Firearms yes or no

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED? Referring to postings 213, 215, 216 here.

A 10 second research project yielded this:

TRUTH: In US history, no gun-control law has ever been invalidated by a federal court ruling on second amendment grounds. Furthermore, the courts have upheld numerous gun laws as being constitutional. For example, Washington D.C.'s handgun ban has been in effect for over a quarter century and has survived every court challenge that has come its way.

A three-judge panel led by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman struck down parts of Washington, D.C.'s strict gun-control ordinance as a violation of residents' Second Amendment right to bear arms in Parker v. District of Columbia[/QUOTE].

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173434606378

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

A 10 second research project yielded this:

A three-judge panel led by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman struck down parts of Washington, D.C.'s strict gun-control ordinance as a violation of residents' Second Amendment right to bear arms in Parker v. District of Columbia

.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173434606378[/quote]

Thanks for taking the time on that August. That right there goes to show that this man does not speak the truth from the start.

Get the point yet Skybird?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August's link

(...) D.C. government officials offered no immediate word about possible appeals, but it appears likely that the city, under new Mayor Adrian Fenty, will at least seek an en banc review of the ruling. "The fact that, even on this panel, there was one dissent is a sign that the decision is open to question," says David Gossett, a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in the District, which wrote a brief for the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Center in support of the D.C. ordinance. (...)
Even if the high court rules in favor of an individual right, it would not spell the end of all gun regulation. As even Silberman points out, the high court has allowed reasonable restriction of other individual rights such as freedom of speech. But such a decision could trigger litigation over a range of laws, including those that make criminal penalties more serious if they involve possession of firearms. (...)
The Miller court in 1939 and many scholars since have viewed it as an articulation of the right of state militias -- not individuals -- to bear arms. Over the years, the high court, apparently glad to avoid the hot-potato issue, has consistently declined to take up Second Amendment challenges to laws restricting gun use and possession. (...)
Henderson's dissent dismisses the majority decision as "superfluity" because, in her view, the Second Amendment applies only to states -- not to the District of Columbia.

Havinf red the article three times, I found it a bit difficult to see it as such a definite case.

The article August linked to, is from the imminent past: five weeks ago, early March 2007. But Miller-US is from 1939 - almost seventy years ago.

@Subman,

nice zig-zagging of yours. Will there come anything substantial from you? The guy gave solid references to legal aspects of the issue, and additionally referred to the questionable quality of several crime statistics as well. Can you, will you counter it, or zig-zag even more? I am no expert on these things, so if you can proove that it is all wrong what he says, me and probabaly others as well would be interested to learn about where the guy is misinformed. If you have substantial legal arguments, now is the time to bring them and give up loudness instead.

[Skybird]

Further investigation gave me a link to this text from 1788 that is worth to take note of:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

[Skybird]

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902

And your point would be?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902

You asked "COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED?".

In all capital letters no less. So I provided case law that answered your question. But now having been proven wrong you now fall back with an attempt to invalidate one of the two judges who made the ruling.

Y'know you're accuse Subman of zig zagging but you Sir are the king of the zig zag.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

You asked "COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED?".

In all capital letters no less. So I provided case law that answered your question. But now having been proven wrong you now fall back with an attempt to invalidate one of the two judges who made the ruling.

Y'know you're accuse Subman of zig zagging but you Sir are the king of the zig zag.

Posting #234. I assume in your favour that of course you just have overseen it.

You may see that lawcase as a clear thing. I do not, for reasons indiocated by the passages I quoted from your reference. By that I pointed out my concerns, without writing another novel about it.

The judge is a bit controverse a figure indeed. Don't try to give the public an impression that by showing his background I replaced lacking arguments. I gave both.

I have adressed your request. I also said I am done in this thread. and btw, at that time I was engaged with Subman - not with you. As a matter of fact you may have spoken in his place, but fact remains that Subman made several claims the author of the texts I linked to and quoted has put into doubt by argument and refernces, and subman was completely unwilling or unable to put up counter-arguments. And except your attempt nothing of the material was adressed. Not even concerning those points that had been made statements about before by him. Instead he started playing games to avoid the authors arguments.

If an author's well-founded and illustrated different arguments simply get ignored instead of pointing out where he is wrong, the deicussion already is dead anyway and all people only hold monologues. and I see no reason in just reformulating the many arguments that author I quoted has given. It would still be the same content anyway.

This reply only because of your indirect attack on me. As I said - I am done in this threat.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

@Subman,

nice zig-zagging of yours. Will there come anything substantial from you? The guy gave solid references to legal aspects of the issue, and additionally referred to the questionable quality of several crime statistics as well. Can you, will you counter it, or zig-zag even more? I am no expert on these things, so if you can proove that it is all wrong what he says, me and probabaly others as well would be interested to learn about where the guy is misinformed. If you have substantial legal arguments, now is the time to bring them and give up loudness instead.

Did you bother to read my last post on the subject to you? I didn't zig zag. You are quoting in mass. If you feel like arguing a 'single' point, bring one specific point to the floor and we can argue about it. Then we can move on to 'another' point. Such a concept! Wow! What you post above is 50 pages of crap! I am not going to write a book on a forum thread!

So when you feel like getting specific and bringing one point from the subject to discuss, feel free. I am waiting.

-S

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Did you bother to read my last post on the subject to you? I didn't zig zag. You are quoting in mass. If you feel like arguing a 'single' point, bring one specific point to the floor and we can argue about it. Then we can move on to 'another' point. Such a concept! Wow! What you post above is 50 pages of crap! I am not going to write a book on a forum thread!

So when you feel like getting specific and bringing one point from the subject to discuss, feel free. I am waiting.

-S

Zig.

that guy gave opposing arguments to several of your statements you made during this thread. What further pointing do you need? You think he is wrong and you are right on these points? Okay, we are waiting.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Zig.

Hardly, but I can see how you want to degenerate the discussion into something resembling zig and zag to avoid the main points. The problem is, I see you don't have any. Thanks for trying.

-S

[Skybird]

Zag. (@subman)

So many post of yours, but actually prooving nothing, and giving your personal paroles instead. Plenty of arguments had been given to you that indicate you are wrong in several of your staements - and you don't take on it.

I think most readers have made their conclusions by now. Giving you links was not good enough. Quoting the text made you complain. Demanding you to proove that this fella is wrong on where he refutes your claims makes you evading even more.

Zig.

No need to continue for me here, it speaks for itself. Your place.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I'm sorry if this interrupts your skirmishes, but here is my view on firearms.

• Criminals have easy access to weapons. In a fight between mace and a Glock, who's going to win?
• I've yet to see alternative home defense methods being proposed by those who say 'all who posess guns are scum'
• Its my perogative as a person to protect my family
• Guns dont equal psychos. Look at shootings in history. Many have had motives rooted in society. Psychos dont act based on society.
• "I keep a gun in a gun locker, for home defense" - is that irresponsible?
• Two dead children, or a smoking gun and a dead paedophile?

Anyway, I know I'm going to get flak from someone, so might aswell get my opinions out.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Further investigation gave me a link to this text from 1788 that is worth to take note of:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

Your point Skybird? Hamilton had a lot of funny ideas, including that it was ok to fight duels. But if you want to play the "What the Founding Fathers meant" game here's another quote from the same time period:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

and another:

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

and another:

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

and another and just as key to this argument:

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)