2nd Amendment Case (Held: individual right)

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by FOTD




80 million Americans have a right to bear arms.... Was there not a woman shot to death just yesterday here in Tulsa? She was shot with her own registered gun by an intruder. Shouldn't there be an emphasis on safety over freedom in order to protect the victims? Is it ok to do above ground nuclear testing? No. But, it's for national security. Who cares about the fallout? Same logic....

You still can't wear your gun on the outside CF
despite your desire to show off.

Apparently, she was not shot by an intruder.....

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8564778

"Records show Kastner had claimed he was in the Israeli Special Forces and was going to have access to millions of dollars through an Israeli charitable group called the 713 Corporation."

He was a nut but not a gun nut.......had access to a gun and shot her in the head.

Sad. She was a kind person.

Meanwhile, "It's a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws," Gov. Rod Blagojevich said during an appearance at a West Side community agency to announce a summer jobs program. "And as a result, it's the wrong decision."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story

Is that normal for our police chief to totally  impugn the character of a suspect in the media?  Kastner's attorneys are going to have fun with that.

He seems to be doing a good job. Kastner will need an assigned attorney. And good luck with that. You don't think the weirdo will confess for a death sentence reduction?

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

CF:

Since the days of Athens, we should consider this as current history, as it is a duplication over and over the control of a self selected group who want the working poor to finance them, as through our department of propaganda we seek to control the cash cow which furnishes the source of their control.

Peter Wall in his works of the formers of the constitution (American Government) would analyze each of the members that were not chosen by the working poor, to participate in the writing of the constitution behind guarded closed doors.  Many were there to protect states rights which they feared federalism would render them back to the English rule.

Franklin at the start of the meeting said similar to "I smell a rat" and went home.

After the draft was completed the question arose that this was total federalism, which denied the states rights, so it lay on the table as only a draft that would not be submitted to the legislators because it contained no right for the working poor.

A couple years later at another meeting the 12 Amendments to give the working poor a place in the constitution was submitted and of them 10 were chosen to be included in the final draft being submitted by the congress to the states as an insurance that it included both state and civilian rights.

I agree history records that a selection of words were used to make no commitments of states rights nor individual rights.  As the war of 1860 settled State Rights and Justice Cardozo in 1937 ruled on the working poor's civilian right.  

These "well chosen words" in the present requires in excess of over one-million attorneys and judges writing in millions of white papers of the interruption of the simple well chosen words  to clarify the simple chosen words used in the Amendments.

The system has not died as it is alive and well in the political system existing in Tulsa and elsewhere as the cash cow has become the working poor.

From the days when the civilians gathered together for protection of their rights in Athens, (creating the cash cow) today there has been no change.          

Civilian rights or civil rights? Interesting wording Shadows.
Substitute the words "working poor" for slaves. It wasn't reverting to English rule they feared as much as losing the right to own slaves.
Why are you softening the facts up?

[shadows]

FOTD:

The slavery question was not the cause of the war (cross your fingers) the cause was for economy reasons.  It was the life style of the southern states.  It was two years after the war started before the Edict of Emancipation was written.  (This is all on very thin ice.)  

I stand by the "civilian rights" There has always been a poor cash cow through all history.  Name one country that has not gone through it

We should consider who is elected vice president.  The odds are greater than those at the casino......................................."    

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

FOTD:

The slavery question was not the cause of the war (cross your fingers) the cause was for economy reasons.  It was the life style of the southern states.  It was two years after the war started before the Edict of Emancipation was written.  (This is all on very thin ice.)  

I stand by the "civilian rights" There has always been a poor cash cow through all history.  Name one country that has not gone through it

We should consider who is elected vice president.  The odds are greater than those at the casino......................................."    

You're kidding.

Slavery=commerce=wealth building=life style....
I'm pretty certain without slaves, those Southerners would have never had a good life style.

Damn those Southern slave owners. They were having such a high time too. Until that Lincoln guy came around. Indeed, thin ice Shadows.

[FOTD]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702864.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia.


The Supreme Court has spoken: Thanks to the court's blockbuster 5 to 4 decision Thursday, Washingtonians now have the right to own a gun for self-defense. I leave the law to lawyers, but the public health lesson is crystal clear: The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia explicitly endorsed the wisdom of keeping a handgun in the home for self-defense. Such a weapon, he wrote, "is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long rifle; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." But Scalia ignored a substantial body of public health research that contradicts his assertions. A number of scientific studies, published in the world's most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show that the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home strongly outweigh the potential benefits.

In the real world, Scalia's scenario -- an armed assailant breaks into your home, and you shoot or scare away the bad guy with your handy handgun -- happens pretty infrequently. Statistically speaking, these rare success stories are dwarfed by tragedies. The reason is simple: A gun kept loaded and readily available for protection may also be reached by a curious child, an angry spouse or a depressed teen.


