|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..16..29..42..55..68~69~70~71~72 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts 
|
So to follow that logic, it would be foolish to legislate against these "vanishing rare incidents" wouldn't it? It would be foolish to try to change the second amendment therefore right? Makes sense to me.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Perhaps guns provide the illusion of danger.
"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." |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-19 15:03, Cain wrote: Obviously not a very well trained individual with firerms. I am at least thankful that this moron did not harm anyone else. Did he? Probably scared the heck out of a few people. I am sure he did not have a proper holster if he had one at all. The carry holster needs to cover the trigger and if he had the weapon in his pocket they do make pocket holsters which make carryng the weapon absotley safe and they cannot be fired unless drawn and the trigger pulled. I do not know anything about this incident. I cannot comment further as I do not know if it was a revolver or a automatic or if for that matter he was carrying legal or not. Whatever the case he was not very bright and with that thought in mind I can see an arguement on the part of some as to who should be allowed to carry and who should not. But, and there is always a but. It would create a whole lot of issues tthat would probably bog down the system of anyone who is capable of carrying a firearm of ever obtaining a legal permit to do so. So round and round we go.
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
|
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-19 15:25, Dannydoyle wrote: I agree. It's silly to legislate against the last massacre. I don't think what you're saying about the Second Amendment follows, which is a whole different Constitutional can of worms. The blowhards who thunder on and on about "shall not be infringed" seem to have no understanding of federalism, sovereignty, or the original intention of the Bill of Rights (as restricting the central government, which would change over a hundred years later with incorporation theory). That aside, I do not see a compelling argument against reasonable restrictions on firearms, which is what we find almost everywhere in the semi-civilized world, including here in the United States (to some extent). The problem is that we have intensely unreasonable people -- paranoid people -- who cry "mah gunz!" as they ready themselves for Obama-colored helicopters.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
Really? Not a single reasonable person wants to carry a gun? Nit a single reasonable point has been made?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Danny-- I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from my post.
If people want to apply for a permit to carry a gun out in public, *I* do not necessarily see a problem, but I think it's a public safety issue that should be subjected to democratic mechanisms. I know plenty of Europeans and Japanese who do not lament the loss of their "sacred, natural born right" to carry a Glock 19. I think lugging around a gun "for protection" is sillier than wearing a helmet, or even stuffing a fake ear into your pocket for the off-chance of a dumb gag (as in THE 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN). Everywhere I've ever gone in my entire life, I can't think of one situation that would have been improved "if I had gun right now!" I bet there are some people who have been mugged (or worse) who *imagine* a gun would have helped. Maybe. But I doubt it. Then there are accidents. The day after the massacre in Colorado, someone went into a Wal*Mart (it's gotta be a Wal*Mart) and, in reaching for his wallet, fired a round through his buttocks into the ground. I think a couple of people were hit by fragments, nothing serious. The reality is that if you put people around more guns, you're going to have more accidents (same for automobiles, or anything else). There was another case of a woman hugging an off-duty police officer at a barbecue and she fired his gun, killing herself (which did not sound plausible to me, but apparently experts concluded it was well within the realm of possibility). People are around alcohol. People snap. People are stupid. I'm not sure why we should want to add guns to the mix. What I'm saying is, the chances of the orange haired "joker" gunning you down etc., are extremely small, yet what happened after the massacre? Gun sales surged. Afraid people went out and bought guns. They want to save their asses and they're probably their own worst enemies.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-19 18:46, Cain wrote: If you're talking about my reference to "shall not be infringed," my opinions on the topic are in large part informed by a California bar card and a J.D. from a top law school; and yours? Now, if you want to talk about the blowhards who thunder on about "a well regulated Militia"... Anyone who dismisses concerns about the Obama administration's threat to the Second Amendment as "paranoid" would be well-advised to read (or carefully re-read) the 5-4 Heller decision.
"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 Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
It is easier to call names lobo.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-19 19:45, LobowolfXXX wrote: Your mother must be proud. Quote:
Now, if you want to talk about the blowhards who thunder on about "a well regulated Militia"... I'm partial to the "necessary to the security of a free state..." Quote:
Anyone who dismisses concerns about the Obama administration's threat to the Second Amendment as "paranoid" would be well-advised to read (or carefully re-read) the 5-4 Heller decision. Uh-huh. And after Obama was elected we had a shortage of ammunition. Because he was going to take our gunz! But he didn't. Which proved the NRA's conspiracy that a do-nothing policy was all part of Obama's grand plan to steal guns after winning re-election. As for *Heller* (and yes, it was a 5-4 decision), I think the always amusing Scalia has gone on to say that Civil War era cannons are "obviously" not protected under the Second Amendment, which says "keep and *bear* arms." That's not the kind of weapon one can bear. Clearly. Now... hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down a plane? Those will have to be decided. Wow, the guy is so remarkably unbiased. Never allows his personal opinion to interfere with the text.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
I agree that Obama isn't (and never was) going to "take away our guns"; however, he would almost certainly appoint another Supreme Court Justice who would have sided with the dissent in Heller, which would greatly eviscerate the Second Amendment. That's what we have been to law school call "a distinction without [much of] a difference."
