Guns.....

[Guest RushNY]

RE: Canadian Views

 

FYI-

Homicide Figures Year 2000(latest year i could find)

Washington DC -242 (actually 233 in 2001) down from 482 in 1991

Canada-542 for year 2000 (42 for Vancouver)

 

2001 figure for NY 617 Chicago 644

figures for NY 1/1 to 3/17/2002 85 homicides down 39.7% on 2001

obviously the NYC figure doesnt include 9/11who says NY is dangerous !

[Guest Musclebearshare]

RE: this little thing...

 

>well, matt, there's something getting in the way of your

>suggestions.

>you see, here in the US, we have this cute little relic

>called the CONSTITUTION. in it, we are guaranteed the right

>peacefully to bear arms. saying "oh, golly chaps, no more

>handguns" would require a constitutional amendment. have you

>ever been south of--say--new york? that's not likely to

>pass, given our process(es) for ratifying amendments.

 

I missed the part of the Constitution that says what you claim. What the Second Amendment says is: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Historically, this has been treated as an unincorporated right. The Supreme Court has not ruled on a case involving the Second Amendment since 1939, and the ruling in that case (Miller vs. somebody) was pretty ambiguous, just about as ambiguous as the amendment itself. It certainly did not establish any rights for individuals to bear arms. In 1980 there was a landmark test case which held unambiguously that the Second Amendment guarantees no such thing; that it is a collective right for the states to maintain militias, and that ruling cited the Miller case as precedent. This has been the U.S. Justice Department's position for the past 65 years - that the Second Amendment is a collective right - qualified by the requirement for membership in a militia. Can you cite any major sustained rulings that support your claim that the right to bear arms applies to individual citizens? There might be some if you go back to the 19th Century, but I don't know of any in the 20th.

 

Of course, Ashcroft - who's received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions over the years from the NRA - is trying to change all this, when he's not running around D.C. draping nude statues. But the courts have the final say in Constitutional matters, and as yet the courts have not supported your overbroad interpretation of the Second Amendment, AFAIK.

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: this little thing...

 

are you an idiot?

the right to keep & bear arms shall not be abridged. dude, you contradict yourself.

[Guest Spunk]

"Lawyers, Guns & Money"

 

You can't go wrong with this Warren Zevon song.

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: Canadian Views

 

so as expected, matt was incorrect.

thanks rush, nice of you to actually do the homework.

[Guest DCeBOY]

who the hell is warren zevon?

[Guest bottomboykk]

RE: this little thing...

 

It has been established constitutional law since 1939 that this right solely applies to the state militias, which today means the National Guard. Until the idiot ASScroft came into office as AG, that has been the official position of the US govt., through Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

[Guest Musclebearshare]

RE: this little thing...

 

>are you an idiot?

 

No, but I'm beginning to wonder if you are too rude to have something resembling an informative discussion with.

 

>the right to keep & bear arms shall not be abridged. dude,

>you contradict yourself.

 

I contradict myself? I mentioned two cases I know of that indicate your interpretation of the Second Amendment is incorrect, and asked whether you could back your view up with legal precedent. I take it you can't? If you can, I'd appreciate you doing so...this issue interests me. I'm sorry I can't accept your "because I say it's so, it's so" approach.

 

Aren't you the guy who's considering law school? Your professors won't accept that approach either.

 

Michael

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: this little thing...

 

i didn't interpret the second amendment. i stated it.

the fact is: the SC has never said that law-abiding citizens should be prohibited firearms for peaceful purposes. want to know why? it is a state, not a federal issue.

[Guest RushNY]

>who the hell is warren zevon?

 

God that makes me feel old..He's a singer/songwriter been around since late 60's best known song is "Werewolves of London" from the movie An American Werewolf in London " which came out probably before you were born .

 

Somehow i think this info doesnt belong in a thread on guns but hey tangents rock !

 

PS-Lawyers,Guns.... from a fine album Stand in the Fire also loved Sentimental Hygiene(hey another tangent -cooool) :7

[Guest DCeBOY]

i don't know when the movie came out, but i've seen it. i used to love it. i had a thing for cheesey horror flicks. still do.

[Matt_Vancouver]

my bad, uneducated, ridiculous views.

 

Well I guess I was wrong, ooops, but I think the point still stands... one city had almost half as many homicides as the entire country of 30 million people.... were those figures homicides, or deaths by gunshot?

Consitution, yup it's said right to bear arms... like I said, Ye bear arms, ye have the potential in your greasy mitts to kill.... argue it all you want, it's plain logic, guns kill, yup they must be handled by a sentient being in order to do so, but they kill. You eliminate them you lessen that potential. YEs I said 'lessen' not eliminate.

Also I want to make clear, I don't like guns, that is obvious, but I realize why many people would want them, and I think sure if you are a law abiding citizen, go ahead and get yourself a gun, but waiting a week for a security clearance, in order to get that gun....is somehow ridiculous?? Against your basic human rights as an American?? ludicrous.

remember a few weeks ago, a kid in the US was all over the media, for bringing his registered M16 to school...my god, REGISTERED M16!!! Nuff said.

matt(Pinko bleedin heart hooker who stands by his views)

 

 

>FYI-

>Homicide Figures Year 2000(latest year i could find)

>Washington DC -242 (actually 233 in 2001) down from 482 in

>1991

>Canada-542 for year 2000 (42 for Vancouver)

>

>2001 figure for NY 617 Chicago 644

>figures for NY 1/1 to 3/17/2002 85 homicides down 39.7% on

>2001

>obviously the NYC figure doesnt include 9/11who says NY is

>dangerous !

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: my bad, uneducated, ridiculous views.

 

if you hit someone with a car, you just might kill him. is the answer that we should ban cars?

