HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » former Chief Justice Burg...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:31 AM

former Chief Justice Burger - individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of

fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

not Burger-
"Until that time (Heller), legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the Second Amendment protected only a state’s right to maintain a militia, and not an individual’s right to bear arms independent of the state’s need for a militia. (The amendment provides, somewhat awkwardly and ambiguously, that “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.”) In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican, said that the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Yet just seventeen years later, in Heller, five justices proclaimed that the Framers had intended to protect an individual right to bear arms."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/our-romance-guns/?pagination=false

so it took 17 years, how long will it take to fix it? 17 days?

did anybody think he was gonna say CRAP?

220 replies, 11935 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 220 replies Author Time Post
Reply former Chief Justice Burger - individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of (Original post)
farminator3000 Dec 2012 OP
Skittles Dec 2012 #1
Historic NY Dec 2012 #2
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #3
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #14
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #68
world wide wally Dec 2012 #4
4bucksagallon Dec 2012 #5
former9thward Dec 2012 #12
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #24
former9thward Dec 2012 #25
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #27
former9thward Dec 2012 #28
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #29
former9thward Dec 2012 #34
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #35
former9thward Dec 2012 #36
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #37
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #49
former9thward Dec 2012 #55
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #50
former9thward Dec 2012 #52
lastlib Dec 2012 #32
former9thward Dec 2012 #33
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #53
former9thward Dec 2012 #56
Hugabear Dec 2012 #96
former9thward Dec 2012 #109
lastlib Dec 2012 #145
beevul Dec 2012 #125
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #47
former9thward Dec 2012 #51
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #64
theKed Dec 2012 #124
former9thward Dec 2012 #131
theKed Dec 2012 #140
former9thward Dec 2012 #148
bongbong Dec 2012 #154
theKed Dec 2012 #160
bongbong Dec 2012 #163
former9thward Dec 2012 #165
bongbong Dec 2012 #168
shintao Dec 2012 #60
sellitman Dec 2012 #155
otohara Dec 2012 #182
A Simple Game Dec 2012 #39
former9thward Dec 2012 #41
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #57
former9thward Dec 2012 #58
A Simple Game Dec 2012 #75
former9thward Dec 2012 #107
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #54
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #46
SomethingFishy Dec 2012 #61
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #87
former9thward Dec 2012 #187
TSBprm6 Dec 2012 #181
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #40
4bucksagallon Dec 2012 #98
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #99
4bucksagallon Dec 2012 #100
missionkam Dec 2012 #101
Abq_Sarah Dec 2012 #133
X_Digger Dec 2012 #161
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #162
X_Digger Dec 2012 #167
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #192
X_Digger Dec 2012 #194
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #195
X_Digger Dec 2012 #196
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #197
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #199
X_Digger Dec 2012 #200
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #204
X_Digger Dec 2012 #207
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #198
X_Digger Dec 2012 #201
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #202
X_Digger Dec 2012 #203
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #205
X_Digger Dec 2012 #208
bongbong Dec 2012 #218
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #206
X_Digger Dec 2012 #209
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #210
X_Digger Dec 2012 #212
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #213
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #215
X_Digger Dec 2012 #217
ladjf Dec 2012 #6
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #8
ladjf Dec 2012 #31
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #38
ladjf Dec 2012 #93
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #94
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #7
Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #9
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #10
former9thward Dec 2012 #13
duffyduff Dec 2012 #16
former9thward Dec 2012 #18
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #43
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #19
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #44
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #67
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #70
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #86
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #66
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #71
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #42
former9thward Dec 2012 #48
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #59
former9thward Dec 2012 #62
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #80
rrneck Dec 2012 #11
hack89 Dec 2012 #15
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #17
Lex Dec 2012 #20
hack89 Dec 2012 #21
Lex Dec 2012 #22
hack89 Dec 2012 #23
Lex Dec 2012 #26
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #97
hughee99 Dec 2012 #30
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #45
Marengo Dec 2012 #103
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #105
Whovian Dec 2012 #63
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #65
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #69
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #72
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #74
X_Digger Dec 2012 #73
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #77
X_Digger Dec 2012 #79
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #81
X_Digger Dec 2012 #82
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #83
X_Digger Dec 2012 #84
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #85
X_Digger Dec 2012 #88
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #89
X_Digger Dec 2012 #90
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #91
X_Digger Dec 2012 #92
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #95
X_Digger Dec 2012 #104
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #106
X_Digger Dec 2012 #108
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #110
X_Digger Dec 2012 #111
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #112
X_Digger Dec 2012 #113
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #114
X_Digger Dec 2012 #116
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #117
X_Digger Dec 2012 #118
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #120
X_Digger Dec 2012 #121
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #123
beevul Dec 2012 #126
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #127
beevul Dec 2012 #128
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #129
beevul Dec 2012 #132
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #149
underthematrix Dec 2012 #76
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #78
patrice Dec 2012 #102
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #115
hansberrym Dec 2012 #119
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #122
hansberrym Dec 2012 #135
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #139
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #130
hansberrym Dec 2012 #134
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #136
hansberrym Dec 2012 #137
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #142
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #150
hansberrym Dec 2012 #164
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #170
hansberrym Dec 2012 #171
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #173
hansberrym Dec 2012 #174
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #176
hansberrym Dec 2012 #179
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #180
hansberrym Dec 2012 #183
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #184
hansberrym Dec 2012 #185
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #186
hansberrym Dec 2012 #188
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #190
hansberrym Dec 2012 #219
hansberrym Dec 2012 #138
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #141
hansberrym Dec 2012 #143
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #144
hansberrym Dec 2012 #146
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #147
hansberrym Dec 2012 #151
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #153
hansberrym Dec 2012 #166
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #172
beevul Dec 2012 #157
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #158
beevul Dec 2012 #159
CommonSense4CG.com Dec 2012 #152
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #156
hansberrym Dec 2012 #169
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #175
hansberrym Dec 2012 #177
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #178
ecstatic Dec 2012 #189
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #191
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #193
stklurker Dec 2012 #211
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #214
stklurker Dec 2012 #216
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #220

Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:37 AM

1. good read

ugh:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:13 AM

2. All you have to do is read what the framers had in mind....

during the various state Constitutional Conventions. Many debates and various versions of the bill of rights.

New York, Massachusettes, New Hampshire, Virginia......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:54 AM

3. Personally, the existence of inherent countries, laws, and rights

are the biggest fraud I have seen in my lifetime. Just my subjective point of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:56 PM

14. "my subjective point of view' is redundant. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:35 PM

68. I agree, but I was trying to make a point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:20 AM

4. Of course it's a fraud. At the time the Constitution was written, we had no standing army and the

British were a constant threat. Now we have a standing army and no militia, so that right is totally distorted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:04 AM

5. I am more than willing to give them the right to bear arms.........

as long as they go back to the arms that were around during the time of the founding of our country. Not that people can't be killed by them but we would not be seeing mass murders perpetrated by individuals. If these nuts want to drag around a musket or put a flintlock pistol in their waistband I say have at it. It would take 20+ armed men with those ancient weapons to do the damage done by one lone nutcase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4bucksagallon (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:26 PM

12. So the first amendment will only apply to material produced on printing presses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:13 PM

24. Excellent false equivalency

 

The gun nut loves a good false equivalency as much as he likes squeezing off rounds at the firing range with the rest of the gun nuts.

BTW, how many people has a printing press killed this year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:45 PM

25. Except you never answered the question.

Just because you say it is "false equivalency" does not make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:57 PM

27. You never asked me the question

 

I was merely pointing and laughing at the tortured logic of a gun nut.

But I'll be your Huckleberry.

My answer: No.

Now, tell me again how many people the printing press has killed this year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:32 PM

28. If you answer No then consistent logic is your enemy.

But you know that. I don't know how many people the printing press has killed this year. I suspect it is far lower than the number killed by drunk drivers. So by that logic we should ban alcohol. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:42 PM

29. Ahh yes, the gun nut alcohol false equivalency

 

Same as the gun nut Big Mac-trans fat false equivalency.

Same as the gun nut cigarette false equivalency.

Same as the gun nut corn syrup false equivalency.

Believe me, I've heard them all, gun nut.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:05 PM

34. You love using the words "false equivalency".

But seem you never go any further I suspect you don't know what they mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:10 PM

35. I'll wait for the translation

 

"But seem you never go any further"

Speaking of meanings, what in the fuck does that mean exactly, gun nut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:21 PM

36. This is a discussion board.

Just saying something does not impress anybody unless you have an empty head. Most people try and make an argument for their position. But you don't. You just state something and expect that people will believe it. Now you can go back to juvenile insults in 3..2..1..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:23 PM

37. I'll defer to you on empty heads

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:13 PM

49. then why are you talking about the 1st amendment?

this has nothing to do with anything!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:21 PM

55. The poster I was replying to wants the 2nd A limited

to the technology of the 1700s. If that is acceptable legal logic then it would apply to the 1st. But it is nonsense and would only occur on the internet -- not in any serious discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:15 PM

50. um

Just saying something does not impress anybody unless you have an empty head

then why are you doing it? bad grammar. how can someone with an empty head speak? they wouldn't have a brain, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:18 PM

52. You are criticizing me on grammar? Please check the grammar in your post.

I could not understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:56 PM

32. "...foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...."

printing presses are not guns.

printing presses <> guns.

printing presses don't deprive anybody of their right to live.

