THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Advocate wrote:

There are no exceptions to the rights in the B of R. The "yelling fire" thing is not an exception to the first amendment because, since it results in an immediate response. As such, it constitutes an action (as opposed to speech).

There are some conflicts between the various rights.

Please enlighten us as to what conflicts
there are among the rights of the Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

I don't feel motivated to accept your assignment. Do you disagree?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I don't feel motivated to accept your assignment.
Do you disagree?

Yes.

I attribute your refusal more to your lack of ability
to do so, rather than to your motivation.

David

0 Replies

I'm easy.

A judge will not allow TV coverage of a trial. Courttv argues that this violates the first amendment. The judge replies that allowing coverage would violate the right to a fair trial under the fourth and fifth amendments.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I'm easy.

A judge will not allow TV coverage of a trial. Courttv argues that this violates the first amendment.
The judge replies that allowing coverage would violate the right to a fair trial
under the fourth and fifth amendments.

( By what reasoning is the 4th Amendment involved ??
It is concerned with unwarranted searches n seizures. )

I will concede surface plausibility
to these propositions; however,
to my mind, thay will not withstand in-depth analysis.

Examination of the text of the First Amendment reveals
that it does NOT say that someone can do anything he wants,
as long as he works for a newspaper.
By extrapolation of the notion that a newspaper reporter
has the constitutional right to force his way into a trial,
we r inexorably led to his right to cover the jury deliberations,
to cover planning sessions of criminal investigatiions by police
or strategic n tactical planning sessions by the military in time of war
and then to reveal them to the world.
It is more than obvious that the Founders had none of this in mind.

Under the 6th Amendment, a criminal defendant
has the right to a public trial,
so that trials wud not be like the Star Chamber procedings
or the Spanish Inquisition.

The Founders meant only that anyone can write whatever he pleases,
without prior restraint, and perhaps can be held accountable
( tortiously or criminally ), for the consequences.

Candor moves me to admit
that I have not undertaken a dedicated analysis
of the Constitution to ascertain whether
any of the rights protected by it
stand in conflict with one another.

I doubt that this is the case,
but I 'll grant the possibility that
some instance thereof might have escaped my attention.
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Advocate wrote:
I don't feel motivated to accept your assignment.
Do you disagree?

Yes.

I attribute your refusal more to your lack of ability
to do so, rather than to your motivation.

David

Good shot, Dave!

Keep up the good work.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Advocate wrote:
I don't feel motivated to accept your assignment.
Do you disagree?

Yes.

I attribute your refusal more to your lack of ability
to do so, rather than to your motivation.

David

Good shot, Dave!

Keep up the good work.

I would like to buy you a drink. You impress easily.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We have had several IMPARTIAL respected experts on English grammar
analyze the 2nd Amendment, all of whom agreed that the operative clause concerning the right of the people was in no way limited by the considerations of the militia.

One of my tenants, an English professor of Queens College NY, a liberal Democrat with whom I 've had many ideological debates, agrees that this is the only grammatically correct understanding of the amendment.

The amemdment could as easily read:

Quote:

Due to the well known fact that a wet bird never flies at night, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The dependent clause is merely a motivation; the clear statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is the law.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

They say that in extreme cases, penis envy can be fatal; you might want to get yourself checked out.

What a great come back. I'm just so in awe. Wow, you're even BIGGER loser than I first imagined. It must really tiny. Does that great big gun help your self esteem?

Doesn't sound like it would take much to feel more "self esteem" than YOU do; a cap gun maybe....

The actual fact is that I hunt pretty nearly exclusively with bows and that won't change until I get out of the mid Atlantic area in about four years, and that two or three years often pass from one time I ever touch a pistol to the next.

At least that's been the case until now. A lot of people are having to re-evaluate the question of how many people society really needs walking around doing the concealed carry thing in shopping malls or other high value targets for whackos and terrorists. The answer seems to be more than you'd have thought previously.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Advocate wrote:
I don't feel motivated to accept your assignment.
Do you disagree?

Yes.

I attribute your refusal more to your lack of ability
to do so, rather than to your motivation.

David

Good shot, Dave!

Keep up the good work.

Its always good to see u.
I have been fond of u since, and during, Abuzz.

I hope u had a good weekend.
David

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We have had several IMPARTIAL respected experts on English grammar
analyze the 2nd Amendment, all of whom agreed that the operative clause concerning the right of the people was in no way limited by the considerations of the militia.

One of my tenants, an English professor of Queens College NY, a liberal Democrat with whom I 've had many ideological debates, agrees that this is the only grammatically correct understanding of the amendment.

The amemdment could as easily read:

Quote:

Due to the well known fact that a wet bird never flies at night, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The dependent clause is merely a motivation; the clear statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is the law.

THAT 's ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

We are also informed as to whom these rights belong.

In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

" The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' ".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE " THE PEOPLE " AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the National Guard
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined
"the people" to mean those people who have a right peaceably to
assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment] in their persons
houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).

THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, and
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are
protected by the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e., the people who can speak and worship freely can bear arms.

It is most noteworthy that the Court RELIED upon its definition of
"the people". Its conclusion in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition,
so that stare decisis attaches, thus creating binding judicial precedent,
explaining WHO THE PEOPLE ARE who have the said rights
David

0 Replies

OSD, ou remind me of Bush a little bit. Like bush, you say we should ignore what we see with our own eyes, and instead believe what Bush says.

It is a crazy stretch to read the second amendment and accept your interpretation.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Quote:
OSD, ou remind me of Bush a little bit.

I reject that comparison.

I voted for both of the Bushes.
I did not like either of the Bushes, and still don 't.

When Reagan chose Bush,
I deemed it a mistake; I still believe that.

I am a supporter of personal freedom,
as envisioned by the Authors of the Constitution.

Quote:

Like bush, you say we should ignore what we see with our own eyes,
and instead believe what Bush says.

That 's a lie. ( I challenge u to PROVE that, and I predict that u will not even try. )
I never said that.
I did not imply it.
I do not believe it.

Quote:

It is a crazy stretch to read the second amendment and accept your interpretation.

Almost 100% of the legal intelligentsia,
as represented in their law review articles
( including such liberals as Harvard Law School 's Prof. Alan Dershowitz )
agree with the pro-freedom, individual rights position,
which has been adopted among academics as the " Standard Model "

Truely and sincerely:
U allow your ill conceived EMOTIONS
to blind u to the objective historical reality of the matter.

1. We know from their writings that NONE of the Founders
wrote in support of " gun control. "
They were all libertarians and individualists.
( except insofar as gun laws
REQUIRED civilians to be armed; that was THEIR gun control )

I challenge u to find even ONE opinion from the 1700s
in support of discriminatory licensure of personal weaponry,
or registration thereof. They do not exist.

In truth, if they were able to speak now,
they 'd condemn the NRA and Wayne LaPierre,
as a sell-out, compromise,
give-away-the-store, organization.

They all shared a l'aissez faire philosophy
of personal defensive armament ( subject to the aforesaid exception )

They ENCOURAGED gunnery competitions among private citizens,
with prizes for the winners, administered by ( among others, James Madison ).
There were no police anywhere in the USA, nor in England,
until the following century; everyone was expected to take care of himself.
His life depended on that. ( Prove me rong. )

2. As I said before, all professional experts in parsing
the English grammar of the text of the 2nd Amendment agree
that it protects an individual right, independent of any militia.
U suppressionists have NEVER offered the analysis of ANY
professional grammarian to deny this.
I challenge u to do so.
David

0 Replies

Now according to OSD, we are gonna need guns at malls also to avoid being victimized...

So OSD , where does it end?

"Bring more guns in to solve the gun problem" how can you not recognize the cognitive dissonance in your arguments?

0 Replies

astromouse wrote:

Now according to OSD, we are gonna need guns at malls also to avoid being victimized...

So OSD , where does it end?

"Bring more guns in to solve the gun problem" how can you not recognize the cognitive dissonance in your arguments?

It does not end;
your question is like asking a motorist
when he will stop carrying a spare tire in the trunk of his car,
or asking a homeowner when he will reject and eject
all fire extinguishers from his home.

It is like asking the citizens of Vermont or of Alaska,
who have NO gun laws ( and low crime rates ):
when will u relinquish the freedom to carry around
any guns that u choose ? or when will u relinquish the right to vote ?
David

0 Replies

I advocate that people who have proven that thay r dangerous,
as feloniously violent recidivists,
or
as being overtly mentally disturbed, with violent tendencies,
be BANISHED and removed from contact with polite society.

The DANGER is in those defective PEOPLE,
not in their tools.

Let 's not blame a man 's obesity on his forks and spoons.

Let 's not blame rain on the possession of umbrellas.
David

0 Replies

OSD, you say that the founders required people to own weapons. What is your support for that statement?

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see how anyone can read the above and say that it refers to an individual right. You can't escape that the militia clause is dependent. Thus, it is clear that the right to bear is in the context of a militia.

0 Replies

A Deadly Misreading
Shahid Buttar
April 30, 2007

Shahid Buttar is a lawyer and recording artist in Washington, D.C.

Last week's shootings at Virginia Tech were a regrettably familiar spectacle: Americans unleashing inexplicably horrendous violence upon one another, followed by deafening silence from lawmakers unwilling to challenge the National Rife Association and other interest groups promoting "gun rights." But before committing themselves to such shocking timidity, neither policymakers nor their constituents should pretend that any constitutional values are threatened by getting guns off our streets and saving lives.

The Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms. Like the First Amendment, it includes both a public and private dimension. For instance, the First Amendment protects the individual's right to speech?-but in the service of a corresponding public right to the free exchange of information and perspectives. Similarly, the Second Amendment's private "right ... to keep and bear arms" serves a broader, more important function of preserving a popular check on potentially tyrannical government.

The context of the Second Amendment indicates its central meaning. It explicitly contemplates a "well-regulated militia," and immediately follows the First Amendment (guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly) and precedes the Third and Fourth Amendments (protecting citizens from being forced to house soldiers or submit to unreasonable searches or seizures). In this context, the central concern of the Founders?-enabling We the People to defend ourselves from government run amok?-is quite clear. The Second Amendment is ultimately an escape hatch, intended by the Framers to enable popular uprisings were our government to grow unhinged from popular accountability.

While the private right ensured by the Second Amendment is widely trumpeted by gun advocates, its public dimension is rarely discussed. But its implications are crucial in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. The Second Amendment's public meaning not only suggests the legitimacy of laws restricting gun ownership, but also counsels drastic measures to roll back the ongoing criminalization of nonviolent political dissent.

On the one hand, a right to armed rebellion may seem archaic today. But the right was historically non-controversial. The framers themselves took up arms to overthrow imperial British rule and establish our constitutional Republic.

Moreover, no right is absolute. Even the most precious liberties are subject to judicial scrutiny, and the authorization of restrictions where justified. The Supreme Court once went so far as to allow the arbitrary detention of a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans under its strictest standard of scrutiny. While the individual right to bear a weapon may remain legitimate in the abstract, legislatures have every right to deem the public interest in preventing mass murder sufficiently compelling to enact a law narrowly tailored to address it. In Britain, for instance, regulations on gun ownership have proven largely successful in preventing gun violence.

Finally, the right need not encompass armed rebellion, despite the Amendment's textual emphasis on "arms." When construed intelligently, constitutional provisions are translated to preserve their meaning in the face of changes in social circumstances over time. The Fourth Amendment's protections against seizures, for instance, have been read to apply to electronic surveillance, which did not exist when the framers wrote the Amendment's text. The Second Amendment could similarly require a right to assertive citizen assembly?-not merely to express dissent, but to claim power over public institutions occupied by non-violent dissidents. At the very least, it prohibits the escalating imposition of restrictions on non-violent acts of protest.

Yet jurisdictions around the country have increasingly impeded concerned citizens from raising their collective voice. During the 2004 Republican National Convention, the New York Police Department infiltrated peaceful activist groups and arrested nearly 2,000 people?-many without probable cause, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and settlements. Earlier this month, reports emerged that, during a 2002 protest in Washington, a secret FBI unit illegally detained and harassed a group of anti-war activists.

But the Second Amendment guarantees a right to resistance. At the very least, these abuses should not take five years to come to light, nor should they be addressed only after-the-fact. Gestapo tactics by local police departments and federal authorities to intimidate non-violent dissidents should be struck down as unconstitutional.

This week, admitting that "[t]he history of the intelligence community is replete with instances of abuse of civil liberties," undersecretary of defense for intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. announced the closure of the controversial TALON database. We should not be forced to rely upon conscientious public servants to check their own authority. It was precisely for times like these that the Second Amendment was created: to guarantee a right to citizen insurrection?-not a right to impose risks on communities by forcing open the door to weapons, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did when recently striking down the District's public safety laws.

The Founders meant to equip us with tools to keep our government on a leash. But as the gun lobby contorts those principles, they instead place Americans at the mercy of our most violent individuals, while leaving us unable to challenge unresponsive government. We allow the Constitution's co-optation at our own peril, lying in wait for the inevitable next set of unnecessary deaths in a long, agonizing series of tragic massacres.
--TomPaine.com

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

While it creeps me out to agree with cj, the fact that we in AMerica cant control gun access to the unstable because the NRA, through state legislatures (and Congress) has effectively blocked any common sense approaches,

I don't believe that is a fair charge. What "common sense" approach has been blocked by the NRA?

Despite the fact that I don't think it is a fair charge *against the NRA*, I should point out that I personally think it is a good idea to block all new gun laws (even those that are reasonable and would save lives) until such time as the government decides to stop violating our Constitutional gun rights.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Try as I may, I cant think of a single argument to support the case for carrying a semi automatic pistol, except that for some immature individuals it makes them feel good.

Another good reason is that it can make a mature individual feel good.

And yet another good reason is that such a gun can be used to defend against criminals.

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know