Collarchat.com

Join Our Community		 Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:02:49 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemini1766

Nor is it a source that you can claim is the most credible. Find me an academic site, something typically ending in <dot>EDU instead. Anyone can put anything up on the wikipedia, and I know of people who purposely slant it to fit their desires.



Sorry I don't have time to educate your ignorant ass.  Just because a site is suspect doesn't mean what they post is automatically wrong, nor does getting it from a .edu site make it authoritative.  Why not actually read the book, as I have?  You could also download it from Googlebook. 

Bottom line, your ignorance on the subject cannot be covered up by attacking the source.

(in reply to Gemini1766)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:03:19 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		No I cited the Act correctly.

English Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the Parliament of England (1 Will. & Mar. sess. 2 c. 2) with the long title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown and also known by its short title, the Bill of Rights. It is one of the basic documents of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts. It also forms part of the law of some other...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights

The Settlement Act was 1671


< Message edited by Archer -- 3/19/2008 9:05:19 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:05:29 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		In retrospect, it's telling that gun proponents are reacting so vociferously to a court decision which has upheld the Second Amendment and interpreted it in a light favourable to gun ownership... The Supreme Court isn't taking away their rights, so why do they cry about it? What's there to worry about?

_____________________________



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:05:51 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
What guns do, is make it easier to kill people.


Yeah, I wouldn't want to soil my boots:
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1703261



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:06:22 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		General ...
 
Quite a few people would be willing to consider restrictions on gun ownership as a benefit to society, when and if the government eliminates guns in the hands of criminals, secure our borders, and increase the response time of police to rural areas.
 
And not before ...

_____________________________

I wish I could buy back ...
the woman you stole.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:09:04 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Quite a few people would be willing to consider restrictions on gun ownership as a benefit to society, when and if the government eliminates guns in the hands of criminals, secure our borders, and increase the response time of police to rural areas.
 
And not before ...



So basically... never  .

_____________________________



(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:12:18 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Kittensol mostly it is being celebrated early in the hearing of the case in dear sweet hope that it will be found the 2nd ammendment as an individual right because it has been a long fight after having had multiple court decissions used to interpret it as a collective right since the 1930's.

Rulings have been vauge and left alot of wiggle room. Both sides are hopeing for a solid ruling. (Likely as not we will be less than happy on both sides after the ruleing comes out)

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:12:47 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		My apologies. We are discussing the same document but using different titles, it is commonly referred to as the Act Of Settlement in Britain. There wasn't anything idealistic about that document and a world away from what the writers of the American constitution had in mind, it was purely a political document, entrenching protestant rule in Britain, as the first clause suggests

  • Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

    _____________________________

    There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

    (in reply to Archer)
    • Profile   Post #: 108
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:13:17 AM   
    Slavehandsome


    Posts: 382
    Joined: 9/19/2004
    Status: offline     		Perhaps what our Supreme Court needs to do is 'adjust' the ability of U.S. taxpayers to affect how our government runs and operates. 

    (in reply to kittinSol)
    Profile   Post #: 109
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:14:07 AM   
    meatcleaver


    Posts: 9030
    Joined: 3/13/2006
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
    What guns do, is make it easier to kill people.


    Yeah, I wouldn't want to soil my boots:
    http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1703261





    Yep, if the perpetrators had guns, no doubt both victims would be dead.

    _____________________________

    There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

    (in reply to SugarMyChurro)
    Profile   Post #: 110
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:14:59 AM   
    SimplyMichael


    Posts: 7229
    Joined: 1/7/2007
    Status: offline     		You are catching on Kitten.

    If we allow the governement to control anything that might bring harm to us, trust me, the internet and the press (worthless though it may be) will be first on the list.

    I always worry about people who want to "fix" others rather than look inward and that goes for governements as well.

    (in reply to kittinSol)
    Profile   Post #: 111
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:16:38 AM   
    caitlyn


    Posts: 3473
    Joined: 12/22/2004
    Status: offline     		Who knows.
     
    The last point will be the most difficult one ... response times of police in rural areas.
     
    Most people that feel strongly about regulating guns, live in heavily populated areas with a large and organized Police force. Response times in rural areas, can be very slow. 

    _____________________________

    I wish I could buy back ...
    the woman you stole.

    (in reply to kittinSol)
    Profile   Post #: 112
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:16:39 AM   
    kittinSol


    Posts: 16926
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

    You are catching on Kitten.



    Why am I feeling slightly patronised  ?

    _____________________________



    (in reply to SimplyMichael)
    Profile   Post #: 113
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:16:53 AM   
    Archer


    Posts: 3207
    Joined: 3/11/2005
    Status: offline     		I agree same basic document The Bill of Rights 1689 was the initial document suplemented by a couple reworkings, one of them being The Settlement Act 1671.

    My reference to it was based on the Idea that US Bill of Rights is almost certainly drawn in large part from these Acts.
    Where these Acts mention the right to bear arms for self defense, (and especially telling that they limit them to individuals of Protestent faith) would be a solid argument that the 2nd Ammendment is ment as an individual right. 

    (in reply to meatcleaver)
    Profile   Post #: 114
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:19:20 AM   
    slvemike4u


    Posts: 17896
    Joined: 1/15/2008
    From: United States
    Status: offline     		How should the Govt.go about removing guns from criminals if every attempt to restrict or place impediments in the way of gun ownership is met with vitriolic condemnation from the NRA.Does anyone really believe it's possible to diminish the amount of guns floating around illegally w/o impacting the so called responsible gun owner.Simple really keep manufacturing guns some will  find there way into the hands of criminals thereby the need for law abiding citizens to arm themselves.And we go round and round.And as someone posted earlier gun manufacturers and coffin makers live happily ever after

    (in reply to caitlyn)
    Profile   Post #: 115
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:21:30 AM   
    kittinSol


    Posts: 16926
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: caitlyn

    Most people that feel strongly about regulating guns, live in heavily populated areas with a large and organized Police force. Response times in rural areas, can be very slow. 



    If gun violence is more prevalent in urban areas, it would be logical that city-dwellers, being more at risk from guns, would argue in favour of gun control.

    Which would explain my position, as an ex-urbanite.


    _____________________________



    (in reply to caitlyn)
    Profile   Post #: 116
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:21:32 AM   
    SimplyMichael


    Posts: 7229
    Joined: 1/7/2007
    Status: offline     		Meatcleaver,

    Sometimes I don't get you.  You don't normally play games and yet you simply don't respond to inconvenient facts in this point and instead move on to a new argument.  Not like you at all.

    Secondly, anyone who still believes statistics that purport to show how guns are used against "loved ones" isn't paying attention.  Said "loved ones" include ex-husbands with restraining orders, gang banging kids, stalkers, etc.  A woman with a gun is unlikely to be set upon by kids with boots in the first place, and if they do, she isn't likely to run out of ammo before they run out of liquid courage.

    My ex, who was an animal rights activist and a vegan sure as hell wouldn't have missed, there would be a pile of dead hoodlums at her feet.  You don't hear about these things as often because the media and the police rarely play them up. I know a woman who killed two men, one who had a gun, with her bare hands and rock.  One would think a story like that would make the front page...never even made it into the back of the metro section.

    A scared and defenseless population dependent on the government for everything is so much easier to control, regardless if that government is fascist or socialist.

    (in reply to meatcleaver)
    Profile   Post #: 117
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:26:40 AM   
    Archer


    Posts: 3207
    Joined: 3/11/2005
    Status: offline     		Fact in error #1 the NRA has not opposed every control on gun ownership.
    In fact they supported the implimentation of the Instacheck system.

    counter to Idea of the need to infringe on law abiding citizens in order to effect a lessened criminal use.
    Project Exhile and it's various copies have reduced gun crimes in cities without inpacting the law abiding citizens.
    (Project exhile supported by the NRA, is a program in Richmond VA, and copied else where. The program is simple a dedicated federal law presecutor assigned to the City of Richmond VA. who prosecutes federally convicted felons arested for any crime and found to be in possession of a firearm. (ie convicted felon stopped for speeding and a gun is found in the car, criminal goes to prison on a federal gun charge.)

    Check up on the program and how effective it has been.

    (in reply to slvemike4u)
    Profile   Post #: 118
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:46:34 AM   
    meatcleaver


    Posts: 9030
    Joined: 3/13/2006
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

    A scared and defenseless population dependent on the government for everything is so much easier to control, regardless if that government is fascist or socialist.


    SimplyMichael, I would beg to differ. A scared and defenceless population isn't easy to control, I think the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions show that, there comes a tipping point when no one gives a damn anymore. People acquiesced to the Fascist regimes of Europe because they had something to lose, there was never a critical mass of the population willing to throw everything away. Populations that are easiest to control, I would argue, are those populations with something to lose, i.e. we in the west. We gladly fall for any propaganda and accept almost anything in our name and then free ourselves from guilt by rationalizing it away. Guns are an irrelevent part to our acquiescence, our acquiescence is a fact. If we applied the same rules that were applied to the German fascists in Nuremburg, most post war American and British governments and one could probably add the French to that, would have probably ended up hanging from a tree. Guns haven't and won't change that, guns can't fight the all pervading propaganda and people's willingness to hold onto to what they have until they have nothing, is what makes the propaganda more powerful than guns.

    I'm probably arguing against myself here by saying in the grand schem of things guns are an irrelevence.

    < Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/19/2008 9:48:30 AM >

    _____________________________

    There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

    (in reply to SimplyMichael)
    Profile   Post #: 119
    RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:47:48 AM   
    dcnovice


    Posts: 37282
    Joined: 8/2/2006
    Status: offline
    quote:

    Well DC if you can go buy a suitcase nuke, go for it.


    I'll pass, thanks. But do I have the Second Amendment right to own one?

    quote:

    you will find you can't.


    Why?

    _____________________________

    No matter how cynical you become,
    it's never enough to keep up.

    JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
    INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

    (in reply to luckydog1)
    Profile   Post #: 120
    Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts




    Collarchat.com © 2024
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

    0.086