Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]


BS: DC Gun Ban Banned

pdq 21 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM
Bill D 21 Jul 08 - 06:31 PM
pdq 21 Jul 08 - 05:58 PM
Bill D 21 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM
Big Mick 21 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM
pdq 21 Jul 08 - 11:57 AM
Bill D 21 Jul 08 - 11:46 AM
GUEST,Spleen Cringe 21 Jul 08 - 11:41 AM
GUEST 21 Jul 08 - 11:33 AM
Riginslinger 21 Jul 08 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,Spleen Cringe 21 Jul 08 - 10:57 AM
Bobert 29 Jun 08 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,Mike in DC 29 Jun 08 - 02:24 PM
GUEST,guest 29 Jun 08 - 01:47 PM
Stringsinger 29 Jun 08 - 01:26 PM
Bobert 29 Jun 08 - 08:39 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Jun 08 - 06:55 AM
artbrooks 29 Jun 08 - 01:19 AM
John on the Sunset Coast 29 Jun 08 - 12:18 AM
Bill D 28 Jun 08 - 10:46 PM
artbrooks 28 Jun 08 - 09:12 PM
Bobert 28 Jun 08 - 08:44 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 28 Jun 08 - 08:21 PM
Bobert 28 Jun 08 - 07:33 PM
Bill D 28 Jun 08 - 06:20 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 28 Jun 08 - 02:27 PM
Bill D 28 Jun 08 - 01:43 PM
Rapparee 28 Jun 08 - 10:31 AM
Bobert 28 Jun 08 - 08:56 AM
artbrooks 28 Jun 08 - 08:53 AM
Bobert 28 Jun 08 - 08:40 AM
artbrooks 28 Jun 08 - 08:36 AM
Slag 28 Jun 08 - 01:27 AM
John on the Sunset Coast 27 Jun 08 - 10:29 PM
Bill D 27 Jun 08 - 10:00 PM
Riginslinger 27 Jun 08 - 09:48 PM
Bobert 27 Jun 08 - 09:05 PM
artbrooks 27 Jun 08 - 08:40 PM
Big Mick 27 Jun 08 - 08:28 PM
artbrooks 27 Jun 08 - 08:26 PM
Bobert 27 Jun 08 - 08:14 PM
Big Mick 27 Jun 08 - 08:14 PM
artbrooks 27 Jun 08 - 07:50 PM
Riginslinger 27 Jun 08 - 07:34 PM
Stringsinger 27 Jun 08 - 07:21 PM
Big Mick 27 Jun 08 - 06:53 PM
Rapparee 27 Jun 08 - 06:52 PM
Stringsinger 27 Jun 08 - 06:49 PM
Slag 27 Jun 08 - 06:44 PM
Bill D 27 Jun 08 - 06:43 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM

The US Constitution has always been interpreted as allowing for "reasonable restrictions" on this issue and many others.

Local and state legislators can never ban guns without being in violation of the US Constitution.

Such laws may stand for a long time because people are unwilling to mount a challenge, but they are still unconstitutional. That is the heart of this Supreme Court decision.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:31 PM

oh, LORD! "liberal" means, in this case, 'generous' and 'open'...not 'those favored by *gasp* LIBERALS'! The gun laws in the USA are, currently 'liberal'...which means, interestingly, approved by many 'conservatives'. It means, to me, that WAY too many people can own guns.

...and do not forget - many aspects of gun ownership ARE controlled by statute! Even in DC, there are many, many restrictions on who may own a gun, how it can be registered, where it must be kept, how it can be acquired...etc. All I want is a court ruling that tightens the statutes as much as possible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:58 PM

By using the phrase "liberal gun laws" you imply that you and your friends have the right to control gun ownership by statute.

Nice try, but some of us will not let that go by unchallenged.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM

"...that statement seems to be obtuse by design."

?? Obtuse, pdq? The man suggested that most Americans like and keep firearms....*I* said that many of us do not. Seems clear & simple to me.

