And the shootings go on and on , and on, and on...

Sunny said:
So, let's try again - I can't wait to see the logic of your answer! This country is being held hostage to the terror inflicted by an evil organization that has bought off enough corrupt politicians to get their way. Enough sychophants have bought into the macho sexual symbolism to support this evil organization.
Click to expand...
Do you even know anything about the NRA? My husband and 2 sons are members, and I take offense at your clueless comments.

Go ahead, give up ALL your Constitutional rights. I'll keep mine, thanks.
 

911 said:
I was listening to Justice Scalia one night on Charlie Rose, which airs on PBS. He was addressing concerns on gun control and of course, the 2nd Amendment begins to be debated.

Justice Scalia made a comment that I thought was very interesting and gave me pause for thought. He said the following, which is not verbatim. “No court has ever defined exactly what a well regulated Militia is. Therefore, I see it as open to interpretation if I should be asked to rule on a case that would come before us. I could just as easily say that it is any one person, which would include you or I.” (Like I already stated, this is NOT verbatim.)

Camper6 said:
If I am allowed to comment, as a foreigner which some on this forum seem to resent, then I will say the word militia is plural in nature. I doubt you could call one person a militia.
You have already stated that the National Guard is regarded or recognized as the militia. I can agree with that. It seems to be a good fit.
I will agree that everyone might be a member of a well regulated militia. It seems to me that the term as written in the Second Amendment has no meaning now as intended by the founders since when it was written there was no standing army.
Once the standing army of the United States was initiated the state doesn't have to depend on a well regulated militia depending on civilians to defend the state.
The Constitution is one of my favourite (British spelling) topics. I study it as much as I can and try to learn about it as much as I can.
Click to expand...
\
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Here is the holding of the Supreme court on the subject of the individual right to bear arms and militia service.

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL.
v.
HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07–290.

Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. "


This case is still good law and has not been overturned; several challenges have been made to the law, but they have failed.
 

rgp said:
Stirring the flames ? Really ? ........why, because I do not agree with you ?

Germany did nothing of the sort.....that was the Nazi's

And since you're going down the road of name calling ..[curmudgeonly muttering]..... your post sounded very much like the uneducated babble of an airhead .
Click to expand...

And just who do you believe were the Nazis? Little ol' ladies from Pasadena?

Of course it was the Germans -- not all of them, as they were quick to point out when I lived there for ten years -- but it WAS the Germans who elected Hitler and/or who stood by and let him take control of the Reichstag and the army and the country and many of whom willingly (and some quite enthusiastically) participated in his regime and his policies and atrocities.

Take a look at the Nuremberg trials, and particularly the trials of the judges and other civilian authorities if you doubt that the Germans participated.

GEEZ!
 
At this post #431 I think this will be my final opinion post

I think I know where I go wrong in my posts about gun deaths. I don't think mass deaths by an assault rifle are more tragic than the deaths when a gun with less fire power are used. Let me be CLEAR I believe all death caused by someone using a gun to kill another human being are equally tragic.

I found this web site that tracks death by gun. At 25 per page on page 18 from August 31, 2019 to today September 13, 2019 450 people have died via the use of a gun. The lists show some cases of two people dead and a few 3 people dead. I randomly chose this one where 3 people died.
1499195 September 7, 2019 Tennessee Hermitage 3213 Dockside Dr.
Probably murder/suicide using a 357 magnum.

No doubt assault rifes make mass murders possible. I may be missing something I just don't get what makes mass death any more horrendous than the 450 deaths by other than an assault rifle. The common factor human/humans. Use of a gun is easier & IMO impersonal, but take away guns and alternatives are still possible.

1https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deaths

To clarify. I didn't say I don't like pizza.When younger and fat, pizza was eaten because it was easy buy on the way home from work. Now with having learned about what contributes to good health, I know junk food is a waste of calories. Between a good protein like NY strip steak that can cost less than a pizza. For me NY strip wins every time.
 
JimW said:
No court may have ever defined what a well regulated militia is, but if you look at the time period in which the constitution was written with no standing military, it's pretty obvious the word militia was never meant to mean one person. Scalia towed the party line on this one.
Click to expand...

I have no argument with your perception of what a militia is, but if you read Scalia's opinion that he wrote for the majority in the D.C. vs. Heller case, he goes way beyond of what a militia is and why it shouldn't or doesn't just pertain to such. He also includes parts of the Constitution's Preamble, as well as the 9th and 10th amendments.

What I found even more interesting was to read was Justice Breyer's opinion he wrote for the dissenting Justices. It made me thankful that their side didn

I don't know if you ever sat in during a Supreme Court oral argument session, but I found it to be very educational. Thankfully, the oral arguments last only about an hour.
Butterfly said:
And just who do you believe were the Nazis? Little ol' ladies from Pasadena?

Of course it was the Germans -- not all of them, as they were quick to point out when I lived there for ten years -- but it WAS the Germans who elected Hitler and/or who stood by and let him take control of the Reichstag and the army and the country and many of whom willingly (and some quite enthusiastically) participated in his regime and his policies and atrocities.

Take a look at the Nuremberg trials, and particularly the trials of the judges and other civilian authorities if you doubt that the Germans participated.

GEEZ!
Click to expand...
I believe that there are still some appeals pending. Whether the Supreme Court will hear them or not is dependent upon the plaintiffs if they wish to pursue the matter, which is also dependent upon the ruling from the Appellate Courts. They will have to wait until the appellate courts hand down a ruling.

It seems like a lot of money being spent on motions asking for relief from the gun laws, but if the gun laws aren’t changed or the ruling from the Supreme Court does not reverse itself or Congress doesn’t rewrite the 2nd Amendment, the status quo will exist.

My point is (or more like a question) if none of the above happens, why continue to pursue appeals since the Supreme Court has ruled. Are these plaintiffs looking for a reversal of the ruling? Probably not to happen, or at least not until the Court sees some new blood on the bench.
 
Last edited:
or at least not until the Court sees some new blood on the bench
Click to expand...

Or at least not until the court sees some actual blood on their bench. The blood of members of the judiciary. Then the problem would become very personal.

Please note, I am not calling for such an event, however there are parts of the world where judges have in the past been targets. It takes a very brave man or woman to continue doing their job in those circumstances.
 
Butterfly said:
I stated a fact, which is that you do not vote here. No hassle, just a fact -- like that I do not vote in Canada so my opinion won't matter there, either.
Click to expand...
So does that mean I am prohibited from posting comments here?
We weren't talking about if it matters or not since nothing we post here matters much except to those reading and posting as a matter of opinion.
I doubt that the White House is monitoring this forum.
It might not seem like a hassle to you but not to me. Because you don't vote in Canada I wouldn't hassle you if you wanted to comment on anything happening there.
Someone has commented if memory serves correct. Comparing Canada to a nation of sheep.
I only wish. Canada now is starting to get gun deaths like we never had before and the reason is guns imported from the United States and drug wars.
I have to laugh because the Surgeon General in the U.S. posts warnings on beer cans.
Canada doesn't bother.
 
Last edited:
rgp said:
Exactly right....and you do not live here. If you change your mind ? accept our gun law, come in legally. Then your opinion will mean something. Then work to change what you may not like, & I will accept the results.
Click to expand...
So now you are in immigration telling me I have to accept your gun laws when I arrive legally?

There are all kinds of people who live in the U.S. and don't accept the gun laws.
 
911. It seems like a lot of money being spent on motions asking for relief from the gun laws, but if the gun laws aren’t changed or the ruling from the Supreme Court does not reverse itself or Congress doesn’t rewrite the 2nd Amendment, the status quo will exist.

Gun laws can be changed without a rewrite of the 2nd Amendment.

For instance. Improving the background checks. There are two recent mass murders that could have been stopped if the background check was not faulty.

The Sutherland Hills church shooting for one. There's no way that person should have been able to buy a gun legally.
 
Knight said:
At this post #431 I think this will be my final opinion post

I think I know where I go wrong in my posts about gun deaths. I don't think mass deaths by an assault rifle are more tragic than the deaths when a gun with less fire power are used. Let me be CLEAR I believe all death caused by someone using a gun to kill another human being are equally tragic.





I found this web site that tracks death by gun. At 25 per page on page 18 from August 31, 2019 to today September 13, 2019 450 people have died via the use of a gun. The lists show some cases of two people dead and a few 3 people dead. I randomly chose this one where 3 people died.
1499195 September 7, 2019 Tennessee Hermitage 3213 Dockside Dr.
Probably murder/suicide using a 357 magnum.

No doubt assault rifes make mass murders possible. I may be missing something I just don't get what makes mass death any more horrendous than the 450 deaths by other than an assault rifle. The common factor human/humans. Use of a gun is easier & IMO impersonal, but take away guns and alternatives are still possible.

1https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deaths

To clarify. I didn't say I don't like pizza.When younger and fat, pizza was eaten because it was easy buy on the way home from work. Now with having learned about what contributes to good health, I know junk food is a waste of calories. Between a good protein like NY strip steak that can cost less than a pizza. For me NY strip wins every time.
Click to expand...

Butterfly said:
Here is the holding of the Supreme court on the subject of the individual right to bear arms and militia service.

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL.
v.
HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07–290.

Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. "


This case is still good law and has not been overturned; several challenges have been made to the law, but they have failed.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that you cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.
 
rgp said:
You just must stick your nose into an exchange that does not even involve you...........pathetic .
Click to expand...

You are not a moderator nor an administrator. Therefore you have no authority over what other people can or can not say on this forum. Furthermore I am of the opinion that this forum has no restrictions with regard to what posters from outside the US can say regarding issues within the US. So perhaps you are the one that is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.
 
Trade said:
You are not a moderator nor an administrator. Therefore you have no authority over what other people can or can not say on this forum. Furthermore I am of the opinion that this forum has no restrictions with regard to what posters from outside the US can say regarding issues within the US. So perhaps you are the one that is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...


Grasping at straws.....pathetic.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top