RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government

RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 6:52:22 PM)
well, R0, you can commit a felony, and lose your right to vote or own a firearm... or you can be caught doing either and go to jail, losing your freedom. The choice is, of course, yours, if you wish to test it, let me know. [;)]

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 6:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx This is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution: "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." it does not matter what you read or how well your grammar is. The US Supreme Court has ruled that means: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of an enfranchised State, the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." See I have posted the spies case that spells it out for you.

Termyn8or -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 7:10:25 PM)
Taz, possesion of a crack pipe is a felony. They don't have to find crack, just the straight shooter. They don't even have to find the chore. They don't have to find anything in your system or even in a hair test. You could become a felon by buying a fucking used car and not searching it better than the cops would. You could become a felon by giving someone a ride and something falling out of their pocket. What if that happened to you ? T^T

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 7:14:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl well, R0, you can commit a felony, and lose your right to vote or own a firearm... or you can be caught doing either and go to jail, losing your freedom. The choice is, of course, yours, if you wish to test it, let me know. [;)] no no no Do you realize how it is done? Its about the creamee supremee court rulings that everyone here pretends were never made. I asked you what "kind" of right. I have news for you in that if you do not know your rights you have NONE! here as a reimnder once again: Oh and I stuble across "stuff" in my library, here is one of my favorites: A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980) Boring stuff everybody knew that! quote: (123 u. s. 131) THE ANARCHISTS' CASE.1 Ex parte SPIES and others. (October 2 J, 1887.) ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT. That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since. Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247; Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91; Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552; Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580. It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, *in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities* of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." Now what kinds of rights are we talking about here? The government magically changed hands after the civil war. Rights now have a nice commercial twist and the —common-law rights—of the man** that you read about in that declaration by the creator evaporated with the 14th.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 7:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx Ah leave it be...please. I have his verbal vomit on hide, you quoting him is cluttering my screen with loony nuthouse ramblings. This is one of the reasons I'm startin' to like you. You have a sane response to the insane. Moonie, jlf, et alia can't seem to grasp the concept of Ignore Troll -----> Troll Go Away Literally hundreds of threads have been ruined by the failure to abide by this simple rule.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 7:30:05 PM)
yeh creamie supremee court citations have a tendency to fuck up most peoples kume-by-ya delusions.

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 8:38:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx -FR- This is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution: "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." It actually specifies regulation. And it gives the reason for the right to bear arms as the need for a militia. Now, at the time, they needed that to fight against Native Americans in the West, as well as potential threats by British, Spanish, and French armies against our land...and even to fight slave rebellions. Now...we own the whole country. The "militia" idea makes me think of civilians going to the Mexican border to shoot and patrol. The reason for the 2nd Amendment is the founders did not trust governments and wanted the people to have the means to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical. Theoretically at least, the principle still applies. Fighting against Native Americans in the West, threats by British, Spanish, and French armies and fighting slave rebellions were just side benefits.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 8:40:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Taz, possesion of a crack pipe is a felony. They don't have to find crack, just the straight shooter. They don't even have to find the chore. They don't have to find anything in your system or even in a hair test. You could become a felon by buying a fucking used car and not searching it better than the cops would. You could become a felon by giving someone a ride and something falling out of their pocket. What if that happened to you ? T^T Gesh, dont treat me like im stupid, T. There are ways around even that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 8:42:49 PM)
And yet no one has addressed the real issue here. No one seems to mind that the states are fucking up and then covering their tracks... and they are doing it in the open and with your blessings.

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 9:07:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus There are problems with the licensing system(s). Address them and correct them. Publish our names if think that will help police the matter. I personally don't feel that my name on that list makes me a target. I'm armed. Let them know. They'll know what to expect. Sure, fix the problems but publishing the names isn't going to help the police, they should have access to them anyway. The names should be private as well as the addresses. You could become a target of not only criminals but anti gun nuts too, or lose a job prospect. I don't know what the probability is that your home or person become a target. Maybe it's more likely a criminal would use the list to avoid you but at the same time I don't want to let anyone know, especially the criminals, that I have guns.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 9:14:47 PM)
Yup,cops and LEO`s should know who`s armed but not the public. It`ll invite asshats to steal them.My neighbor used to have a sign on his porch saying "Glock Owner Lives Here" or something stupid like that,till he was robbed while at work. He`s got another pistol but lost the advert. I wonder if he`s worried about the damage his stolen gun will do before it`s recovered,if ever.

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 9:24:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And yet no one has addressed the real issue here. No one seems to mind that the states are fucking up and then covering their tracks... and they are doing it in the open and with your blessings. Sure I mind. Obviously they need to look back at the people that slipped through the cracks see what went wrong and fix it. The authorities should be able to check the list for those who might have a felony disability but no access to the names for the general public or media.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 9:27:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And yet no one has addressed the real issue here. No one seems to mind that the states are fucking up and then covering their tracks... and they are doing it in the open and with your blessings. Sure I mind. Obviously they need to look back at the people that slipped through the cracks see what went wrong and fix it. The authorities should be able to check the list for those who might have a felony disability but no access to the names for the general public or media. Problem is, in two states at least.. no one is checking.

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 9:46:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And yet no one has addressed the real issue here. No one seems to mind that the states are fucking up and then covering their tracks... and they are doing it in the open and with your blessings. Sure I mind. Obviously they need to look back at the people that slipped through the cracks see what went wrong and fix it. The authorities should be able to check the list for those who might have a felony disability but no access to the names for the general public or media. Problem is, in two states at least.. no one is checking. Well.........now that you got the word out on this board it might bring it to their attention. [:)] I heard Obama follows CM on his tweeter account. Seriously though, I'm sure there would be a call to pay this some attention if the word gets out. I don't see why it should be a problem to double check the names.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 9:52:41 PM)
"don't see why it should be a problem" Not everyone thinks so..... http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=254051 Thursday, June 05, 2003WASHINGTON D.C. – In a letter sent today to Attorney General John Ashcroft, United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) asked for answers to a Congressional report indicating terrorists are not included in the lists used to check the backgrounds of people attempting to purchase firearms and explosives. Lautenberg requested the report over concerns terrorists could use the lax gun laws of the U.S. to get their hands on weapons to be used against Americans. "I find it shocking that nearly two years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Justice Department has not yet integrated data from the federal terrorist watch lists in the NICS system," wrote Lautenberg. "The possibility that a person on the State Department's watch list, such as Adnan G. El-Shukrijumah (suspected Al Qaeda Cell Leader), could walk into a U.S. gun shop and legally purchase a weapon is very disturbing to me."

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 10:09:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "don't see why it should be a problem" Not everyone thinks so..... http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=254051 Thursday, June 05, 2003WASHINGTON D.C. – In a letter sent today to Attorney General John Ashcroft, United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) asked for answers to a Congressional report indicating terrorists are not included in the lists used to check the backgrounds of people attempting to purchase firearms and explosives. Lautenberg requested the report over concerns terrorists could use the lax gun laws of the U.S. to get their hands on weapons to be used against Americans. "I find it shocking that nearly two years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Justice Department has not yet integrated data from the federal terrorist watch lists in the NICS system," wrote Lautenberg. "The possibility that a person on the State Department's watch list, such as Adnan G. El-Shukrijumah (suspected Al Qaeda Cell Leader), could walk into a U.S. gun shop and legally purchase a weapon is very disturbing to me." Should terrorist watch list records checked when an individual attempts to purchase a firearm? Sure... Is this G. El-Shukrijumah a citizen ? Shouldn't some one be watching this guy ? If he doesn't have a felony disability and is a citizen how do you deal with the issue if he asserts his right to own a gun ? I don't have the answer. The letter was written almost 8 years ago. What's been happening since ?

Owner59 -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 10:10:57 PM)
I don`t know.bushie was in charge till only 2 and 1/2 years ago.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 10:20:03 PM)
Ok, Tazz, I was able to essentially read all four pages in just a couple minutes, since I just skipped over all the silliness that has nothing to do with the OP (why don't the mods just pull those?) Anyway.... I do not own a gun, and I don't want to. I damn sure know how to shoot one, and I'm a damn good shot. That said, I have no desire to trample on the rights of others to own guns. But I do believe that the current times call for realistic safety measures. I lived in Florida for a while. My friend's brother was a bounty hunter and carried a side arm. No problem. I dated a guy who loved to smoke a bit of weed, and the state gave him a carry license. Getting a concealed carry permit is a step above that. No basic human being needs to hide a gun on their person whenever they choose. If they need to, then I'm going to bet they are doing something they shouldn't, or are foolish enough to think it makes them "cool." Doing something you shouldn't, you are a felon waiting to get caught, shouldn't have a gun. Think it makes you look "cool?" You are too stupid to have received a gun permit of any kind. Yes, I think it is appropriate for the government (read permit granting agencies, law enforcement (at all levels)) to have and maintain lists of who has applied for and been granted any kind of gun license. I think that list should include what guns each individual owns as well. I do not think that the list should be public information. I also believe said agencies should know who has applied and been denied the right to a gun permit. Why should those groups mentioned have access to such information? If a crime is committed, if someone's gun is stolen, any number of other things, those lists in those mentioned hands could be of value. If you are not using your guns for illegal activities, you shouldn't have to worry. Publish the list? As you said, this does allow people to know who doesn't own a gun. It also allows angry people to know what they need to assault a person who does own a gun. Publishing the list is bad, simply because the majority of people in society are too stupid or vindictive to have the right to know. Why do I say that they should also monitor who has applied and been denied a gun permit? Sorry, but I believe those people need monitoring. What do you think the chances are that they might try to purchase a gun illegally? How often might it have been an "impulse" buy (attempt to buy actually)? Sorry, but if you are a convicted felon, you know you can't own a gun. If you have a mental disorder, you shouldn't own a gun. If there is a single report that you abused your spouse, partner or a child, you shouldn't own a gun. In all these instances, it is already known that you can't be trusted with certain things. Allow me to clarify that by mental illness, I am referring to ones that could be problematic. Agoriphobia is technically a mental illness, but not necessarily dangerous. Depression, while appearing innocuous, if someone has easy access to a gun, they might not seek the proper treatment and blow their head off. Sorry, I realize that will be unpopular, but I still think they shouldn't have one.

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 10:25:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I don`t know.bushie was in charge till only 2 and 1/2 years ago. Well, I guess I would have to say that facts pertaining to the present would be more relevant. Leave it to some one to bash Bush on this thread but for all you know he might-a-got wise to any terrorists trying to legally purchase guns. If I was a terrorist though I would purchase my guns on the black market.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 10:29:07 PM)
This is why you`re not in law enforcement and thank god for it. If you have trouble defending bush,don`t.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02