...

If we make it illegal to purchase a firearm with the motive and intent if inflicting illeglitimate harm on people then everything should be OK. That will stop the criminals cold in their tracks.

You've got to plug the hole...before you can begin to pump out of the water.

Why should these sales be different than others?

just left the bathtub running and it's not really sinking.

What other sales are we referring to? The purchase of newspapers? Books? Religious tomes? A lawyer's services if accused of a crime? Abortion counseling?

"No respect, no respect at all... that's the story of my life"

...not granted. You've not done much to earn it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

Never said i was either.

You still don't get any respect unless you earn it, and in your case, you've done a pretty good job of proving you deserve none.

And there was somebody just telling moi how hostile and belligerent I was ...

The purchase of firearms is a protected right.

...in proclaiming that there is an "individual right" does not deny that compelling social interests can require basic regulation of firearms to deny them to prohibited classes.

...there is no individual right to self-defense and to use what you decide is the best tool for the job?

Putting aside your beliefs about the 2nd amendment and the accuracy of the court, do you or do you not believe a person has a right to protect himself?

The Constitution is quite clear the keeping and bearing of arms is connected to service in the Militia. There is no absolute right to self-defense; if that were true we would allow felons and the mentally ill to be armed because they too might have to defend themselves. You're not suggesting that we arm felons and the mentally ill are you?

I've never denied the right to self-defense with a firearm to law-abiding sound-minded citizens.

is inaccurate. I wont get into that though as its been addressed more times than anyone cares to count.

As far as the right to self defense, it is absolute - unless you are arguing that one is obligated to only defend himself from harm when the situation is pre-approved by the state. Even a felon or a mentally ill person has the right to defend themselves. Their rights to have arms have been restricted through due process but that is a different story.

The right to self-defense and the right to armed with a firearm are two quite different things.

is unfortunately coming up short here.

Even a felon or a mentally ill person has the right to defend themselves. Their rights to have arms have been restricted through due process but that is a different story.

"Due process" would be an individual adjudication resulting in a prohibition on possessing firearms -- hey, exactly like happens in Canada. Granted, there is a short list of criminal offences for which a firearms prohibition order upon conviction is mandated. There is no mental health bar to firearms possession in Canada; each application for a firearms licence is assessed on its own merits, as is the case for any criminal conviction for which a prohibition order is not mandated.

What you have is laws decreeing that all persons in certain classes are ineligible to purchase and possess firearms. That ain't due process. And I would absolutely love to see how your courts would dance around that if someone seriously challenged those laws. Along with the ones against "felons" voting, of course.

As far as the right to self defense, it is absolute - unless you are arguing that one is obligated to only defend himself from harm when the situation is pre-approved by the state.

Whatever that means ...

You and your fellow travellers can stamp your feet and shout that all you like (and even try to cite authority for it: "natural law" or "god" or whatever you like), but your Justice Sotomayor had that one 100% right. I guess it's things like that that are why she's a Supreme Court justice and nobody here is.

Self-defence, in law, is a legal justification or legal excuse for assaulting or killing another person, which the law recognizes because to do otherwise, to require that a person submit to a serious assault on pain of punishment for using force to defend against it (if they lived) would be an unjustifiable violation of the right to life of the person defending themself against injury or death.

Also have a right to a presumption of innocence but once due process has been afforded they may be deprived of all their rights including their freedom, their votes, their property and their lives. Gun ownership would simply be one more of the many previously recognized rights that are sacrificed upon conviction.

You have laws that say that all "felons" lose their right to possess firearms.

Why don't your laws also say that, say, all armed robbers will be imprisoned for 20 years?

Hey. It's because of the thing called due process, among other things, I'd say.


... once due process has been afforded they may be deprived of all their rights including their freedom, their votes, their property and their lives.

I'm going to keep trying on this one.

No, they are not deprived of their rights. They are deprived of the ability to exercise certain rights in certain ways.

If someone sentenced to imprisonment had been "deprived" of their right to freedom, then they could simply be tossed in a cell ... or tied to a post ... and left there for life. If they had no right to freedom, they would not be entitled to release, ever, or to get out of bed even.

Criminal sentences that involve deprivation of things like freedom are considered in our societies to be justified interferences in the exercise of rights. A sentence of two years in prison for burglary is justified; a sentence of life in solitary confinement is not. A sentence of 10 years in prison might be considered justified for someone with 20 previous convictions for burglary, but not for a young person on their first offence. And so on.

In addition, you are citing existing rules as if they are immutable principles. They are not. In Canada, for instance, no non-imprisoned convicted offender was ever denied the vote, and some years ago our Supreme Court decided that imprisoned offenders may not be denied the vote -- because there was no justification for that violation of what is a constitutional right here (the right to vote).

"How things are" is not an answer to an argument for how things should be, and is not a demonstration that how things are is morally or legally justifiable.

There is no rational connection between prohibiting firearms possession and a whole slew of criminal offences, in particular non-violent, impersonal property offences.

If firearms possession is a constitutional right, or, as some would argue, a fundamental/human right (I certainly don't, but those who do need to answer this argument), then violating it by automatic operation of a law to an entire class of very different persons is simply not permissible.

A law that all convicted offenders must practise the Baptist religion, or vote Green, for life, would not be permissible, would it? Of course not; it would violate constitutionally guaranteed rights without justification. Why is the constitutional right to possess firearms, in the US, any different?

Since we are constantly told that it is not different, and in fact is the most supremely important of all the constitutionally guaranteed rights in the US, I have never been able to get my head around this one. Or get any kind of a reasonable defence of the laws in question.

FYI, civil death is what is really happening here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death

(If a "felon" is prohibited from possessing firearms, surely, according to the chorus hereabouts, that amounts to "anyone could kill and injure an ex-felon with impunity"!)

Civil death was long since abandoned in all other comparable societies; these vestiges live on in the US, and are anathema to due process.

That's just a silly framing of the same point. A criminal sentenced to a less-than-life sentence has his freedom restored to him by other people using processes beyond his control. However, prior to his conviction his freedom was his natural state. It was never granted to him, it was his without hindrance. In fact, it took exceptional actions on his part to forfeit his freedoms and those freedoms are only restored at the grace of others.



"God" giveth, society taketh away and society giveth back.



Without dispute but the part you neglect to mention is the fact the convict is the last person consulted in this process. His opinions and concerns are the last ones considered. Any indulgences or parole offered are not of his choosing but the grace of others. His release is not his to determine.



So the people who violate the law get to vote for lawmakers who write law and assign penalties. Meanwhile, if the society that has been offended wants to assign a penalty that offenders forfeit their vote they have no choice to vote for that so their vote has been effectively denied.

Talk about inmates running the asylum. Silly, Canada.

But the hazard here is that you hace stepped away from principles and reduced everything to subjectivity when you say, "citing existing rules as if they are immutable principles."



This is wrong on its face. Every criminal penalty denies rights to a class of people: those duly convicted. As I noted the very act of incarceration entails the depriving of naturally occurring rights and any restoration of rights occurrs solely at the whim of others (except in silly Canada, apparently).



What about the deprivation of the right to wake-up when you want and travel to where you please? Isn't that a fundamental right?

The constitutions, all constitutions, were written by people as part of a social agreement; they weren't handed down from on High (not that I think you believe otherwise, I'm just covering that point of discussion). If first principles were so darned important we could do like many tribal cultures and exile our offenders to the wilds where they would meet a virtual death sentence of exposure, starvation or whatnot. Society is not obligated to incarcerate, ours does so because we have the luxury, wealth and mores to do so. There isn't some booming voice that decrees one way or the other; the "existing rules" are simply treated "as if they are immutable principles."

Tell me, if a criminal's penalty for stealing another man's food was compulsory baptism or being sent off to the wasteland to meet their eventual, miserable doom; which would you choose to impose on the offender?



This is a strawman/mischaracterization if not outright lie. You cry quite loudly when you believe others have saddled you with undesired prohibitionist labels. I don't know if your complaints center on immutable principles or merely existing rules but perhaps you care to restate this error bordering on insult.

I will say though the rigorous defense of the 2nd Amendment stems from the fact the 2nd Amendment is most under assault in politics. You -- wrongly -- say it is treated as if it matters most when the corrollary is to say not defending it reduces it to the least important right. If someone were pushing censorship laws freedom of speech would the cause around which the defenses rallied. Strawman arguments that the 1st Amendment were being held ultimate over the balance of the Bill of Rights would be nothing more than the proponents of censorship whining that they were not being given unopposed liberty to do as they wish.

People have the right to defend themselves. In fact, defense and the ability to hunt seem pretty darned universal on this planet. I don't see why humans should be the only species to disarm especially when so many within that same species are willing to inflict the ultimate harms without any sense of social, moral or legal obligation. THAT is what requires explanation.

You said:

"The Constitution is quite clear the keeping and bearing of arms is connected to service in the Militia."

You are wrong. The Federal government does not restrict the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" any more than it does the other rights. Your subordinate "militia clause" has always held a distinct minority view among those who study the Second, and is not shared by the great majority of the American people. The "militia clause" is in the Second in order for the federal government to assert its power to call out the militia, not to qualify the "right of the people."

Even Laurence Tribe, once advocated the "militia clause" as governing the "right of the people," has since gone back on that view and recognized that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

You and the N.Y.T. can pick fuzz out of a grammatical navel all day, and it won't change that fact.

Actually, the right to self-defense is about as absolute as it can be, guns or no. The problem is that folks exercising such must then show their lives were threatened, guns or no. If you mean firearms restrictions can be placed on felons and adjudicated mental incompetents, then you are in agreement with the great majority of 2A defenders.

You said:

"I've never denied the right to self-defense with a firearm to law-abiding sound-minded citizens."

Problem is, gun-control measures can have a significant impact on the right to keep and bear arms, thus rendering your assertion rather meaningless; if you can't obtain a firearm, what good is "self-defense with a firearm to law-abiding sound-minded citizens?"

"If you mean firearms restrictions can be placed on felons and adjudicated mental incompetents, then you are in agreement with the great majority of 2A defenders."

So then closing the "gun show" "private sales" loophole should be no problem...if you're in agreement that "firearms restrictions can be placed on felons and adjudicated mental incompetents, then you are in agreement with the great majority of 2A defenders." Why this should be a special category is beyond me...the way the system works now is ridiculous.

"Problem is, gun-control measures can have a significant impact on the right to keep and bear arms" - The Entire Supreme Court disagrees with that notion vehemently:

I could care less what Laurence Tribe thinks...

Affirm the right of indiviuals to possess arms and maybe pro-2A advcates would trust you more. The only problem is those wanting to close the so-called loophole refuse to acknowledge the individual to own firearms.

If the intent of one side is to maximize liberty while the intent of the other side is to maximize control those who have liberty would be foolish to start the debate from the middle ground if the maximum control side insists on starting from the extreme end of their position.

I'll just go with the reality that such a notion is not what the Founders intended and is in fact dangerous to liberty, which is not a zero-sum game.

Let's face it, this is what the Second Amendment means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Militia_Act

Everything is is bullshit and sophistry. I don't really car what "pro-2A advcates" think - if I did I wouldn't be a pro-9A advocate.

do you possibly believe the founders intended the ownership of firearms to be controlled by the state?

Really, I want to know how you came to that conclusion.

How do you conclude that an armed and free populace is dangerous to liberty but somehow an unarmed populace and and armed state is not?

Do you also believe work makes one free and everything should be from each according to his ability and to each according to his need?

"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 Founder are quite clear; the keeping and bearing of arms is connected with service in the Militia, and everything else is just Congress being nice.

"Do you also believe work makes one free and everything should be from each according to his ability and to each according to his need?"

What are you trying to insinuate here?

The subordinate clause does not place restrictions upon the declarative clause, but rather provides just one of many justifications for the declaration. This form of writing, while not in common use today, was pretty common at the time.

While this has been presented ad nauseum, consider this sentence:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed"

Would you take that sentence to mean only those who vote and attended school shall be allowed to read books and then only those which discuss the security of the state? If you would, then you may wish to attend a remedial course in English as it in no way conveys that meaning.

Note also, the Militia Act came into being after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It does not in anyway change the meaning of the Constitution either, but rather works within it.

Further, the Militia Act, were you to actually read it instead of the Wiki synopsis, defines the general and select militia. The general militia would be the population as a whole who would be expected to turn out, with weapons of their own as well as a very specific set of equipment - which they would also provide. A select militia would be armed by the state.

