:< was supposed to be 
, I’ll learn?
Peace,
mangeorge
Sorry I haven’t responded in a while. I’ve been away from the computer for 2 days!! Criminal! Blasphemous! Ignominious! Well, sorry guys, but I had things to do…like trying to salvage a life that lives by moving things other than fingers.
Doctor Jackson, you need to look up the word “consensual” in a dictionary. Or at least read things that use that word. The word consensual does NOT imply murder–it doesn’t even have a negative connotation. Nowhere did I say that athletes agree to kill and be killed. I wrote that they agree to participate even though they know there are dangers involved. However, anyone who moves to ban sports because 1 in 40,000,000 athletes die during competition, yet overlooks the 1 in 1000 who die in automobile accidents, is not exactly the brightest candle on the cake.
I have to think some more–probably a lot more–on why there is a difference between murdering a pig and murdering a human. One may say that pigs are edible and overpopulated, but so are humans. One could say that humans feel pain when killed, but–I hate to break it to you–so do pigs.
Please do not give me your opinions. Everyone has to decide this for himself. …unless you’re offering neurological comparisons of humans and other mammals. But as for the morality of the affair, it is such that…well, let me be laconic: I don’t give a freak what you think.
I don’t know who first said “everyone’s a critic,” but I think it’s a really stupid saying.
The Supreme Court seems to believe that the Second Amendment only applies to Congress. This even from a case after the Fourteenth Amendment:
“But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms ‘is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the ‘powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,’ ‘not surrendered or restrained’ by the constitution of the United States.’”
Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
To say that it isn’t clear that the Second Amendment is not limited to the federal government will require some variety of an incorporation argument. I can’t find the case that makes this argument. I can find a dissenting opinion suggesting that states can outlaw pistols, if they like. An argument that the Second Amendment applies also to states requires negating Supreme Court precedent describing militias as organized by states.
I’m missing how this is a murky issue - what argument suggests that the Second Amendment limits state governments?
Certainly, the Supreme Court would never negate a state gun law on federal grounds - the Supremes don’t think they possess the power to negate state gun laws.
[[To say that it isn’t clear that the Second Amendment is not limited to the federal government will require some variety of an incorporation argument. I can’t find the case that makes this argument.]]
How about that fact that the Court has incorporated every other personal right in the Bill of Rights, and that the 2d Amendment expressly grants rights to “the people” (just like those other rights that have been incorporated)?
[[An argument that the Second Amendment applies also to states requires negating Supreme Court precedent describing militias as organized by states.]]
No, it doesn’t.
[[I’m missing how this is a murky issue - what argument suggests that the Second Amendment limits state governments?]]
The argument that the 2d Amendment grants an individual right to fireams, an argument which is unequivocally not frivolous and appears to tbe the much better reasoned one.
[[Certainly, the Supreme Court would never negate a state gun law on federal grounds - the Supremes don’t think they possess the power to negate state gun laws.]]
There is nothing the least bit certain about that, to my knowledge – have you any authority for that proposition (especially S.Ct. cases)?
Pete - I know what you meant to say, but what you typed in your OP was:
Yes, I purposely took the quote out of context, but it was to show that your original post was more rant than argument. When I, and others, read lines like those I and others highlighted, a big flashing light goes off that indicates “Rant in progress, do not take seriously”.
Glad you’re willing to reconsider your stance on human vs. animal death. That shows an open mind.
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you will suck forever.
doesn’t anyone realize that people killed each other for thousands of years before guns were invented?
possesion of a bomb is illegal to but that sure as hell didn’t stop those kids in Colorado did it?
“Those kids in Colorado” got those guns, and those bombs, and those crazy ideas somewhere.
Peace,
mangeorge
My point was that if you make guns illegal, like bombs are, that the only people who will have guns are the criminals and not the people who might have one to defend themselves with. Outlawing guns will no more stop people from obtaining them than outlawing pot stops people from using it or age limits on liquor stops kids from getting drunk on prom night.
Wasn’t this debunked? I thought someone looked at the statistics and showed that tourists (and rental cars) were no more likely to be targeted by criminals in Florida than anyone else. Tourist-victims just got more press.
