THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

cjhsa wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Hey Cyclops, the last time I checked, only 12 people had licenses to carry concealed firearms within the city of San Francisco.

One of them is Diane Feinstein.

So what?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you're not posting from Iraq, and you're not a cop, you don't need a gun.

Americans are free people. We don't have to need a gun. We just have to decide that we want one.

Deciding that you want something isn't a good reason to allow someone to have something, sorry.

When it comes to something we have the Constitutional right to have (such as an automatic rifle), it is indeed good enough.

In addition, when it is something that people are legally allowed to have (such as a concealed handgun if they choose to get a permit), it is also good enough.

And when it comes to perfectly reasonable requests (like a change in company policy to allow concealed carry on the premises with a valid state permit), it is also good enough.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For example, I've decided that I'd like a tank, three pipe bombs and a grenade launcher.

You should be able to get the tank no problem if you can afford it. No such luck on the pipe bombs. The grenade launcher will depend mostly on what state you live in.

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you're not posting from Iraq, and you're not a cop, you don't need a gun.

Americans are free people. We don't have to need a gun. We just have to decide that we want one.

Deciding that you want something isn't a good reason to allow someone to have something, sorry.

When it comes to something we have the Constitutional right to have (such as an automatic rifle), it is indeed good enough.

You don't have a constitutional right to an automatic rifle, sorry.

oralloy wrote:

And when it comes to perfectly reasonable requests (like a change in company policy to allow concealed carry on the premises with a valid state permit), it is also good enough.

Sorry, you're incorrect. Your personal definition of 'reasonable' is immaterial to this.

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For example, I've decided that I'd like a tank, three pipe bombs and a grenade launcher.

You should be able to get the tank no problem if you can afford it. No such luck on the pipe bombs. The grenade launcher will depend mostly on what state you live in.

Maybe, but my desire for these objects has nothing to do with the legal status of said objects; nor should it.

Constitution says otherwise. So does the Supreme Court. (In response to being told that the Constitution does not guarantee your right to own an automatic rifle)

". . . in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

oralloy wrote:

Constitution says otherwise. So does the Supreme Court.
(In response to being told that the Constitution does not guarantee your right to own an automatic rifle)

Quote:

The Constitution does not specify what arms members of a well regulated militia may keep and bear.

This assertion is the false product of your ignorance.

What arms the people have rights to keep and bear,
the US Supreme Court has told us in US v. MILLER (1939) 3O7 US 174,
that they should be "ordinary military equipment ...
AYMETTE v. STATE 2 Hump. [21 Tenn.] 154, 158."

The AYMETTE case, which the Supreme Court approvingly adopted declares:
"the arms, the right to keep which is secured,
are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare,
and that constitute ordinary military equipment.

If the citizens have these arms in their hands,
they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel
any encroachments on their rights."

Quote:

Furthermore, the Supremes have only reviewed one case
based on a Second Amendment challenge, a challenge of the National Firearms Act of 1934. In United States versus Miller, et al, 1939, the Court upheld the NFA, and, having reviewed the evidence that the Second Amendment is intended to provide a body of adult males for service in a militia, commented:

". . . in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment
or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

This case adds up to the following:
defendants defeated the US government in the trial court,
by asserting the 2nd Amendment in defense of possessing
an unregistered sawn off shotgun, of less than 18" barrel.
After this victory, thay vanished and were never seen again.

US gov 't appealed to USSC; defendant appellees defaulted
in appearance, and only the government was heard in this case.
No one represented the side of freedom
as protected by the Bill of Rights.

The USSC found that the trial court shud have taken evidence
as to the use of a shotgun to a militia,
in that sawn off condition. Inasmuch as the interests of freedom
were not represented during this appeal in the USSC,
no one told the court that thay had been used as trench brooms in WWI.

The USSC found that the trial court had erred
in simply taking judicial notice that the sawn off shotgun
was of use to any militia, and remanded the case for further procedings
to ascertain this issue of fact,
inasmuch as THE 2nd AMENDMENT ONLY PROTECTS THE POSSESSION
OF MILITARY WEAPONS, and this was in question;
i.e., if this shotgun was of no use as an ordinary military weapon
( by reason of its mutilation ),
then its possession was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment;
e.g., in other words,
if defendants had sawn off the entire barrel,
and kept only part of the wooden stock,
then private possession of that chunk of wood
wud not be protected by the 2nd Amendment,
as it cud no longer be used as an ordinary military weapon,
and that amendment only protects the possession of ordinary weapons.


If the defendants had been arrested n prosecuted
for possession of an unregistered submachinegun,
then this issue wud never have arisen
and the lower court 's decision voiding the federal statute
for violating the Bill of Rights wud not have been disputed
because everyone knows that submachineguns are USEFUL military weapons,
whereas the USSC was not so sure of whether
a shotgun was still of any use as a military weapon
if its barrel were sawn off.

On remand, the case was tried without
the missing defendants, and again, no one
defended the Bill of Rights,
no one represented the side of freedom

Quote:

Therefore, it is a lie that the Supreme Court has ever said
that anyone has a right to own an automatic rifle. You shouldn't peddle lies.

Q.E.D, in light of the foregoing,
it is shown that the USSC did say
( reference to the cited AYMETTE case )
that possession of " ordinary military equipment "
( e.g., automatic rifles like the M 16 ) is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
( Thay make sweet home defense weapons
against burglars, too; short range, very little recoil,
not much noise, rapid rate of fire, decent magazine capacity.
My personal favorite is the supercompact 9mm H & K MP 5 KA4.
I think that 'd put a dent in the burglary business. )


The USSC went out of its way,
repeatedly, to point out that the militia were
just about everyone who cud lift a gun,
in Colonial times, and in the early Republic,
which only makes common sense,
since thay often had to desperately fight for their lives against
"... the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare,
is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions "
as Thomas Jefferson put it.



