|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
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.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 309 of 404:
|
Jan 20 23:45 UTC 2006 |
> Parades don't intimidate
Hah - rcurl has evidently never been to Northern Ireland during marching
season!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 310 of 404:
|
Jan 21 03:50 UTC 2006 |
It's the threat, not the parade, that intimidates. If they paraded with funny
floats and asked everyone to join in, there need be no threat. It doesn't
matter what form a threat takes to be a threat.
|
bru
|
|
response 311 of 404:
|
Jan 21 06:34 UTC 2006 |
cross, you wrote, and I quote...
"That said, the second amendment is outdated. Hunting rifles and
revolvers are not going to contributed to a well-ordered and equiped
militia in this day and age. This sort of thing comes from the days
where members of the US military supplied their own weapons and
uniforms (yes, there was such a "time).
This in no way invalidates what the second ammendment was put in for.
It isn't there to require you be a member of the militia to own a gun.
It is there to make sure you are able to defend yourself and your
family from a government gone wild.
"It's like this. If you're one of those Ruby Ridge whackos with a
bunch of 9mm handguns and some paramilitary camp in the mountains, and
they sent me in with my equipment, weapons, and body armor,
well...shoot at me all you want, but I guarantee that the bullets will
bounce off of me and stick to you."
What I am pointing out to you is that your armored vest is not going to
stop a .300 remington, nor is your face shield going to stop a .30-06
You are not a tank nor an armored vehicle, and people in this country
carry ammo just as big or bigger than anything you carry, and those
trained from an early age in how to shoot can probably outshoot most
marines. I know I can, because I have done it.
And that Ruby ridge wacko was a veteran Green Beret. And we won't get
into why you think it is okay for the FBI to shoot a boys dog, shoot
the boy in the back killing him, and then have a sharpshooter kill an
unarmed woman holding a baby. Houriuchi should have been tried as a
criminal, as should the managers of that debacle.
|