Free Republic

"That's a novel idea. BTW, why would you take your coat through security? Why would it not be packed? Seeing people dress and undress in airports is bewildering."

Here's one reason for you: I live in Houston. Currently i fly back and forth between here and Minneapolis every week.

The winter low (on average) in Houston is ~50 degrees. Hell, last Christmas day i wore shorts.

I think the high last time i was in Minneapolis was 40.

So, i'm going to be NEEDING a coat when i am in Minnapolis, but would sweat to death wearing one in Houston.

Thats why I'd be carrying it through security. Does that make sense to you?

I feel for you man i really do.

I spent months looking for the perfect bag which could carry not just my laptop but all my clothes for a 4 day trip (M-Th), toiletries, and still fit in the overhead.

I found it - wasnt cheap, but i found it.

2 weeks later, no liquids allowed. So now, instead of the convenience of having one bag, i have to either carry 2 (one to check), or simply do without certain things upon arrival.

Thankfully, most of the business hotels have taken to providing the necessary stuff as a matter of course for its regular customers.

"Tell any woman who stays at home and raises a family
that she doesn't "work" and prepare to get punched
in the nose. "


Anyone who had the stones to do that would do well to count themselves lucky if a punch in the nose was all they got.

Oh i can only imagine the reaction from my wife...

WTF is that?

Good God man! Overcompensating or something?

Just kidding.

Seriously though - what is that behemoth?

First off, our Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms. It recognizes an existing right which was codified into law as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. In truth, our basis for law originated in your nation. The right to keep and bear arms was (at that time) recognized in English Common Law.

Second, the size of our nation has precisely zero to do with it.

You might want to work on that - thats a little on the quick side...

If you do not understand why Silvera v. Lockyer blows your whole militia argument apart, then you obviously dont know the details of the case.

Of course, not knowing what you're talking about hasnt stopped you from discussing this up to now...

I can take it just fine bobbyboy. You've simply far exceeded my maximum tolerance for stupidity.

I find people who attempt to defend an indefensible position to be mentally fatiguing and i simply refuse to deal with them.

with your comment about me having a low IQ (although i would submit to you my current mensa membership would dispute that), you have earned yourself the unique distinction of being the one and only person on my ignore list.

Are you sure this isnt from The Onion?

Liked that one didja?

I was quite clear. Demonstrate where the federal government is granted the authority to restrict private ownership of weapons. That means ANY weapons - new, old, small, large, etc., and that also means ANY restrictions - and yes, limits and licensing are most assuredly restrictions (infringements, if you prefer).

Ok - i was trying to be polite. Would you prefer i said you were retarded?

Second, "prior restraint" only applies to speech/press issues, so there's no one-to-one comparison to anything else.

Where on God's green Earth did you get that silly-assed idea?

I'm saying that the second amendment may be reasonably regulated as well as the first or any other amendment.

Care to explain how? I fail to see how the phrase "...shall not be infringed." allows any room for legislation or restriction. As stated before, "well regulated" and "well-regulated" are two very different terms.

To say that we can't touch the holy second amendment is ludicrous -- that we must protect the right to keep and bear all arms, by all individuals, all the time.

Why? We allow all sorts of things under the 1st Amendment.

Are you aware that when the South lost the war, even THEN they were not disarmed - after having just taken up arms against the state in open rebellion? Even Lincoln recognized "thou shalt not fuck with a man's right to be armed" may have well been the 11th Commandment.

For fuck's sake, even the Congressional debates on the 1934 NFA acknowledged that Congress couldnt simply outlaw certain weapons as it would violate the 2nd Amendment. Thats why the NFA is written as a TAX measure and why the ATF was tasked with its enforcement, as until recently, they were part of the Treasury Department.

It could even be legitimately argued that the 1968 GCA and the 1986 FOPA were constructed as "interstate commerce" regulations as Congress knew to simply pass those laws without some perverse justification they would be tossed out as unconstitutional violations of the 2nd Amendment.

Oh, and to the best of my knowledge, the government does not punish irresponsible acts. We punish illegal acts.

Good qualifier, and nice wordsmithing.

The government punishes irresponsible acts by making such acts illegal.

It would be much easier to not treat you with contempt if you didnt say things which were so obviously false.

Tne 1934 NFA is most assuredly still in place. You still must obtain a $200.00 tax stamp for the transfer of any NFA weapon - and yes, you can still own full-auto firearms and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns which are directly affected by the NFA.

Most notably, what prevents the sale of full auto weapons to private individuals is the scarcity of them as, through another illegal (and highly misleadingly named) law known as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) forbids the sale of any full-auto firearms manufactured after the passage of the act in 1986 to private individuals.

Well except for the little minor fact of legal construction wherein an amendment to a document takes priority, yeah

You know - that whole "...shall not be infringed." thing...

As open carry of any and all weapons one wished was the norm at the time, concealment of a weapon implied nefarious intent. It was thought that an honorable man had no need to conceal arms as he could carry them openly. Honor used to actually MEAN something to people.

You do realize that "well regulated" and "well-regulated" are two very different terms do you not?

Your opinion that we no longer have a well regulated militia is irrelevant, as would be your opinion that we dont have a well-regulated militia. It also has precisely zero bearing on the right itself.

They've been replaced by the state National Guard and a small federal standing army. They have the M-16's and a whole bunch of other goodies. Their possession is protected by the second amendment.

Let me make sure i understand this... The standing army, which Congress is specifically tasked to raise and arm, somehow requires and gains the protections of the 2nd Amendment?

IF that completely perverse and convoluted logic (and i use that term loosely) were actually the case, then pray tell, by what legal mechanism is a National Guard member forbidden from taking his arms home? After all, if it is only they who have 2nd Amendment protections, then certainly there could be no local, state or federal law which could legally infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms of a nature suited to use in the military.

Incidentally, since you seem to be unaware of this, there is legal precedent which shoots your silly-assed theory about only the National Guard being protected by the 2nd Amendment. Said case being Silvera v. Lockyer

He didnt say that at all and you know it. It most certainly does place limits upon the federal government. In fact, the entire US Constitution does nothing BUT assign powers to and place limitations upon the federal government. The only restrictions upon states or the people are implied, by virtue of those powers being ceded to the federal government.

Please point out the part of the California State Constitution that is violated (Hint: The California State Constitution is silent on arms. It says ... nothing).

Honestly not sure if it is part of the state Constitution or just a state law, but local municipalities may not preempt state law in California. Frankly I'm too lazy to look it up, but thats the issue which made Prop. H unconstitutional.

And, as we both know, the second amendment only applies to the federal government, not the states.

No, we both do not know that. You want to pretend it, i refuse to believe your delusion.

So, the SF ban is constitutional, as is a similar ban in Chicago. And I'm not even a "gun banner". Sorry but it isnt. You can read the decision here

Putting aside the various interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, perhaps you could be so kind as to demonstrate to us where the federal government is granted the authority to restrict private ownership of weapons?

You are repeatedly confusing punishment for irresponsible acts with prior restraint