THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

whatever. I reported the 'douchebag' and 'eat lead' comments.

Christian.

0 Replies

Rama can eat all the lead he wants. It's up to him.

0 Replies

High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case
Supreme Court says it will decide whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution, a choice that will put the justices at the center of the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Washington Post

0 Replies

I hope they get it right. They will create a police state if they get it wrong.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I hope they get it right. They will create a police state if they get it wrong.

What the hell are you talking about. Gun control has been legal, and has not given us a police state.

I guess you want Dodge City.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, this must be a sad day for you. On Nov. 20, 1945,
24 Nazi leaders went on trial before an international war crimes tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

I don 't get the point, Ad.
I have always opposed authoritarianism ( like gun control, for instance ).
The nazis were almost as bad as the commies; both were totalitarians.

I know that u r trying to stimulate me
in a negative emotional way; it did not work.

Instead, I delight in the fact that on this day,
the USSC has granted cert
to the DC gun control case.
David

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I hope they get it right.
They will create a police state if they get it wrong.

What the hell are you talking about.
Gun control has been legal, and has not given us a police state.

I guess you want Dodge City.

The point is that the most basic concievable right
( which, incidentally is defended by the Bill of Rights, but is older than that )
is the right of any American citizen to defend his life and property
from violent depredation.

Relative to a government denying the de jure right to self defense,
by comparison, it 'd be a trivial infraction for W to declare that
since its OBVIOUSLY in the interest of the " general welfare " of the US
for him to continue to bless us with his wise leadership,
he will remain in office until further notice, and he 'll let us know
when future elections will be granted.
My rationale is that one 's right to defend his very life,
is more fundamental than political democracy.

In other words,
if government had the power to stop u from defending your life,
then there is NO POWER that can be denied to government,
and all Constitutional limitations are null n void, existing only at the whim of government with military support.

One of the reasons for enactment of the 2nd Amendment
was to enable the citizens to keep government in line.

Alaska has repealed all of its gun laws a few years ago.
There were no ill effects; ( have u heard of any crime surge in Alaska ? )
Vermont has never had any gun laws.
It has always been among the safest states, according to FBI annual statistics.
That disproves your " Dodge City " remark.

Incidentally, we know from newspaper reports of the time,
that, at its WORST, the annual death toll from gunfire in Dodge City in the 1800s
was 6; most enviable, compared to DC, where handguns are legally banned (in effect ).

I attribute your support of gun control to your love of totalitarianism, Advocate.
David

0 Replies

Did you mean: conceivable right?

0 Replies

I think it depends what the definition of "did" is.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Did you mean: conceivable right?

Yes.
I thought the spell checker made that change;
apparently not.

I suppose that I cud go with a fonetic spelling: conceevable right.
David

0 Replies

I suppose you could that is, if you intend to conceeve. Have you been ovulating regularly?

0 Replies

I like fried eggs; that 's about as close as I get.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I like fried eggs; that 's about as close as I get.

Probably unlike to conceeve in that case, Have you considered adoption?

0 Replies

No

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

With so many guns floating around, it is difficult to keep them away from criminals and those mentally defective. However, gun control does help. Why make it easier for them to get the guns by abolishing gun control? Regarding this, authorities seize many thousands of guns, especially handguns, every year, which are then unavailable to criminals, et al.

The ordinary citizen does not need a handgun, the possession of which should be banned for the ordinary person.

Dave, your interpretation of A2 is all wet. I once posted a scholarly article that stated that the founding fathers would not have mentioned a militia in A2 were it not included as a condition precedent to the right to bear. You and your grammarians seem to think that it was included to explain why the right to bear is given. But nowhere else in the constitution,
or in laws in general, does a provision of law cover its rationale.

Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions
With a Similar Grammatical Structure:

Rhode Island Free Press Clause:
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state,
any person may publish sentiments on any subject,
being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

Massachusetts Free Press Clause:
The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state
it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth.

Massachusetts Speech and Debate Clause:
The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature,
is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation
of any accusation of prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

New Hampshire Venue Clause:
In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen
is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen,
that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

0 Replies

I heard on the news, tonight, that this issue is going to the Supreme Court regarding the handgun ban in Washington and that the outcome would affect the whole country. They seem to be dealing with the very issue that Advocate brings up.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Advocate wrote:
With so many guns floating around, it is difficult to keep them away from criminals and those mentally defective. However, gun control does help. Why make it easier for them to get the guns by abolishing gun control? Regarding this, authorities seize many thousands of guns, especially handguns, every year, which are then unavailable to criminals, et al.

The ordinary citizen does not need a handgun, the possession of which should be banned for the ordinary person.

Dave, your interpretation of A2 is all wet. I once posted a scholarly article that stated that the founding fathers would not have mentioned a militia in A2 were it not included as a condition precedent to the right to bear. You and your grammarians seem to think that it was included to explain why the right to bear is given. But nowhere else in the constitution,
or in laws in general, does a provision of law cover its rationale.

Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions
With a Similar Grammatical Structure:

Rhode Island Free Press Clause:
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state,
any person may publish sentiments on any subject,
being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

Massachusetts Free Press Clause:
The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state
it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth.

Massachusetts Speech and Debate Clause:
The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature,
is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation
of any accusation of prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

New Hampshire Venue Clause:
In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen
is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen,
that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

I wager these are not actual provisions of the law, but are, perhaps, mentioned in a preamble.

0 Replies

Who Has the Right To Bear Arms?
The fight over the Second Amendment, explained.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2007, at 10:54 AM ET
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would consider whether the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms. Dahlia Lithwick explained the arguments on both sides of this question in a 2001 "Explainer," reprinted below. In the intervening time a lot has changed, including the DoJ's stance on the question.

In a recent letter to the NRA, Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to be armed. This conflicts with the Justice Department's official legal position, which holds that Second Amendment rights are limited to the collective rights of states to regulate their own militias.

What rights are there to own a gun under the federal Constitution?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Second Amendment provides that "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." The issue turns on whether that right to bear arms represents an "individual" or "collective" right. The NRA (and Ashcroft) advocate an affirmative individual right, akin to First Amendment free speech protections, granting us the right to have guns to hunt, protect ourselves, and hold government storm troopers at bay. Gun control activists and the Justice Department (save, apparently, for Ashcroft) hold that the right as it is codified in the Second Amendment only protects the states' authority to maintain formal, organized militias. Because the Second Amendment only concerns federal efforts to regulate firearms, state gun control efforts do not implicate the Second Amendment, and most gun laws are promulgated at the state level.

State law and state constitutions may change, but the progress of Second Amendment jurisprudence is glacial. As a matter of pure legal precedent, the Justice Department likely has the winning argument in this debate simply because the last time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this point was in 1939. In United States v. Miller, the court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not applicable in the absence of a reasonable relationship to the "well regulated militia" provision of the Second Amendment. The court stated that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen 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.

The Supreme Court has turned down every opportunity to accept a new case and clarify the question of whether Miller established a definitive test requiring some connection between guns and state militias or whether it was announcing a one-time-only rule about Jack Miller and his shotgun. Still, the lower courts have followed the first view, and, in the wake of Miller, virtually every lower court has accepted the state militia/collective rights test as a settled point of law. While a fascinating normative debate over whether or not the right should be an individual one rages in the academy, in think tanks, and around the candy machines at NRA headquarters, the Second Amendment issue is not a close call in the courthouse. Eminent legal scholars, including Sanford Levinson and historians such as Emory's Michael Bellesiles, have done some staggering scholarly work on the subject of the original intent of the Framers and the prevalence of guns at the time of the founding of the country. [Updated May 8, 2002: Bellesiles' methodology has recently come under fire by constitutional scholars.] None of it has induced the Supreme Court to step into the fray.

The modern Supreme Court has invalidated federal gun laws, most recently in United States v. Lopez, but not on Second Amendment grounds. Nothing about the decision in Lopez reinforces an individual's right to bear arms; it merely curbs congressional attempts to regulate guns, which is by no means the same thing.

Why do opinion surveys show that most American citizens believe in the individual rights position? Some legal scholars call this widespread public conviction a "hoax" and "false consciousness." Some contend that the NRA has done a spectacular job of spinning an individual right out of law review articles, John Wayne movies, and effective propaganda. Others argue that the personal right to a gun is nevertheless a right whose time has come and that it's just a matter of the courts catching up to public opinion.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

I heard on the news, tonight, that this issue is going to the Supreme Court
regarding the handgun ban in Washington and that the outcome would affect the whole country.
They seem to be dealing with the very issue that Advocate brings up.

This case has not escaped our attention, Intrepid.
I was informed of it a few minutes after the USSC granted cert.

It looks good for personal freedom.
David

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Advocate wrote:
With so many guns floating around, it is difficult to keep them away from criminals and those mentally defective. However, gun control does help. Why make it easier for them to get the guns by abolishing gun control? Regarding this, authorities seize many thousands of guns, especially handguns, every year, which are then unavailable to criminals, et al.

The ordinary citizen does not need a handgun, the possession of which should be banned for the ordinary person.

Dave, your interpretation of A2 is all wet. I once posted a scholarly article that stated that the founding fathers would not have mentioned a militia in A2 were it not included as a condition precedent to the right to bear. You and your grammarians seem to think that it was included to explain why the right to bear is given. But nowhere else in the constitution,
or in laws in general, does a provision of law cover its rationale.

Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions
With a Similar Grammatical Structure:

Rhode Island Free Press Clause:
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state,
any person may publish sentiments on any subject,
being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

Massachusetts Free Press Clause:
The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state
it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth.

Massachusetts Speech and Debate Clause:
The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature,
is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation
of any accusation of prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

New Hampshire Venue Clause:
In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen
is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen,
that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

I wager these are not actual provisions of the law,
but are, perhaps, mentioned in a preamble.

Y do u believe that ?

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know