Kennedy 0 #1 March 18, 2011 QuoteMayor Bloomberg scolds nation for not standing up to gun lobby BY RICHARD SISK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Wednesday, March 16th 2011, 4:00 AM Mayor Bloomberg scolded the nation Tuesday for failing to take on the gun lobby to restrict weapons sales. "This is just no courage on the part of Americans to stand up and say 'Enough,'" Bloomberg said while joining members of Congress who support closing loopholes that allow criminals, drug abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns. snip...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
Amazon 7 #2 March 18, 2011 Quote Quote Mayor Bloomberg scolds nation for not standing up to gun lobby BY RICHARD SISK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Wednesday, March 16th 2011, 4:00 AM Mayor Bloomberg scolded the nation Tuesday for failing to take on the gun lobby to restrict weapons sales. "This is just no courage on the part of Americans to stand up and say 'Enough,'" Bloomberg said while joining members of Congress who support closing loopholes that allow criminals, drug abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns. snip... OK we get it already.. you and yours support the removal of ALL laws that you see as restricting ANYONES right to the weapons of their choosing.... No training...no registration... no responsibility.. no rules. just all the guns anyone wants. What a wonderful freefire country you want to live in.Personally I think the Swiss and the Israelis do a hell of a lot better job with this... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 March 18, 2011 QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?" [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 March 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?" [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence." OK we get it already.. you and yours support the removal of ALL laws that you see as restricting ANYONES right to the weapons of their choosing.... No training...no registration... no responsibility.. no rules. just all the guns anyone wants. What a wonderful freefire country you want to live in if you ever come home. Personally I think the Swiss and the Israelis do a hell of a lot better job with this... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. With rights.... come responsibilities Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 March 18, 2011 QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 March 18, 2011 From the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, February 1982: QuoteThe Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately posses and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep and bear arms. If in fact this language creates a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily protect only against action by the state, and by definition a state cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belonging to the state by inserting it in a limitation of the state's own powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporaries of the framers did insert these words into several state constitutions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be infringed either by state or federal government and which must be protected against infringement by both. Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights--as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment. As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia. That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia".[65] This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 311(a).(p.12) The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 March 18, 2011 Jeanne - if you want the next Republican in power to determine who is a criminal, drug abuser, or mentally ill, then stand up and say it. To me, the most frightening part of Bloomberg's comments were about the Second Amendment. Think about Republicans and Democrats who criminalize everything. Or who find those who disagree to be mentally ill. Or who are addicted to caffeine. Indeed - look at how many people nowadays have received mental treatment. Sure, thousands of them got it as kids and it was forcedon them by their parents because the kids were thought to ne homosexual. But you are right, Jeanne. Think of what could have happened if Matthew Shepard had a gun. People could have died that night. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 March 18, 2011 QuoteJeanne - if you want the next Republican in power to determine who is a criminal, drug abuser, or mentally ill, then stand up and say it. To me, the most frightening part of Bloomberg's comments were about the Second Amendment. Think about Republicans and Democrats who criminalize everything. Or who find those who disagree to be mentally ill. Or who are addicted to caffeine. Indeed - look at how many people nowadays have received mental treatment. Sure, thousands of them got it as kids and it was forcedon them by their parents because the kids were thought to ne homosexual. But you are right, Jeanne. Think of what could have happened if Matthew Shepard had a gun. People could have died that night. They already have.... and then when they are out of power.. you have them suggesting "Second Amendment OPTIONS" to pander to the morons who will be voting for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #9 March 18, 2011 If he called for the Westboro Baptists to tone down their hatred at veteran's funerals, would you claim that he was "scolding people for exercising their First Amendment rights?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 March 18, 2011 QuoteIf he called for the Westboro Baptists to tone down their hatred at veteran's funerals, would you claim that he was "scolding people for exercising their First Amendment rights?" Mere scolding is different. Imagine this: Quote"This is just no courage on the part of Americans to stand up and say 'Enough,'" Bloomberg said while joining members of Congress who support closing loopholes that allow criminals, drug abusers and the mentally ill to protest funerals. "We're not interested in curtailing the rights of free speakers," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), but "felons should not have free speech, drug abusers should not have free speech." Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-L.I.), whose husband was killed and son badly injured in a 1993 shooting spree on the Long Island Rail Road, said, "The American people have to back us up on this one." McCarthy has also proposed banning anti-government magazines, such as the ones read by Jared Lee Loughner in January before he shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and killed six others. It's one thing to say "I hate guns." It's another thing altogether suggest that those who use the Second Amendment as a shield are wimps. The article also wrote: QuoteThe NRA has already blown off President Obama's offer for a White House summit to come up with a "common sense" bipartisan position on gun control. I'd compare it to the following: Group X has already blown off President Obama's offer for a White House summit to come up with a "common sense" bipartisan position on speech restrictions. Group Y has already blown off President Obama's offer for a White House summit to come up with a "common sense" bipartisan position on restricting freedom of assembly. Group Z has already blown off President Obama's offer for a White House summit to come up with a "common sense" bipartisan position on warrantless searches. Group Q has already blown off President Obama's offer for a White House summit to come up with a "common sense" bipartisan position on restriction of due process. To suggest limiting any other right would seem ludicrous. For some reason there is no equal dignity among rights. Yes, it appears that with regard to the Bill of Rights, some are more equal that others. People want to ban guns? How about Amending the Constitution? Oh, yeah. Can't do that. It's too hard... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #11 March 18, 2011 QuoteIf he called for the Westboro Baptists to tone down their hatred at veteran's funerals, would you claim that he was "scolding people for exercising their First Amendment rights?" Nope, but if he chastised people for failing to push for legislation to eliminate Westboro's right to protest-I'd have to disagree with him.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #12 March 19, 2011 QuoteOK we get it already.. you and yours support the removal of ALL laws that you see as restricting ANYONES right to the weapons of their choosing.... No training...no registration... no responsibility.. no rules. just all the guns anyone wants. What a wonderful freefire country you want to live in if you ever come home. Personally I think the Swiss and the Israelis do a hell of a lot better job with this... Really Jeanne? Where have I stated that I "support the removal of ALL laws that you see as restricting ANYONES right to the weapons of their choosing"? Good luck finding that post. (hint: it doesn't exist) Unlike the professor, I have stated my beliefs clearly several times. Do you need the links? What do you mean, if I ever come home? I live and work here in the states. I haven't been overseas in several years, and I've never worked outside the USA. The Swiss and Israelis have good and bad points in their systems, just like we do. What do you think they do better than us? It's always nice to discuss the issue, rather than just make baseless claims and insult each other.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
skybill 22 #13 March 19, 2011 [email] Quote Quote Quote Mayor Bloomberg scolds nation for not standing up to gun lobby BY RICHARD SISK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Wednesday, March 16th 2011, 4:00 AM Mayor Bloomberg scolded the nation Tuesday for failing to take on the gun lobby to restrict weapons sales. "This is just no courage on the part of Americans to stand up and say 'Enough,'" Bloomberg said while joining members of Congress who support closing loopholes that allow criminals, drug abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns. snip... OK we get it already.. you and yours support the removal of ALL laws that you see as restricting ANYONES right to the weapons of their choosing.... No training...no registration... no responsibility.. no rules. just all the guns anyone wants. What a wonderful freefire country you want to live in.Personally I think the Swiss and the Israelis do a hell of a lot better job with this... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Hi amazing gracie, Just a note; "The strongest reason for 'the People' to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from the tyranny of government." -Thomas Jefferson-SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #14 March 20, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Mayor Bloomberg scolds nation for not standing up to gun lobby BY RICHARD SISK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Wednesday, March 16th 2011, 4:00 AM Mayor Bloomberg scolded the nation Tuesday for failing to take on the gun lobby to restrict weapons sales. "This is just no courage on the part of Americans to stand up and say 'Enough,'" Bloomberg said while joining members of Congress who support closing loopholes that allow criminals, drug abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns. snip... OK we get it already.. you and yours support the removal of ALL laws that you see as restricting ANYONES right to the weapons of their choosing.... No training...no registration... no responsibility.. no rules. just all the guns anyone wants. What a wonderful freefire country you want to live in.Personally I think the Swiss and the Israelis do a hell of a lot better job with this... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I find that a very interesting response. You are aware that nearly everyone in Israel serves in the armed forces for two years? And that they are in the reserves until the age of 55? And that they have a government issued firearm and ammunition in their home at all times? Personally, I'm OK with doing it that way in the US.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #15 March 20, 2011 QuoteService guarantees citizenship. Can anyone tell me the difference between a civilian and a citizen? What? Are we going to make Heinlein our prophet instead of Orwell?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
Amazon 7 #16 March 20, 2011 Hey I would be good with that too... We would have a HELL of a lot less worthless fucking CHICKENHAWKS running around like we do now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #17 March 28, 2011 You seem to ignore "the people" in the 2nd. Yet you want to fight for "the people" to mean individuals in the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th. And I'll bet you want the other Amendments to protect individuals... So why the 100% opposite opinion on the 2nd? QuoteNo training...no registration... no responsibility.. no rules. just all the guns anyone wants. Do you support training, registration and rules for fee speech? Do you support training for voting? The SC has ruled the right is an individual right..... The historical references to the Founding Fathers have shown their intent to allow the populace to have the same type of arms as the military. I find it funny you want rights all the time for individuals, but then want to limit rights only in a few areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #18 March 28, 2011 How many people have to die before Bloomberg closes the knife show loophole. http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/12/new-york-city-cops-arrest-maksim-gelman-in-deadly-rampage/"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #19 March 28, 2011 QuoteHey I would be good with that too... We would have a HELL of a lot less worthless fucking CHICKENHAWKS running around like we do now. You mean like Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Barack Obama? Damn those chickenshits chickenhawks! [/hijacking my own thread]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
rehmwa 2 #20 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteHey I would be good with that too... We would have a HELL of a lot less worthless fucking CHICKENHAWKS running around like we do now. You mean like Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Barack Obama? Damn those chickenshits chickenhawks! [/hijacking my own thread] absolutely not fair I'm sure if the polls showed it was popular, Obama would send his daughters to war ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #21 March 29, 2011 QuoteYou seem to ignore "the people" in the 2nd. Yet you want to fight for "the people" to mean individuals in the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th. And I'll bet you want the other Amendments to protect individuals... So why the 100% opposite opinion on the 2nd? QuoteNo training...no registration... no responsibility.. no rules. just all the guns anyone wants. Do you support training, registration and rules for fee speech? Do you support training for voting? The SC has ruled the right is an individual right..... The historical references to the Founding Fathers have shown their intent to allow the populace to have the same type of arms as the military. I find it funny you want rights all the time for individuals, but then want to limit rights only in a few areas. I gues you missed the part... "With rights, come responsibilities" and since NO ONE pops out of their mother with the weapon of their choice in their hands... I EXPECT anyone contemplating owning and using weapons to get training.. PERIOD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #22 March 29, 2011 Quote I gues you missed the part... "With rights, come responsibilities" and since NO ONE pops out of their mother with the weapon of their choice in their hands... I EXPECT anyone contemplating owning and using weapons to get training.. PERIOD. I don't disagree with that. The 8 hour CCW class I took with live fire was not a infringement on my rights, and was very valuable in my opinion."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #23 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuote I gues you missed the part... "With rights, come responsibilities" and since NO ONE pops out of their mother with the weapon of their choice in their hands... I EXPECT anyone contemplating owning and using weapons to get training.. PERIOD. I don't disagree with that. The 8 hour CCW class I took with live fire was not a infringement on my rights, and was very valuable in my opinion. I took the CCW course and afterwards decided I did not want to carry a concealed weapon so I never applied for a permit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #24 March 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHey I would be good with that too... We would have a HELL of a lot less worthless fucking CHICKENHAWKS running around like we do now. You mean like Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Barack Obama? Damn those chickenshits chickenhawks! [/hijacking my own thread] absolutely not fair I'm sure if the polls showed it was popular, Obama would send his daughters to war Biden's son served in Iraq, and so did McCain's. A lot of young women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past decade, including my own relatives. Bush's daughters were military age while their father was sending US troops into those theaters. And yet they remained civilians. I'm not the only American to have noticed that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 March 29, 2011 QuoteBiden's son served in Iraq, and so did McCain's. A lot of young women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past decade, including my own relatives. Bush's daughters were military age while their father was sending US troops into those theaters. And yet they remained civilians. I'm not the only American to have noticed that. Non-sequitur. The military is a VOLUNTEER force, and the practice of parents deciding what jobs their children will hold has fallen by the wayside.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
