100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: another question | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Leahmarie, I suggest you go back and read Marbury vs Madison: It has to do with anything that violates or is repugnant to our Constitution is Null and void from its inception!!!! This applies to gun control or anything that is repugnant to our Constitution !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leahmarie, I suggest you go back and read Marbury vs Madison: It has to do with anything that violates or is repugnant to our Constitution is Null and void from its inception!!!! This applies to gun control or anything that is repugnant to our Constitution !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems that most schools & malls are posted, "NO FIREARM's" area's. So all those shooter's are breaking the law, BEFORE they fire a single bullett. Obviously they DID NOT CARE.
How many licensed people, had left their gun in their car. Omaha had a few Think about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States 29% United States 8.40 -------- Canada 5 Canada 5.45 -------- Germany 7 Germany 4.20 ------- looks like some other contries with A LOT STRICTER gun control have a lot HIGHER rate of usage for murder than the united states for the number of households that own hand guns fix those places b4 trying to take my legal handgun ------- shall not be infringed means you will not limit my ability to own no limit on number no limit on kind if you are of sound mind and can afford it you should be able to own a tank per the constitution When the founding fathers wrote the constitution I don't think they expected the kind of fire arms we would have today. I don't think they would want anyone to have a grenade launcher or automatic weapons. They said the right to bare arms (for protection) they didn't say the right to have every form of destructive projectile you wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it. If someones kid finds the parents hand gun and plays with it outside.. he might shoot someone or someone else, but if he plays with a rocket launcher (that you have because you say its unconstitutional to not have one) and it gets fired then someone could lose their house and whole family. Thats too dangerous for the general public and there is no reason to own it. You are not gonna use it for protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a agree with limitations...potential damage from high-casualty producing weapons such as rocket launchers, granade launchers, or H.E. anything, and even some belt-fed machine guns. Accidents with these weapons could be catastrophic... I think they are getting a little strict on things though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would not be worried if my neighbors had rocket launchers ,or tanks or missiles, or a string of powerful bear traps, or snares,or poison darts,etc. but ,I would be sure to be nice to all my neighbors, Love your neighbor as yourself.
  Under the Constitution the neighbor would have broken no laws until he harmed or damaged someone wrongly. Then he would to be put on trial before a jury of his peers. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently it's been said, we have to have a good balance between regulation and liberation concerning firearms. I agree with strict backround checks, 3 day waiting period, banning guns like the maudi griffin, but we can't forbid the sales to law abiding citisens. I personaly don't care for guns, and don't wanna see kids packing at schools, and it's important to remember that the right to carry a firearm is an alienable right. The most important things is making sure that all weapons are traceable;^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leahmarie, I suggest you go back and read Marbury vs Madison: It has to do with anything that violates or is repugnant to our Constitution is Null and void from its inception!!!! This applies to gun control or anything that is repugnant to our Constitution !!! smo..... You are mistaken; please reread my post. I was in the legal field for a number of years and am familiar with the decision. I note you tend to get hold of an idea and throw it into a thread even though it has nothing to do with what is being said. And this is what you are doing with Marbury vs. Madison. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it. If someones kid finds the parents hand gun and plays with it outside.. he might shoot someone or someone else, but if he plays with a rocket launcher (that you have because you say its unconstitutional to not have one) and it gets fired then someone could lose their house and whole family. Thats too dangerous for the general public and there is no reason to own it. You are not gonna use it for protection. chazer..... The scenerio you depict about the kid and the handgun applies to an idiot. When my dead husband was alive, he had many guns since he was a hunter. However, they were in a locked gun cabinet. Additionally, the guns were not loaded and the amo was not with the guns. Even the handgun he had for protection in the nightstand was not loaded. The amo was elsewhere. My dead husband was careful because we had two young children. Sure things happen as you depict above, but those people are usually stupid. Rocket launcher? Once again my husband had many guns, some that he used and others that he collected. However, e rocket launcher was never considered, let along among them. Isn't a rocket launcher a bit extreme? When you get into that type of firepower, aren't you talking drug dealer or terrorist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would not be worried if my neighbors had rocket launchers ,or tanks or missiles, or a string of powerful bear traps, or snares,or poison darts,etc. but ,I would be sure to be nice to all my neighbors, Love your neighbor as yourself. Under the Constitution the neighbor would have broken no laws until he harmed or damaged someone wrongly. Then he would to be put on trial before a jury of his peers. smo..... ???? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it. If someones kid finds the parents hand gun and plays with it outside.. he might shoot someone or someone else, but if he plays with a rocket launcher (that you have because you say its unconstitutional to not have one) and it gets fired then someone could lose their house and whole family. Thats too dangerous for the general public and there is no reason to own it. You are not gonna use it for protection. Does this mean I shouldn't have a steak knife, lighter, rope, platic bag or car? Because kids can kill or be killed with all these items & many more. Kids need instruction, boundries & most importantly supervision. I grew up in a house with guns I only ever touched one without my Mom right there next to me. I was 14 home alone, my sister's ex just got out of jail & was circling the house on a motorcycle. He had a violent history. I just held the gun up to the window, did not even point it at him. I also called the police. He left before they arrived. I told my Mom I had broken the rules went into her closet & touched her gun. She told me that situation was what it was there for & if he entered the house, make sure he was really all the way in so there would be no doubt he was a threat. Cops agreed. A few days later he smashed my sisters windshield with his helment trying to get to her, & was back in jail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States 29% United States 8.40 -------- Canada 5 Canada 5.45 -------- Germany 7 Germany 4.20 ------- looks like some other contries with A LOT STRICTER gun control have a lot HIGHER rate of usage for murder than the united states for the number of households that own hand guns fix those places b4 trying to take my legal handgun ------- shall not be infringed means you will not limit my ability to own no limit on number no limit on kind if you are of sound mind and can afford it you should be able to own a tank per the constitution When the founding fathers wrote the constitution I don't think they expected the kind of fire arms we would have today. I don't think they would want anyone to have a grenade launcher or automatic weapons. They said the right to bare arms (for protection) they didn't say the right to have every form of destructive projectile you wish. when they wrote the constitution i do not think they cared what fire power came to be i think they thought that the people should be permitted to arm themselves in such a manner to keep the govt from enslaving the people take the bill of rights in context of the rest of the writing of the constitution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second amendment is refering to firearms. When you are talking about rocket launchers you are talking about explosives. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can have Rocket launchers or TNT, (although you can still get it in louisiana
 ) Dont try to say I hate guns either becouse I own several myself. I do agree with littleredhen about children needing instruction when it comes to guns. I was also brought up in a house with many guns and I learned repect for those weapons at an early age. One more thing, has anyone ever noticed that the murder rate started increasing during prohabition, and the first laws to prevent the carrying of firarms was enacted during prohabition. Theres your coralation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
infringe verb infringed, infringing 1. To break or violate (eg a law or oath). Example: You are infringing the copyright by using that material Thesaurus: violate, break, infract.intr 2. To encroach or trespass; to affect (a person's rights, freedom, etc) in such a way as to limit or reduce them. Thesaurus: encroach, intrude, transgress, overstep, trespass, violate. Form: infringe on something (especially) Form: infringe upon something3. To interfere with (a person's rights). http://www.allwords.com/word-infringed.html """"""to limit or reduce them"""""" putting a waiting time and a limit on the number or kind you can own is an infringement where does it say what kind of arms you seem to be reading into it what is not there if some one sells rocket launchers to a terrorist are they not charged with being an arms dealer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leahmarie, I suggest you go back and read Marbury vs Madison: It has to do with anything that violates or is repugnant to our Constitution is Null and void from its inception!!!! This applies to gun control or anything that is repugnant to our Constitution !!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- smo........ You are taking the decision of Marbury vs. Madison out of context and twisting it to fit your mindset. First the case has to do with a gentleman fighting for a commission of magistrate judge. His appointment was made in the middle of the night by the out-going president. The new administration did not want to honor it. I am not going to go into all the detials since I do not want to hijack the thread. The decision regarding the above stated that if an individual has a right and that right has been violated, then the laws of this country must afford a remedy. In other words, the person is entitled to have the wrong made right either by giving the individual what he/she is entitled to or give monetary compensation to make up for losing that right. The final thrust of the decision states that laws cannot be enacted that go against our Constitution. smo...... Just because you have decided that "the 2nd Amendment is repugnant to our Constitution," as you phrase it, does not mean that you can claim Marbury vs. Madison applies. You cannot say the 2nd Amendment is null and void since you say so. It doesn't work that way. This is why we have what is called Constitution Scholars. These are learned people whose expertise is the Constitution and it is their job to determine what goes against the Constitution. There is a judicial system that one needs to go through. Otherwise, if someone decided they didn't like something, they could come up with the same nonsense you are doing. That is scream Marbury vs. Madison and declare the law null and void. You can't do that because everyone would be declaring laws null and void. We would have no judicial system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
leahmarie
on
Tue 02/19/08 07:05 AM
|
|
Guess who supports the right to bear arms? Hillary! Can you believe that one? She was campaigning and asked about the shooting spree at Northern Illinois University. That was the college where a man entered a lecture hall and killed five students and himself.
At any event, she said her father taught her to shoot when she was quite young. Clinton believes steps should be taken to make sure those with criminal backgrounds or a history of mental illness do not get access to guns, though she did not offer specifics. Suprisingly, she said if elected president, she would not take any steps that would infringe on the rights of "lawful gun owners." She went on to say that the the rights of lawful gun owners involved in hunting, collecting, target shooting, and whatever, should be protected. However, she did emphasize that guns have got to be kept out of the hands of criminals and terrorists and to repeat once again those people who are mentally ill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leahmarie, I suggest you go back and read Marbury vs Madison: It has to do with anything that violates or is repugnant to our Constitution is Null and void from its inception!!!! This applies to gun control or anything that is repugnant to our Constitution !!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- smo........ You are taking the decision of Marbury vs. Madison out of context and twisting it to fit your mindset. First the case has to do with a gentleman fighting for a commission of magistrate judge. His appointment was made in the middle of the night by the out-going president. The new administration did not want to honor it. I am not going to go into all the detials since I do not want to hijack the thread. The decision regarding the above stated that if an individual has a right and that right has been violated, then the laws of this country must afford a remedy. In other words, the person is entitled to have the wrong made right either by giving the individual what he/she is entitled to or give monetary compensation to make up for losing that right. The final thrust of the decision states that laws cannot be enacted that go against our Constitution. smo...... Just because you have decided that "the 2nd Amendment is repugnant to our Constitution," as you phrase it, does not mean that you can claim Marbury vs. Madison applies. You cannot say the 2nd Amendment is null and void since you say so. It doesn't work that way. This is why we have what is called Constitution Scholars. These are learned people whose expertise is the Constitution and it is their job to determine what goes against the Constitution. There is a judicial system that one needs to go through. Otherwise, if someone decided they didn't like something, they could come up with the same nonsense you are doing. That is scream Marbury vs. Madison and declare the law null and void. You can't do that because everyone would be declaring laws null and void. We would have no judicial system. Leahmarie, I am not against the second Amendment, I am like you ,I want to make sure we keep that second Amendment alive in full force. I love the Constitution and I plan to keep my guns, I would not mind having a few bear traps too What I said was in essence ,that, I am against all gun control laws(restrictions) and that they are all unconstitutional.(null and void)(Marbury vs. Madison) The only gun control ,that I believe in is: getting a firm hold on my gun with both hands(my style of gun control)(no extra gun laws) Marbury vs Madison backs me up on that, any law(extra laws) made that are repugnant to the 2 amendment or any other Amendment of the Constitution would be null and void from their inception. I am not against guns, but am in favor of them as you are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leahmarie as you said in your(Marbury vs Madison)In the final Thrust that no law could be enacted that would be in opposition to the Constitution, Which is what I have been trying to get across from the beginning of this gun control(extra gun laws)(restrictions) discussion. I don't want them adding these unconstitutional extra restrictions either.(Marbury vs. Madison)
Marbury vs Madison shows that they can not just helter skelter make up all kinds of contradictory laws, just because they happen to feel like it. And if they do make such laws that law is actually non existent because it contradicts and or is repugnant to the highest law of our Country, the Constitution!! Leahmarie,I hope you understand that I am on your side in this gun matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
insert whistling as passing through emoticon here
|
|
|
|
|