Yes, absolutely. Even if you ignore all the gun related deaths, we would still be one of the most violent countries in the industrialized world. Our non-gun-related murder rate is two or three times higher than the total murder rate of any other comparable nation.*
*source: David Kennedy, senior researcher, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
“For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes” - Francis Bacon
Big Iron, where do you find support for your proposition that the Bill of Rights grants the people rights? My understanding of our Constitution teaches that the Bill of Rights exists to safe-guard rights that we already possess. Therefore, the Second Amendment does not grant a right to bear arms, but limits the federal governemnt’s ability to infringe a right to bear arms. (which was the point of me quoting Presser v. Illinois)
I think the idea that the Second Amendment grants a right is worse than frivolous, it is fundamentally misguided. The idea that the people greated a government that possesses the power to enumerate are rights is counter to the idea that the federal government is one of limited power. The people created a government and placed limits on that government’s power. It didn’t give us power - it should possess little power to limit us. (strangely, I think that people should be turning to their state governments if they wish to ban guns - I think that state governments have that power).
I don’t think that it is an easy argument that the Second Amendment has been incorporated against the states simply because other amendments have been incorporated. The Second Amendment contains an implicit reference to states with its mention of a militia. The incorporated rights do not contain such implicit references.
For the proposition that the Supremes don’t think they can limit state gun laws based on the Second Amendment, I can only find a dissenting opinion, but I failed to find a different view in Supreme Court opinions.
“There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted.
There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not
require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.”
dissent by Justice Douglas in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972)
Big Iron, if you think that I am wrong, please give me a bit more to go on than simply telling me I’m wrong. If you wish me to rethink me views, it would help to have something as a comparison.
[[doesn’t anyone realize that people killed each other for thousands of years before guns were invented?]] Sammy44
Of course everyone does – it’s just a real lot easier to do with guns.
[[My point was that if you make guns illegal, like bombs are, that the only people who will have guns are the criminals and not the people who might have one to defend themselves with.]] Sammy44
Well, fewer criminal will have guns, and the cops will still have them. Not that I advocate outlawing guns.
[[ Outlawing guns will no more stop people from obtaining them than outlawing pot stops people from using it or age limits on liquor stops kids from getting drunk on prom night.]]
It sure cuts down on it, though.
[[Big Iron, where do you find support for your proposition that the Bill of Rights grants the people rights?]] Robb
My copy says that “the people” have a “right” to “keep and bear arms” that may not be “infringed.” What’s yours say?
[[ My understanding of our Constitution teaches that the Bill of Rights exists to safe-guard rights that we already possess.]]
That’s one way to look at it, although not a very meaningful way in light of how the courts have interpreted it, and practical reality in general.
[[ Therefore, the Second Amendment does not grant a right to bear arms, but limits the federal governemnt’s ability to infringe a right to bear arms.]]
Kind of a meaningless distinction, don’t you think? The 2d Amendment recognizes the existence of such a right. At the time, the English common-law also granted such a right (completely apart from belonging to any militia), and it is pretty well settled that a big part of adopting a Bill of Rights was to enshine many of those common-law rights.
[[I think the idea that the Second Amendment grants a right is worse than frivolous, it is fundamentally misguided. ]]
You are free to maintain that the 2d Amendment grants no personal right to keep and bear arms, and still be considered a reasonable person. You are, while remaining reasonable, free to hold that recognizing such a right is an irresponsible decision by society, and/or that any such a right is an anachronism in today’s world and that the 2d Amendment ought to be abolished. If you maintain, however, that it is frivolous to argue that the 2d Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms, you are simply wrong and will accomplish nothing more than to make yourself sound like an idiot.
[[The people created a government and placed limits on that government’s power. It didn’t give us power - it should possess little power to limit us.]]
Sure, fine, all well and good in the abstract.
[[ (strangely, I think that people should be turning to their state governments if they wish to ban guns - I think that state governments have that power).]]
It was clear from your prior post.
