McDonald for Dummies... - Page 5
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

Thread: McDonald for Dummies...

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    We're not talking about Laws, we're talking about Freedoms, most especially those Freedoms delineated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There's no Constitutional guarantee either to make liquor or to drink it, just as there is no guarantee of education or a driver's license. What you seem to be doing is bowing to the way things are being run rather than standing up for the way they're supposed to be as designed by the Founders. That's a path to destruction, my friend, and a road to Hell if ever there was one. If you're going to acquiesce to the way the "real world" is being run I guess you have no reason to complain when they come for YOUR guns, which leads me to ask...What, then, are you doing here? This is the wrong venue for complacency with respect to your "real world". You must be able to see that the Majority - here - are at odds with your way of seeing these issues. Doesn't the 'majority rule' here? Or are you trying to change our minds...?
    I've seen a lot of variety in the expression of opinion here. Are you suggesting that this forum is only for people that agree with you? Perhaps you should stop reading my posts if they upset you so much.

    But look on the bright side, at least you have learned that the Bill of Rights consist of ten amendments ratified by 3/4ths vote about 4 years after the Constitution was adopted. Is there a reason you fear such knowledge?

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I've seen a lot of variety in the expression of opinion here. Are you suggesting that this forum is only for people that agree with you? Perhaps you should stop reading my posts if they upset you so much.

    But look on the bright side, at least you have learned that the Bill of Rights consist of ten amendments ratified by 3/4ths vote about 4 years after the Constitution was adopted. Is there a reason you fear such knowledge?
    Thank you for making my point. You ARE, most definitely, allowed to think whatever you want just as are we all. Similarly, we are all allowed to have our own opinions - and exercise them! - about how we want to express our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights! No one...and no majority!...should be able to tell us what to do within the confines of the law and others' rights.

    Your posts don't upset me...and I certainly don't fear your goofy efforts to "educate" me. I was making a point.

    As for the "ten amendments" comment, I saw that before. You're trying to equate an agreement among members of a committee about how they are going to conduct their business and about how Amendments will be ratified among the States with the Bill of Rights, and the comparison fails. Apples and Oranges.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32° & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  4. #43
    Perhaps you should stop reading my posts if they upset you so much.

    Finally one thing he said that makes sense. Perhaps we should all put him on ignore list. I am not upset but I have better things to do than argue with someone that thinks he is the "knower of all good things to know."
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #44
    Dig this...It actually would be good to have an ernest conversation with someone who doesn't believe the Constitution means what it says. I mean, I would like to know the logic and cogent thought processes they employ to arrive at the conclusions that they do. I read "...shall not be infringed" and wonder how anyone comprehends anything differently than I do. It's like we both watch a H-D Electraglide go down the road, the machine says H-D Electraglide all the hell over it and your friend says that's a nice Corvette. What??

    Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, I don't know) the conversations typcially degenerate into insult and sneering sarcasm on the part of my anti-2A acquaintances, including the ones who come to play on this site, as they realize they are boxed into a corner. Like all liberals and socialists do, because their ideas and vision for the country do not hold up under scrutiny.

  6. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    What I described is a hypothetical - make it the people of the United States instead of Utah...the entity is not the critical fact.

    But hey, if you have learned nothing else at least you now know that Bill of Rights is made up of ten amendments to the Constitution that were adopted by 3/4ths ratification 4 years after the Constitution was adopted.
    “To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.” - Amos Bronson Alcott

    I know the same thing now as I did before you started spewing your fubar & speculative conjecture & and self-righteously pious tripe...

    Constitutional Republic 101: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
    By Stewart Rhodes (Retired Army Ranger, Yale Educated Attorney & Noted Scholar on the Constitution & Second Amendment and founder of OathKeepers):

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    You were warned, you are now on the permanent ignore list...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  7. #46

    Chicago Illinois Gun Rights...



    Wrestling with gun rights


    Chicago's handgun ban, before U.S. Supreme Court, should be voided.

    May 23rd, 2010

    Joyce Lee Malcolm is a professor of law at George Mason University School of Law The case of Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old black man living in a drug-infested neighborhood of Chicago, is now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. McDonald's home has been broken into three times, and drug dealers have threatened him. He would like a gun to protect himself.

    Two years ago, in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees individuals such as McDonald the right to keep a handgun in their homes for self-defense. In doing so, the court overturned the D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional. But the court's decision affected only the District of Columbia statute. McDonald remains subject to Chicago's handgun ban, a statute virtually identical to the Washington ban that the court rejected. In the case of McDonald v. the City of Chicago, the court will decide whether to incorporate the Second Amendment, as it has other fundamental rights, so that its protection must be respected by our cities and states.


    The Chicago gun ban, in place since 1982, forbids residents from keeping a handgun in their homes. Any gun owned before that law was passed, or any long gun kept in the home, must be kept disassembled and locked. It cannot be assembled even in case of a break-in. It cannot be carried from one room to another within the home. Moreover, a firearm must be re-registered every year. The city fathers of Chicago accept no excuse for failure to re-register a firearm - not hospitalization, amputation, not death.


    Is the right to keep a gun for self-defense a fundamental right deserving of incorporation? Self-defense has always been seen as the first law of nature, so basic that legal experts believed no government could take it away. English common law recognized three great and primary rights: personal security, personal liberty, private property. The Declaration of Independence regarded as unalienable the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Life first.


    The Supreme Court found the right to be armed preexisted the Constitution and that when the Second Amendment stated, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it intended to protect an individual right. Despite the suggestion of some critics, this is no new right. It is the most ancient of rights.


    Of course, the framers of the Constitution lived in what we like to characterize as "a simpler time." Is it sensible to trust ordinary citizens with firearms when there are police to protect them? Won't more guns increase violence?


    The Washington and Chicago gun bans have not made those cities safer places. Thirty years after the imposition of the Washington ban, Washington's homicide rate compared with that of 49 other major U.S. cities was higher than it had been before the ban. Disarming law-abiding citizens removes an important deterrent.


    But can we rely on the police to protect us? The reason the use of force in self-defense has always been justifiable at law is because the authorities cannot protect everyone, or indeed anyone all the time. Moreover, the courts have found police are not obliged to protect us.


    In the case of Warren v. District of Columbia, three young women sued the District of Columbia because the police failed to protect them. Men had burst into their townhouse and attacked their roommate downstairs. Hearing her screams, they called 911 repeatedly for over half an hour. When the screams stopped, they assumed the police had arrived and went downstairs only to be seized by the intruders. The police had lost track of their calls. All three women were brutally abused for 14 hours. D.C.'s highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals. They have a general obligation to protect everyone but not an obligation to protect anyone.


    There is understandable concern that if the Supreme Court decides to incorporate the Second Amendment, it will mean the end of all state and city regulation of firearms. That is not so. For example, the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment was incorporated more than 40 years ago, but states still differ, sometimes markedly, on what they regard as "cruel and unusual."
    And while the justices warned in the Heller opinion that "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," they explained that reasonable regulations such as prohibitions against possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding carrying firearms in sensitive places, were permissible. What is not permissible is depriving law-abiding individuals of the means to protect themselves.


    If, as the justices concluded, the Second Amendment "elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Otis McDonald should win his case.

    E-mail Joyce Lee Malcolm at [email protected]. Joyce Lee Malcolm will be cohosting
    a national video-conference on the McDonald case for high school students from 12:30 to 2 p.m. Thursday at the National Constitution Center. The local schools participating are Abington High School, Science Leadership Academy of Philadelphia, and Springfield (Delco) High School. View the broadcast live at http://www.constitutioncenter.org/exchange

    Wrestling with gun rights | Philadelphia Inquirer | 05/23/2010

    Can government prohibit citizens from owning handguns?

    The debate about the Second Amendment is once again in the national spotlight, as the Supreme Court considers whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to the states as well as to the federal government. The question presented to the Court is whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Due Process Clause.” Learn more »

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    The McDonald decision will end total handgun bans, and change "may issue" states into "shall issue" states at least as far as owning a firearm for use as a home defense weapon. Beyond that there will be much left to be determined by the political proces and future litigation.

    I think the Nordyke v. King case out of the 9th circuit is going to me even more important. That case held that the 2nd amendment does apply to the states, but that a county could still ban all firearms from all county owned property. The full court decided to review the opinion and then put the review on hold waiting for the McDonald decision.

    After McDonald is decided (an assuming it holds as expected that the 2nd amendment applies to the states), then the 9th Circuit will address the reasonable regulation aspect.

    If the 9th Circuit upholds the regulation, we can only hope that the SCOTUS grants Certiorari and reverses, otherwise mayors like Bloomberg will push for laws banning all firearms from any public place where children might be, which would effectively ban handguns from NYC other than in the home.
    I believe that the Supreme Court has already noted that this is not a concealed carry issue at all. It is all about ownership which is looked at as a right. The CCW is a privelege which is still going to be heavily regulated. McDonald will likely not do anything for the may issue states. That is not the issue at hand.

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska444 View Post
    I believe that the Supreme Court has already noted that this is not a concealed carry issue at all. It is all about ownership which is looked at as a right. The CCW is a privilege which is still going to be heavily regulated. McDonald will likely not do anything for the may issue states. That is not the issue at hand.
    I Still have yet to see where the founding fathers stipulated...

    "Shall Not Be Infringed" Except...
    If your zip code is x, your standing at y, or the type or class of weapon or firearm you wish to carry is z; or if you wish to carry said weapon/firearm openly or concealed...

    Seeing how Thomas Jefferson whom was primary responsible for the Second Amendment to begin with was known to at all times be armed and concealed more often then not; and never once wrote a word about concealed or any other limitations for that matter; its pretty hard to swallow that the founders intended for there to be any exceptions between open/concealed carry or limitations on type/class of firearm or weapon...

    The States NEVER had the right to impose stipulations on the Second Amendment or any other rights, they usurped that right...

    "The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit" - Ted Nugent

    Constitutional Republic 101: Your Rights Don't Come From Government ...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    The Second Amendment (Concealed Or Open, Regardless of Type/Class of Firearm/Weapon) IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    Nope. We need to punish folks for REAL crimes and have truth in sentencing. Anyone who can't be trusted with a firearm can't be trusted with a baseball bat, a kitchen kinfe, an automobile, a chain saw, etc. etc. These individuals need to be locked up in prisons or asylums. There is no such thing as an illegal gun.
    We already have the harshest prison terms in the world and we lock up more than in Russia or China according to several articles that I have read. That has not worked. Having spent a fair amount of time preaching in a maximum security prison, the unbelievable reality is that many of these folks feel more secure in some ways in prision than back home on the streets. Until the Lord gets ahold of their heart, they will be a danger to all society whether behind bars or not. One more issue to consider, they run the gangs from the prison, so just because they are locked up, you may not be any safer with all of the soldier they have on the streets. Not sure what the secular answer is, but we already have the toughest sentences in the western world.

    When this country gets back to II Chronicles 7:14, then maybe we will get some where again.

  11. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska444 View Post
    We already have the harshest prison terms in the world and we lock up more than in Russia or China according to several articles that I have read. That has not worked. Having spent a fair amount of time preaching in a maximum security prison, the unbelievable reality is that many of these folks feel more secure in some ways in prision than back home on the streets. Until the Lord gets ahold of their heart, they will be a danger to all society whether behind bars or not. One more issue to consider, they run the gangs from the prison, so just because they are locked up, you may not be any safer with all of the soldier they have on the streets. Not sure what the secular answer is, but we already have the toughest sentences in the western world.

    When this country gets back to II Chronicles 7:14, then maybe we will get some where again.
    Harsh Prison terms & Sentencing in the U.S. ?

    Please...

    Nobody's hands or feet were ever cut off for robbery, theft, etc., in the U.S. ...
    Rapist's in the U.S. don't get hung or life sentences...

    Russian Gulag's, Sing-Sing... those are Prisons...

    With the exception of Fort Leavenworth Prison (the only prison with a zero return rate) the majority of our U.S. prisons in general are like summer camp...

    Great Health Care, 3-Squares, Tax Payer Funded Education, T.V., air-conditioning, heating, no worries ...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 11:19 PM
  2. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago
    By lukem in forum Illinois Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 01:27 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2010, 11:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast