superstring01
Moderator
Technically a fetus is alive. The debate is weather it's a human being or not.
~String
Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right
- Thread starter Buffalo Roam
- Start date
Technically a fetus is alive. The debate is weather it's a human being or not.
~String
Ask any woman who has an early miscarriage if she lost a child or was exfoliating.
More Americans with more guns.
More Americans with more guns.
Last edited:
I used to work in a department store, where I sold toys, camping supplies, and guns. Some of the people that bought a gun were very strange. One guy seemed mildly retarted. He was wearing camo everything, even his sneakers, hat, and pen in his pocket. He told me he was getting this cheap single shot rifle for groundhogs, and "they's good eatin' ".
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Ask any woman who has an early miscarriage if she lost a child or was exfoliating.
More Americans with more guns.
Not really, just the affirmation that this is a natural right of man.
And that right is, the right to defend him self and his family, and others, with out depending on a government agency.
And as has been ruled by the Supreme Court before the Police do not have a responsibility to protect you as a individual, only the peace of the public at large.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Now if you check your own laws, guess what, the police do not have to protect you as a individual, I don't believe that is the case in any country around the world.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
And what does this have to do with the price of tea?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Guess what, groundhog is a very good meal, roasted with potatos and carrots and onions, it is a dark meat, and rather tender.
Country-Style Groundhog
1 groundhog
1/2 c. flour
1/4 tsp. salt
1/4 tsp. pepper
1/4 c. cooking oil
1/2 tsp. sugar
Clean and skin as soon as possible. Remove all sent glands. Cut off head, feet and tail. Cure in cool place by suspending from hook approximately 4 days.
When ready to cook, lard according to recipe.
Dress groundhog as you would a rabbit, removing the small sacs in the back and under the forearm. Soak groundhog overnight in salted water to remove wild flavor.
Combine flour, salt and pepper; rub into groundhog pieces. Brown grounhog in hot oil in skillet; sprinkle with sugar. Reduce heat and add 1/2 cup water. Cover and simmer for about 30 minutes or until tender. Remove cover and cook for 10 minutes longer.
Boil & Bake Groundhog from "Cookin' With Home Storage" by Peggy Layton and Vicki Tate.
Skin and clean the groundhog. Boil until tender. Remove from the water and season with salt, pepper and red pepper. Bake in an oven at 350°F. or cook over an open fire.
Too much soaking and curing and scent glands for my taste...
Best post in the thread so far.
Bells
Staff member
:bugeye:
I'm scared to ask where you got that recipe from BR. It would scare me if you said it was a family favourite.:bawl:
No offense, but I'd rather stick to a roast beef and vegetables.
Don't you find that disturbing at all?madanthonywayne said:
That the public can purchase weapons in a store that would render local law enforcement virtually useless? Who would you rather have a fully automatic weapon? A nice guy who might just lose it one day and go on a shooting rampage? Or the law enforcement personnel?
Bells
Staff member
But the assumption here is that there is a way to enforce such a ban effectively. See also: prohibition.
Bells
Staff member
/Still riveted by BR's:
It's mesmerising.
The question that interests me would be whether the US would find it acceptable for the Government to ban automatic weapons for domestic sale and use. My guess is that they would not.
Does anyone in the US actually believe that a time will come where they have to raise their weapons against the State? And politics being what it is, there will always be two camps, one pro government and the other against. So who would be correct? Lets look at the aftermath of Katrina as an example. People were out of food and water and having to break into stores to survive. The State failed them miserably. Would it have been acceptable if they had raised their weapons against a police officer who tried to stop them stealing to feed their family during such a disastrous time? After all, the police officer represents the State and in that situation, the officer represents the tyrannical State that is preventing members of society from accessing a basic necessity of life. So would the use of weapons against the State (in this case the police officers representing the State and its laws) be acceptable if the State was attempting to prevent citizens from accessing a basic necessity such as food and water?
I am not talking about the ones who were stealing TV's and attempting to benefit from the hurricane.
I'm just curious as to how people who are pro guns in the US would view such a situation where people were opening fire on police officers who were trying to stop them from looting food and water to feed their families or medication for a family member, after a natural disaster leaves them stranded without aid or help from the State itself and they are on the verge of death if they don't find the basic necessities.
Guess what, groundhog is a very good meal, roasted with potatos and carrots and onions, it is a dark meat, and rather tender.
It's mesmerising.