[[I don’t think that it is an easy argument that the Second Amendment has been incorporated against the states simply because other amendments have been incorporated.]]
Sure it is – especially when EVERY OTHER ONE has been, and without a whole lot of controversy anymore.
[[ The Second Amendment contains an implicit reference to states with its mention of a militia. The incorporated rights do not contain such implicit references.]]
That is a good point (except for the fact that it doesn’t necessarily mean “State” as one of the several States, rather than as a general synonymn for the goverment; after all, the federal government got to command the militias when they were needed to defend the Nation) – however, it doesn’t expressly say that the right should be limited by the stated purpose. It is clear, for instance, that the main purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech, but most people (including the members of the Supreme Court) do not restrict it to that purpose. Again, the common-law right was not limited by militia concerns.
[[For the proposition that the Supremes don’t think they can limit state gun laws based on the Second Amendment, I can only find a dissenting opinion, but I failed to find a different view in Supreme Court opinions.]]
So, in other words, we have no idea at this point.
[[“There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted.
There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not
require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.”
dissent by Justice Douglas in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) ]]
You notice he didn’t get majority support for that proposition.
[[Big Iron, if you think that I am wrong, please give me a bit more to go on than simply telling me I’m wrong. ]]
Start by reading "The Embarassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale Law Journal 637-59 (I can’t link it now for some reason, but it’s readily found online with a modest effort), an outstanding article by liberal, gun-not-liking U. of Texas Law Professor Sanford Levinson. He covers the whole issue very thoroughly.
Big Iron, Sandy Levinson I might listen to, you’re not giving me much else to follow.
Part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to enshrine rights found in the English common law, yet you can’t believe that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights? It enshrines rights we have at the same time it grants rights?
The way I see it, the way I end up looking like an idiot is by not walking away.
[[Big Iron, Sandy Levinson I might listen to, you’re not giving me much else to follow.]]
Probably because you’re not real bright. The Supreme Court has never held that the 2d Amendment provides no individual right to firearms, nor has it hinted as much. The express language of the 2d Amendment recignizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The history of the 2d Amendment and the English common law support the finding of a 2d Amendment right to firearms. If you can’t see that that is a reasonable basis for believing that the 2d Amendment protects an individual right to firearms, then I doubt you have sufficient mental capacity to be engaged in this discussion.
[[Part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to enshrine rights found in the English common law, yet you can’t believe that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights?]]
As a practical matter, it is a pointless distinction. Are you related to Blando, by any chance?
[[The way I see it, the way I end up looking like an idiot is by not walking away.]]
I’ll really miss you, Trollstein.
quote (ExTank):
Excuse me, but what country do you live in?
Japan, why?
quote (ExTank) You, me, and any other natural born citizen were born with the right to keep and bear arms.
Someday, young man, you will learn that the world is a very big place.
And personally, I enjoy living in a country where the murder rate is less than a tenth that of the U.S., the murder rate by juveniles is less than a hundredth that of the U.S., and the mere sound of a gunshot makes the national news.
This is a little off the main platform, but this just occurred to me. I am aware of many child endangerment laws, and I would think that one would seriously endanger the life of their child by owning and keeping a gun on their premises. I know that most parents that decide to keep a firearm usually take safety courses, etc. But the kids don’t go with them, and many times the parents never tell their kids that they OWN a gun. So when these kids find the guns…have not the parents put their child at risk? Has anyone tried to use this as a gun control platform (in Congress)?
I am not on an anti-gun bandwagon, but I do think it is irresponsible to own a firearm while housing children.
Have you hugged your mustelid today?
Dear Ibroc:
Personally, Ibroc I like living in a country where I can do what I damn well please as long as I don’t hurt anyone.
If guns are outlawed, only the criminals and the government will have guns.
And the government scares me a helluva a lot more than the crooks.
Dear Ibroc:
Personally, Ibroc I like living in a country where I can do what I damn well please as long as I don’t hurt anyone.
If guns are outlawed, only the criminals and the government will have guns.
And the government scares me a helluva a lot more than the crooks.
Sorry for posting that note twice. I made a mistake.