The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14..20..25..30..35..40~41~42 [Next]
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Whatever it is it is cool.

I have said this before but when they showed me how to shoot with a .45 semi auto I accidentaly pointed it at a SEAL with my finger on the trigger and got beat up for it.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 23:30, MagicSanta wrote:
Whatever it is it is cool.

I have said this before but when they showed me how to shoot with a .45 semi auto I accidentaly pointed it at a SEAL with my finger on the trigger and got beat up for it.


Understandable, especially if the pistol was in condition "0".
"0" being a chambered round with cocked hammer and safety off.

The old rule. Never point a gun at something you do not want to destroy.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, landmark, thanks for your praise of a registered Republican voter, the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. More apropos to our topic than Dr. king's comments on Viet Nam, however, might be this:

Quote:
One issue on everyone's mind this Martin Luther King Jr. day was gun control. King's calls for resolving our differences through peaceful nonviolence are especially poignant after Jared Loughner gunned down six people and wounded several others in Tucson. Amid the clamor for new gun laws, its appropriate to remember King's complicated history with guns.

Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.

William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as "an arsenal."

As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King's house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. The local police had discretion to determine who was a suitable person to carry firearms. King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily, surely met the requirements of the law, but he was rejected nevertheless. At the time, the police used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans.

Ironically, the concealed carry permit law in Alabama was promoted by the National Rifle Association thirty years earlier. Today, the gun rights hardliners fight to eliminate permits for concealed carry, as Arizona has done.


The article, published at the Huffington Post of all places, is by UCLA law professor Adam Winkler.

Woland
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
UCLA Law in the headlines! Go Powder Blue!

Never had a class with Winkler.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20614 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 15:50, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Danny, did I blame anyone in my last post?


Where did I say you did?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Woland--
When your home is bombed or seriously threatened with a bomb, and you know that government officials will do little to protect you, and in fact may well be in league with the bombers, then I'll support your application for a gun.

Until then, I think gun licenses should be limited to specific situations.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20614 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Well right now you yourself are attempting to take away our second ammendment rights. The government just pushed a bill down our throat that REQUIRED we buy a spacific service. Not bombs, but sort of "soft tyranical" in a way.

If you don't want a gun, don't have one. I don't want Sushi, but that does not mean you can't have it. Like it or not they are a right. I looked and yep they are.

What "spacific situations" should they be limited to, and where are those in the constitution?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Then, landmark, you think that somebody else should have the power to decide when you are sufficiently endangered to be armed? You think you should decide if I am allowed to protect myself? You think the Fulton County Sheriff should have been allowed to decide if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. should have had a carry permit?

I'm disappointed to learn that you are willing to publicly advocate that I be stripped of my God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. But I will defend to the death your God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to say so.

LOL.

Woland
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Woland--

A quick search shows that MLK Sr. was a registered Republican but also supported JFK in 1960 and was arguably instrumental in getting him elected. He was important in getting Jimmy Carter nominated in 1976.

MLK Jr. never endorsed any presidential candidate. He spoke out strongly against Barry Goldwater in 1964, although we do not know if he voted for Johnson.
He called himself a democratic socialist which suggests he was not particularly thrilled with either party. Though his niece claims he was a Republican, his son strongly denies it. No right wing blog I've referenced provides any documentation for the King jr was a Republican claim. Certainly after 1960 it seems highly dubious. Steve Klein, a senior researcher at The King Center said “I think it’s highly inaccurate to say he was a Republican because there’s really no evidence.”

In any event, I'm not sure what your point is: both parties have gone through numerous ideological changes over the last century and a half. Proclaiming that a person was a Republican or Democrat has no meaning without asking what particular party policies that person was supporting.

When it comes to race, the Republican Party has been the party of Abraham Lincoln and David Duke; the Democratic Party the party of LBJ and Strom Thurmond.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Wow, there's a lot of words being written about one single sentence.

Actually, there's a lot of controversy about the placement of a single comma, actually. Here's the text, as passed by Congress:
Quote:
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.


And here's the text, as ratified by the States:
Quote:
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.


Given there was no federal military at the time it was ratified, I think the question of a missing comma might be significant. It really does have the potential to change the intent. Which version is correct and what the Founding Fathers intended? That's a question I think has been debated for years, and I have no easy answer to.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, landmark, I never said that MLK Jr endorsed Barry Golwater. I said that MLK Jr was a registered Republican.

You forgot to mention that Robert Byrd, an unrepentant racist, segregationist, KKK leader, was also a prominent Democrat.

And another thing: you think that a private citizen is entitled to be armed only if government officials are unwilling to protect him. But government officials, and specifically the police, have no legal responsibility to protect any individual citizen from any individual crime. They have no liability if a crackhead breaks into your house, you call 911, and by the time the police arrive, your throat has been cut from ear to ear, even if they don't arrive fr an hour or more. I respect and value the police, and the function they fulfill is vital, but what use is help that is even only minutes away when you may be dead in seconds? The police are charged with apprehending the alleged perpetrators who will be charged with raping and murdering your wife and daughter, but if anybody is going to protect them in the instant of necessity it is you -- or themselves. (As in the recent case in Connecticut.)

