Guns: how much longer will it take ....

I guess none of you noted that I was responding to Oral's statement, as follows:
"Let's a say you are a freedom-hating radical who despises America's constitutional gun rights."

David, the following doesn't put Scalia in a good light.


Scalia: Too Sexy for the Supreme Court?
14 April 2005
If you're looking for smart journalism about the legal and religious ideas of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, perhaps the most conservative Christian to ever sit on the court, try Margaret Talbot's profile in the March 3 New Yorker (q&a with Talbot about the piece here). But if you're enough of a Freudian to believe that the sex life of a Supreme Court justice matters, you have to read The New York Post, which reports that a student opposed to Scalia's religiously-based support for anti-sodomy laws asked the good judge, "Do you sodomize your wife?" Scalia replied that the question was unworthy of an answer. We disagree, and we hope reporters will be as bold as that student. If you want to ban sexual practices enjoyed by the vast majority of the population because you think the Bible tells you to -- and if you endorse orgies, as Scalia did in a speech to Harvard law students -- you'd better be upfront about all your positions, even if the only you practice is missionary.

--therevealer.org

2) A citizen does not have a constitutional right
to sell his property on government owned land;
(taking no cognizance of the fact that a citizen OWNS government
and owns all public property).

OmSigDAVID wrote:

2) A citizen does not have a constitutional right
to sell his property on government owned land;
(taking no cognizance of the fact that a citizen OWNS government
and owns all public property).

T
K
O

The 9th CCA made it clear that it chose not to go beyond
the USSC 's holding that 2A defends our right to defend our homes
without commenting on whether that right extends into the streets of America.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The 9th CCA made it clear that it chose not to go beyond
the USSC 's holding that 2A defends our right to defend our homes
without commenting on whether that right extends into the streets of America.

Quote:

It's on the long term agenda.

First thing after nationwide incorporation I think will be to eradicate all the state and local assault weapons bans.
They are the most blatantly unconstitutional, and are thus the obvious first target.

But people are making plans to eventually challenge "may issue" and "no issue" CCW laws.

First thing though is to get SCOTUS to implement incorporation nationwide. Gotta walk before you can run.

As to semi-automatic shoulder weapons:
to MY mind, thay are not significant to personal safety
in that there has been near zero crime ever committed with them,
and in my opinion thay are OK, but less than ideal for personal defense,
in that their size n weight renders them not feasible to carry around,
unless in preparation for imminent combat.
I agree with Justice Scalia in HELLER that handguns
are the overwhelmingly popular weapon of choice for daily self defense.
Of course, as a jurisdictional matter, I reject the USURPATION of power
that resulted in the ban against semi-automatic shoulder weapons.

Do u consider it necessary to wait
until that matter is resolved before proceeding
with freedom of possession of handguns ?
In my opinion, one can be done concurrently with the other.


I understand that there are 2 pending cases to achieve full incorporation.
One is against Chicago; I don 't remember the other one.

Is the pending appeal limited to defense of the home,
the same as HELLER or does it include the defensive rights of pedestrians ?





David

oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The 9th CCA made it clear that it chose not to go beyond
the USSC 's holding that 2A defends our right to defend our homes
without commenting on whether that right extends into the streets of America.

It's on the long term agenda.

First thing after nationwide incorporation I think will be to eradicate all the state and local assault weapons bans.
They are the most blatantly unconstitutional, and are thus the obvious first target.

But people are making plans to eventually challenge "may issue" and "no issue" CCW laws.

First thing though is to get SCOTUS to implement incorporation nationwide. Gotta walk before you can run.

As to semi-automatic shoulder weapons:
to MY mind, thay are not significant to personal safety
in that there has been near zero crime ever committed with them,
and in my opinion thay are OK, but less than ideal for personal defense,
in that their size n weight renders them not feasible to carry around,
unless in preparation for imminent combat.
I agree with Justice Scalia in HELLER that handguns
are the overwhelmingly popular weapon of choice for daily self defense.
Of course, as a jurisdictional matter, I reject the USURPATION of power
that resulted in the ban against semi-automatic shoulder weapons.

Do u consider it necessary to wait
until that matter is resolved before proceeding
with freedom of possession of handguns ?
In my opinion, one can be done concurrently with the other.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I understand that there are 2 pending cases to achieve full incorporation.
One is against Chicago; I don 't remember the other one.

Is the pending appeal limited to defense of the home,
the same as HELLER or does it include the defensive rights of pedestrians ?

My question about "the pending appeal"
refers to the case against the government of Chicago.

canada has strict laws when it comes to handguns, no conceal and carry, weapons must be locked and properly stored when transporting, long guns are regulated but easier to obtain

most of the gun violence in canada has been centered around gangs,
when these guns are confiscated they invariably come from the US

Here is somethig for you anti-gun nuts to think about and something for you to go after you disarm the law abiding citiizens that would turn in thier firearms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

Doctors say knives are too pointed
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.





They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK,
and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

David, it is all over.
Sonia is going to take all the guns from law-abiding citizens.
You will have to carry a slingshot for protection (in case you run into a Goliath).

We are getting yet another series of reminders of the vast gun gap in this country. There is the part that thinks a room full of red-faced men and women screaming at one another is the worst place in the world to bring a firearm. And then there is the part that holds it is exactly the place where you need it most.

“A firearm is a defensive tool,” said Kostric, in an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. He was wearing a yellow T-shirt, and he told Matthews that if everybody in the crowd waiting for Obama to arrive had been armed, things would have been much safer. Beyond an air of mild surprise, he seemed like your average hard-core Ron Paul voter " male, smug and obsessed with the money supply. (“Where did we go wrong? I’d start with the Federal Reserve Bank.”)