Government scores victory against woman who can't leave her house

[softball]

A couple of observations:

Again, you are making some pretty fundamental errors in logic here. First, quoting a man who was President 200 years ago and assuming his opinion would account for the rapid increase in the flow of information and "speech" is a pretty big jump. During the term of his Presidency, people were lucky to see a newspaper once a week (once a month in many areas) and news took weeks to travel from point to point. The vast majority of people would never do any more "speech" than to write a letter to a relative in another part of the country to tell them about the church social and the spring crops.

I would assume then that the right to bear arms is totally outdated because long bore rifles and peacemakers have no place in modern defense. Though it made sense at the time, it has little relevance today.

The miracle of free speech should always be limited by it's harm to others. In Canada, we don't put up with Holocaust deniers, consider the case of Ernst Zundle... you can always donate to the cause of his lack of free speech on his website http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_per...is_zundel.html - Should he have the right to free speech, to teach what is clearly a lie, only because he has MUST have that right? Would you approve of him as a history teacher for your family school? After all, he has the right, no?

Now I would agree that you have no protected right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but Zundel? I also wouldn't approve of a history teacher that believed Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman or anyone who ever taught the domino theory in South East Asia. Zundel should be allowed to howl at the moon as long and loud as he likes. Many would say pornography crosses the line and does more harm than good buddy Ernst.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

A couple of observations:

I would assume then that the right to bear arms is totally outdated because long bore rifles and peacemakers have no place in modern defense. Though it made sense at the time, it has little relevance today.

Actually, you are correct. First off, I don't see any (needed) militias, which sort of negates the whole deal. Second, the framing fathers didn't consider for a second the idea of some nutjob wandering around with an AK and a couple of large clips being able to take out a small town in minutes. When they wrote that stuff, it is was "put in the bullet, add in the powder, plan your action, cock the lever and fire, repeat if you don't get killed in the next 10 minutes or so". Weapons have a place in modern defence, but they don't have a place next to the schoolyard fence. There is no justification (besides the very tired "because the bad guys have them") that can say why a person living in the US needs a gun. If they were not produced in insane numbers (in the millions each year) the bad guys wouldn't have them because they wouldn't be able to find them.

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Now I would agree that you have no protected right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but Zundel? I also wouldn't approve of a history teacher that believed Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman or anyone who ever taught the domino theory in South East Asia. Zundel should be allowed to howl at the moon as long and loud as he likes. Many would say pornography crosses the line and does more harm than good buddy Ernst.

Well, I always think Mr Zundle is entitled to have an opinion (in the same manner as I have an opinion of Shaggy, example). When he opens his mouth and expresses that opinion, and agressively does so, attempting to teach others in his "view" that he crosses the line, because his opinion causes hurt to those who were involved, families involved, etc. It is a hurtful message that isn't supported by the facts, by history, by eye witness accounts, and by the evidence on the ground.

Are you suggesting that Mr Zundle should be allowed to publish his book in the US, perhaps buy airtime on TV during the infomercial segments and run a 30 minute "why the jews are lying bastards" information show?

Come on.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Actually, you are correct. First off, I don't see any (needed) militias, which sort of negates the whole deal. Second, the framing fathers didn't consider for a second the idea of some nutjob wandering around with an AK and a couple of large clips being able to take out a small town in minutes. When they wrote that stuff, it is was "put in the bullet, add in the powder, plan your action, cock the lever and fire, repeat if you don't get killed in the next 10 minutes or so". Weapons have a place in modern defence, but they don't have a place next to the schoolyard fence. There is no justification (besides the very tired "because the bad guys have them") that can say why a person living in the US needs a gun. If they were not produced in insane numbers (in the millions each year) the bad guys wouldn't have them because they wouldn't be able to find them.



Well, I always think Mr Zundle is entitled to have an opinion (in the same manner as I have an opinion of Shaggy, example). When he opens his mouth and expresses that opinion, and agressively does so, attempting to teach others in his "view" that he crosses the line, because his opinion causes hurt to those who were involved, families involved, etc. It is a hurtful message that isn't supported by the facts, by history, by eye witness accounts, and by the evidence on the ground.

Are you suggesting that Mr Zundle should be allowed to publish his book in the US, perhaps buy airtime on TV during the infomercial segments and run a 30 minute "why the jews are lying bastards" information show?

Come on.

I am. I am not sure anyone would run them, but hey, if he can find someone who is whippo enough, good luck to him. Do you think that

BlacksOnBoys dot com contains gay interracial sex videos and movies and pics. If you enter, you will see bareback gay porn with huge black cocks and white studs ...

should be allowed to advertise on tv and and newspapers?
I don't actually, but do you think they should be shut down and run out of dodge? BTW, we both know there are way more extreme sites than this.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Actually, you are correct. First off, I don't see any (needed) militias, which sort of negates the whole deal. Second, the framing fathers didn't consider for a second the idea of some nutjob wandering around with an AK and a couple of large clips being able to take out a small town in minutes. When they wrote that stuff, it is was "put in the bullet, add in the powder, plan your action, cock the lever and fire, repeat if you don't get killed in the next 10 minutes or so". Weapons have a place in modern defence, but they don't have a place next to the schoolyard fence. There is no justification (besides the very tired "because the bad guys have them") that can say why a person living in the US needs a gun. If they were not produced in insane numbers (in the millions each year) the bad guys wouldn't have them because they wouldn't be able to find them.

.

You don't have a clue....
First of all, "right to bear arms," has nothing to do with the "well regulated militia" part.
You anti-gun types want to make the argument that guns are for people formed militias, and since we have a military, why would you need it?

Think about when the right was "writ."
They were DEFENDING against the government's "militia." Understanding that a military is necessary to the free state, there will always be some kind of govt. run military. But when the existing Government becomes oppressive, it is the right of the people to overthrow that government. (see the other important documents stating this, written around the same era.)

THAT is why the people should ALWAYS be entitled to keep and bear arms. To ENSURE their freedoms, for all times.

And yes, there are plenty of justifications for it, but here's the thing: I don't NEED a justification, and more importantly, I don't need to justify it to you, or anyone else.

I've managed to keep and bear arms, with a license to carry, for the past 22 years without having to kill anyone, let alone children. And next to a schoolyard, or in the middle of a bar, It's just as safe for me to be carrying a weapon. But try breaking into my "castle," or "harming my person," and you'll find out real quick why I carry it. The "bad guys have them," is a REAL good reason why "the good guys" should be able have them, but that's a reactive statement, not a proactive statement.

But here's the best part.....you can have it your way, and I can have it my way. You don't need to carry, and I can. And we both get what we want. I don't care that you don't carry, so why do you care that I do?

And "if they wouldn't be produced" is a childish statement. They are, and they will always be. Even if you could magically get rid of all the guns.....then what? Would knives be next?

It's an age old axiom; Guns don't kill people....people kill people.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

It's an age old axiom; Guns don't kill people....people kill people.

The framers don't shade things to make their point, only pro-gun people do.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The framers don't shade things to make their point, only pro-gun people do.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The "framers" would be a "didn't," but even with that, your statement makes no sense.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The "framers" would be a "didn't," but even with that, your statement makes no sense.

Sorry for the one letter typo. The point is you are attempting to make an absolute statement on something that even the surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on. If it was strictly a right to bear arms, there would be no need to mention militias, now would there?

Sorry if we can't make reality meet up with the facts you are attempting to create.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Sorry for the one letter typo. The point is you are attempting to make an absolute statement on something that even the surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on. If it was strictly a right to bear arms, there would be no need to mention militias, now would there?

Sorry if we can't make reality meet up with the facts you are attempting to create.

Once again, it has been the law of the land for more than 200 years now, the supreme court doesn't need to "agree" on it.
Your statment is inaccurate. Despite many attempts by anti-gun groups, the Supreme ciurt has UPHELD the right. That isn't "surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on," that is very clear.

YOUR creation of the facts is what's in question. My version is the law of the land. My gun sits comfortably in my pocket.

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

You don't have a clue....
First of all, "right to bear arms," has nothing to do with the "well regulated militia" part.
You anti-gun types want to make the argument that guns are for people formed militias, and since we have a military, why would you need it?

Think about when the right was "writ."
They were DEFENDING against the government's "militia." Understanding that a military is necessary to the free state, there will always be some kind of govt. run military. But when the existing Government becomes oppressive, it is the right of the people to overthrow that government. (see the other important documents stating this, written around the same era.)

THAT is why the people should ALWAYS be entitled to keep and bear arms. To ENSURE their freedoms, for all times.

And yes, there are plenty of justifications for it, but here's the thing: I don't NEED a justification, and more importantly, I don't need to justify it to you, or anyone else.

I've managed to keep and bear arms, with a license to carry, for the past 22 years without having to kill anyone, let alone children. And next to a schoolyard, or in the middle of a bar, It's just as safe for me to be carrying a weapon. But try breaking into my "castle," or "harming my person," and you'll find out real quick why I carry it. The "bad guys have them," is a REAL good reason why "the good guys" should be able have them, but that's a reactive statement, not a proactive statement.

But here's the best part.....you can have it your way, and I can have it my way. You don't need to carry, and I can. And we both get what we want. I don't care that you don't carry, so why do you care that I do?

And "if they wouldn't be produced" is a childish statement. They are, and they will always be. Even if you could magically get rid of all the guns.....then what? Would knives be next?

It's an age old axiom; Guns don't kill people....people kill people.

Same thing applies. If you were in a position to take on the US Army, Navy, and Airforce, your little pea shooter would be useless anyway. The right to bear arms was actually a typical american abuse of the language. The original draft was the right to bare arms and a printer's error has cause all this grief.