The Second Amendment grants authority to regulate the militia, which is what is supposed to keep and bear arms. That's a little different than "Congress shall make no law...".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:03 PM

33. I suggest you go to a law school.

Maybe someone will teach you how to read the Constitution. No one, on either side, has your position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:19 PM

53. um

his position is that you used a false whateverthefuck

you also used the wrong amendment

you also said that nobody believes what he said. but i do. he said you didn't make sense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:23 PM

56. A second post by you I can't understand.

And you were critical of me on grammar! LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:33 AM

96. Apparently, Chief Justice Burger didn't know how to read the Constitution either

Then again, what the fuck does a Chief Justice of the SCOTUS know about the Constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:51 PM

109. Support for a RWer on DU.

The most amazing things gets posted here. Since Burger was a genius I suppose you support all of his decisions. Or is it just a quote picked out here and there. Roberts is Chief Justice now. Do you support all of his opinions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:22 PM

145. There's really no need to be a jackass about it.

Try reading the 2nd Amendment sometime without the blinders on.

"A well-regulated militia (comma) being necessary to the security of a free state (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (COMMA) shall not be infringed."

I have a feeling a few more people are going to be coming around to my viewpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:41 PM

125. LOL. No. The second amendment grants NO authority what so ever.

Well, unless you think this doesn't really mean what it says:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:12 PM

47. what logic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:16 PM

51. There was none.

That is why I questioned the poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:03 PM

64. you are correct. your question was not logical

he was talking about the 2nd amendment and how it was written when we had muskets. he was voicing his opinion.

you brought up the 1st. how are they related?

i don't really care so don't answer please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:40 PM

124. Is it inconsistent, though?

People could speak 300 years ago, just as they do now. They could express themselves, just as they do now. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to a network TV program, nor the right to the internet.

The difference is that expression isn't a thing, like a weapon is. There's the false equivilancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #124)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:57 PM

131. Not sure I follow.

Are you saying the 1st would not apply to tv or the internet? The poster I originally replied said the 2nd only applied to the technology of weapons in the 1700s. Arms are specifically mentioned in the 2nd just as the press is specifically mentioned in the 1st. If the founders only wanted the amendments to apply to what was around and available at the time then the same would apply to all amendments. But as I have repeatedly said this is a discussion which only would take place on the internet. Nobody serious in the debate holds the view the 2nd just applies to 1700s weapons. Please find any elected liberal/progressive that holds that view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #131)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:55 AM

140. My point was

that comparing the 1st and 2nd is apples-to-oranges. The act of expression and what is protected hasn't fundamentally changed in centuries, while firearms, being a physical item/thing (or, rather, a set of things), is dramatically different now than it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #140)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:41 PM

148. Fine.

If you are going to persist in that argument please find either an elected progressive/liberal who holds that view or a Constitutional law expert, liberal or otherwise, who holds it. Don't you find it strange the only place you can find it is on an internet discussion board by anonymous posters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #148)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:26 PM

154. Goal post moving

 

A well-polished tactic of Delicate Flowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #154)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:58 PM

160. It likely is

However neither things are true of me or my post. You obviously don't know much about me if you think i am anti-gun-control. My statement on the difference between the 1st and 2nd is a case *for* being able to restrict classes of weapons.

Sigh.

There is no reason a private citizen needs semi-automatic weapons for defense. Revolvers, bolt-action longarms, and pump/lever shotguns are the most needed. Semi-automatics for competetive shooting can can kept securely at ranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #160)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:16 PM

163. Did you respond to the right post?

 

The post you responded to (#154) was a response to the Delicate Flower's post (#148), not to one of yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #154)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:33 PM

165. Juvenile name calling.

You are the champ. Nobody will ever take it away from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #165)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:43 PM

168. BWAHAHAHA

 

Catching a poster moving the goalpost is now "name calling".

I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:36 PM

60. How many people have cars killed

 

How many people died from knifes? How many died from cars?

Do you actually believe banning a few rifles is going to slow down the insane shooters? LMAO!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:27 PM

155. Yes

Banning automatic assalt weapons and clips of 30-100 rounds or more will stop some of these cretins. Not all. If it stops one I'll be happy with that. I think most here would agree with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:35 PM

182. Stop With The Cars

Not every gun death committed is by an insane person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:45 PM

39. Why should the first, it never was that limited.

The first amendment says "freedom of the press" not freedom of the printing press. Where did you get that one?

But the second amendment only applied to militias. The second amendment says people, not person. It also says the security of a free state, not a free person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:56 PM

41. Never that limited?

Have you read the posts I responded to? They are trying to suggest the 2nd is limited to the technology of the weapons available at the time of the writing of the 2nd. If that nonsense is true then the 1st is also limited to the technology of the press of that time. It is all nonsense and something you only would see on a internet board -- not in any serious discussion.

Regards to your interpretation of the 2nd, Lawrence Tribe, a liberal with more bona fides than most on this board, and one of Obama's professors at Harvard Law School, disagrees with your "collective" view. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:24 PM

57. limit yourself, please

not in any serious discussion.

the discussion is-
Burger said fraud. what are you discussing, anyway? it sounds quite serious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:32 PM

58. A third post with sentence framents.

The grammar police will be on you soon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:15 PM

75. Well good for Lawrence Tribe. We could get into a quote war but

I'm not going to. Let's just say we are even in that respect. Or do you want me to see your law professor and raise you a chief justice?

I did read the posts you responded to, none made the stretch yours did. What does a printing press have to do with free speech and the press? No one is arguing about how guns are manufactured, we are arguing about the type of guns and how they are used. Why are you bringing up how newspapers and books are made?

What about the right to peacefully assemble in a church, a theater, a school, or a street corner, without fear of being shot? Or do you agree with LaPierre that we should arm ourselves?

Why don't you let us petition the government about our grievances and let the majority decide?

Do you still want to talk about the first amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:27 PM

107. This was the quote I replied to:

#5 I am more than willing to give them the right to bear arms.........as long as they go back to the arms that were around during the time of the founding of our country. Not that people can't be killed by them but we would not be seeing mass murders perpetrated by individuals. If these nuts want to drag around a musket or put a flintlock pistol in their waistband I say have at it.

If you think the 2nd A only applies to the weapon technology of the time then that applies to the rest of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. Do you agree with that post or not?

I am not aware I am stopping anyone from "petition the government about our grievances and let the majority decide". The majority do not want to ban weapons so let's have a vote if that is what you wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:21 PM

54. nice

The first amendment says "freedom of the press" not freedom of the printing press. Where did you get that one?

its like, well, plunking ducks at a carnival!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

46. who the hell mentioned the 1st amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:43 PM

61. So you are equating the right to call someone an asshole

with the right to shoot him in the face?

The Constitution was written as an adjustable document. The writers knew shit was going to come up that they couldn't even imagine so they made sure we could fix it if needed.

I don't agree with the idea that only 18th century weapons should be allowed but the 2nd amendment has room to adjust for a rule that was written when it took forever to load a single shot into a weapon.

My argument is always the same. Do you believe that I should be allowed to own a Thermonuclear device? If you do you are a lunatic. If you don't then you and I agree that there needs to be some form of arms control. The debate should be on where the line is drawn, not whether or not there needs to be a line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:25 PM

87. well said

i think the first line goes between federal and state- if you want to have a certain gun beyond 2 pistols and a rifle, get a federal license

3 guns holding 20 bullets total. only one semi. no gun holds over 8 bullets. that's state level

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:07 PM

187. I am not a lunatic.

At least I have not been certified as such so far. So no I don't favor people having nuclear weapons but I don't think that has been much of an issue. Your "asshole and shooting someone in the face" is a strawman. So you knocked it down as anyone could. I am a civil rights person and one of those rights is in the 2nd. It is part of the Bill of Rights. We currently have 20,000 federal and state gun laws. So far I have not see any new law proposals which would have affected Sandy Hook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:14 PM

181. The First Amendment is limited all the time by the government.

Hence it's Infringed upon.

A small list:

You can not Yell fire in a crowded Theater. (Free speech, 1st Amendment Why not?)

You can not Commit slander or Libel (Free speech, and/or Press 1st Amendment Why not?)

In most places in the United States you can not protest without a permit (Right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, 1st Amendment infringement, how can this stand!?! )

You can not commit Human Sacrifice legally, even if your religion requires it. ( prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

You can not legally practice every aspect of Sharīʿah law. ( prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

You can not legally practice many of the 'laws' in the old testament that both Christians and Jews have in their Bibles, by such as stoning your children or killing your wife. Women being forced to marry their rapists, et al. ( prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

You can't have more then one wife, even if your Religion demands you too. ( Prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

The press isn't allowed sometimes into Disaster zones, is this fair? ( A violation to the 1st Amendment to infringe on the Freedom of the press)

The Press isn't allowed to post pictures of murdered people at a crime scene, or war ( A violation to the 1st Amendment to infringe on the Freedom of the press)

It all depends on how one interprets the law. Nothing in the Constitution is black and white, It's mostly gray, so why not the 2ed?


Do you consider these Reasonable restrictions? Or Ignorant infringements by a overly nanny state Government on rights by those who wish to partake in some of the above list? Some people (Not saying you personally, but many rabid supporters) view the Second Amendment like a fanatical religion, Why should the fanatics get to dictate policy for the rest of us, with ZERO sane legislation that's better for the Three Hundred million people who live here? Serious question.


Having said that, I support the people to own guns, I just think they should be regulated more then Sudafed or Driving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4bucksagallon (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:52 PM

40. hey!

sorry for the shorthand- kinda busy

i say anything over 3 guns or 20 bullets total is federal- license and insurance no gun holds more than 8 shots ONE semi allowed

two six shooters and a rifle
two 10 shot handguns
two 8 shot pistils and a rifle

zen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:43 AM

98. LOL! No problem I have been enjoying the discussion.

The guy with the printing press love affair did not get the gist of what I was trying to say. As a former Marine and a combat veteran with a wide variety of guns, I only have one that could be considered an assault weapon. It is an old (collectible) Winchester M1 carbine from WW2 passed down to me by my grandfather. All my other guns are for hunting and target practice. They range from .22 LR to .308 and from 410 to 12 gauge in shotguns. Which, being from Maine is a common thing to have. I just don't like seeing some idiot walking around with a loaded Bushmaster strapped to their back, it makes me uncomfortable as to their intentions and need of doing so. There was just the other day an incident in Portland Maine where some gun nut was walking around on a hiking trail with an AR15 strapped to his back. These nuts are pushing the envelope and they don't even know it. I have a concealed carry permit but most times don't carry unless I was going on a road trip or camping out in my back 40. We still have rabid foxes, bears and coyotes in Maine. So a little protection is good in those situations. My point was that the second amendment did not foresee the armament that is readily available today, and if they want to "open carry" on the streets I have no problem if they want to drag around their flintlock. That still is how I feel no matter what the formerwhoeverheis thinks. He is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. They do get shrill though, don't they.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4bucksagallon (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:59 AM

99. shrill is not the word

i don't know if there IS a word...

so would you have any problem with having to register the guns you have? i mean the bigger ones? just a small one time fee.
i just don't understand the selfishness of the whole gun zealot thing- which you obviously aren't.
it's like they need an F-1 racer to go to the grocery store, and don't want to be responsible enough to get a license.
which forces someone like you to look bad to a non-gun person.
thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #99)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:41 AM

100. Most of my guns are registered except for the one's that I bought before registration was required..

and the few I bought from private owners. When I was growing up it was not unusual to get a gun for Christmas or your birthday, so I am from a different era. However no one I knew back then would even dream of owning an Ak47 or an AR15 much less a Barrett .50 caliber. This gun along with the large capacity magazine guns like the Bushmaster has me the most concerned. One nut with a Barrett could conceivably take out most of a large city. If that city had large oil, chemical or volatile liquid tanks, it could easily be used to take down an airliner. It has an effective range of about one mile, and penetrating capabilities beyond your wildest imagination, with the right or should I say the wrong ammo in someones hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4bucksagallon (Reply #5)


Response to 4bucksagallon (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:58 AM

133. Give?

Do you also "give" people the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc... ?

I'm sure this has been repeated a million times here (at least I hope so) but the bill of rights doesn't "give" us any rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Abq_Sarah (Reply #133)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:05 PM

161. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in some people's heads about rights..

As though they didn't exist before the bill of rights.

I guess schools don't teach the Enlightenment these days. No Locke, Rousseau, or even Hobbes.

No, all one has to do is read the preamble to the Bill of Rights to disabuse themselves of that notion:

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.


Abuse of whose powers? The government. Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? The government.

The Bill of Rights is not a "the people can-" document; it's a "the government can't" document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #161)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:15 PM

162. no, just in yours

rights are not for objects. you have the right to defend yourself. period. not own any fucking gun you want.
do you have a right to own your refrigerator to defend against food poisoning.
get real, please.
the government can't stop you from owning a gun.
but it can, has before, and is about to AGAIN, tell you what kind of gun you can own.

deal wih it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #162)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:41 PM

167. Still sore that you flubbed the laws about licensing and concealed carry? Hehe

Wyoming. Arizona. Alaska.



Now, do you have something actually related to the topic we were discussing in the post you responded to, or are you going to continue to flail?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #167)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:19 PM

192. not sore in the least. i have stuffed your BS like 2 dozen times now give up

you jumped into someone's question with a bunch of mumbo jumbo BS

i called you on it thusly:
rights are not for objects. you have the right to defend yourself. period. not own any fucking gun you want.
do you have a right to own your refrigerator to defend against food poisoning.
get real, please.
the government can't stop you from owning a gun.
but it can, has before, and is about to AGAIN, tell you what kind of gun you can own.

deal with it


and go away. you have NO CHANCE

SCALIA wrote this, not me

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #192)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:57 PM

194. When someone claims that *any* right is unlimited, you be sure to pipe up, ya?

That's a straw man of your own making. Feel free to burn it at your leisure.

Funny though, you seem to have missed the part mentioning what arms are protected- those "in common use, for lawful purposes".

A majority of today's arms, like handguns or "assault weapons" are "in common use, for lawful purposes".

The AR-15 and clones are the single best-selling rifle in the country. In common use? Check. Their use in crime? Minuscule. For lawful purposes? Check.

You've been hoist on your own petard.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #194)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:08 PM

195. A majority of today's arms, like handguns or "assault weapons" are "in common use, for lawful purpos

last time i checked assault was against the law you fool

GIVE UP YOU ARE HOPELESS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #195)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:13 PM

196. A majority of "assault weapons" aren't used to "assault" anyone. Duh.

I put it in quotes because it's a distinction without difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #196)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:15 PM

197. piss off

you lose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #196)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:22 PM

199. numbers, slappy, let's see some numbers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #199)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:37 PM

200. FBI's UCR + DOJ report on the effectiveness of the ban..

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

*All* rifles, including the scary black ones, were used in 323 homicides- 2.5%.

plus..



(From the DOJ's study here- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf )

*During* the ban, more than 800,000 'ar-15 type' rifles were sold by a handful of companies. Since the expiration in 2004, sales have only gone up.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today.


Now, if we assume, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, that *all* 323 rifle homicides in the US were committed with an ar-15 type rifle, that would be 0.00009% of AR-15's.

eta: changed DOJ to UCR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #200)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:52 PM

204. what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING?

A majority of today's arms, like handguns or "assault weapons" are "in common use, for lawful purposes".

is what you said, that chart is crap.

Funny though, you seem to have missed the part mentioning what arms are protected- those "in common use, for lawful purposes".

you quoted 6 WORDS SO SHUT THE HELL UP YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL!!!

we are discussing whether the right is limited- it is, ask scalia

SCALIA wrote this, not me- my bold

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

if you weren't born with your silly f'in gun, it ain't your right. end of story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #204)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:54 PM

207. In common use -- selling like hotcakes.. for lawful purposes -- not used in crime very much.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

*Every* right is limited. *No* right is unlimited.

You continue to flog that straw man all you like. You seem to be under the mistaken idea that if a right is limited in any way, that any restriction whatsoever is a-ok. Do time / place / manner restrictions on speech (held to be constitutional) mean that *any* restriction on speech is peachy-keen? Of course not, silly.

Derp.

Both Miller and Heller assert that the "arms" protected by the second amendment are those that are "in common use, for lawful purposes".

I demonstrated that "assault weapons" are both "in common use" and "for lawful purposes".

if you weren't born with your silly f'in gun, it ain't your right. end of story


Lol, I wasn't born with a printing press, either. Nor a ballot. I still have the right to speak and vote.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #194)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:21 PM

198. ever hear of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? what'd ya miss 2nd grade?

The AR-15 and clones are the single best-selling rifle in the country. In common use? Check. Their use in crime? Minuscule. For lawful purposes? Check.

good for you! support the commies, traitor!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/a-kalashnikov-factory-in-russia-survives-on-sales-to-us-gun-owners.html?pagewanted=all

Despite the gun’s violent history — or perhaps because of it — American hunters and gun enthusiasts are snapping up tens of thousands of Kalashnikov rifles and shotguns. Demand is so brisk that the factory has shifted its focus from military to civilian manufacture over the last two years. United States sales of the civilian versions, sold under the brand name Saiga, rose by 50 percent last year, according to officials at the factory, known as Izhmash.


A majority of today's arms, like handguns or "assault weapons" are "in common use, for lawful purposes".

i don't give a shit where you put the quotes, its still BS.

40-50% aren't even REGISTERED so GO SOAK YOUR HEAD OR TAKE A NAP YOU ARE LAME

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #198)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:41 PM

201. Weak sauce, even for you. "commies"?!? LOL!

I honestly have to wonder if nobody has challenged you to back up your claims- this is just.. juvenile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #201)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:43 PM

202. my claim is you are full of crap!

and i am right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #202)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:45 PM

203. Then back up your claims with data.. such as my response above.

If all you're going to do is stamp your feet and complain, it does your argument no good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #203)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:54 PM

205. you are the data, i claim you a fool!

you quoted 6 WORDS SO SHUT THE HELL UP YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL!!!

we are discussing whether the right is limited- it is, ask scalia

SCALIA wrote this, not me- my bold

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

if you weren't born with your silly f'in gun, it ain't your right. end of story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #205)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:55 PM

208. My goodness, maybe you should switch to decaf. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #205)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:10 AM

218. You found one of the rabid NRA-ers here on DU

 

That guy LOVES to declare victory. It's a key thing. I've never seen any posts from him on any theme other than "guns are like gold-plated chocolate-covered unicorns". He loves to move goal posts, he loves to use red herrings, among many other rhetorical falsehoods.

Mainly he is here to waste the time of Liberals. His anger & emotion and doggedness in pursuing his agenda of defending his Precious is amazing, and must be a paid pursuit, if you know what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #194)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:08 PM

206. you think "assault weapons" are cool, in some kind of perverse, pseudo rambo way. i do not

you seem to think your rights are more important than mine, i don't know, maybe its the gun

maybe they are paying your bills, i don't care.

nobody EVER gave you the right to own one, no matter what dumb-ass propaganda you believe or spread.

get it? its a privilege that many, many don't deserve. a normal gun is fine for the majority of people

don't you think its a bit odd the number of ar-15s and NRA members is nearly the same?

what does that tell you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #206)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:59 PM

209. Nobody ever *gave* me a right to do or have anything- they predate the constitution.

Hello Enlightenment! Rights are part of being human. Governments don't "give" rights out.

I seriously wonder what they're teaching in high school government classes these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #209)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:07 PM

210. so you aren't a member of society or a citizen of the US. that is good news!

did the magna frikkin' carta give you the right to your refrigerator?

wtf?

there is a difference between things that are objects and more intangible things like free speech or life.

one is an object, the other is not.

you get a gun. you DON'T get to decide what kind all by yourself. you are being selfish and spoiled.

stop it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #210)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:11 PM

212. When you're in a hole, the first tip is to stop digging.

No, the magna carta didn't "give" me anything either.

Rights exist. Governments are organized to protect them..

Remember the passage, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #212)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:41 PM

213. dig this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022094575

Star Member X_Digger (12,441 posts)
196. A majority of "assault weapons" aren't used to "assault" anyone. Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #213)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:50 PM

215. So? It's an accurate statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #213)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:07 AM

217. ... and? Are you just into repetition now? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:51 AM

6. A few hundred years ago, the term "right to bear arms" meant the right to carry your family

coat of arms as a public display. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:12 PM

8. but now the family all has the same coat

it is black and shiny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:51 PM

31. I presume that "black and shiny" is a gun.

I personally haven't read the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But, it did occur to me
that perhaps the original intention of the phrase "right to bear arms" might have meant the right to carry the family flag publicly. (I doubt that such was the case.)

I believe that the fanatical fixation surrounding the gun culture has to do the the primitive instincts of all animals to acquire as much power and control as possible. That would be
a primary survival emotion. Firearms, to a certain extent, represent the simplest and most effective means of achieving instant ascendancy. Everywhere young humans look,they are seeing various representations of people "have the drop" on others by way of gun play.
We have all seen fictional depictions of thousands of deaths by gun.

For the young Americans, they are often unable to separate the conditions of fantasy shooting and real shooting. Some years ago, a news reporter interviewed ten young men on death row, asking each of them the same question,"what were you thinking during the moments you were shooting your victims?" They all gave very similar answers along the lines of "it was like a movie", "as though I was an actor", or "It didn't seem real."

All of those responses that clearly showed the disconnect between fantasy shooting and real shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:39 PM

38. yes

have you heard the song "i don't like mondays'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:51 AM

93. No. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:58 AM

94. a song about a school shooting in 1979

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/mondays.asp

it won't let me paste from the link, but the GIRL! that did it admits to exactly what you are saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:10 PM

7. and now...

ladjf-
it means the right to bare you arms by wearing a tank top, which there is another name for that i won't type

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:13 PM

9. Mmmmm, Burger

*drool*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:17 PM

10. awfully quiet in this thread

nobody wants to argue with the Burger man?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:29 PM

13. Are you going to agree with Burger's decisons?

Or just a cherry picked quote? If he was a sound legal mind on that quote then I guess he was in the decisions he voted for and wrote. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:26 PM

16. I have no idea what you are even talking about. His quote is not cherry picked in any way.

Take a look at an article he wrote for Parade magazine in 1990, and then try and convince me there is any individual "right to bear arms" other than the Roberts court making up shit out of whole cloth:

http://www.guncite.com/burger.html


Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

"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."


And so forth. Read the whole thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:33 PM

18. Non-responsive to my questions.

If Burger was on sound legal reasoning with this "quote" what about the rest of his decisions? Do you agree with them or not? Was he only a great legal mind only when it comes to the 2nd amendment? Why are you trying to sidestep these questions?

But Burger is right about one thing. The second amendment was about the concern of an oppressive federal government. They never dreamed that the issue of individual possession of arms would ever be an issue. They took it as an assumption individuals would have arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:01 PM

43. i said

so it took 17 years, how long will it take to fix it? 17 days?

did anybody think he was gonna say CRAP?

that's all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:39 PM

19. It certainly *was* cherry-picked. Read his homophobic screed in Bowers v. Hardwick:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZC.html


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

478 U.S. 186
Bowers v. Hardwick
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 85-140 Argued: March 31, 1986 --- Decided: June 30, 1986

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to underscore my view that, in constitutional terms, there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.

As the Court notes, ante at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.


This in no wise different than the gun prohibitionists' newfound love for Michael Bloomberg
and secret government watch lists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:02 PM

44. it wasn't a decision

it was an opinion from an interview. you have a different one. so what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:29 PM

67. *You* offered him up as an authority figure, whose opinion we should take note of.

I daresay said the other opinions of said 'authority figure' should be examined as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:05 PM

70. nope. i showed a quote and implied that i agree.

the point is that if a conservative jerk like him would say that, they must be pretty awful.

george bush the 1st cut up is nra card, too. you should, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:22 PM

86. "george bush the 1st cut up is nra card, too. you should, too." Wow, you really *are* new here...

..., aren't you?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584

"Why I'm not going to rejoin the NRA just yet."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002467295

Question for DUers: Do you hate the NRA so much you'll ally with Michael Bloomberg?

I'll state right off the bat that I'm not thrilled with the NRA personally, because I'm about 90% sure that despite their proclaimed non-partisan stance, they are in fact a right-wing political movement with a bitchin gun club, like I stated here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584

"Why I'm not going to rejoin the NRA just yet."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584#post50

"No point in donating money to people that piss on the President, while accepting Mitt's AWB."


A small bit of advice:
It's not what you don't know that will trip you up- it's what you think you know that isn't so.

Work on those research skills, you're making yourself look bad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:23 PM

66. Just look at Burger's own words from your referenced source:

 

"Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:07 PM

71. you read it!

see answer below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:00 PM

42. i didn't agree with anything.

that was an opinion of Burger's from an interview

i said-
so it took 17 years, how long will it take to fix it? 17 days?

did anybody think he was gonna say CRAP?

those were my questions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:12 PM

48. It is not going to be "fixed".

At least not as you would like it. Both liberal and conservative legal scholars say Burger was wrong. For a liberal legal perspective on the 2nd see President Obama's professor at Harvard Law School. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:35 PM

59. are you in charge?

thanks for the link! fascinating!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:43 PM

62. No I am not in charge unfortunately.

But I am allowed to make authoritative statements based on educative guesses just like everyone does on this board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:43 PM

80. correct


authoritative statements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:11 PM

11. From your link...

Ironically, the NRA did everything it could to stop Heller from reaching the Court. Afraid of a negative result, the organization urged that the case not be filed, tried to take it over when it was, and attempted to render it moot through legislation. All its efforts failed. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the NRA’s most consistent nemesis, was also worried, and tried unsuccessfully to dissuade the District of Columbia from appealing the Heller case to the Supreme Court.


These two lobbying organizations found themselves together in the same political bed didn't they? What common interest landed them there, spooning between the sheets? They both make good money off people's feelings about guns. They both have the same business model, which is to sell people's feelings back to them. And like any business, they don't want anybody messing with their revenue stream. It's a very conservative position to take, most passionately embraced by the wealthiest among us.

