Sorry I should have clarified that the "Tis a fleshwound" comment was a line from Monty Python. I assumed everyone was a fan of dry obscure British humor, Sorry :)
This one happened in the Orlando area just before midnight last                    night. Two predators – armed predators – thought it would be a                    good idea to rob a Blockbuster Video in Orange City. They arrived                    at the Blockbuster at about the same time as the father of one of                    the clerks working in the store. The father thought that something                    might not be quite right when he saw one of the predators walking                    into the store with a rifle.
So, here's your situation. Father arrives at Blockbuster to pick up                    his son when the store closes. Father sees predators with guns                    entering store. Father realizes his son is inside that store. Father                    has a gun. Father also has a concealed weapons permit. Father                    follows predators into the store.
End result? One dead predator and another with a gaping, sucking                    chest wound. Father is safe, as is son.
A civilian with a concealed weapons permit very likely saves his                    own son's life. Gotta tell you ... I just LOVE it when the day starts                    with a story like this. - Neil Boortz
There are pumas in California and Florida and then there are bears in the Rockies. A ripb dog... I could go on.
No, not too much thought, I simply remember what I was advised to do if, for example, you fell off your horse whilst jumping over a picket fence and got a picket in your guts. Leave it there! Seek medical aid immediately. No fooling?!? Really?!?!
Saw the Holy Grail and loved it but that particular scene was not as good as Castle Anthrax, or the Holy Hand Grenade.
I simply remember what I was advised to do if, for example, you fell off your horse whilst jumping over a picket fence and got a picket in your guts. Leave it there!
that's the first lesson you learn in any first aid class, kit. when treating somewone with a stab wound leave the object there. it may well be lodged in an artery, and thus the only thing keeping the victim from bleeding to death.
Then why did someone, you know who you are, say I had given much too much thought to this? If I had any feelings, they would probably be hurt.
Didn't mean to offend but the detail in which you described how to take an intruder out was very well laid out so obviuosly you put some thought into it. I was having some fun with you. Sorry if you misinterpreted the quote.
You rose to that fly beautifully, Luv2Fly! Guys are sooo easy! Present yourself as a fluffy bunny and they believe you!?!? Amazing! (Crocodile Hunter accent) 'See how the viscious American female sinks her claws into the poor unsuspecting American male. She catches hold of him and then with her long fangs, she sucks the life blood right out of him, leaving behind a shriveled up old corpse.'(back to normal) At least that is what my teenage daughter says, using just that accent, when she wants to humor her dad who repeats that I am trying to do him in - with a huge grin on his face, of course. Wives being totally evil and males being merely playthings of an idle hour or two. He also tells me that he's going to report me to the EWA authorities since I am not onto my 5th husband - which he calculates I should be by now. I reply the the Evil Wives Asso. has drummed me out of the ranks a very long time ago - ever since I bought him that Harley for our 8th wedding anniversary so many years ago. The only time my husband refused to speak to me was when I inadvertently backed over that same Harley with my first Volvo. I went shopping for awhile. Then he says that it was merely a practice run for the next time he's on it and behind me - 'I know how you wives are'. All attempts to improve my daughter's grades is so he'll drop dead from a heart attack. She then goes on to see if she can get that vein in his forehead to throb by asking if she can invite boys over to study. I think that rather than join in, I will retire to the hot tub with my scotch, since if I try to do anything domestic while he's around he'll be groping after me. Pesky males! Where's my sharp stick so I can poke him with it!
You make some good points at times, don't ruin it by saying things like "Liberals don't know how to have fun". It makes your legit causes seem less legit.
Bill:
Don't let it make you stoop to the same level. I don't always agree with you Bill, but I respect you for your honorable debates.
People, if you want to trash someone, trash them for what they said, not because of their ideology.
WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned.
Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop.
"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."
The truth is fold, that the main reason most of us have a Blast in these rooms, is because we are provided with a free punching bag, every day, in the form of a "a veteran" know-nothing, who neither knows the issues nor cares to learn anything at all about them, but swears that he does anyway.
It is the smokiest scotch you can get! Very warm and tasty but you might find it too strong after drinking your brands. Laphroiag also has the sea tang in it that some find objectionable - a bit of salt in the taste.
Scotch is a very temperamental liquid and very difficult, do you suppose that's why I like it? Other countries have tried, even importing Scots to help, but nothing came of it. New vats have to be customized down to the dents in the old vats they will replace.
jethro is one who has placed his mind inside of a box, and closed the lid. IF he sneers at veterans then one may assume rather safely that he isn't one. This means that he's not willing to put his life on the line for others, for himself, and for his family. We can therefore consider his views worthless.
Thanks for the tip Kit on Lafroaig. I shall give it a try, perhaps this weekend on my forray to the north shores of Superior. Kids at Grandma and Grandpas, Mmmm scenic beauty that is the north shore, my wonderful wife, (scenic beauty herself) A fine meal and a warm first rate scotch over a roaring blaze in the fireplace. .......Is it Friday yet ?.......Sorry we now return you to your regularily scheduled thread.................
Don't touch my damn guns. Knock, Knock, Blam, Blam ......LOL
Nominated for quote of the year is the statement made by Representative Dick Armey, who when asked if he had been in President Clinton's place, would he have resigned?
He responded: "If I were in the President's place I would not have gotten a chance to resign. I would be laying in a pool of my own blood, hearing Mrs. Armey, standing over me, saying, "How do I reload this damn thing?"
true in my household. Of course, I could strip him of all assets now and forever more and then kick him out but somehow there's not as much satisfaction in that. Making him pay and pay and pay for the rest of his natural life does have an appeal however. One cannot deny that it does have appeal but literally blasting him, although not economically sound, tops other options in my admittedly ferocious view.
Most citizens that have guns, are not as paranoid about registering them, as some others.
And some citizens who don't want to register their guns are not paranoid, they just believe it's none of anyone's business, including the govt., what pieces of legal personal property they own. And for those who are paranoid, they do have some reason to be. Look to New York City and to California if you don't believe that registration can lead to confiscation.
There is also the legal precedent that you cannot license and register a civil right. This makes it a priveledge.
So that brings us back to what the Second Amendment is all about.
Joel, you're being moderated because of a system issue.
Send Lance an e-mail and let him know you're being Moderated. Folks that didn't reply to the e-mail when they originally registered here have been set to moderated.
Joel, the Constitution is repleat with "Rights" that have been moderated, enhanced, liscensed, registered and otherwise modified in one way or another... Sometimes by these things called, "Amendments".
Yes but those Amendments were voted on by the people. Anyway, can you give examples of what rights that have been moderated, registered.....
Now, the Bill of Rights also makes the claim that there are other certain rights not listed in the Bill of Rights, but just because they are not listed, doesn't mean we don't have them. I will agree that some of these rights are under attack, and are being trampled upon or are in danger of being trampled upon. That doesn't make it OK. And I don't care which side does it, the Dems or the Repubs.
We do have legal precedant from the USSC that says a right cannot be licensed or registered or it becomes merely a priviledge. If you are unaware of the case, let me know, and I will be glad to research it for you, though you are probably as adept at it as I.
Some of the "rights" which were changed as you pointed out above were changed in the prescribed legal manner to change the Constitution. That being by amendment. Even though the Consitution with its Bill of Rights is supposed to ensure equal protection under the law, we know that has not always been the case as you mentioned above where women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were not even recognized as people. That doesn't make it right, pardon the pun.
You mention that you bought a handgun and it only took you 7 days to get it, while waiting for Minnesota's waiting period. It didn't inconvenience you, you stated. That may well be. But what if the wait had been 90 days or 180 days as is sometimes the case in Eastern states. Would 15 days be OK? That is California, for today, and they are making plans to get a whole lot more restrictive. Give and inch they take a mile....
What are your thoughts on the people in LA during the Rodney King riots, who went to gun stores to buy firearms for protection after the police pulled out, and were told they could get one in 15 days. How do you feel about a woman who is being stalked by a former husband/boyfriend and decides that a restraining order is not enough of a guarantee for her well being. There are examples of this happening where the permit was delivered a few days after the applicant was already dead.
Registration and licensing of firearms will be costly and serve little benefit in reducing crime. Were you aware of the USSC case that said convicted felons could not be forced to register a firearm, as that would be a forced admission of guilt and would violate their 5th amendment rights?
How will registration help to solve crimes? You might say that if we can do balistic fingerprinting that we can then match a gun to a casing or bullet found at the scene. It is very easy to change a balistic fingerprint with a file or sharp object, and balistic fingerprints also change over time. Also revolvers don't leave cases. And if the gun is never fired but merely brandished, there is nothing to help solve that crime. Criminals could also toss out casings of weapons which were not previously fingerprinted, just to throw the police off.
I am curious to know why you think registration and licensing is a good thing. I don't see how crime will be curtailed by registration and licensing of the law abiding gun owners only.
Are there limits on rights. Yes, but those limits must be post facto limits, not a priori. What that means is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or public gathering if there is really not a fire. It is not illegal in and of itself to yell fire in a crowded theater, as in the case when there really is a fire. But we don't register people before they go in, or prevent them from yelling via duct tape or some other type of gag (although I have wished that had been the case in several movies where people were talking and carrying on in the theater while I was trying to hear the movie).
The Constitution can be a living document when amended in the proper manner. However, the Supreme court is supposed to interpret law in accordance with what the Constitution states, and what the original intent of the statements are, not with loosely defined standards or what the Supremes think it "should" mean in todays society. If that were the case, why have a constitution at all. The Supreme Court could just vote on what they think laws should try to accomplish in today's society and see who gets the majority.
Lastly, one minor correction. Our government is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. That means we elect leaders to represent us and vote on laws. Some states and localities allow initiative and refenderum to let citizens have a direct vote, but usually there has to be an act by a state govt. to put a certain issue on a ballot. The founding fathers realized that a pure democracy would lead to mob rule and laws being made on the fly. They had a much more stable form of govt. in mind. One in which they would state unequivocally that there were certain rights the people have that the govt. had no power to trample upon. The rest of the Constitution spells out a map for the powers that are to be "ceded" from the people or the states to the federal government, and the limitations to those powers. If the government needs more power than the Constitution originally allowed for, those powers must be gained through the amendment process. This is in line with what you had pointed out in an earlier post.
The Constitution in no way allows the states to suspend the civil rights of any of the "people". That is what the 14th Amendment is about.
The fact that some governments are indeed guilty of violating certain civil rights, even when sanctioned by an erroneous Supreme Court (as in slavery and womens suffrage) doesn't make it constitutionally legal.
Look at how some people howled about the Supreme Court decision in the Bush/Gore battle for Florida. Was that a Constitutionally legal decision? Some people seem to think it wasn't.
The waters are getting a but muddied, Joel. The two are one and the same.
<
As you found in Websters, Republic and Democracy may very well be so close as to be the same. However, I stated that we have a "Constitutional" Republic. This means we have a republic, but with a constitution that is supposed to keep our civil rights off limits to the Federal and State governments.
The Congress is composed of 2 houses to spread the power. It is made up of elected representatives who swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They are to pass laws which should not violate the Constitution. If that fails, we have an elected President who should veto those laws as the President has also taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If the Prez is too beholden to Congress to exercise his veto power, then the Supreme Court should be the final say. They are to apply the Constitution to the law at issue, and decide if said law violates the Constitution. If it does, they declare it unconstitutional. Why we sometimes have problems is that the USSC does not rule on each and every law that the Federal Govt. or the State Governments pass. They usually are forced to make a ruling only when someone has claimed a grievance or has in some manner shown in court that their civil rights have been violated. The Supreme Court does not have time to review every case that probably should be brought before them and thus rely on lower court decisions.
Secondly, I think even Jethro knows that there are 2 Houses of Congress.
K? >
Bill, I was not trying to imply that anyone here is ignorant. I was merely trying to illustrate how our govt. was set up with the idea that the power must be spread thinly between different groups that make up the govt. I apologize if you felt that I was attemting to present you with knowledge that I thought you didn't already have. I assure you, that was not my intent.
54. Senate, "Handgun Violence," at 107, citing Novae Russkae Slovo, Vol. LXXII, No. 26.291, (6 Nov. 1983).
C. The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right
Arbitrary Delays -- While New Jersey law requires applications to be responded to within thirty days, delays of ninety days are routine; sometimes, applications are delayed for several years for no readily apparent reason. (55)
Arbitrary Denials -- Officials in New York City routinely deny gun permits for ordinary citizens and store owners because -- as the courts have ruled -- they have no greater need for protection than anyone else in the city. In fact, the authorities have even refused to issue permits when the courts have ordered them to do so. (56)
Arbitrary Fee Increases -- In 1994, the Clinton administration pushed for a license fee increase of almost 1,000 percent on gun dealers. According to U.S. News & World Report, the administration was seeking the license fee increase "in hopes of driving many of America's 258,000 licensed gun dealers out of business." (57)
55. Kopel, "Trust the People," at 26. 56. Id., at 25-26. 57. U.S. News & World Report, (17 January 1994): 8.
D. Officials cannot license or register a constitutional right
The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers -- even if such material is "communist political propaganda." (58)
58. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S. Ct. 1493, 14 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1965).
was alluded to by Bill Fold earlier and we would all do well to think about it. He had stated that a government will do whatever it wants and that we, the populace, would be powerless to stop them. THAT'S THE POINT. We are armed to prevent just such a problem from occuring. that is one reason. The next reason, is that the US government undertakes to guarantee our safety. If, for whaever reason, this cannot be done, we, the people are to protect ourselves. Witness the Rodney King riots.
Many people would say that the first point, to prevent tyranny, have already long since been reached. Not so and holding such a notion tells more about you, none of it to your credit, than it does about the US government. But more on that later.
The next reason, is that the US government undertakes to guarantee our safety. If, for whaever reason, this cannot be done, we, the people are to protect ourselves. Witness the Rodney King riots.
The riots had nothing to do with protecting anyone.
I am posting this here as well as in Guns under fire. Here's a link to a Zogby poll showing whether Americans agree with the Justice Dept. that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Now polls is polls. Some are accurate, some are not. The VPC and the Brady's will not be happy about this. They will now have to spend time refuting or lampooning the poll.
From the poll, notice that 18-24 year olds agree to a high percentage that the 2nd Amendment protects and individual right. The "guns are bad" message has been falling on informed ears and those youngins don't believe a word of it. Hats off to them!
I found this most interesting: Majorities of Democrats (65%), Easterners (60%), respondents earning $75,000+ annually (70%) and those 65 years or older (65%) also agreed with the Justice Department.
see, thats one of those things that's like asking cops their stance on it. if you want the official department line its "guns in the hands of individuals is a bad thing" ask cops off the record and you get a completely different story.
Sorry I should have clarified that the "Tis a fleshwound" comment was a line from Monty Python. I assumed everyone was a fan of dry obscure British humor, Sorry :)
Come back here, I'll bite your kneecaps off!
This one happened in the Orlando area just before midnight last
                   night. Two predators – armed predators – thought it would be a
                   good idea to rob a Blockbuster Video in Orange City. They arrived
                   at the Blockbuster at about the same time as the father of one of
                   the clerks working in the store. The father thought that something
                   might not be quite right when he saw one of the predators walking
                   into the store with a rifle.
So, here's your situation. Father arrives at Blockbuster to pick up
                   his son when the store closes. Father sees predators with guns
                   entering store. Father realizes his son is inside that store. Father
                   has a gun. Father also has a concealed weapons permit. Father
                   follows predators into the store.
End result? One dead predator and another with a gaping, sucking
                   chest wound. Father is safe, as is son.
A civilian with a concealed weapons permit very likely saves his
                   own son's life. Gotta tell you ... I just LOVE it when the day starts
                   with a story like this. - Neil Boortz
Another reason concealed weapons are a good idea
And the wounded perp charged with murder -- excellent!
And it is not just human predators!
There are pumas in California and Florida and then there are bears in the Rockies. A ripb dog...
I could go on.
No, not too much thought, I simply remember what I was advised to do if, for example, you fell off your horse whilst jumping over a picket fence and got a picket in your guts. Leave it there! Seek medical aid immediately. No fooling?!? Really?!?!
Saw the Holy Grail and loved it but that particular scene was not as good as Castle Anthrax, or the Holy Hand Grenade.
I simply remember what I was advised to do if, for example, you fell off your horse whilst jumping over a picket fence and got a picket in your guts. Leave it there!
that's the first lesson you learn in any first aid class, kit. when treating somewone with a stab wound leave the object there. it may well be lodged in an artery, and thus the only thing keeping the victim from bleeding to death.
and the number you sahll count shall be three
Then why did someone, you know who you are, say I had given much too much thought to this? If I had any feelings, they would probably be hurt.
please pardon the misspellings
these lapboard keys are too small sometimes
Kit,
Didn't mean to offend but the detail in which you described how to take an intruder out was very well laid out so obviuosly you put some thought into it. I was having some fun with you. Sorry if you misinterpreted the quote.
Liberals don't know how to have fun.
Warning - further puma wrestling will now ensue.
You rose to that fly beautifully, Luv2Fly! Guys are sooo easy! Present yourself as a fluffy bunny and they believe you!?!? Amazing! (Crocodile Hunter accent) 'See how the viscious American female sinks her claws into the poor unsuspecting American male. She catches hold of him and then with her long fangs, she sucks the life blood right out of him, leaving behind a shriveled up old corpse.'(back to normal) At least that is what my teenage daughter says, using just that accent, when she wants to humor her dad who repeats that I am trying to do him in - with a huge grin on his face, of course. Wives being totally evil and males being merely playthings of an idle hour or two. He also tells me that he's going to report me to the EWA authorities since I am not onto my 5th husband - which he calculates I should be by now. I reply the the Evil Wives Asso. has drummed me out of the ranks a very long time ago - ever since I bought him that Harley for our 8th wedding anniversary so many years ago.
The only time my husband refused to speak to me was when I inadvertently backed over that same Harley with my first Volvo. I went shopping for awhile. Then he says that it was merely a practice run for the next time he's on it and behind me - 'I know how you wives are'. All attempts to improve my daughter's grades is so he'll drop dead from a heart attack. She then goes on to see if she can get that vein in his forehead to throb by asking if she can invite boys over to study. I think that rather than join in, I will retire to the hot tub with my scotch, since if I try to do anything domestic while he's around he'll be groping after me. Pesky males!
Where's my sharp stick so I can poke him with it!
Ummm Kit,
What the hell you talking about ? Are you sure you haven't already been in that hot tub with a nice glass of Balviene scotch?
Luv2Fly
FUN DAMMIT FUN !!!!
THICK THICK THICK THICK THICK.
I drink Lafroiag
I was afraid of that.
I haven't tried it, any good ? Have you tried Balviene or Dalwhine ? How would it compare to those two if you have tried them ?
Jethro:
You make some good points at times, don't ruin it by saying things like "Liberals don't know how to have fun". It makes your legit causes seem less legit.
Bill:
Don't let it make you stoop to the same level. I don't always agree with you Bill, but I respect you for your honorable debates.
People, if you want to trash someone, trash them for what they said, not because of their ideology.
Liberals don't know how to have fun
Another Gun Control Hypocrit
WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a
powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state
background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned.
Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a
Remington .30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del.,
gun shop.
"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little
car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah
Brady, of all people, packing heat."
The truth is fold, that the main reason most of us have a Blast in these rooms, is because we are provided with a free punching bag, every day, in the form of a "a veteran" know-nothing, who neither knows the issues nor cares to learn anything at all about them, but swears that he does anyway.
Luv2Fly
It is the smokiest scotch you can get! Very warm and tasty but you might find it too strong after drinking your brands. Laphroiag also has the sea tang in it that some find objectionable - a bit of salt in the taste.
Scotch is a very temperamental liquid and very difficult, do you suppose that's why I like it? Other countries have tried, even importing Scots to help, but nothing came of it. New vats have to be customized down to the dents in the old vats they will replace.
jethro is one who has placed his mind inside of a box, and closed the lid. IF he sneers at veterans then one may assume rather safely that he isn't one. This means that he's not willing to put his life on the line for others, for himself, and for his family. We can therefore consider his views worthless.
Thanks for the tip Kit on Lafroaig. I shall give it a try, perhaps this weekend on my forray to the north shores of Superior. Kids at Grandma and Grandpas, Mmmm scenic beauty that is the north shore, my wonderful wife, (scenic beauty herself) A fine meal and a warm first rate scotch over a roaring blaze in the fireplace. .......Is it Friday yet ?.......Sorry we now return you to your regularily scheduled thread.................
Don't touch my damn guns. Knock, Knock, Blam, Blam ......LOL
Bush signed the campaign finance bill and the NRA promptly filed suit in Washington.
and the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank
donchja just love it? Litigation for all!
BTW, Luv2Fly
they do have a website
She has some control.
Nominated for quote of the year is the statement made by Representative Dick
Armey, who when asked if he had been in President Clinton's place, would he
have resigned?
He responded: "If I were in the President's place I would not have gotten
a chance to resign. I would be laying in a pool of my own blood, hearing
Mrs. Armey, standing over me, saying, "How do I reload this damn thing?"
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great quote Kit, and would be oh so true at the Luv2Fly household.
It would be even MORE
true in my household. Of course, I could strip him of all assets now and forever more and then kick him out but somehow there's not as much satisfaction in that. Making him pay and pay and pay for the rest of his natural life does have an appeal however. One cannot deny that it does have appeal but literally blasting him, although not economically sound, tops other options in my admittedly ferocious view.
I'm with you, Kit -- if he's too stupid to totally worship my wonderful self, KA-BLAM!!!
That brings new meaning to the term "shotgun wedding". :)
Well,
After 24 years and two kids - what else would he deserve for such a betrayal?
Cun Control News
Good Citizen Registers Guns, even though not required to .. (Yet)
And some citizens who don't want to register their guns are not paranoid, they just believe it's none of anyone's business, including the govt., what pieces of legal personal property they own. And for those who are paranoid, they do have some reason to be. Look to New York City and to California if you don't believe that registration can lead to confiscation.
There is also the legal precedent that you cannot license and register a civil right. This makes it a priveledge.
So that brings us back to what the Second Amendment is all about.
Joel, you're being moderated because of a system issue.
Send Lance an e-mail and let him know you're being Moderated. Folks that didn't reply to the e-mail when they originally registered here have been set to moderated.
Yes but those Amendments were voted on by the people. Anyway, can you give examples of what rights that have been moderated, registered.....
Now, the Bill of Rights also makes the claim that there are other certain rights not listed in the Bill of Rights, but just because they are not listed, doesn't mean we don't have them. I will agree that some of these rights are under attack, and are being trampled upon or are in danger of being trampled upon. That doesn't make it OK. And I don't care which side does it, the Dems or the Repubs.
We do have legal precedant from the USSC that says a right cannot be licensed or registered or it becomes merely a priviledge. If you are unaware of the case, let me know, and I will be glad to research it for you, though you are probably as adept at it as I.
Some of the "rights" which were changed as you pointed out above were changed in the prescribed legal manner to change the Constitution. That being by amendment. Even though the Consitution with its Bill of Rights is supposed to ensure equal protection under the law, we know that has not always been the case as you mentioned above where women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were not even recognized as people. That doesn't make it right, pardon the pun.
You mention that you bought a handgun and it only took you 7 days to get it, while waiting for Minnesota's waiting period. It didn't inconvenience you, you stated. That may well be. But what if the wait had been 90 days or 180 days as is sometimes the case in Eastern states. Would 15 days be OK? That is California, for today, and they are making plans to get a whole lot more restrictive. Give and inch they take a mile....
What are your thoughts on the people in LA during the Rodney King riots, who went to gun stores to buy firearms for protection after the police pulled out, and were told they could get one in 15 days. How do you feel about a woman who is being stalked by a former husband/boyfriend and decides that a restraining order is not enough of a guarantee for her well being. There are examples of this happening where the permit was delivered a few days after the applicant was already dead.
Registration and licensing of firearms will be costly and serve little benefit in reducing crime. Were you aware of the USSC case that said convicted felons could not be forced to register a firearm, as that would be a forced admission of guilt and would violate their 5th amendment rights?
How will registration help to solve crimes? You might say that if we can do balistic fingerprinting that we can then match a gun to a casing or bullet found at the scene. It is very easy to change a balistic fingerprint with a file or sharp object, and balistic fingerprints also change over time. Also revolvers don't leave cases. And if the gun is never fired but merely brandished, there is nothing to help solve that crime. Criminals could also toss out casings of weapons which were not previously fingerprinted, just to throw the police off.
I am curious to know why you think registration and licensing is a good thing. I don't see how crime will be curtailed by registration and licensing of the law abiding gun owners only.
Are there limits on rights. Yes, but those limits must be post facto limits, not a priori. What that means is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or public gathering if there is really not a fire. It is not illegal in and of itself to yell fire in a crowded theater, as in the case when there really is a fire. But we don't register people before they go in, or prevent them from yelling via duct tape or some other type of gag (although I have wished that had been the case in several movies where people were talking and carrying on in the theater while I was trying to hear the movie).
The Constitution can be a living document when amended in the proper manner. However, the Supreme court is supposed to interpret law in accordance with what the Constitution states, and what the original intent of the statements are, not with loosely defined standards or what the Supremes think it "should" mean in todays society. If that were the case, why have a constitution at all. The Supreme Court could just vote on what they think laws should try to accomplish in today's society and see who gets the majority.
Lastly, one minor correction. Our government is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. That means we elect leaders to represent us and vote on laws. Some states and localities allow initiative and refenderum to let citizens have a direct vote, but usually there has to be an act by a state govt. to put a certain issue on a ballot. The founding fathers realized that a pure democracy would lead to mob rule and laws being made on the fly. They had a much more stable form of govt. in mind. One in which they would state unequivocally that there were certain rights the people have that the govt. had no power to trample upon. The rest of the Constitution spells out a map for the powers that are to be "ceded" from the people or the states to the federal government, and the limitations to those powers. If the government needs more power than the Constitution originally allowed for, those powers must be gained through the amendment process. This is in line with what you had pointed out in an earlier post.
The Constitution in no way allows the states to suspend the civil rights of any of the "people". That is what the 14th Amendment is about.
The fact that some governments are indeed guilty of violating certain civil rights, even when sanctioned by an erroneous Supreme Court (as in slavery and womens suffrage) doesn't make it constitutionally legal.
Look at how some people howled about the Supreme Court decision in the Bush/Gore battle for Florida. Was that a Constitutionally legal decision? Some people seem to think it wasn't.
The constitution is a living document, which must change as society changes and communities change. It is healthy for a democracy.
That is why there is the AMENDMENT process.
As you found in Websters, Republic and Democracy may very well be so close as to be the same. However, I stated that we have a "Constitutional" Republic. This means we have a republic, but with a constitution that is supposed to keep our civil rights off limits to the Federal and State governments.
The Congress is composed of 2 houses to spread the power. It is made up of elected representatives who swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They are to pass laws which should not violate the Constitution. If that fails, we have an elected President who should veto those laws as the President has also taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If the Prez is too beholden to Congress to exercise his veto power, then the Supreme Court should be the final say. They are to apply the Constitution to the law at issue, and decide if said law violates the Constitution. If it does, they declare it unconstitutional. Why we sometimes have problems is that the USSC does not rule on each and every law that the Federal Govt. or the State Governments pass. They usually are forced to make a ruling only when someone has claimed a grievance or has in some manner shown in court that their civil rights have been violated. The Supreme Court does not have time to review every case that probably should be brought before them and thus rely on lower court decisions.
K? >
Bill, I was not trying to imply that anyone here is ignorant. I was merely trying to illustrate how our govt. was set up with the idea that the power must be spread thinly between different groups that make up the govt. I apologize if you felt that I was attemting to present you with knowledge that I thought you didn't already have. I assure you, that was not my intent.
54. Senate, "Handgun Violence," at 107, citing Novae Russkae Slovo, Vol. LXXII, No. 26.291, (6 Nov. 1983).
C. The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right
55. Kopel, "Trust the People," at 26.
56. Id., at 25-26.
57. U.S. News & World Report, (17 January 1994): 8.
D. Officials cannot license or register a constitutional right
58. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S. Ct. 1493, 14 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1965).
The above information comes from www.gunowners.org
NUGGETLESS CHICKEN BUCKET BLUES
I've got a gun that shoots big bullets.
My finger's on the trigger and, by God, I'll pull it.
'Cause I ain't chicken, and I've got nuggets.
I'll make those bad guys kick their buckets.
(That's as far as I got before the Southern Comfort rendered me comtaose...)
LOL!
You crazy, Dennis.
The reason for the 2nd Amendment
was alluded to by Bill Fold earlier and we would all do well to think about it. He had stated that a government will do whatever it wants and that we, the populace, would be powerless to stop them. THAT'S THE POINT. We are armed to prevent just such a problem from occuring. that is one reason. The next reason, is that the US government undertakes to guarantee our safety. If, for whaever reason, this cannot be done, we, the people are to protect ourselves. Witness the Rodney King riots.
Many people would say that the first point, to prevent tyranny, have already long since been reached. Not so and holding such a notion tells more about you, none of it to your credit, than it does about the US government. But more on that later.
The next reason, is that the US government undertakes to guarantee our safety. If, for whaever reason, this cannot be done, we, the people are to protect ourselves. Witness the Rodney King riots.
The riots had nothing to do with protecting anyone.
Zogby Poll Regarding Whether Americans View 2nd Amenment as Protecting Individual Rights.
I am posting this here as well as in Guns under fire. Here's a link to a Zogby poll showing whether Americans agree with the Justice Dept. that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Now polls is polls. Some are accurate, some are not. The VPC and the Brady's will not be happy about this. They will now have to spend time refuting or lampooning the poll.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/Zogby1.htm
From the poll, notice that 18-24 year olds agree to a high percentage that the 2nd Amendment protects and individual right. The "guns are bad" message has been falling on informed ears and those youngins don't believe a word of it. Hats off to them!
Thanks for the link, Joel.
I found this most interesting:
Majorities of Democrats (65%), Easterners (60%), respondents earning $75,000+ annually (70%) and those 65 years or older (65%) also agreed with the Justice Department.
Even the Democrats agreed? WOW!
see, thats one of those things that's like asking cops their stance on it. if you want the official department line its "guns in the hands of individuals is a bad thing" ask cops off the record and you get a completely different story.