Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
We aren't going to be giving up our freedom, no matter how much you don't like it.

You can't even sell your tobacco crop or distilled moonshine without having the FTA jumping on you. I heard you can't even nip across the road in a gap in the traffic and have to wait until the little green man on the traffic lights says it's legal to cross the ******* road.

Freedom!! Forget it. It's a coy affectation.

Yet Obama wants the tobacco farmers to thank the govt for making their businesses successful...

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

We have the best, most addictive, most additive and flavor enhanced tobacco in the world.

Makes ya proud to be a Merkin

3 Replies

@farmerman,

And I get mine on the reservation. We have a 400 + year tradition of trading with the Indians for tobacco, and state tax ain't no part of that tradition.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

We have the best, most addictive, most additive and flavor enhanced tobacco in the world.

Makes ya proud to be a Merkin

You're proud to be a pubic wig? Shocked

0 Replies

wouldn't you be?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

My response was to David's claim that there is a provision in the constitution for a "private" militia. There is no such provision. Both you and David just make **** up as you go along when you start obsessing about guns. Nowhere in the constitution is it stipulated that the militia many not serve outside U.S. borders. This is just another example of you making **** up. I defy you to quote any passage of the constitution which has that provision.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Turkish tobacco is so good it is banned here.

I smoke Virginian hand rolling.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

That should read that there is NO provision in the constitution for a "private" militia.

0 Replies

Here's a partial solution that might improve things.

Gun people here are wont to quote the Second Amendment as a justification, indeed an expression, of their right to bear arms.
So taking that as a starting point, why not require every owner of an assault rifle to be part of a gun club, they may call it a militia if they wish, which is regulated, duly sworn and controlled by the local police. Well-regulated in other words.

If every gun and every member is registered, just like for your automobile, then the system could be arranged to self-regulate, where every member is responsible for the standing and behaviour of the group as a whole.
Inspections, visits and training would be part of the regime, and federal government would not be directly involved.

In this way, maybe renegade nutters could be identified by local people before they blow their lid.
This would be a national scheme, but run by local enthusiasts for themselves.

3 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Here's a partial solution that might improve things.

Gun people here are wont to quote the Second Amendment as a justification, indeed an expression, of their right to bear arms.
So taking that as a starting point, why not require every owner of an assault rifle to be part of a gun club, they may call it a militia if they wish, which is regulated, duly sworn and controlled by the local police. Well-regulated in other words.

If every gun and every member is registered, just like for your automobile, then the system could be arranged to self-regulate, where every member is responsible for the standing and behaviour of the group as a whole.
Inspections, visits and training would be part of the regime, and federal government would not be directly involved.

In this way, maybe renegade nutters could be identified by local people before they blow their lid.
This would be a national scheme, but run by local enthusiasts for themselves.

The problem is, the second ammendment isn't about hunting or protecting yourself from your neighbor. It is about preserving your rights from the government taking them away. But allowing the government to regulate how guns are suppose to be handled, you infringe on this ability to preserve your rights. It allows them to chip away and take away your personal power against the government.

The government should fear the people, not the other way around. The government wants to have more and more power and to have the people with no power or freedoms. The government wants to control it's citizens as much as possible that way the elite can bask in the sun while the citizenry slave away and can't rise up to do anything about it.

You think I sound crazy, you think I sound nuts. But look at every corrupt government who has total control over it's people and you'll see a pathetic people suppressed by it's leaders with no hope of escape.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The USSC separated them in HELLER.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

That doesn't mean a damn' thing and you know it.

U misrepresent what I "know".

Lustig Andrei wrote:

The USSC also ruled, in the Dred Scott decision,
that persons of color have no rights under the Constitution.

I disagree, tho possibly some obiter dicta might suggest that.
The point of that decision was that Article 4 Section 2
of the Supreme Law of the Land had to be RESPECTED
and scrupulously executed, which is what the Court ordered.
The Supreme Court had to be LOYAL to the Constitution.

That Article and Section required:
" No Person held to Service or Labour in one State,
under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall,
in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
be discharged from such Service or Labour,
But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party
to whom such Service or Labour may be due. "

It did not fall to the Justices of the Supreme Court
to abandon their oaths to support the Constitution
and to decide that thay were smarter, and better
than the Authors of the Constitution, so thay 'd just
jiggle it around and amend it by judicial hoax.
Thay simply did the job that thay were paid to DO.

Accordingly, Dred Scott was ordered
to be extradited and returned to his owner.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

The point is that any Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a subsequent
decision reversing the Court's stand.

Which decision "overturned" the DRED SCOTT case, Andy?
I was under the impression that was the result
of the 13th Amendment, after the War Between the States.

David

0 Replies

@McTag,

DAVID wrote:

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

McTag wrote:

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

No. We will seek in vain
among the means for amending the Constitution
(designated in its Article 5) for authorization
to amend it based upon the creation of a police force.
The Constitution remains intact unless amended
by a 2/3 vote of each House of Congress
(or by a new Constitutional Convention) and ratified by 3/4 of the States,
no matter how many police forces r chartered by any legislatures.

Chartering a police force does NOT amend the Constitution.

Incidentally, will consideration of the plight
of Kitty Genovese or of Reginald Denny have any bearing
upon whether one needs to be able to take care of himself, or herself?

How much good did the police do Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman?
Did thay find a need for personal protection??

So your argument falls ???????

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Both you and David just make **** up as you go along when you start obsessing about guns.

Nonsense. You can't show a single place where I've ever made a single thing up, and you know it (I suspect the same applies to your accusation against OmSigDAVID).

Setanta wrote:

Nowhere in the constitution is it stipulated that the militia may not serve outside U.S. borders.

Wrong. That limitation is found in Article I Section 8.

Setanta wrote:

This is just another example of you making **** up.

Nope. That is yet another example of me pointing out truth and reality.

Setanta wrote:

I defy you to quote any passage of the constitution which has that provision.

I've already provided it to you, but here it is again:

"The Congress shall have power To....
....To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Note again how there is nothing in there about any duty outside US borders.

Free advice: Last time I pointed these facts out to you, you tried claiming that the federal government is not limited to the powers expressly given to it, even though the fact that it is so limited is one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, even though the Founding Fathers widely discussed that limitation, and even though that core principle is at the center of more than half of all the cases that have ever been heard by the US Supreme Court (including the recent lawsuit about Obama's healthcare plan).

It's still not a winning argument.

(But, if you want to reenact your previous defeat on this matter, I'll go through the motions again.)

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

It allows them to chip away and take away your personal power against the government.

Do you really think you have some unless you get on the streets in the manner the French do?

All these idiotic gun owners thinking they are protecting themselves against the government is laughable.

It's a business proposition. The sacrificial victims on Pagan altars was a business proposition as well. That's why it took a great deal of heaving to put an end to it.

One only needs think of the number of Pagan altars and the number of gods they sacrificed to, and the quality of the victim required, to see what a large and well established business it must have been. And how hard it would fight Christianity and its bread.

Jesus had proposed the equivalent of closing down TV and the Internet.

Both exploit a paranoia about the future. In the here and after.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Here's a partial solution that might improve things.

Gun people here are wont to quote the Second Amendment as a justification, indeed an expression, of their right to bear arms.
So taking that as a starting point, why not require every owner of an assault rifle to be part of a gun club, they may call it a militia if they wish, which is regulated, duly sworn and controlled by the local police. Well-regulated in other words.

If every gun and every member is registered, just like for your automobile, then the system could be arranged to self-regulate, where every member is responsible for the standing and behaviour of the group as a whole.
Inspections, visits and training would be part of the regime, and federal government would not be directly involved.

In this way, maybe renegade nutters could be identified by local people before they blow their lid.
This would be a national scheme, but run by local enthusiasts for themselves.

An assault weapon is just a gun with some harmless cosmetic features.

Bringing back the militia is a great idea, but militiamen have the right to have automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, bazookas, and the like, and the right to keep them in their homes.

You might note that the term "well regulated" does not refer to rules and regulations. It instead means that the militia has trained to the degree that they are capable of fighting as a single coherent unit instead of as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

The government should fear the people, not the other way around.

The government does fear the people. It takes little notice of growling though. It can deal with growling all day long. It even wants the people to feel they are protecting themselves from it.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Your "practical solution" Mac is all very well on paper. Or on a beer-mat.

It is noticeable that it excludes human nature and assumes everyone will behave as rationally as you seem to expect them to.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

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

McTag wrote:

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

Lustig Andrei wrote:

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?

The Constitution ( "on earth" ) is the Supreme Law of the Land.
It remains 1OO% intact. It does not wear out, nor do our rights.

Incidentally, a captain of the NYPD told me once:
"the most important function of the police is to provide THE ILLUSION OF SAFETY."

I agree with that. When someone shot at ME,
there were no police around to defend me.

David

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I've just shown a place in which you've made up a claim about the constitution. I seriously doubt that you've either read it, or understood it if you did. That the paragraph from Article One, Section Eight does not say anything about the militia serving outside American borders is not evidence that the militia is prohibited from serving outside American borders. They did so in both the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Of course, in American military experience, the militia are worthless far more often than they are useful, but nonetheless, our miliitia have served outside American borders, and that's because the constitution does not prohibit them from doing so.

Just because you always apply your hysterical ideological polemic to these subjects doesn't mean that your claims are valid. As i've said, nowhere does the constitution prohibit members of the militia from serving outside American borders, and you have failed to show that it does. You just make this **** up.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

When someone shot at ME,
there were no police around to defend me.

Nobody has ever shot at me, probably because here there are almost no guns in circulation here.

Our police don't carry guns either. It's great, everybody feels safe.

But the police can still shoot somebody if he needs shooting. It's proportionate.

2 Replies

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know