monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

NBC Politics ✔ @NBCPolitics
President Trump reaches 32 days, won't be shortest U.S. president http://nbcnews.to/2meLq7d

Quote:

Please provide proof that university education is leftist?

Of course Universities are leftist! They train you to think for yourself and to shun Fox news and Lambaugh type productions.

Here's what ya get when ya aint go no border wall, eh?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arb_YCZgra8[/youtube]

Vickie Williams-Tillman, 56, was being hailed as a hero, The Advocate reported. Williams-Tillman was driving to a store, listening to gospel music on her radio, when she spotted the Baton Rouge officer and the suspect.

Baton Rouge police spokesman Sgt. L’Jean McKneely said the suspect grabbed the officer’s baton and repeatedly bashed him on the head with it, and also tried to grab the officer’s gun.

"I could see in his eyes he needed help," Williams-Tillman told The Advocate. "You don't have time to think about it … I did what God needed me to do."

Authorities said the Louisiana woman “made a big difference” Sunday when she jumped on a suspect’s back to save a police officer from a brutal beatdown.

Soon after Williams-Tillman jumped on the man’s back, police backup arrived and the suspect was apprehended after being shot with a stun gun. The 44-year-old officer was not identified.

Williams-Tillman said she didn’t think twice about helping the officer. "It was something that went through my soul," she said. "You don't think about the risk."

The police officer suffered a few wounds to his head. Williams-Tillman injured her wrist.

The officer and Williams-Tillman embraced in a hug after they were both treated at the hospital.

I say fire more shots a cross the ******* border more often and we'll see a drop in border incursions

giujohn wrote:

I say fire more shots a cross the ******* border more often and we'll see a drop in border incursions

Exactly, John. We should have bot machine guns blasting 24/7 all along the border. That would learn they sorry ass, eh?

I suppose someone could try to make that argument but it would be hard to see why the profusion of free speech and free press over the web would change the underlying purpose of the 1st Amendment. More words moving around faster and distributed more widely — it's still just words and ideas (and money, thanks to Citizens United). It would be difficult to argue that the founders only intended a certain quantity of free speech; it doesn't make sense.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

More evidence of the problems that occur when an 18th Century anachronism becomes enshrined and firearms become a fetish for the fearful.

But seriously, constitutional interpretation aside, why are military-styled weapons, which are designed to throw out a lot of lead (inaccurately) in a short period of time necessary for purposes of self-defense? Why start a civilian arms race? Actually it's well under way, but why promote it?

(inaccurately)

in a short period of time for purposes of self-defense

Why start a civilian arms race? Actually it's well under way, but why promote it?

More evidence of the problems that occur when an 18th Century anachronism becomes enshrined and firearms become a fetish for the fearful.

But seriously, constitutional interpretation aside, why are military-styled weapons, which are designed to throw out a lot of lead (inaccurately) in a short period of time necessary for purposes of self-defense? Why start a civilian arms race? Actually it's well under way, but why promote it?

Why start a civilian arms race? Actually it's well under way, but why promote it?

Quote:

Why start a civilian arms race? Actually it's well under way, but why promote it?

To make money. What else?

Yup. That's the key motivation in this. And this includes NRA biggies who get paid a million a year, personally.

Given the wording of the amendment I find it difficult to believe that the founders had in mind a citizenry armed with the latest military firearms holed up in their homes waiting for some hapless intruder to open the door.

I know, you'll ask who made me a constitutional authority. So I'll let Justice Stevens make the point:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

But when a decision like this is decided in a 5-4 vote in a highly politicized atmosphere, it gives one reason to believe that the decision could be overturned in the future by a 5-4 (or greater) majority. It could happen.

The dissenters in Heller were not radicals or authoritarians bent on suppressing freedom. They just held a different interpretation which had been in the judicial mainstream for years.

Quote:

When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function ... If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only—and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.[219]

- Justice Ginsburg op cit

And even under the currently recognized right as an issue of "self-defense" it's hard to see why some 75 year old grandmother in a crack-infested housing project needs an AK 47 and a banana clip or a 50 caliber sniper rifle. Just sayin', you know?

You know nothing about guns and continue to prove that with every post you make.

Designed to throw out a lot of lead : Says who? Source material? Have you ever fired an AR-15?

What civilian arms race?

I missed the part where they said the militia should only be equipped with obsolete weapons.

That's a nice way to have a conversation — accuse someone of being totally ignorant. Okay.

My point, Baldimo, is that you don't need modern military-styled weapons to protect yourself in the case of a home intrusion.

Maybe in the case of a zombie apocalypse but not to protect the cash register at the local bodega. The "militarized" guns being sold today are marketed specifically for that purpose — to pander to a certain type of customer:

I never mentioned the AR-15.

And yes, I've fired the M-16 on semi-auto and full auto.

But just having the option of high-capacity magazines on a semi-auto changes the character of the weapon, gives it more offensive capability.

As far as hunting goes, and for the type of hunting I do, a big, slow bullet works just fine and I don't need fifty rounds ready to chamber.

Every time there's a major gun incident, such as Sandy Hook, there's a predictable upswing in gun sales.

"The ADL, which is headquartered in Manhattan, got a bomb threat this morning, very similar to the bomb threats that have come in, as you said, to 70-some odd Jewish community centers in 27 states over the past two months,"

This President has accomplished more in three weeks than most president's accomplish in their full terms in office

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's promised investigation into his unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud has consisted, so far, of naming a task force.

Where do you see that they intended a certain amount of infringement?

We've already banned military weapons and, for the most part, America is ok with that.