THEN you state the obvious...as if it told us something. In fact, several of the Supreme Court justices have grave doubts about the true intention of the founders when writing the 2nd amendment. Many other quite well-intentioned and intelligent Americans also doubt 1)that the founders meant it the way you indicate, and 2) that if they did, it needs to be re-thought & revised.

We all KNOW that it takes a complex process to either overturn a decision about a challenge to an interpretation of the Constitution, or to revise and clarify the document itself. You seem to assume that stating how a majority of the court thinks right now...(NOT a majority of citizens)... settles the discussion.

I am quite aware that split decisions on the court are still favoring the gun lobby...I do reserve my right to question their wisdom.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

Unfortunately, friend Spleen Cringe, you are the victim of false impressions, just as many of us Irish are with regard to "Enlish" or "Brits". The fact that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that they all do. In fact, most of the people you meet do not even own a gun. The danger of being the victim of violent crime is no actually less these days in the United States than it is in Canada, Great Britain, or Australia. This is also born out internally in the States. There is an inverse relationship between crime rates and gun control laws here in the States. In States with more liber "conceal/Carry" laws, the violent crime rate is much lower than in States where they have the most restrictive laws. The more time you spend in this country, the more you will find that our people are not wild eyed maniacs with weapons, but generally a friendly, welcoming people just as they are in your country. Those that own weapons legally, for the most part, are law abiding folks that keep their guns safe and do not walk around toting them or ever even using them for the purpose that you are worried about. We surely have criminals and ignorant types that want to brandish them. But you have those too.

I understand, on an intellectual level, why you would not understand our obsession with guns. I would only say to you that this right goes back to our earliest days, that it was born of the idea that a populace should never be seen as unarmed and helpless against criminals or governments, that it has developed into a part of who many of us are, that most of us simply look on this as a part of our heritage and never use these for the things you fear, and that I doubt that it will change.

And to answer the question you posed, yes, I have weapons. I only rarely "carry" and then only when I feel the need. Handguns are not my most preferred weapon of protection except in very specific circumstances which happen very rarely, and now that I have retired probably won't happen again. But I will keep them well maintained, in good order, secured against accidental usage or theft, and I go and shoot to stay competent and for relaxation.

All the best,

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:57 AM

"Some of us are as opposed to liberal gun laws as YOU are."

Not to impolite, but that statement seems to be obtuse by design.

The right of a private citizen to own and carry a firearm is in the US Constitution. Laws are made by legislative bodies and are subject to change at will. Constitutional mandates are permanent unless that document is amended.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:46 AM

"..So do all you seemingly lovely, tolerant, easygoing US Mudcat types all carry guns? "

Read the thread again...carefully. Some of us are as opposed to liberal gun laws as YOU are.

This country is huge...and for the first 200+ years that it was settled by "those from across the pond", guns were useful in everyday life for many on the 'frontier'. Sadly, owning guns got to be a habit, then a hobby, then a hazard...
There are still perfectly understandable reasons for 'some' to own certain types of firearms. If I lived in a rural area or near a wilderness area (not a lot of those in Great Britain anymore), I might acquire a gun. I know a man who supplements his menu with deer he finds in his own yard! But owning a handgun, just because you fear others who do, in urban areas, is a sad situation.

   The situation now has grown out of easy control...there are SO many illegal guns...especially handguns...in the possession of people who cannot be trusted, that is is easy to argue for 'self-defense' as a reason for allowing legal ownership. Some of us contend that VERY restrictive gun laws would gradually improve the situation, but since the history and lobbyist pressures are as they are, I doubt that we have much chance of getting such regulation.

I have decided to take my chances....so far, so good...*smile*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:41 AM

Me above


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:33 AM

My mother always taught me you should get to know someone before you ram your ideology down their throat..."


                Especially someone who is carrying a gun, what?


Ha ha ha! Abso-friggin-lutely!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:00 AM

"My mother always taught me you should get to know someone before you ram your ideology down their throat..."


                Especially someone who is carrying a gun, what?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:57 AM

Just seen this thread kind of by accident.

It's weird for me as an English person. When you all talk so casually about something that can kill a person so easily, I have to admit it sends a shiver down my spine. It's downright petrifying, especially how normal you all make it seem. I suppose it must be normal to you. You'd probably find the idea of walking unarmed through the dodgy bits of my home city weird. To me that's normal. It helps to know the majority of the thugs and criminals over here are also unarmed.

So do all you seemingly lovely, tolerant, easygoing US Mudcat types all carry guns?

And I don't get that bit a few posts back about how it's somehow my fault because of something the rulers of my country/oppressors of my ancestors did 400 years ago.

Do you ever actually use them? Or are they just "for show"?

I spent five weeks camping in your Deep South - only had a gun pointed at me once, thankfully - but it was one of my scariest ever holidays, mainly because of what I'd heard about the prevalence of guns and what I'd heard about some of your population's reputation for using them first and asking questions later. The image you've lumbered yourselves with - as much as the reality - caused my fear. The first night in my tent I don't think I slept a wink.

It didn't help that I watched "Deliverance" in my motel room the night before...

Beautiful country, mind you.

And some of the people I met were lovely, despite the strange tendency of some of them to be a little too upfront about their religious and political views. My mother always taught me you should get to know someone before you ram your ideology down their throat, but that's for another thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:49 PM

Thanks, Mike in DC, for the Authur Kellerman piece... I find it increduluos that adults with the combined college education as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts son't have the combined common sense as a box of animal crackers...

It has long been known that one's chances of being killed or having a relative killed by a handgun is much greater if there is a handgun in the home that if there isn't... But there is no high dollar lobby out there to spread that message...

The Supreme Court is at a tipping point where with one more knothead rightwing idealogue and the country can kiss Row off and then they will set their sight on Brown...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Mike in DC
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:24 PM

The Court has spoken, for better or (most likely) for worse. Meanwhile, back in the real world.

http://www.washingtonpost.c

Mike


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:47 PM

the end


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:26 PM

Mick I must respectfully and vociferously disagree with you when you said:

"They didn't throw it out. They defined that one was the operative and one was the prefatory. That is pretty standard constitutional and contract law. It is not invalidating anything, just giving the appropriate weight and defininition for settled law, which is what this becomes."

This does not balance the two parts of the Amendment legally in any way. The "militia"
part of the law was not given equal weight which would be the same as applying the same value to the First Amendment which would ignore the first statement about "Congress
shall make no law with the respect to religion" and cite the second part of the Amendment as primary.

What the Supreme Court did in their decision was to enable gun-runners to operate
without governmental control in Washington DC and I submit to you that this is an
ideological view that opens up the acceptance of an invasion of Iran. Micheal Moore adequately addressed this issue in "Bowling For Columbine" when he connected the gun violence at the School with the embracing of the Military Industrial Complex. What the Court has done is open the door for the acceptance of gun violence and enabled more to occur at other public schools in the future.

It's about time that gun-owners recognized their culpability in the gun crimes that are growing daily with the prison system in the US today. They do not have the authority nor the inclination to police themselves in the use of firearms. The handgun sales will increase and the weapons will be available for criminals in the future.

Alito and Scalia have made a serious error which will have disastrous consequences for
the safety of the American public.

Frank Hamilton


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 08:39 AM

I would agree that the "porgressives" have taken a page outta the conservative play book in somewhat demonizing the term "neo-con" because we have been able to link it with a very unpopular war...

But, at least to this "progressive", I don't think we have made much of a dent in the term "conservative"... Of course, the so-called conservatives have dented it up purdy well with wreckless policies... lol...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:55 AM

Artbrooks, I just read your first post, at the top of this thread, and though, I'm not exactly know as a liberal, nor conservative on all matters, I not only agree with you, you have my respect as well! I think that is one of most intelligent posts I've seen in here (except mine, of course,smirk) but i just wanted to give you a 'hats off'!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:19 AM

John, my point is that - at least until the recent attempt to redefine the word by people who needed a label to place on the things they disagreed with - "liberal" has always meant a person who decides for himself on each individual issue, and gives everyone else the same privilege. Webster defines LIBERAL as "...tolerant of views differing from one's own; broadminded; favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specifically favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual..." Liberals, by definition, cover a very wide range of perspectives on different topics and one should expect them to be close to conservatives on some things and close to progressives on others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:18 AM

Artbrooks, I am not a liberal, and I agree in principle with each of your points, but I suspect that further discussion might show some divergence in the manner we think some or all should be implemented. We could be very close though.
                     ------------------------

Bobert (and BillD) - I think I disagree with your point about how liberals use the word 'conservative'. I believe that much of your side considers my side a-priori evil and heartless. Not only that, if you (generalized you) want to make us seem really, truly bad you use the term 'Neo-Conservative'; I feel that the use that term brands a conservative as irredeemable. So you might, as you say, want to try to see it from our side.

If you cringe when the term 'liberal' is used, pick one you like better--if it makes sense to me I'll use it. I could use 'progressive', but that has always seem to me to be one step away from a Socialist since my youth during the Henry Wallace era.

If I do write an essay, it will be one in the style I normally use here at Mudcat, but with more detail. If you want to read it privately, I'll make it available to you as to BillD. If you then care to respond, I'll read what you have to say, and perhaps respond.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:46 PM

I am a liberal...but I am selling my Volvo. (can't get it past emissions inspection.)(1985)(darn!)

I am a liberal, but I understand WHICH trees need hugging!


Bobert has it right, John...it is not the OTHER words extremists from both sides sometimes call each other, it is that "liberal" itself gets used as if that's all you need to say to demonize someone...that's why I reacted earlier.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:12 PM

I am a liberal. I believe in gun control, but could care less if most people own and carry guns.
I am a liberal. I believe in a strong military, but not in attacking nations that have done nothing to the US (like Iraq).
I am a liberal. I abhor the idea of abortion, but I acknowledge that it is sometimes the only real alternative - and when and why are not my decision to make.
I am a liberal. I do not believe that what happens in someone else's bed is any of my business.
I am a liberal. I believe that everyone has the right to worship, or not worship, any god or God (or goddess/Goddess) or any combination, as long as that worship doesn't interfere with my right to do the same.
I am a liberal. I believe that everyone should pay their own way in life, but those who need a helping hand should get one - and everyone has a responsibility to assist.
I am a liberal. I believe in protecting those who need it and slamming those who harm others.
I am a liberal. I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that I have a right to have an opinion on somebody else's opinion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:44 PM

The difference, John, is that the term "liberal" itself was demonized... Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that terms like "nazi, fascist, evil" have been used wrongly by some to depict conservatives but the term "conservative" was never demonized so that folks who thought they were *safe* as thinking they were conservatives were in all actuality very safe...

Not so the "liberal" who had no other place to hide as the conservative PR plummeled them to death with a barrage of PR that pretty much drove the word "liberal" outta an conversation that wasn't a slam against people who didn't agree with conservatives...

The "liberals" didn't do this to the "conservatives"... This was done 100% by the "conservatives" (and their high priced PR firms) to the "liberals"...

This is a major difference, John, that if you are going to write an essay that you need to keep in mind... It's easy to sit on your side and bemoan the fact that you may have been called a nazi because you always had a safe place in thinking yourself a "conservative" but it's much different for those of us who once considered ourselves "liberal" only to find that our one safe place has been bombed into the Stone Age by rich conservatives and their PR firms...

Just think about it for awhile... Try to see it from our side...

I mean, to this very day those of us who once thought ourselves
"liberals" cringe when we are so labeled... That is just how complete the hatchet job was by the conservatives...

But, my hat is off to them... They are very good at assasination... Very good...

George Bush is a master... All he has to do to whip a crowd into a frenzy is do is "Volvo driving, tree huggin', pin head" act and all the so-called conservatives start salivating, just like Pavlov's dog... Problem is that he has convinced way too many people that education = commie and in doing so we have a majot brain drain going on where folks (with brains) don't wnat to work in the US...

Hmmmmmmmmm????

But what about Stroker Ace??? He sho nuff looked good last week in the Halliburton/Budweiser/BlackWater 500, didn't he???

(BTW, John... This isn't directed at you personally... It just a rant that came about from the flow of this thread...)

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:21 PM

BillD, for every detestable adjective you tell me that conservatives use about liberals, I'll give give you a detestable adjective used the other way...Nazi, Fascist, evil. But that contest gets us nowhere.

When I was growing up there were many things that needed changing, primarily to do with Race and Sex (what is now call erroneously called Gender). These are problems that we've come along way in repairing.

Almost every other thing that liberals want to change are, to my mind, based on the selfishness of the generation that came of age about 1965 +/-.

BillD, I was going to flesh this out, telling you why I believe this, but I found myself writing an essay nearly a page long and counting. I may over the next few weeks really turn it into an essay. Then I'll really drive Joe Offer wild when I post it! LOL If I do so write, I'll PM you...no, not with the essay, but the with the option to read it if you're interested.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 07:33 PM

I'm with you, BIll, of the way the conservatives turned "liberal" into some evil label...

Problem is that while folks weren't really paying attention to those who spent millions on think tanks and marketing the old liberals are now very much more conservative than those who claim to be conservative...

Willaim Buckley was a "conservative" and I respected him for his core principles and values...

But as Buckley held fast to those principles radical Republicans took control of the country behind the usual flag burning, gay rights and abortion banner and then have fone about doing things that true conservatives absolutely don't do, like nation building, hugh deficits and corruption at all levels of government... These, folks, are not---I repeat, "not" --- conservative ideals... These fall somewhere between radical and illegeal, not to mention short sighted...

Yeah, the partisan radical Republicans will continue to throw the "liberal" label around as if it still has mojo but the mojo has been squeezed completely out of if... Personally, I find it amusing that these people haven't figured out that their shot has passed and they failed miserably yet they still think they can scare people with the "L" word... Hahahaha...

Sorry for the minor thread drift and now back to...

...the subject at hand...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 06:20 PM

Well John, it 'may' be that Democrats/Liberals do have a few more causes about which they'd like to see a basic position 'settled' ...as in 'no longer attacked' by those who wish to, as I said above, impose personal moral/ethical systems on the populace in general. (Stuff like being free of prayer at neutral, public events)
I dunno, though...conservatives too seem like THEY would like to get their beliefs labeled as untouchable. Each group has a list....differently flavored, but emotionally charged.

As to my sensitivity about phrases like "liberal causes": I have heard that and similar language used in contexts SO often where the speaker or author was coloring the word 'liberal' with opprobrium similar to how he would refer to "communists" or "atheists". It is when the phrase is tossed in as if 'everyone ought to know' what THEY believe!
If *I* read too much into YOUR post, I also apologize. It certainly is hard to sort out nuances in print...thus my probably excessive use of bold and other HTML stuff to try to 'sound' like I would speak.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 02:27 PM

BillD, I apologize if I attributed that thought to you erroneously.

My point, whenever I watch a judicial hearing, 'stare decisis' is brought up as settled law most always by the Dems. But it should cut both ways whether the issue emanates from the left or the right.

I'm not sure how you conflate my use of "liberals' causes" with "perverts (sic) causes", but that's your problem more than mine. I suppose it's because the written word is not as nuanced as the spoken word in person.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:43 PM

JotSC..(I went to bed right after posting...we on the SunRISE coast have this problem answering later replies..*grin*)

Anyway...It was not *ME* who was suggesting Stare be applied...it was (or seemed to be), Mick. *I* was asking why the 5-4 decision on guns should be enshrined when things like many years of Roe V. Wade are not. Obviously, nothing is exempt from change if enough people can get a new amendment pushed thru...Stare decisis only gives guidance to jurists when looking at various attempts to get a favorable decision which is opposed to a long-standing & workable ruling already in place...like Roe...

If it is any more use to "liberals causes" ..(how DO you manage to make that sound like "perverts causes"?)...it is because the more 'zealous' conservatives seem to think that certain issues should be decided according to some arcane 'moral' rule which they are sure they have infallible access to.
Those sneaky 'liberals' feel that sane, practical and fair analysis of issues would often allow folks to live according to their own conscience, rather than rules imposed from 'on high' and interpreted BY conservatives....again, like Roe. Starewould limit specious attempts to run the lives of others according to personal whims.
Now...whether gun laws and the 2nd amendment are important enough to warrant such consideration is what we are debating! I am arguing for a practical solution that deals with the situation today, against what I see as claims that there is a 'definitive right' based on the situations which existed 250 years ago, and which is guaranteed forever and immune from alteration. I am not trying to 'run anyone else's life'....I am just trying to find ways to better preserve my own, knowing that there are legions of idiots out there who have no respect for mine! I am in favor of ways to REDUCE the threat, rather than ways to meet the threat head-on....much like the silly "mutually assured destruction" solution to nuclear arms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:31 AM

Well, Slag, the Supremes just SAID that the "right to keep and bear arms" belongs to the people as individuals, as does the right to free speech, etc. (although the right to peacefully assemble DOES require more than one person).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:56 AM

Well, I dono, art... Slag just might be on to somethin' here... Given the mood agsint tyranny they might have figurated that their own governemnt could get as bad as King George...

("King George", Bobertz???)

Opps, my Fruedian slip is showin'...

B;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:53 AM

Well, Bobert - since the size of the standing army when the Bill of Rights was signed (1791) was well under 1,000, it seems to me that the Second Amendment, militia clause and all, was there to create an army to defend the nation, not to defend the nation from the government. Of course, not being a Constitutional lawyer, I may be wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:40 AM

Well, if we take the right to bear arms and couple it with the the rights to form militias to protect "We the people form the federal governemnt" I'd say we have a purdy steep hill to climb... Think Ruby Ridge or Branch Dividian here...

A couple million handguns in the hands of "the people" ain't jack compared to the might of the US military so I think that we should be able to own our own nuclear devices... Yeah, now that would level the playing field...

B;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:36 AM

To Slag: so? There is no disagreement on that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Slag
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:27 AM

artbroooks and co. Why is the Second Amendment in there at all? You have to ask yourself that question. It is the "Bill of Rights"! Who's rights? The Federal Government? No! The Bill of Rights exists to protect "We the People" FROM the Federal Government. It exist to make sure that the people control the government, not one party, not a power bloc, not a madman. There was much debate as to whether to make what is now the Second Amendment the First. It was/is that important. In the end, the First Amendment held supremacy because it was the ability to speak freely, even if said speech was offensive, that gave rise to freedom. The First Amendment though, would have no force and no meaning without the Second Amendment which protects the First. It is to the PEOPLE that these and the following Amendments apply.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:29 PM

BillD---if 'stare decisis' is so all-fired important, Blacks might still be in segregated schools. Surely you don't mean for that to be? Seems to me that 'stare' is only applicable when it helps liberals' causes, else it's wrong to overturn a prior decision. If a decision is unconstitutional, no matter from which side, it is required to be reversed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:00 PM

Mick...what do you mean by this statement?

"It is not invalidating anything, just giving the appropriate weight and defininition for settled law, which is what this becomes."

Stare decisis is a pretty important concept, but it's hard to get stuff included in it. Abortion rights 'should' be, but they keep hammering...trying to overturn Roe V. Wade. Why should THIS new reading of the 'militia' clause be favored?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:48 PM

Well, at least Barak Obama like it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:05 PM

That's the way I see it as well, art... They ignored precidnece of the Miller case and legislated from the bench, much the way they did in Bush v. Gore...

And I agree that it would be refreshing to have a Supreme Court that wasn't so intent on being legislators and just do the friggin' job...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:40 PM

IMHO, what they did was legislate from the bench, and have effectively rewritten the Constitution to have the Second Amendment simply say "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It should be remembered that all this decision does is overturn the part of the DC law that forbids intact, unlocked handguns in private homes. I anticipate that the NRA and others will now bring other suits aimed at having all other restrictions eliminated. Hopefully, these will get to the level of the Supreme after President Obama has had a chance to appoint a justice or two.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:28 PM

I have no disagreement with the partisan nature of the justices, but in this decision they worked along strict language lines. First they defined the structure, then they interpreted the language using original intent based on those criteria. What you folks wanted them to do was to legislate from the bench instead of interpret.

If you believe this was such a faulty decision, with such far reaching impact, then take it to the electorate. If your opinion is correct, you surely could be successful.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:26 PM

But it would seem that by doing so they have invalidated the opinion held by many people for many years (200+ in some cases) that the two clauses have equal weight. In fact, the 1939 case (Miller) seemed to give greater weight to the militia clause, when it said "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." and, referring to calling out the militia, "it is With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." And yes, I'm aware that yesterday's decision also said that Miller really had nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:14 PM

Well, art, the biggest problem is that the Supreme Court has become an arm of the Republican Party and, like it or not, has become politicized... 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents...

Herein lies the problem with this very "activist" court... These justices don't seem to interested in precidence... They seem to think they are like this appointed-for-life ultimate legislative body...

Yes, I undertand your problems with them ignoring half the 2nd ammmendment and its historical significance... I have problems with that, too... So did the minority justices... It is, IMO, a debatable part of ther decision... The majority ignored it as if it was a radiation pit because had they not then they would have to explain their decision...

I'll tell ya' what... Scalia and Thomas are two of the most partisan justices this country has ever had... I respected Eral Warren becuase he had the courage to do what he thought was the right thing to do... These two guys are like rubber stamps... If the Republican Party decided that all left handed people should be rounded up and put in concentration camps these two morons would go along with it...

As for Roberts and Alito??? They are Scalia/Thomas's in training to be morons...

This was a terriby flawed decision that says to communities everywhere, "You cannot impose standards in your own community"... That's the bottom line here...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:14 PM

They didn't throw it out. They defined that one was the operative and one was the prefatory. That is pretty standard constitutional and contract law. It is not invalidating anything, just giving the appropriate weight and defininition for settled law, which is what this becomes.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 07:50 PM

I am far from being a Constitutional lawyer (not qualified - my parents were married), but it seems to me that the Court has totally thrown out the "militia clause". The decision says The Amendment's prefatory clause [the militia clause] announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Now, if the purpose of the "keep and bear arms" clause is directly related to the militia, how can the Court possibly separate the two? Understand, I don't own a firearm and have never seen a reason to have one in my home, but I could care less if Mick, Rapaire or any other law-abiding and trained individual wants to own and carry one. That's not the point. If this Court can throw out part of a sentence in the guiding document of our nation, even if they then try to weasel-word their way out of admitting what they did, what's next?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 07:34 PM

There was an anti-gun advocate on NPR who was making the case that the ruling will actually make it easier for authorities to regulate firearms, because the NRA will no longer be able to make the "slippery slope" argument (i.e. if I let you take my machine gun, the next thing you'll want is my fouling piece). If it's already been determined that they can't take the fellow's shotgun, it weakens the argument to let the individual keep the machine gun.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 07:21 PM

Big Mick, here's my take. There are gun collectors. I see that they feel that if they didn't have the right to own those guns, their right would be infringed. Nevertheless, this ruling will make it easy for bad folks to get ahold of these weapons.

The idea that a handgun is necessary for self-defense isn't correct.

The arguments presented state that certain conditions should be placed on people who own guns. The Supreme Court did not stipulate these conditions. The net effect is that those criminals who want them will get them from those who own them.

The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta has put gun violence on its list of
serious diseases. This was not done capriciously.

The Founding Fathers did not have to contend with handguns, automatic weapons or modern forms of weaponry. The ownership of guns were for the protection against foreign invaders through an militia. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment.

There are certain counties and states where it is legal to carry concealed weapons.
The Supreme Court did not address this issue in detail. I'm not sure where DC is on this.

