Jump to content

172 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 7:57 PM, Danno said:

First of all this is a republic, so majority rule is not the factor here.

China is a republic too, what's your point?

  On 3/30/2011 at 7:57 PM, Danno said:

I believe guns just like every other God given right can have bounds and be limited by time, Place and Manner.

I don't know if that is a typo on your part, or you actually believe that. God did not give you the right to own a gun, men did, under the context of protecting our nation, since we didn't have a professional, standing army.

  On 3/30/2011 at 7:57 PM, Danno said:

It also should be regulated by "need".

That is your opinion, the founding fathers clearly don't agree with you on this subject, among many many others.

  On 3/30/2011 at 7:57 PM, Danno said:

If we had a real "need" to further regulate (ban).... they would be banned.

What sort of litmus test are you going to use for this? What metric would you accept? I suspect none that anyone who disagrees with you would offer. I suggest you look at the violent crime statistics in this country.

  On 3/30/2011 at 7:57 PM, Danno said:

Imagine the President was shot (God forbid) and within the space of a few years, 4 or 5 high profile people were Shot and killed by sanely armed militia type people with a certain type of weapon.

I'm so glad you put that caveat "(God forbid)" in there. I would never have thought you wouldn't delight at the president being shot. A "sanely armed militia"? There is no such thing. If you are forming a militia because you think it is your duty to save people from the overbearing gubmint, then you are delusional and ignorant of the 2nd ammendment, among other laws and statutes.

  On 3/30/2011 at 7:57 PM, Danno said:

I am betting that would translate into gun control laws poppin up.

Yes it would take fewer people than it does to fill a both at Denny's to effect the rights of millions of gun owners.

The supreme court has already done this. They eliminated the original intent of the 2nd ammendment by essentially removing the first sentence of it. Maybe now the conservatives won't whinge so much about jurist activism? Or is that only when it doesn't suit you?

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 3:45 PM, Rob & Mel said:

The ammendment is not ambiguous, it's fairly easy to read. Some people don't seem to comprehend how a comma can change the context of something. However, this is a moot point as the Heller decision essentially vacated any notion of original intent and redefined the second ammendment.

The 2nd ammendment isn't ambiguous, your right. The SC has ruled that it applies to private citizens and their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The question has been settled.

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 8:50 PM, JohnSmith2007 said:

The 2nd ammendment isn't ambiguous, your right. The SC has ruled that it applies to private citizens and their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The question has been settled.

So you approve of jurist activism?

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 8:17 PM, Rob & Mel said:

China is a republic too, what's your point?

I don't know if that is a typo on your part, or you actually believe that. God did not give you the right to own a gun, men did, under the context of protecting our nation, since we didn't have a professional, standing army.

The Bill of Rights begins identifying some of those God Given Rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm so glad you put that caveat "(God forbid)" in there. I would never have thought you wouldn't delight at the president being shot.

Thats because of your hate for Bush and your wish for his death.

A "sanely armed militia"? There is no such thing. If you are forming a militia because you think it is your duty to save people from the overbearing gubmint, then you are delusional and ignorant of the 2nd ammendment, among other laws and statutes.

Militias are formed for several reasons, have you ever been to a meeting or is this just more -Talking out of your AZZ?

Many people in the Militia feel they are working in concert "with" the Gov't should the need arise.

The supreme court has already done this. They eliminated the original intent of the 2nd ammendment by essentially removing the first sentence of it. Maybe now the conservatives won't whinge so much about jurist activism? Or is that only when it doesn't suit you?

News Flash, Gun control laws could be anything from outright bans on magazine sizes to special licenses to limits on sales.... none of these things were struck down.

type2homophobia_zpsf8eddc83.jpg




"Those people who will not be governed by God


will be ruled by tyrants."



William Penn

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted (edited)
  On 3/30/2011 at 8:58 PM, JohnSmith2007 said:

It isn't activism when the SC does it. Only when a lower court does. They way things are set up the SC has the final say on what is or is not constitutional.

So you're ok with the supreme court changing the tenor and intent of an ammendment? Sorry, that is still jurist activism. I hope you'll be as consistent with this position when the topic at hand isn't one that you are in favor of.

ETA: Danno, seriously, you seem to have a problem with forming readable sentences today. Again, I will try to address your post if you can put it into a readable format.

Edited by Rob & Mel
Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

Danno, just because the militias think they are working in conjunction with the government doesn't make them any less delusional and dangerous to this country. They are a danger, that seems to be quite specific to certain regions of the country, and as such, local law enforcement is preparing for it as is evidenced by those drills in Iowa.

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 9:10 PM, Rob & Mel said:

So you're ok with the supreme court changing the tenor and intent of an ammendment? Sorry, that is still jurist activism. I hope you'll be as consistent with this position when the topic at hand isn't one that you are in favor of.

ETA: Danno, seriously, you seem to have a problem with forming readable sentences today. Again, I will try to address your post if you can put it into a readable format.

They didn't change the tenor or the intent. They are the ones that set it in the first place. Since the founders didn't plainly state that private people could or could not own guns it fell to the SC to decide it. I am not aware of any SC decision that stated that private citizens could not own guns. So the SC didn't change anything. They just affermed what was already being practiced for over 200 years. Sorry if you don't agree with it but that is the way it is.

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 9:16 PM, JohnSmith2007 said:

They didn't change the tenor or the intent. They are the ones that set it in the first place. Since the founders didn't plainly state that private people could or could not own guns it fell to the SC to decide it. I am not aware of any SC decision that stated that private citizens could not own guns. So the SC didn't change anything. They just affermed what was already being practiced for over 200 years. Sorry if you don't agree with it but that is the way it is.

How can you say they didn't change the tenor or the intent when they removed the element of the amendment that added any context? They stripped any context and intent out of the ammendment with the Heller decision. You can plead ignorance all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Look at the orignal text:

  Quote
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.

Now lets look at what the Heller decision accomplished

  Quote
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.
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 9:32 PM, Rob & Mel said:

How can you say they didn't change the tenor or the intent when they removed the element of the amendment that added any context? They stripped any context and intent out of the ammendment with the Heller decision. You can plead ignorance all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Look at the orignal text:

Now lets look at what the Heller decision accomplished

They didn't remove anything. Militias are private citizens that form into military groups in times of national crisis. The original intent was for armed citizens to form into militias when needed. It was as much to protect the union from outside agression as it is to protect the people from its own government. Like it or not the SC has the final say so on what is and is not constitutional. The SC cannot be activists in the same way a lower court can be.

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 9:41 PM, JohnSmith2007 said:

They didn't remove anything. Militias are private citizens that form into military groups in times of national crisis. The original intent was for armed citizens to form into militias when needed. It was as much to protect the union from outside agression as it is to protect the people from its own government. Like it or not the SC has the final say so on what is and is not constitutional. The SC cannot be activists in the same way a lower court can be.

It may not have literally removed text from the 2nd amendment, but it nullified the first half of it. The original intent was for the protection of the nation. We didn't have a standing, professional army and thus relied upon militias for defense. This nonsense that militias were to protect the citizens from an overbearing government is laughable.

Seriously, go look up what an activist court is. The Heller decision was just that. However, it's not like this decision is written in stone. Supreme courts can reverse prior decisions. We can only hope for a more level headed supreme court in the future.

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 10:27 PM, Rob & Mel said:

It may not have literally removed text from the 2nd amendment, but it nullified the first half of it. The original intent was for the protection of the nation. We didn't have a standing, professional army and thus relied upon militias for defense. This nonsense that militias were to protect the citizens from an overbearing government is laughable.

Seriously, go look up what an activist court is. The Heller decision was just that. However, it's not like this decision is written in stone. Supreme courts can reverse prior decisions. We can only hope for a more level headed supreme court in the future.

Sure like the kind that would find the right to an ABORTION in the Bill of Rights.

:bonk:

type2homophobia_zpsf8eddc83.jpg




"Those people who will not be governed by God


will be ruled by tyrants."



William Penn

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted
  On 3/30/2011 at 10:29 PM, Danno said:

Sure like the kind that would find the right to an ABORTION in the Bill of Rights.

:bonk:

Oh god, this ####### again Danno? Let's just let the conservatives tell everyone what they can and cannot do with their body to satisfy your religious dogma. :rolleys:

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...