My mother is, indeed, proud of me. I was happy to discuss the issues as they are, but if you're going to impugn the credibility of those who disagree with you, then it seems natural (for those of us to have them) to put our credentials on the table. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree about almost all aspects of constitutional law. I'm not here to suggest by any means that I know everything about the subject. But I have been tested by among the most demanding academic and professional examiners on the topics of federalism, original intent, sovereignty, and incorporation, "necessary to the security of thte free state" is another nice part of the text. Like the well regulated militia, though, it doesn't include the simple subject or main verb of the amendment.
"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." |
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-19 21:12, LobowolfXXX wrote: Sure. Never mind the fact *Heller* was decided before Obama took office. Let's also clarify our statements. By Obama administration, you mean appointing SC justices who may hear fire-arms related cases (there have not been many) and vote to "eviscerate" the Second Amendment, *as you understand it.* Sounds far less ominous. Quote:
My mother is, indeed, proud of me. I was happy to discuss the issues as they are, but if you're going to impugn the credibility of those who disagree with you, then it seems natural (for those of us to have them) to put our credentials on the table. I disagree, as I'm not much impressed by credentials. Make a sound argument, and I don't care if you're the night janitor at a technology school. Quote:
"necessary to the security of thte free state" is another nice part of the text. Like the well regulated militia, though, it doesn't include the simple subject or main verb of the amendment. This sounds a lot deconstructionism (where credentials are all-important). And taking this anti-piece of paper status to its full conclusion, I should confess that I do not *really care* what the Constitution says. It could explicitly say citizens are not allowed to have guns, or they can have nukes, or that slaves count as three-fifths of a person. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it makes any more sense than a right to a jury trial in disputes exceeding twenty dollars.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
The fact that Heller was decided before Obama was elected is pretty well irrelevant to the argument. Any anti-gun legislator must have been emboldened by a Supreme Court that was one vote away from holding that there is no constitutional right to keep a gun in your home for self-defense. And if you can keep a straight face and argue that such a holding wouldn't eviscerate the Secnd Amendment...well, I'm impressed. Senator Obama voted against two of the Justices who sided with the majority, and said that he wouldn't have voted to confirm at least two of the other three.
Given the above, I think it's quite likely that another Obama appointee (like the first two) would be on the side of the dissent in Heller, and also that another jurisdiction would test the new Court with similar legislation (and that a Court with a new slant would hear the case that arose).
"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." |
|||||||||
Devious Inner circle 2120 Posts
|
Here is a link to a very comprehensive documentary on the incident.
James Holmes Documentary 2012 |
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-19 22:07, LobowolfXXX wrote: Just like any other Democratic nominee. Big whoop-de-doo. Legislatively gun control has been dead for a long time, not because it's unpopular but because the logic of collective action dictates that small, intensely motivated groups can basically control public policy. Which is what's been happening with guns. Historically the NRA would not even pursue its agenda in the courts because their cases would get tossed and they'd lose. Quote:
Given the above, I think it's quite likely that another Obama appointee (like the first two) would be on the side of the dissent in Heller, and also that another jurisdiction would test the new Court with similar legislation (and that a Court with a new slant would hear the case that arose). So that's why people ran out to buy up ammunition and stave off the Obamaclypse... on the off-chance that the conservative members of the court keeled over, Obama replaced them with Justices in favor of guns, and then landmark cases allowed states to legislate bans on firearms, and then representatives in those states would defeat NRA backed candidates and then somehow -- somehow -- find a majority. Obama's administration is overwhelmingly concerned about unemployment figures and the state of the economy. Even in the wake of the massacres, he's said relatively little about guns because gun control is a politically dead issue.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
Wow.
This is I assume you making a clear concisely presented argument that you don't have to go to school for?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-19 22:52, Cain wrote: That Heller was 5-4 makes it clear that it's a particularly dicey time for Second Amendment proponents. I do agree that it wouldn't be substantially different for most other Democratic presidents/nominees, but so what? The issue is what might reasonably be expected to happen should Obama win; the fact that it might be the same if another Democrat had gotten the nomination is entirely irrelevant to the analysis. Quote:
Legislatively gun control has been dead for a long time, not because it's unpopular but because the logic of collective action dictates that small, intensely motivated groups can basically control public policy. Which is what's been happening with guns. Obviously, that generalization didn't stop the passage of the extremely restrictive legislation that was at issue in Heller, and many high population jurisdictions are certainly liberal enough for their candidates not to worry about the NRA. Quote:
So that's why people ran out to buy up ammunition and stave off the Obamaclypse... on the off-chance that the conservative members of the court keeled over, Justices retire or die all the time; Obama's put two on the bench in his first less-than-four years. Quote:
Obama replaced them with Justices in favor of guns, I'm sure you meant something like "in favor of gun control," and this part is pretty easy. He's certainly not nominating conservative justices. Quote:
and then landmark cases allowed states Or major cities Quote:
to legislate bans on firearms, Quote:
and then representatives in those states would defeat NRA backed candidates and then somehow -- somehow -- find a majority. Really? The NRA is going to control the state legislature in, say, California, with over a million more registered Democrats than Republicans? Or even just the City Council in Los Angeles, or San Francisco? Where was the NRA when the Heller legislation was being passed? Quote:
Obama's administration is overwhelmingly concerned about unemployment figures and the state of the economy. Even in the wake of the massacres, he's said relatively little about guns because gun control is a politically dead issue. This is simply a red herring, as it has been clarified that we're only talking about the appointment of a single Supreme Court Justice. It's not convoluted, and it's not a stretch. When you're one Supreme Court Justice away from a ruling that it's ok to prevent law abiding citizens from having guns in their own homes for self-defense, and Heller shows that we are, unless you're going to keep a straight face and tell me that Sotomayor or Kagan is going to side with Scalia and Thomas on this one, then it's hardly paranoia for gun owners to be concerned about their rights.
"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." |
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Yea Cain he also said The private sector is doing fine. Got to believe this guy. He really has his a,a,a,a stuff together.
I believe everyone here knows I did not vote for, nor support Obama when he was running for President and that I was disappointed that he won, disappointed not surprised. He talks a good game. However I posted just after the election that he is now my president, and he deserves a chance to make good on his policies. Well he had his chance and it is obvioius that he failed miserably, however those who want will vote for him again because they think they will get a piece of the pie without having to do anything for it. Having said that. He will say and do anything now to be elected to a secoond term as can be seem by a number of his latet actions. Don't ask. I will not begin to list them and strat another thread...you know them as well as everyone else here. Does entitlements in general ring a bell, how about welfare or granting, wait I said I will not go on about them. STOP At this point I think unfortunatley he has a better than 50/50 shot at winning again. Not much better but I do believe he has an edge. He still has his bobble heads out there that just shake their heads yes and staare into space and get in line. I just wonder when will it finally be Obama's fault that things are bad? Does it stay Bush's fault until it improves say when a Repubican gets in and then we an say the Obama plan worked. Sounds like he is a win win situation. As I said he is a good talker and he has his bobble heads to support him no matter what the numbers show and they definitely show he fudged it up pretty badly. Debt highest ever and won't be paid by your childrens children because he put us so far in bebt. While they have no idea what they are in for nor they understand unless they read and study history, what this president did to this country and is continuing to do. Do you have any idea what they are going to have to endure if we continiue down this road? Did I say I did not want to highjack this thread. Well I don't. Leave the second amendament alone,its worked for a long time now. We don't need a new interputation of it. What we need is a new president. We will have a choice in a few months. Choose wisely. Your children and your childrens children are depending on you. They would also like to keep their grandfathers guns because they shared some wonderful times with him outdoors, not in movie theatres. However they should have the right to carry LEGALLY if they so desire as did their parents and their grandparents. They have a right to keep and own guns as citizens of The United States of America. Don't change that...ever.
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
|
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2889 Posts
|
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. It certainly does seem to be linked to me. The framers of the Constitution seemed to believe that people should be allowed to have guns as part of a "well regulated Militia."
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-19 23:48, ed rhodes wrote: Ed's post is above. Here is part of it that just seems funny to me so I have to ask him a questioin after reading it. Here is his post than my question: The framers of the Constitution seemed to believe that people should be allowed to have guns as part of a "well regulated Militia." My question: What they told you this? Or is this another assumption that suits your ideals? Now come on Ed. Which is it? They told you in a dream or you assume you know what they meant? You really think we got it wrong all this time?
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
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Mass shooting at Batman screening in Aurora Colo. At least 12 dead, dozens more wounded. (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..16..29..42..55..68~69~70~71~72 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 19, 2012 07:25 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 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 < 
|