Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, they had there as well until some well intentioned environmental groups got 'em listed (wolves) on the "don't you dare touch 'em" list and then convinced the government that they needed to repopulate the area. Unfortunately as so often happens these wonderful plans have gone awry and since they have no natural predators they're over breeding killing livestock and "food" animals like Elk,Deer etc on a massive scale for no other reason that to kill it.
That's why the Wolf hunt aka management.
Not sure why this issue is on the Connecticut school shooting thread. But anyway, wolves only prey on livestock or elk or anything at all if they are hunting for food or threatened. In some states sport hunters were going buck wild chasing down wolves who were doing nothing other than being wolves, in their own habitat. And their population diminished.
No harm no foul, I'm only generally polite because I believe firmly that there can be discourse and still be cordial. So I wont break my replies/retorts by paragraph this time..simply too much subject matter to cover.
So to your first point on the supposed blurring of the Constitutional lines, there is a quick answer..there is no blurring. You seem to know the 2nd Amendment quite well so let's us it as our benchmark. "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."
1. Keeping in mind of course that this was written in the time of muzzleloaders, there naturally is no reference to protected classes of weaponry. Now a Mossberg is a fine weapon, we used them in our tactical units, but tell me where limitations on design points geared towards making an already lethal weapon that much more lethal is an infringement on anyone's right to bear arms? If you notice, and you strike as an observant individual, I've never suggested banning conventional firearms.
The answer resides in the language of the Amendment, and the key terms used ... "well regulated" and "infringed". In the parlance of the day, "well regulated" meant well equipped/well armed. Well armed would obviously suggest that the firearms the founders deemed necessary to the security of the people should be of the most modern type available, and surely, if the primary enemy of the day, Great Britain, were to secure some technologically advanced firearm, then it seems pretty self evident that the founders would have wanted the people to be equally "well equipped" with firearms of comparable capability for the most effective defense, no? And given the wisdom and cleverness and foresight of the framers, I expect that they would have anticipated the inevitable advancement in firearm technology.
Secondly, the term "infringed" is very important. Why do you suppose that the framers chose the word infringed, rather than another word like "denied" ...... "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be denied"? Wouldn't that have meant the same thing? Well to answer my own question .. NO ... NO ... NO and one more big fat NO for good measure .. it would not mean the same thing at all, and being the clever men they were, they used the term they chose for a reason. Were they to have used the term "denied", the intent of the 2nd Amendment might indeed be circumvented by restricting that right to own only muzzle loaders, which would be of little use today for the purpose intended. Or, restricted in the manner you suggest is constitutional, such as limiting the lethalness. However, the term "infringe" simply defined is "the act of limiting or undermining" something. And so the amendment states in more modern parlance ... "Because it is necessary for the citizenry to be well equipped in order to ensure their security, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be limited or undermined". Are you following me? Do you see how your suggestion that limiting the access to specific and less advanced or less capable types of firearms is absolutely the quintessential definition of limiting and undermining that right? That's why it makes me crazy jumping mad when people say such things as "Nobody is denying your right to own firearms". That's just pure double talk .... if you deny me the right to own the most effective firearms, and relegate that right to only muzzle loaders (which many suggest should be the interpretation), or your more reasonable but equally vague definition of less lethal, you are absolutely limiting and undermining my right, otherwise defined as "infringed".
And the lurking point surrounding this debate is the fact that everyone has their own and different idea of what firearms should and should not be available to the public, ranging from none at all, to something far inferior to that which the criminals and authorities (which is sometimes synonymous) possess and might one day pose as the threat we must defend ourselves from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLay36
2. Now to the DC & Chicago Bans, McDonald vs. Chicago did rule that the Firearms ban was Unconstitutional, but not because it violated the 2nd Amendment rather because it violated the 14th Amendment "Due Process" clause. These items are being reconciled at the City level as we speak with an open voting measure on the issue coming to those Cities. So the public will decide their own fate.
Pure, unadulterated, Orwellian nonsense. One would have to be feloniously dishonest or box of rocks stupid to buy such "Supreme BS" from the bloviating blowhard political appointees in black robes. How we have managed to digress to this depth of dishonesty and delusion escapes me. Though one need not adopt my explanation of the clear language of the 2nd Amendment, or even the more flexible interpretation for which you subscribe to, to miss how absurd it is to claim that total gun bans are not a violation of the 2nd, but instead a violation of due process portion of the 14th Amendment? What on earth could they mean by that, and what due process could be violated by gun bans other than a violation of rights stipulated in the 2nd Amendment? It's enough to make your head explode ... if yer a thinkin' man, that is. My only speculation as to why they reached for that nonsensical narrative is to leave the door open for a later reversal, under the correct view that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia, because DC is not a state. I suspect something of that nature based on the well demonstrated corruption of the court in past decisions which defy all tests of integrity ... with this one serving as a perfect example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLay36
3. Another interesting Supreme Court ruling worth reading, DC vs. Heller was the first challenge of the DC gun laws to reach the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court did side with Mr. Heller, Justice Scalia wrote this in his opinion "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. ".
Although I find Scalia one of the least offensive Justices (that's not such a huge endorsement with such trolls as Ginsberg, Sotomayer, and Kagan infesting the court) ... he is neither infallible nor without his own political agenda and bias. And just as I suggested earlier, we have Scalia's measured interpretation, then we have the "in common use at the time" baloney. And that is the problem with "compromise". It never ends.
Listen ... I'm not a lunatic who believes mentally ill people should be able to walk the streets armed to the teeth, and I'm theoretically in favor of restricting access in such cases, but again, it's a matter of "give an inch and they'll take a mile", because there are many among the politicos who hold extremist views and want to ban all types of semi-automatics .. while others have openly stated that their goal is to move step by step to an eventual UK type total ban.
