THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Walt, I don't want to get on ya about ESL but stick to what you know.


proscribe \proh-SKRYB\, transitive verb:
1. To denounce, condemn, or forbid as harmful; to prohibit.
2. To put outside the protection of the law; to outlaw.

Well, it's from Latin, massa teacher.

But to give you some info beyond pre-school knowledge:

source: Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (25 Oct. 2007).

Eat me. You still don't know what it means.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Go ahead and rest your case. Your client is getting executed.

That's too kind of you, cjhsa.

Obviously, teaching Latin differs totally from the way it is learnt and studied outside the US.

"Learnt" is a term from British English that in the U.S. is looked upon as poor grammar.

Advocate:

Whatever in the world is wrong with a results oriented Supreme Court....or Congress.....or Executive Branch for that matter? I think the Country would be a lot better off if more attention would be paid to achieving the results "advertised" in legislation.

The law enacted by D of C and contested by Parker vs D of C, is a prime example of this. The law was, ostensibly, passed with the view toward reducing violent crime in the District. That the law failed to achieve the desired results is obvious. Moreover, it denied reasonable means by which D of C residents could protect themselves.

The Court of Appeals in D of C, in summary, noted: "....we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new Government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of firearms for activities such as hunting and self defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

Add to the above this interesting note: "Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers of Desease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control", have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime."

Which brings us all the way back to the simple observation: If you disarm the law abiding citizens, the only ones left with weapons are the bad guys.

The gun control laws enacted should have a limited goal in mind. That goal being the reduction of guns in the hands of criminals, mental cases, terrorists and "intellectually challanged" (See, I know PolCor Speak, too!). That laws enacted to target these individuals are of limited success, is moot.

The "gun control" laws that ARE enacted should be limited to the above...strictly. Some restriction IS required, and allowed, complete prohibition is NOT!

Passing "feel good" or "warm and fuzzy", emotionally appealing legislation that does not, under observation, attain the "advertised" results should be "reworked" to attain the desired results, or, failing that, repealed altogether. This applies to ALL legislation, no matter the topic.

The Constitution outlines those areas that the Federal Government is supposed to have it's hands in, and specifically states those not otherwise mentioned are remanded to the States or "The People". That the Federal Government has greatly exceeded it's authority in a number of areas (IMHO), and uses "Fed Funds" to bribe the States into compliance with the wishes of "Big Brother", I hold to be self evident.

When this country won it's independence from a "World Power", and the "Articles of Federation" proved not to work out.... a stronger central government was envisioned, with the caveat that the said central government would be limited in power. Hence the Constitution AND the amendments thereon.

I can think of nothing more seditious and frightening than those certain political "agendists" who contend that the Constitution is dated and should be completely "reworked"..... particularly when that "rework" seems to imply more "control" for the Central Government.

Well, hopefully not in my lifetime. I leave the future to the rest of you freedom loving individuals.

Halfback

For those of you out there seeking a righteous "label" to tack on me in the way of categorizing me prior to insulting me (covertly or blatantly), I will make it easy for you.

I believe in freedom, of each individual. I was brought up to be responsible for my actions, my success or failures along the way of life are MY responsibility, no one elses. If I fail, it is my fault.... no one elses, I do not try to pass the fault to some external source. (It is termed "externalization" in psycho-babble.)

I believe in the rights granted me under the Constitution and the limitations that same document places on the Government. I would not have spent twenty years in the service of this country if I had thought otherwise.

I believe that I have the duty to "help" the less fortunate of us. That "duty" ends with those who are capable of responding to "help" and bettering themselves yet takes no further action to "help" themselves.

As a result, I am strongly independant, self reliant and discipined in my actions. I look askance at a Government that attempts to meddle in my everyday life in the guise of telling me "It's good for you!" I would like to be the judge of that, thank you very much.

With the concept of freedom comes certain responsibilities. I accept those responsibilities and look askance at those who want the freedom but will not accept the responsibilities thereof. (For those of you who are into labeling, the terms greedy, selfish and "one way" come to mind for the aforementioned.)

I know that there are some of you out there who would wish that the entire country was one big happy family, happily sucking at the Government teat, warm and fuzzy in the embrace of an all encompassing "Big Brother". I, however, do not.

So, label away. I'm sure some of you may even come up with an unique one. :wink:

Halfback

The things you mentioned are not exceptions to freedom of speech. The courts have said that, for instance, yelling fire in a theater constitutes action, not speech, due to the immediacy of the act of yelling and the resulting riot. There is somewhat similar reasoning regarding slander.

cj, you must be desperate. Considering that he is a foreigner, his English is great. How good is your German? And don't tell us that you were merely helping out.

A judge might punch you if you accused him of being results-oriented. His decisions are supposed to be based on the law and evidence in the case, not on results that the judge would personally prefer.

For instance, in my view, the SC majority wanted to end Gore's fight for a recount. It ruled against him despite clear authority saying this should be a decision of the FL high court.

I am delighted that you view yourself as a rugged individualist. I am sure you avoid roads built and maintained by the state, public schools and libraries, government courts, government police protection, etc. The fact of the matter is that government regulation and services are the price we pay for a civilized society.

He trolls my posts. I try to help him stop....

That's fine. I was taught English at school, Britsih English.

S you are going to mark everyone's American English on this side now? I mean, since you were a moderator or thread adviser whatever - new job?

No comment.

You should: it's British, not Britsih.

But thanks for looking over that, anyway.

(Not that I make such faults in Latin additionally again: I'm trying to learn now American Latin - what books do you suggest for that, cjhsa?)

1) In that a judge does exactly what you propose is his job, I consider that results oriented. That the Supreme Court has the additional responsibility to review potentially unconstitutional laws has been long ago decided as true and proper for them. Anything else would give no recourse by the people to redress legislative action in violation of the Constitution (i.e. the law of the land). I consider that also results oriented.

The way you are trying to use the phrase, perhaps "agenda oriented" would be more precise. I agree that would be "wrong". :wink:

2) The way I read the "Gore" case, the Supreme Court passed it back to Florida Supreme Court with the admonishment that they rule based on their election laws. Those laws stipulated (at the time, it might have been changed since then) that Counties that could NOT report finalized results from the election within (I can't remember if it was 7 or 10 days) subsequent to the election, the results of those counties should be disallowed altogether.

The Florida Supreme Court granted an extention in violation of their own election laws. I suspect that the Presidential Election of the entire country resting on the Florida Election Law concerning deliquent reporting counties was never considered when the laws governing the Florida elections were written.

3) I have no problem with those fine institutions you mentioned, I might point out, however, that much, but not all, of the effort in the areas you noted are performed at the State level, not the Federal Level. I pay State taxes for those services and the Fed "kicks in" if the Government deems the cause "worthy of support".

I have no problem with Government regulation and services as long as it stays within the confines of the supreme law of the land (including amendments) as annotated and guarded by the Supreme Court AND goes along with the spirit of "equal treatment under the Law".

Thank you for your compliment.... I have found most people who excell at whatever endeavor (good or bad) are/were "rugged individualists".

As for "civilized society", there are a great many peoples/countries on this planet who will disagree that we (i.e. US) are "civilized" at all. Wrapping the trappings of technology around ourselves does not, necessarily, make us "civilized".

There are times when I go along with that condemnation, but it is not yet severe enough to cause me to loose hope.

Halfback

Yoiks! I had a terrible time with Latin in High School! Learned Turkish under a year's worth of total immersion curtesy of the US Gov't. (I still have dreams in Turkish despite the fact that it was 30+ years ago.) Now I have a martial arts master who insists we learn Korean as part and parcel of Tae Kwan Do training. (I did 7 years of Karate, in 4 different dojos and no one suggested I learn Japanese!)

So, much as I would like to be one of those "gifted" in languages.... alas, I am not. Thank God there are enough posters in here who are able to post in English from overseas that I might partake of their opinions and ideas. Thanks to you all. (I won't hold you to correct syntax or spelling, either. I have enough of that problem myself. )

Halfback

Just for the report, ehem record, I mean:

Third response, first page:



55 pages later, cjhsa's first response on this thread:

You have a point there.