Posted on 10/17/2003 10:29:17 AM PDT by FourPeas
No. It doesn't. Only the last 70 years or so. Do try and keep up.
Tell me, do you believe that people should be able to harass one another or commit libel and slander. (freedom of speech)
Direct demonstrable monetary losses from such. Still, it has nothing to do with the Fed Gov as that would be a power devolved to the States.
What about spread information on how to abduct and rape children? (first amendment)
Free speech is free speech. Only the results of actions should be considered. Or else we could all be someday thrown in jail for espousing an anti-socialist viewpoint on an open forum.
Do you believe that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons? (keep and bear arms)
I've already stated my opinion on this one. As long as you are not causing anyone else damage, why not? If you are, then you should be prosecuted to the fullest exent. Also not relavent to the topic as this guy did not possess nukes.
We've always made exceptions at times because we acknowledge that society wouldn't be able to function if the government could not restrict some rights in favor of promoting societal welfare.
Bullsh!t. "Societal welfare" is a recent invention stemming from communism and other communitarian philosophies. It has nothing to do with the system of government the Founders envisioned. Ample proof is in their writings.
I could be wrong on this, but I don't believe that the Supreme Court has ever overturned a gun law on second amendment grounds.
They have. Check Findlaw for cases prior to Miller. Heck, even read the whole text OF Miller. It has only been since then that the USSC has refused to hear any and all Constitutional issues in regards to the Second. Silveria and Emmerson put two lower Fed Courts at odds on the issue, and it SHOULD force the USSC to hear it to resolve the difference. If they decide as historical precedent and Founders written intent dictates they should, 70 years of misapplied legislation would be whiped out.
This would be a good thing.
Actually, you are delusional enough to believe that it won't.
Now assume there were private US citizens with nukes as well who could think of nothing better than to airmail them to Iraq.
Uh-huh. There's also US citizens who might think of nothing better to do than to, for example, airmail that nuke to New York City, or Beijing, or some other place. Here's a thought: Lyndon LaRouche, who apparently really believes that the Queen of England is a major-league narcotraficante, gets a nuke. How long before London disappears in a blinding white flash? And then how long before whoever's left in the Royal Navy's chain of command sends a really rash signal to whichever V-boat is on deterrent patrol?
You appear to deny the existence of evil--or you merely assign its existence to government. Unfortunately, evil is a product of human minds.
It'd make for a REAL short war. If we had had that kind of a policy from the beginning... we would probably still have two really tall office towers standing in New York.
More likely: we would have a radioactive crater where New York City used to be. Remember, the concept works both ways, and some folks are inherently undeterrable. It might make for a short war...and a long bout of the Dark Ages.
You presume that everyone is as rational as you believe yourself to be; this is actually a sign of your own irrationality.
People should arms themselves BECAUSE there are irrational people out there. People like you who trust the government to be loaded to the hilt with the latest and greatest, but then you sh!t yourself at the idea that the Bubba down the street may have himself an "ugly rifle" or one the shoots too many bullets.
I should have known better than to try and talk to you about this again. You still haven't grown up in the slightest.
I see my error.
I laid out a "thought problem" for you.
Unfortunately, "thought problems" require...ahem...thought. My apologies for attempting to inflict such a burden upon you and your neuron.
People should arms themselves BECAUSE there are irrational people out there.
No problem there. I'd like to see the repeal of the NFA, the GCA, and the death of the AWB next year.
However, there are legitimate limits on "self-defense." When your "self-defense" cannot be used against an aggressor without infringing on multiple innocent third parties' right to the quiet enjoyment of their property, that's a sign that you've wandered far and away from the right of self-defense.
People like you who trust the government to be loaded to the hilt with the latest and greatest, but then you sh!t yourself at the idea that the Bubba down the street may have himself an "ugly rifle" or one the shoots too many bullets.
Wrong answer, see above.
I should have known better than to try and talk to you about this again. You still haven't grown up in the slightest.
Being accused by you of not having grown up is kind of like being called "fat" by Jerry Nadler. It really doesn't mean much.
Assume you can afford a nuke. Now assume you can shoot it off safely to get some "target practice". No one is being harmed. Why would there still be a restriction on ownership? A thought problem? You obviously aren't thinking at all.
However, there are legitimate limits on "self-defense." When your "self-defense" cannot be used against an aggressor without infringing on multiple innocent third parties' right to the quiet enjoyment of their property, that's a sign that you've wandered far and away from the right of self-defense.
Funny, who's Rights to equal enjoyment was this guy stepping on again? Who did he harm? Come on Pooh, you want to make the claim, you gotta pony up the evidence. This guy was mouthing off. That is all. One "informant" and some liberal media spin and you are ready to ride him out of town on a rail. I've yet to see you defend a single gun owner so demonized... even if there was no real crime committed by the supposed perp.
Sheesh Pooh... all that practice at this and you still suck. You should get a full refund.
Wrong. They remanded it back to the lower court as they could find no militia purpose for a sawed off shotgun. Miller died before it could be re-heard at the lower court, so the judges made it up on the fly from the prosecuters arguments.
As I said. Do try to keep up.
This can be accomplished as part of a sentacing proceedure or committment hearing. There is no need for a blanket Law that affects the law abiding. All gun control laws presuppose criminal intent without due process and are un-Constitutional on their face completely apart from the Second.
Four miles? Yeah right. Pull my other leg, the one with the bells on it.
$50K to the right guy in Arzamas, Russia, and I have a nuke. Hell, I'll take out a second on my house and buy ten or so.
Now assume you can shoot it off safely to get some "target practice".
Let's assume that we're living in the real world, not your fantasy world where consequences do not exist.
No one is being harmed.
Sure, no problem. Let me shoot off a 500kT ground burst with a 50% fission fraction 100 miles upwind of you, and then let's see what you look like in a week.
Why would there still be a restriction on ownership?
Because there is no such thing as a consequence-free nuke, except in your intellectual onanism.
A thought problem? You obviously aren't thinking at all.
Funny, who's Rights to equal enjoyment was this guy stepping on again?
When he turned to planning to use those weapons against the cops, he was threatening their rights, along with the rights of any poor schmuck who happened to be in the area.
Who did he harm?
He intended to harm a bunch of people.
Come on Pooh, you want to make the claim, you gotta pony up the evidence. This guy was mouthing off. That is all.
DC, if somebody is "mouthing off" about their intent to kill me, the cops had better catch him before I do.
I don't "arrest" or "detain" someone like that. I engage in preemptive--and permanently effective--self-defense.
Just trying to keep things in perspective and accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.