Stop and Frisk

[kallend 2,148]

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that the framers, who were all well educated and familiar with English law, could have adopted the wording from the English Bill of Rights had they chosen to. That wording DOES refer to self defense of the people. The framers chose NOT to use that wording, but referred to the security of a state instead.

They wrote what they wrote. All else is just opinion, and everyone has one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Gravitymaster

************

You are wrong John.
Just admit it.

Your argument is not relevant in the slightest to the point.

Where EXACTLY in the wording of the 2nd does it state that its PURPOSE is the defense of the people as rushmc wrote in post#65 of this thread?

The ONLY rationale given is the security of a free state.

What does that mean to you?

Can't answer the question, can you?

Apparently you are once again confused. I have not been engaged with you on this topic, someone else has. I asked YOU a question. Of course, I expected you to duck and weave to avoid answering, as usual.

I asked first and you have yet to answer. Taking a page from Dr. Goebbels' debate book by accusing me of doing what you've done?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yes, and I am happy to replace THE with A. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to my point.

The stated reason in the Constitution, as amended, is for the security of a free state. Not for the defense of the people.

That is only if you ignore that a free state must also have freedom for the citizens.

Quote

That may be the interpretation/opinion of some judges, but it is NOT what the amendment actually says.

And have you not said before that the rulings of the SC are the only thing that really matters?

[quade 4]

DaVinci

That is only if you ignore that a free state must also have freedom for the citizens.

A free state and freedom for the citizens doesn't mean an unlimited access to guns. Many countries around the world have proven this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

A free state and freedom for the citizens doesn't mean an unlimited access to guns. Many countries around the world have proven this.

We are talking about the US, and the US has a Bill of Rights. In that Bill of Rights there is a Second Amendment.

Still waiting on this to be answered BTW

How is "Shall not be infringed" a difficult statement?

And the words there are pretty clear. And while you TRY to say nothing else matters, the Supreme Court in rendering their decision LOOKED AT THE WRITINGS OF THE FOUNDERS and a whole slew of other information. So while you can try to say it does not matter, the SC looked at all of that so it must matter.

Will you just admit that you CAN'T find a single quote from a founding father supporting your position? We all know you will be unable, you could at least be honest with yourself that your position is not supported by any writing or quote from a Founding Father.

Still waiting on you to answer this:

As passed my Congress:
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.

As ratified by the States:
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.

The one thing that has NO commas is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Simply put your argument is the weakest possible. Anyone without an agenda and that can read English can tell you what that means.

But for fun....

A well educated electorate, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

or

A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Would you claim that it only allows people who vote to own and read books?

Would you claim that only books would be allowed and nothing on a E-Reader?

Would you claim that only small books would be allowed?

YOU brought up the comma and tried to claim it meant something. I just proved to you that it does not... Further the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.... so your argument is moot.

Quote

And does THAT sound like the basis of a fair democracy?

Hmmm...

And neither is denying rights to people because you don't like them.... Does THAT sound like the basis of a fair democracy?

[quade 4]

DaVinci

How is "Shall not be infringed" a difficult statement?

The question is what does that apply to? Is it the defense of the country or the individual's right to have complete and total unfettered access to weapons?

Certainly it DOESN'T mean the latter because, well, the Supreme Court has flatly stated it's not an unlimited right.

Or . . . was that also just an opinion?

See, by denying my points earlier about the Supreme Court ruling and 5/4 decisions sucking ass due to ideology and opinions; by saying they hold absolute sway over the matter, you've nullified your argument that it's not a limited right.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bignugget 0]

DaVinci

Quote

A free state and freedom for the citizens doesn't mean an unlimited access to guns. Many countries around the world have proven this.

We are talking about the US, and the US has a Bill of Rights. In that Bill of Rights there is a Second Amendment.

Still waiting on this to be answered BTW

How is "Shall not be infringed" a difficult statement?

And the words there are pretty clear. And while you TRY to say nothing else matters, the Supreme Court in rendering their decision LOOKED AT THE WRITINGS OF THE FOUNDERS and a whole slew of other information. So while you can try to say it does not matter, the SC looked at all of that so it must matter.

they are infringed though...


As already pointed out you fucking infringers want your AR-15's but won't let me have a F-18 or a tank or a RPG.

So wtf is the deal?



I say since I can't have a RPG or F-18, no one gets any guns.

[kallend 2,148]

DaVinci

Quote

Yes, and I am happy to replace THE with A. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to my point.

The stated reason in the Constitution, as amended, is for the security of a free state. Not for the defense of the people.

That is only if you ignore that a free state must also have freedom for the citizens.

***That may be the interpretation/opinion of some judges, but it is NOT what the amendment actually says.

And have you not said before that the rulings of the SC are the only thing that really matters?

You are so anxious to prove me wrong that you are now contradicting your previous statements.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Gravitymaster

Exactly, and that is what stop and frisk is attempting to do yet those who "want something done" refuse to support any effort except infringing on the rights of honest citizens.

Clearly articulated "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity is required to make a terry stop. After engaging with the suspect the officer must maintain the suspicion and also have a reasonable fear for their safety or the safety of others to do a terry frisk.

The fact that someone is a "zebra" (BLACK) in a neighborhood full of "zebras" (BLACKS) is a no go....come the fuck on.

You can't expect people to respect your rights and then justify the trampling of another persons rights.

[sfzombie13 324]

eight pages of shit and most of it doesn't even relate to the topic...that being said, simply the act of being black in a black neighborhood would be reasonable suspicion if the person were wearing known gang colors or something. my bad, we were talking about zebras, it's been so damn long since the original post i forgot.

i don't think that would be completely correct either. just pointing out that when you start putting exceptions into laws, you gotta be careful, you never know where you may end up going with them.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[rushmc 23]

Quote

They wrote what they wrote. All else is just opinion, and everyone has one.

Yes they did
And they also clearly stated the intent of the wording of the 2nd.
As discussed in the debates within the Federalist Papers
You should TRY and read them sometime

So, no opinion needed.
they told us what it means
And your opinion is wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

quade

***How is "Shall not be infringed" a difficult statement?

The question is what does that apply to? Is it the defense of the country or the individual's right to have complete and total unfettered access to weapons?

Certainly it DOESN'T mean the latter because, well, the Supreme Court has flatly stated it's not an unlimited right.

Or . . . was that also just an opinion?

See, by denying my points earlier about the Supreme Court ruling and 5/4 decisions sucking ass due to ideology and opinions; by saying they hold absolute sway over the matter, you've nullified your argument that it's not a limited right.

Now you got to take it to an extreme to Try and defend your position
Come on Paul

The SC is now political more than it is about law
And you know it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

rushmc

Quote

They wrote what they wrote. All else is just opinion, and everyone has one.

Yes they did
And they also clearly stated the intent of the wording of the 2nd.
As discussed in the debates within the Federalist Papers
You should TRY and read them sometime

So, no opinion needed.
they told us what it means
And your opinion is wrong

The Federalist Papers were propaganda to get the Constitution ratified. They represent the opinions of just three people, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Lets be real. The state doesn't want your guns. It wants your money for owning a gun. Via a registration, license etc.

States want to ensure the state employee retirement program is well funded and will do what it wants to do to collect as much money as it can. Using gun control as a means to collect more money is one good example.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

The Federalist Papers were propaganda to get the Constitution ratified. They represent the opinions of just three people, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

This thread is fucking pathetic... should have been [on topic]

[quade 4]

dmcoco84

Quote

The Federalist Papers were propaganda to get the Constitution ratified. They represent the opinions of just three people, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

This thread is fucking pathetic... should have been [on topic]

There ya to again, wanting to revise the past to suit you personally.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dmcoco84 5]

quade

***

Quote

The Federalist Papers were propaganda to get the Constitution ratified. They represent the opinions of just three people, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

This thread is fucking pathetic... should have been [on topic]

There ya to again, wanting to revise the past to suit you personally.

That might be funny, if it made some sorta sense... which it doesn't.

[quade 4]

Lighten up, Francine.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

DaVinci

How is "Shall not be infringed" a difficult statement?

Quote

The question is what does that apply to? Is it the defense of the country or the individual's right to have complete and total unfettered access to weapons?

It has been clearly decided by the SC that it is the right for the PEOPLE to have access to weapons. For "lawful reasons" and self defense is a lawful reason.

Quote

Certainly it DOESN'T mean the latter because, well, the Supreme Court has flatly stated it's not an unlimited right.

The SC has also ruled that the right is unconnected to service in a militia. It has also ruled that self defense is a legal reason. It has also ruled that 'weapons suitable for use in a militia' are protected.

Quote

See, by denying my points earlier about the Supreme Court ruling and 5/4 decisions sucking ass due to ideology and opinions; by saying they hold absolute sway over the matter, you've nullified your argument that it's not a limited right.

Never said it was not limited. I just have said that it is a right for the people, that the right includes self defense and it protects weapons suitable for use in a militia.... and the Supreme Court has agreed (more accurately, I have read the Courts rulings and the historical documents of the founding fathers).

Still waiting on you to answer this BTW:

As passed my Congress:
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.

As ratified by the States:
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.

The one thing that has NO commas is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Simply put your argument is the weakest possible. Anyone without an agenda and that can read English can tell you what that means.

But for fun....

A well educated electorate, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

or

A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Would you claim that it only allows people who vote to own and read books?

Would you claim that only books would be allowed and nothing on a E-Reader?

Would you claim that only small books would be allowed?

YOU brought up the comma and tried to claim it meant something. I just proved to you that it does not... Further the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.... so your argument is moot.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

As already pointed out you fucking infringers want your AR-15's but won't let me have a F-18 or a tank or a RPG.

So wtf is the deal?

Who said you could not own an F-18 or an RPG? In fact, we have proven you CAN own either.

Go fish.

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

***

Quote

Yes, and I am happy to replace THE with A. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to my point.

The stated reason in the Constitution, as amended, is for the security of a free state. Not for the defense of the people.

That is only if you ignore that a free state must also have freedom for the citizens.

***That may be the interpretation/opinion of some judges, but it is NOT what the amendment actually says.

And have you not said before that the rulings of the SC are the only thing that really matters?

You are so anxious to prove me wrong that you are now contradicting your previous statements.

Nonsense. You have the double standard here. You say the SC is all that matters, but when the SC rules in a way you don't like you claim they don't

[quade 4]

DaVinci

Nonsense. You have the double standard here. You say the SC is all that matters, but when the SC rules in a way you don't like you claim they don't

So in that regard, it seems as if you're equal.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

quade

***Nonsense. You have the double standard here. You say the SC is all that matters, but when the SC rules in a way you don't like you claim they don't

So in that regard, it seems as if you're equal.

And it seems you are afraid to answer simple questions.

[Bignugget 0]

DaVinci

Quote

As already pointed out you fucking infringers want your AR-15's but won't let me have a F-18 or a tank or a RPG.

So wtf is the deal?

Who said you could not own an F-18 or an RPG? In fact, we have proven you CAN own either.

Go fish.

I am pretty sure I am not allowed to have RPG's and F-18s (armed of course)...unarmed they do me no good.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Unbelievable as it may seem, millions of American's are stopped and frisked at the airport every year. Seems to work there. What's the problem with stop and frisk downtown on an ad hoc basis unlike the bulk basis at the airport.

Now, you are stopped and frisked at the NFL stadium. Yet idiots allowed themselves to be stopped and frisked to enjoy loud noise and expensive hot dogs.