kmcguffee 0 #76 December 10, 2003 QuoteSee, there's a big gulf between the folks who like wooden roller coasters versus the steel ones. I'm a steel roller coaster guy. Fess up. You couldn't stand to let it go off of the page could you? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #77 December 10, 2003 I was just kind of surprised the humanna-humanna was still going on. I really like that new California Screamin coaster at California Adventure. And just about any of the coasters at Magic Mountain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #78 December 10, 2003 Fess up Duece. You're nothing more than a thread terrorist. See you in a few weeks. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #79 December 10, 2003 Terrorist? Ouch, that hurts. Just trying a little redirection. And yeah, I'll see your Director Skinner looking bad self in about two weeks. I should have several guns with me, just to stay on the track of the thread. I hope to get some target time with the monkeys. Any of you guys want to wander out into the desert to tell us we're morally flawed as we're blasting cans, you're welcome. While your there I'll be happy to teach you how to safely handle the evil things Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #80 December 10, 2003 I reckon we ought to start a new thread up about rollercoasters. Beats anything about political correctness any day of the week. I refuse to take life seriously! ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #81 December 10, 2003 QuoteTitle 10, United States Code, Section 311: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males of at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 year of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. So why did you disagree with him? He was saying citizens are the militia, and the second amendment covers them. He was abrupt, but I don't think he was not saying the NG doesn't count as militia, just that it's not the entire militia. So we are in agreement on this point, yes?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #82 December 10, 2003 QuoteThe militia and the current NG are considered to be the same thing. They are both composed of citizen soldiers whose main mission is to defend the borders of the country. The NG is just the modernized and, supposedly, better trained version of the old militia necessitated by the increasing complexity of the modern battlefield. Maybe this led to the misunderstanding. Would it be fair to say you meant "the NG is part of the militia." In that I would see you as attempting to correct his statement. However, what you said implies the NG is the entire militia, which we see is not true.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moodyskydiver 0 #83 December 10, 2003 *looks down at dead horse* Can we drop the bloody stick and leave it alone already?I'm a gun-toting Texan myself but jeez get over it people.You do what you want/believe and everyone else will do what they want/believe.Nothing you say will change their minds and vice versa.Bury the horse already. "...just an earthbound misfit, I." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #84 December 10, 2003 ......and get on the rollcoaster and have a laugh. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moodyskydiver 0 #85 December 10, 2003 Quote......and get on the rollcoaster and have a laugh. Cool! does it go upside down? "...just an earthbound misfit, I." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n2skdvn 0 #86 December 10, 2003 QuoteCool! does it go upside down? corkscrews too!!!!!if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN my site Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #87 December 10, 2003 I love the way he disappears when you give him an argument he can't refute with emotion, don't you?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moodyskydiver 0 #88 December 10, 2003 Yeah.I'm about sick of all the gun threads that are started to intentionally incite controversy rather than educate. I guess one of the instigators seems to be a pro at stirring up muck.Over 1/2 his posts are flaming about politics, guns or flaming others. Ugh! Get a life and give me a break. "...just an earthbound misfit, I." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #89 December 10, 2003 Actually, I was talking to John about JFields. (John was the last one to post a reply. definitely the last one to post a reply that made sense.) <--editwitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #90 December 10, 2003 The 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. No less, no more. Everyone else can have an opinion, but only the Supreme Court's interpretation has force of law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lurch 0 #91 December 10, 2003 Any of you guys want to wander out into the desert to tell us we're morally flawed as we're blasting cans, you're welcome. While your there I'll be happy to teach you how to safely handle the evil things OK. I've never taken a gun safety course or been "properly trained in the use and handling of firearms" and have no plans to in the future but can someone tell me why people feel such things are even necessary? Maybe its just me but the rules seem insanely obvious, even to the totally ignorant. Similar to other simple self evident safety rules like "Don't stick your head in a blender" "Don't eat steel wool" "You can't stop a train by standing on the tracks and yelling at it" and "Don't smoke in a fireworks factory." Lets see we have this bang-stick, absolute destruction comes out one end by