Gun ownership is, like everything else in the human experience, governed by both real world physics and emotional need. The "fraud" that has been perpetrated on both sides of the debate feeds on the emotional responses to guns. It is the same fraud that gave us nine thousand pound cars, McMansions and Snookie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:03 PM

15. You admire Chief Justice Burger?

think he was a reasonable person whose judgement you agree with?

What about this:

Burger was opposed to gay rights as he wrote a famous concurring opinion in the Court's 1986 decision upholding a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy (Bowers v. Hardwick), in which Burger purported to marshal historical evidence that laws criminalizing homosexuality were of ancient vintage. Chief Justice Burger pointed out that the famous legal author William Blackstone wrote that sodomy was a "'crime against nature'... of 'deeper malignity than rape', a heinous act 'the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature' and 'a crime not fit to be named'"


or this:

Abortion is a hotly contested moral and political issue. Such issues, in our society, are to be resolved by the will of the people, either as expressed through legislation or through the general principles they have already incorporated into the Constitution they have adopted. Roe v. Wade implies that the peoplehave already resolved the debate by weaving into the Constitution the values and principles that answer the issue. As I have argued, I believe it is clear that the people have never -- not in 1787, 1791, 1868, or at any time since -- done any such thing. I would return the issue to the people by overruling Roe v. Wade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:29 PM

17. The answer to that (if there *is* one) will be most interesting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:40 PM

20. You can certainly be right about one topic, and wrong about another.

Hello?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:44 PM

21. He is consistent on restraining civil liberties

I will grant you that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:04 PM

22. Like these?

"Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) supported busing to reduce de facto racial segregation in schools.

In United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) the Burger Court issued another unanimous ruling against the Nixon Administration's desire to invalidate the need for a search warrant and the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:08 PM

23. Ok - so he is wildly inconsistent. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:56 PM

26. If you've studied Constitutional Law you'd know that

most Justices can't be categorized with just one phrase when you look at the body of their decisions. Such as it is with Berger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:33 AM

97. what he/she said is very true!

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

hi Lex- i have a short question about intellectual property rights. could you message me when you get a chance?
thanks for the back up.
what will become of the narrow-minded?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:45 PM

30. Yes, but if your argument is an "appeal to authority" argument

(ie. this guy is an expert so he MUST be right) then it's best not to pick someone with whom you have serious disagreements. By putting the person up as an authority, you would be forced to defend ALL the person's opinions or turn around and dismiss the person as an expert (or close your eyes, cover your ears, and say that the person is an expert only when you agree with their opinion).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:07 PM

45. no. i agree with one opinion of his from an interview

so what?

i like gay people. they are very nice.

a woman has the PRIVILEGE to do what she wants with her body.

do you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:40 AM

103. What an infantile statement...

"i like gay people. they are very nice."

I'm not sure where to begin dissecting this one. Do you only "like" gay people because they are "nice"? Are are gay people "nice" and therefore likable for that reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:08 PM

105. dissection-

it was supposed to sound infantile- the question was the same.

i was asked if i supported burger's ideas on gay rights and abortion. no, of course i don't, i think he said something insightful about the nra.

the point being, if such a dickhead conservative doesn't like them, they must be pretty bad...

as far as gay people, my gay friends are often nicer, funnier, and more considerate than the average person. get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:46 PM

63. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:21 PM

65. Can we have a little honesty here?

 

Initially, there is a reference to Burger. Then a quote (which is not supported by any source other than an author writing a column for the NY Times). Then two words which appear to be meaningless. And then a quote.

Burger did not say "Until that time (Heller), legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the Second Amendment protected only a state’s right to maintain a militia, and not an individual’s right to bear arms independent of the state’s need for a militia.

The only person who said that is the author of the column. He wrote an anti-gun column. If he could have attributed that statement to former Chief Justice Burger, he would have done so.

Instead, the author wrote a statement, which is quoted in the OP, as indicating that Burger was in agreement with that view.

Did Burger even say, if at all,
"the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

The author of the column claims that Burger said that. If true, where's the source?

In contrast, the actual reasoning of the Supreme Court can actually be found in the Heller opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

In the Heller case, if the District of Columbia had a quote from Burger claiming that the individual-right argument was based upon a fraud, did the Dist of Columbia use it? Somehow, that doesn't seem to be mentioned. Where in the opinion, if any place, can that be found?

Fraud? Yea, maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:00 PM

69. certainly!

it isn't the Times, look at the link. its says books. new york review of books.

the quote is from paragraph #7 from that link, i'm sure you didn't bother reading it:
Until that time, legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the Second Amendment protected only a state’s right to maintain a militia, and not an individual’s right to bear arms independent of the state’s need for a militia. (The amendment provides, somewhat awkwardly and ambiguously, that “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.”) In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican, said that the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Yet just seventeen years later, in Heller, five justices proclaimed that the Framers had intended to protect an individual right to bear arms.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/our-romance-guns/?pagination=false

does that look familiar? it is also in the OP.

those 2 meaningless words are NOT and BURGER, meaning it is not Burger, it is from the link below it.

that was followed by 3 questions, the first two serious, and the next humorous.

The author of the column claims that Burger said that. If true, where's the source?

see paragraph #7

In contrast, the actual reasoning of the Supreme Court can actually be found in the Heller opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
In the Heller case, if the District of Columbia had a quote from Burger claiming that the individual-right argument was based upon a fraud, did the Dist of Columbia use it? Somehow, that doesn't seem to be mentioned. Where in the opinion, if any place, can that be found?


if you expect me to believe you read past the 1st page (of 157 pages), show me.
i've never really heard a lawyer say in court "well, so and so said something in an interview"- that would be a bad lawyer, and they don't usually hang out in the SC.

burger gave his opinion on the nra to a reporter. i agree with him.

did you catch this part from your link? it's in the middle somewhere:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:46 PM

72. Who is saying ""Until that time (Heller), legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the

 

Second Amendment protected only a state’s right to maintain a militia, and not an individual’s right to bear arms independent of the state’s need for a militia."

It is not clear from your reference to paragraph 7 that it is Winkler:
"But as Adam Winkler notes in Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, constitutional, political, and practical obstacles ...

It is suggested that Burger said that. But he did not.

So who said it? If it is not Winkler, and not Burger, then the person who is left is David Cole, the author of the column. And then you re-published that.

You're cherry-picked the words and suggested by doing so Burger was in agreement with the quoted words. But, he, in fact had nothing to do with those words.

Burger otherwise said:
"Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that."

http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:03 PM

74. TWO sources enough?

The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/courtguns051095.htm

only the 4th paragraph this time

Burger otherwise said:
"Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that."

keep your gun in your house, great. that's where it belongs.

please go away you are wasting my time. go to the library or take a nap, maybe


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:54 PM

73. Oh, the same Burger who ruled that sodomy laws were constitutional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger cited the "ancient roots" of prohibitions against homosexual sex, quoting William Blackstone's description of homosexual sex as an "infamous crime against nature", worse than rape, and "a crime not fit to be named." Burger concluded: "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching


THAT Burger?

You sure you want to side with him?

*snort*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:37 PM

77. i don't recall mentioning sodomy

but since you asked, no. i'd say he's wrong on that issue, but we aren't talking about that so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:42 PM

79. It demonstrates that he's not a fan of rights, generally.

Why you think he's correct in one case, but not another- is puzzling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:52 PM

81. not really.

how could a judge make the same decision in 2 different cases?

and i never said anything, i asked 3 questions.

the way i see it, with guns he's saying something about public life, and most choose privacy for sodomy, so there's the rub..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:00 PM

82. Go read some of his opinions if you get the chance..

.. ie, cases where he wrote the majority or dissent.

Burger was one step away from authoritarian / oligarchal / plutocratic / pseudo-fascist.

I doubt you'd be quoting his opinion on the weather if you were familiar with his body of writings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:06 PM

83. sorry if i offended you

i don't think you are my intended target of offense...

but who knows around here!

burger sucked, sure, maybe he got one thing right? even ted nugent had one good song! (45 years ago)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:09 PM

84. Nah, not offended.. tickled a bit, honestly.

It would be like someone unknowingly quoting this German leader in the 40's about how he promoted vegetarianism- dude was way ahead of his time.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #84)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:14 PM

85. so you are tickled by sodomy. great

are vegetables involved also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:28 PM

88. Tickled that you're quoting Burger, Nixon's appointee..

.. responsible for reinstatement of the death penalty, and arguing that life in prison for kiting a $100 check wasn't against the eighth amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:30 PM

89. so you are pro death penalty?

why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #89)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:32 PM

90. Err.. no, I'm against it.. but your boy Burger? Is responsible for its reinstatement.

Feel free to sing his kudos some more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:30 AM

91. great. i'm for it, and i don't give a shit what Burger thinks about it. back to the question-

i said
the way i see it, with guns he's saying something about public life, and most choose privacy for sodomy, so there's the rub..

this addresses how any judge can use judgement to make different decisions.
maybe you can't wrap your head around that, i think it might be a problem of narrow-minded perspective

and you said nothing about impartiality, evidence, or anything, really.

you are pro-sodomy, pro vegetables, anti-death. whatever.

go back and check what the topic is please. it is guns and who GETS to have them.
i feel it is a PRIVILEGE. not a RIGHT

but i'm not really interested in your thoughts on guns, unless you agree with me
i'd guess you could try the same attitude and stop wasting my time?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:38 AM

92. Unintentional quote of the night..

i'm not really interested in your thoughts on guns, unless you agree with me


That's DUzy-worthy material, right there.

i feel it is a PRIVILEGE. not a RIGHT



It is a right.. it pre-dates the constitution..