More than 20 years ago, I conducted a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Over the study's seven-year interval, more than half of all fatal shootings in the county took place in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides. A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.

Oh, one more thing: Scalia's ludicrous vision of a little old lady clutching a handgun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other (try it sometime) doesn't fit the facts. According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property. In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

The court has spoken, but citizens and lawmakers should base future gun-control decisions -- both personal and political -- on something more substantive than Scalia's glib opinion.


-- Arthur Kellermann, a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory University



Roberts' record on high court defies '05 pledges of centrism

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-court-john-robertsjun29,0,5374420.story

"In his three years on the court, Roberts has never sided with the more liberal members against his conservative brethren in a close case. He's never been that uncertain, critical fifth vote. That role has been played almost exclusively by Justice Anthony Kennedy."

"With his third term as chief justice coming to a close amid three explosive cases last week, John Roberts has proved to be almost everything conservatives hoped and liberals feared."

Roll players. Calamity court? Up the ole scotus erh,uh, scrotum. Take that you liberal and progressive scumbags. We gotcha with Clarence Thomas. Downhill from there. Pubic hairs on coke cans. Go on......

[MH2010]

We should ban residential swimming pools also.  I mean it is for the children!

What's more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.

About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.

Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.

Don't get me wrong. My goal is not to promote guns, but rather, to focus parents on an even greater threat to their children. People are well aware of the danger of guns and, by and large, gun owners take the appropriate steps to keep guns away from children. Public attitudes towards pools, however, are much more cavalier because people simply do not know the facts.

It takes thirty seconds for a child to drown. Infants can drown in water as shallow as a few inches. Child drownings are typically silent. As a parent, if you let your guard down for an instant, a pool (or even a bucket of water) may steal your child's life.

The Consumer Products Safety Commission offers a publication detailing some simple steps for safeguarding pools (available on the internet at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/359.pdf). The advice is mostly common sense. Included among the suggestions are installing fences that entirely surround the pool, putting locks on the gates, keeping house doors locked so toddlers cannot slip out of the house unmonitored, and installing power safety covers for the pool.

If every parent followed these steps, perhaps as many as 400 lives per year might be saved. This would be more lives saved than from two of the most successful safety-interventions in recent decades: the use of child car seats and the introduction of safer cribs. Potential lives saved from pool safety are far greater than from child-resistant packaging (an estimated 50 lives saved per year), keeping children away from airbags (less than 5 young children a year have been killed by air bags a year on average since their introduction), flame retardant pajamas (perhaps 10 lives saved annually), or safety drawstrings on children's clothing (two lives saved annually). Simply stated, keeping your children safe around water is one of the single most important things a parent can do to protect a child.

As a father who has lost a son, I know first-hand the unbearable pain that comes with a child's death. Amidst my grief, I am able to take some small solace in the fact that everything possible was done to fight the disease that took my son's life. If my son had died in a backyard pool due to my own negligence, I would not even have that to cling to. Parents who have lost children would do anything to get their babies back. Safeguard your pool so you don't become one of us.

Steven Levitt is a professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and a research associate of the American Bar Foundation.

[Conan71]

Sheesh, now I feel the need to fill in my pool and melt my guns into a peace sign belt buckle or two.

Thanks MH

[FOTD]

My handgun, my parasite
Never forget: The brutal effects of the Bush regime will be felt for generations
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Mark Morford

07/02/2008

Ah, so this is how it's gonna be.

Like recurring cancer. No, more like a rogue rash, an STD, flaring up at unexpected times and in unexpected places and when it fades, you gently let yourself forget all about it until it suddenly erupts and hits hard and ruins your day, and then you can only sit back and moan softly, slather on ointment, shudder.

Wait, one more: Maybe it's most like a nasty intestinal worm, a wicked parasite like those you suck down in India or deep Mexico or the jungles of Indonesia, the kind that burrow deep and attach to all manner of essential organs and induce a wicked bout of dysentery or all-over body convulsion, until you finally crawl out of the hospital and drown in antibiotics and slowly work your way back to semi-health — but only semi, because of course you are never quite the same.

This is where we are. This is the state of the nation after having swallowed the malicious worm of Bush. We have, by all accounts, suffered — and somehow survived — the very worst of the illness, the cancer, the oozing spirit. But now, as America's worst president prepares to amble off the stage he never deserved to be on in the first place, it is time to prepare for any number of convulsions, aftershock, excruciating reminders.

Here is your Bush-loaded Supreme Court, for one regrettable example, addressing the much-misinterpreted Second Amendment for the first time in eons. Here is the majority of the court basically arguing that, in case you forgot, much of America still blindly loves its guns, and of course handguns are a nice addition to any God-fearing family's arsenal of ridiculous self-defense weaponry and therefore banning a device designed to do nothing but kill other humans is just plain wrong.

It is, by all accounts, a severe, dark cloud of a decision, loaded with sadness and a feeling of despair, the cruel notion that America is still defined by its love of violence, or even the utterly phony idea, put forth by Justice Antonin Scalia himself, that only violence prevents violence, or that the answer to the gun problem is, quite simply, more guns, because surely that's what the founding fathers intended, more paranoid NASCAR dads stocking Glocks in the rec room to protect the rug rats from those icky drug-dealing rapists who never come.

Is it worth mentioning how handguns kept in the home are much more likely to be used for suicides and homicides, not to mention fondled by those same curious rug rats who find daddy's little Elvis in the sock drawer and decide to aim it at their sisters? Worth pointing out that the self-defense argument is not only pathetically illogical, part of a silly pseudo-cowboy mythology, it's also statistically untrue, a perpetual, insidious lie that's undermined the American identity for generations?

Nah. Let us not stare down that particular barrel of gloom just now. Instead, let us prepare. Let us steel ourselves. As we head into the Obama era and as the GOP juggernaut mercifully sputters and lurches back to the cave of 1950, let us be reminded that escaping the Bush aftermath isn't going to be all wine and roses and new energy policies.

See, we've been enjoying a small reprieve. These past six months or so, it's been sort of delightful to finally turn our attention toward the imminent Democratic sea change and away from the ravages of the Bush disease, to finally look toward the new, as we get to focus on all those things we might be able to do once we get out of this damn hospital and get the weak-kneed Democratic Party out of second gear.

But oh, not so fast.

Let us be reminded, the Bush virus will be with us for years, generations. Aside from the shambles of Iraq and the Middle East, aside from handguns and the decided mixed blessing of the Supreme Court's recent spate of decisions, there are maneuvers and decisions we don't even know about, nefarious arrangements, a corruption so deep that normally staid historians are behaving more like alarmed climate-change scientists: We know it's going to be bad, but we just don't know how bad.

There are destroyed nations, mauled infrastructures, horribly compromised federal agencies from FEMA to the EPA, the CIA to the FCC. There is a rogue outsourced military, citizens who can no longer sue gun manufacturers, six straight years of increased poverty, untold numbers of homophobic, misogynistic judicial appointees, devastating environmental policies the consequences of which could take generations to comprehend, much less repair.

Where do you dare to look? Women's rights? Science? Foreign policy? Currency devaluation? Big Oil? Halliburton's billions in war profit? Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the Dick Cheney agenda of torture and pre-emptive aggression? What about unchecked corporate cronyism, the shunning of the United Nations and of international law, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, wiretapping and surveillance and "evildoers" galore?

And finally, what of all those families, the thousands of dead U.S. soldiers, the tens of thousands of brain-damaged, disabled, permanently wounded? Bush's legacy isn't just one of staggering social ineptitude combined with shocking success at serving his corporate masters. It's foremost a legacy soaked to the bone in blood.

Truly, I firmly believe the record will reveal that no president in modern history has done more to unravel the American identity, to dumb down the populace and cater to the basest instincts of man than the one about to mispronounce his way into the history books. Even Nixon didn't leave office with Bush's incredible range of ignominy.

Ironically, this is why many in the GOP are chuckling in secret, rubbing their hands together, plotting their revenge. They know the colossal pile of issues and problems Barack Obama will inherit is so overwhelming, so unsolvable, it doesn't matter how smart and aggressive he might be. It doesn't matter that he'll have a Democratic Congress. He's just plain doomed. Combine this with America's infamous short attention span, and within a few years, just watch as the GOP emerges from the murky depths, the champion of a "new" solution.

I know, it can seem bleak. Insurmountable, even. But here's the lesson of any major injury, of surviving a serious illness and getting on with your life. Often, it's not merely about letting time heal all wounds. It's not always about ignoring the scar, or looking away from our permanent deformity and pretend we don't now walk with a savage limp.

It's far more about learning to live with the violence that's been wreaked upon the national body, letting the scale of the wound fuel us, shock us back to life. Question is, do we have enough optimistic ointment to cover it all? "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/07/02/notes070208.DTL&nl=fix

[cannon_fodder]

lol, I never read FOTD's spam articles.  But I just read over that one (read last post before reopening a thread).   Damn constitution all getting in the way of this San Francisco man's ideas.  I blame Bush too.  Repeal the 2nd Amendment if you don't like it, don't argue that it doesn't really exist.
- - -

Anyway, here is a picture of the new machine gun I bought last Thursday:


Is too a machine gun.  At least, that's what DC says.  Anything that can shoot 12 bullets without having to reload is a "machine gun" and banned.  You also still have to keep your weapon disassembled unless you are in immediate danger - so robberies must be scheduled in advance.

And FYI, crime has not risen as a result of the revocation of the gun ban.  Time will tell, but I doubt it doubles like it did when weapons were revoked (aka, it didn't solve the problem).

A new lawsuit has been filed.  And on and on we go!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCTDCtVBhc2ugiMV6sP_bPJKdG2QD927381G1

[FOTD]

Walthur here......beats a pitchfork.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

lol, I never read FOTD's spam articles.  But I just read over that one (read last post before reopening a thread).   Damn constitution all getting in the way of this San Francisco man's ideas.  I blame Bush too.  Repeal the 2nd Amendment if you don't like it, don't argue that it doesn't really exist.
- - -

Anyway, here is a picture of the new machine gun I bought last Thursday:


Is too a machine gun.  At least, that's what DC says.  Anything that can shoot 12 bullets without having to reload is a "machine gun" and banned.  You also still have to keep your weapon disassembled unless you are in immediate danger - so robberies must be scheduled in advance.

And FYI, crime has not risen as a result of the revocation of the gun ban.  Time will tell, but I doubt it doubles like it did when weapons were revoked (aka, it didn't solve the problem).

A new lawsuit has been filed.  And on and on we go!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCTDCtVBhc2ugiMV6sP_bPJKdG2QD927381G1

I should have kept my mouth shut and bought that one for myself.  I had no idea it was a gov't model.  Lucky dog!

[FOTD]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/unitarian-church-shooting_b_115392.html

Unitarian Church Shooting is Terrorism
Joe Lauria

"The shooting at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN on Sunday that left two adults dead and seven wounded was an unequivocal act of terrorism.

Though the international community at the UN General Assembly has been unable to come up with a common definition of terrorism as it applies to existing groups there are broad elements of a definition that are widely held.

An act of terrorism is violence by a civilian or civilians against unarmed civilians for a political motive. Al-Qaeda attacking US servicemen in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, or in the USS Cole, or in Iraq or even in Fort Dix, New Jersey is not terrorism. It is a guerilla attack. Al-Qaeda attacking civilians in US embassies in Africa or at the World Trade Center is indeed terrorism.

So is suspect Jim D. Adkisson's attack on civilians in the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Police found a letter in Adkisson's car expressing his " hatred of the liberal movement."

Even if this man hopefully acted alone it is chilling to all progressive people and groups, like the Unitarians. Are we free to express our views, indeed to allow our children to perform in a church play?

Adkisson must be tried on terrorism charges and the White House and Congressional leaders must speak out against this form of domestic terrorism too, not just the inflated threat from Islamic extremists that threaten American political and economic interests abroad and help drum up defense contracts at home."

For those who hate Huffington Post but love their guns.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/unitarian-church-shooting_b_115392.html

Unitarian Church Shooting is Terrorism
Joe Lauria

"The shooting at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN on Sunday that left two adults dead and seven wounded was an unequivocal act of terrorism.

Though the international community at the UN General Assembly has been unable to come up with a common definition of terrorism as it applies to existing groups there are broad elements of a definition that are widely held.

An act of terrorism is violence by a civilian or civilians against unarmed civilians for a political motive. Al-Qaeda attacking US servicemen in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, or in the USS Cole, or in Iraq or even in Fort Dix, New Jersey is not terrorism. It is a guerilla attack. Al-Qaeda attacking civilians in US embassies in Africa or at the World Trade Center is indeed terrorism.

So is suspect Jim D. Adkisson's attack on civilians in the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Police found a letter in Adkisson's car expressing his " hatred of the liberal movement."

Even if this man hopefully acted alone it is chilling to all progressive people and groups, like the Unitarians. Are we free to express our views, indeed to allow our children to perform in a church play?

Adkisson must be tried on terrorism charges and the White House and Congressional leaders must speak out against this form of domestic terrorism too, not just the inflated threat from Islamic extremists that threaten American political and economic interests abroad and help drum up defense contracts at home."

For those who hate Huffington Post but love their guns.

I think huffpo gets this one wrong.  Terrorism, to me, is more of a conspiracy between two or more people with an agenda to strike fear in the hearts of those they despise.

This isn't much different than a school shooting or any other church shooting.  How does labeling it terrorism or not bring back the dead or change the fact these people are dead?

It doesn't change a single thing, other than creating an opportunity for multiple wasteful court cases, like Terry Nichols.

[FOTD]

 [:O]

[cannon_fodder]

What does the church shooting have to do with this thread anyway?

We are not debating if guns can kill people nor what the definition of terrorism is.  Clearly no side of the case wants to see people killed.  And article has no bearing on the issues at hand.