Another problem with this idea of selective stripping of 2nd Amendment rights (which the constitution does not provide for) is the broadly applied label of felony. Another is the extension of that ban to those added to the TSA's no-fly list, which includes celebrities, children, and others who are neither remotely associated with terrorist activity, nor does this listing adhere to due process. People don't know why or how they even got on the list, and can't seem to get off either. What's next? Owe the IRS money and boom ... no more guns for you? Parking ticket? Sorry, too bad?
The problem with being "reasonable" is that you can never compromise enough, and the vultures remain poised to pick your bones at the first opportunity.
[quote=JLay36;27441199][/list]As far as me being a walking contradiction goes, now that's just silly. I don't hear and have not heard from anyone other than NRA talking heads that anyone is coming to take anyones guns away..that's not what this debate is about and the concern does not hold water. As far as myself placing you under arrest goes, IF (i'll bold an italicize it this time so you catch it this time) I was sent to your home to execute my duties Due Process has already been completed and I'm sure that you'll know it's coming. Drawing a weapon on a Law Enforcement Officer with the intent to harm or threaten is a Felony. I still struggle to see the contridiction, and I am not as you cordially put it "below average intelligence".
This is where you and I are never going to see eye to eye. Unless there is a constitutional amendment, ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures repealing the 2nd Amendment, and authorizing firearm confiscation, you would be breaking the law by participating in such an activity ... PERIOD. I don't care what your chief orders you to do, or what Obama might declare through executive order, because he has no granted authority under the constitution to violate it either .... you will be the criminal, not me for resisting your efforts.
As a police officer you are sworn to uphold the law, and protect and defend the constitution ... not follow orders from on high. And that's on you, bubba. Such a criminal act could not be accomplished without compliant accomplices in law enforcement, but it would be no difference than if you were ordered to rob a bank ... comply with that order, and you're just a thief ... not a law enforcement officer. Rob me of my firearms makes you no less a thief and criminal ... such alleged "due process completed" be damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLay36
Now to the Los Angeles point. Yes there are a multitude of automatic and semi-automatic weapons in circulation illegally, I referenced an Op-Ed written by an LA area Police Chief that stated as much. The other side of that coin is that a majority of these weapons that we confiscated during the course of my career were originally obtained by legitimate means and were subsequently "lost" or stolen..the Black Market for these weapons do not have retail locations my friend.
Food for thought amigo..I look forward to your rebuttal.
I'm not sure why that might serve as a rebuttal of my point that a 27 year ban on machine guns didn't achieve the gaol of preventing criminals from getting them and using them. How, where, and by what means they have attained them is immaterial to that most important point ... the ban did not achieve the goal, unless the goal was to prevent law abiding citizens from owning them.
And the same would be true of AR15 semi-autos ... or shotguns ... or pistols .. or whatever else the gun grabbers set their beady little eyes on ... it won't prevent criminals from getting those weapons ... and will only violate the rights of law abiding citizens.
Ban gun organizations and gun stores, declare all privately owned weapons illegal. Then, and only then can we start singing; What a wonderful World!
Bawwww Hawwww Hawwwww, seriously, you're killing me.... Can't...breathe... Stomach hurts from laughing so hard... Now I've got to clean my keyboard from soda blowing out my nose
Oh,...... I'm sorry, you were serious?
Perhaps she had the weapons because there was a mentally ill person in the house.
There's a saying "Walk a mile in my shoes". I know, first hand, how hard it is to get help when you have a family member who is mentally ill.
Actually I believe she was trying to connect with her son any way she could and this was one way it worked, until it didn't.
Having and raising a son who's on the spectrum I get the want/need for connection as a parent. I also get the idea of finding something that will "click" with the child so you can get their focus on what you need to. A single mother (or any mother) wants connection on some level with their child (not so much for a man I think) usually it's touching but this particular child did not like to be touched and from some of the stories of friends was remote in many other ways as well.
I'd bet this mother was desperate to interact with her child and found the way to make it happen. Unfortunately it seems she became a bit too complacent and it cost her and 26 others their lives.
In this case a ban on all guns is a bit much, this all would have been averted had they been in a safe that he did not have access to or had gun locks (which are free with the purchase) in use.
A simple error that's made all through the year sometimes resulting in injury or death just like many other errors that kill or injure adults and children on a daily basis.
How about this, how about mandatory biometric grips on guns? How about a chipped ring like the proximity car keys that'd unlock the trigger? There's many solutions to this without resorting to hysteria.
...it cost her and 26 others their lives.
In this case a ban on all guns is a bit much, this all would have been averted had they been in a safe that he did not have access to or had gun locks (which are free with the purchase) in use.
A simple error that's made all through the year sometimes resulting in injury or death just like many other errors that kill or injure adults and children on a daily basis.
How about this, how about mandatory biometric grips on guns? How about a chipped ring like the proximity car keys that'd unlock the trigger? There's many solutions to this without resorting to hysteria.
No one I know is calling for a ban on all guns. That statement smacks of hysteria—"Obama is coming for our guns, etc" (lol). That uneducated mentality seeks to subvert any meaningful compromise.
Wolves aren't killing for "no other reason than to kill it" --- that's what humans do. Wolves are hunting for food.
Actually... Many animals like wolves, tigers, lions will also kill off their competition to protect their territory and the pack. Kind of like our criminals here in Chicago or Detroit.
Did I mention Chimps (our closest cousins) also kill intruders from outside their group ?
Last edited by Rakin; 12-21-2012 at 05:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
