Unholster the 2nd amendment

[Little-Acorn]

Finally the 2nd amendment may be getting an open hearing in the Supreme Court, after 60+ years of violation and vague fighting.

Last time it got anything like a direct evaluation (US v. Miller, 1939), the pro-gun-rights defense didn't even show up for the trial, and the prosecution took full advantage to make several flatly false statements in court: The 2nd protects only military-style weapons, it protects only the right of militias to arms themselves, etc. The justices basically rubber-stamped them into an Opinion since there was nobody there to argue against them. And even those provisions have been mostly violated since - try telling your local sheriff that there are no restrictions against your owning an M-16 fully automatic assault rifle like the ones our military uses. The "Miller" decision said you could!

Hopefully the Supremes will agree to take this case. There are enough law-abiding justices on the Court now, that they just might get it right for a change: Virtually all present "gun control" laws are unconstitutional.

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8794

Unholster the 2nd Amendment
by Robert A. Levy

Nov. 14, 2007

It's been 68 years since the U.S. Supreme Court examined the right to keep and bear arms secured by the 2nd Amendment. It's been 31 years since the District of Columbia enacted its feckless ban on all functional firearms in the capital. It's been eight months since the second most important court in the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, declared the D.C. ban — among the most restrictive in the nation — unconstitutional. The obvious incongruity of those three events could be resolved soon.

Later this month, the Supreme Court will decide whether to review the circuit court's blockbuster opinion in Parker vs. District of Columbia, the first federal appellate opinion to overturn a gun control law on the ground that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals. If the high court takes the case, oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. (Full disclosure: I am co-counsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit.)

The stakes are immense. Very few legal questions stir the passions like gun control. And this round of the courtroom battle will be fought during the heat of the 2008 election. Further, Washington is home to the federal government, making it an appropriate venue to challenge all federal gun laws, no matter where an alleged 2nd Amendment violation might have occurred. Thus, Parker could have an immediate effect not only on D.C. gun regulations but on federal regulations.

Equally important, if the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. circuit's holding, state gun control laws across the nation could be vulnerable to constitutional attack. But before that happens, two other issues would have to be litigated.

The first is the knotty question of whether the 2nd Amendment can be invoked against state governments. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, much of the Bill of Rights was considered "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well. Regrettably, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment has not yet been settled. And that issue did not arise in Parker because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, not a state.

The second question is even more complicated: What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice.


(Full text of the article can be found at the above URL)

[LOki]

These things always prove to be so dicey. I'm still amazed that the plain language of the 2nd Amendment cannot be properly parsed by these folks.

[theHawk]

Yes, it is amazing how anti-gun freaks spin the simple words of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Hagbard Celine]

Are you guys advocating that automatic weapons be available to the general public or no?

[LOki]

Are you guys advocating that automatic weapons be available to the general public or no?

This LOki is.

[Kathianne]

This LOki is.

I've always wondered, is it "lokee' or lokI, strong I?"

[Hagbard Celine]

I've always wondered, is it "lokee' or lokI, strong I?"

It's "Lokee." After the Norse God of mischief. I just don't think that it would be safe to make automatic weapons available to the public. What's to stop some psychopath from going to a crowded public street and mowing down hundreds of unarmed people?

[LOki]

I've always wondered, is it "lokee' or lokI, strong I?"

Whatever makes giggles--but typicaly "low-key".

[Abbey Marie]

Whatever makes giggles--but typicaly "low-key".

So what's "extra heavy" about you, Mr. Low key? :)

[LOki]

So what's "extra heavy" about you, Mr. Low key? :)

My beer gut.

[glockmail]

So what's "extra heavy" about you, Mr. Low key? :) His fat ego.

[glockmail]

It's "Lokee." After the Norse God of mischief. I just don't think that it would be safe to make automatic weapons available to the public. What's to stop some psychopath from going to a crowded public street and mowing down hundreds of unarmed people? Psychopath's can't buy a pistol legally never mind an AK. Enforce the existing laws, don't make new ones.

[LOki]

I just don't think that it would be safe to make automatic weapons available to the public. What's to stop some psychopath from going to a crowded public street and mowing down hundreds of unarmed people?Projection. What's to stop a a psychopath from taking tons of automobile at 80 mph through a crowded mall every single day of the week?

A license?

[Abbey Marie]

My beer gut.

I'd suggest lite beer, but I just can't. ;)

[LOki]

His fat ego.

Telling tales about me again?

[Hagbard Celine]

Projection. What's to stop a a psychopath from taking tons of automobile at 80 mph through a crowded mall every single day of the week?

A license?

That hasn't happened since the Blues Brothers did it in the 80s.

[LOki]

I'd suggest lite beer, but I just can't. ;)

It's best to keep things friendly. :)

[Abbey Marie]

It's best to keep things friendly. :)

And good-tasting. :coffee:

[LOki]

And good-tasting. :coffee:

:beer:

[Hobbit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=717&stc=1&d=1195079959

And yes, I support everything short of explosive and other 'special' (i.e. radioactive, chemical, etc.) ordnance being available to the general public (with the exception of those who are currently denied concealed carry access). I'd even say you could own explosives, provided they stay in an area where they won't take out anything you don't own if they go off (i.e. if you have a large enough amount of land that a detonating RPG can't reasonably damage your neighbor's house)

[Hagbard Celine]

What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage?

[musicman]

What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage?

Or box cutters...

[Monkeybone]

to acquire fully auto weapons you have to have special license. but technically nothing. and even if having weapons were illegal or whatever, what would stop them from getting them anyways? if they want them they will get them.

[Hagbard Celine]

Or box cutters...

Imagine the damage they could've done if they had fully automatic weapons. They could have taken the whole airport hostage and flown every plane into a landmark instead of the four they managed with box cutters.

[musicman]

Imagine the damage they could've done if they had fully automatic weapons. They could have taken the whole airport hostage and flown every plane into a landmark instead of the four they managed with box cutters.

Yep - some folks are just plain mean.

[Hobbit]

Imagine the damage they could've done if they had fully automatic weapons. They could have taken the whole airport hostage and flown every plane into a landmark instead of the four they managed with box cutters.

Bullcrap. If they could've taken the whole airport over, they would have, because they have access to automatic weapons via the black market. If they could take the whole thing over, airport security isn't going to stop them, but a full military alert to a hijacked airport and every plane pulling away from the terminal might.

I'd also wager that if full auto weapons were legal, that measly number of terrorists would have been cut down by security, military, and civilian personnel with guns of their own before they got off more than a few shots.

Everybody thinks of what horror would happen if criminals could get these types of weapons (well, they already can, but that's beside the point), but nobody seems to remember that law-abiding citizens outnumber criminals, and if the law-abiding citizens are all armed, the criminals don't stand a chance.

[Hagbard Celine]

Bullcrap. If they could've taken the whole airport over, they would have, because they have access to automatic weapons via the black market. If they could take the whole thing over, airport security isn't going to stop them, but a full military alert to a hijacked airport and every plane pulling away from the terminal might.

I'd also wager that if full auto weapons were legal, that measly number of terrorists would have been cut down by security, military, and civilian personnel with guns of their own before they got off more than a few shots.

Everybody thinks of what horror would happen if criminals could get these types of weapons (well, they already can, but that's beside the point), but nobody seems to remember that law-abiding citizens outnumber criminals, and if the law-abiding citizens are all armed, the criminals don't stand a chance.
So the way it is now, the only way criminals can and do get fully automatic weapons is by sauntering over to the "black market" down the street next to Bojangles and purchasing them. So a few criminals lightly sprinkled throughout the country have gone through the trouble of buying these things illegally through back-door channels. What you want to do is make it easier by making them widely available to everyone. Is that about right?

[manu1959]

Imagine the damage they could've done if they had fully automatic weapons. They could have taken the whole airport hostage and flown every plane into a landmark instead of the four they managed with box cutters.

imagine if everyone on those four planes was armed....

[Little-Acorn]

What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage?

The 1% of the law-abiding public they take hostage, who happen to be carrying a compact pistol or whatever, is what's to stop them. IF carry were permitted, which at present it isn't in most places.

Tha advantage of concealed carry lies in the fact that most of the public is good guys. The number of bad guys (terrorists, rapists, school shooters etc.) is quite small in comparison. If EVERYBODY were allowed to carry concealed weapons, most still wouldn't, of course. But a few good guys would. So if terrorists take an airport hostage, it's likely that out of the thousand or so people inside, a small number (10 or 20 maybe?) will probably be carrying. And the terrorists would have no idea which ones they are.

