Puff Cigar Discussion Forums
MEMBER CIGAR REVIEWS | STAFF CIGAR REVIEWS | CIGAR VIDEOS | ONE ON ONE INTERVIEWS | CIGAR NEWS | CIGAR FORUMS | PIPES | LIFESTYLE | CONTACT

User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 70

Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

This is a discussion on Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern within the Guns and Knives forums, part of the Everything But Cigars category; this is your 3rd thread on gun control in the last 2 weeks just wondering what your agenda here is......

  
  1. #31

    BUGGER!!!!!!! SDmate's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    this is your 3rd thread on gun control in the last 2 weeks
    just wondering what your agenda here is...


    100% KIWI

  2. #32

    HOT for HILLARY!! AAlmeter's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by muziq View Post
    We have no way of knowing that representative's mindset, short of hearing it directly from her mouth in an unedited fashion. I referenced her district and its challenges to illuminate her potential perspective--and that of the constituents who live, vote, and share their opinions there. However any of us feel about this legislation, it would do all of us some good to keep in mind that individual representatives have the responsibility to propose legislation that is responsive to their constituents as well as to the entire country, and that might very well be the nature of her proposed legislation. The info on her district offers insight, but does not warrant me or anyone else assuming anything about that representative or her intentions.
    If her intention is not to reduce crime, especially in her district, then just what is the purpose of this legislation?
    -Adam

    Cram it! I do my own thing!
    ??

  3. #33

    HOT for HILLARY!! AAlmeter's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by Corona Gigante View Post
    All I can say is that I'm glad there was nothing in the Bill of Rights about the citizens’ right to drive his horse & buggy around not to be infringed, otherwise there’d be no driving test, no seat belts, and wing-nuts on every corner protesting against stop signs.












    Just kidding, guys! [size=1](Please don’t shoot me!)[/size]


    You bring up a fantastic comparison!

    Now, let us for a minute assume that the horse and buggy is essential to maintaining our liberty. As you insinuated, this "amendment" would most likely be expanded on to include the automobile.

    Now, as you head down to the DMV, would you not be somewhat PO'ed if you had to pay over $1000 for a driver's license that says you can only drive your car on your own property? How about if you finally obtained the very difficult license allowing you to drive on all public roads, only to find out that your car a foreign made BMW, is illegal.

    Finally, after thousands spent on paperwork and even more on buying an approved car, you have come to find that the government has installed a stop sign every 12 feet, for safety of course.

    Of course all of these laws were enacted by representatives paid by your tax dollars (and who are driven around by 'government sanctioned drivers' who are exempt from the laws).


    I think that this would be one of very few cases where you and I would be standing next to each other at a protest.
    -Adam

    Cram it! I do my own thing!
    ??

  4. #34

    Evolving Lead Puffer Fish oddball's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by ResIpsa View Post
    ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''
    Well, according to this case U.S. vs. Miller, I guess a sawed-off shotgun is not "part of the ordinary military equipment". But these are:


    U.S. vs. Miller kinda confirms that citizens do have the right to military-style firearms

    "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." U.S. vs. Miller
    "Information doesn't kill you"- Frank Zappa

  5. #35

    Grog Wench TTgirl's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by muziq View Post
    The info on her district offers insight, but does not warrant me or anyone else assuming anything about that representative or her intentions.
    Good enough. We'll put the assumptions about Ms. Jackson-Lee's motives away.

    Quote Originally Posted by muziq View Post
    I referenced her district and its challenges to illuminate her potential perspective--and that of the constituents who live, vote, and share their opinions there. However any of us feel about this legislation, it would do all of us some good to keep in mind that individual representatives have the responsibility to propose legislation that is responsive to their constituents as well as to the entire country, and that might very well be the nature of her proposed legislation.
    Her constituents may well have a unique set of problems that might be better addressed with local remedies. Yes?

    ---------------
    [SIZE="1"]How to remove images from posts, avatars, and signature lines: [/SIZE][SIZE="1"]CLICKY[/SIZE]
    [SIZE="1"]When life gives you lemons - grab the tequila and the salt.[/SIZE]

  6. #36

    Evolving Lead Puffer Fish RETSF's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by SDmate View Post
    this is your 3rd thread on gun control in the last 2 weeks
    just wondering what your agenda here is...
    Nope, 2nd in one day, found them when looking through new legislation today. the other were S&G's and how to shoot shotgun.
    LIBERTY "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin's contributions to the Conference on Feb 17th 1775

  7. #37

    An Original Latino ResIpsa's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by oddball View Post
    Well, according to this case U.S. vs. Miller, I guess a sawed-off shotgun is not "part of the ordinary military equipment". But these are:


    U.S. vs. Miller kinda confirms that citizens do have the right to military-style firearms

    "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." U.S. vs. Miller
    You are misinterpreting what that means. The SCOTUS is speaking in the past tense. The Militia at that time did indeed include "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That is not the case TODAY. Once again, from Findlaw please read the quote in red:

    The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

    here again is the link:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

  8. #38

    Grog Wench TTgirl's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by ResIpsa View Post
    There are those who have mistaken beliefs regarding the 2nd amendment, and the SCOTUS has never definitvely stated what the 2nd protects. In fact, the only case the SCOTUS ever heard regarding it was United States v. Miller. and in a nutshell, this is what they said:

    ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7

    emphasis added by me.
    The "absence of any evidence" is the trick here. Miller disappeared and was not present at the trial, and there was no testimony offered as to the military utility of a sawed-off shotgun. Makes you wonder why the case went forward to begin with. Anyway, the SC ended up punting, but they were in search of someone or something that could tell them if a sawed-off shotgun had any military utility and would therefore be militia equipment.

    ---------------
    [SIZE="1"]How to remove images from posts, avatars, and signature lines: [/SIZE][SIZE="1"]CLICKY[/SIZE]
    [SIZE="1"]When life gives you lemons - grab the tequila and the salt.[/SIZE]

  9. #39

    BUGGER!!!!!!! SDmate's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by RETSF View Post
    Nope, 2nd in one day, found them when looking through new legislation today. the other were S&G's and how to shoot shotgun.

    at least these threads are full of healthy discussion


    100% KIWI

  10. #40

    2B1 ASK1 Hammerhead's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Vic, your analysis also suffers from an understanding of various lower courts, and the Miller case was a debacle. Just because the SCOTUS made a decision in this one case, doesn't make it the RIGHT decision, and I challenge you to understand the circumstances that brought Miller into the courtroom in the first place.

    First of all, it was a moonshining case gone bad by a couple overzealous treasury agents who couldn't book him on bootlegging, so they charged him under the newly passed NFA to justify their jobs because Prohibition had ended. When it went to court the first time, it was throw out abruptly by the judge, but the government in its all-knowing, all-seeing determination to expand itself, brought the case again.

    However the pro-bono representation was by then worn thin, and the defendant, a poor oakey from Appalachia, wasn't about to be caught de-ad in a courtoom again... he disappeared and was never heard from again, and because the defendant wasn't present, the case was decided. You then need to ask how a case can be held without the accused being present, but that's another story.

    What we see here are opinions but little knowledge or fact about the history of the 2nd Amendment. It is one of the most understudied and maligned of all our rights. And that should come as no surprise to anyone who has a brain enough to realize that the government doesn't like to lose its monopoly on power.

    [SIZE=2]"Following the path of least resistance is what makes rivers, and men, crooked."[/SIZE]

  11. #41

    Bucketmouth buster 4WheelVFR's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by SDmate View Post

    at least these threads are full of healthy discussion
    I see plenty of healthy discussion going on here.....so far.

  12. #42

    BUGGER!!!!!!! SDmate's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by 4WheelVFR View Post
    I see plenty of healthy discussion going on here.....so far.
    actually it's great to see that it has stayed on topic


    100% KIWI

  13. #43

    Bucketmouth buster 4WheelVFR's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by SDmate View Post
    actually it's great to see that it has stayed on topic
    Like I said.....so far. I try to stay out of politics threads, which this is. They are fine until someone makes it personal, and politics are always personal.

  14. #44

    An Original Latino ResIpsa's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
    Vic, your analysis also suffers from an understanding of various lower courts, and the Miller case was a debacle. Just because the SCOTUS made a decision in this one case, doesn't make it the RIGHT decision, and I challenge you to understand the circumstances that brought Miller into the courtroom in the first place.

    First of all, it was a moonshining case gone bad by a couple overzealous treasury agents who couldn't book him on bootlegging, so they charged him under the newly passed NFA to justify their jobs because Prohibition had ended. When it went to court the first time, it was throw out abruptly by the judge, but the government in its all-knowing, all-seeing determination to expand itself, brought the case again.

    However the pro-bono representation was by then worn thin, and the defendant, a poor oakey from Appalachia, wasn't about to be caught de-ad in a courtoom again... he disappeared and was never heard from again, and because the defendant wasn't present, the case was decided. You then need to ask how a case can be held without the accused being present, but that's another story.

    What we see here are opinions but little knowledge or fact about the history of the 2nd Amendment. It is one of the most understudied and maligned of all our rights. And that should come as no surprise to anyone who has a brain enough to realize that the government doesn't like to lose its monopoly on power.
    Just to address a couple of comments which I have bolded early on brother. When the SCOTUS rules on something, by the very fact that they ruled they are right. I might disagree, you might disagree, but since they are the final arbiters of all constitutional matters, when they speak that's it, finis, end game. No one can change that.

    As to a trial being held without the accused being present, it's simply a trial in abstentia. Happens all the time, and there is no problem with it. If there were, all criminals would simply flee and thus avoid being convicted. Kind of a ridiculous result I think you would agree.

    As to the 2nd amendment, in order to understand it you have to look at the history.The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1789. At that time this was a country in turmoil, under the threat of attack from enemies both foreign and domestic. THAT is why we needed a well regulated militia, and THAT is why citizen-soldiers needed to keep the weapons in their homes, there was no standing army and individual citizens needed to be able to take up arms at a moments notice. EVERYBODY was part of the militia. That is not the case today. We HAVE an army. individual private citizens being armed are NOT "necessary to the security of a free state". and that is what the intent and rationale behind the amendment was. The amendment addresses a situation that existed at that time, it was never intended to create a right to have arms in your house for any old reason you saw fit, it was intended to provide for the security of the nation, which was under constant threat at that time.

  15. #45

    HOT for HILLARY!! AAlmeter's Avatar


     

    Re: Gun Legislation; Homes with guns and childern

    Quote Originally Posted by ResIpsa View Post
    At that time this was a country in turmoil, under the threat of attack from enemies both foreign and domestic. THAT is why we needed a well regulated militia, and THAT is why citizen-soldiers needed to keep the weapons in their homes, there was no standing army and individual citizens needed to be able to take up arms at a moments notice. EVERYBODY was part of the militia. That is not the case today.
    -Adam

    Cram it! I do my own thing!
    ??

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •