Posted on 03/16/2005 12:51:41 PM PST by HereComesTheGOP
Pittsburgh (KDKA) A deadly shooting outside Carrick High School this afternoon has put the school on lockdown.
Officials have confirmed that one student is dead and two others were wounded in the shooting around 2pm.
According to authorities, police stopped a car outside the school and were running a check on its license plate when another vehicle pulled up and started shooting at the car.
One juvenile in the car was shot in the head and killed; a second juvenile was critically injured by gunshots. A third juvenile in the car was injured by flying glass. Authorities believe all three were Carrick High School students.
Police say the shooting may have involved an AK-47.
As a precaution, students have been kept inside the building past their normal 2:17pm dismissal while police officers swarmed the area; but they're expected to be released within the hour.
More than 1300 students in ninth through twelfth grades are enrolled at Carrick High School, which is located on Parkfield Street.
and you believe you are correct in taking a basic minimum standard and redefining it as the maximum permissable limit?
Couldn't agree more. But as the 2nd amendment was intended by the founders (and not interpreted by the courts), in this case they would be right.
90+% of Americans disagree with you.
My personal feeling on the issue is that anyone that promotes bans of any kind is subverting the US Constitution, is a traitor, and should be either jailed or deported immediately and permanently.
Whatever, you sound like a total whackjob. That kind of ridiculous hyperbole is what allows the media to continue to successfully portray gun rights advocates as scary nuts. Anytime we get close to getting rid of the myth, some idiot like you pipes up.
so what?
As Justice Antonin Scalia has stated, the guarantees of the Constitution exist to protect the individual from majoritarian rule.
“And yes, we do have the right to a bazooka and rocket launchers. The line should be drawn at the point of indeterminate area effect weapons. What these consist of are weapons that once fired and detonated, we no longer have control over their destructive purpose due to fallout or residual effects. This includes chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and biological weapons.”
Mike, based on what? Can you cite your sources, link to your founders, provide the laws that make it so. Can you show me the legal opinions that support your view? If you cannot then all you are providing is opinion, not constitutional fact.
"I would say that the issuance of a congressional hunting permit to private captains logically implies that private possession of cannon is licit according to the constitution."
How is the issuance of a license, a permission slip from government, indicative of a Constitutional right that explicitly does not require government permission?
You mix apples and oranges. We have an individual right to all small arms suitable for militia use (rifles, pistols, shotguns, and some edged weapons). I can produce scores of cites and opinions in support of that idea.
Where is the body of opinion that includes artillery?
Say, since ya'll have been running more short-term frontpage polls, perhaps this would make a good one:
Does the Constitution guarantee the right to own a bazooka or rocket launcher?
"...and Congress passed a specific act in 1793 that defined exactly what arms the militia was expected to have and to show up with if mustered. All small arms.
and you believe you are correct in taking a basic minimum standard and redefining it as the maximum permissable limit?"
I believe I can make a rock solid case for the standard that is expicitly drawn. I simply ask for the body of evidence that expands this sure case into the realm of artillery? if you have a constitutional case, make it.
It sure was a nice try, seeing as how the victim (who was an accomplished car thief) and the perpetrators were all African-American.
Not a single Norwegian involved, as it turns out.
Apparently no matter where a student is bused to, his inner-city culture follows him.
Which supports my underlying point: the African-American community has some serious internal cultural problems.
Other than the reply above this one that cites Miller?
The Act in question was the Militia Act of *1792*; it was passed to establish a *minimum* standard of equipment that a militia should have and appear with when summoned. Many militias at the time did not have full equipment for every man, and several states had a cheeseparing attitude towards supporting them -officers and men were not paid for their service, there was no consistency in their treatment or regulations, etc, etc,
The act, by the way, acknowledges that there are private artillery corps:
"And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.
"XI. Be it enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this Act, in like manner with the other militias."
So your argument doesn't hold water anyway.
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappc.html (Has the Militia Act in it)
It should also be mentioned that private artillery ownership was the issue that triggered the Texas War For Independence. The Texas settlers had a cannon for defense, the Mexican Army decided that they didn't need it and came to take it from them, and the rest is history. Why does this matter? Because shortly after that, *the citizens of Cincinnatti* donated two of their privately owned cannons to Sam Houston to aid his cause.
In combination with the second, ninth, and tenth amendments, the meaning of the letters of marque clause clearly indicates that private possession of artillery -or destructive force equivalent to the power and mobility of a fully armed warship of that era- is a right of the individual.
You refer to a basic minimum standard as if it is a maximum legal limit. This is like arguing that the seventh-grade public education syllabus is the maximum that a child is permitted to learn.
This is so obviously and patently stupid that I find it difficult to address your point of view with any respect.
Still waiting on you to identify those firearms. Or are you afraid to expose your lack of knowledge and slavish parroting of the MSM?
Not too familiar with Tench Coxe, eh?
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.
-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Or maybe Noah Webster?
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
-Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
There are many others - look 'em up.
The argument that the founders only refer to small arms when talking about the militia is disingenuous. Show me where they talk about the army having artillary, etc. Or do you think that the two above only meant for the army to be armed with swords?
Um, read my post again... US vs. Miller 1939 it was clearly spelled out.
Mike
His own reference to the Militia Act shoots holes in his position. The Act in question specifically recognizes "corps of artillery" that are not under state control.
*delight*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1364212/posts?page=141#141
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1364212/posts?page=209#209
It's a simple question. Identify the "evil" firearm. Stop sidestepping the issue.
There is no firearm that is legally sold in the US that is "easily convertible" into a machine gun. The BATFE has made sure of that - they will even arrest people who have the physiology to pull the trigger rapidly enough to make their weapons sound like a machine gun.
you jest? I hope you jest.
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.