posted
it wasn't a unanimous decision, so some of 'em, were still trying to make it up as they go...
it's amazing that anybody still believes the scholars that tried to make the case for the states collective rights to own guns.. the whole basis for that argument was proven to be fraudulent, and the professor was fired for using fake sources for his data.
i was furious when one of my kids came home form school being taught that stuff in social studies class. in Nebraska no less...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
it wasn't a unanimous decision, so some of 'em, were still trying to make it up as they go...
Yeah, just look at the other thread on their judgement.
it's amazing that anybody still believes the scholars that tried to make the case for the states collective rights to own guns.. the whole basis for that argument was proven to be fraudulent, and the professor was fired for using fake sources for his data.
Hold on...they want to say that the state has the only right to own guns and can issue\take them back at will? That's a new one on me.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hold on...they want to say that the state has the only right to own guns and can issue\take them back at will? That's a new one on me.
well, the debate is around the concept of what a militia is..
some people want to say that Militias are only State run organisations therefore the well-regulated militia phraseology means that each state can define the rights..
however, well-regulated meant, at the time, well practiced... and militias are not state run, a militia is anybody that gets together to perfom any kind of militiary activity...
here's the scholarly article/book that was full of crap:
Emory now considers the investigation of allegations of research misconduct against Professor Bellesiles in connection with his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture to be concluded and resolved.
Release date: Oct. 25, 2002 Contact: Jan Gleason, Assistant Vice President, Public Affairs, at 404-727-0639 or jgleason*emory.edu
Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty
October 25, 2002
Robert A. Paul, Interim Dean of Emory College
I have accepted the resignation of Michael Bellesiles from his position as Professor of History at Emory University, effective December 31, 2002.
the guy basically claimed sources for data that he could never have even looked at. for instance, some of them, if they had ever even existed, would have been destroyed in the SanFrancisco earthquake fire.
The main argument of “Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture”, is that firearm ownership in the United States was rare prior to the Civil War, and that the average American’s proficiency in the use of firearms was poor. Bellesiles bases this conclusion on numerous sources, most of which did not support the claims he made about them.
Bellesiles cited the Militia Act of 1792 when he wrote (page 230) : "Further, “every citizen so enrolled, shall...be constantly provided with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints,” and other accoutrements. Congress took upon itself the responsibility of providing those guns..."
However the Militia Act of 1792 actually reads (differences in bold) : "... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints..."
The 1792 Militia Act as it was originally written (without Bellesiles' modifications) does not support his assertion that "Congress took upon itself the responsibility of providing those guns"
the book was just full of lies, and it was being taught to kids in HS even in the midwest...
the wierd part is that this stuff was taken almost directly, and instantly, from publication to the classroom which is rarely ever done...
just another exmple of the govt spewing propaganda so suit it's current whim, and one of the biggest reasons i am not a Clinton fan.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I hear quite a few people herolding this as a victory. Far... far... far from it. This is all scripted. The aim at this stage of the game is to prove that the courts hold authority over what is considered a right. No matter the decision issued. What was done today is an enormous loss for free men. The only thing this ruling did was to guarantee our slavery in years to come.
IP: Logged |
posted
DC will implement some new laws but they already said they'll ban semi-automatics... DC claims their laws decreased crime rates. In the 80's and 90's when i did repo work there? it was the murder capital of the US and the ban was in effect then too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the bit about not being able to ban guns altogether. The catch was it was almost advice. Almost as if they wanted to say, "But you can ban them in this way" It's all a scam.
IP: Logged |
" 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. "
Did not read the courts actual statement today but I have read the above many times.
It is very unsettling to me that four of the 9 judges would want to do what they did. Maybe one idiot or whatever, where did these Americans come from that would not be able to read such simple ENGLISH from our Constitution? Maybe we need to have it translated into some other language for them so they may be able to understand what it says?
[ June 27, 2008, 07:17: Message edited by: Bob Frey ]
IP: Logged |
posted
I take offense to the Spanish remark Bob, uncalled for. As for gun control and such. Members of the Supreme Court can have a difference of opinion on matters. If not then what is the point of having the Court if they all agree on everything that is brought before them? Same with Congress and the laws they come up with etc. Differences of opinion is what makes this country great. Not a 1 track mind.
It is needed because if not then the wackos of society (ala Virginia tech) or terrorists can get such things easier not that it's not easy to get already. And sooner or later if it hasn't already, the word "arms" will have to be defined because if not then anyone can own say a RPG or other weapons?
And admit it or not people own guns not because they are in a "militia" & to secure a "free state" but because they are gun freaks and like to blow things away with them much like people with fireworks.
I do find it amusing and ironic that the word "regulated" is used in that statement of the Constitution. Something this issue is about in a ways and people fail to acknowledge is used (the word and its' meaning). A word you right wingers hate but except when worded in the Constitution because if you cause a stink about it's use in the great paper then you would be arguing the Constitution has errors such as gun ownership etc.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:And admit it or not people own guns not because they are in a "militia" & to secure a "free state" but because they are gun freaks and like to blow things away with them much like people with fireworks.
Another ridiculous post that shows you know absolutely nothing about guns or gun owners. When people buy fireworks, they generally actually use them. When people buy a handgun, the generally pray that they NEVER have to use it (except for some target practice). See the difference?
IP: Logged |
posted
I do find it amusing and ironic that the word "regulated" is used in that statement of the Constitution. Something this issue is about in a ways and people fail to acknowledge is used (the word and its' meaning). A word you right wingers hate but except when worded in the Constitution because if you cause a stink about it's use in the great paper then you would be arguing the Constitution has errors such as gun ownership etc.
interesting word indeed.
reg·u·late (rgy-lt) tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. 2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature. 3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning. 4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
in 1791? a well regulated militia implied well-practiced.
when taken as a whole? the Bill of Rights ammendments 1-10 are ALL about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
read 'em. They are there to protect YOU and everybody else from having a govt that is overbearing.
What people conveniently forget in any argument about the framers intent is that the King of England strictly controlled the ownership of guns and the new US country was not having anything to do with that, and said so in PLAIN words.
Miltia's BY DEFINITION, and this has not changed, are not state run or state owned, and the Framers did not intend for them to be. They provide their own weapons and supplies and they do not expect to be paid. Today we call them volunteers.
had the framers meant State Run Armies? they would have said STATE ARMIES, they DID have those back in the day too...
they also would have capitalised State in free state. they did not...
Amendment II
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. free state in this instance means free sate of being..
i think it's hilarious that anybody trusts the govt.
from your local dog catcher all the way up to the president. none of 'em are your mommy or your daddy. they are there to make as much out of whatever opportunity comes their way as they can GET AWAY WITH just like everybody else in this world.
all this stupid rhetoric about hunting and sporting guns is ridiculous. People are always dancing around the real facts. The real facts are that our Founding Fathers were REVOLUTIONARIES and they believed an armed populace had as honest a government as you can get. I agree with them
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't agree with you more Bob. I can't explain how pissed off I get when I go to buy a new tool and have to actually search the entire box for english. This country was founded by people who owned guns and spoke english and that is entirely how it should stay.
IP: Logged |
posted
13 states were founded by english speaking settlers.. if you knew your history the rest of the country was founded by spanish and french settlers and if you really want to get technical about who was here first then American Natives were here first... none of these groups spoke english. And I guess you don't read well because on boxes it is usually written in english followed by spanish or spanish is in a box next to the english words. Below it or next to it. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading skills and you be ok. And not for nothing but this is a capitalist country not a democracy. Capitalists are smart and know that the spanish population here is a huge money maker. The capitalists are here to make money and not dictate how you live your life (including what language you speak). So there is nothing wrong with catering to the spanish sector as well as other sectors (french, english, chinese etc.). Hell i been seeing french words on products since I was a child and i never seen the english speaking population making a stink about it. Kind of prejudicial to target one group (spanish speaking) but not another group (french speakers) don't you think?. This is the same as with the irish/jews/italian immigrants in the late 1800's. The same prejudices to a new group. Funny thing is that Americans in general expect (and if they could they would demand)english to be written on products as well as other aspects when you visit a foreign country. And when it is written on products in other countries it's because the capitalists are being smart and catering to the money spending sector just like here with the spanish.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Another ridiculous post that shows you know absolutely nothing about guns or gun owners. When people buy fireworks, they generally actually use them. When people buy a handgun, the generally pray that they NEVER have to use it (except for some target practice). See the difference?
Oh please. Don't tell me your not itching to use that gun on someone. You would love to do so but you can't legally so in the meantime you target practice and/or go hunting to make up for it.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
yawn... the Constitution was written in English..
as for Settlers? you're forgetting the very large number of Dutch, German, Scandahoovian, and Portuguese too... Brazil's official language is NOT Spanish. You would also be surprised how many Angles spoke French and vice versa in those times...
relatively few Spaniards actually settled in the new World. They sent a lot of expeditions and missionaries, but very few few colonisits compared to the northern europeans... Mostly it was the Church forcing the natives to learn it.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: What people conveniently forget in any argument about the framers intent is that the King of England strictly controlled the ownership of guns and the new US country was not having anything to do with that, and said so in PLAIN words.