Additionally, the Militia Act has been further clarified and augmented by the Militia Act of 1903, AKA the Dick Act. This further makes it clear that militia service is not required and further clarifies the distinction of the National Guard and the militia.

NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment requires or restricts anything of the PEOPLE. In fact, none of the Constitution places restrictions or makes demands upon the people. If you understood that basic fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Militia service is not now, nor has it ever been required for private ownership of weapons.

Congress being nice? Not hardly. Congress does not control the people - the people control Congress. Again, a simple fact which if you understood would clarify a lot of things for you.

With regards to what I was insinuating, I would have thought it was clear. You hold some extremely fascist and statist views.

I do not know from where you obtained your understanding of English or our system of government, but your knowledge of both of those subjects seems to contain some gaping holes.

Well if we want to talk about original intent - I don't see how you can't consider what "Militia" meant in the context of the time. By that logic we could redefine "the people" to mean something other than citizens of the United States. That's a slippery slope.

A "general militia" is not the same thing as an "individual right" to bear arms.

"none of the Constitution places restrictions or makes demands upon the people"

The Supreme Court has disagreed with such a notion many times over.

"You hold some extremely fascist and statist views." - My views aren't that different than those of the actual Federalists. However, it should be noted that at least I'm not in theoretical bed with Antonin Scalia and crew. You have very little real idea of what you are talking about and so you levy invective like your anti-Federalist forefathers before you.

"I do not know from where you obtained your understanding of English or our system of government, but your knowledge of both of those subjects seems to contain some gaping holes."

Even James Madison clearly thought your interpretation of the Second Amendment is fraudulent..."A well regulated Militia" takes precedence. As Madison described, "If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever?

"Congress does not control the people - the people control Congress."

CONGRESS IS THE PEOPLE! IT IS THE PEOPLES HOUSE! IT IS OUR REPRESENTATIVE! NO MAN IS A STATE UNTO HIMSELF!

What don't you understand about the nature of our Republic...

By all means my friend, point out what I ignored. Please - feel free.

As far as the Constitution applying controls and demands upon the people, by all means - point one out. Just one. Exact quotation please. A single directive of what the people must do.

Pesky words, I know...

Did you actually read the whole post, or did you just skim the parts you could read based on the sight words you were taught in remedial reading?

According to you: Keeping and bearing arms is connected with service in a militia.

Your continually highlighting the words "Well Regulated Militia" while ignoring the rest.

It states: "the right of the people" which is mentioned several times throughout the BOR. To you what does this phrase mean in the 2A? What they really meant was instead of "the people" they really meant "those connected with service in the militia".

How about in the 1A? What does this mean to you?
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Is this some sort of collective right? If less than 100% of the population shows up do the people lose their right to assemble and seek redress?

How about in the 4A?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" So does this mean that the government can seize personal items from individuals, just not the people as a whole?

How about the 9A?
How about the 10A?

Why is it that only the 2nd Amendment is seen by some to be a restriction on the individual and the rest of them a restriction on the government?

If as you state "the people" in the 2A consist only of those connected with militia service, then it should by all accounts hold true for all of its appearances in the bill of rights. Why would the founding fathers have different definitions of "the people" in the document?

I think they were quite clear as well. The people means... The people.

I think you need to realize that when they say "the people" at that time, they by no means applied that word to all of the people. For example, African-Americans who were not considered citizens and for census purposes only counted as 3/5ths of the people, similarly women were denied the right to vote, and of course the Native Americans are excluded from application.

"The right of the people" is used as a rhetorical device; the agreement did not apply to all of the people, which is a quite different thing, which is why the Court even in Heller continued to acknowledge prohibited classes and the right of Government to impose a variety of restrictions. The Constitution does not strangle itself; in particular, I cannot fathom how the Founding Fathers would have looked upon the stockpiling of arms by individuals expressly opposed to the government such as the "Sovereign Citizens movement" and their unorganized "Militia" friends. I think they would be quite for prohibition of arms from such characters. How is it that we have allowed ourselves to become so manipulated by the gun lobby that we are purposely willing to negate the Ninth Amendment to protect part of the Second Amendment?

This is why I view the Constitution as a living document, and not a simply legal document; it is the foundation of our government, it is a social contract between free people of conscience.

GU didn't claim that 'the people' referred to everyone alive at the time, so your refutation of that position is a straw man.

See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

And yes, 'the people' is the same in all the instances of the bill of rights.

What did the preamble have to say about the bill of rights? Oh right..

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Abuse of whose powers? Restrictive clauses against whom? The government

Would you like the blue or the red?

"And yes, 'the people' is the same in all the instances of the bill of rights."

Would you care to offer up an actual explanation or are you just going to send me on a treasure hunt?

"The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Abuse of whose powers? Restrictive clauses against whom? The government"

That's really not as clear cut as you'd like to pretend. If government is the people, can the people abuse themselves if there is no direct disagreement with the text?

[div class='excerpt']"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble&quot ; Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States&quot (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 194 U. S. 292 (1904)

[div class='excerpt']That's really not as clear cut as you'd like to pretend. If government is the people, can the people abuse themselves if there is no direct disagreement with the text?

Logic fail.

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is god!

The government is 'of the people, by the people, for the people' -- not 'is'. If you're seriously saying there's no distinction between the two, then I have to question your grasp on reality.

I think it might behoove you to read more Federalist Papers.

When they say "of the people" it is meant quite literally, hence in court cases "the people of the United States" etc., it is not just a figure of speech. We're again getting close to the insurrectionist fantasy of throwing off the tyrannical yoke of the United States and forming a new government simply because we don't like what the Government of the People of the United States of America has decided upon.

Anti-Federalist fail.

Government is bad.
Justice is blind.
Antonin Scalia is blind.
Therefore Antonin Scalia is god!

The distinction is entirely dependent upon the failures of man; it is as the good Dr. Benjamin Franklin said:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Henceforth: I will never refer to the Government, but to our Government to prevent discourage such confusions.

...to which you refer was the reality of what the founders had just done. They had thrown off what they believed to be the tyrannical yoke of their legal government (His Majesty, King George III of England) and formed a new government simply because they did not like what the Crown had decided upon.

I think it is quite logical to believe they expected such a thing to become necessary again at some point in the future.

"I think it is quite logical to believe they expected such a thing to become necessary again at some point in the future."

No they didn't. That's the fantasy of the toters. They expressly defined treason in the Constitution and provided for a means of conviction:

There is no specified condition in the Constitution that grants a right to rebellion. You're not advocating the overthrow of the United States government are you if they were to prohibit the sale of assault weapons or the public open carrying of arms are you?

Surely not upon the contemporaneous writings of the founders or upon actual history.

There need not be a specific condition granting a right to rebellion. One more time, and I'll type this slowly: Rights are not granted in the Constitution. They are protected.

As far as your last question, I will unequivocally state if the federal government attempted to prohibit the sale, ownership and carry of firearms I absolutely would advocate armed insurrection. I would more than advocate it - I would be out there actively doing it.

Small point of fact my friend - that very act is what sparked the Revolutionary War. A certain General Thomas Gage marched on the towns of Lexington and Concord Massachusetts and attempted to confiscate the arms held by the citizens. History tells us how that turned out.

I'm curious as to just how deep the looniness runs...

...you can keep your Red Dawn dreams to yourself.

I don't think your quote says what you want it to say.

The government's power is derived from the people ('that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the govnered&quot , and those people chosen to administer the government should be representative, not be of one class or station.

That does nothing to back up your absurd assertion that the government is the people. (And conversely, 'the people' would be the government.)

The lengths that you will go to try to justify your absurd statements knows no bounds, does it?

Working for the people in the interest of the people?

Do you not believe the Government derives its powers from you? Do you not wish to be a Citizen of the Republic? Are you a state unto your own? Do you not wish to live under the auspices of the United States Government?

You just don't like the fact that I nailed you on your anti-Federalism.

Please quote me saying something that an english speaker would equate to what you think I've said.

Congresspersons represent people. They're supposed to have the interest of the people at heart, yes. Frequently, they seem to care more for big campaign donors, big business, or their own career. We have separate branches of government, and separation of powers among them as a means to keep one branch of government from having too much power. We have the bill of rights to protect people *from* government. (Re-read the preamble.)

That is neither here nor there, in regards to your equating one with the other. Your diversionary grooming is transparent.

Do try to stay on track, yes?

Very clearly the United States Government has the power to construct "a well regulated Militia" - do try to read the whole sentence and not just the parts you like. The implication is that government has the right to construct a regulated Militia so long as it does not result it actual infringement on the right. Is the prohibition on sawed-off shotguns infringement? I think not, and the Congress and Supreme Court agree.

Also, my grooming is excellent.

Have a Good Weekend

...it does not except under certain circumstances, and said circumstances are clearly laid out in the Constitution.

As far as the prohibition on short-barreled shotguns, I believe it is an infringement, and the Supreme Court never actually DID rule on that. You don't seem to understand US v. Miller.

Whose powers? Restrictive clauses against whom?

Here's a sentence for you.., since English seems to be hard for you..

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.."

Are only sentiments related to the security of freedom in a state protected? The previous quote was from the RI state constitution, btw.

Here's another..

"Pizza being an important tool for late night study sessions, the right of the people to grow and cook tomatoes shall not be infringed."

Are tomatoes only to be used for pizza?

And one more..

"I'm out of soda, I'm going to the grocery store."

Do stores only sell soda? Am I only going to purchase soda?

You notice the commonality among those sentences? The construction '{reason}, {statement}'. The statement is not limited by the reason. It is the 'why', not the 'how much'.

"The statement is not limited by the reason." Bullshit, if you say you're going to the store to get soda, and then you go to the bar, the reason you've given isn't correct.

Your comma based argument is not convincing:

The Founders wanted a "well-regulated Militia" and nothing more, otherwise they would have been explicit, and it wouldn't have taken over 200 years for a politicized Supreme Court to get around to declaring that it means something it doesn't state. You're not going to convince me with Federalist Society sophistry.

They would have said, 'the right of the militia'.

But I have to LOL at your own article..

[div class='excerpt'] “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

I would agree that that's a fair modern restatement. I've made that case before, actually, using almost the exact same language.

However, it's even clearer in that statement that the 'why' does not limit the clause.

"Because I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- does not limit what stores sell, nor what you may or may not buy.

Given the context of the preamble, this boob just made my point for me.

Thanks for the citation, LOL!!!!!

The old 3/5ths lie is just that - a lie. It applied ONLY to slaves in the southern states for purposes of the census and representative apportionment. Not to blacks mind you - slaves. There were many free blacks at the time.

Same with women. The Constitution in no way denied them the right to vote - some state legislatures did. The requirement to vote was to own property - and yes, there were women who owned property and voted. In fact there were women who held office.

As far as "the right of the people" being a rhetorical device, the fact that you can even say that with a straight face indicates you don't understand a lot of things. I have honestly never heard it referred to in such a manner in my life.

I misspoke, and know better, you're still wrong about the 2nd Amendment, and about Federal indifference to the protection of the rights of women as a class, rather than as a select class of property owners.

You've earned a cartoon for repeated personal insults - "you don't understand a lot of things.":

...is not even close to the same thing as a restriction of rights.

The federal government is utterly indifferent to how i fuck my wife. Does this mean I have no right to do so?

Elisonz, you are so off base its not even worth discussing with you anymore. You've managed to reach the point you're not even good for humor.

...says you may only have one legally declared wife to fuck. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act - Also the Federal Government and various constituent States care how old your wife is and whether or not you let other people fuck her for money, or move her across state lines for that purpose. So yes, the Government is not indifferent to how you fuck your wife, and sets conditions upon which you may exercise that right.



"Elisonz, you are so off base its not even worth discussing with you anymore. You've managed to reach the point you're not even good for humor."

That's because you don't like my political cartoons

It has to do with the fact that I have a low tolerance for stupidity.

Hope you stick to just one wife, that she is of age, and that you don't traffic her for interstate sexual commerce

It appears we have one thing in common.

were not issued. People were required to buy them. The ironic thing is that conservatives who claim Obamacare is unconstitutional are also saying the Militia Act is unconstitutional.

...and if not, you should. Let's just hope the Roberts Court doesn't screw us all and leave us at the mercy of the Health Insurance Industry - they've done some crazy shit already. "Corporations are people, my friends..."

The rank and file are misguided saps not knowing they are being duped by the Kochs. They are mostly retired working class who are not knowledgeable on such things.
As far as Citizens United v FEC goes, the ACLU is wrong on that too.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

I'm no fan of the ACLU, I don't think they get it right all the time, and Citizens United is just icing on the cake. I reject the sort of Talmudic approach to the Constitution.

but to Dick Armey and the Kochs it does. They are about greed and returning to the gilded age. No more, no less.

Actually, making a "universal NICS test" is not in and of itself offensive to me. I don't know if it would have any effect on the crime rate, mass murders, etc., but most gun-controller/prohibitionists are obsessed with symbolism, so what the hey? You should join in a discussion (as in 4-5 years ago) when making NICS universal was discussed for some days by pro-2A folks (for some reason, there was little input from gun-controller/banners).

Why this is a special category (I presume you mean "gun show loopholes&quot is beyond you can only explained by gun-controllers who have insisted on that category! LOL!

You really need to read the quote more closely:

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"Should not be taken to cast doubt" means just that. They didn't address all those other issues; they addressed -- oddly enough -- the issues raised in Heller.

Respectfully, that is basic logic.

engaging in your usual charming discourse!

Poor ellisonz ... criticized at length in one thread for posting a news item with no commentary or issue for discussion ... and then takes pains to lay the groundwork for discussion, and is met with this ...

The ultimate goal is total ban of a scary object....nothing to do with criminal intent.

We've had gun control people here applauding Scott Walker for banning guns in some state buildings, embracing Bloomie for his gun stings and even telling us how great that Bush/Cheney Terrah watch list is all of a sudden ... if only they'd use it to deny firearm ownership.

But this is a new low for your side. If David Duke came out for more gun control would you wear his button too?

but, making comments like yours do mean something, I suppose...

We've had gun control people here applauding Scott Walker for banning guns in some state buildings

Oh, you mean, expressing some relief that at least there would be one public place in the state of Wisconsin exempt from the scourge of jerks with guns walking around in them?

And that would be: as compared to the groundswell of gun militant glee at the various gun militant-friendly laws Gov. Walker signed recently. And all the gun militant glee spewed forth at the words and actions of every pretty much every right-wing piece of crap in the known universe (you'll allow me that bit of hyperbole, but I'll point out that the government of the obscure-to-you right-wing piece of crap Stephen Harper under whose prime ministership I am currently labouring has been the beneficiary of much such glee) over a decade and thousands upon thousands of posts in this forum ...

I'll offer this back at ya:

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=478402&mesg_id=479788

I guess you thought you'd come out swinging in proactive self-defence this time.



If David Duke came out for more gun control would you wear his button too?

"Too"? Now, where exactly do you get off here? "Too" in addition to whose button is that, that ellisonz is wearing?

If he can get his state to adopt controls like mine has, more power to him.

It doesn't fit any normal definition of the word "loophole."

That's why my initial reply says it's a state issue.

sales. So rather than concluding it has to continue because it can't be done, let's look for solution.

Also, how about an "occupy" gun shows movement. Anything to start getting the message across that more and more guns in society aren't OK -- even if legal. Kind of like confederate/nazi flags, a lot of pollution, corporate greed, etc., are legal -- just not in society's best interest.

Gotten your congress critter elected who will get this enacted? Written your check to the Brady bunch so they can help get this done? And of course you have taken YOUR guns to a gun buy back so you aren't percieved as a hypocrite for still owning guns while saying how BAAAADD they are for society, right?

I'd be willing to bet that all you do is pontificate on the internet.

http://opencarry.org/privatetransfers.html

You could write an amendment to repeal that pesky interstate commerce clause in the Constitution.

You could try an pass an amendment making the manufacture and sale of guns illegal.

I love the epitome of stupid... "background checks for back alley sales."

You sound like you expect your dope dealer to have a business license and pay worker's comp for any of his minions gets themselves shot during a dispute over distribution rights in a geographic area.

At some point, people won't put up with it. I think trying to control all private, intrastate sales of used non-NFA firearms would be over that line.

...and it is called a constitutional amendment. That is what is required to grant the federal government that authority.

You going to get started on that? Good luck. Seriously. I wish you well.

Just change the consciousness of those who seek to do intentional violent harm. Start a national anti-assault and murder campaign. Peel off several hundred PSA's encouraging people to not commit crimes.

Of course my suggestion is ridiculous because some people WANT to hurt others. They WANT to be criminals. No number of appeals will ever get them to not hurt people.

All you will do is disarm their victims -- but I can't help but think you already know all of this.

Do you think Bob Pope will succeed in his effort?

NOPE

Do you think he's right about the "gun show loophole?"

NOPE, is he going to close the private sale loophole?


What is your opinion of "gun shows" after reading this article?

Hasn't changed, they are a good place to look at a variety of weapons at a sometimes lower price without having to go to dozens of shops in one day. There is no gunshow loophole, they are private sales. His "campaign" is just that, a campaign to advance his agenda, dosen't make him right on this issue, just makes him dishonest for promoting the "gunshow loophole" lie.

“What I’m talking about hasn’t a darn thing to do with gun control,” Pope said. “It has to do with crime control.”

Are you doubting his integrity and the publications reporting?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/guns-in-bars-advocate-busted-for-alleged-drunk-driving-with-loaded-gun/

As far as the gun show loophole, who knows if he will succeed. In Colorado, it took Columbine before the state realized that it's a bad idea for people to be able to buy guns without a background check. The fact that there is even a question about closing the gun show loophole is a testament to the extremist influence of the NRA. In polls, you get something like 90% in favor of closing it, and it's one of those issues where you really wonder how even 10% of Americans can actually believe it's a good idea.

nt

I thought I read that in the gungeon at DU2.

And it was illegal for them to own them regardless as they were under 18, and lets not forget that the guns were their backup plan in case their pipe bombs didn't go off.

These are all facts though, so they have no place in a gun control debate.

I dunno what we're to make of that. I suppose we could ban the manufacture, possession and use of pipe bombs.

They also were inspired by The Matrix. We could ban Keanu Reeves movies. I'd definitely go for that.

Natural Born Killers. The Matrix was released 3 weeks before Columbine happened and the preparation for their act took months.

Cant agree with you on banning Keneau Reeves movies. He's a lame actor but I do like some of the stuff he's been in.

Now if you just want to ban him from working in movies...hey - I'm all for that.

Even "Bogus Journey" was a step down.

Of course I feel the same way about Jane Fonda peaking in Barbarella, which is why I'm not writing movie reviews.

One of the purchasers stated that she wouldn't have gone through with the purchase if she had to go through a background check.

Also, because of the loophole, she actually didn't break any laws and wasn't prosecuted. Since the purchase was private, she never had to fill out a form saying the guns were for her, so the straw purchase didn't break any laws, because she didn't lie on any form. You see, in addition to keeping the gun show loophole open, the NRA also opposes any laws that explicitly outlaw straw purchasing, because they don't want to make life too difficult for gun traffickers.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/1003robyn.shtml

But hey, whatevah....

You've really got to stop doing that....

...at the time. That's what the other buyer was charged with.

The girl's crime would have been a straw purchase, but since it was a private sale, there was no form to fill out, so she couldn't be charged with "lying and buying".

Since then the gun show loophole has been closed in CO. Not sure about the law about minors. Still, the key point here is that the guns used for Columbine were in fact acquired through the gun show loophole.

Thanks NRA!

It has nothing to do with the NRA either.

The federal government has no authority to dictate the conditions of private sales. Period.

Do you really not understand this concept?

And yes, the federal government could easily close the loophole if it wanted. But it's opposed by powerful special interests (i.e. the NRA) who prey on the ignorance and fear of people like yourself in order to forward a right-wing agenda.

It just doesn't make sense for the Fed to govern used firearm sales as many of those who wish to expand gun control desire.

Anyone who refers to the gunshow loophole as some thing different from any other private firearm sale is being dishonest from the outset.

My opinion of gun shows has not changed.

Well having never been to one, my impression is that it is kinda like a bazaar which contrasts with say an ad in the newspaper.

How is it not different in that it is a dedicated venue?

Sure, there are more private sales going on at a gun show than a kitchen table, but that is not the issue that purportedly makes the transfers convenient for criminals.