Obama spanks Wall Street.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I could give you countless examples of extreme behavior by otherwise previously legally sane people. You know them as well. So what's the point? We just start to restrict Constitutional rights because of a few nuts when 99% of the rest of people are doing it all right?

How is it restricting anyone's Constitutional rights to require a reasonable waiting period and extensive background check before getting a lethal weapon? Or to require special permits for certain kinds of weapons? I'm sorry, but certain people just should not be able to legally purchase weapons, and most people have no business owning machine guns or certain other kinds of weapons.

I will go one step further though, and say the health care system is also at fault, because deregulation has tied their hands. Some people who have gone on shooting sprees should not have even been out in the general public because they had severe mental problems, and it was KNOWN they had these problems. But the law has been watered down so bad that it is almost impossible to hold someone against their will.

So it isn't JUST gun control issues that need to be addressed. does that make you happy?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Dumbasses killing a family of four with their monster SUV. In some of those instances, the people involved legally purchased an automobile, even though they should not have been able to.

And those people should be charge with vehicular homicide. Frankly, I think it's WAY to easy to get driving permits today, and many people are WAY too distracted to be behind the wheel of a car. I can't tell you how many times I have almost been driven over (I drive a Geo metro convertible, tiny car) by some moron in an SUV who is talking on a fucking cell phone not paying attention to their surroundings. IMO, I should be able to shoot their ass.

So what? When amendment III was written, we didn't have the system of barracks we have now. Would you like to erase amendment III?

Oh good grief. That is ridiculous and does not even deserve a response.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

How is it restricting anyone's Constitutional rights to require a reasonable waiting period and extensive background check before getting a lethal weapon?

Because the wording of the second amendment says "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall we look up "infringed" in the dictionary?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

And those people should be charge with vehicular homicide. Frankly, I think it's WAY to easy to get driving permits today,

Well, hell. Why not just wrap everyone in bubble wrap and lock them in their houses? Safer that way.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Oh good grief. That is ridiculous and does not even deserve a response.

Sucks when you can't support your argument, hmm?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Well, hell. Why not just wrap everyone in bubble wrap and lock them in their houses? Safer that way.

No, but driving is not a right, it's a priviledge.

Sucks when you can't support your argument, hmm?

I wasn't arguing against ammendment III, so why should I respond to that? Saying I can't support an argument about the third ammendment when I never said anything about the third ammendment is you just being argumentative and trying to confuse the issue.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Because the wording of the second amendment says "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall we look up "infringed" in the dictionary?

Infringed means to violate. It is not infringing on anyone's right to own a weapon simply because you make them go through a waiting period, or have restrictions on certain kinds of weapons. "The right to bear arms" does not mean you have the right to own a machine gun, and if someone is mentally unstable and could pose a danger to society, why should we give them a license to kill? Do you think anyone should be able to own any kind of weapon they want?

[Shawnee123]

You can have my nuclear bomb when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Originally Posted by TGRR

Because the wording of the second amendment says "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall we look up "infringed" in the dictionary?

No right is absolute and regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Roberts court made that clear in its decision in the Heller (DC gun ban) case.

The finding of the Court, written by Scalia:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
..
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms....

http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

But it doesnt address Obama spanking Wall Street.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Redux

No right is absolute and ~snip~

paging mr radar, paging mr radar.

[Shawnee123]

oh noes!

Originally Posted by lookout123

paging mr radar, paging mr radar.

is this radar dude one of the framers of the Constitution brought back to life to tell 21st century America what "they" meant 200+ years ago?

Wow. I thought that was why those framers established the federal judiciary of "one Supreme Court and such inferior courts..."

I dont understand why the words of Scalia in the Heller decision are so hard to interpret... "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.."

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

is this radar dude one of the framers of the Constitution brought back to life to tell 21st century America what "they" meant 200+ years ago?

Wow....

I'll match your radar with a scalia....but hold the beer.

I'm not meaning to disparage Mr. Radar. but....

In the meantime, why do you think this so hard to interpret> "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."

[lookout123]

I don't disagree with that statement. I was paging radar because long time dwellars are very familiar with what his response to this:

Originally Posted by Redux
No right is absolute and ~snip~

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Infringed means to violate. It is not infringing on anyone's right to own a weapon simply because you make them go through a waiting period, or have restrictions on certain kinds of weapons. "The right to bear arms" does not mean you have the right to own a machine gun, and if someone is mentally unstable and could pose a danger to society, why should we give them a license to kill? Do you think anyone should be able to own any kind of weapon they want?

Infringed can also be defined as "to encroach upon".

And yes, it does mean I have the right to a machine gun. Or a tank, if I can afford one.

And yes, unless you are denied your rights after due process of law or previous commitment by a competent court for mental defect, anyone should be able to own any weapon.