Forums

[mel bradford]

Like all good liberals do the first response to gun violence is to blame the NRA. Afterall, the collectivist regulating gods of reason from mount olympus known as the US Senate really really CARE about what is right....right ? And the more we can impune the NRA, the more public sentiment and polling numbers will sway towards more regulation.

The 2nd amendment has little if no meaning today. The gun issue is about holding power in the D.C. and holding back the Shumers, Feinsteins, Boxers, Lautenbergs, and for you new yorkers....mayor Bloomberg.

Its how the opportunist elite statist dirt balls work. Some nut job goes berzerk in anytown USA and the dirt balls want to regulate, register and control a sportman in rural Montana, a gun show in Florida and everything in between while said dirt balls limo around DC under 24 hour GUN protection. Somethings wrong with this picture.

In the mean time we will now send US women of child bearing age into the kill zone of the middle east and call it 'equality'.
Gee, can it get any more perverse ?

[glenstar]

What do the Bible and the US Constitution have in common? People pick and choose little bits and pieces to justify their actions or to win points in a debate. The same thing happens with Supreme Court Rulings. Gun rights advocates are quick to point out a ruling saying the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals as well as to a militia. So, the Supremes are
good, and their ruling must be the correct interpretation. When Roe VS Wade is in play, how the rules change. Even though the Supremes ruled on that one, the rightists say that cannot be. The Supremes also said most of Obama Care is legal, and yet rightists are fighting it. Sorry, can't have it both ways kids.

Oh i see, some times the Suprmes are wrong? OK, maybe they are wrong int eh 2nd Amendment ruling.
Just a though. The truth of the matter is this, Rulings change according to the make up of the Court at any given time in history, We all know that, so before we go boasting about the Supremes ruling on anything, remember it is fluid, and could change tomorrow.

[mel bradford]

Interesting question

The bible tells us about our human nature....in relation to God. The Constitution is man best attempt to define and control the human nature of government.

[mel bradford]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_xLrr2xL5M
truth is stranger than fiction

[JimDandy75]

The same thing happens with Supreme Court Rulings. Gun rights advocates are quick to point out a ruling saying the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals as well as to a militia. So, the Supremes are
good, and their ruling must be the correct interpretation.

Actually they said it was an individual right INDEPENDENT OF not along with militia service.

We all know the SCOTUS has made some decisions that today would mortify us. And they've made some that have led us to where we are today. I doubt we'd find many Democrats in favor of the Dred Scott decision for example. Even if the court were reconstituted tomorrow (a highly unlikely event) I doubt the ruling would change. They don't historically reverse themselves on an immediate philosophical shift in the makeup of the court. They generally nibble away at a decision in other ways until enough time has passed that IF one side still has control of the court, they can reverse it. Neither philosophical side wants the court to appear so... frivolous or whimsical. Or maybe they don't want the decisions they leave for posterity to be so malleable and provide a golden-rule touch to their predecessor's decisions. Who knows. So while yeah, it could change tomorrow I wouldn't hold my breath.

For the record, I have an uneasiness with Roe, but no real problem with it. But I have to ask you- if you believe we have no business teling someone what gender, race, or creed the other person in their bedroom can be, nor what they may choose to do if the recreational activity turns into procreational activity as long as no laws like age, or consent are broken, where do you get off telling me what kind of firearm can be in my closet, cabinet, gun safe, or under-bed storage area as long as no laws regards to target are broken?

[mel bradford]

If you review the 14th Amendment section 1 you will notice that the equal protection clause, the privilages and immunity clause and the due process clause were nationalized. This one section has been the bain of SC existance throughout the 1900's to take jurisdiction from the states and federalize everything under the sun.
The 14th is a constitution in an of itself. Its the backbone of Brown, Roe, Miranda and a host of others.

[-Alex]

I doubt we'd find many Democrats in favor of the Dredd Scott decision for example.

Just Democrats? I would have included Republicans, too. Of course these Republicans may have identified as Southern Democrats back in the day.

Even if the court were reconstituted tomorrow (a highly unlikely event) I doubt the ruling would change. They don't historically reverse themselves on an immediate philosophical shift in the makeup of the court.

I agree. We had roughly 60 years of Plessy v. Ferguson before Brown v. Board of Education overruled it, and 85 years of Pace v. Alabama before Loving v. Virginia superseded that.

But I have to ask you- if you believe we have no business telling someone what gender, race, or creed the other person in their bedroom can be, nor what they may choose to do if the recreational activity turns into procreational activity as long as no laws like age, or consent are broken, where do you get off telling me what kind of firearm can be in my closet, cabinet, gun safe, or under-bed storage area as long as no laws regards to target are broken?

One is a weapon of destruction designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose. The other is a human being. That have their own civil rights. That may be a difference.

[JimDandy75]

One is a weapon of destruction designed to harm and kill as a primary purpose. The other is a human being. That have their own civil rights. That may be a difference.

Actually one is a firearm designed to send either one, or (in the case of shot) many projectiles down range at a target that may or may not alive. Can you find a single person here that thinks a rifle is being misused by putting a very small hole in a moderately larger black dot, on a moderately larger square sheet of paper 100 yards away?

[-Alex]

Actually one is a firearm designed to send either one, or (in the case of shot) many projectiles down range at a target that may or may not alive.

Will the target be harmed? If I shoot this firearm at a window or a car, will the target be harmed?

Can you find a single person here that thinks a rifle is being misused by putting a very small hole in a moderately larger black dot, on a moderately larger square sheet of paper 100 yards away?

No - and I wish that is all that was happening.

Are you implying that, with your comparison to relationships, that people are being misused by entering into relationships with people of the wrong race, creed, and gender?

[JimDandy75]

Will the target be harmed? If I shoot this firearm at a window or a car, will the target be harmed?

It depends on how you define harmed. If its there to be shot at- for example the US military often shoots at destroyed cars with new windows to test performance through glass- some could say yes, some could say it served it's purpose. Does blowing your nose harm kleenex?

Can you find a single person here that thinks a rifle is being misused by putting a very small hole in a moderately larger black dot, on a moderately larger square sheet of paper 100 yards away?

No - and I wish that is all that was happening.[/quote]
For the people who legally own these arms, clay pigeons, paper targets, steel targets, and various hunting game appropriate to the individual arm that is all that's happening, and I don't see a strong interest for the government to invade the lives of it's law abiding citizens for firearms used so rarely in crimes.

Are you implying that, with your comparison to relationships, that people are being misused by entering into relationships with people of the wrong race, creed, and gender?

No the limit of the analogy I was going for was that what type of firearm is a personal decision, and unless it's used in a crime not the business of the government or other citizens.