New GOP gun law.

[UtahPete]

Pete, You're way off the rails now... Where did the abortion discussion come from? :dontknow:

And when the framers of our Constitution were discussing "militias"; they meant each and every citizen.

The abortion issue came from the post that I quoted (FatCycleDaddy); "Are you Pro Life or Anti-life? Of course that sounds to harsh so it is changed to Pro Choice"

On what authority do you base your claim of what the framers of the Constitution meant by a 'militia'? The intent of the 2nd amendment is still being debated and is the source of the great divide over gun ownership in this country as far as I'm aware. If it had been decided by the Supreme Court, then there would be no more debate.

 

[BitSlayer]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Which courts are now acting as both the judicial and the legislative branches?

Man, you must live in the liberal bubble. There are so many courts that are trying to legislate from the bench. That is not within their power to do. Take a deep breath and come out of the bubble UtahPete, come out of the bubble.....

 

[UtahPete]

Man, you must live in the liberal bubble. There are so many courts that are trying to legislate from the bench. That is not within their power to do. Take a deep breath and come out of the bubble UtahPete, come out of the bubble.....

I live in one of the reddest states in the nation. Hardly a liberal bubble. I'm asking you to come up with some hard facts to substantiate your claim that courts are trying to legislate from the bench. I think that's far-right propaganda that you have just digested and regurgitated without questioning it.

This is not a debate between right and left; this is a debate about whether we believe our government (all three branches, federal, state and local) is functioning within the constitution or not. When you make claims like that it would seem you don't trust our government. Or maybe it's just those laws and judicial decisions and executive actions you don't like that you dismiss as unconstitutional?

 

[UtahPete]

Yup! :thumbup: But I don't think that branding someone who is mentally unfit; would be fair. For that: I'd like law enforcement agencies to have better access to medical records. This entire HIPPA thing is a pain! nojoke

Would you want the Berkeley police department to have access to all your medical records and make the decision as to whether you are mentally fit?

 

[Bob Denman]

The abortion issue came from the post that I quoted (FatCycleDaddy); "Are you Pro Life or Anti-life? Of course that sounds to harsh so it is changed to Pro Choice"

On what authority do you base your claim of what the framers of the Constitution meant by a 'militia'? The intent of the 2nd amendment is still being debated and is the source of the great divide over gun ownership in this country as far as I'm aware. If it had been decided by the Supreme Court, then there would be no more debate.

The term "militia HAS been held to mean individual citizens, and NOT the military.
It's already been decided!

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

That simply doesn't work in the real world... otherwise states with Capital Punishment shouldn't have any murders.......

when capital punishment takes 10 or 20 years then it doesn't work. in order for punishment to work it must be
enacted upon swiftly not months or years later when the disgust and anger subsides.

 

[Fatcycledaddy]

It's the NRA that is spinning this debate into a pro- or con- Second Amendment argument. When you become part of a well-regulated militia, come and talk to me about your unfettered right under the second amendment to possess and carry as many and whatever kind of weapon you choose.

It is the religious right that has spun their anti-abortion campaign into a pro- or anti- life argument when it is actually about whether or not a woman should have her freedom to choose denied her. I am for freedom of choice. I don't think you, I or the government should be taking away a woman's freedom to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term.

What makes your freedom to own and carry guns sacrosanct, beyond government control, but a woman's right to choose how she deals with an unwanted pregnancy is legislated away without another thought to the constitutional principles involved? Your freedoms as a gun-owner trump a woman's freedoms; you don't see a problem with that?

I am part of a well regulated militia, I am a american citizen who is upholding and abiding by the second amendment.
You constantly question other peoples authority to know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution, and yet you seam to be an expert in claiming what they say is incorrect.
Because you side or choose to disagree with the 2nd amendment interpretation that is currently held up by the courts, does not make it incorrect.

As far as pro choice, why is it when a pregnant woman is killed there are usually 2 counts of murder against the killer, or if a fetus is lost due to domestic violence it is murder, and in the case of a car accident is it manslaughter, and yet it is a CHOICE when the Doctor or Mother makes it.

 

[UtahPete]

The term "militia HAS been held to mean individual citizens, and NOT the military. It's already been decided!

Decided by who? The term 'well-regulated militia' most definitely does NOT refer to individuals acting independently of one another, but that hasn't been decided by any authority either. It's still open to debate and the NRA is doing everything in its power to make sure a case that would decide it doesn't make its way to the Supreme Court. At least not until it is stacked with right-wingers.

