mnealtx 0 #76 April 15, 2011 Quote>If you can show where nuclear devices are a common infantry weapon, you might >have a point. Looks like Mike found an example where the right to bear arms can be infringed! Non-sequitur. Nuclear weapons have never been a common infantry weapon. Nice try.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #77 April 15, 2011 Quote>If you can show where nuclear devices are a common infantry weapon, you might >have a point. Looks like Mike found an example where the right to bear arms can be infringed! do we have any nukes in the US forces that a man can pick up with his arms? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #78 April 18, 2011 QuoteDoes it highlight what they consider to be appropriate? Why not just read it instead of asking me? That way you will have no reason to argue with me over what I think it says. But: Justice James Clark McReynolds:Quote ‘We construe the amendment as having relation to military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia.’ Fact is that there WERE sawed of shotguns in the Army back then, and I was issued a sawed off shotgun during my service. But Miller was not there and there was no council for Miller. Quote“The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- McReynolds QuoteSo what did Miller hold? At a minimum, it held the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals. At the maximum, dicta suggest the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service. -- Frye, B. (2008). The Peculiar Story of US v Miller. NYU Journal of Law and Liberty And it discussed who would comprise the militia: QuoteThe 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #79 April 19, 2011 Still waiting: Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #80 April 19, 2011 QuoteStill waiting: Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. You seem to have an issue with set theory and logic.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #81 April 27, 2011 QuoteYou seem to have an issue with set theory and logic. Look more personal attacks from a Mod. I thought these were not allowed? Do you have a problem understanding the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #82 April 27, 2011 Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #83 April 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou seem to have an issue with set theory and logic. Look more personal attacks from a Mod. The last time someone questioned my math ability, I shot him down like a dog. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #84 April 27, 2011 QuoteThe last time someone questioned my math ability, I shot him down like a dog Well, he attacked me... Not my argument. I provided quotes from SC cases, he accused me of being bad at math. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #85 April 27, 2011 Dude - if a thread has been dead for 7 or 8 days, let it be. You resurrected 3 or 4 threads from the 19th or 20th today. You don't need to answer to every single attack, you know. And I can guarantee that there will be another gun thread soon enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #86 April 27, 2011 Quote he accused me of being bad at math. That bastard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #87 April 28, 2011 Don't you have a birth certificate to worry about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #88 April 28, 2011 QuoteDon't you have a birth certificate to worry about? No, shouldn't you be playing the ball and not the player? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #89 April 28, 2011 QuoteDude - if a thread has been dead for 7 or 8 days, let it be I asked Kallend a question... When he answer we will see if I am done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #90 April 28, 2011 Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrokenR1 0 #91 April 29, 2011 I'm going to skip over most of crap that's in here and just respond by saying, yes I carry in Disney World, along with at many other parks. I will say I have not in the water parks yet though. Just doesn't seem right ya know? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rap is to music what etch-a-sketch is to art. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #92 April 29, 2011 Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gregpso 1 #93 March 13, 2012 Its a real dilema this gun question. (In Australia no one is allowed to carry hanguns except Police/security. ) I started the post as I knew folk must have been carrying at WDW due to lack of searches I experienced there. (bag searches only) There is argument for and against! I mean if some whacko started shooting there I would be grateful if a normal citizen shot him before he could do much damage BUT if the vast majority of normal folk have guns so do the whackos. So in Aust no one has them. (sure a few crims do manage to get them but handgun crime is almost non existent very rare) However I would fell safer travelling on public transport at night "carrying" or being in the middle of no where carrying. BUT not an option here. Can see both sides of the argument. Foot note never felt unsafe at WDW as I am sure there is convert security there. In fact never saw any aggro at all except parents telling off kids. What a wonderful place and i will return. (and quite cheap really)I tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #94 March 14, 2012 If the bag checks are like the ones at Disneyland, they're not really looking for weapons. They're looking for food and glass bottles and alcohol. Disneyland is a dry park, so people often try to smuggle in a flask, or their own food so they don't have to buy park food. If they find you have more with you than a snack or two, or glass bottles, you're pointed to the lockers by the picnic area outside the park. As far as I know, there are NO signs outside Disneyland prohibiting weapons. (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me). I don't know about DisneyWorld. The feeling here is that posting signs would detract from the "family atmosphere"...same reason why you don't walk through metal detectors. They don't want to start your experience at the "happiest place on Earth" by treating you like a criminal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #95 March 20, 2012 QuoteAs far as I know, there are NO signs outside Disneyland prohibiting weapons. (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me). Don't know about signs, but here's the policy: http://disneyland.disney.go.com/faq/parks/#parks-q12 Absolutely no guns, pogo sticks or string bikinis! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #96 March 20, 2012 QuoteStill waiting: Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Another of your Strawman arguments: I haven't disputed Heller at all. You, however, seem to have a big problem understanding the wording of Heller. " 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."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bakerjan 0 #97 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe 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." The Court's opinion may not be taken to cast doubt on those longstanding prohibitions but reality does when it comes to schools and government buildings. IIRC, schools and government buildings are where most of the bigtime mass shootings take place along with private businesses where no firearms are allowed. Then again, it may be too many Type A personalities in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #98 March 26, 2012 I already said that...... Maybe you should READ a post before you reply? "You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. " But you still continue to tap dance around the issue. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mx19 0 #99 April 4, 2012 ok can i ask a question of all of you that like to exercise your right to carry concealed firearms... Why do you feel the need to? are you really all involved in stuff that warrants the need for guns? or is it all just paranoia? Serious question Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites devildog 0 #100 April 4, 2012 Quoteok can i ask a question of all of you that like to exercise your right to carry concealed firearms... Why do you feel the need to? are you really all involved in stuff that warrants the need for guns? or is it all just paranoia? Serious question Why do you feel the need to vote? To speak in public? To be protected from unwarranted search? Especially the latter, you must be up to no good! More to your point, I've known people beaten to death in a not-at-all scary area, nor was he involved in any "stuff". I've known people attacked and nearly killed (thank God he had a gun on him at the time) just from walking out of their office late one night, again, not in a scary place. A friend of ours neighbor came home (very nice area) to a burglary in progress. I had a knife pulled on me years back just outside the grocery store that catered to a six figure+ neighborhood. etc. etc. Better to have and not need than need and not have.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
DaVinci 0 #98 March 26, 2012 I already said that...... Maybe you should READ a post before you reply? "You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. " But you still continue to tap dance around the issue. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mx19 0 #99 April 4, 2012 ok can i ask a question of all of you that like to exercise your right to carry concealed firearms... Why do you feel the need to? are you really all involved in stuff that warrants the need for guns? or is it all just paranoia? Serious question Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #100 April 4, 2012 Quoteok can i ask a question of all of you that like to exercise your right to carry concealed firearms... Why do you feel the need to? are you really all involved in stuff that warrants the need for guns? or is it all just paranoia? Serious question Why do you feel the need to vote? To speak in public? To be protected from unwarranted search? Especially the latter, you must be up to no good! More to your point, I've known people beaten to death in a not-at-all scary area, nor was he involved in any "stuff". I've known people attacked and nearly killed (thank God he had a gun on him at the time) just from walking out of their office late one night, again, not in a scary place. A friend of ours neighbor came home (very nice area) to a burglary in progress. I had a knife pulled on me years back just outside the grocery store that catered to a six figure+ neighborhood. etc. etc. Better to have and not need than need and not have.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