See US v Cruikshank (1876),

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...
...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."


(Of course that bit about congress changed with the fourteenth amendment. Speaking of the 14'th..

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.


Senator James Nye of Nevada, February 28, 1866 (the senate debate on the 14th amendment, talking about the recently freed slaves..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:08 AM

95. it was intentional! i don't care what you think about guns your info is 125 years old

2008- SCALIA Heller decision

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

so what were you saying about your guns again? sounds like a privilege to me...


http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/heller_decision_leaves_room_for_new_gun_restrictions_retired_justice_steven
Heller Decision Leaves Room for New Gun Restrictions, Retired Justice Stevens Says

Stevens chided Congress for failing to tighten gun laws after the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, the Washington Examiner and Reuters report. "The fact that Congress doesn't address it is, I think, mind-boggling," he said in the speech broadcast by C-SPAN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #95)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:04 AM

104. No right is unlimited. Not the first, the second, the fourth, the fifth..

So because I can't stand in the middle of a suburban street in the middle of the night, with a bullhorn talking about the dangers of trans-fats, you consider the freedom of the press to be a privilege?

If you think that a right having restrictions makes it a privilege, you don't understand the terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #104)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:18 PM

106. thanks for agreeing

X_Digger
104. No right is unlimited.


please explain what yelling into a bullhorn has to do with printing presses?

so you agree with TWO supreme court judges, your right to carry a gun is limited.


privilege

priv·i·lege
noun
1.
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2.
a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3.
a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4.
the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5.
any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

you don't read the dictionary, i guess...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:37 PM

108. I read law dictionaries. There is a distinct difference between a privilege and a right.

You have to ask permission to exercise a privilege- like driving a car on public roads.

I don't have to ask the government for the right to privacy- it's inherent in the condition of me being human.

And the bullhorn thing was a typo.. I meant freedom of expression. Chalk it up to too little coffee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #108)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:36 PM

110. what's the difference between a gun and a car?

i like what you said there-

i say-
owning a gun in your home is your private right, but when it goes through the door it changes..and humans existed for thousands of years without guns, so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #110)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:48 PM

111. Generally, one has to be licensed to carry outside one's home..

Just like cars. And I can drive an unlicensed, untitled car on my back 40 all day long. Heck, I can let my 10 year old kid drive the farm truck without insurance or a license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:55 PM

112. maybe generally is the problem

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

you have to go to hawaii alphabetically before it says license/yes

if you can actually read those and say they are sane you are a magician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #112)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:06 PM

113. License to own, not operate/carry.. did you miss that?

I can own a car without a driver's license- I just can't drive it on public roads.

I can own a gun without a license- I just can't carry it outside my home (except in three states, last I checked.)

I'm quite familiar with the gun laws in many states (not all, obviously). I don't see anything insane about those laws. Care to elaborate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #113)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:23 PM

114. no. i said the gun laws are insane, look at the link


I can own a gun without a license- I just can't carry it outside my home (except in three states, last I checked.)


totally wrong. you look at the list down to Hawaii and tell me how many are yes/no. total of 10.

how many of those states out of 10 let you carry any kind of gun you want anywhere?

you are WAY off, and give up.

did i answer all of your questions about sodomy?
i'm outta here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #114)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:27 PM

116. You're babbling.

In a majority of states, there is no license, or asking permission of the state to own a firearm.

Alabama - no
Alaska- no
Arizona - no
Arkansas - no
California - no (no licensing per owner, but handguns require a 'safety certificate')
Colorado - no
Connecticut - license for handguns only
Delaware - no
Florida - no
Georgia - no

In the following states, a resident may carry concealed handguns with a license

Alabama - yes
Arkansas - yes
California - yes (though the license is rarely granted in many areas)
Colorado - yes
Connecticut - yes
Delaware - yes
Florida - yes
Georgia - yes

In two states in the first ten, no license is required to carry a handgun concealed
Alaska
Arizona

The following states have open carry of long guns
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Delaware
Georgia

In none of these states may you carry 'any kind of gun you want anywhere'. All have restrictions on where they may be carried- from schools, banks, municipal buildings, hospitals, etc etc (varies by state.)

Care to elaborate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #116)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:54 PM

117. so far you got right/privilege AND car/gun AND license/permit WRONG! look here!

X_Digger (12,412 posts)
111. Generally, one has to be licensed to carry outside one's home..


wiki:
A firearms licence (also known as a gun licence) is a licence or permit issued by some governments (typically by the police) of a country (or state or municipality thereof), that allows the licensee to buy, own, possess, and use firearms, often subject to a number of conditions or restrictions, especially with regards to storage requirements or the completion of a firearms safety course, as well as background checks, etc. Firearms licences are not required in all jurisdictions.


yes i can see it says permit there, but you are DEAD WRONG. you need a PERMIT to carry outside your home IN ALL STATES.
you need a license to OWN the gun (sometimes), and a PERMIT to take it out of your house.

there will be many more coming soon. i hope you enjoy them.

now go away and take a gun class. be careful out there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #117)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:13 PM

118. Umm.. you do not need a permit to carry outside your home in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming.




Also known as "constitutional carry" - as in, "the only permit I need is the constitution".

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


Nor are there licenses to own in a majority of states.

Nor are most guns registered.



Is this the first time anyone's challenged you on your wild assertions? You seem to be taking it poorly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #118)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:34 PM

120. you need a clue



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #120)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:36 PM

121. If I do need a clue, I know who NOT to call. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #121)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:37 PM

123. certainly don't look in the mirror..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:51 PM

126. Quoted for posterity.

"but i'm not really interested in your thoughts on guns, unless you agree with me."

Lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #126)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:57 PM

127. you forgot a part of my quote there, slappy

but i'm not really interested in your thoughts on guns, unless you agree with me
i'd guess you could try the same attitude and stop wasting my time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #127)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:16 PM

128. i would have quoted it, if...

I would have quoted it, if the second part, changed in ANY way, the meaning of the first part - It doesn't.


So there you have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:31 PM

129. quote this

in 1967-
Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #129)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:53 AM

132. Ohhh the mulford act?

Bwahahahahaha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #132)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:47 PM

149. no, the 2ND AMENDMENT STOP WASTING MY TIME!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:28 PM

76. I agree with Chief Justice Burger. I always

read the 2nd amendment as a state's right and not an individual right. The Ku Klux Klan was an armed militia of sorts and that was definitely considered a domestic terrorist hate group subject to criminal sanctions. Some of today's individual gun rights proponents remind me of a 21st century version of the KKK. I could be totally wrong but that's what they remind me of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:38 PM

78. you are not wrong

same here! kinda embarassing and disgusting at the same time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:47 AM

102. Is there any right that isn't limited by the extent to which it damages the rights of others?

I don't see gun advocates recognizing that principle; it's as though there is no possibility of any kind of situation in which unlimited gun-ownership will ever affect the rights of others to "the security of a free State" that's part of their holy 2nd Amendment. Accumulating assault weapons will never affect anyone??? There are no scenarios EVER in which those weapons could affect others not directly involved in their use? or require the use of public resources that would otherwise not be necessary were ownership of assault weapons not so un-controlled?

It seems odd to me that people apparently can't think of various things that could happen, things that would affect people who had no part in choosing to own things like assault weapons, it seems so odd that they can't hypothesize like that, especially when you hear such heart felt enthusiasm for expressions such as "from my cold dead hands" and other affirmations of what gun owners will do to protect their unlimited "rights" to gun ownership. I'm mean, do they mean it or not? It's kind of scarey that they can think and talk and act that way - AND - not recognize the potential for situations that will hurt other people and cost public resource dollars due to assault weapons and result in over-all oppression of people who chose no part of their weapons to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #102)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:25 PM

115. the right to breathe?

but even that is in hospitals!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:49 PM

119. Alas, poor Burger put his money on the wrong horse. The States Rights interpretation lost big.

 

http://thenewstalkers.com/forum/topics/chief-justice-of-the-united-states-69-86-second-amendment-does?page=1&commentId=6450411%3AComment%3A218409&x=1#6450411Comment218409


Burger begins with a straw man argument in which someone is supposedly asserting an unfettered right to possess any type of weapon.

While he admits there is a right to keep and bear arms for hunting, and a right to have guns for home defense, Burger says the second amendment is concerned with protecting states rights to maintain militias. This was the theory later espoused by the Ninth Circuit in Hickman, and even later rejected by that same circuit in Silveira when the weight of academic opinion, and the plain text of the second amendment, made the States' Rights theory untenable. At the Supreme Court, the dissenters in Heller rejected Hickman and Silveira, and instead seized upon the narrow individual right interpretation that had been flatly rejected in Siilveira.

The lengths that deniers of an individual right to keep and bear arms have gone is farcical, but the apparent inability of the the deniers to remember thier last argument is even more so.

Assuming that their concern is only for reasonable restrictions. the deniers of the individual right to keep and bear arms have been their own worst enemy. But given the games played by the deniers, it is may be reasonable to assume that they have much more in mind than reasonable restrictions and are in fact have been attempting to set the stage for banning ownership of a wide assortment of guns -not merely saturday night specials and machine guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #119)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:36 PM

122. so will you

if you think there won't be lots of new laws.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022081557

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #122)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:21 AM

135. Well that settles it, if Reagun thought it a good idea, then it must have been a good idea. n/t

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #135)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:49 AM

139. maybe being shot gives you a more vivid look at why guns are bad?

google 'conservatives against guns'- pretty interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #119)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:46 PM

130. "weight of academic opinion"

Richard Posner is arguably the best legal mind of our time and has written extensively about how the individual right interpretation is complete shit. He also tears Scalia a new asshole over his "plain text" interpretation of the 2A, using Scalia's own legal theory.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books/defense-looseness#

I understand that those who cheer for the proliferation of guns are still celebrating their big win with Scalia, but do keep in mind that those who sided with Scalia are the most right wing members of the court while those on the other side were the most progressive. Also keep in mind that "plain text" legal interpretations are almost exclusively limited to right wing judges and even the most wingnutty ones at that. Scalia and Thomas are the only members of the current SCOTUS that subscribe to that methodology.

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #130)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:13 AM

134. Just sayin that Posner lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

 


Posner's "original purpose" is little different than Bork's "original intent". Once they have convinced themselves of the original purpose or original intent (take your pick), then facts such as state court decisions and contemporary writings by authoritative commentators mean nothing and are simply swept aside. Even the plain text can be swept aside once one truly understands the original purpose, it is almost magical.

The government's case was a loser even under the theory of the right to keep and bear arms espoused in Aymette v. Tenn. There the right was said to be an unqualified right of every citizen to keep arms suitable for use in warfare , and though the right to bear them in defense of their political rights could be regulated for public safety reasons, the state could not ban altogether the open carry of arms. The government's case of course also loses under more broadly construed state court interpretations, including later Tennessee supreme court ruling which upheld a right to keep and use arms for home defense, and other state cases which read the RKBA far more broadly than Aymette.


Keep in mind the four "most progressive" members of the court gave us Raich and more recently the latest crop of progressives said that Congress has the power to compel commerce (wrap you head around that -Congress can supposedly compel a person to grow wheat and sell it to the AAA Board) That is the farthest thing from progress I can think of. Thomas's dissent in Raich ought to have been written by a progressive majority but the sometimes progressives had other ideas that day.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #134)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:18 AM

136. The government's case was a loser because the court was stacked with RW ideologues

Posting legal decisions commonly found on RW gun nut sites doesn't change that.

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #136)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:10 AM

137. Who stacked the courts in the 1800s?

 

Ignoring that such legal decisions exist does not change the fact of their existence.

Did the RW gun nuts send their minions back in time to infiltrate the state ratifying conventions and have them propose separate bill of rights provisions for increasing state control over the militia and for protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms? Did the RW gun nuts stack the courts in the 1800s?

I am far more concerned with what is commonly found on progressive sites regarding cases such as Kelo, Raich, NFIB, and Heller. The opinions in those 4 cases of the sometimes progressives members of the supreme court could easily have been written by @1930s fascists.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #137)


Response to hansberrym (Reply #134)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:56 PM

150. YOU lost in the supreme court, Mr. Not-so-Smartypants!

do you want to argue with the ACTUAL WORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT?!?

remember SCALIA wrote this, not me (Heller)

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

so what were you saying about your guns again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #150)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:25 PM

164. So you do remember your post #95, now all you have to do is locate that gun lobby

 

claiming the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #164)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:55 PM

170. do you read? check post 147. you guys are shooting yourselves in the feet

as i told your gun buddy-

Wayne LaPierre - “The Democratic National Committee is virtually 100 percent anti-firearms ownership, and the Republican National Committee stands on the side of the freedom.”

"The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my Concealed Weapons Permit, period."
- Ted Nugent (board member of your lame organization)

try google. took 60 seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #170)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:05 PM

171. Can you read? None of what you have cut and pasted repeatedly

 

provides any evidence that the gun lobby has asserted that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".


Yes, you can cut and paste, but can you read? Your quote from Wayne Lapierre does not even address the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment. you may as well have posted the lyrics to catch scratch fever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #171)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:16 PM

173. if you can't get it in three tries just give up

#147, 170, 172

why the fuck are you asking me the same question over and over? really?

166 and 171 , same question. are you a robot or just slow on the uptake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #173)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:23 PM

174. Physician heal thyself.

 


You should consider taking your own advice.

Since despite several tries, you haven't been able to locate any evidence to show that the gun lobby actually said that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires", maybe you should reconsider your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #174)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:30 PM

176. take two minutes to read this, and don't come back. ever.

remember SCALIA wrote this, not me. in 2008. deal with it.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

so what were you saying about your guns again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #176)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:37 PM

179. You remembered again! While you're lucid, can you tell

 

me how Scalia's view, which was hailed by the gun lobby as a great victory, supports the notion that the gun lobby asserts that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #179)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:08 PM

180. yep

it doesn't. that is his view.

you are only hailing the part(not posted), where for the first time in history, he actually said you had the right to own a gun.

you and you ilk have not read the part i posted, which is why you all boo-hoo every time someone mentions scary scary gun laws, kind of like when you only PUT HALF OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT on your HEADQUARTERS

get it? if you don't, you are being fed BS by a guy who makes $1 million a year to feed you
i think he forgot to check the dictionary, too, and uses freedom as a form of mind control. ironic, huh?

straight from the mouth of some lame satan-wannabe:
LePew-
That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment free-duh m. Period.



freedom
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #180)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:20 AM

183. "it doesn't. that is his view." Wow, I did catch you in a momoment of clarity, so hopefully

 

you can now find that quote from the gun lobby sayiing that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".


It was your side of the argument all along that aimed for an absolutist reading of the second amendment -one in which there was either no individual right at all protected or one that is so narrow as to be meaningless. Posner and the jackasses on the 9th circuit who gave us Hickman and Silveira, as well as the dissenters in Heller and MacDonald, did far more to poison the well than anyone on the individual rights side.

Why do you continue to repeat Burger's straw man, knowing full well it is crap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #183)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:28 AM

184. go away, you have lost 3 times already shut up you aren't even reading this you robot later dud

straight from the mouth of some lame satan-wannabe:
LePew-
That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment free-duh m. Period.

freedom
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #184)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:21 AM

185. What a pity the moment has passed, your thinking is once again clouded by your hatred of the NRA

 


Yesterday you said you could post 100 quotes in 10 minutes to support the claim that the gun lobby asserts that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

Well you have posted many quotes, but none of them coming close to demonstrating that claim.


You know what your are saying is false, yet you continue to say it -what does that make you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #185)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:21 AM

186. what a pity your nasty boss embarassed us all in front of the entire world at the UN meeting

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any

other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of

Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.


-from a-hole LaPew's speech to the UN. like UNITED NATIONS.

thats just plain f'n embarassing!

"we are a nation of religious extremists"

ha! what a primeval load of horseshit!

if you don't see how disgusting that is, you are equally as disgusting!

keep posting, slappy, you're really making a good case for your cause..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #186)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:10 PM

188. Still no luck, eh? Guess you'll be needing more than 10 minutes afterall ...

 



I can wait, but won't really be expecting any rational response from you. Let me help with your search by asking a simple question:

Are you just posting random quotes from the NRA that upset you, or are actully looking for a quote to support the notion that the gun lobby asserts that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #188)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:44 PM

190. you are a fool. why am i calling an actual robot a fool? i don't know,really

prove that they don't assert that bullshit, spongebrains.

go away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #190)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:17 AM

219. Because you are unable to back your claims, foot stomping and foolishness are all you can offer. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:04 AM

138. The OP is a straw man argument, itself knowingly propped up by the straw man left to us by Burger.

 

It is straw men all the way down.

Farminator, you post #95 shows you are well aware that no one of any prominence, not even the hated Scalia, is making the case that the second amendment "was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires". So why do you continue to advance this straw man?