[Guest DCeBOY]

don't be a drama queen, pumpkin

 

matt, i didn't mean to imply that you are bad, or that you have uneducated views. none of us said that.

what you did was pull figures out of your ass & try to use them to make a point. it turns out that the figures are false. your point would have been more powerful (and i do think it is a valid point) without referring to hypothetical figures.

 

why is it that whenever someone (usually me) disagrees with you, you post some sort of self-deprecating drivel implying that we're calling you stupid?

[Guest RushNY]

The movie came out in 1981

[Guest DCeBOY]

i was indeed alive.

(2 years old, if you wondered.)

[Traveller]

>i don't know when the movie came out, but i've seen it. i

>used to love it. i had a thing for cheesey horror flicks.

>still do.

 

E

 

Cheesy would have 2 Es, not 3. I couldn't resist.

 

Later.

 

PS. I prefer Excitable Boy....they all said. Dug up her grave and made a cage with her bones.

[Guest Musclebearshare]

RE: this little thing...

 

>i didn't interpret the second amendment. i stated it.

 

Greater precision in your use of the English language will come in handy in law school. What you stated was: "in (the Constitution), we are guaranteed the right peacefully to bear arms." That is an interpretation of what you think the Second Amendment says - an interpretation not born out in any sustained court rulings I know of. The case that is causing some commotion now is U.S. vs. Emerson, in which a Texas judge ruled that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right to gun ownership. His ruling was overturned by the Fifth Circuit, and Emerson has appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

>the fact is: the SC has never said that law-abiding citizens

>should be prohibited firearms for peaceful purposes. want to

>know why? it is a state, not a federal issue.

 

The Supreme Court rules on state laws and statutes all the time - actually, most of the time. Remember Colorado's anti-gay initiative, for example? Or Bowers vs. Hardwick, regarding Georgia's sodomy law? Brown vs. the Board of Education? Do you really think they only rule on federal laws?

 

Of course the Supreme Court has never said citizens "should" be prohibited from carrying firearms. Why would they ever say that? Nothing in the Constitution suggests that citizens should be prohibited from doing so. But they've also never said what you claim, that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. Here's what they said (U.S. vs. Miller, 1939):

 

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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."

 

It'll be interesting to see if the Supreme Court agrees to hear Emerson's appeal. I suspect they won't.

 

Michael

[Traveller]

RE: this little thing...

 

>Of course the Supreme Court has never said citizens "should"

>be prohibited from carrying firearms. Why would they ever

>say that? Nothing in the Constitution suggests that citizens

>should be prohibited from doing so. But they've also never

>said what you claim, that the Second Amendment guarantees

>citizens the right to bear arms. Here's what they said

>(U.S. vs. Miller, 1939):

>

>"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the

>Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to

>execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and

>repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and

>disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of

>them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,

>reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the

>Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia

>according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.'

>U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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."

>

 

Luckily, last week Bush's Justice Department reversed the long-held wrong stand on the Second Amendment (i.e., the militia nonsense in Miller) and is now arguing that the Second Amendment confers the right for an indvidual to own guns. Ya gotta love Republicans.

 

Later.

[Guest elwood]

RE: my bad, uneducated, ridiculous views.

 

I fully agree with Matt (Vancouver) on the issue of guns.They do not fascinate me. They do NOT belong in the hands of the average person.I do not argue this on the basis of "rights" or the constitution. Guns make it easier for people who want to kill to do so and unfortunately through accident or stupidity they make it easier even for those who don't want to kill to do so. Our society is obsessed with guns. Are they legitimate for hunters? Yes. For collectors of unigue or antique weapons? Yes. But background checks,licensing and registration are very reasonable requirements. No guns for sale at gun shows. No guns for minors. Gun safety courses for all who use guns. Guns are the last resort of the brave and reasonable. The first resort of those who wish to force their will upon others. Would I use a gun to save my life or the life of someone I loved? Yes. Would I use a gun to defend my country in a just war? Yes. Would I use a gun to help overthrow a Hitler or Idi amin type? Yes.But these are all instances where I feel I had no real choice or that the alternative is totally unacceptable. There are way too many guns in the USA and they are for too accessible to far too many people and it is far too easy to use them in the heat of anger over a very minor dispute, or in domestic violence or suicide or accidentally.

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: this little thing...

 

I'm a card carrying member of the party

really, i have the little gold card to prove it.

[Guest DCeBOY]

you don't drop the final E.

[Matt_Vancouver]

RE: my bad, uneducated, ridiculous views.

 

not even an argument...

cigarettes cause cancer..ban them

aspertame... what isn't bad about it, including the taste....ban it

knives, contribute to thousands of bagel related inguries/year... make them illegal..

tubs without little stick on flowers... people slip and fall... tubs should be required to ship with the flowers pre installed...

matt(blech)

[Matt_Vancouver]

don't call me pumpkin,,,, I much more resemble a zhuccini

 

I never implied that anyone was calling me stupid, or uneducated ...

I understood that my opinions, on a board inhabitted primarily by Americans, would be an unpopular one, as noted in the 'land mine' comment. No matter how logical, factual, or intelligent an argument which regards any portion of the constitution of the United States is, it will be fought by someone. And often times, on a completly illogical, passion motivated level. Having someone assume I am stupid or ignorant for having a different opinion, comes with the territory.

I admitted in the original post, that I was pulling all of my 'facts' out of my ass... using HUGE generalizations to demonstrate a difference between two very similar countries policies on firearms, and the effects on the number of homicides.

Yes my 'facts' should have been checked, it would have added a 'tiny' bit more credibility to my argument. But they weren't, and it didn't...

Matt(god is a bullet....or was that a DJ?)

[Barry]

>you don't drop the final E.

 

Mirriam-Webster disagrees. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?cheesy

 

:-) Barry