Those same framers did not predict the types of guns that would be invented and the destruction that they would cause compared to the guns in their time. They also did not expect the chaos that has come out of since their time. I have no doubt if they were still around they would rethink their views on the issue.
quote:Miltia's BY DEFINITION, and this has not changed, are not state run or state owned, and the Framers did not intend for them to be. They provide their own weapons and supplies and they do not expect to be paid. Today we call them volunteers.
Perhaps you are right about the definition of a "militia" but do not tell me that people today own guns for such a reason.
quote:i think it's hilarious that anybody trusts the govt.
I don't trust the Gov't 100% but why shouldn't it be trusted. History has shown that humans cannot live without one. That without one we descend into chaos and our world is already chaotic with Gov'ts. Imagine a world without them. Would be a whole lot worst imo.
quote:all this stupid rhetoric about hunting and sporting guns is ridiculous. People are always dancing around the real facts. The real facts are that our Founding Fathers were REVOLUTIONARIES and they believed an armed populace had as honest a government as you can get. I agree with them
If that were true then our Founding Fathers would not have formed a Gov't and just let everyone live however they want and do whatever they want. Now tell me, would you have wanted that? We have the greatest professional military in the world so the excuse that we need to arm ourselves as a volunteer militia is BS. I would respect you more if you said you wanted to own guns because you like blowing things away and guns make you feel powerful. Not the BS rhetoric gun owners come up with as a excuse to own them.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: yawn... the Constitution was written in English..
as for Settlers? you're forgetting the very large number of Dutch and Portuguese too... Brazil's official language is NOT Spanish. You would also be surprised how many Angles spoke French and vice versa in those times...
relatively few Spaniards actually settled in the new World. They sent a lot of expeditions and missionaries, but very few few colonisits compared to the northern europeans... Mostly it was the Church forcing the natives to learn it.
And the Constitution at that time was written for a relatively small population since the rest of the country was not part of it and only was later on due to Manifest Destiny. And yes I am quite aware the Brazilians speak Portuguese as Haitans speak French/Creole, Canadians speak English and/or French, etc. And yes alot of spaniards did settle in the New World just not in the Northeast. And btw I was speaking about Northern America only and not anything south of the Border of those days.
Btw a "free state" has many definitions and/or interpretations. Yours is only one of them much like the Bible can be interpreted differently as well as the Constitution.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
actually, i believe the Revolutionaries would have frowned on the idea that the Govt has more firepower than the individuals... of course they couldn't imagine Nukes, but then nobody is asking for their own nukes.
there were cannons available in those days and individual people did own them...
even after the Civil War, there was no move to disarm the general population of the South.
how much Firepower do you think Blackwater owns right now dude?
you are looking at the gun from the wrong end.
our Founding Fathers DID in Fact see what's happening as a possibility and set the Constitution up to avoid it, but it is happening anyway, and people like you, unfortunately, are why.
The fact is? the Royalty of Europe was all about Capitalism. they ran their countries like their own personal corporations. Wars were in fact about MONEY. They still are for that matter.
History supports the notion that US gun ownership was/is an individual right 100%. There is no wiggle room unless you begin to make stuff up.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: our Founding Fathers DID in Fact see what's happening as a possibility and set the Constitution up to avoid it, but it is happening anyway, and people like you, unfortunately, are why.
Actually FORTUNATELY there is people like me because if not there would be a free for all and people would own a Nuke , RPG, Tank etc. if they could afford it. There has to be some LIMIT to gun/weapon ownership.
quote:The fact is? the Royalty of Europe was all about Capitalism. they ran their countries like their own personal corporations. Wars were in fact about MONEY. They still are for that matter.
All countries are about Capitalism with the exception of communist countries which are really capitalist for certain people within their gov't's like in China, Cuba etc. And yes War is about Money, always has been and always will be with some other excuse used for starting them or prolonging them.
quote:History supports the notion that US gun ownership was/is an individual right 100%. There is no wiggle room unless you begin to make stuff up.
It is a individual right that should have some limitations because if not then it will run out of control and history has shown that whether you like to admit it or not.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
History supports the notion that US gun ownership was/is an individual right 100%. There is no wiggle room unless you begin to make stuff up.
Making stuff up...you mean like when laws are upheld or struck down based on "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" instead of the constitution...
IP: Logged |
posted
It is a individual right that should have some limitations because if not then it will run out of control and history has shown that whether you like to admit it or not.
Do you really have any idea how dumb that sounded, Mach?