way of contained explosion. Therefore, we derive rules like: Don't point it at friends and family or anyone you do not specifically intend to kill. EVER. It kills bad guys dead with big holes. If you fuck up it will kill whoever is in front of it. Duh. High powered hardware misassembled or cruddy or operated in a jammed state can be deadly. Driving a car with loose lug nuts can kill you and anyone near you. So can trying to fire a gun full of crud or loose/jammed/worn parts. If the lug nuts aren't tight, don't drive the gun.... ? The gun throws things fast. Thrown things tend to bounce around some, I think they call it "ricochet". It might be wise to consider where the things the gun throws (bullets maybe?) might bounce to. In other words don't shoot rocks at close range or you may cap yourself or a friend in the nut sack. And lastly, bullets do go a long way don't they? If I can't shoot for shit and the bullet is not stopped by my intended target, it IS going to be stopped by SOMETHING. I might want to consider what that something could be before shooting. Shoot me if I'm wrong here but didn't I just sum up a gun safety course? Believe it or not I even figured this all out on my own. Without a manual. Or even an adult present to help me. So tell me why the hell we need firearm safety training? It wastes the time of the experts trying to preserve the lives of those too stupid to know not to point a might-be-loaded gun at themselves or eat steel wool. Let darwin have his way, dammit.Live and learn... or die, and teach by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #92 December 10, 2003 QuoteAny of you guys want to wander out into the desert to tell us we're morally flawed as we're blasting cans, you're welcome. While your there I'll be happy to teach you how to safely handle the evil things OK. I've never taken a gun safety course or been "properly trained in the use and handling of firearms" and have no plans to in the future but can someone tell me why people feel such things are even necessary? Maybe its just me but the rules seem insanely obvious, even to the totally ignorant. Similar to other simple self evident safety rules like "Don't stick your head in a blender" "Don't eat steel wool" "You can't stop a train by standing on the tracks and yelling at it" and "Don't smoke in a fireworks factory." Lets see we have this bang-stick, absolute destruction comes out one end by way of contained explosion. Therefore, we derive rules like: Don't point it at friends and family or anyone you do not specifically intend to kill. EVER. It kills bad guys dead with big holes. If you fuck up it will kill whoever is in front of it. Duh. High powered hardware misassembled or cruddy or operated in a jammed state can be deadly. Driving a car with loose lug nuts can kill you and anyone near you. So can trying to fire a gun full of crud or loose/jammed/worn parts. If the lug nuts aren't tight, don't drive the gun.... ? The gun throws things fast. Thrown things tend to bounce around some, I think they call it "ricochet". It might be wise to consider where the things the gun throws (bullets maybe?) might bounce to. In other words don't shoot rocks at close range or you may cap yourself or a friend in the nut sack. And lastly, bullets do go a long way don't they? If I can't shoot for shit and the bullet is not stopped by my intended target, it IS going to be stopped by SOMETHING. I might want to consider what that something could be before shooting. Shoot me if I'm wrong here but didn't I just sum up a gun safety course? Believe it or not I even figured this all out on my own. Without a manual. Or even an adult present to help me. So tell me why the hell we need firearm safety training? It wastes the time of the experts trying to preserve the lives of those too stupid to know not to point a might-be-loaded gun at themselves or eat steel wool. Let darwin have his way, dammit. There are four simple rules, here they are: 1: Every gun is a loaded gun. 2: Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. 3: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. 4: Always be sure of your target and whats behind it. And you can stop a train by standing on the tracks and yelling. I've done it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #93 December 10, 2003 QuoteMaybe this led to the misunderstanding. Would it be fair to say you meant "the NG is part of the militia." In that I would see you as attempting to correct his statement. However, what you said implies the NG is the entire militia, which we see is not true. I interpreted his statement as saying the NG was not the militia. He said the militia was not organized by the government. Maybe I misunderstood but I don't think so. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #94 December 10, 2003 Everyone got upset when I deleted the last long gun thread, so this is the one and only warning. I just deleted a post on here that was a personal attack; it will be the entire thread next time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lurch 0 #95 December 10, 2003 How long did it take the train to notice you? Last time I tried that the train ignored me and tried to run me over. I was gonna sue it for not stopping but after I dived out of the way it ran off so fast I couldn't get its license plate number.....I'm gonna sue the railroad industry instead for not figuring out how to make trains stop when I stand in front of em.... I've seen variants on your ruleset there, like "theres no such thing as an unloaded gun" etc, but come on, someone please tell me the general public isn't so stupid they couldn't work this stuff out....then again, I've met people who needed a manual to operate a fork. Most of them were pretty skinny people. Never underestimate the creative stupidity of the species.....Live and learn... or die, and teach by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #96 December 10, 2003 QuoteI've seen variants on your ruleset there, like "theres no such thing as an unloaded gun" etc, but come on, someone please tell me the general public isn't so stupid they couldn't work this stuff out....then again, I've met people who needed a manual to operate a fork. Most of them were pretty skinny people. Never underestimate the creative stupidity of the species..... How many people do you know that couldn't safely operate a ladder or bathtub? I'd say those are less complex than a firearm, and I've seen more stupid things happen around them than I care to recall.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #97 December 10, 2003 QuoteHow long did it take the train to notice you? Last time I tried that the train ignored me and tried to run me over. I was gonna sue it for not stopping but after I dived out of the way it ran off so fast I couldn't get its license plate number.....I'm gonna sue the railroad industry instead for not figuring out how to make trains stop when I stand in front of em.... I've seen variants on your ruleset there, like "theres no such thing as an unloaded gun" etc, but come on, someone please tell me the general public isn't so stupid they couldn't work this stuff out....then again, I've met people who needed a manual to operate a fork. Most of them were pretty skinny people. Never underestimate the creative stupidity of the species..... Each of those 4 rules backs the others, but yes even experienced gun handlers have NG's. If you break one rule but follow the other three you should come out alright. To the train story. I got my Dad's car stuck on the tracks(long story) when I was in highschool. Two friends were with me and we were trying to get unstuck when we heard a train's horn a long way off. Two of us ran one way and the other guy went opposite 'cause we couldnt tell which direction the sound came from. Me and my friend had probably run a half-mile when the train came in sight and we stood on the tracks screaming and waving our arms and jumping up and down. The train DID pass us but it stopped before it smashed my Dad's car. Funny story now but scary as hell at the time. I can picture the train coming at us like it was yesterday! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #98 December 10, 2003 QuoteThe 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. No less, no more. SUPREME COURT CASES ON SECOND AMENDMENT/ RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 1998: MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES - In the dissent on defining "carries a firearm", several Justices note that "Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms"). . . ." 1998: SPENCER v. KEMNA - In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that a conviction "may result in tangible harms such as imprisonment, loss of the right to vote or to bear arms. . . ." 1997: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES - Brady Background Check overturned as unfunded mandate in violation of Tenth Amendment. Justice Thomas requests a Second Amendment case. 1995: U.S. v. LOPEZ - Gun-Free School Zones Overturned as Congress exceeded its powers. 1994: ALBRIGHT v. OLIVER - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1992: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1990: PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - National Guard is NOT the militia but part of Armed Forces. Militia divided into "organized" and "unorganized". 1990: UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ - The "people" under the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth & Tenth Amendments are individuals, not the States. 1980: LEWIS v. UNITED STATES - This case notes in a footnote that prohibiting felons from possessing firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. 1977: MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1973: ROE v. WADE - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1972: ADAMS v. WILLIAMS - In the dissent, Justices Douglas & Marshall took the portions of U.S. v. MILLER toward preservation of the Militia, but noted that some controls would be Constitutional, and preferable to "watering-down" the Fourth Amendment in this case. 1972: LAIRD v. TATUM - The court quoted Chief Justice Warren on how "fear and concern of military dominance" gave rise to the Second and Third Amendments and a decentralized militia." The right to keep and bear arms is also listed with other individual rights. 1969: BURTON v. SILLS - U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to a STATE licensing law. Even today, the Second Amendment is not applied to the states. 1968: DUNCAN v. LOUISIANA - Court quotes Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment for passage in the Senate, discussing why to pass the Amendment. Sen. Howard included "the right to keep and to bear arms" with other individual rights. 1965: GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT - In a case deciding that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, Justice Goldberg writes a concurring opinion that, "I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments ... I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights." As in other courts, the Second Amendment is listed with personal rights, and not distinguished or excluded as only a collective right. 1965: MARYLAND v. U.S. - The court found that the National Guard is the modern militia guaranteed to the states under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution but does not mention what is the Militia under the Second Amendment. See also HOUSTON v. MOORE. 1964: BELL v. MARYLAND - In a footnote on Black Codes, the court noted how "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places". 1964: MALLOY v. HOGAN - The court notes in a footnote that the Second Amendment is one of the rights not yet held applicable to the states through the 14th amendment. 1963: GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT - The court found that Amendments that are, "fundamental safeguards of liberty" are immune from both federal and state "abridgment" under the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. and POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA are both cited. 1961: KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR - The court found that Free Speech and other individual rights are based on rights "transplanted from English soil." The court went on to find Free Speech to be in unqualified terms and "In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'" 1961: POE v. ULLMAN - Lists the "right to keep and bear arms" with "the freedom of speech, press, and religion;" and "the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." The courts seemless aproach indicates that all are individual rights. 1958: KNAPP v. SCHWEITZER - The court rejected the Fifth Amendment as applying to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. "By 1900 the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States had been rejected in cases involving claims based on virtually every provision in the first eight Articles of Amendment." The Court cited U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK for both the First and Second Amendments. 1957: GREEN v. UNITED STATES - Mentions how President Taft stated that the Philippine people secured "all the guaranties of our Bill of Rights except trial by jury and the right to bear arms." See also KEPNER v. U.S. and TRONO v. U S. 1950: JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER - The Court found that the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to alien enemies on occupied alien territory. The court listed the Second Amendment as a civil-right along with the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Supreme Court also uses the term "werewolves." 1947: ADAMSON v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA - Justice Black in his dissent notes the many rights not incorporated under the Fourteen Amendment, including the Eighth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and the Second Amendment's right of the people to keep and bear arms citing PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS. 1939: U.S. v. MILLER - Militia-type weapons covered under Second Amendment/Militia composed of civilians primarily and bearing their own firearms. One Summary of Miller Documents. ***** 1936: GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. - Citing the findings from POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA , the court wrote, "We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safe-guarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...." 1934: HAMILTON v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. - School's requirement for military training for all male students is upheld as constitutional, citing "duty" to "support and defend government against all enemies." 1932: POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA - This fourteenth amendment case quotes from TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY about, "the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against national action may also be safeguarded against state action...." 1931: U.S. v. BLAND - A woman's petition for Naturalization is rejected because she is not willing to "bear arms in defense of the U.S." See also UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER & U.S. v. MACINTOSH. 1929: UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER - A woman's petition for Naturalization is rejected because she was not willing to "take up arms" in defense of the U.S. The court mentioned the right to keep and bear arms and stated, "Whatever tends to lessen the willingness of citizens to discharge their duty to bear arms in the country's defense detracts from the strength and safety of the government." 1915: STEARNS v. WOOD - An officer tried to use the Second Amendment, Tenth Amendment and other Constitutional protections against limits on promotions in the National Guard, but the court refused to hear his arguments. 1908: TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY - The Court concluded that the privilege against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) wasn't incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, nor are other personal rights including the 7th Amendment, "and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment" citing PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS 1905: TRONO v. U.S. - In questioning whether an action of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, then a U.S. possession, violated an act of Congress applying most of the Bill of Rights to the Philippines, the court noted that the Act omitted "the provisions in regard to the right of trial by jury and the right of the people to bear arms, . . . . " See also KEPNER v. U.S. 1904: KEPNER v. U.S. - Noted that the act of Congress regarding rights in the Philippines forget several Amendments, including the "the right of the people to bear arms" among several others. See also TRONO v. U.S. 1900: MAXWELL v. DOW - Cited PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS on how "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government". 