Woland
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-01-19 14:24, Woland wrote:
Then, landmark, you think that somebody else should have the power to decide when you are sufficiently endangered to be armed?

Woland

If you agree that you live in a republic of law, then you are always living under the assumption that others will have the power to decide. "Somebody else" decides whether you have murdered or only killed in self-defense.

"Somebody else"-- my representatives-- have decided that driving while drunk is illegal. I don't think I or others should take it upon ourselves to decide individually when we're drunk enough.

Now if you want to ask whether my representatives are truly representative, that's a whole other question.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-01-19 14:43, Woland wrote:
Well, landmark, I never said that MLK Jr endorsed Barry Golwater. I said that MLK Jr was a registered Republican.
Documentation?
Quote:

You forgot to mention that Robert Byrd, an unrepentant racist, segregationist, KKK leader, was also a prominent Democrat.

Forgot? No more than I forgot George Allan, William Rehnquist, or Trent Lott. Lots of racists to go around. Really, do you have any point here whatsoever?
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20614 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-01-19 14:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Wow, there's a lot of words being written about one single sentence.

Actually, there's a lot of controversy about the placement of a single comma, actually. Here's the text, as passed by Congress:
Quote:
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.


And here's the text, as ratified by the States:
Quote:
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.


Given there was no federal military at the time it was ratified, I think the question of a missing comma might be significant. It really does have the potential to change the intent. Which version is correct and what the Founding Fathers intended? That's a question I think has been debated for years, and I have no easy answer to.


I don't care what you do with your cama the fact is that EVERYWHERE in the Constitution that the Founders wrote THE PEOPLE they were speaking of THE PEOPLE, EVERY TIME they wrote THE STATE they meant THE STATE. Now your cama is meaningless. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Cama does not matter in the least. All that matters is they said THE PEOPLE. Why are we to believe in this one instance somehow they were being cryptic? It does not stand the giggle test.

There is no easy answer when people insist on looking at things like a placement of a cama. Fact is the answer is pretty easy but you are choosing ot make it hard for whatever reason.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Danny, I was referring to the comma after Militia. But on re-reading, you're right. It's not necessary. You're probably not going to like my argument, but there are still multiple ways of reading that.

Without pre-supposing my position, could you tell me what's your take on the meaning of the first half- "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"?
What's your take on "A well-regulated Militia"?
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
With respect to the preamble of the Second Amendment, the courts have repeatedly held --and our learned member, lobowolf can correct me if I am mistaken-- that the preambles attached to a law do not override the plain stated meaning of the law itself.

Practically speaking, the issue of the individual's right to defend herself or himself in the United States has been settled.

In only 2 states, Wisconsin and Illinois, is it impossible for a private individual to obtain a concealed carry permit. The Wisconsin legislature has passed concealed carry legislation several times, only to have it vetoed by the Governor. With a new Republican Governor and a strongly Republican legislature, Wisconsin will soon establish a concealed carry law.

In 7 states, concealed carry permits are issued at the discretion of the local law enforcement official, usually the High Sheriff of the County ("may issue").

In 38 states, the Sheriff is required by law to issue a concealed carry permit to any legal resident who is neither a felon, nor a fugitive, nor a person previously determined to have a major mental illness, or certain other defined and limited disqualifications ("shall issue").

In 3 states, Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont, a specific permit is not required of a private individual who carries a firearm for her own defense.

Not that our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights should be subject to an utilitarian standard, but rates of murder and violent crime have declined in every state that has adopted a "shall issue" concealed carry law.

Woland
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
I'm semi suprised that Vermont has such lenient gun laws because I think of them as a pack of socialist left wing Berkeley escapees. Then again socialist left wing types are most likely to want to shoot everyone else so I guess it makes sense.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
MagicSanta,

You posted while I was editing my message to add the parenthetical expression "it may surprise some Northeasterners to learn" with respect to Vermont. How to count Alabama is also disputed, since the law is written "May issue," but applied "shall issue."

Vermont has never required any specific permit for either open or concealed carry. From the days of the Green Mountain Boys, Vermonters have always held that self defense is a sacred human right.

And don't forget that Vermont was an independent republic from 1777 until its admission to the Union in 1791, with its own coinage, post office, and Ambassadors in Paris and the Hague.

Woland
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-01-19 16:33, Woland wrote:
Practically speaking, the issue of the individual's right to defend herself or himself in the United States has been settled.


That may remain to be seen, with a new Court. The Second Amendment as we know it survived a very shaky 5-4 decision recently.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Heller was decided 5-4, but I think that 8 of the 9 Justices did recognize that the Constitution does protect the individual's right to keep & bear arms. I think the dissenters were willing to allow State and Local governments more power to restrict that right.

By the way, there's another thread up on the sources of quotations. Here's one apropos for this discussion:

Quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.


Source?

Woland
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14..20..25..30..35..40~41~42 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL