NRA issues condolences

[ylexot]

Actually the 2nd amendment is only for members of a well regulated militia.

Go back and read your Constitution Sooper Patriot.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" :shrug:

 

[forestal]

Let the court system finish the job before you think you know how this is all going to play out.

Seems the DC court disagrees with you

 

[Ken King]

No that would be a felony.

Self-defense with witnesses.

 

[forestal]

The part about the "well regulated militia" was not written in invisible ink. Funny how you nuts gloss over that line. They didn't put it in there for grins and giggles.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" :shrug:

 

[ylexot]

It was the NRA that has always stuck by selling guns at gun shows.

Virginia doesn't have any gun laws that the NRA didn't get a chance to comment on first.

So you're saying that the shooter illegally bought the guns at a gun show?

 

[forestal]

Perjury is a crime.

Self-defense with witnesses.

 

[Vince]

I'm just wondering if you gun nuts think the 2nd amendment extends to South Koreans who aren't citizens of the U.S.?

It doesn't of course, but the NRA has made it incredibly easy for anyone to gain access for firearms.

I had to read this entire thread just to see how stupid you could get. I found out.


Real stupid.

 

[forestal]

oh really? I suppose he's just asking everyone to ignore the court's finding?

Nope, just asking for the full appeals court to reconsider, instead of the measly three judge panel. And if that doesn't work, he can always work his way up to the Supreme Court. All completely legal, but that's not apparent to legal experts as yourself.

D.C. asks appeals court to reconsider its decision striking down handgun ban
Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version

WASHINGTON District of Columbia officials want a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision to overturn the city's ban on handguns.
Lawyers for the district filed a motion today, arguing that the ruling will "severely limit" gun control on both the local and federal levels.

A three-judge appeals panel ruled last month that the city's gun control laws are unconstitutional. The court rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to state militias.

The city wants a new hearing before all eleven judges of the court.[/QUOTE]

 

[forestal]

Care to quantify your answer, Braniac?

Nope, thought not.

I had to read this entire thread just to see how stupid you could get. I found out.


Real stupid.

 

[ylexot]

The part about the "well regulated militia" was not written in invisible ink. Funny how you nuts gloss over that line. They didn't put it in there for grins and giggles.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

 

[forestal]

"not be infringed", doesn't that mean that ANY citizen should be able to buy ANY weapon they want? That's how the NRA wants us to interpret the Constitution.

Thank GOD clearer minds have prevailed (somewhat).

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.



I don't see the word "only", in the text.



I DO see the worlds "shall not be infringed".

 

[forestal]

What that ratified, or is it still just a proposal?

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

 

[forestal]

And a gentleman too!

You must have just added xenophobia to your vocabulary today.
Throwin' that $10 word around like real scholar.

 

[Toxick]

"not be infringed", doesn't that mean that ANY citizen should be able to buy ANY weapon they want?

How do you interpret "shall not be infringed"?

 

[Vince]

oh really? I suppose he's just asking everyone to ignore the court's finding?

Nope, just asking for the full appeals court to reconsider, instead of the measly three judge panel. And if that doesn't work, he can always work his way up to the Supreme Court. All completely legal, but that's not apparent to legal experts as yourself.

D.C. asks appeals court to reconsider its decision striking down handgun ban
Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version

WASHINGTON District of Columbia officials want a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision to overturn the city's ban on handguns.
Lawyers for the district filed a motion today, arguing that the ruling will "severely limit" gun control on both the local and federal levels.

A three-judge appeals panel ruled last month that the city's gun control laws are unconstitutional. The court rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to state militias.

The city wants a new hearing before all eleven judges of the court.

Mayor Adrian Fenty says dumping the regulations would be a blow to crime-fighting efforts. He says "more guns very simply lead to more violence."

But opponents of the gun ban say it keeps people from being able to protect themselves.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

And I'm guessing that you feel that this handgun ban will prevent any future occurrences of this sort. You and the rest of the anti-gun idiots.

 

[This_person]

Okay, so do you think the 2nd amendment extends to non-residents? Do you wonder how non-citizens are allowed to purchase firearms?

You probably don't, or care much either.

By your logic here, non-citizens should not be afforded the rights of the Constitution. Meaning, Elian Gonzales should have had his illigal alien but sent back with no fight. Meaning all of the Gitmo Detainees do NOT have the right to a lawyer nor due process. Meaning all of the illegal immigrants should be completely unprotected and dealt with however a citizen chooses. I like your logic!

 

[aps45819]

"not be infringed", doesn't that mean that ANY citizen should be able to buy ANY weapon they want? That's how the NRA wants us to interpret the Constitution.

Thank GOD clearer minds have prevailed (somewhat).

That is what it says. Why do you need interpret it?

 

[Ken King]

oh really? I suppose he's just asking everyone to ignore the court's finding?

Nope, just asking for the full appeals court to reconsider, instead of the measly three judge panel. And if that doesn't work, he can always work his way up to the Supreme Court. All completely legal, but that's not apparent to legal experts as yourself.

D.C. asks appeals court to reconsider its decision striking down handgun ban
Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version

WASHINGTON District of Columbia officials want a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision to overturn the city's ban on handguns.
Lawyers for the district filed a motion today, arguing that the ruling will "severely limit" gun control on both the local and federal levels.

A three-judge appeals panel ruled last month that the city's gun control laws are unconstitutional. The court rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to state militias.

The city wants a new hearing before all eleven judges of the court.

Mayor Adrian Fenty says dumping the regulations would be a blow to crime-fighting efforts. He says "more guns very simply lead to more violence."

But opponents of the gun ban say it keeps people from being able to protect themselves.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Did you get permission to redistribute this information or are you simply a criminal?

 

[This_person]

"not be infringed", doesn't that mean that ANY citizen should be able to buy ANY weapon they want? That's how the NRA wants us to interpret the Constitution.

Actually, yes it does mean that. Within obvious limits, like the First Amendment right to free speech, but not "fire in a crowded theater" common sense. So, giving guns to known criminals, not so smart. Mentally retarded, probably not either. I don't think it's just how the NRA wants us to interpret the Constitution, it's what the Consitution says.

You left out the words, "the People." Just which people do you think were meant here? Maybe we should compare it to the other of the first ten ammendments. In each and every time that two word phrase is used, it means everybody living here. Why would it be different for this ammendment?

 

[PrchJrkr]

Did you get permission to redistribute this information or are you simply a criminal?

It's okay Mr. King. I reported this post to admin along with the original first. It appears to think it's above the law.