Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7 (7 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:27 PM on 10/06/2011
"dreams that District of Columbia v. Heller would result in a free-for-all of gun-toting teens and AK-47 arsenals"

I don't know if that was the NRA's hope after Heller, but it sure appears to have been the hope of Henigan and others at the Brady Center.
03:26 PM on 10/06/2011
Believing that Heller only applied to defend one's self in a home is as silly as one can only speak freely in one's home.

Inalienable rights such as one to defend him or her self does not only mean in the home just like being able to speak freely in writing, on the internet, phone, or in public.

Hopefully SCOTUS will take this case and clarify further which Bill of Rights we can practice and where and which ones are only worth the letters on the parchment.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
04:29 PM on 10/06/2011
misterjack:

And you know what, there are restriction of First Amendment Rights As Well.

Why don't you test the limits. Post your true desires about the President on the web. See what happens.

Although I appreciate it you may consider intereference with the traditional Aztec religious ritual of human sacrifice should be permitted to true believers, I doubt the the Supreme Court would support you.

Realistically, there are cases restricting where and when the Santaria in Miami can do animal sacrifices.
05:30 PM on 10/06/2011
You're right, there are restrictions when one leaves the home in regards to the 1st Amendment (can't yell fire....) However, how can a woman defend her self from an attack that is 2-3x her size? There is a big difference between the 2nd amendment ONLY applying to the home and once you leave are defensless vs. going outside and yelling profanities to your neighbor.

What you are saying is a red herring, we're talking about our inalienable right do defend ourselves from harm.

There is a big difference between looking for trouble and being able to defend yourself from trouble. Just because you have a firearm does not mean you are looking for trouble, you're firearm is there just in case trouble finds you.

A restriction like what firearm you can carry outside your home would be appropriate to what you can say out in public but completely stripping your right to carry ANY firearm to defend yourself is unconstitutional.

Some people believe it or not don't want to be victims.
03:12 PM on 10/06/2011
It's best to lose lower court cases so it goes to SCOTUS and the important decisions are made.

"Shall not be infringed" is not a typo.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nosybear
Liar, damn liar, statistician and brewer
04:20 PM on 10/06/2011
Nor is "A well-regulated militia".
04:35 PM on 10/06/2011
In all honest means, I will invite you to show me a primary source that "well-regulated militia" applies to the National Guard in any state from the Founders of this country and the authors of the US Constitution. The stance you are taking has only been used for the past 100 years yet before that, it never existed nor has been ever found in any document. I would also kindly invite you to look up what "regulated" meant from a 1780s dictionary and I'd also invite you to please cite what the definition of militia meant when the Constution was written.

I will kindly wait for your response, thank you.
(I also hope you will honor academic debate and post this comment)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rhancheck
04:50 PM on 10/06/2011
dern pesky commas getting in the way for you.

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.

Not the Military, the government, either state or local...but the right of the people, states nothing about the people having to be part of a militia...just the right of the people shall not be infringed......
foresure
Brash and Harsh
04:30 PM on 10/06/2011
misterjake:

Actually, Heller did allow for infringement. God forbid you would read the opinion!.
05:35 PM on 10/06/2011
Yes, but Heller did not elaborate on the line between infringement and law. Hence why you and I are arguing now. :)

The Bill of Rights is gone....the 4th from the Patriot Act, the 2nd from Progressives, the 1st from both and the 10th from both.

What I wish for is a country that would defend all of our rights for each other, united we stand or divided we fall.


Ohwell, it was a good run and we did inspire a lot of people around the world.
03:07 PM on 10/06/2011
Yet even with all those stringent gun laws DC gun crime is some of the nations highest. Perhaps more armed law abiding citizens could help change that? People like you think they know what is best for everyone else and that sir is sad.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sue McFarland
03:17 PM on 10/06/2011
Excuse me--but there is a public safety interest in protecting our law enforcement officers against a "warehouse" of assault weapons. I do not dispute the right for an individual to bear arms--and I also believe there is room for some common sense: Why does one individual need what amounts to a machine gun so many of them?? Of what possible use could a multiple of such weapons be except to kill enmass a huge number of people, most of which are probably innocent of whatever a paranoid point of view would believe???
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ChuckChuckerson
This user has chosen to opt out of the micro-bio.
04:09 PM on 10/06/2011
What percentage of crimes are committed with these "assault weapons"? I'll help you out; according to FBI reports less than 0.2%.

Does that really constitute a public safety interest to you? Would anything really be accomplished by restricting guns that are almost never used in crimes?

What about banning swimming pools or motorcycles? Neither of these goods serve any purpose other than recreation and take far, far more lives than "assault weapons". DO you support banning or restricting them?
04:25 PM on 10/06/2011
Some Korean store owners sure did need those weapons during the LA Riots in 1992. Or those during Katrina (that did not have their weapons illegally stolen from the police) need weapons to protect themselves from multiple threats.

FBI conducted a report that their agents fire at least 6 rounds to stop an attacker. If you have only 10 rounds just pray that your attackers only number 2. Last time I checked, home invasions are conducted by multiple gang members numbering 4+. Will they stop for you when you need to reload while they have 30 round full auto AK-47s? Interstingly, those gang bangers have weapons on par if not better than the military yet common citizens like me cannot properly defend ourselves with our shotguns or bolt action hunting rifles.

what did the police do to the 1997 Bank of America robbery? They went to a local gun store and got AR-15 rifles because their pistols were not good enough. Let me remind you the robbers were using illegally configured AK-47s and high capacity magazines. It's against the law, yet the criminals still used them.

do you think murderers are going to be worried about background checks, magazine capacity or murder?

20,000 gun laws in the books yet criminals still ignore the 1st one...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeff Rosenbury
I love all people -- in the abstract
03:23 PM on 10/06/2011
You should read the anti-gun laws in Brazil. They are a liberal dream.

Of course the cops regularly shake down or execute anyone they want including judges. But your safe as long as you pay the bribes.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
04:31 PM on 10/06/2011
Keff

Could you post that portion of the Brazilian law. I'm sure Google can translate it for me.

Thanks.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
04:38 PM on 10/06/2011
Jeff:

Sorry, on the typo on your name. But if you could translate from Portuguese, that would be swell of you.
03:06 PM on 10/06/2011
"Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment granted a limited right to have a gun in the home"

That's not at all what Heller said. The landmark ruling affirmed that individuals have a right to bear arms that is not at all related to their participation in a militia. Of course, just like all constitutional rights it is not absolute right. You can't yell fire in a theater and DC has an interest in regulating firearms.

But to say that the NRA has accomplished nothing is simply an attempt to undermine the most significant individual rights case (except many the series of Guantanamo cases) in a generation. Your argument is wholly transparent.