In fact, there are some places such as Kennesaw, Georgia where it is illegal
to own a gun. This is the height of stupidity.

Washinton DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Watch it grow higher
with this latest ruling.

Frank Hamilton


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:53 PM

Frank, you are one of the voices here that I respect the most. But on this issue, it is my opinion that you are wrong. Did you read the thread? I understand you are upset, but your post seems to indicate that you haven't read the arguments. Your usual style is to respond to the discussion.

With sincere respect,

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:52 PM

There are quite a number of vehicles around here with the bumper sticker "I'm a gun-toting Democrat."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:49 PM

Those idiot justices got it wrong. Now we will see more gun deaths than before.
There will be more handguns on the street available to criminals and jerks who don't
know how to use them.

The Supreme Idiots misinterpreted the Constitution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Slag
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:44 PM

Very interesting. A lot of the same tired rhetoric expressed by the usual culprits in other threads dealing with virtually the same topic but here and there a good discussion has emerged and some thoughtful and though out comments from both, of rather, the many sides of this issue.

I contemplated the argument that the founders could not have foreseen the technological changes in firearms. I have to agree with this in part. And disagree with it in part.

For all the cosmetic changes hand guns and long rifles have gone through the basic mechanics are pretty much the same as they were at the time of the American Revolution. It might surprize some to learn that there were repeating and automatic firing weapons around in that day too. Not as successful as those of today but then again just about everything mechanical form those days has been improved. Faster, more farther and higher. It's the faster and more aspects that concerns most folks. That and better over all functionality.

But the REAL arena of weaponry improvement is in the sole hand of the Federal Government. Here the development is nothing short of awesome. The biggest daddy is, of course the atomic arsenal. A million people armed with submachine guns don't stand a chance. If the Founders felt that we might need our personal weapons to take back the country, should it fall into the hands of deceivers, the corrupt and unscrupulous (which many feel it already has fallen), they certainly did not foresee the tremendous technical strides in the mega-arsenal our government wields today. Truly the citizens' firearms ARE for personal protection and recreation.

I hate it when anyone abuses the right to keep and bear arms. He provides the enemies of this right propaganda against the righteous citizen who behaves in a responsible manner. I hate crime period. And I hold special contempt for those who commit crimes with a firearm or some weaponry that puts the victim at a decided disadvantage. Where a firearm is present in the hand of the intended victim of a crime it is often a different story. The crime is thwarted and the perpetrator is captured or put to flight. A fighting chance, that's all I ask.

I have to give Big Mick thanks because he called me on dragging partisan politics into my earlier posts. I have known and hunted with life long friends who were/are gun toting Democrats. I fell into one of the things I really hate and that is type-casting, stereotyping. Mea culpa and thanks for pointing that out Big Mick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:43 PM

Mick..my post you quoted was supposed to indicate that I wanted to see gun advocates **LEADING** campaigns to toughen and enforce the rules...not just agreeing with the principle.

I have said before that I have NO illusions about 'taking away your rights'. I am trying very hard to be realistic about this, while taking pompous asses like Wayne LaPiere with a grain of salt! I have watched and listened to discussions all day on NPR, CNN, etc...and there are many, many folks who make some of the same points I do.

Guns are a serious problem....and what I see is a lot more 'defending of rights' than attempts to close loopholes and DO that education you tout. A member of the DC city council was interviewed today, and he said succinctly that the new situation would 1)make it possible to own and register pistols in DC and 2) although those would be sold only to "law abiding citizens" it would increase the number of pistols available to be stolen, used carelessly and used in suicides. He stated that HE had the statistics that showed how many more handguns were involved in crimes and accidents than EVER in legitimate self-defense.
There was a longish discussion about employment of trigger locks, about unloading guns and locking them away from children and how really 'safe' handling makes them almost useless in possible home-invasion scenarios. He also said they would comply with the law, and that actually, very little needed to changed in order to comply with the court ruling.

I have not taken this doubtful position suddenly or capriciously...and the fact that 4 of 5 Justices voted against lifting the ban tells me that learned men still disagree.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 2 December 10:12 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.