1
   

SHUD MALES n FEMALES HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO ACCESS GUNS ?

 
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 11:22 am
Quote:
Epsom- that is, beyond Barking.


Look on a map. Surely Upminster would be a better choice?
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 11:28 am
Quote:
Guys like this make us question the wisdom
of our decisions to help them out in World Wars I & II;
but, then again, any large group is likely to have some nuts in it.


OMsigDick, you guys only came in (late) when you were forced to, and if the British MAUD Committee hadn't shown you how to make an A-bomb in 1942 you wouldn't have been able to fry all those Japs and later boss the world around like crazy bullies so maybe you should pour yourself a nice tall glass of STFU?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 11:36 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
snood wrote:
shud blaks and whyts hav the saim axcess to firearms?

How's about obese peepul and skinny ones?

Old and yung?

The profundity is breathtaking....

Yes,
to each question, in that government in America was based on
depriving government of any authority to legislate in the area of gun control;
( i.e., no discrimination as to who can possess guns ).


This is false. Article One, Section 8, reads, in part:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (emphasis added)

In finding for the United States in United States versus Miller, and thereby upholding the 1934 National Firearms Act, the Supremes wrote in the majority opinion:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Therefore, the Court obviously recognizes a right of Congress to regulate firearms. In both United States versus Cruikshank, 1874, and Presser versus Illinois, 1886, the Court has pointed out that the Second Amendment binds the Federal government, but does not bind the states. Therefore, by inference, the Court acknowledges the right of the states to regulate firearms.

Claiming that any government in the United States is deprived of the right to legislate in the area of gun control is nothing more than your brain-dead propaganda. You wish in one hand and sh!t in the other, and see which one fills up first. Just 'cause you want it be so don't make it so.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Region Philbis wrote:
(waiting to hear what Calamity Jane has to say on the matter...)

She was Wild Bill Hickok 's girl.


Bullshit . . . the only one who ever said that was Jane herself, and she only said it Hickok was not there, or after he was dead.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 05:22 pm
contrex wrote:
Quote:
Epsom- that is, beyond Barking.


Look on a map. Surely Upminster would be a better choice?


Okay I might have forgotten the exact geography. But it's still a pretty good joke.

Like N.F.N. (doctor's notes)- normal for Norfolk.





Didcot?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 05:43 pm
contrex wrote:
Quote:
Guys like this make us question the wisdom
of our decisions to help them out in World Wars I & II;
but, then again, any large group is likely to have some nuts in it.


Quote:
OMsigDick, you guys only came in (late)

LATE, u say !
Was there a due date ?
Now, help me to remember this:
did the Treaty of Paris say that whenever the Mother Country was beset with peril,
then her Strong Boy had to come running to Mommy 's rescue ??
Can u quote the operative language of the treaty to that effect ?



Quote:
when you were forced to, and if the British MAUD Committee
hadn't shown you how to make an A-bomb in 1942

Yeah, Einstein had nothing to do with it, right ?
Nor the Manhattan Project; ( just incidental ).
However, to be fair, the English did help with the project,
( for SOME reason ) n thay r entitled to proper credit.




Quote:
you wouldn't have been able to fry all those Japs

Tho I grant that you HELPED, I won t go THAT far.
PROVE that we 'd not have developed nuclear fission in time
to use it on the Japs.
Go ahead: prove it !
[ he won 't because he can 't; let 's c if he is man enuf to admit it. I don 't think he is. ]




Quote:
and later boss the world around like crazy bullies
so maybe you should pour yourself a nice tall glass of STFU?

I take it that u r referring to our successful defense of the Third World War
against your friends the commies ?

I need not refer to the English Empire
concerning bossing the world around like crazy bullies
( in light of the fact that I, myself, am descended of English heritage ).

R u a cockney ?


David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 05:47 pm
McTag wrote:
contrex wrote:
Quote:
Epsom- that is, beyond Barking.


Look on a map. Surely Upminster would be a better choice?


Okay I might have forgotten the exact geography. But it's still a pretty good joke.


O
I did not know that it was supposed to be related to humor.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 05:47 pm
David, I'm thinking Mame has your number.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 05:51 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
McTag wrote:
contrex wrote:
Quote:
Epsom- that is, beyond Barking.


Look on a map. Surely Upminster would be a better choice?


Okay I might have forgotten the exact geography. But it's still a pretty good joke.


O
I did not know that it was supposed to be related to humor.


The reference is a double entendre, referring to the expression "barking mad" meaning crazy as hell.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 05:57 pm
Thank u for that information.

I had not hitherto related mental health, nor anger, to barking.

Maybe in England, the head cases bark.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 05:59 pm
dyslexia wrote:
David, I'm thinking Mame has your number.

If not, I can send it to her in a PM.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 06:07 pm
Re: SHUD MALES n FEMALES HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO ACCESS GUNS
OmSigDAVID wrote:
SHUD MALES n FEMALES HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO ACCESS DEFENSIVE GUNS ?

I believe that the answer is: YES,
in that government has been explicitly disallowed
any authority whatsoever to control this area of human interest
and no person shud be the victim of discrimination
as to whether he or she can defend his life or other property.




Does anyone dissent from this point of vu ?




David


wimminz cant handle big guns. its a fact. i own the "biggest gun" around son!

ok its a .22
Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 11:18 pm
Setanta wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
snood wrote:
shud blaks and whyts hav the saim axcess to firearms?

How's about obese peepul and skinny ones?

Old and yung?

The profundity is breathtaking....

Yes,
to each question, in that government in America was based on
depriving government of any authority to legislate in the area of gun control;
( i.e., no discrimination as to who can possess guns ).


Quote:
This is false.

This militia was obviously a GOVERNMENT operation;
( in the parlance of the time, a " selected militia " as distinct from
a private militia, in those times called " a well regulated militia ".
When James Madison chose those words for the 2nd Amendment,
he did not select them at random from a dictionary.
A well regulated militia indicated the fellows in the neighborhood,
similar to a volunteer fire department, or a volunteer library,
or like the merchants of Los Angeles who armed themselves
in defense of their stores when police fled the scene,
or like the Free French in WWII, when their government
collapsed n fell into the hands of the German enemy,
or like the defenders of United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11/1,
who FOUGHT BACK and recaptured the plane from the Moslems.

Being " well regulated " militia meant that these private militia
were not boisterous, did not shoot up the town,
and that thay were sufficiently well trained
and well disciplined to be effective in combat.
Note that thay never spoke of a " well regulated " treasury dept.,
nor of any other government function.

The militia of the 2nd Amendment were not the militia
of Article I Section 8.






Quote:
Article One, Section 8, reads, in part:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (emphasis added)

In finding for the United States in United States versus Miller,
and thereby upholding the 1934 National Firearms Act,

That is NOT historically what happened.

The trial court had taken judicial notice that the disputed contraband
( a sawn off shotgun ) was a weapon.

The 2nd Amendment says that because well regulated militia
( i.e., private militia ) are necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It can be ( tho need not be ) surmised
that the weapons whose possession by the citizens are immune
from infringement are those that are useful to militia.

Only the possession of WEAPONS
and the right to form private militia are defended by the 2nd Amendment.
If the instrument in question were not a weapon ( because of mutilation ),
then its possession has no immunity from the 2 A.

The USSC disapproved of the trial court having taken judicial notice
that in that mutilated condition it can still help a militia ;
if NOT,
if it were no longer a weapon, then immunity for its possession
had been lost, when it got butchered.

The USSC demanded that the trial court take factual evidence
on this point, a jurisdictionally critical point
and sent it back accordingly; however, the defendants were never seen
again and thay lost the trial by default.




Quote:

the Supremes wrote in the majority opinion:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Note the court 's avoidance of use of the word " weapon ".




Quote:
Therefore, the Court obviously recognizes a right of Congress to regulate firearms.
In both United States versus Cruikshank, 1874,
and Presser versus Illinois, 1886, the Court has pointed out that the
Second Amendment binds the Federal government, but does not bind the states.
Therefore, by inference, the Court acknowledges the right of the states to regulate firearms.

Presser comes somewhat closer to supporting what u claim.
In US v. CRUIKSHANK 92 US 542 (1875) felonious convictions of some Klansmen
for violation of the 1st Amendment (right of assembly),
and of the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms),
were reversed by the US 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals,
on the grounds that it was neither pled nor proven that THE STATE had,
by its laws, abridged the rights of US citizens
(Defendants being private citizens), and FOR THAT REASON,
the 14th Amendment could not apply the 1st nor the 2nd Amendment
to the case at bar; i.e., the 14th Amendment only protected citizens of
Louisiana from the GOVERNMENT of that State
, not from their fellow citizens.

That Court pointedly implied that if officers of the State of Louisiana had,
BY ITS LAWS, violated the 1st or 2nd Amendment, they would have
feloniously violated the 14th Amendment and the Enforcement Act of May 31, 187O.

Note that the US Supreme Court affirmed this case.
In so doing, it held that the rights of the 1st and 2nd Amendments
long antedated the Constitution, such that when created, the US government
found them in being. Accordingly, these rights are older than the Constitution,
which neither created nor granted them to the citizenry
any more than the Constitution created the moon nor granted the stars.






Quote:

Claiming that any government in the United States is deprived of the right to legislate in the area of gun control is nothing more than your brain-dead propaganda. You wish in one hand and sh!t in the other, and see which one fills up first. Just 'cause you want it be so don't make it so.

