Shooting at Batman movie

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Vis

Should everyone have weekly mental health evaluations? It's impossible.

Just liberals. And its a justifiable expense.

Originally Posted by Vis

No, freedom or safety is always a balancing act and needs to be discussed soberly the way nothing is right now between the parties.

According to the 2nd Amendment, there's nothing to discuss, soberly or otherwise.

Originally Posted by MACH1

We should be more like Switzerland in that regards. Certainly don't hear about any gun battles going on there.

Legend has it that when the Swiss visited upon the krauts thet they'd lose their officer corps in the process of invading Switzerland, they would-be invaders rethought the merits of Switzerland's sovereignty.

A Columbine or Aurora wouldn't happen in Switzerland because the citizens are armed and carry as part of their service obligation.

[MACH1]

even Muslim American citizens

Am I missing something? Is there a special law that prevents them from legally owning guns?

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Vis

No one gains from this. Many people lost everything. But are you suggesting that the star chamber that masterminded the 9/11 fraud did this as well?

What are you drooling about?

Originally Posted by Vis

Hey, aren't you willing to attack Iran to stop them from getting nukes? On the otherhand you are in favor of any American citizen being allowed to have one under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, even Muslim American citizens. That is your position?

Attacking Iran wouldn't be advisable or would happen under this "administration". Such activity should be left to adults. I would, however, applaud the assassination of Iran's leadership, which recent history suggests is within the "administration's" capability. No, that wouldn't gain my vote.

But interestingly, we may have swerved onto "common ground". I don't think it's a good idea that any citizen posses nukes. Witness the easily amused and their fireworks.

And no, I oppose any muslim possessing any weapon more lethal than a butter knife. Their behavior betrays them.

[Vis]

Originally Posted by Vincent

What are you drooling about?



Attacking Iran wouldn't be advisable or would happen under this "administration". Such activity should be left to adults. I would, however, applaud the assassination of Iran's leadership, which recent history suggests is within the "administration's" capability. No, that wouldn't gain my vote.

But interestingly, we may have swerved onto "common ground". I don't think it's a good idea that any citizen posses nukes. Witness the easily amused and their fireworks.

And no, I oppose any muslim possessing any weapon more lethal than a butter knife. Their behavior betrays them.

Parsing your post, you don't think some American citizens have the same Constitutional right you do based upon a religious test. So much for your signature or any allegiance you ever claimed to the constitution. I guess you pick and choose the parts you like.

You draw the line on the 2nd amendment at nukes at least. What about mustard gas? Bunker busters? Napalm?

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Vis

Parsing your post, you don't think some American citizens have the same Constitutional right you do based upon a religious test. So much for your signature or any allegiance you ever claimed to the constitution. I guess you pick and choose the parts you like.

If those citizens are muslim, no. As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms. We're not without precedent.

Fort Hood wouldn't have happened if we had the clarity and leadership to remove muslims from the armed forces and disarm muslim citizens. They are our enemies by their own declarations and actions.

Originally Posted by Vis

You draw the line on the 2nd amendment at nukes at least. What about mustard gas? Bunker busters? Napalm?

Parental caution strongly advised.

[SCMom]

Originally Posted by Vincent

If those citizens are muslim, no.

According to the 2nd Amendment, there's nothing to discuss.

Sorry, but by your own words, you contradict yourself. What you are suggesting is more in line with liberal thinking than Constitutional conservative thinking. (I know better than everyone else, so things should be my way...screw the Constitution.)

You can have all the hatred and bias you want, and spout all the rhetoric you please, but you don't get to go deciding who is protected by the Constitution based on religious practices. And neither should our government.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Vincent

What about "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." is ambiguous? "Infringe" means "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. In other words, any and every law that restricts full access to weapons of any kind is unconstitutional. Registration, limitations, restrictions of any kind are verboten under this, our most important amendment. It protects the rest of the amendments..

Really?

This passge is from the majority opinion of Justice Scalia (no wild eyed liberal activist) in the District of Columbia v. Heller decison in 2008 that held the District of Columbia's virtual ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment. (this quote is from pp. 54 and 55of the linked opinion)

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.... 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.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”....

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

That pasage seems to indicate there a lots of restrictions on weapons possession, including banning personal ownership of the AR-15 The Joker used in Aurora, that would not violate the Second Amendment

Originally Posted by Vincent

I'm always very suspicious of these isolated crazy incidents because of who stands to gain from them.

So you think Eric Holder may be behind this to divert attention from Fast and Furious?

Keep in mind what prompted the Fast and Furious fiasco to get started

Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.

Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."

By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...furious-truth/

The fact that the Mexican drug cartels use Arizona as their one stop weapons shopping siteindicates there may be some problems taht flow from an unrestricted firerms market that could be more tightly regulated without coming close to breaching the Second Amendment.

[Vis]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

So you think Eric Holder may be behind this to divert attention from Fast and Furious?
.

Romney thinks it was the soviet union.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by SCMom

According to the 2nd Amendment, there's nothing to discuss.

Sorry, but by your own words, you contradict yourself. What you are suggesting is more in line with liberal thinking than Constitutional conservative thinking. (I know better than everyone else, so things should be my way...screw the Constitution.)

You can have all the hatred and bias you want, and spout all the rhetoric you please, but you don't get to go deciding who is protected by the Constitution based on religious practices. And neither should our government.

Mom, we've been round and round on the [slur] thing and this could go another 1,000 posts like the last time. As I have said in the past, the only people I actually hate are terrorists and those that aid and abet them, and for all the reasons that I stated.

With that as context, islam has purposed itself to destroy Israel and the United States, their words, not mine. Their domestic elements have posited that they could take down this country with as few as 8 million inside. They ( the people that run islam) seek to use our liberty and laws against us, sort of weaponizing our own societal construct. Common sense would suggest that if you are dealing with an enemy that has plainly stated that they will use your own societal construct as a weapon against you, that you might want to revisit their "rights" just as was done with the Nisei and every citizen that has turned felon.

To those that their message was lost on, they declared war on us. They have vowed our destruction. Everything they do is to that end, so say they. I believe that they are serious because all indications are that they entirely lack humor in any form. I am hopeful, but not very confident, that my countrymen will realize this before it is too late and the liberties of the other 99% are lost to our own complacency and stupidity.

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by Vincent

If those citizens are muslim, no. As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms. We're not without precedent.

Fort Hood wouldn't have happened if we had the clarity and leadership to remove muslims from the armed forces and disarm muslim citizens. They are our enemies by their own declarations and actions.

Wow. A new low has been reached. And of course we're not without precedent, Vinny. We've got some real beauts to resurrect, if precedent is all it takes.

Originally Posted by Vincent

Mom, we've been round and round on the muzzie thing and this could go another 1,000 posts like the last time.

OK, so now a new low has been reached. The dear lord knows I don't mind lively debate, but we're going to keep it civil. Have whatever misguided notions you want about other people, but you will not be calling then by derogatory terms on this website. Thank you.