|
ears from now, they'll be celebrating the Supreme Court's decision in
D.C. vs. Heller that effectively and finally asserts that the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does NOT give individual gun nuts
and fanciers the right to "bear arms."
Such SC stalwart butt-faced justices as Antonin "Dick's Dick" Scalia,
Clarence
"Unca-Thom" Thomas, and Samuel "All Decisions Catholic" Alito are
expected to turn in limp-wristed dissents in the predicted 8-4
majority decision.
Ah, the Second Amendment, which any clear-thinking person knows was
NOT intended to permit bottom-feeding, low-IQ, second-class, sub-
standard, ill-educated, adult-juvenile, cowboy-mentality individuals
to possess, carry, and use guns -- of any type -- to threaten,
intimidate, kill, and maim at will any ol' human being who, via their
infantile thought processes, poses some kind of "threat" to them.
This insanity -- and inanity -- of course, applies to the allowance
of
guns in bars, restaurants, recreation centers, schools, libraries,
parks, playgrounds -- and any places where people who elect not to
carry firearms might peacefully gather. And so what if 70-percent of
you gun-packers have a measurable blood alcohol content!
Guns and booze have always gone hand-in-hand -- since the Wild West
--
right? What's "hunting" if you don't have a buzz on, right?
It doesn't matter to you embro-brained anal vents that nations who
have gun controls have as little as 1/100th the death-by-firearm rate
than does the Un-United States. Nothing matters to you fools other
than your narrow, clueless perceptions that somehow you have a "right"
to
pack heat, and use it -- god-damn-it -- to "protect" your families
from imagined but sometimes real professional killers who can
outshoot
pasty, doughy, half-stoned gun nuts like you every time!
Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Cheney is the hero among you bunch of pre-
adolescent-brained numbnuts. You children conveniently ignore the fact
that
Dick was drunk the day he shot that "judge" in the face during what
was supposed to be a safe and enjoyable hunting experience. The
victim was a few feet away from Cheney, for christ's sake!
Why do you think it took three days for your war criminal vice
president to report this "incident"?
Because he knew his blood alcohol reading within 48 hours after the
blasting would indicate he was "over the limit."
Sorry about that decision, gun fools! Some of your weak and failed
case arguments follow, with the more substantial, intellectual, and of
course successful arguments also included for your whimpering and
whining selves.
--------------------------------------
"The District's Gun Ban Goes to Court"
Monday, March 17, 2008; A17
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in District of
Columbia v. Heller. The justices are expected to rule on whether the
Second Amendment allows an individual right to bear arms or reserves
that right to militias. Below are excerpts from some of the dozens of
briefs filed on both sides.
In 1976, the Council of the District of Columbia concluded that
existing laws did not adequately curb gun-related violence. As a
consequence, it enacted a comprehensive new law regulating firearms.
The principal provision at issue here prohibits most residents from
registering (and thus possessing) any pistol not registered before the
law became effective. . . . The Council targeted handguns because
they . . . were used in 88% of armed robberies and 91% of armed
assaults. In 1974, handguns were used to commit 155 of 285 murders in
the District. In the same year, every rapist in the District who used
a firearm to facilitate his crime used a handgun.
The Council . . . found that guns 'are more frequently involved in
deaths and violence among relatives and friends than in premeditated
criminal activities,' and that many 'murders are committed by
previously law-abiding citizens, in situations where spontaneous
violence is generated by anger, passion, or intoxication.' The Council
also focused on the link between handguns and accidental deaths and
injuries, particularly to young children who can wield only smaller
weapons: of the '[c]lose to 3,000 accidental deaths . . . caused by
firearms' annually, children were particularly vulnerable -- ' 1/4 of
the victims are under 14 years of age.' . . . The legislature
concluded that 'the ultimate resolution of the problems of gun created
crimes and gun created accidents . . . is the elimination of the
availability of handguns.' The Council thus chose to 'freez[e] the
pistol . . . population within the District of Columbia.' As the
Council summed up, 'the bill reflects a legislative decision' that
handguns 'have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of
the District of Columbia.'
-- from the brief of the District of Columbia
As the court of appeals correctly held, the Second Amendment protects
an individual right to possess firearms, including for private
purposes unrelated to militia operations. But like other
constitutional rights, that individual right is subject to reasonable
restrictions, must be applied in light of context and history, and
does not provide any protections to individuals who have never been
understood to be within the Amendment's protections. The D.C. laws at
issue here ban a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm. The ban
is not unconstitutional just because it takes a categorical approach,
but it is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.
This Court should affirm the court of appeals' threshold determination
that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but it should
adopt a more flexible standard of review.
-- from the brief for the United States
Even pro-gun advocates recognize that handguns are not well-suited for
self-defense. Firearms expert Chris Bird has explained that a handgun
'is the least effective firearm for self defense' and in almost all
situations 'shotguns and rifles are much more effective in stopping a
[criminal].' . . . [and] '[a] handgun is the hardest firearm to shoot
accurately.' Because of their smaller size and shape, which allows
them to be concealed and carried easily, handguns -- compared with
larger shotguns and rifles that are designed to be held with two hands
-- require a greater degree of dexterity.
The difficulty of shooting a handgun accurately is substantially
compounded when an individual is faced with a life-threatening
situation. Even a well-trained shooter will experience dramatic
physiological effects in response to mortal danger. Commonly known as
the 'fight-or-flight reflex,' and accompanied by an enormous surge in
adrenaline . . . the resulting effects include the loss of fine motor
skills, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, trembling, and loss of
control of bodily functions. . . . The effect of these unavoidable
physiological changes is profound. A handgun owner faced with the
'fight-or-flight reflex' is less likely to be able to manipulate his
handgun effectively for self-defense, but he also is more likely to
endanger himself, his family, and other innocent bystanders.
-- from the brief by the Violence Policy Center and the police chiefs
of Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle
Domestic violence is a pervasive societal problem that affects a
significant number of women and children each year. Correctly
recognized as a nati
|
| |
| |
Years from now, they'll be celebrating the Supreme Court's decision in
D.C. vs. Heller that effectively and finally asserts that the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does NOT give individual gun nuts
and fanciers the right to "bear arms."
Such SC stalwart butt-faced justices as Antonin "Dick's Dick" Scalia,
Clarence
"Unca-Thom" Thomas, and Samuel "All Decisions Catholic" Alito are
expected to turn in limp-wristed dissents in the predicted 8-4
majority decision.
There are only nine votes on the Court.
|
| |
| |
You libloons will lose .
I will still be packing.
Jim E
|
| |
| |
There are only nine votes on the Court.
You are responding to a libloon, by definition ignorant.
Jim E
|
| |
| |
You are responding to a libloon, by definition ignorant.
How would you know? You're an ignorant rightwingnut.
|
| |
| |
n Mar 17, 6:43=A0am, LoveSlinger <lilhor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Years from now, they'll be celebrating the Supreme Court's decision in
D.C. vs. Heller that effectively and finally asserts that the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does NOT give individual gun nuts
and fanciers the right to "bear arms."
Such SC stalwart butt-faced justices as Antonin "Dick's Dick" Scalia,
Clarence
"Unca-Thom" Thomas, and Samuel "All Decisions Catholic" Alito are
expected to turn in limp-wristed dissents in the predicted 8-4
majority decision.
Ah, the Second Amendment, which any clear-thinking person knows was
NOT intended to permit bottom-feeding, low-IQ, second-class, sub-
standard, ill-educated, adult-juvenile, cowboy-mentality individuals
to possess, carry, and use guns -- of any type -- =A0to threaten,
intimidate, kill, and maim at will any ol' human being who, via their
infantile thought processes, poses some kind of "threat" to them.
This insanity -- and inanity -- of course, applies to the allowance
of
guns in bars, restaurants, recreation centers, schools, libraries,
parks, playgrounds -- and any places where people who elect not to
carry firearms might peacefully gather. =A0And so what if 70-percent of
you gun-packers have a measurable blood alcohol content!
Guns and booze have always gone hand-in-hand -- since the Wild West
--
right? =A0 What's "hunting" if you don't have a buzz on, right?
It doesn't matter to you embro-brained anal vents that nations who
have gun controls have as little as 1/100th the death-by-firearm rate
than does the Un-United States. =A0Nothing matters to you fools other
than your narrow, clueless perceptions that somehow you have a "right"
to
pack heat, and use it =A0-- god-damn-it -- to "protect" your families
from imagined but sometimes real professional killers who can
outshoot
pasty, doughy, half-stoned gun nuts like you every time!
Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Cheney is the hero among you bunch of pre-
adolescent-brained numbnuts. You children conveniently ignore the fact
that
Dick was drunk the day he shot that "judge" in the face during what
was supposed to be a safe and enjoyable hunting experience. =A0The
victim was a few feet away from Cheney, for christ's sake!
Why do you think it took three days for your war criminal vice
president to report this "incident"?
Because he knew his blood alcohol reading within 48 hours after the
blasting would indicate he was "over the limit."
Sorry about that decision, gun fools! =A0 Some of your weak and failed
case arguments follow, with the more substantial, intellectual, and of
course successful arguments also included for your whimpering and
whining selves.
--------------------------------------
"The District's Gun Ban Goes to Court"
Monday, March 17, 2008; A17
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in District of
Columbia v. Heller. The justices are expected to rule on whether the
Second Amendment allows an individual right to bear arms or reserves
that right to militias. Below are excerpts from some of the dozens of
briefs filed on both sides.
In 1976, the Council of the District of Columbia concluded that
existing laws did not adequately curb gun-related violence. As a
consequence, it enacted a comprehensive new law regulating firearms.
The principal provision at issue here prohibits most residents from
registering (and thus possessing) any pistol not registered before the
law became effective. . . . The Council targeted handguns because
they . . . were used in 88% of armed robberies and 91% of armed
assaults. In 1974, handguns were used to commit 155 of 285 murders in
the District. In the same year, every rapist in the District who used
a firearm to facilitate his crime used a handgun.
The Council . . . found that guns 'are more frequently involved in
deaths and violence among relatives and friends than in premeditated
criminal activities,' and that many 'murders are committed by
previously law-abiding citizens, in situations where spontaneous
violence is generated by anger, passion, or intoxication.' The Council
also focused on the link between handguns and accidental deaths and
injuries, particularly to young children who can wield only smaller
weapons: of the '[c]lose to 3,000 accidental deaths . . . caused by
firearms' annually, children were particularly vulnerable -- ' 1/4 of
the victims are under 14 years of age.' . . . The legislature
concluded that 'the ultimate resolution of the problems of gun created
crimes and gun created accidents . . . is the elimination of the
availability of handguns.' The Council thus chose to 'freez[e] the
pistol . . . population within the District of Columbia.' As the
Council summed up, 'the bill reflects a legislative decision' that
handguns 'have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of
the District of Columbia.'
-- from the brief of the District of Columbia
As the court of appeals correctly held, the Second Amendment protects
an individual right to possess firearms, including for private
purposes unrelated to militia operations. But like other
constitutional rights, that individual right is subject to reasonable
restrictions, must be applied in light of context and history, and
does not provide any protections to individuals who have never been
understood to be within the Amendment's protections. The D.C. laws at
issue here ban a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm. The ban
is not unconstitutional just because it takes a categorical approach,
but it is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.
This Court should affirm the court of appeals' threshold determination
that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but it should
adopt a more flexible standard of review.
-- from the brief for the United States
Even pro-gun advocates recognize that handguns are not well-suited for
self-defense. Firearms expert Chris Bird has explained that a handgun
'is the least effective firearm for self defense' and in almost all
situations 'shotguns and rifles are much more effective in stopping a
[criminal].' . . . [and] '[a] handgun is the hardest firearm to shoot
accurately.' Because of their smaller size and shape, which allows
them to be concealed and carried easily, handguns -- compared with
larger shotguns and rifles that are designed to be held with two hands
-- require a greater degree of dexterity.
The difficulty of shooting a handgun accurately is substantially
compounded when an individual is faced with a life-threatening
situation. Even a well-trained shooter will experience dramatic
physiological effects in response to mortal danger. Commonly known as
the 'fight-or-flight reflex,' and accompanied by an enormous surge in
adrenaline . . . the resulting effects include the loss of fine motor
skills, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, trembling, and loss of
control of bodily functions. . . . The effect of these unavoidable
physiological changes is profound. A handgun owner faced with the
'fight-or-flight reflex' is less likely to be able to manipulate his
handgun effectively for self-defense, but he also is more likely to
|
| |
| |
think you are mistaken, the Supremes appear to be poised to recognize that
Americans have in inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
</top post>
Years from now, they'll be celebrating the Supreme Court's decision in
D.C. vs. Heller that effectively and finally asserts that the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does NOT give individual gun nuts
and fanciers the right to "bear arms."
Such SC stalwart butt-faced justices as Antonin "Dick's Dick" Scalia,
Clarence
"Unca-Thom" Thomas, and Samuel "All Decisions Catholic" Alito are
expected to turn in limp-wristed dissents in the predicted 8-4
majority decision.
Ah, the Second Amendment, which any clear-thinking person knows was
NOT intended to permit bottom-feeding, low-IQ, second-class, sub-
standard, ill-educated, adult-juvenile, cowboy-mentality individuals
to possess, carry, and use guns -- of any type -- to threaten,
intimidate, kill, and maim at will any ol' human being who, via their
infantile thought processes, poses some kind of "threat" to them.
This insanity -- and inanity -- of course, applies to the allowance
of
guns in bars, restaurants, recreation centers, schools, libraries,
parks, playgrounds -- and any places where people who elect not to
carry firearms might peacefully gather. And so what if 70-percent of
you gun-packers have a measurable blood alcohol content!
Guns and booze have always gone hand-in-hand -- since the Wild West
--
right? What's "hunting" if you don't have a buzz on, right?
It doesn't matter to you embro-brained anal vents that nations who
have gun controls have as little as 1/100th the death-by-firearm rate
than does the Un-United States. Nothing matters to you fools other
than your narrow, clueless perceptions that somehow you have a "right"
to
pack heat, and use it -- god-damn-it -- to "protect" your families
from imagined but sometimes real professional killers who can
outshoot
pasty, doughy, half-stoned gun nuts like you every time!
Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Cheney is the hero among you bunch of pre-
adolescent-brained numbnuts. You children conveniently ignore the fact
that
Dick was drunk the day he shot that "judge" in the face during what
was supposed to be a safe and enjoyable hunting experience. The
victim was a few feet away from Cheney, for christ's sake!
Why do you think it took three days for your war criminal vice
president to report this "incident"?
Because he knew his blood alcohol reading within 48 hours after the
blasting would indicate he was "over the limit."
Sorry about that decision, gun fools! Some of your weak and failed
case arguments follow, with the more substantial, intellectual, and of
course successful arguments also included for your whimpering and
whining selves.
--------------------------------------
"The District's Gun Ban Goes to Court"
Monday, March 17, 2008; A17
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in District of
Columbia v. Heller. The justices are expected to rule on whether the
Second Amendment allows an individual right to bear arms or reserves
that right to militias. Below are excerpts from some of the dozens of
briefs filed on both sides.
In 1976, the Council of the District of Columbia concluded that
existing laws did not adequately curb gun-related violence. As a
consequence, it enacted a comprehensive new law regulating firearms.
The principal provision at issue here prohibits most residents from
registering (and thus possessing) any pistol not registered before the
law became effective. . . . The Council targeted handguns because
they . . . were used in 88% of armed robberies and 91% of armed
assaults. In 1974, handguns were used to commit 155 of 285 murders in
the District. In the same year, every rapist in the District who used
a firearm to facilitate his crime used a handgun.
The Council . . . found that guns 'are more frequently involved in
deaths and violence among relatives and friends than in premeditated
criminal activities,' and that many 'murders are committed by
previously law-abiding citizens, in situations where spontaneous
violence is generated by anger, passion, or intoxication.' The Council
also focused on the link between handguns and accidental deaths and
injuries, particularly to young children who can wield only smaller
weapons: of the '[c]lose to 3,000 accidental deaths . . . caused by
firearms' annually, children were particularly vulnerable -- ' 1/4 of
the victims are under 14 years of age.' . . . The legislature
concluded that 'the ultimate resolution of the problems of gun created
crimes and gun created accidents . . . is the elimination of the
availability of handguns.' The Council thus chose to 'freez[e] the
pistol . . . population within the District of Columbia.' As the
Council summed up, 'the bill reflects a legislative decision' that
handguns 'have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of
the District of Columbia.'
-- from the brief of the District of Columbia
As the court of appeals correctly held, the Second Amendment protects
an individual right to possess firearms, including for private
purposes unrelated to militia operations. But like other
constitutional rights, that individual right is subject to reasonable
restrictions, must be applied in light of context and history, and
does not provide any protections to individuals who have never been
understood to be within the Amendment's protections. The D.C. laws at
issue here ban a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm. The ban
is not unconstitutional just because it takes a categorical approach,
but it is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.
This Court should affirm the court of appeals' threshold determination
that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but it should
adopt a more flexible standard of review.
-- from the brief for the United States
Even pro-gun advocates recognize that handguns are not well-suited for
self-defense. Firearms expert Chris Bird has explained that a handgun
'is the least effective firearm for self defense' and in almost all
situations 'shotguns and rifles are much more effective in stopping a
[criminal].' . . . [and] '[a] handgun is the hardest firearm to shoot
accurately.' Because of their smaller size and shape, which allows
them to be concealed and carried easily, handguns -- compared with
larger shotguns and rifles that are designed to be held with two hands
-- require a greater degree of dexterity.
The difficulty of shooting a handgun accurately is substantially
compounded when an individual is faced with a life-threatening
situation. Even a well-trained shooter will experience dramatic
physiological effects in response to mortal danger. Commonly known as
the 'fight-or-flight reflex,' and accompanied by an enormous surge in
adrenaline . . . the resulting effects include the loss of fine motor
skills, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, trembling, and loss of
control of bodily functions. . . . The effect of these unavoidabl
|
| |
| |
eff Strickland wrote:
I think you are mistaken, the Supremes appear to be poised to
recognize that Americans have in inalienable right to keep and bear
arms.
Have you ever wondered what the Framers meant by the right to bear arms?
Most people assume that it means the right to carry weapons.
During the process of ratifying the Constitution, the North Carolina
ratification convention proposed the following resolution: "That any person
religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of
an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead."
It seems that the Framers had something else in mind when they spoke of
bearing arms.
</top post>
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:07:25 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
I think you are mistaken, the Supremes appear to be poised to recognize that
Americans have in inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
inalienable (n-ly-n-bl, -l--) adj. That
cannot be transferred to another or others.
--inalienability n. --inalienably adv.
We have allowed that basic "rights" come from god---all
fairly well enumerated and agreed on by the time of the
ratification
You can't argue from a "literalist" position (like the
rightwing court we have) and claim that something that
wasn't envisioned in the latter 18th century---could be
applied to the post technological weaponry we have
today.
THerefore the right to those weapons (to a literalist)
SHOULD be looked at in the light of the "original
intent" as it was taking place in the 18th century
"For defense of the state, and to provide the state
with manpower to fight enemies"
You may be right that the court will "decide" that
gunloonery is "what the founders meant"---but it sure
shoots the #@($ out of Federalist Society crap that the
constitution should never be interpreted with a
"modern" spin to it.
==============================================================
"Because of Reagan's economic policies---most of which were
Solidly endorsed by (a GOP) congress---wealth in the US was being
REDISTRIBUTED upward. While the rich got richer in the 1980's
poverty deepened for many people. (Under reagan) The United
States was polarizing racially and economically and societal
divisions were being excerbated by new problems"
----A History of the United States; A people and a Nation"
4th Edition
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland wrote:
Have you ever wondered what the Framers meant by the right to bear arms?
Most people assume that it means the right to carry weapons.
I think that keep and carry are different levels of the same thing,
ownership. I can keep my arms and I can carry my arms, these are different
degrees of the same thing.
During the process of ratifying the Constitution, the North Carolina
ratification convention proposed the following resolution: "That any
person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon
payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead."
It seems that the Framers had something else in mind when they spoke of
bearing arms.
That speaks to the conscientious objectors. It seems to imply that the
proposal wanted people to have arms at the ready, whether carried on their
person or kept at home, and that they realized some people would not want to
shoot another person so those people could pay a tax and therby avoid gun
ownership.
The proposal of NC did not come to pass because if it did, then instead of
being allowed to keep and bear arms, there would be a requirement to keep
and bear arms. Some people would be compelled to pay a tax in order to NOT
exercise a right, and what kind of right is it when there is a tax
associated with not exercising it?
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:07:25 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
inalienable (n-l"y.-n.-b.l, -"l-.-) adj. That
cannot be transferred to another or others.
--inal"ienabil"ity n. --inal"ienably adv.
We have allowed that basic "rights" come from god---all
fairly well enumerated and agreed on by the time of the
ratification
You can't argue from a "literalist" position (like the
rightwing court we have) and claim that something that
wasn't envisioned in the latter 18th century---could be
applied to the post technological weaponry we have
today.
THerefore the right to those weapons (to a literalist)
SHOULD be looked at in the light of the "original
intent" as it was taking place in the 18th century
"For defense of the state, and to provide the state
with manpower to fight enemies"
You may be right that the court will "decide" that
gunloonery is "what the founders meant"---but it sure
shoots the #@($ out of Federalist Society crap that the
constitution should never be interpreted with a
"modern" spin to it.
Are you are saying that the right to keep and bear arms should be
constrained because of advances in weaponry? Using that argument, the right
to a free press should be constrained because of advances in media. That's
absurd.
The right to keep and bear arms only applies to "small arms", guns and
rifles. The only really changes these have seen is in speed -- they are
faster now.
|
| |
| |
You are SADLY ignorant & misinformed, Jeffie!
There is no mention of "small arms, guns and
rifles" in any part of the U.S. Constitution.
You, like tens-of-millions of benighted U.S. citizens are guilty of
"constitutional presumption."
READ THE DOCUMENT, for the very first time.
|
| |
| |
You are SADLY ignorant & misinformed, Jeffie!
There is no mention of "small arms, guns and
rifles" in any part of the U.S. Constitution.
You, like tens-of-millions of benighted U.S. citizens are guilty of
"constitutional presumption."
READ THE DOCUMENT, for the very first time.
You have no idea what "arms" are. Therein lies the problem you have.
|
| |
| |
|