Burger's original Straw Man:
"The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
(my emphasis)

Surely Burger was well aware that the gun lobby was not arguing for an interpretation of the second amendment in which every citizen is guaranteed an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. Legal restrictions on the place and mode of carry and the type of firearms that were protected under the right to keep and bear arms were numerous and well known and accepted for over 150 years when Burger made that disingenuous statement. The gun lobby woke up when the gun grabbers began making claims that there was no individual right whatever under the second amendment ( a claim made in Hickman and later in Silveira, both in the 9th circuit).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #138)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:41 PM

141. you become a straw man as soon as you type those words, and the gun lobby is sound asleep

Surely Burger was well aware that the gun lobby was not arguing for an interpretation of the second amendment in which every citizen is guaranteed an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

i could find 100 quotes in 10 minutes to prove you wrong. from meet the press interview with Gregory

WAYNE LAPIERRE:
If it’s crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our school to protect our children, then call me crazy. I’ll tell you what the American people– I think the American people think it’s crazy not to do it. It’s the one thing that would keep people safe.
And the N.R.A. is going to try to do that. We’re going to support an immediate appropriation before Congress to put police officers in every school. And we’re going to work with Asa Hutchinson, who has agreed to work with us to put together a voluntary program, drawing on retired military, drawing on retired police, drawing on former Secret Service, and all these people that can actually go in and make our kids safe. That’s the one thing, the one thing that we can do–
(OVERTALK)
DAVID GREGORY:
The one and only thing?
WAYNE LAPIERRE:
It’s a–
DAVID GREGORY:
You don’t think guns should be part of the conversation?
WAYNE LAPIERRE:
I think that is the one thing that we can do immediately that will immediately make our children safe.
DAVID GREGORY:
Is it the only thing?
WAYNE LAPIERRE:
Gun control, you could ban all Dianne Feinstein’s, you could do whatever she wants to do with magazines, it’s not going to make any kid safer. We’ve got to get to the real problems, the real causes. And that’s what the N.R.A. is trying to do.
And I think, I’ll tell you this, I have people all over the country calling me saying, “Wayne, I went to bed safer last night because I have a firearm. Don’t let the media try to make this a gun issue.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #141)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:06 PM

143. What sorcery is this?

 


Conjuring straw men, putting the gun lobby to sleep, and invoking original purpose to magically wish away the plain text of the second amendment is strong medicine indeed!



Maybe you could find 100 quotes in 10 minutes to show that the gun lobby interprets the second amendment as guaranteing every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires, but I will settle for just one.

Though given your track record here, I will not hold my breath waiting for a response that makes any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #143)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:12 PM

144. the good kind.

WAYNE LAPIERRE:
Gun control, you could ban all Dianne Feinstein’s, you could do whatever she wants to do with magazines, it’s not going to make any kid safer. We’ve got to get to the real problems, the real causes. And that’s what the N.R.A. is trying to do.


you conjured up straw men. i called your BS. i am the tin man who has found a heart
you are the straw man still looking for...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #144)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:54 PM

146. The lame kind is more like it. It has been quite a bit longer than 10 minutes, and still no

 

luck in your pitiful search for a quote from Wayne Lapierre or anyone else from the so -called gun lobby in which they assert that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".



Maybe you can contact the Wizard (AKA your pal Posner) for a clue where to locate one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #146)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:26 PM

147. i have an actual job other than posting nonsense on the internet

Wayne LaPierre - “The Democratic National Committee is virtually 100 percent anti-firearms ownership, and the Republican National Committee stands on the side of the freedom.”

"The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my Concealed Weapons Permit, period."
- Ted Nugent (board member of your lame organization)

try google. took 60 seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:02 PM

151. OIC, so when you are not posting nonsense on the internet, you are working...

 


good.

But before you get back to work, perhaps you could take a pause from posting nonsense, and post a quote from the gun lobby in which they assert that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".


Surely you can do better than a quote from Ted (Cat scratch fever) Nugent that falls way short of the mark needed to support Burger's claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #151)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:24 PM

153. it's better than having a job posting nonsense, I'd hazard a guess...

View profile
Wayne LaPierre - “The Democratic National Committee is virtually 100 percent anti-firearms ownership, and the Republican National Committee stands on the side of the freedom.”

"The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my Concealed Weapons Permit, period."
- Ted Nugent (board member of your lame organization)

"I have a love interest in every one of my films - a gun."
- Arnold Schwarzenegger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #153)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:36 PM

166. How does any of those quotes support the notion that the gun lobby

 


has asserted that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires"?


You probably could post 100 quotes in 10 minutes -if one doesn't count repeats, but you can't post even one in 10 hours that supports your position. Maybe you should come back on your day off, I am sure you just too distracted to focus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #166)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:08 PM

172. are a-holes? well, board member the Nuge said so. period.

focus on this:
i don't care what you are saying you are wasting my time. go soak your head in gun oil.

"You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one." - Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993

your BOSS is a JERK- last time i checked freedom was unlimited

Monsieur LePew
Mr. President, thank you for this brief opportunity to address this conference. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 21 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world, with four million members who represent 100 million law-abiding Americans who own firearms.

On behalf of those 100 million American gun owners, I am here to announce NRA’s strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens’ right to self-defense.

No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us.

We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based.

For six years, the NRA has closely monitored this effort for an Arms Trade Treaty.

We have watched with increasing concern and, one year ago, I delivered to the Preparatory Committee our objections to including civilian arms in the ATT. I said then … and I will repeat now … that the only way to address NRA’s objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty.

That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:32 PM

157. Are you as good at the former as you are at the latter? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #157)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:36 PM

158. BUZZ OFF BEEVUL! i'm better than you at BOTH!

what did the ghost say to the bee?



BOO-BEES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #158)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:45 PM

159. Clearly. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:19 PM

152. The American Revolution Is A Living Process.

Much of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is "awkward and ambiguous", and any credible scholar on the subject will attest that the framers were compelled to make it so, simply to get even that minimal wording and clarity passed by the necessary majority, knowing that future generations would have a chance to expound and clarifies the issues in the light of experience, expedience and necessity, with less pressure pending than the ratification of the entire Constitution or Bill of Rights. Let us not forget, the country was again under siege, then by the corporate forces against the People, Americans, ( aka "Shay's Rebellion ) during the framing and ratification process of the Constitution. There were those framers who knew that the general populace would always need to defend themselves from those who would always seek to dominate, oppress and exploit them, at odds with those framers who aspired to a new aristocracy of the powerful moneyed lording it over all others during the framing process. It required careful maneuvering to get the minimal protections and guarantees for all Americans out of that process in light of the fear of the "People" that Shay's Rebellion sent through those who were intent on exploiting and dominating the "People." It's up to each generation to extract the benefits and protections from the legacy that our Constitution affords, because the American Revolution is a living process, not a historical conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CommonSense4CG.com (Reply #152)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:31 PM

156. and now it WILL be televised...

you-
Let us not forget, the country was again under siege, then by the corporate forces against the People, Americans, ( aka "Shay's Rebellion )

i'd just like to point out that Shay rhymes with, well, NRA...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #156)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:53 PM

169. The Music Man will be on TV, when?

 

Shay's rebellion -that's trouble with a capital T, and that rhymes with p, and that stands for pool!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #169)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:26 PM

175. did you edit that to NOT make sense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #175)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:33 PM

177. Yes, but frankly I am surprised that you noticed. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hansberrym (Reply #177)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:36 PM

178. you must really like this thread, thanks for all the input

i don't miss a thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:18 PM

189. He's right. I think most people would

figure that out rather quickly after reading the actual text.

The problem is, the fraud occurred so long ago that it seems almost impossible to correct the record now. The first step is shifting the consciousness of Americans. That would involve getting rid of hate tv & radio and setting standards for news networks. Not just regarding the truth of what they broadcast, but also making sure they cover important topics that are not covered now. I'm convinced that if people were aware of certain things, they'd be open to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #189)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:52 PM

191. the fraud is only 35 years old, really...

about the 40th paragraph- i'm gonna post the ones right before that as a thread


Rich’s plan sparked outrage among the new breed of staunch, hard-line gun-rights advocates. The dissidents were led by a bald, blue-eyed bulldog of a man named Harlon Carter, who ran the NRA’s recently formed lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. In May 1977, Carter and his allies staged a coup at the annual membership meeting. Elected the new executive vice president, Carter would transform the NRA into a lobbying powerhouse committed to a more aggressive view of what the Second Amendment promises to citizens.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:21 PM

193. somewhere between 12-15 NRA drones taken out on this thread, i'd say

thanks for lookin'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #193)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:10 PM

211. hmmm

I read the thread, you imploded on several of these and went into rants... ughh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stklurker (Reply #211)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:47 PM

214. where, exactly? and why should i even try to be polite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #214)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:05 AM

216. ....

it has nothing to do with being polite, its backing assertions with facts and making compelling arguments... but I am sure this is wasted on you.. continue on, but at least stop bumping this thread to the top beating your chest over faux victories by your own self-congratulatory posts.... bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stklurker (Reply #216)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:24 AM

220. i said where slappy

duh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread