Judge henderson is a moron, the RKBA as stated is absolute and not limited by the stated motive for it.Făkünamę wrote:I like Judge Henderson, she seems to understand what the 2nd amendment is about.
Emphasis mine.To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.
Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41178
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74299
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
"Shall not be questioned" is fascistic in essence, whatever holy writ it may refer to...mozg wrote:Pennsylvania's constitution begins with Article I Declaration of Rights.
Section 21 reads:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Do you find the term 'citizens' to be ambiguous?
Read "We, the grumpy old men of the past, wish to enslave all future inhabitants of the fair state of Pennsylvania to our narrow views of the world. And no talking back..."
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
It is sometimes viewed in that regard, yes. However, the US Constitution is unlike a lot of other countries' constitutions in its brevity. It's a pamphlet, really, and has been amended substantially 27 times. It designates broad swaths of power to various branches of the federal government, and carves out broad areas where individual autonomy is held mostly inviolable.Rum wrote:Americans sometimes seem to treat the Constitution as a holy scriptue. It is due respect, yes. It is one of the wonders of the world in my opinion. But it is still only a document arrived at by a few enlightened and generally privileged men. Men of their time too of course, with no idea of what the future might hold.
If a country can't change and adapt and if necessary rethink some basic foundations perhaps it deserves to stagnate and decline.
There is something to be said for not leaving basic individual liberties up to a majority vote. I know that a lot of folks these days think that as long as 51% of the population votes for something then it's good. But, IMO, that just ain't so. Without reigns on the vicissitudes of the masses, we will find the masses sell their future liberty for temporary safety, whenever there is a threat or frenzy is whipped up.
In reality, the US system is a balance. It's basic concept is "checks and balances." Three coequal branches of government, delegated areas of authority which operate to "check and balance" the other two. Individual liberties to "check and balance" the power of the State. And, representative government and some added difficulty to amend the constitution to "check and balance" the caprice of the people themselves.
Certainly not perfect, and never billed as that by the people that wrote it. The idea of calling the Americans of the 18th century "The Founders" and casting them as among the "wise ancients" is what some folks who idolize the constitution do. They say "The Founders knew..." better than us... and the "Founders" intended thusly, in their wisdom. The reality is much different. Thomas Jefferson was 33 years old when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He's always cast as an "old white dude" by his detractor, and a stately elderly wise old "Founder" by constitution worshippers, but he was just an educated man, and a fallible one, who knew himself to be fallible. He suggested there ought to be a change every generation, because what worked for his generation in his time might not be what is best in another time -- the State and the government and the people should follow reason applied to experience.
James Madison, one of the main authors of the Constitution was 25 years old when the Declaration was signed, and he was 36 when the Constitution was adopted. He was a guy. Educated, yes. Accomplished, yes. Above average, yes. But, a "Founder" with a capital "f" -- no.
th
In that respect, Rum, I agree with you. In many ways, too much in the way of worship is extended to a document that is the creation of young men, experimenting with a new and progressive form of government, in a time much different from our own. Those men would not be "shocked" or "outraged" that we deviate from their "intent." They would think it much to be expected, and they would probably very likely be surprised that their documents are still in effect in 2012.
- mozg
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:25 am
- About me: There's not much to tell.
- Location: US And A
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
What kind of filter did you have to apply to it to call a Constitutional guarantee of the right to self defense for individual citizens 'enslavement'?JimC wrote:"Shall not be questioned" is fascistic in essence, whatever holy writ it may refer to...
Read "We, the grumpy old men of the past, wish to enslave all future inhabitants of the fair state of Pennsylvania to our narrow views of the world. And no talking back..."
If anything, a recognized and legally protected right to armed self defense makes it a lot harder to enslave and subjugate people. The right to say 'No' is kind of meaningless without the ability to back it up.
'Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you.' - George Carlin
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
Again what is basic individual liberty, it works on the assumption that it exists, is natural and is beyond debateThere is something to be said for not leaving basic individual liberties up to a majority vote. I know that a lot of folks these days think that as long as 51% of the population votes for something then it's good. But, IMO, that just ain't so. Without reigns on the vicissitudes of the masses, we will find the masses sell their future liberty for temporary safety, whenever there is a threat or frenzy is whipped up..
Which leads to entire weak and permanately deadlock government when you are in a multicultural society. It may work when basically 99% of people are of the same culture ,race and general occupation (farming).In reality, the US system is a balance. It's basic concept is "checks and balances." Three coequal branches of government, delegated areas of authority which operate to "check and balance" the other two. Individual liberties to "check and balance" the power of the State. And, representative government and some added difficulty to amend the constitution to "check and balance" the caprice of the people themselves.
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, the founding father's wanted the citizenry well enough armed so that they could rebel and over throw a tyrannical government. Just as they so recently as armed common people over threw British rule.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74299
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
So, the words "Shall not be questioned" don't ring any alarm bells?mozg wrote:What kind of filter did you have to apply to it to call a Constitutional guarantee of the right to self defense for individual citizens 'enslavement'?JimC wrote:"Shall not be questioned" is fascistic in essence, whatever holy writ it may refer to...
Read "We, the grumpy old men of the past, wish to enslave all future inhabitants of the fair state of Pennsylvania to our narrow views of the world. And no talking back..."
If anything, a recognized and legally protected right to armed self defense makes it a lot harder to enslave and subjugate people. The right to say 'No' is kind of meaningless without the ability to back it up.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- mozg
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:25 am
- About me: There's not much to tell.
- Location: US And A
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
Not at all. I have zero problem with the concept that the right to self defense is inherent and unquestionable, and that it also indicates the right to own the means of effectively defending oneself.JimC wrote:So, the words "Shall not be questioned" don't ring any alarm bells?
'Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you.' - George Carlin
- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
They will be.Audley Strange wrote:Those Texas secessionists and Montana Rapture ready militias are surely giving aid an comfort to the Marxist liberaljoo media Conspiracy and theocrats to break up your great nation.Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Depends. The definition of traitor is "One who gives aid and/or comfort to an enemy." Civil protest doesn't qualify.Audley Strange wrote:So are those who are against Federal Government not then Traitors?
Why are they not dead?
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
There should be no 'right' to self defence merely it is legal in a restricted number of circumstances.Not at all. I have zero problem with the concept that the right to self defense is inherent and unquestionable, and that it also indicates the right to own the means of effectively defending oneself
There is something seriously fucked with any individual that even thinks of self defence , sod banning guns I would ban any martial arts that advertises itself as 'self defence'. If they want to advertise as a sport or a way of keeping fair enough but if they in any way advertise is a way to hit people outside competitions or an arena is should be banned.
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60970
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
lolololol
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
Is that a question? If you don't know what a basic individual liberty is, then how do you know it works on the assumption that it is natural and beyond debate. Of course they are debatable concepts. That doesn't mean that simple majorities must always rule.MrJonno wrote:Again what is basic individual liberty, it works on the assumption that it exists, is natural and is beyond debateThere is something to be said for not leaving basic individual liberties up to a majority vote. I know that a lot of folks these days think that as long as 51% of the population votes for something then it's good. But, IMO, that just ain't so. Without reigns on the vicissitudes of the masses, we will find the masses sell their future liberty for temporary safety, whenever there is a threat or frenzy is whipped up..
We, in the US, haven't had a permanently deadlocked government, despite having a more diverse population than most other countries.MrJonno wrote:Which leads to entire weak and permanately deadlock government when you are in a multicultural society. It may work when basically 99% of people are of the same culture ,race and general occupation (farming).In reality, the US system is a balance. It's basic concept is "checks and balances." Three coequal branches of government, delegated areas of authority which operate to "check and balance" the other two. Individual liberties to "check and balance" the power of the State. And, representative government and some added difficulty to amend the constitution to "check and balance" the caprice of the people themselves.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
That doesn't make any sense. The right of self defense is the right to take action to preserve one's life and limb from unlawful and/or unjustified attack. How can that not be a right - for it not to be a right would be to render an individually legally incompetent to defend himself from an unlawful and/or unjustified attack.MrJonno wrote:There should be no 'right' to self defence merely it is legal in a restricted number of circumstances.Not at all. I have zero problem with the concept that the right to self defense is inherent and unquestionable, and that it also indicates the right to own the means of effectively defending oneself
Ah, the attitude of both slave and totalitarian, all rolled into one. Were you the king, you'd deprive the people of the power to defend themselves against unlawful attack, and your wish to cede all power over the defense of your life to others is a bald expression of the wish to live as an abject slave.MrJonno wrote:
There is something seriously fucked with any individual that even thinks of self defence , sod banning guns I would ban any martial arts that advertises itself as 'self defence'. If they want to advertise as a sport or a way of keeping fair enough but if they in any way advertise is a way to hit people outside competitions or an arena is should be banned.
You would "ban" any martial arts? So, a person wants to learn how to move their body in a certain way, and you'd "ban" that? "You! You there! Stop that kicking and turning nonsense right now! Stop that! And, we're confiscating these blocks of would that you've been breaking as evidence! And, we're taking this sign down! There will be no mention that women can learn to up their odds at fighting off muggers! None of that now!"

- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60970
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
Somewhere along the line I think Mr Jonno did some martial arts and suffered a head injury... 

Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Re: Restricting constitutional feeedoms.
I said we should ban martial arts advertised as 'self defence' and we did actually ban an American instructor who was some what eager on the self defence front
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05 ... 02042.html
The point its not just about guns or other weapons its about gun owners and their attitudes that need to be dealt with
The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough
The attitude that if I can do/use something responsiblly then should be legal
The attitude that a person behaviour can't be restricted due to the behaviour of others
The attitude that law abiding citizens and 'bad' people are different
The attitude of anyone using the word 'tyranny', the use of that alone word should be enough to get anyone locked up
The attiitude that any person can be self reliant and self sufficient
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05 ... 02042.html
The point its not just about guns or other weapons its about gun owners and their attitudes that need to be dealt with
The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough
The attitude that if I can do/use something responsiblly then should be legal
The attitude that a person behaviour can't be restricted due to the behaviour of others
The attitude that law abiding citizens and 'bad' people are different
The attitude of anyone using the word 'tyranny', the use of that alone word should be enough to get anyone locked up
The attiitude that any person can be self reliant and self sufficient
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests