Firearms yes or no

[Godboo]

Somewhat off topic but whatever.

The second amendment was written so militiamen could fight against the British in the American Revolution. It gives people leverage over their government in case that government tries to become tyrannical.

The second amendment wasn't written to give people a means of personal self defense against fellow citizens, that's just an unintended consequence.

The intention of the 2nd Amendment is still very much relevant today. If the US government tries to become oppressive, the people have a means of revolution. The 2nd Amendment only becomes important when the government tries to take it away.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Fish

You want to compare a lunatic with your army? :hmm:

Wouldn't it take a lunatic army to invade the US too? :hmm: So yes is the answer to the question.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Are you talking the liberal biased whacko that made the 30 reason list? Whya re you reposting it?

Can you counter in substantial, legal argument any of what the man says in argument and says by referring to lawsuits and valid laws and remarks on the second amandement, yes or no?

Labelling someone as a "liberal leftist whacko" does honour to a pubescent male teen trying to impress his girlfriend by behaving loud - beyond that, it is pointless. so please, enlighten us: could you counter what the man says on the legal situation, yes or no?

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

[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 Skybird

Can you counter in substantial, legal argument any of what the man says in argument and says by referring to lawsuits and valid laws and remarks on the second amandement, yes or no?

Labelling someone as a "liberal leftist whacko" does honour to a pubescent male teen trying to impress his girlfriend by behaving loud - beyond that, it is pointless. so please, enlighten us: could you counter what the man says on the legal situation, yes or no?

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

Pretty much all of it has a counter argument. I am not going to post a 50 mile long thread against all of it. I do not write books on a forum like you do. If you want to pick a subject out of his mix, then fine, by all means, lets discuss it. But to just post all that crap in mass, forget it. This is a forum remember?

-S

[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?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

[This is coming from the same people that listened to the Nazi's.

Is that necessary?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Fish

Is that necessary?

You attack me and my country in a similar fasion, turn about is fair play. So yes.

-S

[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

[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]

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

[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

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?

[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