1900: U S v. ELDER - The court repeatedly cited Government officials in the 1800s that provided "notice that they should keep arms sufficient for their defense." 1900: THE PANAMA - The court recognized that a ship carries guns and cannons for "self-defense" and quoted from Portalis, "defense is a natural right, and means of defense are lawful in voyages at sea, as in all other dangerous occupations of life". However, this did not apply to enemy property like the Panama. 1897: ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN - The court notes that each of the "Bill of Rights" have limitations on those rights, including the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people to keep and bear arms; double jeopardy, etc. 1896: BROWN v. WALKER - In his dissent, Justice Field quoted the counsel for the appellant: "The freedom of thought, of speech, and of the press; the right to bear arms; exemption from military dictation;. . . . . -- are, together with exemption from self-crimination, the essential and inseparable features of English liberty." 1894: MILLER v. TEXAS - Court refused to expand the Second and Fourth Amendment to the States since it was not brought up first during the trail. A very unfortunate trial mistake. 1892: LOGAN v. U.S. - The Court was faced with a question about the scope of the conspiracy statute involved in U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK. The court found that the First and Second Amendments under Cruikshank are not granted by the Constitution, but were both already existing and only a limitation on Congress. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1886: PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS - Second Amendment only a limitation on Congress, not the States. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1875: U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK - First and Second Amendment rights only limitation on Congress. These rights are not granted by, nor in any manner dependent, upon the Constitution. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1866: EX PARTE MILLIGAN - The court discounted the notion that The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were limitations on "war-making" powers. Similarly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not "hinder the President from disarming insurrectionists, rebels, and traitors in arms while he was carrying on war against them." 1857: DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD - Slavery kept legal based in part on the fear that freed slaves could "carry arms wherever they went" under the Second Amendment. 1844: THE MALEK ADHEL - A piracy case where the court noted that "All vessels going to the Pacific carry arms for defence." 1820: HOUSTON v. MOORE - This case seems to distinguish the Militia powers under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and "the right to keep and bear arms." Future decisions only mention one provision or the other. See also MARYLAND v. U.S. 1803: MARBURY v. MADISON - The court found that the Constitution is the "superior, paramount law" of the land and that "a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #99 December 10, 2003 QuoteThe 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. No less, no more. Everyone else can have an opinion, but only the Supreme Court's interpretation has force of law. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals says the second amendment is about an individual right (Emerson), and the Ninth says it isn't(can't remember). I'm wondering why the supreme court doesn't take an appeal and clear up the matter [and now it seems you think the sun shines from the justices collective backsides].witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #100 December 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteThe 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. No less, no more. Everyone else can have an opinion, but only the Supreme Court's interpretation has force of law. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals says the second amendment is about an individual right (Emerson), and the Ninth says it isn't(can't remember). I'm wondering why the supreme court doesn't take an appeal and clear up the matter [and now it seems you think the sun shines from the justices collective backsides]. Sylviera v. Lockyer.(sp) is the Ninth circus case and the Supremes just refused to hear it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 12 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kmcguffee 0 #93 December 10, 2003 QuoteMaybe this led to the misunderstanding. Would it be fair to say you meant "the NG is part of the militia." In that I would see you as attempting to correct his statement. However, what you said implies the NG is the entire militia, which we see is not true. I interpreted his statement as saying the NG was not the militia. He said the militia was not organized by the government. Maybe I misunderstood but I don't think so. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #94 December 10, 2003 Everyone got upset when I deleted the last long gun thread, so this is the one and only warning. I just deleted a post on here that was a personal attack; it will be the entire thread next time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lurch 0 #95 December 10, 2003 How long did it take the train to notice you? Last time I tried that the train ignored me and tried to run me over. I was gonna sue it for not stopping but after I dived out of the way it ran off so fast I couldn't get its license plate number.....I'm gonna sue the railroad industry instead for not figuring out how to make trains stop when I stand in front of em.... I've seen variants on your ruleset there, like "theres no such thing as an unloaded gun" etc, but come on, someone please tell me the general public isn't so stupid they couldn't work this stuff out....then again, I've met people who needed a manual to operate a fork. Most of them were pretty skinny people. Never underestimate the creative stupidity of the species.....Live and learn... or die, and teach by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #96 December 10, 2003 QuoteI've seen variants on your ruleset there, like "theres no such thing as an unloaded gun" etc, but come on, someone please tell me the general public isn't so stupid they couldn't work this stuff out....then again, I've met people who needed a manual to operate a fork. Most of them were pretty skinny people. Never underestimate the creative stupidity of the species..... How many people do you know that couldn't safely operate a ladder or bathtub? I'd say those are less complex than a firearm, and I've seen more stupid things happen around them than I care to recall.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #97 December 10, 2003 QuoteHow long did it take the train to notice you? Last time I tried that the train ignored me and tried to run me over. I was gonna sue it for not stopping but after I dived out of the way it ran off so fast I couldn't get its license plate number.....I'm gonna sue the railroad industry instead for not figuring out how to make trains stop when I stand in front of em.... I've seen variants on your ruleset there, like "theres no such thing as an unloaded gun" etc, but come on, someone please tell me the general public isn't so stupid they couldn't work this stuff out....then again, I've met people who needed a manual to operate a fork. Most of them were pretty skinny people. Never underestimate the creative stupidity of the species..... Each of those 4 rules backs the others, but yes even experienced gun handlers have NG's. If you break one rule but follow the other three you should come out alright. To the train story. I got my Dad's car stuck on the tracks(long story) when I was in highschool. Two friends were with me and we were trying to get unstuck when we heard a train's horn a long way off. Two of us ran one way and the other guy went opposite 'cause we couldnt tell which direction the sound came from. Me and my friend had probably run a half-mile when the train came in sight and we stood on the tracks screaming and waving our arms and jumping up and down. The train DID pass us but it stopped before it smashed my Dad's car. Funny story now but scary as hell at the time. I can picture the train coming at us like it was yesterday! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #98 December 10, 2003 QuoteThe 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. No less, no more. SUPREME COURT CASES ON SECOND AMENDMENT/ RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 1998: MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES - In the dissent on defining "carries a firearm", several Justices note that "Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms"). . . ." 1998: SPENCER v. KEMNA - In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that a conviction "may result in tangible harms such as imprisonment, loss of the right to vote or to bear arms. . . ." 1997: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES - Brady Background Check overturned as unfunded mandate in violation of Tenth Amendment. Justice Thomas requests a Second Amendment case. 1995: U.S. v. LOPEZ - Gun-Free School Zones Overturned as Congress exceeded its powers. 1994: ALBRIGHT v. OLIVER - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1992: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1990: PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - National Guard is NOT the militia but part of Armed Forces. Militia divided into "organized" and "unorganized". 1990: UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ - The "people" under the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth & Tenth Amendments are individuals, not the States. 1980: LEWIS v. UNITED STATES - This case notes in a footnote that prohibiting felons from possessing firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. 1977: MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1973: ROE v. WADE - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1972: ADAMS v. WILLIAMS - In the dissent, Justices Douglas & Marshall took the portions of U.S. v. MILLER toward preservation of the Militia, but noted that some controls would be Constitutional, and preferable to "watering-down" the Fourth Amendment in this case. 1972: LAIRD v. TATUM - The court quoted Chief Justice Warren on how "fear and concern of military dominance" gave rise to the Second and Third Amendments and a decentralized militia." The right to keep and bear arms is also listed with other individual rights. 1969: BURTON v. SILLS - U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to a STATE licensing law. Even today, the Second Amendment is not applied to the states. 1968: DUNCAN v. LOUISIANA - Court quotes Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment for passage in the Senate, discussing why to pass the Amendment. Sen. Howard included "the right to keep and to bear arms" with other individual rights. 1965: GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT - In a case deciding that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, Justice Goldberg writes a concurring opinion that, "I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments ... I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights." As in other courts, the Second Amendment is listed with personal rights, and not distinguished or excluded as only a collective right. 1965: MARYLAND v. U.S. - The court found that the National Guard is the modern militia guaranteed to the states under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution but does not mention what is the Militia under the Second Amendment. See also HOUSTON v. MOORE. 1964: BELL v. MARYLAND - In a footnote on Black Codes, the court noted how "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places". 1964: MALLOY v. HOGAN - The court notes in a footnote that the Second Amendment is one of the rights not yet held applicable to the states through the 14th amendment. 1963: GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT - The court found that Amendments that are, "fundamental safeguards of liberty" are immune from both federal and state "abridgment" under the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. and POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA are both cited. 1961: KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR - The court found that Free Speech and other individual rights are based on rights "transplanted from English soil." The court went on to find Free Speech to be in unqualified terms and "In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'" 1961: POE v. ULLMAN - Lists the "right to keep and bear arms" with "the freedom of speech, press, and religion;" and "the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." The courts seemless aproach indicates that all are individual rights. 1958: KNAPP v. SCHWEITZER - The court rejected the Fifth Amendment as applying to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. "By 1900 the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States had been rejected in cases involving claims based on virtually every provision in the first eight Articles of Amendment." The Court cited U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK for both the First and Second Amendments. 1957: GREEN v. UNITED STATES - Mentions how President Taft stated that the Philippine people secured "all the guaranties of our Bill of Rights except trial by jury and the right to bear arms." See also KEPNER v. U.S. and TRONO v. U S. 1950: JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER - The Court found that the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to alien enemies on occupied alien territory. The court listed the Second Amendment as a civil-right along with the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Supreme Court also uses the term "werewolves." 1947: ADAMSON v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA - Justice Black in his dissent notes the many rights not incorporated under the Fourteen Amendment, including the Eighth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and the Second Amendment's right of the people to keep and bear arms citing PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS. 1939: U.S. v. MILLER - Militia-type weapons covered under Second Amendment/Militia composed of civilians primarily and bearing their own firearms. One Summary of Miller Documents. ***** 1936: GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. - Citing the findings from POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA , the court wrote, "We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safe-guarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...." 1934: HAMILTON v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. - School's requirement for military training for all male students is upheld as constitutional, citing "duty" to "support and defend government against all enemies." 1932: POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA - This fourteenth amendment case quotes from TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY about, "the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against national action may also be safeguarded against state action...." 1931: U.S. v. BLAND - A woman's petition for Naturalization is rejected because she is not willing to "bear arms in defense of the U.S." See also UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER & U.S. v. MACINTOSH. 1929: UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER - A woman's petition for Naturalization is rejected because she was not willing to "take up arms" in defense of the U.S. The court mentioned the right to keep and bear arms and stated, "Whatever tends to lessen the willingness of citizens to discharge their duty to bear arms in the country's defense detracts from the strength and safety of the government." 1915: STEARNS v. WOOD - An officer tried to use the Second Amendment, Tenth Amendment and other Constitutional protections against limits on promotions in the National Guard, but the court refused to hear his arguments. 1908: TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY - The Court concluded that the privilege against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) wasn't incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, nor are other personal rights including the 7th Amendment, "and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment" citing PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS 1905: TRONO v. U.S. - In questioning whether an action of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, then a U.S. possession, violated an act of Congress applying most of the Bill of Rights to the Philippines, the court noted that the Act omitted "the provisions in regard to the right of trial by jury and the right of the people to bear arms, . . . . " See also KEPNER v. U.S. 1904: KEPNER v. U.S. - Noted that the act of Congress regarding rights in the Philippines forget several Amendments, including the "the right of the people to bear arms" among several others. See also TRONO v. U.S. 1900: MAXWELL v. DOW - Cited PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS on how "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government". 1900: U S v. ELDER - The court repeatedly cited Government officials in the 1800s that provided "notice that they should keep arms sufficient for their defense." 1900: THE PANAMA - The court recognized that a ship carries guns and cannons for "self-defense" and quoted from Portalis, "defense is a natural right, and means of defense are lawful in voyages at sea, as in all other dangerous occupations of life". However, this did not apply to enemy property like the Panama. 1897: ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN - The court notes that each of the "Bill of Rights" have limitations on those rights, including the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people to keep and bear arms; double jeopardy, etc. 1896: BROWN v. WALKER - In his dissent, Justice Field quoted the counsel for the appellant: "The freedom of thought, of speech, and of the press; the right to bear arms; exemption from military dictation;. . . . . -- are, together with exemption from self-crimination, the essential and inseparable features of English liberty." 1894: MILLER v. TEXAS - Court refused to expand the Second and Fourth Amendment to the States since it was not brought up first during the trail. A very unfortunate trial mistake. 1892: LOGAN v. U.S. - The Court was faced with a question about the scope of the conspiracy statute involved in U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK. The court found that the First and Second Amendments under Cruikshank are not granted by the Constitution, but were both already existing and only a limitation on Congress. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1886: PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS - Second Amendment only a limitation on Congress, not the States. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1875: U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK - First and Second Amendment rights only limitation on Congress. These rights are not granted by, nor in any manner dependent, upon the Constitution. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868). 1866: EX PARTE MILLIGAN - The court discounted the notion that The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were limitations on "war-making" powers. Similarly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not "hinder the President from disarming insurrectionists, rebels, and traitors in arms while he was carrying on war against them." 1857: DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD - Slavery kept legal based in part on the fear that freed slaves could "carry arms wherever they went" under the Second Amendment. 1844: THE MALEK ADHEL - A piracy case where the court noted that "All vessels going to the Pacific carry arms for defence." 1820: HOUSTON v. MOORE - This case seems to distinguish the Militia powers under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and "the right to keep and bear arms." Future decisions only mention one provision or the other. See also MARYLAND v. U.S. 1803: MARBURY v. MADISON - The court found that the Constitution is the "superior, paramount law" of the land and that "a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #99 December 10, 2003 QuoteThe 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. No less, no more. Everyone else can have an opinion, but only the Supreme Court's interpretation has force of law. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals says the second amendment is about an individual right (Emerson), and the Ninth says it isn't(can't remember). I'm wondering why the supreme court doesn't take an appeal and clear up the matter [and now it seems you think the sun shines from the justices collective backsides].witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #100 December 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteThe 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. No less, no more. Everyone else can have an opinion, but only the Supreme Court's interpretation has force of law. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals says the second amendment is about an individual right (Emerson), and the Ninth says it isn't(can't remember). I'm wondering why the supreme court doesn't take an appeal and clear up the matter [and now it seems you think the sun shines from the justices collective backsides]. Sylviera v. Lockyer.(sp) is the Ninth circus case and the Supremes just refused to hear it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