But they can be pretty sure of getting a bullet from an unexpected direction, maybe several unexpected directions... and there won't be much they can do to avoid it. Terrorists aren't afraid to die, but they DO want to complete their mission, whatever it is... and having a number of concealed shooters waiting for them to turn their backs, will very likely foil their mission. As a result, MAYBE THE TERRORISTS WILL DECIDE NOT TO TAKE THE AIRPORT HOSTAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE. And that' s the best of all possible results of allowing universal concealed carry.

If concealed carry were allowed, there would be a lot fewer bad guys trying to do their criminal or terrorist etc. acts, no matter what kind of guns they manage to acquire.

The 2nd amendment protects your and my right to keep AND BEAR arms. That right is being violated in most places. This DC gun law case might start us on the long road back to sanity - where the government trusts the people again.

Hope this helps answer your question, HC. Let me know if you need more. :slap:

[LOki]

What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage?

Nothing.

What's to stop you from having a concealable fully automatic pistol to defend yourself and your family from this terrorist sleeper cell?

Gun control regulations.

[Little-Acorn]

Loki, there aren't too many concealable full-auto weapons (that is, really small machine guns) I'm aware of. Were you referring to autoloading pistols? There are lots of those that are concealable. They're called that because they load the next shot after you pull the trigger - but they don't FIRE the next shot, until you release the trigger and pull it again. They're sometimes referred to as "automatic pistols" although that's a little bit of a misnomer - "automatic" in reference to a gun, usually means a machine gun.

If concealed carry were permitted everywhere, I still probably wouldn't bother carrying, as most other law-abiding people wouldn't (but a few would). But if I did elect to carry, it would probably be one of my smaller autoloading pistols. I don't own any full-auto weapons (machine guns). If I did, I wouldn't bother carrying it regularly - even the small ones (M16, AK47 etc.) are bulky and inconvenient, as well as being harder to shoot accurately with their multiple recoils.

[LOki]

Loki, there aren't too many concealable full-auto weapons (that is, really small machine guns) I'm aware of. Ok. Really not my point.

But check the MAC-11 and Glock 18C; and the really small SMGs: Micro Uzi, and the HK MP5K. Pretty cool, eh? Fully automatic. Really.


Were you referring to autoloading pistols?No. Really.


There are lots of those that are concealable. They're called that because they load the next shot after you pull the trigger - but they don't FIRE the next shot, until you release the trigger and pull it again. :wink2: I'll just bet.


They're sometimes referred to as "automatic pistols" although that's a little bit of a misnomer - "automatic" in reference to a gun, usually means a machine gun.Thanks for sharing.


If concealed carry were permitted everywhere, I still probably wouldn't bother carrying, as most other law-abiding people wouldn't (but a few would). But if I did elect to carry, it would probably be one of my smaller autoloading pistols. I don't own any full-auto weapons (machine guns). If I did, I wouldn't bother carrying it regularly - even the small ones (M16, AK47 etc.) are bulky and inconvenient, as well as being harder to shoot accurately with their multiple recoils.Again, thanks for sharing.

[glockmail]

Telling tales about me again? I tells it like I sees it.

[glockmail]

What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage? A SWAT sniper.

[LOki]

I tells it like I sees it.

And you make up stories about what you see.

[glockmail]

Imagine the damage they could've done if they had fully automatic weapons. They could have taken the whole airport hostage and flown every plane into a landmark instead of the four they managed with box cutters.
The Air Force would have destroyed the first, or maybe the second or third plane on the runway, grounding all the rest of the planes behind it. Then they would have shot down the ones that got in the air.

[glockmail]

And you make up stories about what you see. Prove it.

[Little-Acorn]

A SWAT sniper.

Yeah, that sure worked at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, didn't it?

Armed civilians are usually the ONLY way to stop, or preferably deter, such people from doing their thing. The bad guys can often arrange their acts so that police, SWAT teams etc. are ineffective. But the bad guys are far less likely to threaten civilians who may be able to defend themselves, than to threaten civilians whom the govt has guaranteed CANNOT defend themselves.

Why do you think so many mass shootings take place at schools, post offices, churches, etc.? Because law-abiding people can't carry weapons for their own defense, in those places! And so the bad guy knows he has a much better chance of accomplishing what he wants. Even if he intends to off himself when he's done like many such shooters do.

[glockmail]

Yeah, that sure worked at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, didn't it?

Armed civilians are usually the ONLY way to stop, or preferably deter, such people from doing their thing. The bad guys can often arrange their acts so that police, SWAT teams etc. are ineffective. But the bad guys are far less likely to threaten civilians who may be able to defend themselves, than to threaten civilians whom the govt has guaranteed CANNOT defend themselves.

