Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by newsgatherer
Handgun Control Inc. says it wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people. Guess what. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns a handgun you have the "wrong hands."
Banning guns works. That is why New York and Chicago have such high murder rates.
Washington D.C. which has strict gun controls has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. Indianapolis, without them has an awesome murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Gun control works.
You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
The "New England Journal of Medicine" has some excellent articles on gun control just as "The American Rifleman" carries equally great articles on open-heart surgery.
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.
The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
One should consult an automobile technician for vehicle repairs, a computer programmer for problems with your hard drive and Sara Brady for firearms expertise.
Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.
If you are not familiar with most of the above you have not been following the firearms debate. In fact you haven't tuned in to the liberals who still have their hands in your pockets and on your firearms even though the pounding defeats ...
(Excerpt) Read more at Christian-news-in-maine.com ...
“Actually the Supreme Court never stooped to accept a case challenging the AWB. Plus the Congress and the President rarely consider the Courts precedents or the Constitution in passing laws these days (they once did, as when they "got around" the lack of power to ban or regulate guns by taxing the snot out of them, ignoring the fact that they can't use powers that they do have to violate the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, that being the whole point of passing the BoR in the first place.)”
Exactly and well said. We can pontificate about our “rights” all day but unless the Congress or the Courts agree, the rights simply have no effect in law.
LoL ok without there being a fire you have no such protected right. If you are punished for that then it is not a right.
So you believe I DO have the right to possess Ricin or my own ICBM with warheads?
“I guess what I'm trying to ask is: how and why do we decide which arms are and aren't allowed under the 2nd Amendment?
A 1938 or 39 Supreme Court Case declared that weapons of the Militia are weapons common to the one carrried and used in the military.
So, in answer to your question, the weapons that are covered by the 2nd are the ones commonly carried by oyur US Military troops today, this would include all of the so called 'assault weapons'.”
Again exactly right, based on the opinions of the court and what the founders actually said.
I can. I can cite a dozen court decisions that support my contention. But I don't need to.
All I need to do is have you answer one simple question. Your answer is the proof that the second amendment does not apply to the states. I'll ask it again, since you refused to answer it the first time.
The Equal Protection Clause(certainly Due Process) says that if the citizens of Vermont have concealed carry, then it would be unconstitutional for other states to deny that second amendment right to their citizens. Why has that NEVER been brought up in any court, anywhere, anytime?
“Read US v Miller or Emmerson and you will get a better idea of what the law really is.
I'm familar with Miller vs USA, about 1939 or so, Mr. Miller was unable to appear in court, since he had died before the court date, but I am not familar with Emmerson, can you give me a bit of info?”
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits/ami-bri.html
Yes.
If, however, you behave in an irresponsible manner threatening or causing harm, others may forcibly disarm you. Our difference is that I would not oppose ownership if they are stored/used properly, while you would prohibit ownership outright despite proper storage/use.
I solve the problem by applying Cooper's Four Rules. If you store/use arms properly, fine - regardless of scale. If you don't, others may disarm you - regardless of scale.
You will be hard-pressed to draw the line between what arms are included in the 2nd Amendment and what are not. Better to find rules (like Cooper's Four Rules, look it up) that suitably apply to all situations, rather than trying to draw arbitrary lines. It's surprising what one can fit into a briefcase...
This isn't deciding the issue once and for all, it is side stepping it. The political sh*tstorm that would follow a Constitutionally "correct" ruling keeps judicial "politicians" from risking their careers. This does not in any way make thier silence correct.
Also, while it is just fine and dandy for a State to add to a Rights protections, no State who has ratified the US Constitution and its attendant Amendments has legal authority to restrict a US citiznes protected Rights without due process in a criminal trial. Once a State Legislature has signed off on the US Constitutions "Supreme Law of the Land" clause, they cede power in that area. Or, at least they should.
As we are seeing with California, New York, New Jersey, and a couple others, they are ignoring the US Constitution and the Fed Gov is letting them. Power has corrupted the system and "We the People" no longer have the Will to force them to behave.
Because that's not an "equal protection" issue. Laws may be different in different jurisdictions. States are not required to have the same laws.
What IS an equal-protection issues is US vs. Stewart, where the 9th Circuit has effectively ruled that federal law 922(o) applies to states outside the 9th Circuit, but not within that jurisdiction - to wit, you can make a homemade machinegun legally in Idaho but not Florida; the residents of some states are subject to federal law 922(o) but not others. THAT is an "equal protection" issue.
You think you can buy a Nike missle with a warhead? Or an ICBM with MIRV capability?
I've visited the private collection of a man that owns two 'Scuds', one on a mobile launch vehicle, [& dozens of tanks/artillery pieces]
The nuke warhead? -- No. the possession of nuclear materials are quite correctly regulated by common law.
Cannons are not military weapons anymore and are not considered as such. I would bet your insurance company would take a dim view of your possession of them in any case.
Another odd, 'dim view' belief. -- You would lose on the insurance bet. They cash my premium check very quickly.
Your opinion on the constitutionality of a law, while interesting, is irrelevent.
I posted the fact of the NFA of '34.
You're posting ill-informed opinion.
I claimed that the 2d does not protect the right to own artillary. It refers to the arms of a militiaman.
Your opinion on the 'milita' while interesting, is irrelevent. The 2nd protects the right to own cannon.
Now how can you rationalize the unconstitutional prohibition of owning the most advanced arms, nuclear warheads? What makes their ownership unprotected and others protected?
The possession of nuclear materials can be quite correctly regulated by common law, as these materials are intrinsically dangeous, - very difficult to store, - much like certain chemical & biological agents.
You disclose to the insurance company that information? It just says "oh, you won't be charged for storage of powder in your basement"
Another odd 'dim' comment. Do you really think you've made so sort of point?
Barron v Baltimore held that the BoR did NOT apply to the states. It would have never been ratified if it had since the States had established religions and other violations of the BoR. Southern states prevented the spread of anti-slavery newspapers, books and magazines by seizing them from the mail, closing down presses, etc. Only after the 14th amendment was the BoR applicable to the states.
BINGO.
Based on the knowledge of what militia members could carry to drills and calls to action.
The court did three things. 1) They stated that without evidence, they could not say that this weapon was protected under the second amendment, 2) They stated that it was not up to the USSC to make that determination, and 3) Remanded the case back down to the lower court.
The USSC did not say the weapon wasn't protected. They said they couldn't say it was protected, without more evidence. They left the door open.
I am not hard pressed at all. Firearms which can be used by an individual are protected by the second amendment all others are not and can be prohibited.
There are some things which can never be properly stored or maintained by an individual and those include ICBMs with warheads and chem/bio warfare agents.
There was very little danger to by-standers from the arms spoken of in the 2d from an accident. The catastrophic potential for disaster of bio/chem agents makes their prohibition a necessity.
Barron V Baltimore was wrong. Your insistance on its correctness in no way changes this. As has been proven to you time and again over the years.
One you choose to ignore.
“So, because the Courts have slipped thier leesh, we all suffer? We must play by their rules when they have tossed out the rules they are SUPPOSED to be playing by?
Impeach them. Failing that. Remove them by force of arms. I'm getting tired of trying to work within a rigged system and I'm not Ghandi.”
So go for it. All I am writing about is first, what the Amendment meant to the founders and second, the actual state of the law. I don’t like having to be a walking victim every time a visit Boston from Maine and leave my arms behind, but that IS the state of the law and no Mass court will pay the slightest attention to my referencing your opinion of the meaning of the Second.
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.