Mayor Scolds Citizens For Failing To Rescind Their Own Constitutional Rights

[DaVinci 0]

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.

And I am waiting to see your proposed training requirements for the right to vote and for free speech.

All are rights, all are huge responsibilities.... So where is your demands for training for speech and voting?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

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.

Did Biden and McCain SEND their sons, or did their sons enlist in our *volunteer* military?

Or are you suggesting bringing back the draft?

Like it or not, not everyone WANTS to serve and those that do not currently are not forced to do so. I happen to like it that way, you may not.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

NO ONE pops out of their mother with the weapon of their choice in their hands...

I suspect Virgin-Burner did.
I'm just saying.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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.

And I am waiting to see your proposed training requirements for the right to vote and for free speech.

All are rights, all are huge responsibilities.... So where is your demands for training for speech and voting?

I am waiting for you to propose ANYTHING other than unfettered acess to weapons.. by nearly everyone... With no requirements at all for any training and no matter HOW fucking crazy they might be.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

You can't send the Bush daughters into a god forsaken place that doesn't have unfettered access to alcohol! They'd die!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I am waiting for you to propose ANYTHING other than unfettered acess to weapons.. by nearly everyone... With no requirements at all for any training and no matter HOW fucking crazy they might be

I have made no such claim. I said uphold current rules (like most of the GOA 1968 - without the "sporting clause").

YOU however have not answered what training you want to require for voters and people to exercise free speech.

Feel free to answer those if you are able.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I am waiting for you to propose ANYTHING other than unfettered acess to weapons.. by nearly everyone... With no requirements at all for any training and no matter HOW fucking crazy they might be

I have made no such claim. I said uphold current rules (like most of the GOA 1968 - without the "sporting clause").

YOU however have not answered what training you want to require for voters and people to exercise free speech.

Feel free to answer those if you are able.

I like YOUR training idea... teaching a child how to write a check for any weapon he desires once he reaches adulthood...

Yeah.. thats the ticket.

MORE customers at your gunshop... WOO HOO

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I like YOUR training idea... teaching a child how to write a check for any weapon he desires once he reaches adulthood...

Yeah.. thats the ticket.

Show where I have said that. Or at least admit you are making it up.

Quote

MORE customers at your gunshop... WOO HOO

I do not own a gunshop, although I do have an 03FFL

I am still waiting to hear YOUR required training for the right to vote and the right of free speech.... Unlike you, I am asking your views instead of just assuming what they are.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I like YOUR training idea... teaching a child how to write a check for any weapon he desires once he reaches adulthood...

Yeah.. thats the ticket.

Show where I have said that. Or at least admit you are making it up.

Quote

MORE customers at your gunshop... WOO HOO

I do not own a gunshop, although I do have an 03FFL

I am still waiting to hear YOUR required training for the right to vote and the right of free speech.... Unlike you, I am asking your views instead of just assuming what they are.

I defer to your expertise then since I hold no such certificate or license... What do you think is adequate training for gun owners????

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I defer to your expertise then since I hold no such certificate or license... What do you think is adequate training for gun owners????

The same amount of training to be able to vote or any other right listed in the BoR's.

Training to own: Nothing.

Training to Carry:

1. A course that includes classroom training discussing when lethal force is allowed by law, the consequences of using lethal force, methods of carry, weapons allowed to be carried, prohibited places...etc .

2. A course of fire no more difficult than the standard used for security guards in the State.

Now personally, I find that Texas has a pretty good process. I would also like the license to not expire.

Personally, I train about 2-3 times a mth. Mainly for fun, but it includes structured fields of fire with mandatory mag changes, malfunctions, and no shoot targets.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I defer to your expertise then since I hold no such certificate or license... What do you think is adequate training for gun owners????

The same amount of training to be able to vote or any other right listed in the BoR's.

Training to own: Nothing.

Training to Carry:

1. A course that includes classroom training discussing when lethal force is allowed by law, the consequences of using lethal force, methods of carry, weapons allowed to be carried, prohibited places...etc .

2. A course of fire no more difficult than the standard used for security guards in the State.

Now personally, I find that Texas has a pretty good process. I would also like the license to not expire.

Personally, I train about 2-3 times a mth. Mainly for fun, but it includes structured fields of fire with mandatory mag changes, malfunctions, and no shoot targets.

Really????? How does that work for responsible ownership.. and that WELL REGULATED MILITIA clause???

I wonder what driving was like back when there was no DMV in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to drive.

I wonder what flying was like back when there was no FAA in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to fly.

OH thats right.. irresponsible drivers and pilots fucked that up for the rest of us.... Think that might happen again.. if the responsible owners do not demand something else... for all those who HAVE been irresponsible?????

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Really????? How does that work for responsible ownership.. and that WELL REGULATED MILITIA clause???

I wonder what driving was like back when there was no DMV in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to drive.

I wonder what flying was like back when there was no FAA in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to fly.

OH thats right.. irresponsible drivers and pilots fucked that up for the rest of us.... Think that might happen again.. if the responsible owners do not demand something else... for all those who HAVE been irresponsible?????

This reminds me of what voting was like when we had poll taxes and literacy tests. Definitely the glory days.

You aren't really confused about what a well regulated militia is, are you? You're trolling it out non stop, trying to get a reaction. It reflects poorly on you.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Really????? How does that work for responsible ownership.. and that WELL REGULATED MILITIA clause???

I wonder what driving was like back when there was no DMV in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to drive.

I wonder what flying was like back when there was no FAA in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to fly.

OH thats right.. irresponsible drivers and pilots fucked that up for the rest of us.... Think that might happen again.. if the responsible owners do not demand something else... for all those who HAVE been irresponsible?????

This reminds me of what voting was like when we had poll taxes and literacy tests. Definitely the glory days.

You aren't really confused about what a well regulated militia is, are you? You're trolling it out non stop, trying to get a reaction. It reflects poorly on you.

What does the BoR stand for??????


I am starting to think its Box of Rocks when it comes to the 2nd Amendment die hards

This AINT 1790... the British and the Injuns aint out to git ya....

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What does the BoR stand for??????

I'll give you a hint - it's RIGHTs. You seem a bit uncomfortable with the idea of trusting citizens with their guaranteed rights. Other countries might offer you a better sense of security, though probably would be better if you were male.

[billvon 3,116]

>And I am waiting to see your proposed training requirements for the right to vote
>and for free speech.

Don't really need any more training for free speech. If you can't talk, you can't exercise it. Sort of takes care of itself.

(And if people spent as much time learning how to safely handle guns as they spend learning to talk, we'd see a lot fewer problems with guns.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>And I am waiting to see your proposed training requirements for the right to vote
>and for free speech.

Don't really need any more training for free speech. If you can't talk, you can't exercise it. Sort of takes care of itself.

No, as I wrote, we did have training requirements to vote - the ability to pass an English reading test, and to pay money. These were of course really about discouraging certain types from exercising their rights. Amazon proposes doing the same with gun rights - to discourage those who don't have a nice paying tech job to exercise their right to self defense.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Really????? How does that work for responsible ownership.. and that WELL REGULATED MILITIA clause???

It works out well, actually:

Quote

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.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to grasp???? The Supreme Court has agreed that it is an individual right NOT connected to service in a militia.

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53

a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

So the Founding Fathers seemed to clearly mean it to be an individual right. And the Supreme Court has agreed.

Quote

I wonder what driving was like back when there was no DMV in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to drive.

To try and claim that the 2nd is outdated:
1. Would be like claiming the 1st only protects printing presses, the 4th does not protect email, the 5th to only provide protection for crimes that were crimes in 1791, 8th would not cover 'new' cruel punishments.

2. That position is not supported by any law, or any court decision.

Quote

OH thats right.. irresponsible drivers and pilots fucked that up for the rest of us....

More like the govt wanted to CONTROL things and took steps to get control.

Quote

Think that might happen again.. if the responsible owners do not demand something else... for all those who HAVE been irresponsible?????

Much more likely is the continued chipping away of rights based on irrational fears of anti-gun people and gun people alike.

Never forget the NRA didn't fight the AWB, didn't fight the Hughes Amendment....

Again, an armed loony is shooting up your office. Would you want to be armed or disarmed?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Don't really need any more training for free speech. If you can't talk, you can't exercise it. Sort of takes care of itself.

So no training for voting then either?

Quote

(And if people spent as much time learning how to safely handle guns as they spend learning to talk, we'd see a lot fewer problems with guns.)

You would see less ND's, but you would not see less CRIME.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

What does the BoR stand for??????

I'll give you a hint - it's RIGHTs. You seem a bit uncomfortable with the idea of trusting citizens with their guaranteed rights. Other countries might offer you a better sense of security, though probably would be better if you were male.

Rights with no responsibility..... glad you support that form of lunacy.. no wonder you dont want lunitics to go without a gun for fear of them not being able to exercise their right to lunacy

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

(And if people spent as much time learning how to safely handle guns as they spend learning to talk, we'd see a lot fewer problems with guns.)

You would see less ND's, but you would not see less CRIME.

Do we really want our criminals to be well trained with their guns? At least now most of them are basically incompetent.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What does the BoR stand for??????

I'll give you a hint - it's RIGHTs. You seem a bit uncomfortable with the idea of trusting citizens with their guaranteed rights. Other countries might offer you a better sense of security, though probably would be better if you were male.