Why do you think so many mass shootings take place at schools, post offices, churches, etc.? Because law-abiding people can't carry weapons for their own defense, in those places! And so the bad guy knows he has a much better chance of accomplishing what he wants. Even if he intends to off himself when he's done like many such shooters do. Preachin' to the choir here, being a CCW man myself. But I used 3 words vs your 50 or so.

[actsnoblemartin]

great thread, we need average citizens to be able to have the right to have guns to be able to protect themselves.

[LOki]

Prove it.
To whom?

[carbonbased]

There is a need to control the level of citizen armament.

From one end of the scale:
If there were no guns, or lets say no weapons by any means, the ability to fight with your fists would become weapons. The posession of fists is hard to regulate. Also, criminals would naturally arm themselves anyway.

On the other end:
With no limitation at all it is the common sense that sets the limit of how people arm themselves. Common sense is not an absolute. Given the course of science and development in all areas we could expect very dangerous and bizzare effects from this. Why not biological weapons? Why is it only criminals who should have them?

What then is the problem? We have a government that already defines the median common sense in other areas. LOki mentioned cars. A good example. There are specific laws about how a car must be designed (or not be designed). You can't have sharp spears on the hood even if it make sense to you. (No not in my neighbourhood, it doesn't)

How did we agree on that?

[glockmail]

To whom? To a jury of your peers.

[LOki]

To a jury of your peers.As if I am on trial for something? Go play in traffic.

[glockmail]

As if I am on trial for something? Go play in traffic.
Well if you don't care to prove your accusations then its quite apparent what kind of person you are: one with no cred.

[LOki]

Well if you don't care to prove your accusations then its quite apparent what kind of person you are: one with no cred.My peers are quite satisfied with your record of character assassinating false accusations about me as being proof that you make up stories.

[glockmail]

My peers are quite satisfied with your record of character assassinating false accusations about me as being proof that you make up stories. Prove it.

[LOki]

Prove it.Go poll my peers.

[glockmail]

Go poll my peers. It doesn't work that way. You made the claim, were called to the carpet by me, now back up your claim or lose cred.

[LOki]

It doesn't work that way. You made the claim, were called to the carpet by me, now back up your claim or lose cred.Will it suffice to prove that you said you know that I think I'm smarter than I really am?

OR, do you wish me to prove that you suggested that I cheated on a contest?

OR, do you wish me to prove you accused me of forgery?

OR, do you wish me to to prove that you called me an atheist?

Will links be sufficient evidence? Or is evidence insufficient proof to overcome the strength of conviction in your personal opinion?

[darin]

who would carry an fully-automatic pistol for protection? Have any of you FIRED fully-automatic weapons? Most who fire full-auto would know it's not easy to hit something. When I "qualified" on a M249, I was shooting 'area' targets for a reason. Full-auto weapons are not about stopping 1 guy so much as they are about sending as much lead as you can, downrange.

MOST Folk don't want to carry around an Uzi - I can tell folk have NO CLUE when they say things like "...What's to stop some psychopath from going to a crowded public street and mowing down hundreds of unarmed people?" or "What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage?" and stuff. I know they are clueless because they are creating scenarios which aren't based in ANYTHING but far-fetched, irrational fearmongering.



What's to stop some psychopath from going to a crowded public street and mowing down hundreds of unarmed people?


What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage?

Nothing. Nothing exists which could stop that right now. Right now, ANYBODY could hold ANYTHING hostage with even a .22 pistol.

Relaxing unconstitutional and even oppressive gun laws CAN help though. If said pyschoblue -er...Pyschopath walks onto a crowded street with an Automatic weapon, and starts shooting, perhaps one of the Armed innocents puts a few rounds into the Psycho. Perhaps instead of hundreds of dead, it's a bakers-dozen?

What's to stop AQ from capturing an airport? Maybe it's the fear of an armed citizenry firing back and now cowering? Who knows...

[Hagbard Celine]

A SWAT sniper.

What's to stop a terrorist from sniping people? :eek:

[LOki]

What's to stop a terrorist from sniping people? :eek:

Are you suggesting gun control regulations?

[Hagbard Celine]

Are you suggesting gun control regulations?

Yep. I think ya'll may have a point about auto-weapons. If somebody wants 'em, I guess under strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, they should be able to have 'em. But there should definately be regulations. Carriers should have to pass a competency test and background check and I like the idea of a waiting period because I think it cuts down on crimes of passion.

[LOki]

Yep. I think ya'll may have a point about auto-weapons. If somebody wants 'em, I guess under strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, they should be able to have 'em.The language is clear, I agree.


But there should definately be regulations. Carriers should have to pass a competency test and background check and I like the idea of a waiting period because I think it cuts down on crimes of passion.I agree with competency, but your notions of "crimes of passion" are ridiculous. What of the victims of crimes of passion--do they have to wait? Or better yet, ask their assailant to wait until the poilice arrive--that'll work.

[Hobbit]

The language is clear, I agree.

I agree with competency, but your notions of "crimes of passion" are ridiculous. What of the victims of crimes of passion--do they have to wait? Or better yet, ask their assailant to wait until the poilice arrive--that'll work.

I think what he's getting at is that if there's a waiting period, somebody who just one day decides to buy a gun and blow somebody away will have to sit there and think about it for a few days.

However, on your point, I think there should be an expedited process for people who believe their lives are in imminent danger.

[Hagbard Celine]

I think what he's getting at is that if there's a waiting period, somebody who just one day decides to buy a gun and blow somebody away will have to sit there and think about it for a few days.

However, on your point, I think there should be an expedited process for people who believe their lives are in imminent danger.

How would they prove that though? I think that would only serve as a loophole that everyone would use to get around the waiting period.

[Hagbard Celine]

The language is clear, I agree.

I agree with competency, but your notions of "crimes of passion" are ridiculous. What of the victims of crimes of passion--do they have to wait? Or better yet, ask their assailant to wait until the poilice arrive--that'll work.

Hobbit understood what I was getting at. If a guy walks in on his wife and another man and then in a rage goes and buys a gun to kill the guy, a waiting period would force him to wait three days or whatever to get the gun. By the end of three days, the initial rage would have subsided. It's a fact that people's brain chemistry physically changes during bouts of rage and people think less clearly. A wait period would be good for both him and the other guy.

[Mr. P]

How would they prove that though? I think that would only serve as a loophole that everyone would use to get around the waiting period.

To prevent 'everyone' from getting around this, I think it would have to be bundled with law enforcement.

Take a domestic situation...wife files for divorce because spouse beat her.
He shows up and beats her again..police arrest him..at the bond hearing (before he even gets out of jail) , Judge issues a protective order along with a waiver for the waiting period IF she wants to purchase a weapon.

[Monkeybone]

i don't think a waiting period like that would be a problem. i mean there are already regulations on handguns and you have to have a special permit for full auto weapons and a special stamp. but if you do that, even to shotguns, would it have to extend to bows? i mean i know that sound ridiculios, and to picture it makes me laugh, going all RObin Hood on the cheater, or whatever. but you can kill someone just as easily with one. and what about knives? or if he just waited and mowed them down with a car?

would stricter waiting period on any gun just start a slippery slope?

[LOki]

Hobbit understood what I was getting at. If a guy walks in on his wife and another man and then in a rage goes and buys a gun to kill the guy, a waiting period would force him to wait three days or whatever to get the gun. By the end of three days, the initial rage would have subsided. It's a fact that people's brain chemistry physically changes during bouts of rage and people think less clearly. A wait period would be good for both him and the other guy.What you are completely ignoring is the uselesness of such a notion for an assailant who already has a gun. Why would he go out in a fit, and buy a gun in a fit, for the express purpose of killing someone in a fit, when he already has one? What do you do when you fear for yourself, but no crime has been commited, no real threat has been made, but you'd like to have that tool for self defense right now--just in case that dude has flipped. How does your waiting period protect you now?

[Mr. P]

What you are completely ignoring is the uselesness of such a notion for an assailant who already has a gun. Why would he go out in a fit, and buy a gun in a fit, for the express purpose of killing someone in a fit, when he already has one? What do you do when you fear for yourself, but no crime has been commited, no real threat has been made, but you'd like to have that tool for self defense right now--just in case that dude has flipped. How does your waiting period protect you now?
It doesn't...it does protect the perp though.

[glockmail]

Will it suffice to prove that you said you know that I think I'm smarter than I really am?

OR, do you wish me to prove that you suggested that I cheated on a contest?

OR, do you wish me to prove you accused me of forgery?

OR, do you wish me to to prove that you called me an atheist?

Will links be sufficient evidence? Or is evidence insufficient proof to overcome the strength of conviction in your personal opinion?
Take your pick tp prove your assertion that I have "told tales" about you.

[glockmail]

What's to stop a terrorist from sniping people? :eek:
The DC snipers already did that by shooting out of a hole in the trunk of a Chevy. But it takes a certain amount of skll, something that our radical rag-head friends are frequently lacking.

[LOki]

Take your pick tp prove your assertion that I have "told tales" about you.Since you have done all of the above, I pick them all.

[glockmail]

Since you have done all of the above, I pick them all. Then what are you waiting for? Prove them all! :pee:

[LOki]

I see that I am already scaring the piss out of you.
Then what are you waiting for? Prove them all! :pee:
Will links be sufficient evidence? Or is evidence insufficient proof to overcome the strength of conviction in your personal opinion?

[theHawk]

What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage?

The armed men (and women) who patrol airports are what stops terrorists from hijacking an entire airport, whether they be police or private security.
Its certainly not because they can or can't just walk into a store and buy them.

[Hagbard Celine]

The armed man (and women) who patrol airports are what stops terrorists from hijacking an entire airport, whether they be police or private security.
Its certainly not because they can or can't just walk into a store and buy them.

When I was in Europe, everywhere I went (airports and trainstations) all security/police had automatic weapons. It's a little unnerving to be around anybody with an automatic weapon, but at the same time it also made me feel a little more secure.

[glockmail]

I see that I am already scaring the piss out of you. Yeah, you're a real scary guy alright, sitting there with your beer gut hanging out.

[Hagbard Celine]

Yeah, you're a real scary guy alright, sitting there with your beer gut hanging out.

http://is3.okcupid.com/users/162/390/16239093302619644424/mt1107623537.jpg

[darin]

hag - leave ppl's families out of this. Where you got that photo of my dad is beyond me...but stop it. :(

[glockmail]

http://is3.okcupid.com/users/162/390/16239093302619644424/mt1107623537.jpg

Man I'm having trouble breathing! :lol:

Seriously though I think he prolly wears a real old, greasy tank top with old, greasy boxers.

[LOki]

Yeah, you're a real scary guy alright, sitting there with your beer gut hanging out. I see you'd rather avoid stipulating to accepting your very own words as proof that you said you know that I think I'm smarter than I really am; that you suggested that I cheated on a contest; that you accused me of forgery; and that you called me an atheist. For what reason, other than fear, would you avoid such stipulation?

Well, you got one thing right, I'm not much to be afraid of glockmail--it's your own festering bullshit character assassination efforts coming back to haunt you that's so scary for you.

[LOki]

http://is3.okcupid.com/users/162/390/16239093302619644424/mt1107623537.jpgCAPTION= "Type <i>"colon P E E colon"</i> I AM LOLZ!11!!!!!"

[glockmail]

CAPTION= "Type <i>"colon P E E colon"</i> I AM LOLZ!11!!!!!"
:pee:

[LOki]

:pee:You are indeed lolz. :(

[glockmail]

You are indeed lolz. :( whatever, dicfor

[LOki]

whatever, dicforBRAVO!:clap:

[LOki]

<img src="http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2781/glockydd5.jpg">
Gee whiz. A fan boy. Flattering I suppose. :bye1:

[glockmail]

<img src="http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2781/glockydd5.jpg">
Gee whiz. A fan boy. Flattering I suppose. :bye1: So that IS you. Lovely picture. But I have to ask:
1. How does one let himself go like that? To be that "extra heavy" must be a full time job.
2. How do you wipe your ass after shitting? Without extra long arms its a long way around.

[LOki]

So that IS you.It's not. So much for your fantasy life.


Lovely picture.If you don't tell, we won't ask.


But I have to ask:
1. How does one let himself go like that? To be that "extra heavy" must be a full time job.I wouldn't know--this appears to be your fetish, not mine.


2. How do you wipe your ass after shitting?I thought I might just wipe my ass with you, but then the point of the exercise is to get the shit off my ass.

[glockmail]

It's not. So much for your fantasy life......

Oh please. If this is not you then show us the real you! :coffee:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/LOki.jpg

[LOki]

Oh please. If this is not you then show us the real you! :coffee:To what end? To "prove" that it's you?

[glockmail]

To what end? To "prove" that it's you?


How would a picture of you prove anything about me?

Here's me:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/workinman.jpg

and this is my image of you:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/LOki.jpg

[LOki]

How would a picture of you prove anything about me?You have posted no image of me.

