mnealtx 0 #101 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteOr if you insist on this farce, find an example in the Bill of Rights where the group has a right, but the individual does not. How about Freedom of the Press? Not so much that an individual can't write pretty much whatever they choose, but an individual certainly won't be granted access the way an established news group will be. Being denied individual access can certainly be construed as limiting free speech. Being "granted access" has exactly jack and shit to do with the exercise of free speech.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteTax exemption isn't a right. Isn't a chuch's tax exempt status derived from the first amendment of the Constitution, just like theose other rights you listed? I know about the 501c exemption that LBJ put into place, but I was unaware of any law prior to that - is there case law supporting the exemption on a First Amendment basis?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #103 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOr if you insist on this farce, find an example in the Bill of Rights where the group has a right, but the individual does not. How about Freedom of the Press? Not so much that an individual can't write pretty much whatever they choose, but an individual certainly won't be granted access the way an established news group will be. Being denied individual access can certainly be construed as limiting free speech. Being "granted access" has exactly jack and shit to do with the exercise of free speech. Interesting. I'll remember this the next time somebody doesn't grant access to somebody that wants to carry their gun somewhere.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #104 July 8, 2009 Quote The Founding Fathers made the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution in case of dispute. Did they? The Constitution is a bit vague. It was 16 years later in Marbury v Madison that the Court asserted that it had the authority to overturn acts of Congress. As most FF were alive at the time, you can say they tacitly agreed with this 'expansion;' it certainly was in spirit with the framework. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #105 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOr if you insist on this farce, find an example in the Bill of Rights where the group has a right, but the individual does not. How about Freedom of the Press? Not so much that an individual can't write pretty much whatever they choose, but an individual certainly won't be granted access the way an established news group will be. Being denied individual access can certainly be construed as limiting free speech. Being "granted access" has exactly jack and shit to do with the exercise of free speech. Interesting. I'll remember this the next time somebody doesn't grant access to somebody that wants to carry their gun somewhere. Entirely different, and you damned well know it. Not getting access to a specific person for an interview does not prevent the reporter from writing an article on something else. Try another tactic - that one fails.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #106 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf not, could you please let us know what authority supersedes the SCOTUS w/r/t interpretation of law? Um, he's quoting from currently valid Supreme Court Precedent (Miller). Perhaps, but not in a context that supports his disagreement with Kallend's (correct) assertion that the opinion of the SCOTUS is the only one that really matters w/r/t interpreting the meaning of the second amendment. His quote from Miller further supports the claim that the second amendment guarantees an right that is not unlimited.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #107 July 8, 2009 Quote >Do you or do you not think a legal citizen in good standing should be allowed >to buy a new full auto M-16? I'm fine with it, and I am also fine with letting local cities/states decide that on their own. In the specific case of class-3 weapons, that layer of decision is made. Local Law Enforcement has to sign off on the form.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #108 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuote Being "granted access" has exactly jack and shit to do with the exercise of free speech. Interesting. I'll remember this the next time somebody doesn't grant access to somebody that wants to carry their gun somewhere. Private establishments have generally (always?) been able to exclude CCW holders. And those holders have the choice not to frequent their place. Restricting press access to private or secured areas does not represent a violation of 1st amendment free speech. You can become a member of the press if you desire such access. And certainly you are still fully able to publish your speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #109 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOr if you insist on this farce, find an example in the Bill of Rights where the group has a right, but the individual does not. How about Freedom of the Press? Not so much that an individual can't write pretty much whatever they choose, but an individual certainly won't be granted access the way an established news group will be. Being denied individual access can certainly be construed as limiting free speech. Being "granted access" has exactly jack and shit to do with the exercise of free speech. Interesting. I'll remember this the next time somebody doesn't grant access to somebody that wants to carry their gun somewhere. Entirely different, and you damned well know it. Not getting access to a specific person for an interview does not prevent the reporter from writing an article on something else. Try another tactic - that one fails. Who said anything about access to individuals? I was writing about access BY individuals. There are many times that individual writers have been denied access to information because they don't have a media affiliation. For instance, just try getting a "press pass" in most major cities as an individual. Without that press pass, you're not going to be able to do a number of things. Try applying for press photographer license plates without a media affiliation. Same thing.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,206 #110 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuote The Founding Fathers made the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution in case of dispute. Did they? The Constitution is a bit vague. It was 16 years later in Marbury v Madison that the Court asserted that it had the authority to overturn acts of Congress. . Seems to me that's just exercising its authority under Article III section 2... 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
mnealtx 0 #111 July 8, 2009 That makes your point more clear, thank you. What you are discussing now still involves access by the reporter to an individual - it is not preventing a reporter's article from being published.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #112 July 8, 2009 QuoteThat makes your point more clear, thank you. What you are discussing now still involves access by the reporter to an individual - it is not preventing a reporter's article from being published. And not being able to carry a gun in a national park is not preventing a person from owning a gun. Same sort of thing. It's an example of a right that belongs to a collective that might not apply in all cases and places to all individuals.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #113 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteThat makes your point more clear, thank you. What you are discussing now still involves access by the reporter to an individual - it is not preventing a reporter's article from being published. And not being able to carry a gun in a national park is not preventing a person from owning a gun. Same deal. Except for that whole "and bear" part. Dude - your analogy isn't working, just give it up.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,206 #114 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat makes your point more clear, thank you. What you are discussing now still involves access by the reporter to an individual - it is not preventing a reporter's article from being published. And not being able to carry a gun in a national park is not preventing a person from owning a gun. Same deal. Except for that whole "and bear" part. Dude - your analogy isn't working, just give it up. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." SCOTUS majority opinion, Heller vs DC, 2008 You show a remarkable ability to ignore things that are "routinely explained" to you.... 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
mnealtx 0 #115 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat makes your point more clear, thank you. What you are discussing now still involves access by the reporter to an individual - it is not preventing a reporter's article from being published. And not being able to carry a gun in a national park is not preventing a person from owning a gun. Same deal. Except for that whole "and bear" part. Dude - your analogy isn't working, just give it up. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." SCOTUS majority opinion, Heller vs DC, 2008 You show a remarkable ability to ignore things that are "routinely explained" to you. I show a remarkable ability to ignore and satirize BULLSHIT, you mean....but thanks for the implied PA, John - I expect no less from you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,206 #116 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat makes your point more clear, thank you. What you are discussing now still involves access by the reporter to an individual - it is not preventing a reporter's article from being published. And not being able to carry a gun in a national park is not preventing a person from owning a gun. Same deal. Except for that whole "and bear" part. Dude - your analogy isn't working, just give it up. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." SCOTUS majority opinion, Heller vs DC, 2008 You show a remarkable ability to ignore things that are "routinely explained" to you. I show a remarkable ability to ignore and satirize BULLSHIT, you mean....but thanks for the implied PA, John - I expect no less from you. So Scalia writes "BULLSHIT" opinions for the SC. OK.... 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
warpedskydiver 0 #117 July 9, 2009 While carrying a Lorcin .25cal is not guaranteed by that cite you posted there is another few paragraphs that mention weapons of common military usage. So a belt-fed crew served weapon is covered by that. Grenade launchers, Shotguns, Rifle that are select-fire etc. are also included by the military use clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #118 July 9, 2009 QuoteThe Supreme Court has stated unambiguously that the individual right conferred by the 2nd Amendment is "not unlimited". And they have stated: 1. That there is nothing reasonable about a ban. 2. That the militia is any able bodied person willing to take up arms. 3. That those people should muster with their own weapons that are "in common use at the time". So do you, or do you not: 1. Agree that bans are unconstitutional 2. Think that a lawful citizen should be allowed weapons that can be used for self defense?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #119 July 9, 2009 QuoteYou've been badgering people for a dozen posts, asking them for a specific quote saying that the founding fathers do not want individuals to have the right to own weapons Maybe then you should admit that you are UNABLE to do that instead of playing stupid games? QuoteNow, can you show ONE quote where they do not specifically want rapists to have weapons? Nope, so once they get out of jail and are off probation, let them have them. See I am willing to admit when I can't back my position... Are you? QuoteI'm fine with it, and I am also fine with letting local cities/states decide that on their own. So would you be fine with local cities/States removing the right to free speech? How about a local city/State removing protection from illegal Search and Seizure? How about a local city/State removing the right of due process? How about a local city/State removing the right to face your accuser? How about a local city/State allowing Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Are you OK with each of those as well? If not then why only on the 2nd? 'Cause Amendment 10 kinda says that the Constitution trumps States."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #120 July 9, 2009 QuoteDoes it not occur to you that the phrase "free man" meant something entirely different in Jefferson's time? Did it occur to you that "Militia" meant something different back then? Do you have any proof Jefferson meant something different? Or are you just grasping at straws? QuoteOr are you advocating that women shouldn't be allowed to own guns at all? Not at all. I think they are entitled the same rights and that has been proven over and over. See, to take away a right requires more work than granting IMO. You are free to argue that they are not allowed, but that is not a position I have taken. QuoteOr that black men should only be allowed to own 3/5th of a gun? You are free to take the position if you like. *I* will abide by common decency and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. You are free to try and push your agenda on your own. QuoteDoes it not also occur to you that, unless you just cherry pick, much of what the "founding fathers" wrote actually can be seen as sometimes contradictory? That even Supreme Court decisions are frequently not unanimous. That there is room for differing opinion and debate? While "the US history according to Ron" may be fine for you, it's not fine for others? Oh it can be debated... But the only evidence YOU have been able to provide is personal opinion and not ONE shred of real data to support your position. So tell me, other than YOUR personal history and interpretation, can you find ONE quote from a Founding Father that says the individual should NOT be allowed? Or are you just taking your personal opinion and trying to make the law read like YOU want without one shred of data to back your opinion?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #121 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat makes your point more clear, thank you. What you are discussing now still involves access by the reporter to an individual - it is not preventing a reporter's article from being published. And not being able to carry a gun in a national park is not preventing a person from owning a gun. Same deal. Except for that whole "and bear" part. Dude - your analogy isn't working, just give it up. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." SCOTUS majority opinion, Heller vs DC, 2008 You show a remarkable ability to ignore things that are "routinely explained" to you. I show a remarkable ability to ignore and satirize BULLSHIT, you mean....but thanks for the implied PA, John - I expect no less from you. So Scalia writes "BULLSHIT" opinions for the SC. OK. Wrong again, John - you must stay quite fit with all the jumping to conclusions you do.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #122 July 9, 2009 Quote 2. Think that a lawful citizen should be allowed weapons that can be used for self defense? Once you put a qualifier like "lawful" you are admitting that some classes of citizen (felons) CAN be denied. You just killed your own argument.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #123 July 9, 2009 Quote So would you be fine with local cities/States removing the right to free speech? Ever tried yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Quote How about a local city/State removing protection from illegal Search and Seizure? Ever had to empty your pockets or walk through a metal detector to get into a courthouse? To get on a plane? To get into a public or tax subsidized museum (or similar attraction)? Quote How about a local city/State removing the right of due process? [lawrocket] said there is no present need for due process. More seriously, consider how the RIAA has been able to successfully sidestep due process requirements by "prosecuting" in civil courts instead of criminal courts, since they know the standard of proof could not be met in a criminal case. Quote How about a local city/State allowing Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Seems like most any punishment for victimless crimes (e.g. drug law violations, gambling, prostitution) could be considered cruel and unusual. Have you read about the fines handed down in RIAA cases? Quote Are you OK with each of those as well? If not then why only on the 2nd? You've structured a nice argument showing why few, if any rights we have in this country, including the right to keep and bear arms, are unlimited. Quote 'Cause Amendment 10 14 kinda says that the Constitution trumps States. I fixed that for ya! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #124 July 9, 2009 >>Now, can you show ONE quote where they do not specifically want >>rapists to have weapons? >Nope . . . OK, good, now we're getting somewhere. I would suggest that this is not because the founding fathers wanted rapists to have guns, but because they simply never got around to saying it - they figured other people were smart enough to figure out that rapists should be put in jail, and such criminals lose their rights to have weapons. In other words, the fact that the founding fathers DIDN'T say something - means nothing. >See I am willing to admit when I can't back my position... Are you? Sure, I will readily admit that the founding fathers never said that "individuals shouldn't own guns." As we've established, that does not mean that you cannot restrict those rights, though. >So would you be fine with local cities/States removing the right to >free speech? Yes. You cannot walk into the operating room of a publicly funded hospital to give your opinions on climate change. However, there has to be public space where you can do so. >How about a local city/State removing protection from illegal Search and >Seizure? Yes. If you enter the gate area of a public airport, you lose some of your rights to not be searched. However, before you enter the area, you must be warned of this and given the opportunity to refuse to enter. >How about a local city/State removing the right to face your accuser? Yes. If you are a sniper, and you're killing people in a clock tower, the police can blow you away without any warning. However, once you are arrested and charged, then you have the right to face your accuser. You get the idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #125 July 9, 2009 QuoteOnce you put a qualifier like "lawful" you are admitting that some classes of citizen (felons) CAN be denied. You just killed your own argument. No, not really. If you look at Jeffersons quote he said "free". Nice try."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