I challenge you to produce one instance of where 'history has shown' that individual right to bear arms has caused more harm than good.
posted
It is a individual right that should have some limitations because if not then it will run out of control and history has shown that whether you like to admit it or not.
some limitations. like no nukes, and no greandes.
people talk like machine guns are banned, they aren't. people talk like assault weapons are banned, they aren't yet somehow society holds on...
and there's almost no crime involved with those weapons....
most crime happens in places where guns are severely restricted or banned.
when we "took over" Iraq? we let each house KEEP an AK47 full auto for personal protection... LOL...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Do you really have any idea how dumb that sounded, Mach?
I challenge you to produce one instance of where 'history has shown' that individual right to bear arms has caused more harm than good.
Just one.
About as dumb as some of your quotes that you deny are not religious based or emotional based.
As for history, the Wild West. Oh there was sheriffs and such but basically no law and order. As for more modern times, massacres at post offices, schools, other work places etc.
Columbine
Virginia Tech
Lubby's Cafeteria in Killeen,Texas
Charles Whitman's massacre at the University of Austin Texas
And on and on.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Oh, wait. Maybe it wasn't the Jews that would be agreeing...
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
posted
On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill[1] and in general [2][3], after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person[4].) One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape.[5] Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.[6][7][8] Reacting to the massacre,[9] in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law allowing Texas citizens with the required permit to carry concealed weapons. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre and both of whose parents were shot and killed. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996
have there even been any TX since?
furthermore? none of the crimes mentioned involved assault weapons...
very few crimes have been committed using them...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
people talk like machine guns are banned, they aren't. people talk like assault weapons are banned, they aren't yet somehow society holds on...
That is all im saying Glass.. some limitations within reason and to me that includes fully automatic assault weapons. I have no problems with people owning pistols, rifles etc. but I draw the line with a mini WMD.
quote:and there's almost no crime involved with those weapons....
most crime happens in places where guns are severely restricted or banned.
I don't agree with that. There is almost no crime in small town America but in cities... foughetaboutit and that includes ones that don't have restrictions/bannings.
As for AK-47's being used in crimes. It seems to be a phenomenon that is used in the Western U.S. then anywhere else.Sort of like the Tommy gun was a phenomenon in Chicago during the Capone era but not in NY during the same years. The LA bank robbery of years back, gangs shooting each other as well as using them in bank robberies, workplace or school massacres etc.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Columbine
Virginia Tech
Lubby's Cafeteria in Killeen,Texas
Charles Whitman's massacre at the University of Austin Texas
Each and every one...the people in them were NOT allowed to be armed. The shooters knew they were attacking UNARMED civilians.
Try again.
Charles Whitman was being shot at by armed civilians as well as police. The problem with armed civilians in a place such as a campus is people panicking and shooting the wrong person since if you see someone armed you will not know if that is the shooter and vice versa.
As for the Lubby's massacre, one of the patrons had a gun in her car but couldn't get to it. Alot of people are armed in Texas so obviously in those two cases the killers are awared that people might have a gun on them. Perhaps that is why they did the attacks as a surprise.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
The LA bank robbery of years back, gangs shooting each other as well as using them in bank robberies, workplace or school massacres etc.
the LA Bank Robbery, yes, and cops went to local guns shops and got high power (deer) rifles to shoot thru those guys body armour.. now another one BY NAME...
there just aren't that many...
i don't own one, don't want to, i don't need it , i know how to make each shot count.... my point is the stupidity of all these political games...
the Founding fathers fully intended to have a standing civilian army capable of defending itself, whatever the enemies.
the fact is that nut cases will do whatever they will, with or without guns.
every boater knows this, or should:
When mixed with air in the right proportions, the vapor of one cup of gasoline has the explosive power of about five pounds of dynamite, enough destructive force to destroy any house or car.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: have there even been any TX since?
furthermore? none of the crimes mentioned involved assault weapons...
Charles Whitman and the Lubby killer were deranged so no concealment laws will prevent such a person from committing a crime like that. It's not a matter IF it will happen again but a matter of WHEN.
Funny thing is that since the economy has been tanking the phenomenon of massacres in this country has been almost non existent though I don't think that will last. Coincidence I guess.
There are other examples of AK-47's/Automatic weapons being used in massacres in the West during the 80's but the names of the killers eludes me nowadays. One was a school yard, a McD's i think and i forget the others.
And your point is correct that if you make every shot count then what is the point of owning a assault weapon and letting others own them? To show what a "Big gun" you have compared to others? ...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police...Ramiro Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit
As for the Lubby's massacre, one of the patrons had a gun in her car but couldn't get to it.
From Glass' post...
Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms.
Charles Whitman and the Lubby killer were deranged so no concealment laws will prevent such a person from committing a crime like that.
Not so deranged as to shoot up a police station...each time this happens it's where they shooted KNOWS his targets will be unable to fight back. They are cowards preying on the unarmed.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