The question that interests me would be whether the US would find it acceptable for the Government to ban automatic weapons for domestic sale and use. My guess is that they would not.
Does anyone in the US actually believe that a time will come where they have to raise their weapons against the State? And politics being what it is, there will always be two camps, one pro government and the other against. So who would be correct? Lets look at the aftermath of Katrina as an example. People were out of food and water and having to break into stores to survive. The State failed them miserably. Would it have been acceptable if they had raised their weapons against a police officer who tried to stop them stealing to feed their family during such a disastrous time? After all, the police officer represents the State and in that situation, the officer represents the tyrannical State that is preventing members of society from accessing a basic necessity of life. So would the use of weapons against the State (in this case the police officers representing the State and its laws) be acceptable if the State was attempting to prevent citizens from accessing a basic necessity such as food and water?
I am not talking about the ones who were stealing TV's and attempting to benefit from the hurricane.
I'm just curious as to how people who are pro guns in the US would view such a situation where people were opening fire on police officers who were trying to stop them from looting food and water to feed their families or medication for a family member, after a natural disaster leaves them stranded without aid or help from the State itself and they are on the verge of death if they don't find the basic necessities.
It's certainly not a disaster
You're the second person in recent days to assert that Justice Souter is a Bolshevik. That's hilarious: Poppy Bush appointed a Bolshevik to the Supreme Court.
Did anyone look at the actual vote? Looks like Kennedy, another accused Bolshevik—appointed by Reagan—joined the majority. Depending on the issue, indeed.
Majority (appointed by):
Dissent (appointed by):
From the Syllabus:
The dissents are interesting, and make valid points, but Scalia seems to have taken pains to ensure the government's right to require registration an licensing, and to place other obstacles to ownership. Interestingly, though, the majority seems to have assumed an arbitrary application of the word "people". This will be problematic in the future
From Justice Stevens' dissent:
So while the majority sought to maintain the right of the state to regulate the application of the Second Amendment, it did so in a manner that might be described as reckless. Indeed, in considering the prefatory clause of the Amendment, Scalia writes that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training". Likewise, in its consideration of the security of a free state, the majority makes no mention of felons, the mentally ill, or irresponsible citizens. While the Opinion of the Court holds specifically that, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill", the majority has offered nothing to qualify or support this proposition. In theory, they have left open a route by which a convicted violent felon or certifiably incompetent person might petition to retain his or her Second Amendment rights.
'Tis a potential conundrum, but the Court, for the time being, has refused to directly dismantle the ability of the state to demand registration and licensing. Presumably, states might also demand a certain basic level of training. Of these outcomes, I do not complain. Nor do I complain that the majority seems to have applied the principle of a living Constitution that is responsive to the evolution of society, although its refusal to address any substantive assertion of the security of a free state beyond warfare and insurrection is curious. If the majority were to acknowledge the security that comes with the prevention of domestic chaos, it would be better suited to justify its preservation of restrictions against felons and the mentally incompetent possessing weapons, certain restricted zones in which it is impermissible to carry a firearm, or, indeed, the prohibition of military-grade weapons among common citizens:
Clearly such questions are not, in the Opinion of the Court, beyond the scope of the Heller consideration, as the majority has made the point of addressing them at all. But that address is weak, and ensures that, at some point in the future, the Court will be revisiting the question of what the Second Amendment means to the individual.
Politics before the law? What more should we expect? Bearing in mind that conservative appointees often confound the presidents who nominate them—most recently Souter, who opined with the liberal bloc in Boumediene, Kennedy, and Heller—the only sure way to get a consistent conservative outcome is to force through a nominee who is more dedicated to politics than the Constitution. This is a rare thing. Scalia, for instance, as bizarre and noisome as he might be, is more devoted to himself than politics per se. Even so, he could not have become a Supreme Court justice if he was, truly, so given to self and politics. Seeking an ironclad conservative majority on the court is more about politics than anything else. Given that the Constitution in this and other firearm-related decisions has been regarded dynamically, any attempt to freeze its interpretive dimensions would only weaken its utility in American society.
Think about it: seven of nine are GOP appointees, and yet conservatives cannot manage an ironclad majority. Maybe there's a reason for this that has to do with the relationship between the conservative outlook and the Constitution.
In the end, it really depends on what you want. We can expect as many as three new appointments to the Supreme Court during the next presidential terms, and if an enshrinement of these last seven-plus years is what you seek, then you can certainly hope for a President McCain, a callous disregard for the Constitution, a pandering Congress, and a constituency that only bothers to speak up when it's too late. And, hey, I can see why some people would want an America that looks and functions like that, but I can't say a celebration and perpetuation of our decline these last seven years is particularly appetizing.
_______________________
Notes:
Reporter of Decisions. "Syllabus". District of Columbia et al. v. Heller No. 07-290. Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Scalia, Justice Antonin. "Opinion of the Court". District of Columbia et al. v. Heller No. 07-290. Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Stevens Justice John P. "Dissent". District of Columbia et al. v. Heller No. 07-290. Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Madanthonywayne said:
You're the second person in recent days to assert that Justice Souter is a Bolshevik. That's hilarious: Poppy Bush appointed a Bolshevik to the Supreme Court.
Did anyone look at the actual vote? Looks like Kennedy, another accused Bolshevik—appointed by Reagan—joined the majority. Depending on the issue, indeed.
Majority (appointed by):
Scalia (Reagan)
Roberts (G.W. Bush)
Kennedy (Reagan)
Thomas (G.H.W. Bush)
Alito (G.W. Bush)
Roberts (G.W. Bush)
Kennedy (Reagan)
Thomas (G.H.W. Bush)
Alito (G.W. Bush)
Dissent (appointed by):
Stevens (Ford)
Souter (G.H.W. Bush)
Ginsberg (Clinton)
Breyer (Clinton)
Souter (G.H.W. Bush)
Ginsberg (Clinton)
Breyer (Clinton)
From the Syllabus:
The dissents are interesting, and make valid points, but Scalia seems to have taken pains to ensure the government's right to require registration an licensing, and to place other obstacles to ownership. Interestingly, though, the majority seems to have assumed an arbitrary application of the word "people". This will be problematic in the future
From Justice Stevens' dissent:
So while the majority sought to maintain the right of the state to regulate the application of the Second Amendment, it did so in a manner that might be described as reckless. Indeed, in considering the prefatory clause of the Amendment, Scalia writes that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training". Likewise, in its consideration of the security of a free state, the majority makes no mention of felons, the mentally ill, or irresponsible citizens. While the Opinion of the Court holds specifically that, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill", the majority has offered nothing to qualify or support this proposition. In theory, they have left open a route by which a convicted violent felon or certifiably incompetent person might petition to retain his or her Second Amendment rights.
'Tis a potential conundrum, but the Court, for the time being, has refused to directly dismantle the ability of the state to demand registration and licensing. Presumably, states might also demand a certain basic level of training. Of these outcomes, I do not complain. Nor do I complain that the majority seems to have applied the principle of a living Constitution that is responsive to the evolution of society, although its refusal to address any substantive assertion of the security of a free state beyond warfare and insurrection is curious. If the majority were to acknowledge the security that comes with the prevention of domestic chaos, it would be better suited to justify its preservation of restrictions against felons and the mentally incompetent possessing weapons, certain restricted zones in which it is impermissible to carry a firearm, or, indeed, the prohibition of military-grade weapons among common citizens:
Clearly such questions are not, in the Opinion of the Court, beyond the scope of the Heller consideration, as the majority has made the point of addressing them at all. But that address is weak, and ensures that, at some point in the future, the Court will be revisiting the question of what the Second Amendment means to the individual.
Politics before the law? What more should we expect? Bearing in mind that conservative appointees often confound the presidents who nominate them—most recently Souter, who opined with the liberal bloc in Boumediene, Kennedy, and Heller—the only sure way to get a consistent conservative outcome is to force through a nominee who is more dedicated to politics than the Constitution. This is a rare thing. Scalia, for instance, as bizarre and noisome as he might be, is more devoted to himself than politics per se. Even so, he could not have become a Supreme Court justice if he was, truly, so given to self and politics. Seeking an ironclad conservative majority on the court is more about politics than anything else. Given that the Constitution in this and other firearm-related decisions has been regarded dynamically, any attempt to freeze its interpretive dimensions would only weaken its utility in American society.
Think about it: seven of nine are GOP appointees, and yet conservatives cannot manage an ironclad majority. Maybe there's a reason for this that has to do with the relationship between the conservative outlook and the Constitution.
In the end, it really depends on what you want. We can expect as many as three new appointments to the Supreme Court during the next presidential terms, and if an enshrinement of these last seven-plus years is what you seek, then you can certainly hope for a President McCain, a callous disregard for the Constitution, a pandering Congress, and a constituency that only bothers to speak up when it's too late. And, hey, I can see why some people would want an America that looks and functions like that, but I can't say a celebration and perpetuation of our decline these last seven years is particularly appetizing.
_______________________
Notes:
Reporter of Decisions. "Syllabus". District of Columbia et al. v. Heller No. 07-290. Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Scalia, Justice Antonin. "Opinion of the Court". District of Columbia et al. v. Heller No. 07-290. Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Stevens Justice John P. "Dissent". District of Columbia et al. v. Heller No. 07-290. Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Straight from grandma's kitchen, and guess what it does taste like beef, they eat grass, and vegetables.
Yes, I find it very disturbing that criminals break the law, and the liberals punish the honest citizen by restricting their gun rights.
The guns used in the shoot out were already illegal, they were full automatic weapons, and the scum using them already had committed multiple felonies, just by possession of them.
Well, the public cannot purchase automatic weapons in stores, and those AK's weren't purchased in any legal gun store.
Luckily the Gun stores had the weapons to equalize the situation, the people that should be questioned are the city officials that put the lives of the Police Officers in danger by restricting the choice of weapons available to the officers.
The reason the Police were under armed was because in their Infiniti wisdom the city fathers though it wouldn't look nice for the officers to have semi- automatic weapons in the cars, it might offend some one.
Thank God that there were weapons readily available for the officers to meet deadly force with deadly force.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Bells
Staff member
It's a rodent BR. A rodent.
I guess in hard times where meat is scarce you'd have to consider looking at other sources, but could that even apply these days in the US?
What of honest citizens who have no restrictions placed on them, who purchase such weapons and then go a bit cuckoo in the head and decide to use it to kill others?
And the weapons purchased by those police officers could also be purchased by citizens who look honest and have an outstanding record, but plan to use them to hurt or kill others, including officers.
What of those fine, upstanding citizens who are currently stockpiling legally purchased weapons waiting for Armageddon and their time to rise against the State because they dislike the fact that the Government has given minorities equal rights? Go visit some of those sites and frankly, the fact that such individuals are allowed to walk into a gun store and buy their weapons, so that they are ready for the "race war" is quite frightening. Some postulate how long it would be before a black president is assassinated and discuss openly the types of weapons they have and how exactly they would bring down a democratically elected Government because it goes against their racist beliefs. Some even discuss how they might have to kill off some whites who are in the pockets of the blacks and the Jews to ensure they achieve racial purity. You don't have a problem with such individuals arming themselves to the teeth legally?
One man's view of tyranny won't be shared by others, BR.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I like the decision, though it is still not clear that the second amendment applies against the states, which will be for a later litigation. Clearly the "original intent" of the Bill of Rights was that it apply against the federal government, and form there you have to get into the murky question of what the framers of the 14th amendment intended. Some amendments in the Bill of Rights have been "incorporated" against the states. Some have not. The second amendment has not (yet).
My only concern is that I know I am the wrong person to own guns. I love guns. I love shooting. But I love guns in the same way I love gadgets. It's about the coolness factor. That makes me a bad gun owner because obsessively minding the various safety rules is not first and foremost on my mind. So, presently, I don't own any guns. That said if the gun ban in New York were struck down, then I'd have to buy at least one, since I would not want to the one unarmed sitting duck amongst the well armed citizenry of my neighborhood.
So, in an odd way, striking the NYC ban would make me feel compelled to get a gun. (On the plus side, I'm sure that my friends and I would compete for the coolest gun, which would mean frequent upgrades...which is way more badass than the 'who has the coolest cell phone/iPod' competition we have now.)
My only concern is that I know I am the wrong person to own guns. I love guns. I love shooting. But I love guns in the same way I love gadgets. It's about the coolness factor. That makes me a bad gun owner because obsessively minding the various safety rules is not first and foremost on my mind. So, presently, I don't own any guns. That said if the gun ban in New York were struck down, then I'd have to buy at least one, since I would not want to the one unarmed sitting duck amongst the well armed citizenry of my neighborhood.
So, in an odd way, striking the NYC ban would make me feel compelled to get a gun. (On the plus side, I'm sure that my friends and I would compete for the coolest gun, which would mean frequent upgrades...which is way more badass than the 'who has the coolest cell phone/iPod' competition we have now.)