|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
sholmes
|
|
response 284 of 404:
| 
Jan 19 05:22 UTC 2006 |
Every man has also the right to bear a firearm and go to a pub and drink
himself silly ?
|
bru
|
|
response 285 of 404:
|
Jan 19 06:16 UTC 2006 |
No. Michigan prohibits firearms in a pub. But you do have the right
to own a gun for your defense. cross still thinks of himself as
invulnerable in his military attire? even after all the soldiers who
are getting killed in Iraq? You don't think americans can shoot as
well as iraqi insurgents?
I hate to tell you this cross, but even the updatead body armor that
will stop a russian rifle round will probably not stop a .360 Weatherby
round.
Soldiers are not invulnerable even to pistol rounds if you know how to
shoot properly.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 286 of 404:
|
Jan 19 06:49 UTC 2006 |
Re #282: that's all just grammatical sophistry designed to claim your
preferred interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I interpret it to mean that
the right to bear arms is only associated with a well regulated militia.
That's how the US Supreme Court interprets it, which should settle the
matter until the court addresses the issue again.
"The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the
Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional
enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm
individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a
militia or other such public force."
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/)
Haggling over it doesn't change the decision of the Supreme Court.
|
twenex
|
|
response 287 of 404:
|
Jan 19 08:50 UTC 2006 |
Nathan can talk till the cows come home about how he fully understands the
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"
preamble of the second amendment, but his response in #283 shows that he
considers it totally irrelevant. A random collection of citizens, however, is
neither "well-regulated" nor capable of forming "a militia" if composed
entirely of autonomous individuals.
|
klg
|
|
response 288 of 404:
|
Jan 19 11:46 UTC 2006 |
Curl - Get over it. Maybe those are the shadows of the penumbras from
the emanations of the 2nd amendment. Or maybe it's because of the
hyper mega super duper precedents applying to the 2nd amendment. And
don't forget that the constitution is a living, breathing document.
(At least, that's what a liberal might say when dealing with, say,
abortion.)
RW - The ACLU is, at a minimum, tainted by the beliefs of its founders,
not to mention its current wackos.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 289 of 404:
|
Jan 19 14:28 UTC 2006 |
To add onto #285, Michigan also has strict penalties for carrying a
pistol with even a small amount of alcohol in your system. I think the
limit is a blood alcohol content of 0.02. Compare to the level at which
you will be charged with Driving while Under the Influence, 0.08. Also,
to carry a pistol concealed on your person you have to complete a
training course, and pass a background check that includes fingerprint
checks.
There is a stigma that Americans are gun-toting rednecks on a rampage.
In reality, those Americans who are armed give up a lot of time, money
and personal privacy in order to do so.
Re 286 and 287: I have demonstrated the correct way to read prefatory
language as used during the 18th century. The operative provision is to
be taken on its own, and only when there is ambiguity with it, do you
look to the prefatory clause for clarification. When the two disagree,
the operative provision wins. Always. Game over, man. Game over.
But if you want to ignore that, that is fine with me. "Grammatical
sophistry"? That made me laugh.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 290 of 404:
|
Jan 19 16:15 UTC 2006 |
>In reality, those Americans who are armed give up a lot of time, money
>and personal privacy in order to do so.
Those who are legally armed do give up some, maybe.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 291 of 404:
|
Jan 19 16:43 UTC 2006 |
Legally armed...yes.
|
klg
|
|
response 292 of 404:
|
Jan 19 17:03 UTC 2006 |
Are the penalties/conditions in 291 common to all states? If not,
which are substantiaaly more lenient?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 293 of 404:
|
Jan 19 17:17 UTC 2006 |
In 291?
|
klg
|
|
response 294 of 404:
|
Jan 19 17:19 UTC 2006 |
289
|
nharmon
|
|
response 295 of 404:
|
Jan 19 17:42 UTC 2006 |
I'm assuming you are talking about posession of a firearm while
intoxicated. I would guess that all states do have statutes prohibiting
it. As for actual limits and penalties, that probably varies state to state.
As for obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the requirements
and process does vary state to state, with only one that I can think of
that does not require a permit at all (Vermont). Several states,
including Michigan, do not require special training or background checks
to carry weapons unconcealed. Although outside of hunting, that is
rarely ever seen.
Something that is very difficult for anti-gun liberals to accept is that
gun control was originally intended as a form of jim crow law.
Michigan's original CCW statute is an example of this. They were passed
after an african-american living in a white neighborhood used a firearm
to defend his family from whites attempting to invade his house. The
discretionary nature of how licenses were issued did not require the
county sheriff to have a credible reason for denying the application.
Thus, as a result, many african americans were denied based solely on
their race.
Firearm ownership is an "equalizer" helping protect the minority from an
abusive majority. We see gun ownership groups for almost every minority;
women, jews, homosexuals. In fact, some of the early NRA chapters in the
south were started by african-americans. Of course, you wouldn't know
this from watching "Bowling for Columbine".
|
klg
|
|
response 296 of 404:
|
Jan 19 17:58 UTC 2006 |
Condi Rice has some good anecdotes from her life on that theme.
|
cross
|
|
response 297 of 404:
|
Jan 19 18:01 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 298 of 404:
|
Jan 19 18:03 UTC 2006 |
Bruce wants to be a terrorist?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 299 of 404:
|
Jan 19 18:28 UTC 2006 |
I think Dan Cross would be a fun guy to play paintball with...maybe not
against, but with! :)
|
cross
|
|
response 300 of 404:
|
Jan 19 21:41 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 301 of 404:
|
Jan 20 07:19 UTC 2006 |
What do you want me to put up cross? I do not need to join you to know
you think you know it all, but apparently do not. Many of the people I
am working with down here are experienced military, and I was raised by
people who were experienced military, and most of my friends were in or
are in teh military, and NONE of them have the attitude you seem to
have. NONE. They all know what would be involved in fighting a civil
war in the U.S. None of them think it would be a cakewalk, or even
winable by our military. You need to find a unit that specializes in
something more than putting muscles on both ends of your body.
|
bru
|
|
response 302 of 404:
|
Jan 20 11:32 UTC 2006 |
I am not denegrating his service here, nor his enthusiasm or training.
But cross really needs to understand the document he is sworn to
defend, and the limits of his mlitary training. If you think you are
invincible in the field, you will let yourself and your teamates down
when you take a reality check.
IED's are not the only thing killing and injuring our soldiers, and a
large caliber hunting rifle has a lot more energy in its bullet than a
5.56 round carries. One round from your battle rifle will not stop a
bull elephant, nor will it penetrate my ballistic vest with the heavy
trauma plate.
but your face has not trauma plate to protect it either.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 303 of 404:
|
Jan 20 13:19 UTC 2006 |
Is this really a conversation we need to be having?
|
cross
|
|
response 304 of 404:
|
Jan 20 14:25 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 305 of 404:
|
Jan 20 19:10 UTC 2006 |
i love that bru is giving you training and constitutional
education advise.
he is my hero. he is the wind beneath my wings. wait, no...
that may have been some chili repeating on me.
|
cross
|
|
response 306 of 404:
|
Jan 20 22:04 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 307 of 404:
|
Jan 20 23:27 UTC 2006 |
Well, I'm glad *someone* is finding this whole discussion amusing.
|
cross
|
|
response 308 of 404:
|
Jan 20 23:37 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|