TO LIVE UP TO THEIR SACRED RESPONSIBILITIES; who for whatever reason are bound to injure the innocent; and her solution is to DISARM THE INNOCENT!

The apply named Rocks, is part of the problem friends... she is the embodiment of pure evil... advocating for evil and doing so under the guise of 'caring for the sick.' And it doesn't get more SICK than that.

 

[Yukon]

PUBICHAIR,

The US federal court has never ruled on the validity of the 2nd Amendment to your Constitution. It has never been done, ever !