Author Topic: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?  (Read 19399 times)

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #100 on: April 20, 2008, 07:45:42 AM »
Okay.  It's "All over the internet" but you can't find an example.

You think he'll do bad things, but you can't list what they'll be.

Come one, I don't want to like Obama, but you're not helping.  Yes, he's liberal.  But how does being liberal = removing personal liberties? 

Who says I can't?  I'll do the thinking for you this time.. If I say it's "all over the internet" you can just assume that means "go look it up."  I shouldn't have to inform you of all people after I took the time to look it up myself.

Are you telling me you have yet so figure out that liberals are hell bent on destroying the constitution?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #101 on: April 20, 2008, 07:55:48 AM »
Who says I can't?  I'll do the thinking for you this time.. If I say it's "all over the internet" you can just assume that means "go look it up."  I shouldn't have to inform you of all people after I took the time to look it up myself.

Are you telling me you have yet so figure out that liberals are hell bent on destroying the constitution?

You made an argument.
I asked you for supports.
You don't feel you have to give any.


The debate kinda ends there.

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #102 on: April 20, 2008, 10:36:48 AM »
Who says I can't?  I'll do the thinking for you this time.. If I say it's "all over the internet" you can just assume that means "go look it up."  I shouldn't have to inform you of all people after I took the time to look it up myself.

Are you telling me you have yet so figure out that liberals are hell bent on destroying the constitution?

Show me to some of it, please.

Thanks in advance.
As empty as paradise

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #103 on: April 20, 2008, 06:23:10 PM »
You made an argument.
I asked you for supports.
You don't feel you have to give any.


The debate kinda ends there.

Sure does.. especially since you have yet to answer any of my questions as well.

I didn't think I was engaged in a debate.. I was stating an opinionated answer, that is all.

www.BrinkZone.com

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
  • This Thing On?
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #104 on: April 21, 2008, 07:07:46 AM »
Why does that make him a moron?

Because it is not supported by the data and the facts.


Don't be a problem Will Brink.

Be a solution.

You first. It's clear you need to do some actual research on the topic vs. parroting what you have heard on the TV. For example, here's the reality based on the hard facts and data:

 
The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns

by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.: Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,

This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

    Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

    Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.


The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

    Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

    Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

    Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.


The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.
 

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #105 on: April 21, 2008, 07:40:36 AM »
Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans.

This is not true.

There are around 1.5 million guns in Finland.

And there are between 200 and 300 million guns in USA.


More recently, a finnish mass murdering teen has made the authorities in Finland tighten up the gun laws.

BTW, you're missing the point so bad it's not even funny Will Brink.

This article says nothing about the regulations on how the guns are to be kept. About your Concealed Weapon.

You're trying to mix issues:

One thing is strict gun laws.

The other thing is the amount of guns per person.

Apples and Oranges, Bubba.

It ain't gonna fly.

I'm not that fcuking dumb.

Also: The murder rate in Sweden has been cerca 250 since the mid-70's.

Look at the numbers.

Give me a suggestion on what should be done to bring down the amount of people killed by guns.

If not by stricter gun laws.


Hey! Lets give everyone a gun! Then we will have even less shootings! Lets start out by handing it out to them folks in South Central, shall we! ::)
As empty as paradise

www.BrinkZone.com

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
  • This Thing On?
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #106 on: April 21, 2008, 07:51:23 AM »
This is not true.

There are around 1.5 million guns in Finland.

And there are between 200 and 300 million guns in USA.

Ah, so you have researched this topic more than Dr Lott? Interesting. You don't understand the concept at per capita ownership? BTW, more recent numbers have the Finns at third:

http://www.yle.fi/news/id68460.html


More recently, a finnish mass murdering teen has made the authorities in Finland tighten up the gun laws.

BTW, you're missing the point so bad it's not even funny Will Brink.

This article says nothing about the regulations on how the guns are to be kept. About your Concealed Weapon.

Of course it did. Your reading comprehension skills need work.


You're trying to mix issues:

One thing is strict gun laws.

The other thing is the amount of guns per person.


Ergo, it's called per capita, which is the concept you didn't understand above and it covered well in the article by Dr Lott.

Apples and Oranges, Bubba.


Not in the least, you just don't understand the the topic well enough nor the research terminology and methodology used. Now, if you want to get deep into the peer reviews data for example, Countries with the stricter gun laws have HIGHER rates of murder and violence, which was just published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694):

"Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that

"nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."

The Abstract:

Abstract

The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?

This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.

Full paper downloaded here:

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/



Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #107 on: April 21, 2008, 10:12:36 AM »
Quote
Ah, finally an admission of the source for the quote, and from the ever objective ACLU no less! Thanx for at least stepping up and clarifying that. It was am amazingly dishonest thing for you to do in the first place, but I give you the credit for finally fessing up.
First, what do you know about objectivity?  You think that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right bear arms.  So you're misguided right out of the box.

Second, the principle I quoted from the ACLU is the judicial principle used for the last 60 plus years in all federal gun cases and it started with the Miller case. 

You can't deny that.  It's true.

And last, You can't change that history and the fact that the summary quote from the ACLU is 100% accurate.

Quote
100% false, unless you wish to do some more creative legal "interpretations" of yours...
Stop crying and hiding behind ad hominem attacks.  Show me the history of decisions of the federal courts where the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to bear arms (I mean prior to the recent activist district decisions relying on the individual right fallacy).

Quote
As I said, you lost any credibility a long time ago.
If I'm wrong about the federal courts treatment of the 2nd Amendment over the last 6+ decades, just let me know.

Otherwise you have no individual 2nd amendment right to own a gun that's over and above your right to own any other piece of property

You might as well be talking about your right to own a steak knife and a gun as a special set just for you.

The federal courts have held that way for decades.  Now we might see a activist judges on the SCT overturn that.

It really doesn't matter to me anyways.  I could care less.  As I said before, gun activism is boring to me.   

The only time I do find it really entertaining is when some dumb-ass hunter (that values nature by destroying it), ends up accidentally shooting another hunter b/c he thought he was a deer.  Now that's entertainment.

www.BrinkZone.com

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
  • This Thing On?
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #108 on: April 21, 2008, 10:23:37 AM »

Stop crying and hiding behind ad hominem attacks. 


Showing you invented a cite/quote that does not exist  for a case is not an "ad hominem attack," it shows you either don't know how to correctly cite, or are an intellectually  dishonest person, which = zero credibility for the conversation as already stated. You can repeat yourself again an again if you wish. Carry on.  ;)

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #109 on: April 21, 2008, 11:00:41 AM »
Showing you invented a cite/quote that does not exist  for a case is not an "ad hominem attack," it shows you either don't know how to correctly cite, or are an intellectually  dishonest person, which = zero credibility for the conversation as already stated. You can repeat yourself again an again if you wish. Carry on.  ;)

The summary quote from the ACLU is 100% accurate re the 2 pronged test used in Miller. 

If I'm wrong about the federal courts treatment of the 2nd Amendment over the last 6+ decades, just let me know.

If I am wrong, I'll admit it and go away.

Other wise you are hiding. 

Am I right or not?

Or are you too fragile to consort with one as incredible as myself?

www.BrinkZone.com

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
  • This Thing On?
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #110 on: April 21, 2008, 11:15:04 AM »
The summary quote from the ACLU is 100% accurate re the 2 pronged test used in Miller.

You gonna try that angle yet again? Pitiful. Repetition of your dis honesty will not magically make it go away.

If I'm wrong about the federal courts treatment of the 2nd Amendment over the last 6+ decades, just let me know.

If I am wrong, I'll admit it and go away.

Other wise you are hiding. 

Or are you too fragile to consort with one as incredible as myself?


I don't consort  those shown be without credibility. I enjoy debating the topic with those who know how to cite a basic quote, and don't attempt to pull a fast one thinking they will not get nailed doing, then attempt every trick in the book to get around it.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #111 on: April 21, 2008, 11:20:06 AM »
You gonna try that angle yet again? Pitiful. Repetition of your dis honesty will not magically make it go away.

I don't consort  those shown be without credibility. I enjoy debating the topic with those who know how to cite a basic quote, and don't attempt to pull a fast one thinking they will not get nailed doing, then attempt every trick in the book to get around it.
You're a pussy.


Quote
So what if there hasn't been a case on point?  The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller:  "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.""


Where's the lie ?

www.BrinkZone.com

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
  • This Thing On?
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #112 on: April 21, 2008, 11:37:55 AM »
You're a pussy.

Ah, accuse the other side of an ad hominem attack without merit, then throw an ad hominem attack.  ;)

Where's the lie ?

Exactly where it was before. I doubt it has been moved from the thread. Short memory, poor debating skills, uses strong tactics like "you're a pussy," does not appear to know how correctly cite quotes, and dis honest to boot. Your credibility for this conversation continues to drop to ever lower levels, which is a skill itself I suppose...

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #113 on: April 21, 2008, 12:53:14 PM »

Quote
Ah, accuse the other side of an ad hominem attack without merit, then throw an ad hominem attack.  ;)
Exactly.
Quote
Exactly where it was before. I doubt it has been moved from the thread. Short memory, poor debating skills, uses strong tactics like "you're a pussy," does not appear to know how correctly cite quotes, and dis honest to boot. Your credibility for this conversation continues to drop to ever lower levels, which is a skill itself I suppose...
Dishonest?  Fuck you.  Missing the citation, I admitted that.  So what? 

Call me a liar and dishonest again and I'll reach through this computer screen and wring your scrawny neck.  Well, not really.

Is the matter asserted in the quote on the MIller case true?

You will not answer that b/c it is true. 

And you haven't answered b/c it is true.

I'll tell you, I would debate the Devil himself if it gave me a better handle on the subject matter.

But you can insulate yourself with the idea that you've been wronged in a chit-chat room on body-building website so you won't have to admit that you're wrong about something you care so deeply about.

You're a gun proponent and you don't even know the first thing about the constitutional rights governing gun ownership.

But I'll bite on this one:  Even if gun ownership is an individual right, which it isn't, that still wouldn't change the degree of judicial scrutiny of the legislation challenged:  i.e., it's still minimal judicial scrutiny requiring the rational relations test.

Either way BrinkZone, you come up on the shit end of the stick.

Keep up the histrionical pussified air that you won't debate someone who's lied to me

Makes me laugh.

Howard

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15401
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #114 on: April 21, 2008, 04:17:32 PM »
According to ABC's Charlie Gibson, he signed a paper saying he did.
Obama denied it.

Watch the news in the next two days... whatever he signed, with his name on it, with the video of him denying ever signing it, will be all the rave, come Friday.


We all know CLinton feels this way, it's not disputed.  She's a gungrabber, plain and simple.

Did either one of them say they wanted to end the 2nd ammendment? No!
Good GOD man, please , try and understand what your comment actually states.
This is typical emotion based rhetoric that is NOT based on how policy and law actually gets made or a bill would be passed, etc.
I don't want to insult anyone, but in all honesty , based on some of these political posts here , I seriously wonder if many of you really understand how laws are passed in congress , how a bill gets vote on ,etc.
Why do I say this?  ??? I don't read too much about what actual legislation was porposed and awhat actual bill was voted on and what are the constittional concerns for such a law to pass muster , etc.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #115 on: April 21, 2008, 04:24:09 PM »
Did either one of them say they wanted to end the 2nd ammendment? No!


No politician in history has said this, howie.

but many have worked to slowly erode gun rights.

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #116 on: April 21, 2008, 10:09:56 PM »
First, what do you know about objectivity?  You think that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right bear arms.  So you're misguided right out of the box.

Second, the principle I quoted from the ACLU is the judicial principle used for the last 60 plus years in all federal gun cases and it started with the Miller case. 

You can't deny that.  It's true.

And last, You can't change that history and the fact that the summary quote from the ACLU is 100% accurate.
Stop crying and hiding behind ad hominem attacks.  Show me the history of decisions of the federal courts where the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to bear arms (I mean prior to the recent activist district decisions relying on the individual right fallacy).
If I'm wrong about the federal courts treatment of the 2nd Amendment over the last 6+ decades, just let me know.

Otherwise you have no individual 2nd amendment right to own a gun that's over and above your right to own any other piece of property

You might as well be talking about your right to own a steak knife and a gun as a special set just for you.

The federal courts have held that way for decades.  Now we might see a activist judges on the SCT overturn that.

It really doesn't matter to me anyways.  I could care less.  As I said before, gun activism is boring to me.   

The only time I do find it really entertaining is when some dumb-ass hunter (that values nature by destroying it), ends up accidentally shooting another hunter b/c he thought he was a deer.  Now that's entertainment.


You are so hilariously wrong I am ashamed you live in this country.

The 2nd amendment involves the right of the people to bear arms.  It is a right just like every other right in the constitution, INDIVIDUAL.  The militia refers to armed citizens opposing an oppressive government.  You need a history lesson.

Also, your view of hunters is pure idiocy.  Since man has destroyed almost every natural predator in areas we inhabit hunters are a necessity to compensate for nature.  Otherwise you have entire species that starve into extinction due to overpopulation as is happening with deer in various parts of the USA.


www.BrinkZone.com

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
  • This Thing On?
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #117 on: April 22, 2008, 05:45:33 AM »
Exactly.Dishonest?  Fuck you.  Missing the citation, I admitted that.  So what? 

Yes, dishonest, is that a term you don't understand? By the way you act, you don't. You didn't "miss" a citation, you put a quote to a case and used that as a cite as if I might not notice, them back peddled, insulted, and tried pretty much everything to get around it. You got nailed period.

Call me a liar and dishonest again and I'll reach through this computer screen and wring your scrawny neck.  Well, not really.

Only two choices here, you either (a) are dishonest and a liar, or (b) don't know how to cite a simple quote correctly and not man enough to admit it. Those are your only two choices to explain it. If you don't know how to cite correctly and or attribute quotes to their source, then you should not be in such a debate.

Is the matter asserted in the quote on the MIller case true?

No, it's not, and no reading of that case leads one to conclude that stupid quote you put up from the Miller case via the ACLU which you have yet to correctly cite! Even a non lawyer can read the Miller case and find no such conclusion from it. The correct interpretation was given already via URL I put up. As stated already, the Miller case is also misquoted or misused by some lower courts and biased groups such as the silly ACLU. And that's not the rambling taken from some ACLU site (as you did), it's from peer reviewed legal journals. For example:

CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT
INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND
THE SECOND AMENDMENT

1996 Cumberland Law Review. Originally published as 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 961-1004 (1996). P

"I will also examine the subsequent (p.963)lower federal court interpretations and applications of Miller. I will argue that the lower courts have strayed so far from the Court's original holding to the point of being intellectually dishonest. In illustrating both the depth and breadth of the lower courts' dishonesty, I will draw upon Karl Llewellyn's studies of appellate court decisionmaking."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

That's how you correctly cite a quote BTW.

You will not answer that b/c it is true. 

And you haven't answered b/c it is true.

I'll tell you, I would debate the Devil himself if it gave me a better handle on the subject matter.

And the devil himself will also bust you when you attempt to pull a fast one thinking you would not get nailed because you figured no one here would actually check.

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #118 on: April 22, 2008, 11:21:21 AM »
Yes, dishonest, is that a term you don't understand? By the way you act, you don't. You didn't "miss" a citation, you put a quote to a case and used that as a cite as if I might not notice, them back peddled, insulted, and tried pretty much everything to get around it. You got nailed period.

Only two choices here, you either (a) are dishonest and a liar, or (b) don't know how to cite a simple quote correctly and not man enough to admit it. Those are your only two choices to explain it. If you don't know how to cite correctly and or attribute quotes to their source, then you should not be in such a debate.

No, it's not, and no reading of that case leads one to conclude that stupid quote you put up from the Miller case via the ACLU which you have yet to correctly cite! Even a non lawyer can read the Miller case and find no such conclusion from it. The correct interpretation was given already via URL I put up. As stated already, the Miller case is also misquoted or misused by some lower courts and biased groups such as the silly ACLU. And that's not the rambling taken from some ACLU site (as you did), it's from peer reviewed legal journals. For example:

CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT
INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND
THE SECOND AMENDMENT

1996 Cumberland Law Review. Originally published as 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 961-1004 (1996). P

"I will also examine the subsequent (p.963)lower federal court interpretations and applications of Miller. I will argue that the lower courts have strayed so far from the Court's original holding to the point of being intellectually dishonest. In illustrating both the depth and breadth of the lower courts' dishonesty, I will draw upon Karl Llewellyn's studies of appellate court decisionmaking."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

That's how you correctly cite a quote BTW.

And the devil himself will also bust you when you attempt to pull a fast one thinking you would not get nailed because you figured no one here would actually check.

calm down troll face, its only the internet
!

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #119 on: April 22, 2008, 11:50:33 AM »
Did either one of them say they wanted to end the 2nd ammendment? No!
Good GOD man, please , try and understand what your comment actually states.
This is typical emotion based rhetoric that is NOT based on how policy and law actually gets made or a bill would be passed, etc.
I don't want to insult anyone, but in all honesty , based on some of these political posts here , I seriously wonder if many of you really understand how laws are passed in congress , how a bill gets vote on ,etc.
Why do I say this?  ??? I don't read too much about what actual legislation was porposed and awhat actual bill was voted on and what are the constittional concerns for such a law to pass muster , etc.


I think some of the posters here have been watching one too many episodes of "West Wing" and believe there's big drama to be found in everything.

Ie, instead of actually reading and listening to what the politicians actually are saying, they try to find drama and hidden messages behind everything.

Perhaps because that is so much more exciting than the dull reality.

In which none of the candidate is going to do jack shit about the 2nd amendment.

Just my 2...

 ;)
As empty as paradise

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #120 on: April 22, 2008, 03:10:39 PM »
Quote
Yes, dishonest, is that a term you don't understand? By the way you act, you don't. You didn't "miss" a citation, you put a quote to a case and used that as a cite as if I might not notice, them back peddled, insulted, and tried pretty much everything to get around it. You got nailed period.

Only two choices here, you either (a) are dishonest and a liar, or (b) don't know how to cite a simple quote correctly and not man enough to admit it. Those are your only two choices to explain it. If you don't know how to cite correctly and or attribute quotes to their source, then you should not be in such a debate.
The quote came from the ACLU's summation of the case:  ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Your false dichotomy of (a) or (b) above just exposes Three things about you:

1.  You don't care about the truth of the matter re 2nd Am jurisprudence and
2.  You favor the insulation of NRA propaganda and your own prejudices
3.  You don't believe that someone can omit a cite without a nefarious purpose.  Tough noogies for you.

Quote
No, it's not, and no reading of that case leads one to conclude that stupid quote you put up from the Miller case via the ACLU which you have yet to correctly cite! Even a non lawyer can read the Miller case and find no such conclusion from it.
That's why you're not a lawyer and the following 30+ cases interpret Miller as affirming the interpretation of the 2nd Am as a group/militia right.  http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf

Quote
The correct interpretation was given already via URL I put up. As stated already, the Miller case is also misquoted or misused by some lower courts and biased groups such as the silly ACLU.
You do understand that this is merely your opinion.

The fact of the matter is is that the federal courts do not hold that the 2nd Am confers an individual right to bear arms.  Look at the cases since Miller until 1999 when the NRA's investments paid off in the bastard case of Gillespie.


Quote
And that's not the rambling taken from some ACLU site (as you did), it's from peer reviewed legal journals. For example:

CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT
INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND
THE SECOND AMENDMENT

1996 Cumberland Law Review. Originally published as 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 961-1004 (1996). P

"I will also examine the subsequent (p.963)lower federal court interpretations and applications of Miller. I will argue that the lower courts have strayed so far from the Court's original holding to the point of being intellectually dishonest. In illustrating both the depth and breadth of the lower courts' dishonesty, I will draw upon Karl Llewellyn's studies of appellate court decisionmaking."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

That's how you correctly cite a quote BTW.
The precedential value of a law review article is dicta at best.  It's merely an opinion.  In other words it's far below the precedential value of real court cases which have historically held the 2nd AM confers a group right and NOT an individual right to bear arms.
Quote
And the devil himself will also bust you when you attempt to pull a fast one thinking you would not get nailed because you figured no one here would actually check.
There is nothing to bust.  The ACLU's statement is accurate in it's content and evaluation. 

End of story.  You've proven nothing except that you don't know how the courts interpret the 2nd Am.

Quote
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of 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 NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "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...
Surely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."


http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #121 on: April 22, 2008, 03:14:46 PM »
You are so hilariously wrong I am ashamed you live in this country.

The 2nd amendment involves the right of the people to bear arms.  It is a right just like every other right in the constitution, INDIVIDUAL.  The militia refers to armed citizens opposing an oppressive government.  You need a history lesson.

Also, your view of hunters is pure idiocy.  Since man has destroyed almost every natural predator in areas we inhabit hunters are a necessity to compensate for nature.  Otherwise you have entire species that starve into extinction due to overpopulation as is happening with deer in various parts of the USA.


You know less about the 2nd Am than BrickZone. 


Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #122 on: April 22, 2008, 03:16:15 PM »

I think some of the posters here have been watching one too many episodes of "West Wing" and believe there's big drama to be found in everything.

Ie, instead of actually reading and listening to what the politicians actually are saying, they try to find drama and hidden messages behind everything.

Perhaps because that is so much more exciting than the dull reality.

In which none of the candidate is going to do jack shit about the 2nd amendment.

Just my 2...

 ;)

The Zionists control the COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everything is a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #123 on: April 22, 2008, 03:19:20 PM »
Durka durka mohammed jihad!!!

www.BrinkZone.com

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
  • This Thing On?
Re: Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?
« Reply #124 on: April 22, 2008, 03:48:15 PM »
The quote came from the ACLU's summation of the case:

Which is...drum roll...wrong. Babble snipped. Perhaps fabricate a new quote?