Here's me:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/workinman.jpgI'm not exactly sure who you're trying to impress, all dressed up in that Village People Construction Worker costume, but I hope the effort was worth it for both of you.


and this is my image of you:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/LOki.jpgSince one good deed desreves another, here's my image of you, ENJOY!:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8291/wizardohsnapeo0.gif

[5stringJeff]

Are you guys advocating that automatic weapons be available to the general public or no?

In many states, they already are. You just have to get a license from BATF, and you can buy any automatic weapon made prior to 1986. Of course, machine guns go for anywhere from $5,000 - $50,000, so it's not very economical.

[Little-Acorn]

(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)


(same immature insults)

Would you two please take this to the "Purse fighting" section, and stop trying to hijack this thread? Please? It's about the DC gun ban case and the 2nd amendment, not about "I got you last".

Back to the subject:

This country was founded on the idea that on average, the people would usually make better decisions for their own welfare and their country, than tyrants or dictators would. So far, it's proven true. Nowhere is that idea better applied, than in the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right of ordinary people to own and carry deadly weapons as they pleased.

The Framers figured that, while society is never 100% peaceful, it would be safer and more peaceable when every citizen who wanted to, could go armed; than if they were forcibly disarmed and had to rely on one government arm or another, for protection.

Again, this has proven true. Prior to 1939, when there were almost no so-called "gun control" laws in this country, murder and other crime rates were very low (except in direct response to other flagrantly unpopular government programs such as Prohibition). Since the advent of various gun control laws, the incidence of such crimes, especially those committed with guns, has soared and never gone back to their pre-gun-law levels.

Show me a politician who wants law-abiding people stripped of their right to own and carry guns, and I'll show you a politician who believes government can run things better than ordinary people - in other words, a potential tyrant whose agenda is diametrically opposed to that of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and most other founding documents.

In a way, a politician's view on the people's gun rights, is a good litmus test of his belief in the real "American way" - that is, the belief that self-governing people can create the best (however imperfect) socirety possible for humans.

[5stringJeff]

Would you two please take this to the "Purse fighting" section, and stop trying to hijack this thread? Please? It's about the DC gun ban case and the 2nd amendment, not about "I got you last".

Back to the subject:

This country was founded on the idea that on average, the people would usually make better decisions for their own welfare and their country, than tyrants or dictators would. So far, it's proven true. Nowhere is that idea better applied, than in the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right of ordinary people to own and carry deadly weapons as they pleased.

The Framers figured that, while society is never 100% peaceful, it would be safer and more peaceable when every citizen who wanted to, could go armed; than if they were forcibly disarmed and had to rely on one government arm or another, for protection.

Again, this has proven true. Prior to 1939, when there were almost no so-called "gun control" laws in this country, murder and other crime rates were very low (except in direct response to other flagrantly unpopular government programs such as Prohibition). Since the advent of various gun control laws, the incidence of such crimes, especially those committed with guns, has soared and never gone back to their pre-gun-law levels.

Show me a politician who wants law-abiding people stripped of their right to own and carry guns, and I'll show you a politician who believes government can run things better than ordinary people - in other words, a potential tyrant whose agenda is diametrically opposed to that of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and most other founding documents.

In a way, a politician's view on the people's gun rights, is a good litmus test of his belief in the real "American way" - that is, the belief that self-governing people can create the best (however imperfect) socirety possible for humans.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Excellent post and excellent points! "Gun control" is just another way to say "the government is taking away your means to protect your freedom and self-determination."

[LOki]

Would you two please take this to the "Purse fighting" section, and stop trying to hijack this thread? Please? It's about the DC gun ban case and the 2nd amendment, not about "I got you last".
I apologize for my participation. I do not want to hijack this thread with irrelevent insults (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=153569#post153569).


Back to the subject:

This country was founded on the idea that on average, the people would usually make better decisions for their own welfare and their country, than tyrants or dictators would. So far, it's proven true. Nowhere is that idea better applied, than in the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right of ordinary people to own and carry deadly weapons as they pleased.
Moreover, it's pracitcal. The second Amendment is an affirmation of the natural right to self defense; by extension it's the right to the means to effective self defense.


The Framers figured that, while society is never 100% peaceful, it would be safer and more peaceable when every citizen who wanted to, could go armed; than if they were forcibly disarmed and had to rely on one government arm or another, for protection.<i>"An armed society is a polite society."</i>--RAH


Again, this has proven true. Prior to 1939, when there were almost no so-called "gun control" laws in this country, murder and other crime rates were very low (except in direct response to other flagrantly unpopular government programs such as Prohibition). Since the advent of various gun control laws, the incidence of such crimes, especially those committed with guns, has soared and never gone back to their pre-gun-law levels.One of the problems with creating criminal classess through prohibition type legislation, is that those criminals cannot ask the police to legally protect their criminal enterprises--they must naturally resort to strong-arm tactics to protect their (criminal) interests, which in turn escalates the violence that fuels the arms race between criminals and law abiding/enforcment folks. Still, the guns get blamed.


Show me a politician who wants law-abiding people stripped of their right to own and carry guns, and I'll show you a politician who believes government can run things better than ordinary people - in other words, a potential tyrant whose agenda is diametrically opposed to that of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and most other founding documents.Honest politicians have nothing to fear form an armed populace.


In a way, a politician's view on the people's gun rights, is a good litmus test of his belief in the real "American way" - that is, the belief that self-governing people can create the best (however imperfect) socirety possible for humans.<blockquote><i>"If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend, no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?" <i><b><a href="http://crewscustom.com/whyguns.htm">Why Guns?</a>--L. Neil Smith</b></blockquote>

[glockmail]

Since one good deed desreves another, here's my image. ENJOY!:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8291/wizardohsnapeo0.gif
Wow! Looks like you slimed down a bit!

[LOki]

Wow! Looks like you slimed down a bit!:lame2:Imitiation is the sincerest form of flattery, yet, I don't think I'll let your lame attempt flatter me today, glockmail.

Little-Acorn asked nicely that this shit, in this thread, please be knocked off; so why don't you please, knock it off.

[glockmail]

:lame2:Imitiation is the sincerest form of flattery, yet, I don't think I'll let your lame attempt flatter me today, glockmail.

Little-Acorn asked nicely that this shit, in this thread, please be knocked off; so why don't you please, knock it off.

No flattery was meant.

I’ll knock it off after you, Oh Master of Bullshit.

[Pale Rider]

Are you guys advocating that automatic weapons be available to the general public or no?

Absolutely. A fire arm is a fire arm. Ban one, ban 'em all, or don't ban any at all.

It's like, "well this apple is GREEN, we better BAN that one since it's not RED." Bull shit.

[LOki]

Absolutely. A fire arm is a fire arm. Ban one, ban 'em all, or don't ban any at all.

It's like, "well this apple is GREEN, we better BAN that one since it's not RED." Bull shit.Of course, those doing the banning won't consider that ban applicable to themselves...

[Little-Acorn]

Of course, those doing the banning won't consider that ban applicable to themselves...

Well Dianne Feinstein applied for one of the rare California CCW permits. Don't know if she received it or not. But she makes sure to have bodyguards around her at all public functions, who are armed of course.

Don't know if Chuck Schumer carries or not.

These people all overlook the most basic problem, though. The second amendment says, in modern language:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

Their gun bans, permits, arrests etc. fly in the face of the 2nd, and are flatly unconstitutional. I'm less worried about their hypocrisy than about their abuse of our basic freedoms. The all swore an oath to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. When are they going to start?

[glockmail]

.... The all swore an oath to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. When are they going to start? They see it as a "living, breathing" document that can be interpreted at the whims of society. That's the Constitution that they are defending.

[LOki]

Well Dianne Feinstein applied for one of the rare California CCW permits. Don't know if she received it or not. But she makes sure to have bodyguards around her at all public functions, who are armed of course.Ms. Feinstien sets a fine example for the argument I most often like to make against those who bring up the random "whack-job" with a gun. What assures me that she's not such a "whack-job", or that her body-guard is not a "whack-job", or that the cop in a cruiser is no such "whack-job"? Every "whack-job" you ever read about was a pillar of the community before they went off, so what gives her (a potential "whack-job" herself) the authority to tell the rest of us, what kind of armament we need to protect ourselves from her now "priviledged" armed and deadly hissy-fit?


Don't know if Chuck Schumer carries or not.Chuck is a schmuck. If he doesn't go heeled, he should.


These people all overlook the most basic problem, though. The second amendment says, in modern language:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."It still amazes me that the clear language of the 2nd Amendment has not been properly parsed by the Supreme Court.


Their gun bans, permits, arrests etc. fly in the face of the 2nd, and are flatly unconstitutional. I'm less worried about their hypocrisy than about their abuse of our basic freedoms. The all swore an oath to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. When are they going to start?Maybe if we start hanging them for treason.