THE REAL TRAGEDY OF AMERICA'S GUN VIOLENCE

[warrior1972]

As I said, I'm not a lawyer. But listen to someone who was: Warren Burger. He was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 17 years, a conservative Republican appointed by Richard Nixon. Here's what he said about the Second Amendment:

“This has been 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. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A ‘well-regulated militia’ – if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated…someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days waiting period, and I said I’m very much against it. It should be 30 days waiting period.”


globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/08/the-real-tragedy-of-americas-gun-violence/?hpt=hp_t1

[prospero]

Another one of those...."We need to disarm the people for their own good things.

[101ABN]

Zakaria is full of shit.

"That finally leaves the issue of the American Constitution – the argument that the Second Amendment makes any kind of serious gun control impossible. I am not a legal historian, but I will note that many serious ones have pointed out that the Second Amendment was not invoked much for much of American history, often applied only to “well-regulated militias,” and for many decades did not stand in the way of sensible gun regulation. And the Supreme Court upheld such regulation. All that started to change in the 1970s and '80s as part of a spirited political movement to make gun rights inviolable."

Other than the Sullivan Act in NY and a very few others, the right of people to keep and bear arms was never seriously challenged until the 70s and 80s. The "spirited political movement" was a response, not an initiative.

When a liberal like Zakaria talks about "sensible regulations," what he really means is progressively more restrictive regulations.

It's a tragedy that a conservative justice like Burger completely misunderstood that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” ~ Thos. Jefferson

[Sailor]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” ~ Thos. Jefferson

"Which are you, slave or free man?" - Don't recall

[warrior1972]

Amendment II

"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."



The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms and similar devices.[1] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[2]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[3] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[4][5]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[5] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[6][7] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[8] Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.[9]




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



Right. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT MEANS:

Any gun.
Any time.
Any place.

No restrictions.

Not a problem.

WRONG.

Sorry. I don't buy it. And that's not what the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution says.


Prospero wants to talk about "disarming the people" . That's NOT what was said. NOBODY said "disarm the people". I will immediately oppose that...with my OWN firearms, if necessary.

101 talks about knowing what Zakaria "really means" , and about him being "full of shit".

Last time I looked, Zakaria has as much freedom of speech as anyone else.(Most definitely as much as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. )And I doubt if 101 can read minds, but it's been shown that once conservatives classify someone as a "liberal", they think they know more about what that person is thinking than that person does. )


"When a liberal like Zakaria talks about "sensible regulations," what he really means is progressively more restrictive regulations."


Oh wait, he's a 'Liberal'. EVERYBODY "knows" what "they" "REALLY mean". We have people who get paid incredible money to tell us that. Amazingly enough, however, NONE OF THEM ARE LIBERALS.


"It's a tragedy that a conservative justice like Burger completely misunderstood that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right."


And Warren Burger, a former conservative Republican Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, "misunderstood" the Second Amendment, despite having probably FORGOTTEN more about the law than any of us knows.

Why?

It's obvious, isn't it?

He had the nerve to disagree regardng the Second Amendment..

How dare he.



Old Sailor speaks about being a "slave or a free man". I submit that NONE of you has any idea what a "slave" is. None of YOU are. Not by a longshot.

NOBODY SAID A WORD ABOUT TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY, gentlemen.

NOBODY.

And I'M a GUN OWNER ( I own several, in fact, and I am damned proficient with ALL of them. )

The fact is that, with three hundred million guns in circulation in a nation of around three hundred twenty million, the genie is out of the bottle, and NOBODY is going to get it back IN the bottle, no matter WHAT the Constitution says.

But it WOULD be nice if a thirty-day waiting period were implemented that made sure to the that someone is entitled to carry a gun BEFORE an Aurora, Colorado, or a Newtown, or a Virginia Tech. And just because something is legal doesn't mean we shouldn't have restrictions on it.

ALCOHOL is an excellent example. It's legal, but we have LAWS governing it's use.

[101ABN]

"Last time I looked, Zakaria has as much freedom of speech as anyone else."

Doesn't prevent him from being full of shit.

"...but it's been shown that once conservatives classify someone as a "liberal", they think they know more about what that person is thinking than that person does. "

Really? It's not much of a stretch to know Zakaria's thoughts since he doesn't exactly make secrets of them.

California and New York provide a plethora of onerous and illogical laws exemplifying liberals' concepts of "common sense regulation." What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

How much infringement on your liberty is acceptable to YOU?.

For the record, We DO have restrictions. Law books are full of them.

Criminals historically don't follow the law.

[warrior1972]

"Doesn't prevent him from being full of shit."

Along with all the conservative Republican mouthpieces you so willingly listen to and THEIR "shit".

Rush Limbaugh.

Ann Coulter.

Bill O'Reillly.

Sean Hannity.

Mike Savage.

etc.

Liberals this, liberals that.


"...but it's been shown that once conservatives classify someone as a "liberal", they think they know more about what that person is thinking than that person does. "

"Really? It's not much of a stretch to know Zakaria's thoughts since he doesn't exactly make secrets of them."

It's not much of a stretch to know that conservatives seem to think that they know EVERYTHING a liberal is thinking, ALL liberals, ALL of the time.

Liberals this, liberals that.

"California and New York provide a plethora of onerous and illogical laws exemplifying liberals' concepts of "common sense regulation." What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?"

Really? Then we should dispense with ALL restrictions? No permits? no Licenses? no limits on what kind of guns you can carry?



Want to tell us which restrictions you wish to get rid of, and which you wish to keep?


Or do you think we should get rid of any and ALL restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever?[/b][/u]


"How much infringement on your liberty is acceptable to YOU?"

Oh, the standard irrational argument, AGAIN?

So ANYBODY can own ANY gun any time, any place, anywhere, and do whatever they please with it?

Is THAT what you are arguing?

"For the record, We DO have restrictions. Law books are full of them.

Criminals historically don't follow the law."
[/quote]


Does that mean that convicted felons should have guns?

Amendment II

"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."

Does that mean EVERYBODY can carry a gun, ANY gun , ANY time, ANY where?

no restrictions...right? Take any and all restrictions off the books, as unconstitutional?

WELL?

[Sailor]

But it WOULD be nice if a thirty-day waiting period were implemented that made sure to the that someone is entitled to carry a gun BEFORE an Aurora, Colorado, or a Newtown, or a Virginia Tech.

Not one of the laws on the books now or proposed laws would have prevented ANY of those shipmate, and you know it. The mental problems with all of those shooters were either unrecognized or unreported to the proper agencies.

There are about 20,000 gun laws on the books right now, will one more or 20,000 more have made any difference? Doubtful, unless requirements are put into place that run counter to the Federal Government's HIPAA patient privacy regulations, requiring healthcare providers to report those conditions to law enforcement without a warrant.

Old Sailor speaks about being a "slave or a free man". I submit that NONE of you has any idea what a "slave" is. None of YOU are. Not by a longshot.

Don't go there mate, because while you may be a decendant of slaves (many blacks in this country aren't BTW) that doesn't mean you have any FIRST HAND experience that we do not, even under "Jim Crow."

Sorry if that riles you, but I think it has to be said. With the exception of people who have escaped from 3rd world or Islamic hellholes where it is still practiced no one in this country has "any idea" what it means to be a slave.

[101ABN]

I thought this was about Zakaria's article.

I don't recall him mentioning Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity! O'Reilly, or Savage.

My bad.

[warrior1972]

Not one of the laws on the books now or proposed laws would have prevented ANY of those shipmate, and you know it. The mental problems with all of those shooters were either unrecognized or unreported to the proper agencies.


True, a thorough background check may or may not have prevented those disasters. but it WOULD prevent SOME disasters.

There are about 20,000 gun laws on the books right now, will one more or 20,000 more have made any difference? Doubtful, unless requirements are put into place that run counter to the Federal Government's HIPAA patient privacy regulations, requiring healthcare providers to report those conditions to law enforcement without a warrant.

No, there are not "20,000 gun laws out there right now".

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-nras-fuzzy-decades-old-claim-of-20000-gun-laws/2013/02/04/4a7892c0-6f23-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html



And then we run into what I want a real bottom line answer to . If the right to bear arms is canot to be infringed, are ALL gun laws unconstitutional?

Old Sailor speaks about being a "slave or a free man". I submit that NONE of you has any idea what a "slave" is. None of YOU are. Not by a longshot.

Don't go there mate, because while you may be a decendant of slaves (many blacks in this country aren't BTW) that doesn't mean you have any FIRST HAND experience that we do not, even under "Jim Crow."

I did not say I did.

I said YOU didn't.

But if you DO want to go into it, the people I am descended from had a helluva lot more of an idea what it was like, growing up in a segregated, Jim Crow South under that naked hatred of a slavemasters' ancestors in a system that was DESIGNED to take the place of American slavery.

WE were the ones on the receiving end.

I won't EVER be backing off of that.


Sorry if that riles you, but I think it has to be said. With the exception of people who have escaped from 3rd world or Islamic hellholes where it is still practiced no one in this country has "any idea" what it means to be a slave.[/quote]

Agreed.

[warrior1972]

Dec 10, 2013 9:38:13 GMT -8 101ABN said:

I thought this was about Zakaria's article.

I don't recall him mentioning Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity! O'Reilly, or Savage.

My bad.

Does that mean that convicted felons should have guns?

Amendment II

"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."

Does that mean EVERYBODY can carry a gun, ANY gun , ANY time, ANY where?

no restrictions...right? Take any and all restrictions off the books, as unconstitutional?

WELL?

[tankcommander]

Dec 10, 2013 9:25:13 GMT -8 Sailor said:

With the exception of people who have escaped from 3rd world or Islamic hellholes where it is still practiced no one in this country has "any idea" what it means to be a slave.

I would add to that the Jews who survived the Nazi slave labor death camps.

But you probably didn't think of that because they're not constantly whining about it, rubbing peoples noses in it, and trying to milk it for all it's worth like some other people do.

[warrior1972]

Dec 10, 2013 10:41:21 GMT -8 tankcommander said:

Dec 10, 2013 9:25:13 GMT -8 Sailor said:

With the exception of people who have escaped from 3rd world or Islamic hellholes where it is still practiced no one in this country has "any idea" what it means to be a slave.

I would add to that the Jews who survived the Nazi slave labor death camps.

But you probably didn't think of that because they're not constantly whining about it, rubbing peoples noses in it, and trying to milk it for all it's worth like some other people do.

Oh, BULLSHIT.

I didn't think about it because the Third Reich lasted from 1933-1945.

AMERICAN SLAVERY WENT FROM 1620 TO 1865 AND WAS FOLLOWED BY JIM CROW AND SEGREGATION FROM 1865 TO 1964.

You'd do well to FIND OUT about a subject before you try to speak on it.

As for "whining about it, rubbing peoples' noses in it, and milking it for all it's worth," I'd advise you to back off. First and last warning.

[tankcommander]

First of all, I wasn't even talking to you.

If you would have stopped, and looked you would have seen the response was directed at Sailor's post.

Second, in historical context, compared to the Jews who have been enslaved off and on throughout history, from the Pharaohs, to the Romans, to the Nazis, your peoples history of slavery is just a blip on the radar.

"I'd advise you to back off. First and last warning."

Or what?

[warrior1972]

Dec 10, 2013 11:08:20 GMT -8 tankcommander said:

First of all, I wasn't even talking to you.

If you would have stopped, and looked you would have seen the response was directed at Sailor's post.

Second, in historical context, compared to the Jews who have been enslaved off and on throughout history, from the Pharaohs, to the Romans, to the Nazis, your peoples history of slavery is just a blip on the radar.

Which just goes to show how much you know about the subject:

NOTHING.

"Chattel slavery had been legal and widespread throughout North Africa when the region was controlled by the Roman Empire (47 BC - ca. 500 AD). The Sahel region south of the Sahara provided many of the African slaves held in North Africa during this period and there was a trans-Saharan slave trade in operation.[12] Chattel slavery persisted after the fall of the Roman empire in the largely Christian communities of the region. After the Islamic expansion into most of the region, the practices continued and eventually, the chattel form of slavery spread to major societies on the southern end of the Sahara (such as Mali, Songhai, and Ghana).[6]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa

Slavery in the New World has existed since there have been COLONIES in the New World.

And slavery in Africa STILL goes on today.

Blip on the radar, MY ASS.

And as for "or else, what'?

OR THIS:

You'll embarrass yourself with your ignorance.