THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Half, saying a judge is results-oriented ain't a compliment in the legal community. But we know that you are the final arbiter on such matters. The Gore case particulars are tangential to this discussion. Can't you stay on topic?

I see you are somewhat of a literalist. Most people avoid literalists as being bores.

0 Replies

Advocate:

I will take your word for it, I don't get to talk to many Judges. I WILL insure that I don't call him "results oriented" if I happen across one.

Why are you beating me up about the Gore case? You brought it up. Your 25Oct07 9;23am Post Nr. 2914801. Confused

I don't see how being a literalist is derogatory. Since I cannot see your face, look into your eyes to see if there is truth there or no, to be able to read your body language as you speak and to listen to the tone of your voice.... I have little else to go on except to assume that you write exactly what you mean. Literally! Cool

Perhaps your assumption that I might be boring might come from my reluctance to engage in gigantic, spiteful, ad hominem, pissing contests in these threads rather than trying to enguage in, at least, SOME meaningful conversation/debate. (****, no fun in that, right?)

Kinda like a NASCAR race; "Kinda borin', 'ceptin' there be a crash or two! (No, I'm not a fan of NASCAR.)

Halfback

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Advocate wrote:
If the constitution does not proscribe gun control, and most courts agree it doesn't, then gun control laws, such as those you mentioned, are not unconstitutional.

That is incorrect. It is hardly a case of "all gun control is constitutional" vs. "all gun control is unconstitutional".

Look at freedom of speech. Some laws restricting it are OK (no yelling fire in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire, no libel and slander, etc). But that hardly means that all restrictions on speech are allowed.

You need to understand just what the Constitution says, and whether a given law conflicts with it. And the gun laws I mentioned most definitely conflict with the Constitution.

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.

All speech is an action. By taking some speech and saying it may be regulated in some respects, the court is examining each circumstance on a case by case basis to see if it violates constitutional principles.

0 Replies

The rights in 1A are absolute. There are no exceptions.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The rights in 1A are absolute. There are no exceptions.

They are certainly as absolute as our right to have automatic rifles.

But all rights have limits, including the rights in the First Amendment.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:
The rights in 1A are absolute. There are no exceptions.

They are certainly as absolute as our right to have automatic rifles.

But all rights have limits, including the rights in the First Amendment.

There are many people like you who don't understand the constitution. I defy you to show me any legal statement supporting an exception to 1A.

In 2A, the exception is built in. That is, you have a right to bear, but only in the context of a militia. Thus, the government may chose to control your right if you are not part of a militia.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Half, saying a judge is results-oriented ain't a compliment in the legal community.
But we know that you are the final arbiter on such matters.
The Gore case particulars are tangential to this discussion. Can't you stay on topic?

I see you are somewhat of a literalist. Most people avoid literalists as being bores.

Please note that I am a literalist
and will continue as such.
David

0 Replies

For anybody who might have missed it or not figured it out...

There are two basic definitions of an assault weapon, i.e. a political and a military definition.

The political definition is basically just about anything which, on a scale of one to ten for being scary looking to democrats, goes much over a six.

The real military definition is more complex. Most assume a weapon has to be at least semi-automatic and preferably automatic to qualify but, in real life, that's not really necessary. In fact in real life, most people attempting to fire any military weapon in full auto mode will never hit anything with it.

What you really want and need for an assault weapon are things which work well in assault situations:

Big enough to injure a human adversary badly enough to take him out of the battle.
Otherwise fairly small, easy to load up with lots of ammo and carry lots of ammo around.
Accurate.
Quick (aimed) follow on shots. This eliminates the idea of taking 600 meter shots with an assault rifle. One guy in the squad carries something which CAN do that.
Light, easy to manipulate.

Add to that list the ideas that it would be good if the thing never jammed and were easy to clean. Add all of that up, and what I come up with is a lot different from the pictures you usually see:

http://san1.atlanta.gbhinc.com/GB/079808000/79808244/pix1781926187.jpg

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=79808244

That's basically a Henry lever-action rifle in 22 wmr caliber, which is basically a $330 item on Gunbroker or at BassPro or Gander Mountain. Couple that with some of the hotter WMR ammo and you have a 40-gr bullet moving just over 2000 fps which can be totally cleaned by pulling one of your string type cleaners through the bore.

That as I see it is your ultimate assault weapon. Pretty scary, huh?

0 Replies

What do u think of the H & K MP 7 ?
very lightly calibrated; 4.6mm

David

0 Replies

Advocate,
I have not forgotten about getting back to u
qua that USSC case,
but I 'm on my way to Chicago for HalloweeM.
David

0 Replies

Advocate, would you like to join my militia? I'm trying to come up with a name.

0 Replies

Is it a well regulated militia ?
or a government sponsored militia ?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

What do u think of the H & K MP 7 ?
very lightly calibrated; 4.6mm

David

Hadn't read about it previously...

Thinking is similar to what I described above except they're sticking with centerfire ammo while for my own ultimate assault rifle (the Henry) I'd want rimfire and I'd probably want to get with ammo manufacturers and ask about the possibility of something just a tad bigger than the 22 wmr, as close as possible to a 50-gr bullet moving at 2500 fps or thereabouts, but still rimfire.

Funny thing about semiauto weapons, they seem to be wonderful for civilian use since civilians don't spend two weeks at a time out in jungles or deserts, but all the things you hear soldiers cry over are the same things which afflict semiautos but not a lever-action.

The things lever-actions are good at, they're REAL good at; small rimfire ammo is one example. Take a look at the receiver on a Marlin 39a:

A grain of sand would have a hell of a time getting into that....

0 Replies

For some reason in my mind I have this cartoon picture of gunga never cleaning his gun and one day the barrel splitting open and his face is all black.

0 Replies

http://www.able2know.org/forums/images/avatars/4987667544282af218b2a4.jpg

You know, one thing you MIGHT try would be slapping some of the new generation hair tonics on that kid and putting a leash on it..

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Half, saying a judge is results-oriented ain't a compliment in the legal community.
But we know that you are the final arbiter on such matters.
The Gore case particulars are tangential to this discussion. Can't you stay on topic?

I see you are somewhat of a literalist. Most people avoid literalists as being bores.

Please note that I am a literalist
and will continue as such.
David

That's sad! Recognizing when someone is speaking or writing figuratively eases conversation among intelligent people.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Advocate, would you like to join my militia? I'm trying to come up with a name.

Depends on what you are paying!

Dave, have a nice time on Halloween. Being a scary guy, you should have a blast (no pun intended).

0 Replies

Advocate:

Reference your 25Oct07 5:51pm #2915444;

1) In Schenck vs United States a unanimous Court argued the Congress could supress words "used in such circumstances and.... of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Oliver Wendell Holmes)

2) In Dennis vs United States The "Smith Act" was upheld wherein it was a crime to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advice, or teach the desirability of overthrowing government in the United States by force or violence."

3) The "Official Secrets Act" is another legal restriction of 1st amendment rights.

Having shown that there are instances of 1st Amendment rights being tempered by both Law and in the Supreme Court...... it is just another instance of an area where us "literalists" MUST pay close attention to with the idea of insuring that the Government does not exceed it's authority.

Whereas the context of a "militia" might be the guiding light in your quest for "gun control", if your refer to my 25Oct07 6:30am #2914465 Para 3 (a recent decision, no less), you will find a ruling that outlines the basic thrust of legal thinking concerning the 2nd amendment. Note that it is NOT contingent on the "militia".

We have been in agreement that some control of gun ownership is in order, and I have told you what I think those limits should be confined to. Again, it is up to us "literalists" to insure that the Government does not exceed it's authority.

Halfback

0 Replies

Speaking of jamming, I've been shooting light target loads with 8-shot at partridge out of my 16-gauge A-5 this year, and twice it has failed to eject the shell casing without me realizing it. Of course the next bird got away as I "clicked" off a spent round.

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

Advocate:

Reference your 25Oct07 5:51pm #2915444;

1) In Schenck vs United States a unanimous Court argued the Congress could supress words "used in such circumstances and.... of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Oliver Wendell Holmes)

I DON'T KNOW THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BUT NOTE THE REFERENCE TO "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER." THUS, THERE IS IMMEDIACY, MEANING THAT THE WORDS ARE ACTIONS.

2) In Dennis vs United States The "Smith Act" was upheld wherein it was a crime to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advice, or teach the desirability of overthrowing government in the United States by force or violence."

THE SMITH ACT IS NOT ENFORCED DUE TO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS.

3) The "Official Secrets Act" is another legal restriction of 1st amendment rights.

SPEECH HERE IS NOT SUPPRESSED. HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE CRIMINAL OR CIVIL SANCTIONS WHEN SPEECH IS DAMAGING.

Having shown that there are instances of 1st Amendment rights being tempered by both Law and in the Supreme Court...... it is just another instance of an area where us "literalists" MUST pay close attention to with the idea of insuring that the Government does not exceed it's authority.

RONG!!!! 1a IS NOT TEMPERED.

Whereas the context of a "militia" might be the guiding light in your quest for "gun control", if your refer to my 25Oct07 6:30am #2914465 Para 3 (a recent decision, no less), you will find a ruling that outlines the basic thrust of legal thinking concerning the 2nd amendment. Note that it is NOT contingent on the "militia".

AS STATED PREVIOUSLY SEVERAL TIMES, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ROGUE CASES SUPPORTING AN UNFETTERED RIGHT TO BEAR. BUT GUN CONTROL IS OVERWHELMINGLY THE LAW OF THE LAND.

We have been in agreement that some control of gun ownership is in order, and I have told you what I think those limits should be confined to. Again, it is up to us "literalists" to insure that the Government does not exceed it's authority.

IF THE RIGHT TO BEAR IS UNFETTERED, THERE CAN BE NO GUN CONTROL. I GUESS EVEN DAVE NOW REALIZES THAT THE RIGHT IS NOT UNFETTERED.

Halfback

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know