THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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,

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.