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.
Not really.
I stated that "Technically, one could make a pretty good argument that the ONLY people who should be allowed guns are those who are part of such a "well regulated militia" - since the constitution specifically mentions such people as the REASON why folks should be allowed to have guns."
The Supreme Court ruled against that argument, but the decision went against it by just a single vote - so apparently it was a "pretty good argument" - even it wasn't quite good enough to win. In the end - by a very close decision - the Supreme Court simply decided to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part.
Not sure what else you are referring to.
Ken
No, you've been proven wrong twice, like it or not....no need to get technical....or provide "what you think should happen" hell, if that were true we would ot have the ACA....
That's how things go in the SC, 1 vote....remember ocare? That was also 1 vote...
You don't know what the SC decided to ignore, you say they ignored the "well regulated militia" but have nothing to back it up, except your opinion. What if they did not ignore that?
You don't know what the SC decided to ignore, you say they ignored the "well regulated militia" but have nothing to back it up, except your opinion. What if they did not ignore that?
correct, chances are that the scotus judges know what the phrase "well regulated" means in the context of the second amendment, and ruled accordingly.
Speak for yourself. If everything for you comes down to having a freaking gun, I submit that you might be a very poorly equipped natural-born slowpoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
But what about the 115 lbs woman against a 300 lbs man??
How about some non-lethal form of self-defense? We don't need to be out there exterminating people for being a little overweight.
Speak for yourself. If everything for you comes down to having a freaking gun, I submit that you might be a very poorly equipped natural-born slowpoke.
I have never said "everything comes down to having a gun" please show me this?
What I have said, is it should NEVER be up to a person like you, who decides whether or not I nor anyone else can have a gun to protect themselves.
O.K., lets play, provide why you think I am a very poorly equipped natural-born slowpoke?
Is it because I think people can think for themselves? Make their own decisions?
Why do you hate that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32
How about some non-lethal form of self-defense? We don't need to be out there exterminating people for being a little overweight.
Why do little minded people like you make the overweight person the victim?
Like what, call the police?
Here, let this natural born slow speaking person educate you...
Quote:
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Yeah, guns owners love to point to the Constitution - where the 2nd Amendment specifically states that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms" somehow though they conveniently overlook the preface to that - where it specifically states the REASON why folks should be allowed to own such weapons: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...".
They also routinely overlook the fact that in the usage of the time, the phrase "keep and bear arms" occurred more than 90% of the time on an overtly martial context. When the notion was taken up in a personal or civilian context, the phrase "carry weapons" was used more than 90% of the time. Heads of household were for instance encouraged to "carry weapons" while conveying a family to and from church on account of assorted desperadoes as might be lying in wait along the route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The PURPOSE of that amendment was not so much so that people could protect themselves from criminals as to provide a "ready backup" - people already trained in the use of firearms - for the military in time of war etc.
Not war, but slave uprisings. The 2nd Amendment was part of the compromises over slavery that were necessary in order to see the Constitution ratified by the necessary nine of thirteen states. Slave-owning states were fearful that the more powerful new Congress might seek to end slavery by disarming state militias. These were the primary line of defense that white society had against their very real fears of being slaughtered by their slaves. What were called militias in the south were really slave patrols designed to intimidate slaves away from any thought of rising up in rebellion. Obviously, arms and the fearful damage they could do were a key part of that.
How about some non-lethal form of self-defense? We don't need to be out there exterminating people for being a little overweight.
There are no effective forms of defense that are guaranteed non-lethal. Even pepper spray can result in seizures and death.
In many ways the human body is so fragile I'm surprised anyone gets to die from old age, but in others it's incredibly resilient and people survive wounds that you would expect they would die easily from. The problem is that people will die from having any form of self defense (from unarmed combat to being shot by a SMAW and all points in between) performed on them, the more effective something is in defense the more likelihood the person at the receiving end will be killed. The less effective something is in defense the more risk the person employing it accepts by using a less effective method.
Not really.
The Supreme Court ruled against that argument, but the decision went against it by just a single vote - so apparently it was a "pretty good argument" - even it wasn't quite good enough to win. In the end - by a very close decision - the Supreme Court simply decided to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part.
Heller was taken up at all only because five justices had fallen sufficiently under the sway of NRA/GOA propaganda to be ready to find an individual right that had never been discovered before. The rest of the opinion is a rambling sort of dissheveled and unkempt attempt to make some sense of the world in light of such an individual right. This is all de novo still. There is not yet any settled law in it at all.
I have never said "everything comes down to having a gun" please show me this?
Reread your posts. It's all guns, guns, guns. They are your FIRST choice in terms of response to anything. That's extreme lack of creative thinking. It's much more like some child's game of cowboys-and-indians. Your favorite toy is meanwhile piling up cadavers all over the place. Why do you NOT CARE about any of that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
What I have said, is it should NEVER be up to a person like you, who decides whether or not I nor anyone else can have a gun to protect themselves.
You see monsters where there are none. I haven't proposed any sort of limits or restrictions at all. I have asked others and I will ask you: What are YOU willing to do to help reduce the levels of death and mayhem that guns produce in this country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
O.K., lets play, provide why you think I am a very poorly equipped natural-born slowpoke?
R
You see monsters where there are none. I haven't proposed any sort of limits or restrictions at all. I have asked others and I will ask you: What are YOU willing to do to help reduce the levels of death and mayhem that guns produce in this country?
One. Track. Mind.
Long sentences for criminals who use guns.
Deport criminal aliens, starting with gang members.
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.
