DaVinci

Still waiting: Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

Nonsense. The fanatic would have used some other event to incite the riot. FACT: The burning was three weeks old and half a world away. Why didn't the people riot the next day, the next week? Nope it is pretty good, and you just proved it. Did the pastor put the weapons in the hands of the attackers? Did the pastor claim the crowd should seek retribution? The answer to both is no. He performed an act. The fanatic used that act to start trouble.... Just like the beer truck driver provided beer, but did not encourage the driver to drink and drive. Burning a book does not cause harm or death. Yelling, "Kill them, they burned a book!!!!" Does.

Ah, my mistake, I forgot where he was being held. But Assange is not in the US. Spelling edit

True. 1. Gun ownership is a CIVIL right. A good number of "gun control laws" were really just attempts to prevent certain types of people from owning a firearm. A) There are numerous examples of Southern States passing laws to prevent the newly free blacks from owning a weapon. * The 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence," to: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." [1] * 1840 North Carolina Supreme Court: That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor [2] B. The NFA of 1934 still allowed the ownership of full auto weapons *if* you could afford the 200 dollar tax (on a 10 dollar item). That 200 dollars equals about 3200 dollars today. So to own a MG you have to pay the equivalent of 3200 in taxes. PLUS you needed a Chief LEO signature, or have a company or a trust. So if you were rich and well connected you could buy a MG still. C. The CGA of 1968 made it so you had to buy from an FFL. Back in the 60's.... What were the chances that the local hardware store in MS would sell a black man a gun for self defense? 2. Almost every gun law is about REMOVING rights. Most of us agree that certain people (insane, felons...etc) should not be allowed the right to a firearm. The difference is how innocent citizens should be treated. We live in a Country that has a legal system that is based on "innocent till PROVEN guilty". Why should that standard NOT apply to ownership of a firearm? 3. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. "No matter his strength or size, depend on me, I equalize!" This quote was often found engraved on the barrels of small revolvers and single shot pistols designed to be carried by women. To recap.... Gun laws are more often about removing rights from a group. In the US we have a standard for removing rights, and that standard is being *proven* guilty. Guns are uniquely suited to allow the physically weaker victim to be on equal footing as the attacker. 1. Thorpe, 6:3428. 2. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250 (1844).

Might want to follow the whole conversation. The OP claimed it was: "The GOP's Absurd Plan for the Economy"

You have said it... That does not make it true. Fact is you are unable to counter the other parts of that post so you state an opinion that has nothing to do with the meat of the post. Typical.

A drunk driver hits a school bus full of kids on a day trip to care for the elderly.... Do you blame the guy that delivered the beer to the bar three weeks ago? This pastor acted like a moron, he burned some books (like pastors have done before). Some fanatic used that to start a riot. I place the blame on: 1. The people who killed the guards. 2. The guy that incited them to kill the guards. I do not blame a guy for burning an object 3 weeks before half a world away. Maybe, maybe not... The Govt keeps secrets. Assange and Manning are not being held in the US.

This preacher did not tell people to murder anyone, he burned some books. Without the instigator in Afghanistan there would have been no riot. He ordered it, this preacher did not order a riot. Yes, I would blame the person actually responsible for the RIOT that killed people... I would not grandstand and pick a politically easy target. A drunk driver hits a school bus full of kids on a day trip to care for the elderly.... Do you blame the guy that delivered the beer to the bar three weeks ago?

Ah, so you can't respond to the salient points, so you took this route huh?

Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

He did not DIRECTLY do anything. He did an act of free speech (that I could not care about) and several weeks later, half the world away some jackass incited a riot. The Koran is not a secret document with military information in it. I get what you are trying to say.... But the pastor didn't cause the riot.

And all of that has been covered in post #5 of this thread. None of that was because of the GOP.

He did not incite a riot. He was no where near Afghanistan. The people who incited the riots was the,"radical leader" that told those gathered that multiple Korans had been burned. The radical leader incited the riot. Jones just did something stupid for publicity. Evidence is that there were no riots when Jones burned the books, and that the protest was peaceful UNTIL the "radical leader" started trouble.

How is that any different than what you do?

Yes, but just because the bad ones do bad that is not a reason to punish the good ones.

Here is a thought, make the tax code simple and easy to understand. Makes cheating more difficult and makes filing much easier.

This actually has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with: 1. Your desire to ignore some civil rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Based only on your personal preference. 2. Your making up positions that no one has claimed.

Maybe you only think you said the exact same thing? You have mandated training to own... CGA of 1968 does not have that. Hey look.... there you go making up stuff again! Still listening to Rush daily? Well, unless you have a pre-cog ability that your stock portfolio does not show.... You have no way of knowing if a person will turn loony. Now are we back to the point that you support prohibitive measures on citizens? Ya know, like a poll tax? Huh, you might want to get your eyes checked out. 2. Remove reporting errors like the one that let Cho buy weapons

Worse is the Hughes Amendment that prohibited manufacture of machineguns for civilians in May 1986. It made my last purchase of a gun that should cost 1200 cost 10,500.

1. Citizens are already liable for any accident 2. Misuse is already illegal Thank you for your answer Thank you for your answer Why is it 'juvenile' to want a weapon that works well? Is it 'juvenile' to play with toy airplanes and rockets? They are already required to be registered (and have since 1934). Ever shot a FA weapon? In truth, in the hands of most people they are not as effective as movies and TV make you think. You do know that MOST States require mandatory training right? TX does have a good program, however. You cannot see a tactical reason for open carry? You cannot see the benefit of open carry in Arizona in 43C (110f) weather? Now to play fair, I will answer you questions. When I take into account that a good number are from suicides (I don't count suicides in skydiving deaths either) and LEO's... the number of murders is

They have also ruled: United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States So the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16.

Kinda a silly promotion.... But it is a free country.

This is not a real plane? http://affordaplane.com/ nor this one? http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/sport.htm As is the person who CONVENIENTLY avoids the real question to avoid looking silly.

REALLY???????? WOW this was NOT TRYING?????

And yet, considering how 'lax' security was.... How many shootouts have happened there? Do you feel that is wrong?