Killers love guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel4
  • Start date Start date
Lowaicue said:
If so many of you think that death is the answer to everything why can't you promote the idea within your own party?
You are all barking bloody mad!
Click to expand...

We'll start the peacemaking by withdrawing America's commitment to your country's defense. Done.

Anyway, I work in an air defense sector under NORAD. All we do is watch the skies over the US and Canada to make sure everyone is safe.

You can hardly say that I promote death within the military. That said, you are fucking retarded if you think disarmament will do anything except get innocent people killed. It is a government's duty to protect the public from attack.
 
The Supreme Court cast aside the 1939 precedent of Miller, and when the makeup of the court changes this year, Heller could be revisited as well.

The original text of what became the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives in the first session of the First Congress read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The Bill of Rights introduced by James Madison was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights was to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The sentence that became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4, which list individual rights, instead of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which specify the Congress's power over the state militias.

Debate in the House focused on whether a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion, and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review.

No official records were kept of the committee's proceedings, but the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment. That version was read into the Journal: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "maladministration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution.

These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe.

The Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause.

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defense" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was: A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to".

The final version read "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". This was the version transmitted to the states for ratification.

The individual rights viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted.

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley made a collective right judicial interpretation. The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution."

The true (and only) subject under active debate when the 2nd Amendment was framed was the militia.
 
Last edited:
Do that. PLEASE. We chucked your fat arses off Greenham Common.




Threedee said:
We'll start the peacemaking by withdrawing America's commitment to your country's defense. Done.

Anyway, I work in an air defense sector under NORAD. All we do is watch the skies over the US and Canada to make sure everyone is safe.

You can hardly say that I promote death within the military. That said, you are fucking retarded if you think disarmament will do anything except get innocent people killed. It is a government's duty to protect the public from attack.
Click to expand...
 
Lowaicue said:
If so many of you think that death is the answer to everything why can't you promote the idea within your own party?
You are all barking bloody mad!
Click to expand...

It is a sad fact of life in this world that some people just need to be killed. That is what puts some Americans head and shoulders above everyone else. It's why the flock (that's you) turns the responsibility for their safety in to the hands of government instead of taking it on themselves. They've given up their duty to help make the world safe for society.
 
And there it is. The insane American justification for invading more independant countries than ANY other since WWII.
Murdering arseholes. The only thing you know is America and you don't know that very well. Stay there and get the fuck out of our lives.



SmarterThanYou said:
It is a sad fact of life in this world that some people just need to be killed. That is what puts some Americans head and shoulders above everyone else. It's why the flock (that's you) turns the responsibility for their safety in to the hands of government instead of taking it on themselves. They've given up their duty to help make the world safe for society.
Click to expand...
 
Lowaicue said:
And there it is. The insane American justification for invading more independant countries than ANY other since WWII.
Murdering arseholes. The only thing you know is America and you don't know that very well. Stay there and get the fuck out of our lives.
Click to expand...

On this point we agree. The US needs to stop meddling in the affairs of other nations.
 
The Supreme Court cast aside the 1939 precedent of Miller, and when the makeup of the court changes this year, Heller could be revisited as well.

The original text of what became the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives in the first session of the First Congress read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The Bill of Rights introduced by James Madison was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights was to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The sentence that became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4, which list individual rights, instead of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which specify the Congress's power over the state militias.

Debate in the House focused on whether a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion, and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review.

No official records were kept of the committee's proceedings, but the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment. That version was read into the Journal: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "maladministration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution.

These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe.

The Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause.

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defense" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was: A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to".

The final version read "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". This was the version transmitted to the states for ratification.

The individual rights viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted.

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley made a collective right judicial interpretation. The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution."

The true (and only) subject under active debate when the 2nd Amendment was framed was the militia.
 
DNC said:
The final version read "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". This was the version transmitted to the states for ratification.

The individual rights viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted.
Click to expand...
what a crock of shit, as I will now demonstrate that you're totally ignorant about the constitution....

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

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...[T]he 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.

[W]hereas, 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.

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2

Justice Story was appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811. In 1833 he wrote, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" His comments on the Second Amendment follow.

"The next amendment 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.' "

"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid."



DNC said:
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley made a collective right judicial interpretation. The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution."
Click to expand...

In typical liberalistic judicial tyranny, the Kansas supreme court ignored dozens of earlier state cases across the nation clearly stating the individual rights of citizens to keep and bear all arms.

Nunn v. State in 1846 had declared invalid a statutory prohibition on breast pistols on the basis of the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution:

The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and state governments-nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning...Is this a right reserved to the State or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution and void, which contravenes this right...

In 1850, while holding that a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons was not in violation of the Second Amendment, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Chandler reasoned that the right to carry arms openly "placed men upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defense of themselves, if necessary, and of their country..."


The Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Kerner (1921) declared that the right to keep and bear arms was "a sacred right based upon the experience of the ages in order that the people may be accustomed to bear arms and ready to use them for protection of their liberties or their country when occasion serves."

It is true that the invention of guns with a carrying range of probably 100 miles, submarines, deadly gases, and of airplanes carrying bombs and other devices, have much reduced the importance of the pistol in warfare except at close range. But the ordinary private citizen, whose right to carry arms cannot be infringed upon, is not likely to purchase these expensive and most modern devices just named. To him the rifle, the musket, the shotgun, and the pistol are about the only arms which he could be expected to "bear," and his right to do this is that which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Brown (1931) upheld the sentence of life imprisonment of a recidivist felon convicted of possessing a blackjack. Reviewing the nature of the historical militia as being "composed of all able-bodied men," the Michigan Supreme Court rejected (a) the view that individuals may bear only such arms as are customary in the militia and (b) the extreme view...that the Constitution only protects military organizations. The court reasoned:

When the bulwark of state defense was the militia, privately armed, there may have been good reason for the historical and military test of the right to bear arms. But in this state the militia, although legally existent and composed of all able-bodied male citizens..., is practically extinct and has been superseded by the National Guard and reserve organizations...The historical test would render the constitutional provision lifeless.
 
Regulate and raise taxes on guns and ammunition until we get control of the problem. That's plan B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top