 

[Bob Denman]

They sure as Hell DID decide that it is an individual right:

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Read the first paragraph...

Here's another:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

 

[UtahPete]

I am part of a well regulated militia, I am a american citizen who is upholding and abiding by the second amendment. You constantly question other peoples authority to know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution, and yet you seam to be an expert in claiming what they say is incorrect. Because you side or choose to disagree with the 2nd amendment interpretation that is currently held up by the courts, does not make it incorrect.

I've never done that. I have asked what authority you are quoting when you make these outlandish claims. The opinions of gun lobbyists and talking heads do not constitute authority, any more than my opinion does.

 

[UtahPete]

They sure as Hell DID decide that it is an individual right:https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php Read the first paragraph...

Thanks for the reference. Read the second paragraph:

The Second Amendment, one of the ten amendments to the Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights, states: “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.” The meaning of this sentence is not self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary but relatively few Supreme Court decisions.

 

[Bob Denman]

Nonetheless: you're still wrong.
Firearms ownership IS an individual right, and insulting conservative speakers and the Executive Vice-President of the NRA is absolutely rude.

Have we said anything about your Gun-Control advocates; that would be considered to be an insult? :dontknow:

 

[Bob Denman]

Thanks for the reference. Read the second paragraph:

The Second Amendment, one of the ten amendments to the Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights, states: “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.” The meaning of this sentence is not self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary but relatively few Supreme Court decisions.

...And you're ignoring their explanation of it in the first paragraph... :banghead:
Your highlighted sentence isn't applicable. Explaining the ambiguity, and meaning a dearth of decisions does nothing to change the fact that one of the relatively few decisions; is one that guarantees that it is an individual's right. :thumbup:

 

[UtahPete]

Nonetheless: you're still wrong. Firearms ownership IS an individual right, and insulting conservative speakers and the Executive Vice-President of the NRA is absolutely rude. Have we said anything about your Gun-Control advocates; that would be considered to be an insult? :dontknow:

Bob, you're trying to deflect my arguments by making it personal. That's politicizing the issue, which doesn't have to happen. I haven't insulted anyone and you know it. I have asked on what basis i.e. what authority you make your claims. The opinions of gun lobbyists and talking heads doesn't constitute authority.

 

[Bob Denman]

You insulted Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Wayne LaPierre...
I find THAT to be insulting, and think you should delete that post.

I gave you a source for the final decision on this discussion...
I never said that anyone else was an expert: I just happen to agree with their views.

 

[UtahPete]

...And you're ignoring their explanation of it in the first paragraph... :banghead: Your highlighted sentence isn't applicable. Explaining the ambiguity, and meaning a dearth of decisions does nothing to change the fact that one of the relatively few decisions; is one that guarantees that it is an individual's right. :thumbup:

Sorry, let me clarify. I never said it is not an individual's right to carry. NEVER SAID THAT.

What I've said, which is supported by the authority you quoted, is that the meaning of a "well-regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" within the context of the 2nd amendment has yet to be interpreted by the Supreme Court.

What does it mean to keep and bear arms? Is that to be interpreted narrowly or broadly? That's the issue. So let's not confuse it with specious arguments.

What does it mean by 'the people'? Everyone? If so, by what authority does the government take away that right from convicted felons, for instance?

 

[Bob Denman]

I never said that you said that...
(CRAP! Now my head hurts!)
As regards the rest of your post: chew your own steak. The answers are out there for YOU to find!

 

[JerryB]

Hi Fatcycledaddy,

Re: why is it when . . .

It depends upon the state laws in which the incident occurred. In Oregon, a pregnant woman being killed does not result in a charge of double homicide. In some other states, it does.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[UtahPete]

You insulted Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Wayne LaPierre...I find THAT to be insulting, and think you should delete that post. I gave you a source for the final decision on this discussion...I never said that anyone else was an expert: I just happen to agree with their views.

No, I didn't insult them Bob. Unless you consider my saying that their views (your views) don't constitute legal authority is an insult. You are using that excuse to deflect arguments that support views different from your own. I have to wonder why ...

Nonetheless, I will edit, but not remove, my offending post.

 

[Bob Denman]

I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them.
I will say that I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh very much: no time for radios...
But if he were wrong on this topic: the anti-gunners would have already crucified him. :shocked:
I do watch Sean Hannity, and I respect his level of informed opinions.
But when it comes to Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! :bowdown:
I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you? :dontknow: