Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Because it would violate the Constitution.

I don't believe you.

Have you ever glanced at our Constitution?

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

The Founding Fathers decided that the entire US populace should keep military weaponry at home.

Joe Nation wrote:

for the express purpose of having a well-regulated militia.

Yes; a non-government militia (like a volunteer fire dept.),
as distinct from the government operated selected militia
of Article I Section 8.

Joe Nation wrote:

The two items cannot be separated.

The USSC separated them in HELLER.
The grammatical experts found the operative clause
not to be dependent on the prefatory clause;
in other words, u don 't need to join a militia
in order to get your Constitutional rights.

Joe Nation wrote:

Joe(one clause depends on the other)Nation

No. The prefatory, explanatory, militia clause depends on the operative clause,
but the operative clause does NOT depend on the prefatory militia clause,
because the people can use their guns to kill robbers or deer, in their independent discretion.

A lot of people do.

David

2 Replies

There is not such constitutional distinction between types of militias. In Article One, Section Eight, Congress is given the power to call out the militia, and to provide for arming the militia and prescribing their trainng regime. The constitution assumes a militia to exist, and it makes no such distinctions. This is mere polemic of the gun nut lobby.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

That argument would only have merit if there was actually an armed militia that you could point at for the right to apply to

farmerman wrote:

The memory of REVOLUTIONARY militias is loaded with internally regulated
but generally unaffiliated organizations.

Yes. Such is the concept of the "well regulated militia" of the 2nd Amendment,
as distinct from the selected militia of Article I Section 8,
who were obviously government militia.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The USSC was wrong in Heller. We are dead wrong because of it.

Joe(Please pass those two fifty round clips. I see a prairie dog.)Nation

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The USSC separated them in HELLER.

That doesn't mean a damn' thing and you know it. The USSC also ruled, in the Dred Scott decision, that persons of color have no rights under the Constitution. The point is that any Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a subsequent decision reversing the Court's stand.

2 Replies

N.R.A. PROPOSES SWEEPING BAN ON MOVIES
Posted by Andy Borowitz

FAIRFAX, Va. (The Borowitz Report)—Saying it was “high time to take action against the number one cause of violence in America,” the National Rifle Association issued a statement today urging a sweeping ban on movies.

Tracy Klugian, an official spokesperson for the gun-lobbying organization, said that the N.R.A. had taken this extraordinary step because it “could not stand idly by and watch movies tear apart the fabric of our civil society.”

To that end, Mr. Klugian said, the N.R.A. would use money from its PAC, the N.R.A. Political Victory Fund, to support politicians who favored a ban on filmed entertainment.

In the hours after the N.R.A.’s announcement, politicians on both sides of the aisle were quick to applaud the group for identifying what it called “a long overdue need for movie control.”

“It is time for us to stop the madness,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner. “As a first step, I am proposing legislation that would impose a two-year waiting period and background check before one is allowed to see a Hollywood release.”

Minutes later, the White House said that the Speaker’s proposal was “a good first step, but does not go far enough,” arguing that Congress had to “take a hard look at whether superhero costumes and masks should continue to be legal.”

All in all, the N.R.A.’s Klugian said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the organization’s call for new legislation would be heeded “because our message finally seems to be getting through: Guns don’t kill people. Movies kill people.”

~~~
I love Borowitz.

Joe(cuts right through)Nation

0 Replies

flatly wrong as usual, David. There was no such thing as a private militia. Militias were always regulated andunder the direction and control of governmental authority, usually a subunit of the colony or state, like a county or town, but under the overall control of the state. They were emphatically NOT just private citizens acting on their own.. Thye were usually groups of the whole. EVERY man was required by lawto participate, tho in fact the majority of them found ways to weasel out, there were required drills and maneuvers for EVERYBODY, and people were required by law to provide arms FOR USE IN MILITIA ACTIVITIES AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE. "

"Well-regulated" clearly means what it always meant, regulation by the state.And grammarians specifically state that the two clauses are NOT separable, that the first clause clearly states what those arms were to be used for. Right wing activist judges disregard the explicit and clear language of the Constitution. The four dissenters in Heller were the only ones on thge court who got it as the framers intended. As David Souter said, "You don't bear arms against a rabbit."

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Batman had first-hand experience of the violence a gun can cause at a theater.

So did Abraham Lincoln.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

The USSC was wrong in Heller. We are dead wrong because of it.

Joe(Please pass those two fifty round clips. I see a prairie dog.)Nation

From the writings of the Founders,
we know that thay 'd obviously agree with the USSC in HELLER. The Founders were on MY side,
NOT on the liberals' side. That's Y we favor Original Americanism (as amended).

The legal intelligentsia (mostly liberals) for YEARS,
have called this the "Standard Model" of the 2nd Amendment,
(recognizing Individual rights) and the USSC adopted it.

Remember, Joe:
there were NO police back then anywhere in the USA until
the next century, so every citizen HAD TO take care of himself.

Indeed, going around unarmed was against the law,
in some of the Colonies.

David

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

Have you ever glanced at our Constitution?

I have a couple of books about it and have read them. Plus a number of other books about the US which have detailed references to it.

I've also looked through, fairly casually, the various state regulations.

Quote:

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs

are banned. I read that most of you are on one or another of that list.

There are many restrictions on the broad term "right to bear arms".

It's psychological in the main Tico. The power surge pulling a trigger for those who feel powerless and don't care for the feeling. Catharsis. Treatment in the community some call that sort of thing. Probably stems from Mom letting them bang on a pan all afternoon with a backing spoon to keep them amused.

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

I quoted the other day a remark by George Stern in a review of a book about the CIA by John Ranelagh. Mr Stern writes of Ranelagh "beautifully" catching "America's most characteristic note of suffocating blandness mixed with brutality"....

Now, suffocating blandness is essentially sensory deprivation and some people can tolerate such things more than others. And there are gradations to what can be tolerated. For example, you could put the snake bite on Gordon Liddy and get nowhere. Put it on any average female customer in a pub and she'll promise to do anything you want. Even before you twist.

Having thus scientifically established my premiss that there are degrees of toleration when subjected to suffocating blandness, which is noticeable in American sports commentaries and news broadcasts, and on a good number of these threads too I might add for the sake of transparency, it is obvious that there will be a few on the extreme as there are a few with 170 IQs or an allergy to Black and Decker Workmates. Mix in the brutality and there you go.

Whether it is a crime or a mental illness to be so allergic to suffocating blandness as to take an armoury to a cinema screening the very hallmark of suffocating blandness itself: Batman, I'm not qualified to decide.

And beneath this extreme allergy there is a descending scale all the way to not being at all allergic to suffocating blandness. Indeed, welcoming it. A figure depicting it would look like those balloons with a pointy bit on each end. About half inflated.

In other words the numbers grow rapidly just below the pointy bits and various personal incidents might shift a person from the "safe" zone into the danger area.

On this hypothesis, which admits the validity of others, there is a potential cause in the suffocating blandness quotient which Scott Pelley does to perfection. Especially in his "Great American" feechewers about saving people who shouldn't really need saving. It's a good job I watch him when I'm in bed and the only movable objects within reach are soft, fluffy pillows. And I'm pretty easy going. Any intelligent person suffering from an extreme sensory deprivation allergy might throw the ******* bed at the telly.

It might be as bad here but we have serious restrictions on who has guns.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

flatly wrong as usual, David. There was no such thing as a private militia.

I 'm not emotional about this, because I already won
and from what the USSC has already said in HELLER,
I remain entirely confident of re-instating the status quo ante
of full freedom, but your posts r astonishingly inconsistent
with known history (not that it actually matters).

When George Mason and George Washington began the Fairfax
Militia Organization, there ALREADY WAS a Royal Militia.
Thay did not get the permission of the King of England
to start their new militia. What about the Mormon Militia in the 1800s,
or the Merchants' Militia of the Los Angels riots ??
If a bunch of guys wanna begin a militia thay can do it
and thay did it. I 'm pretty sure that when the male passengers
on United Airlines Flight 93 decided to overthrow the Moslems'
control of their flight on 9/11/1, thay did NOT start thinking about
militia, but thay created a de facto well regulated militia,
( not selected militia, because there was no government involvement ).

MontereyJack wrote:

Militias were always regulated and under the direction and control of governmental authority,

O, really?? Will u be good enuf to prove that??

MontereyJack wrote:

usually a subunit of the colony or state, like a county or town, but under the overall control of the state.
They were emphatically NOT just private citizens acting on their own..

U can emfasize all u want, but history remains intact,
regardless of your disagreement (wishful thinking, born of hating Individual freedom??)

MontereyJack wrote:

Thye were usually groups of the whole. EVERY man was required by law to participate, tho in fact the majority of them found ways to weasel out, there were required drills and maneuvers for EVERYBODY, and people were required by law to provide arms FOR USE IN MILITIA ACTIVITIES AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE. "

Yes! That was true, in some places, at some times.
That does not negate the existence of private militia in many places,
according to the choices of the local citizens thru out the wide open spaces of America at different times.

MontereyJack wrote:

"Well-regulated" clearly means what it always meant, regulation by the state.

If u wanna say things that r not true, u can; I can't stop u. Have fun. Freedom won.
U lost.

MontereyJack wrote:

And grammarians specifically state that the two clauses are NOT separable, that the first clause clearly states what those arms were to be used for.

I CAN drag out the statements of professional grammarians; I have done it before
( i.e., before we won ). I 'm almost tempted to do it now,
but kinda lazy.

MontereyJack wrote:

Right wing activist judges disregard the explicit and clear language of the Constitution.

Re-iterating, redundantly: the USSC merely adopted the "Standard Model"
of the legal intelligentsia based on their individual research of many years' standing.

MontereyJack wrote:

The four dissenters in Heller were the only ones on thge court who got it as the framers intended.

U only say that because thay tried to support your abhorrence of personal freedom.

MontereyJack wrote:

As David Souter said, "You don't bear arms against a rabbit."

Baloney! Its the same as bearing water
or bearing glad tidings.
In their loathing of personal freedom, the dissenters
were really scraping the bottom of the barrel, in desperation
to twist history. We have the writings of the Founders
that remain quite probative and dispositive, in favor of freedom of defense.
It was freedom of survival against robbers, murderers, Indians,
packs of wolves, or dogs, bears, n cougars.

HOWEVER, I will agree that the 2nd Amendment
was only secondarily in support of hunting food.
Primarily, it was to assure that u coud kill men, when appropriate,
not so much rabbits.

What the 2nd Amendment was intended to do,
very simply, was to put the citizen 's possession of guns
BEYOND THE REACH of government jurisdiction.

Since we threw out the King of England,
sovereignty was in the Individual citizen,
not in his low-life employee, government.

" The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms:
the sword and sovereignty
ever walk hand in hand "
ARISTOTLE On Politics

David

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It might be as bad here but we have serious restrictions on who has guns.

That's it in a nutshell - innit?

1 Reply

@aidan,

Well Rebecca -- suffocating blandness, boredom it is often called, does drive many people to do strange things. And when brutality is admired one of those things is likely to be brutal.

As Caligula sighed--"Oh! if only the Romans had but one neck."

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

there were NO police back then anywhere in the USA until
the next century, so every citizen HAD TO take care of himself.

But that has now changed. So the main argument falls?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

I had pointed out mass murders can and have been done with swords and cans of gasoline and explosives.

"Mass muders" with edged weapons have died out in popularity and necessity over these last 1000 years. Assuming a mass mrder were planned it would have tken multiple perps with several edged weapons Your argument is a bit silly

WHALE OIL doesnt explode unless you extract the glycerin from the fatty acid THEN MAKE AN ERZATS TNT by processes that were unknown in the days of "edged weapon mass muder"

It turns out in the crime stats of the last week,AFTER the Aurora shootings, at least 8 people a day were killed in the rest of the US using guns.

I wouldnt pursue this line of "logic" Bill, its kind of silly no?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

mysteryman wrote:

1 of my pistols is a presentation weapon, given to me as a gift. Yes, it fires but I leave it in its display case.

izzythepush wrote:

I find it really difficult getting my head round the concept of being presented with a gun
as opposed to a cup or certificate, or even a gold watch.

My friend, Cliff, sitting right next to me,
won a 9mm Glock 17 as a door prize in a raffle.
By co-incidence a few weeks later my friend, Don, won
a .45 caliber SIG ARMS P245 COMPACT PISTOL as another door prize.
http://www.nramuseum.com/media/364243/May%2099.pdf
In contrast, I did not win anything. I have to pay for my guns.

R u actually gonna DRINK from the cup?? Guns have VALUE.
What good is a "certificate"? What functional value has it?
If a gun works, it can save your life.

Years ago, I was threatened with being publicly awarded
a certificate for 2O years service in leading my SIG of Mensa.
I inquired qua when that 'd happen, so that I 'd be sure to avoid
attending that meeting, not wishing to be put on exhibition,
but I 'd have attended, if thay were giving me a nice boxed gun.

izzythepush wrote:

That one sentence says so much about how alien most outsiders find American culture.

I can live with that.
Its not significant. It does not occur to Americans to please aliens.

David

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
there were NO police back then anywhere in the USA until
the next century, so every citizen HAD TO take care of himself.

But that has now changed. So the main argument falls?

Good on you, Mc. That's actually the whole point. Most of the laws and customs that go back to the days of the Founders (a period to which, apparently, OmSigDAVID would love to return) were enacted because of local conditions at that time. Conditions change and rules that were common-sense in the 17th and 18th centuries become very dangerously antiquated in the 20th and 21st centuries and later. To say that something is right and good just because the likes of Geroege Washington or John Adams said so is absurd. It might have been true for them. What on earth makes it applicable today?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

There is not such constitutional distinction between types of militias. In Article One, Section Eight, Congress is given the power to call out the militia, and to provide for arming the militia and prescribing their trainng regime. The constitution assumes a militia to exist, and it makes no such distinctions. This is mere polemic of the gun nut lobby.

The Founders did not use the Constitution to explain the diffence
between winter and summer nor of day and nite; everyone already KNEW,
as thay did qua selected militia as distinct from well regulated militia.

Did u see my refutation of your Page 16 Post: # 5,052,255
on Page 17??

David

0 Replies

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know