By your vulgar, filthy obscenities u have chosen to disgrace yourself.
Someone told me that, in earlier times, u were a decent fellow.

However, I choose to forgive u.
Except for your aforesaid ventures into foul & repugnant obscenity,
I enjoy my conversations with u.
I enjoy your erudition, such as it may be; ( better than most ).
One might hope that u will re-discover the social graces.



Quote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Region Philbis wrote:
(waiting to hear what Calamity Jane has to say on the matter...)

She was Wild Bill Hickok 's girl.


Quote:
Bullshit . . . the only one who ever said that was Jane herself,
and she only said it Hickok was not there, or after he was dead.

OK.
I guess u were there listening to everyone,
so u must KNOW.


DAVID
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 04:55 am
You can rant and expostulate to your heart's content, it will not change what the Court has decided, and it will not bring you one inch closer to the truth with your deluded interpretations.

You don't deal with the reality of the constitution and the very limited case law referring to the second amendment. You attempt to twist things to mean what you want them to mean.

You want to carry firearms without let or hindrance, and you therefore come up with crackpot interpretations of the constitution to attempt to claim that it is your right.

Next you'll tell us it's your "god-given" right. That'll be fun.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 12:35 pm
Setanta wrote:
You can rant and expostulate to your heart's content,
it will not change what the Court has decided, and it will not bring you
one inch closer to the truth with your deluded interpretations.

That is true; (except for the delusions).
Ranting will not accomplish changes in precedent.
I am satisfied with what the USSC has already ruled,
but not with what its meanings have been twisted into.

Quote:
You don't deal with the reality of the constitution
and the very limited case law referring to the second amendment.
You attempt to twist things to mean what you want them to mean.

See how u find the expostulations of USSC Justice Joseph Story,
the pre-eminent constitutional commentator of the early 1800s.
( taken from Justice Joseph Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [1833] ):

" The next amendment is:
"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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons,
who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence
of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections,
and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments
and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses,
with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford
to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government,
or trample upon the rights of the people
.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,
as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;
since it offers a strong moral check
against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers;
and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance,
enable the people to resist and triumph over them. "




Quote:
You want to carry firearms without let or hindrance,

I have done that since the age of 8
( with no consequent trouble, I might add ).
My quest is to have all of my fellow citizens do it, as well
( with people of violent history having been isolated from decent society ).
I wish to restore the status quo ante.
In Colonial times, it was against the law to go to church in an unarmed condition.
Apparently, thay were losing too many Christians on the way to church.
It was deemed irresponsible,
and sometimes in plain bad taste, to go around unarmed.



Quote:
and you therefore come up with crackpot interpretations
of the constitution to attempt to claim that it is your right.

How about this crackpot interpretation from the USSC ?

In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

" The Second Amendment protects
' the right of the people to keep
and bear arms ' ".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE " THE PEOPLE " AS BEING
THE SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES EVERY SECOND YEAR.

(Notably, one need not join the National Guard in order to vote for his congressman.)
The Court further defined "the people" to mean those people who have a right
peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the right
to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment]
in their persons houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights
of states, as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are protected
by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e.THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.

It is noteworthy that the Court RELIED upon its definition of "the people".
Its conclusion in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition,
so that stare decisis attaches.







Quote:
Next you'll tell us it's your "god-given" right. That'll be fun.

In CRUIKSHANK, the USSC came close to that.
I hope u enjoyed it.




David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 03:45 pm
In none of your tortured ramblings have you come up with a shred of support for your contention that the constitution prohibits any government from regulating firearms. As i pointed out, Cruikshank and Presser are rulings in which the Court pointed out that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states; and, as i pointed, and which you denied without evidence and in the face of the fact of the ruling, the 1939 Miller case was one in which the Court upheld the 1934 National Firearms Act, and therefore by inference acknowledged the right of the Federal government to regulate firearms.

You have failed to make your case.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 04:05 pm

In your post #3149789
, you wrote: " . . . in that government in America was based on depriving government of any authority to legislate in the area of gun control . . ." It is to that which i objected, citing the relevant Supreme Court cases which disprove your case.

In Cruikshank, the court wrote that the second amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

In Presser, the Court wrote: "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."

In Miller, the defendants alleged that: "The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution . . ." The lower court set aside the indictment, but the Supreme Court held that: " . . . the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable." In conclusion, the Court ruled: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings."

In short, you made a claim which you failed to support. I objected that your claim is bullshit, and i provided support for my claim.

You lose.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 05:44 pm
I notice that when u encounter arguments that favor FREEDOM
of self defense, u do not address them;
such as the USSC holding in VERDUGO,
or Justice Story 's constitutional analysis.

U prefer to avert your gaze from freedom.

I 'll get back to u later.




David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 05:30:43