Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@parados,

parados wrote:

Let me make that big so even the idiot NRA members can read it.
Thought I doubt they will understand it.
Quote:
But what both ignore is a well-enshrined legal principle that says no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws.

I will understand it, Mr. Parados. I have been a Life Member of the NRA for about 5O years.

It is the USSC case of Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1956)

That is the "well-enshrined legal principle".

David

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

It was an artificial deadline. And to order the recounts halted, and then say,
well, there isn't time to complete them, is not exactly unbiased.

That is all FOOLISHNESS.
ALL the votes were re-counted many times. W won in Florida because he had more votes.
Gore did not deny that. The Democrats' desperate efforts to scrape the bottom of the barrel were of no avail.
Even with the Democratic efforts to screw overseas members of the Armed Forces
out of their votes (absentee ballots), thay lost anyway.

After all the voting was completed,
multiple left-leaning newspapers sent investigators to Florida to re-count the votes, yet again,
with the same uneventful result: W won fair & square.

If the newspapers had found the opposite, favoring AlGore,
that woud have been a BIGGER story than Lindbergh flying the Atlantic in 1927,
the Japanese Surrender in 1945, or the Moon landing in 1969.

David

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

You have no rights. Freedom is a hopeless position in a globalised world. You're on the wrong side of history. 310 million is a pipsqueak population.

You're just scared witless of facing up to your insignificance.

We spend more on our military then the rest of the world combine and there is few areas in the world where we could not put boots on the ground it we care enough to do so.

Our technology and equipments in the military area is a light year ahead of the rest of the world. Our tanks are almost impossible to knock out see their combat record and we can place bombs within feet of any targets drop from planes that are very hard to detect and so on.

We all saw that numbers mean nothing over and over in history it is equipments and training from the days of Alexander, to the seven days war, to even the UK retaking the Falkland Islands.

Rome was nothing compare to us.

In any case strange is it not this comment is coming from a citizen of a country who can not purchased and then bring back a sword when on vacation out of the country address to people who can carry firearms around and in my case and others cases on this thread we do indeed so carry as a matter of fact.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

In any case strange is it not this comment is coming from a citizen of a country who can not purchased and then bring back a sword when on vacation out of the country address to people who can carry firearms around and in my case and others cases on this thread we do indeed so carry as a matter of fact.

How do you, Bill, or other US-Americans, usually avoid airport and port securities, custom controls and such?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

No, oralloy, you're the guys who use violence as a political tool.
You're the guys who advocate legal arms for even the James Holmes of the country,

We wanna restore the status quo ante around 1900, favoring individual freedom.
Government has NO jurisdiction over some designated things.
I advocate: "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS".
That means that eveyone is equally entitled
to defend his or her life from predatory violence
and is entitled to the competent means to do so.

MontereyJack wrote:

and then when they commit atrocities, you say,
"See? That's why we need guns for our self-defense".

Like fire extinguishers, spare tires and health insurance,
u never know WHEN u will need them.

MontereyJack wrote:

From the guys you just let get the guns in the first place.

The same way that we "let" them get marijuana???
The same way that Eliot Ness "LET" them get alcohol ????
Because prohibitions work so well ??????????

MontereyJack wrote:

And all of this based on a specious reading of the Second Amendment,
going against 200 years of precedent

That is a LIE, Jack, obviously born of your obsessive loathing of Individual freedom.
Its a rather conspicous lie, and not an intelligent lie.
I challenge u on your allegation: please CITE those "200 years of precedent".
U will not, because u cannot.
Go ahead: prove me rong!! Do it.

Lemme get the ball rolling here, Jack.

Here is a nice case to which the USSC has fondly cited with approval
in D.C. v. Heller 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)

The USSC says the following:
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846),
the Georgia Supreme Court
construed the Second Amendment as
protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore
struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.

Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause
[i.e.: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"]
of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in
the prefatory clause, [i.e., the militia clause]
in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,
to keep and bear arms of every description,
and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon,
in the smallest degree;
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.

Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
sons and successors, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David.]

MontereyJack wrote:

by an activist cabal of right-wing justices.

"Right-wing" means: ACCURATE.
"Right-wing" means: NON-deviant.
"Right-wing" means: ORTHODOX.

"Right-wing" means: Original American understanding
of the Constitution.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

How do you, Bill, or other US-Americans, usually avoid airport and port securities, custom controls and such?

You would declare the sword like anything else you buy on returning to the US and pay any custom duty owning.

As far as security you do not have the sword with you in the cabin of the plane and that is all security is concern about.

Second comment you can travel with firearms by air "with you" in the US for that matter you take it to the airport in a lock container. Handing it over and declaring it as such.

You and your firearms are reunited after reaching your destination.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

As a member of the NRA perhaps you should tell them to deal with real issues then instead of made up ones used simply to scare people.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

As a member of the NRA perhaps you should tell them to deal
with real issues then instead of made up ones used simply to scare people.

Its good to oppose the treaty.
For instance, citizens elsewhere occasionally need
to overthrow governments, as we did with the English 1776-1783.
The Iraquians needed to do that qua Saddam, for instance.

obama's administration supported the revolutions in Lybia, Egypt and now in Syria.
That treaty is good for INCUMBENT governments, to preserve their power,
by subjugating n oppressing the populaces.

Its better to support Individual liberty.

David

0 Replies

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

A man with a bullet-proof vest and bullet-proof leggings and an assault rifle

He did not have an "assault rifle".
It was an AR-15 (i.e., a semi-automatic M-16). It was not automatic.

panzade wrote:

will not be deterred by movie patrons who are armed with pistols.

I don 't mean to brag,
but if one of the victims had a .44 revolver
(like mine), even without penetration of the armor,
he 'd have been knocked over backward by the impact.
( If he were hit in the faceplate, that 'd be quite a shock to his neck. )

Men who have been hit with gunfire while wearing
bulletproof vests, have compared it to getting
hit in the chest with a bowling ball, or a sledge hammer.

panzade wrote:

We need less [sic] assault rifles out in the street. Period.

We need "less" liberals out in the street. Period.

When government was founded in this Republic
it was given permission to exist, subject to its having no jurisdiction regarding some things,
for instance, it cannot make u go to Church if u don't wanna go, and it cannot interfere with defensive personal armament.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

“The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,
to keep and bear arms of every description,
and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon,
in the smallest degree;
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.

Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
originally belonging to our forefathers

That means that all requirements to apply for any sort of licence to " bear arms of every description" are unconstitutional.

But as I understand it the President is constitutionally empowered to legislate and execute anything he thinks fit to promote the public weal.

And if its no good the electorate are to blame.

As a matter of interest what was the cost to the individual of bearing arms. Compared to now.

How many could afford a gun, or procure one, in those old days? Is it possible that only those of the same class as the founders could afford a gun and maybe those who used it as a working tool.

Would a sod-buster with a wife and 5 kids be able to get the family tooled up? I imagine that a weapon that could be relied upon in emergencies would be an item on a shopping list of gentlemen.

Now there are supermarkets full of them, and the ammo, at prices everybody can afford.

And another thing Dave--granted you might need to defend yourself with lethal force at some point. But not twice. Not six times. What's all this ammo for? Ruth Ellis shot her unfaithful lover and she had never fired a gun before. But okay--100 rounds for practice. After that what's all the ammo for?

The sheer sensuality of handling them is a fair enough reason. Why go to all this trouble because you won't admit that. It shows through your contributions anyway.

A man, usually a young one, fair struts when he gets a Sten gun slung casually over his shoulder. What does the Constitution say about concealment? You should be able to wear your gun on your hip to get a real buzz. Like they all did in Libya recently.

All this slinking around with it hidden underneath your clothes and having to go to a government approved range to go bang-bang must be pretty tiresome. When the amendment was passed they could pot pop bottles in their back yard all day long if they could afford it.(Dec 15, 1791).

5 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

But as I understand it the President is constitutionally empowered to legislate and execute anything he thinks fit to promote the public weal.

Your understanding probably explains many of your comments.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Why do you think it is Dave that I don't know how many millions of people or walking around without feeling the need to protect themselves with a gun? Probably a significant majority of the population. And their daily routines are much the same as yours.

And I can't see all that many people out to kill you who would fail to do so because you are packing.

2 Replies

@roger,

I meant by "as I understand it" that I had read it in a book by an eminent professor on the workings of the US Federal Government. Not a book you seem to have read old son.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I don't know "eminent professor", but have read the Constitution. Can you and your unnamed professor make the same claim?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

How many could afford a gun, or procure one, in those old days? Is it possible that only those of the same class as the founders could afford a gun and maybe those who used it as a working tool.

Would a sod-buster with a wife and 5 kids be able to get the family tooled up? I imagine that a weapon that could be relied upon in emergencies would be an item on a shopping list of gentlemen.

Now there are supermarkets full of them, and the ammo, at prices everybody can afford.

Based upon movies I've seen of old America, pretty much everyone had a gun. Sod-busters included.

1 Reply

@roger,

Are you kidding? I've read it a few times. It's a very skilful document seeking as it does to balance the forces it was grappling with and could foresee coming. But not foresee this we are in.

It's about 10 pages isn't it? The Indian Constitution is 250 pages.

7,500 words I gather. Oklahoma's constitution has 34,000 words. Louisiana's 63,000 and California's 72,000. So the US Constitution must have generalised quite a bit.

Amendments are corrections of mistakes or for unforeseen consequences.

And that is pretending it is not naive to think of the document as the basis for the usurpation of power by the legal profession and its satellite The Paperwork Party which owes its existence to cheap energy.

If the "peak oil" theory has legs you had better start getting used to something else.

2 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

Based upon movies I've seen of old America, pretty much everyone had a gun. Sod-busters included.

In 1791 Tico? Shurely shome mishtaksh. What about the wife and five kids?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) —

. . . .

Beyond that, there are many court rulings spelling out the limits of treaties. And if an act of Congress is inconsistent with a treaty obligation, the law passed by Congress prevails. Legal scholars say this has been well-established, including a long history of cases involving Indian treaties. Various international treaties with Indian tribes were abrogated by Congress — and courts ruled in favor of Congress, much to the displeasure of the tribes.

That isn't quite right. If there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the newest one prevails.

A new treaty can supersede an old law. And a new law can supersede an old treaty.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) —

. . . .

Obama got the process rolling again in 2010. So far, 152 nations have participated in the drafting and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification once there is a final document.

But it may be an empty gesture.

Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the 100-member Senate, or 67 votes. And with pressure mounting from the gun lobby, led by the politically powerful NRA, a bipartisan letter opposing such a treaty already gained the signatures of well over 50 senators.

Yes. I've never seen 90 senators vote against a treaty before. It'll be fun watching this monstrosity go down in flames.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) —

. . . .

The controversy feeds into suggestions by many conservatives that Obama ultimately hopes to ban possession of firearms, even though he has stood up for protecting Second Amendment rights.

Nonsense. Obama tried to violate the Second Amendment from the first day he entered the White House.

He has failed, of course, but he has certainly tried.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You have no rights.

Wrong. Unlike you I am a free person.

spendius wrote:

Freedom is a hopeless position in a globalised world. You're on the wrong side of history. 310 million is a pipsqueak population.

You're just scared witless of facing up to your insignificance.

The UN is the future.

The UN is a tiny little bug compared to the NRA.

Sit back and watch this treaty go down in flames when it hits the Senate. The burning wreckage should be rather pretty.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I guess that's true if you don't use the word "it" correctly and only ever talk in non sequiturs.

"It" is a pronoun.

As used in my sentence, "it" refers to the proposed treaty.

1 Reply

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know