U shud not peddle your ignorance n confusion.

David

Are you guys still at it

oralloy wrote:

Constitution says otherwise. So does the Supreme Court. (In response to being told that the Constitution does not guarantee your right to own an automatic rifle)

Bullshit. The Constitution does not specify what arms members of a well regulated militia may keep and bear.

Furthermore, the Supremes have only reviewed one case based on a Second Amendment challenge, a challenge of the National Firearms Act of 1934. In United States versus Miller, et al, 1939, the Court upheld the NFA, and, having reviewed the evidence that the Second Amendment is intended to provide a body of adult males for service in a militia, commented:

Quote:

". . . in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Therefore, it is a lie that the Supreme Court has ever said that anyone has a right to own an automatic rifle. You shouldn't peddle lies.

Setanta wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Constitution says otherwise. So does the Supreme Court. (In response to being told that the Constitution does not guarantee your right to own an automatic rifle)

Bullshit. The Constitution does not specify what arms members of a well regulated militia may keep and bear.

Given the fact that the Second Amendment was put in place to prevent the government from abusing its "power to arm the militia" by instead disarming the militia, it most certainly covers any weapon that a militia would find necessary to function. And in today's world, an automatic rifle is definitely the bare minimum for militia use.

Setanta wrote:

Furthermore, the Supremes have only reviewed one case based on a Second Amendment challenge, a challenge of the National Firearms Act of 1934. In United States versus Miller, et al, 1939, the Court upheld the NFA, and, having reviewed the evidence that the Second Amendment is intended to provide a body of adult males for service in a militia, commented:

Quote:

". . . in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Therefore, it is a lie that the Supreme Court has ever said that anyone has a right to own an automatic rifle. You shouldn't peddle lies.

The Supreme Court's ruling was a confirmation of the argument that the Second Amendment protects the right of people to have weapons of the sort that a militia would use to defend our country, and does not cover the sorts of weapons that have no use in a militia.

Under the Miller ruling, if someone could show that possession of a sawed off shotgun was of use to the militia, then that weapon would be covered by the Second Amendment.

Now, if you can establish that automatic rifles would be of no use to a militia in defending our country, then you'd have a plausible case that the Supreme Court has ruled that I don't have the right to have them.

But so long as automatic rifles are of use to the militia in defending our country, the Supreme Court says that I have the right to have them.

Quote:

OSD, happily, most of the courts disagree with you.

Some politically correct, leftist ones have,
and that is indeed the occasion for happiness for violent criminals,
who will enjoy a better degree of personal safety on-the-job,
as thay light-heartedly commit their robberies and murders,
in the knowledge that it is less likely that their victims
will be able to defend themselves before thay are slaughtered
( like Columbine and V. T. ).

This philosophy represents a partnership between
politically correct government and recidivistic criminals with blood on their hands.
Almost 100% of the legal intelligentsia of academia
( including such liberals as Havard Law 's Prof. Alan Dershowitz )
favor " the standard " model of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

From reading the writings of the Authors of the Bill of Rights,
we know that their mindset was to the right of the NRA.
James Madison used to hold frequent gunnery competitions
for the citizens, with prizes for the best accuracy.
We have a letter from Thomas Jefferson to his 12 year old nephew,
reminding him to always take his gun with him when he goes out to walk.

Quote:

Under your interpretation, gun control is unconstitutional.

Yes.

Both the Federalists and the Antifederalists
argued that the citizens shud always be sufficiently well armed
to remove the government ( as thay had just successfully done )
if thay found that necessary; thay needed the tools to do so.

US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845)
put it this way:
" The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms
has justly been considered as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic
since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power
of the rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them." [ emphasis added ]

Judge Thomas Cooley reiterated that idea, adding:
" The meaning of the provision... is that the people
...shall have the right to keep and bear arms and
they need no permission or
regulation of law for the purpose." [ emphasis added ]





ALL professional grammarians of the English language
who have been consulted to parse the 2nd Amendment
( including a liberal Democrat English professor at Queens College
who is a tenant of mine who engages me in frequent debate
on many issues of ideology ) have agreed that the 2nd Amendment
protects a pre-existing absolute right that is independent of any militia
requirement ( the militia clause merely declaring motivation ).

I challenge u to disprove me and the professional grammarians, Advocate.
The suppressionists have NEVER found a grammarian to support
their anti-freedom philosophy by parsing the amendment.
Am I right or am I right ?

Quote:

As you know, at least for the time being, gun control is alive and well.

For the future VICTIMS only, not for the criminal predators:
exult, Advocate !

I suggest you read http://stubbornfacts.us/botj/punctuation_wounds_the_second_amendment_and_strict_grammar

An excellent point is made, which is that the founders, should they have wished to make an unconditioned right to bear, would not have added wording about a militia.

I suggest you read http://stubbornfacts.us/botj/punctuation_wounds_the_second_amendment_and_strict_grammar

An excellent point is made, which is that the founders, should they have wished to make an unconditioned right to bear, would not have added wording about a militia.

The framers purposely kept their proceedings secret and said there would be no legislative history relative to the constitution.

Gunga, the recent decision is less than a blockbuster. It was by a majority of a three-person PANEL of the circuit court. The decision only applies within the area covered by the circuit court's jurisdiction, and it will, as was said, be appealed.

You can't escape that the militia clause is dependent.