Rights with no responsibility..... glad you support that form of lunacy.. no wonder you dont want lunitics to go without a gun for fear of them not being able to exercise their right to lunacy

gun owners have the responsibility of not shooting other citizens without reason (ie, self defense). Those who violate that get put in jail. What other responsibilities are you looking for? Do you really think criminals give a shit what you want? So in the end, you're imposing barriers on people that aren't a concern, and ignoring those who are.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What does the BoR stand for??????

I'll give you a hint - it's RIGHTs. You seem a bit uncomfortable with the idea of trusting citizens with their guaranteed rights. Other countries might offer you a better sense of security, though probably would be better if you were male.

Rights with no responsibility..... glad you support that form of lunacy.. no wonder you dont want lunitics to go without a gun for fear of them not being able to exercise their right to lunacy

gun owners have the responsibility of not shooting other citizens without reason (ie, self defense). Those who violate that get put in jail. What other responsibilities are you looking for? Do you really think criminals give a shit what you want? So in the end, you're imposing barriers on people that aren't a concern, and ignoring those who are.

I am good with burying a criminal in jail for life if they use a gun in the commission of a crime.

Next PHALLACY

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Really????? How does that work for responsible ownership.. and that WELL REGULATED MILITIA clause???

Hmmm. "Shall not be infringed" is not optional, now is it? Shall not be infringed and here's the reason, a reason, one reason, etc. There's that other clause that those who have no problem with elimination of rights don't like to see because the word "shall" is such a powerful word.

The Constitution really stands in the way of those who have goals that the Constitution does not support. Why not amend the Constitution? Oh, yeah. Again, way too hard...

Quote

I wonder what driving was like back when there was no DMV in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to drive

It likely would have been the same today as it was back then had there been an amendment to the Constitution that stated, "The movement by road of people was place to place being necessary for the commerce of the nation, the right to operate a motor vehicle shall not be infringed." But since there is no right to drive a car, well, we kinda allowed controls to develop.

Quote

I wonder what flying was like back when there was no FAA in the land.. and no training and no licensure was needed to fly.

See the above comment. There's no Constitutional right to fly.

Quote

OH thats right.. irresponsible drivers and pilots fucked that up for the rest of us.... Think that might happen again.. if the responsible owners do not demand something else... for all those who HAVE been irresponsible?????

Um, no. There never WAS a right to drive or a right to fly. Much like irresponsible speakers have caused all kinds of damage and deaths, we still have the right to speech.

There are so many things I see from people where they look at situations where they believe that certain people shouldn't have certain rights. For example, that anybody who is not law enforcement should nto have the right to a weapon. Or, anyone who is not trained should not have the right to a weapon.

It's even extended to include those people who are crazy or may be crazy or may even eventually become crazy should nto be allowed weapons. In fact, you, Jeanne, are not alone in your suggestion that people who are or may be crazy should be abducted by the government and held in custody in perpetuity so that the person will not cause potential harm to society. In effect, a prophylactic sentence prior to a crime. Thought policing, if you will. The mentally ill are therefore not even given the rights of criminals (such as warrants, probable cause, trial, parole, etc.).

And even when something like the Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY affirms that the Constitution even protects the mentally ill and that they should be released from what was the equivalent of Gitmo (See O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975)) it becomes "Reagan cut health care funding and put the mentally ill on the streets."

Unlike most, I agree wholeheartedly with the SCOTUS decision in O'Connor. I also happen to believe that it opened up a can of worms for which the Constitution stands as a firm barrier to the government attempting any sort of program that would compel the mentally ill to get treatment.

Yes, your post is about the Constitution preserving a lack of order. There is an idea of an orderly society that you see, and this is understandable. Republicans, the tea partiers, the Religious Right, the communists - they ALL have their ideas of an orderly society. The First Amendment stands in the way of the religious right - any desire they have to make an orderly society is limited AS IS the desire that you may have to put guns oin the hands of only those that you would feel worthy of owning a weapon.

The last part is Orderly but anathema to freedom. Freedom and Order have an irreconcilable tension. I think it safe to say that my idea of order that I'd like to see would conflict in a number of ways with the type of order you'd like to see. That's where freedom comes in - my idea of order does not infringe on those freedoms you hold dear and vice versa.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[popsjumper 2]

Da Mayor is barking up the wrong tree.

It's the president and legislators who are taking our rights away, one at a time, without even consulting us citizens.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I am good with burying a criminal in jail for life if they use a gun in the commission of a crime.

This is right out of the NRA handbook. Indeed, I myself support the thought that a person who uses a weapon in the commission of a crime should face culpability and be responsible for same.

However, I also think a a person who commits a crime WITHOUT a weapon should ALSO be culpable. The weapon itself has very little to do with it, in my mind. Would you put them in jail for life for using a knife? How about a claw hammer? A garotte?

How is shooting somebody different from stabbing them? Aside from the distance involved I cannot see much difference. It's the focus on the gun instead of the act that I have a problem with.

My wife is hotter than your wife.