Public Support for Gun Control

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

"statistics" from tv news...

Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list

seem too low to me
;-)

[Bill]

That actually sounds almost reasonable, but if it's true Obama could
bring in a form of gun licensing without a problem, and he can't...

In which case I beg leave to doubt your statistics and would like a
credible source that isn't 'I saw it on the TV'.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Well, you'll never get any agreement on exactly what the numbers are;
for example: 69% of exactly what population want to limit gun
purchases? The simple fact remains that I can invest $500 today and
sell it tomorrow, NQA, at a 50% profit... lots of people are making
*lots* of money! When people are making money, they tend to be happy.

The problem with revocation of a person's rights based on inclusion in
some "terror watch list" is that how a person gets on such a list is
classified; what agency maintains the list is classified; finally,
even who is on the list is classified.

Jones

[Peter Franks]

A right is a license to exercise some characteristic or trait that is
not subject to just legislation or control.

If a "right" is revoked based on some list, the there is one of two
possibilities:

It isn't a right;

The legislation isn't just.

Since we know, per Amendment II, that it IS a right, that leaves the
only possibility that the legislation isn't just.

Second point: since rights can't be legislated, it doesn't matter what
the statistics say. Rights aren't subject to democratic rule. 100% of
the people can be for gun control, but it doesn't matter, the right
CAN'T be legislated away. AT MOST, the people can choose not to
exercise their right, of their own free will and choice, but again, it
can't be legislated away.

[jonathan]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in message
news:dqWdnVLSEb5rF4rN...@supernews.com...

>
> "statistics" from tv news...
>
> Public Support for Gun Control
> 86% want background checks

The Brady Bill makes background checks
mandatory nationwide.

> 63% want ban on high capacity clips

Only 3% of firearm homicides are with rifles.
Some 90% with handguns.
http://www.firearmsid.com/feature%20articles/0900guic/guns%20used%20in%20crime.htm


And the latest court rulings are that handguns
in the home for self defense is a right. That
doesn't mean anything goes of course, but
handguns are the problem, and you can't
legislate that right away without changing
the constitution.

> 69% want limit on gun purchases
> 66% want national gun registry
> 88% want ban for terror watch list

100% of our politicians want to get reelected, and
...meaningful gun control is political suicide.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

jonathan wrote:
>
> can't legislate that right

Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.

son, the so-called "right" became obsolete when muskets became obsolete
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Well, similarly to the OP's position, you'll never get two opposing
people to agree on exactly what 2A means. The simple fact is that we
routinely deny gun "rights" based on only the most flimsy of
pretenses. For example, a person could not be denied the right to be
a Methodist because he or she was convicted of an unrelated crime;
however, the same person cannot own a gun. I conclude that you have
the ability to own a gun; however, in practice, there exists no such
"right".

But I have serious issues with the so-called "terrorist watch lists"
in that I believe these can easily be used to violate our civil
liberties.

Jones

[jonathan]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in message

news:u66dnd5pDNItGITN...@supernews.com...

> jonathan wrote:
>>
>> can't legislate that right
>
> Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.

You have to get a concealed permit and keep
the gun...concealed to be legal~
A concealed permit cost $117 bucks.
Gotta love this country!


Florida Concealed Carry Permit Information

Automobile carry:

You may carry your weapon on you or in a
"securely encased" state
http://www.usacarry.com/florida_concealed_carry_permit_information.html


Florida gun laws

State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns

a.. Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
b.. Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
a.. Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
a.. Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No

Handguns

a.. Permit to purchase handgun? No
b.. Registration of handguns? No
c.. Licensing of owners of handguns? No
d.. Permit to carry handguns? Yes

Purchase and Possession:

No state permit is required to possess or purchase
a rifle, shotgun or handgun.

Carrying

Unless covered under the exceptions, it is unlawful to openly
carry on or about the person any firearm, or to carry a
concealed firearm on or about the person
.....without a license.

Exceptions:

a.. Persons having firearms at their home or place of business.
b.. Enrolled members of clubs organized for target, skeet, or
trapshooting, while at, or going to or from shooting practice.
a.. Members of clubs organized for collecting antique or
modern firearms while at or going to or from exhibitions.
b.. Persons engaged in fishing, camping or hunting and while going
to or from such activity.
c.. Persons engaged in target shooting under safe conditions and in a safe
place or while going to or from such place.
d.. Persons who are firing weapons for target practice in a safe and
secure indoor range.
e.. Persons traveling by private conveyance if the weapon is securely
encased, or in a public conveyance if the weapon is securely
encased and not in the person's manual possession
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm

>
> son, the so-called "right" became obsolete when muskets became obsolete
> ;-)

Hardly~


s

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

jonathan wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in message
> news:u66dnd5pDNItGITN...@supernews.com...
>
>>jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> can't legislate that right
>>
>>Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.
>
>
>
> You have to get a concealed permit and keep
> the gun...concealed to be legal~
> A concealed permit cost $117 bucks.

Correct, son...it is not a right...apparently you don't know what a right is.

>>son, the so-called "right" became obsolete when muskets became obsolete

There probably never was a "right" to carry even a loaded musket anywhere desired.

your complete and total ignorance is boring me now...
;-)

[Bert]

In news:u66dnd5pDNItGITN...@supernews.com "Dr. Vincent

Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:

> Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown
> Miami.

The only reason open carry is frowned on is that it frightens the sheep.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Bill]

On 02 Aug 2012 16:52:11 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:u66dnd5pDNItGITN...@supernews.com "Dr. Vincent
>Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown
>> Miami.
>
>The only reason open carry is frowned on is that it frightens the sheep.

And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that $600
gun you're wearing openly on your hip.

(Black's First Law of Weapons: Any suitably sturdy hosiery is
indistinguishable from a lethal weapon)

That's assuming you're wearing your gun somewhere where it's needed.

Or are you only wearing it as a sort of male jewellery?

[Bert]

In news:l6dl185ipck1lm1l1...@4ax.com Bill

<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
> you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that $600
> gun you're wearing openly on your hip.

Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.

[Bill]

On 02 Aug 2012 17:23:49 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:l6dl185ipck1lm1l1...@4ax.com Bill
><black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
>> you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that $600
>> gun you're wearing openly on your hip.
>
>Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.

A couple of points:

1. In dangerous areas cops go around in twos.

2. Cops get a lot of training in not being smacked over the head when
not looking.

[John Weiss]

Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:

> Correct, son...it is not a right...apparently you don't know what a
> right is.

Yet again you rely on a strawman argument that a right is not a right
if it is regulated AT ALL...

Well, permits are needed for MANY public assemblies, and business
licenses are needed for newspapers and publishers. If we use your
argument, then First Amendment rights are not rights, either...

[Bert]

In news:8rel18tlnhtta4j0j...@4ax.com Bill

<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02 Aug 2012 17:23:49 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:l6dl185ipck1lm1l1...@4ax.com Bill
>><black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
>>> you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that
>>> $600 gun you're wearing openly on your hip.
>>
>>Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> 1. In dangerous areas cops go around in twos.

And of course, everybody just "knows" what's a dangerous area, and
nothing bad ever happens anywhere else.

> 2. Cops get a lot of training in not being smacked over the head when
> not looking.

Hey! That's funny. Stupid, but funny.

[Bill]

On 02 Aug 2012 19:45:42 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:8rel18tlnhtta4j0j...@4ax.com Bill
><black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02 Aug 2012 17:23:49 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:l6dl185ipck1lm1l1...@4ax.com Bill
>>><black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
>>>> you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that
>>>> $600 gun you're wearing openly on your hip.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.
>>
>> A couple of points:
>>
>> 1. In dangerous areas cops go around in twos.
>
>And of course, everybody just "knows" what's a dangerous area, and
>nothing bad ever happens anywhere else.

Cops know where the bad areas are and who the bad guys are.

There are invariably a limited number of criminals.

>> 2. Cops get a lot of training in not being smacked over the head when
>> not looking.
>
>Hey! That's funny. Stupid, but funny.

Lack of content noted.

[Bert]

In news:5arl18hvfh8h68cvd...@4ax.com Bill

<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cops know where the bad areas are and who the bad guys are.
>
> There are invariably a limited number of criminals.

And the hits just keep coming.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <8rel18tlnhtta4j0j...@4ax.com>,

Just look at what happened in Australia:
https://usjf.net/2012/08/video-watch-what-happens-when-a-nation-bans-guns
/?utm_source=USJF+List&utm_campaign=67ed6f67f2-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_med
ium=email

[dino]

In article <XnsA0A3B19EF42...@216.250.188.141>, Bert says...

>
>In news:5arl18hvfh8h68cvd...@4ax.com Bill
><black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cops know where the bad areas are and who the bad guys are.
>>
>> There are invariably a limited number of criminals.
>
>And the hits just keep coming.

He becomes even more of a riot when you start to realize that he believes in
what he says...

[!Jones]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:22:14 +0000 (UTC), in alt.war.vietnam "John
Weiss" <jrweis...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Yet again you rely on a strawman argument that a right is not a right
>if it is regulated AT ALL...
>
>Well, permits are needed for MANY public assemblies, and business
>licenses are needed for newspapers and publishers. If we use your
>argument, then First Amendment rights are not rights, either...

Such an argument wouldn't be a "strawman"; one "pummels a strawman"
when the person changes your position into something more easily
attacked.

I would suggest that an individual "right", in fact, cannot be
regulated, licensed, or taxed.

For example: you have the right to be a Methodist; you don't need a
permit; if you commit a crime, you still have the right to be a
Methodist.

Further, you have the right to an attorney; you don't need a license;
if you commit a crime, you still have the right to attorney.

Still further, you have the right to free expression, both in writing
and verbal speech; your speech and writing isn't taxed or regulated.
If you're adjudicated legally insane, you still retain the right to
expression.

Now, consider firearms and the right thereto as currently practiced in
the US&A. Let's say that you commit something like mail fraud or
embezzlement... you wouldn't, of course, but go with the hypothetical
situation. By government fiat, you have just lost your "right" ever
to have a gun in your possession for the rest of your life. My point
is that you couldn't be told that you can't be a Methodist because
that's a right, per se. The other point here is that your
hypothetical crime had absolutely nothing to do with guns and the
prohibition wasn't an adjudicated punishment handed down by a jury!

If some mental health worker with nothing more than an associate's
degree in counseling from her local community college refers you to a
shrink, you cannot have a gun. If your ex-wife takes out a
restraining order against you, you cannot have a gun; I could go on
and on.

By the way, the US isn't exactly alone in constitutionally protecting
speech, religion, and the rights of persons accused of crimes. Read
the constitution of any country in Europe and you'll find the same
thing... then, go read the Bolivian constitution and, guess what?

The second amendment was essentially the right of the people to form a
militia in a time before we had a standing army. During the War of
1812, the US militias were so regularly and soundly trounced by
English mercenaries that we decided we needed a standing federal army.

Yes, you *may* have a gun so long as the mental health workers and
your ex-wife agree and you should be able to have a gun; however, in
practice, it's not a *right* anyplace in the world including the US

Jones

[dino]

In article <eg6o18t3dij5h32a4...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...

>
>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:22:14 +0000 (UTC), in alt.war.vietnam "John
>Weiss" <jrweis...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>If some mental health worker with
>nothing more than an associate's
>degree in counseling from her local
>community college refers you to a
>shrink, you cannot have a gun.

Not by Florida law. The mental patient would have had to have been an
in-patient. Out-patients or shrink visits do not apply. Where in the hell is
Nigel?

>If your ex-wife takes out arestraining
>order against you, you cannot have a
>gun;

I took out a restraining order against my ex-wife but there were no gun
restrictions placed against her. On the other hand I worked with a guy who
smacked his wife during thier divorce and the cops took his concealed weapons
permit from him. Don't think they took his guns though.

[!Jones]

On 3 Aug 2012 13:08:13 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam dino

<dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>Not by Florida law. The mental patient would have had to have been an
>in-patient. Out-patients or shrink visits do not apply. Where in the hell is
>Nigel?
>

>I took out a restraining order against my ex-wife but there were no gun
>restrictions placed against her. On the other hand I worked with a guy who
>smacked his wife during thier divorce and the cops took his concealed weapons
>permit from him. Don't think they took his guns though.

The laws vary greatly in their enforcement; the chap who shot up the
VT campus a few years back had never been seen by a real shrink, yet
the clamor was that he shouldn't ever have been allowed to have
purchased the gun. He had seen a campus mental health worker for
screening and had been referred. Methinks that the definition of
"mentally unstable" will probably become more lax... but it's poorly
defined what it means and what is reported to NCIS.

Restraining orders are similar turf in that it's frequently
unenforced. Actually, I have a greater problem here than I do with
the mental health bit. But I think that the restraining order carries
a no-guns clause somewhere... which is bad because the subject hasn't
ever had his or her day in court.

Dunno what became of Nigel. See if he's trolling the jet skiers.

Jones

[!Jones]

Man, that episode of heat stress really ran a trip on me... I didn't
ever know the symptoms included a fever; actually, that's up there in
the heat stroke category. It's been over 48 hours since the episode
and I'm still having chills; however, less so today.

The weird part was that I never recognized any symptoms until I
couldn't have told you who I was.

Jones

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

John Weiss wrote:
>
> Well, permits are needed for MANY

well, son, let us know when you gun goofballs are openly carrying
loaded shotguns (or sidearms) in downtown Miami.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bert wrote:

> In news:u66dnd5pDNItGITN...@supernews.com "Dr. Vincent
> Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown
>>Miami.
>
>
> The only reason open carry is frowned on is that it frightens the sheep.

and you gun goofballs are the sheep too afraid to litigate up to
the Supreme Court...because you *know* you will lose
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Steve Bartman wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
> <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Aug 2, 5:47 am, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, in addition to your remarks,which are as usual on point, I have to
>>>add my usual rejoinder: the gun crown suffers from a lack of
>>>imagination. They assume for some reason that the Tyrannical Gummit
>>>will be evil enough to throw down the Constitution, dragoon the
>>>regular military (somehow) into violating their oaths, turn military
>>>arms against the suburbs, and yet, and yet, NOT be so evil as to just
>>>kill everybody who disagrees with them and be done with it. They will
>>>instead drive tanks and APCs into the suburbs and farm areas and try
>>>to win hearts and minds over to the cause of evil. The Wal-Mart crowd,
>>>who never studied history and can't spell "kulak", don't consider that
>>>the evil military could use stand-off nerve gas, napalm, or just wall
>>>off the rebel areas, herbicide the crops, cut off power, gas, water,
>>>and meds, and wait at a safe distance for winter to do the job.
>>
>>
>>Yeah, I will note that the US Army lost to the VC...
>
>
> And I will note that the orders to the US Army were not "Kill everyone
> north of this line." Which they could have done in a month or less,
> with USN and USAF help, and with few US casualties.

Then, son, note too that the U.S. was afraid of China entering the war, as
they said they would.

Go read a history book son...not mindless U.S. Army propaganda/apologists.


> Hearts and minds? Harder.

Especially when they know you are the bad guys.
;-)

>
> Steve

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

jonathan wrote:
> 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
> free state,

Son, that is false...a lie.

you seem to think the U.S. Constitution is an infallible bible
;-)

[John Weiss]

Dunno how this refutes the fact that many other rights are also
regulated or limited...

Oh, yeah -- there ISN'T a valid refutation!

[Bert]

In news:SK2dneAC4eFcx4DN...@supernews.com "Dr. Vincent

Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:

> you seem to think the U.S. Constitution is an infallible bible

You seem to think that your insane ramblings have some connection with
reality.

But then ... Well, you know the rest.

[dino]

In article <druo18thldvhk90bj...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...

Restraing orders are temporary initially in Florida. To make it permanent both
parties have to appear before a judge and argue their point. The judge then
decides whether to make it permanent.

I got a permanent injunction against my ex-wife but the cops were reluctant to
act upon it. She could fool an awful lot of people but she didn't fool the
judge.

A temporary injunction is necessary beause violent people need to be kept at bay
quickly. If falsely accused, they can appeal to the court or wait till the time
period expires.

I've been in England for about 2 1/2 weeks now and enjoying every bit of it.
Another 1 1/2 weeks to go. Bought a Scottish beer today that said it was an
American Double IPA (India Pale Ale)? It is supposed to be based on Californian
beer? What the hell is Californian beer? Californian wine, sure, but
Californian beer? There are restaurants here that have USA fried chicken or
southern fried chicken. There are even some places that sell hamburgers. In
fact you can buy hot dogs and hamburgers in a CAN! Of course here they call it
a 'tin.'

Found me some Indian Balti cooking pans. There's no hope of coming across them
in the States. The wife loves Indian curries so I try to cook them as
authentically as possible. At home I have over 60 different spices.

[Bill]

On 4 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:


>I've been in England for about 2 1/2 weeks now and enjoying every bit of it.
>Another 1 1/2 weeks to go. Bought a Scottish beer today that said it was an
>American Double IPA (India Pale Ale)?

Correct, originally designed for transport to India in bottles.

There are restaurants here that have USA fried chicken or
>southern fried chicken. There are even some places that sell hamburgers. In
>fact you can buy hot dogs and hamburgers in a CAN! Of course here they call it
>a 'tin.'

And they're not like US dogs or burgers...

Closest to dogs is probably 'bratwurst', sold in most supermarkets.

Burgers, well, you need a decent butcher with a burger making
machine or a pub that sells decent food...

>Found me some Indian Balti cooking pans. There's no hope of coming across them
>in the States. The wife loves Indian curries so I try to cook them as
>authentically as possible. At home I have over 60 different spices.

Well done that man.

However spices sold in Europe have been heated to kill anything living
in them and so don't have the full flavour.

We buy ours in India.

By the way, 'balti' (which is Hindi for bucket) isn't an Indian
cooking form, it's unique to the UK.

Indians usually use the copper bottomed pans that look like what
you've got but are often larger and are called 'chatties'.

[!Jones]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 20:09:42 -0400, in us.military.army "jonathan"
<wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a

> free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
> shall not be infringed."
>
>There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
>relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
>different ways.
>
>One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
>the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.
>
>Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
>being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
>raise a militia.
>
>The second definition is the far broader right, and is almost
>certain to be the correct interpretation. The reason is because
>a state's right and an individual right are apples and oranges.
>They are two entirely different kinds of rights.
>
>It makes no sense to qualify an individual right with a state's right.
>Nowhere else in the constitution does that happen.
>
>Also, nowhere else in the constitution is an individual right
>qualified, all others are unconditional rights.
>
>We have the individual right....period!
>
>
>Jonathan

I understand your position and I fully respect the logic by which you
arrive there; however, screaming "QED...period!" does not impress me.

The supreme court has always taken the first interpretation... more or
less. "Less" in that it has never interpreted the militia context
narrowly; "more" in that it has never taken the RTKABA independently
of the militia context. SCOTUS has never overturned a single
restrictive gun law, and literally thousands of examples exist, citing
2A.

A right is intrinsic; if it's a right, it applies to all human beings
from birth. Human rights are *generally* consistent across different
cultures. Typically, these include freedom of religion and
expression. While examples exist of cultures that do not recognize
these rights, the civilized world is pretty much in line on it.

Your ability to own a gun is also pretty consistent anywhere in the
world; I can't think of anyplace where a law-abiding citizen cannot
own a firearm... yet, I can think of no place where such is practiced
as an intrinsic human right. It certainly is not, and never has been,
practiced thus in the US. Perhaps I'm insane... if so, I still retain
my basic human rights; perhaps I'm a criminal... same. Guns aren't a
human right.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:2e2r18pbaso1g4rll8i4pq0ksc5rg58j6j@
4ax.com:

There have also been very few that reached the Supreme court. Only 35
even mention the amendment and the only serious ones to reach the court
were Miller (which did not rule on who held the right) which only ruled
on whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon considered under that
amendment. The other two were Heller (which did conclude an individual
right unconnected with militia service) and McDonald (which stated that
that protection also applied to the states).

> A right is intrinsic; if it's a right, it applies to all human beings
> from birth. Human rights are *generally* consistent across different
> cultures. Typically, these include freedom of religion and
> expression. While examples exist of cultures that do not recognize
> these rights, the civilized world is pretty much in line on it.

Yes.....but not all rights are human rights.

> Your ability to own a gun is also pretty consistent anywhere in the
> world; I can't think of anyplace where a law-abiding citizen cannot
> own a firearm...

Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic off the top of my head. Japan where
it is extremely expressed although not extremely enforced.

yet, I can think of no place where such is practiced
> as an intrinsic human right. It certainly is not, and never has been,
> practiced thus in the US. Perhaps I'm insane... if so, I still retain
> my basic human rights; perhaps I'm a criminal... same. Guns aren't a
> human right.

Correct, but ownership of them is a right in this country regardless of
that. Perhaps you may think of it as a civil right or a constitutional
one.


--

The three most common last words in aviation are: "Did you hear that?",
"What was that noise?" and "Oh, Shit!!!"


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Eris]

I think in some European countries you have your club buy the weapon and they keep it. My son in law in Germany loves to shoot but there are too many rules for him to buy a gun in Germany.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message
news:2e2r18pbaso1g4rll...@4ax.com...

Heller v. DC

Laws in DC were overturned as Unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

[Phil Smythe]

On Aug 5, 7:00 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
> !Jones <jdfg...@x.com> wrote in news:2e2r18pbaso1g4rll8i4pq0ksc5rg58j6j@

The Firearms Act of Jamaica regulates the ownership and use of
firearms and ammunition. It was first passed in 1967, and has been
subsequently amended. The law requires gun licenses, with a yearly
registration fee of $6,000.00. There were about 65,000 licensed
firearms in Jamaica in 2002, and approximately 700 licenses approved
per year. All crimes involving firearms are tried by a special Gun
Court established in 1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Act_%28Jamaica%29

Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in
their constitutions.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/12/have_gun_want_to_travel.html

In the Dominican Republic, only licensed gun owners17 18 may lawfully
acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in the Dominican Republic are
required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example,
collection or self-defence. The minimum age for gun ownership in the
Dominican Republic is 18 years
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/dominican-republic

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

De facto bans don't count for Phil. He thinks a $6000 fee is
"consistent" with the rest of the world.

He thinks a $6000 fee in Jamaica- with a GDP per capita of $7400
http://snippets.com/what-is-the-gdp-per-capita-for-every-country.htm
is consistent with the United States, with a GDP of 47,000.

That would mean a permit in the US would cost about $38,000.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>SCOTUS has never overturned a single
>restrictive gun law, and literally thousands of examples exist, citing
>2A.

Did I miss "Pretend To Be A Dumb Leftist" Day?

[!Jones]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:00:39 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>There have also been very few that reached the Supreme court. Only 35
>even mention the amendment and the only serious ones to reach the court
>were Miller (which did not rule on who held the right) which only ruled
>on whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon considered under that
>amendment. The other two were Heller (which did conclude an individual
>right unconnected with militia service) and McDonald (which stated that
>that protection also applied to the states).

>Yes.....but not all rights are human rights.

>Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic off the top of my head. Japan where
>it is extremely expressed although not extremely enforced.

>Correct, but ownership of them is a right in this country regardless of
>that. Perhaps you may think of it as a civil right or a constitutional
>one.

It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
drive your car, you're free to own a gun... this is essentially how it
should be; however, it's not a right per se. Many people abuse our
freedoms by misbehaving... for example by shooting up road signs,
mailboxes, and movie theaters. We should be promoting responsible
behavior instead of shrieking about our rights.

Essentially, you can say almost anything about the lesser Caribbean
nations and I wouldn't be able to contradict the statement.

Jones

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:00:39 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
><rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There have also been very few that reached the Supreme court. Only 35
>>even mention the amendment and the only serious ones to reach the court
>>were Miller (which did not rule on who held the right) which only ruled
>>on whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon considered under that
>>amendment. The other two were Heller (which did conclude an individual
>>right unconnected with militia service) and McDonald (which stated that
>>that protection also applied to the states).
>
>>Yes.....but not all rights are human rights.
>
>>Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic off the top of my head. Japan where
>>it is extremely expressed although not extremely enforced.
>
>>Correct, but ownership of them is a right in this country regardless of
>>that. Perhaps you may think of it as a civil right or a constitutional
>>one.
>
>It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
>drive your car, you're free to own a gun..

Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
Constitution.

Just like free speech, right to a jury trial, etc.

>. this is essentially how it
>should be; however, it's not a right per se.

Well, yeah, it is.

"the right to keep and bear arms."

Says it's a right, right in the Constitution.

> Many people abuse our
>freedoms by misbehaving... for example by shooting up road signs,
>mailboxes, and movie theaters. We should be promoting responsible
>behavior instead of shrieking about our rights.

We should be doing both.

[deep]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:33:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:00:39 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
>><rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There have also been very few that reached the Supreme court. Only 35
>>>even mention the amendment and the only serious ones to reach the court
>>>were Miller (which did not rule on who held the right) which only ruled
>>>on whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon considered under that
>>>amendment. The other two were Heller (which did conclude an individual
>>>right unconnected with militia service) and McDonald (which stated that
>>>that protection also applied to the states).
>>
>>>Yes.....but not all rights are human rights.
>>
>>>Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic off the top of my head. Japan where
>>>it is extremely expressed although not extremely enforced.
>>
>>>Correct, but ownership of them is a right in this country regardless of
>>>that. Perhaps you may think of it as a civil right or a constitutional
>>>one.
>>
>>It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
>>drive your car, you're free to own a gun..
>
>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>Constitution.
>

Where do they mention guns in The Constitution?

>Just like free speech, right to a jury trial, etc.
>
>>. this is essentially how it
>>should be; however, it's not a right per se.
>
>Well, yeah, it is.
>
>"the right to keep and bear arms."

Don't see nothin' 'bout no guns in there.

>
>Says it's a right, right in the Constitution.
>
>> Many people abuse our
>>freedoms by misbehaving... for example by shooting up road signs,
>>mailboxes, and movie theaters. We should be promoting responsible
>>behavior instead of shrieking about our rights.
>
>We should be doing both.

You should be getting anti-psychotic drugs from your psychiatrist.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:33:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:00:39 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
>>><rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There have also been very few that reached the Supreme court. Only 35
>>>>even mention the amendment and the only serious ones to reach the court
>>>>were Miller (which did not rule on who held the right) which only ruled
>>>>on whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon considered under that
>>>>amendment. The other two were Heller (which did conclude an individual
>>>>right unconnected with militia service) and McDonald (which stated that
>>>>that protection also applied to the states).
>>>
>>>>Yes.....but not all rights are human rights.
>>>
>>>>Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic off the top of my head. Japan where
>>>>it is extremely expressed although not extremely enforced.
>>>
>>>>Correct, but ownership of them is a right in this country regardless of
>>>>that. Perhaps you may think of it as a civil right or a constitutional
>>>>one.
>>>
>>>It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
>>>drive your car, you're free to own a gun..
>>
>>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>>Constitution.
>>
>Where do they mention guns in The Constitution?

The right to keep and bear arms included guns. Just like freedom of
the press includes radio.

Are you REALLY that stupid?

Yes, of course you are.

>>Just like free speech, right to a jury trial, etc.
>>
>>>. this is essentially how it
>>>should be; however, it's not a right per se.
>>
>>Well, yeah, it is.
>>
>>"the right to keep and bear arms."
>
>Don't see nothin' 'bout no guns in there.

That's because you're an idiot. But that's not news, is it?

>>
>>Says it's a right, right in the Constitution.
>>
>>> Many people abuse our
>>>freedoms by misbehaving... for example by shooting up road signs,
>>>mailboxes, and movie theaters. We should be promoting responsible
>>>behavior instead of shrieking about our rights.
>>
>>We should be doing both.
>
>You should be getting anti-psychotic drugs from your psychiatrist.

ALL-PURPOSE DUDU RESPONSE CHECK LIST

[ ] Get a life!
[ ] You're [ ] crazy [X]insane [ ]sick [ ]pathetic [ ]other
[ ] Stop following me!
[ ] You're [ ]not human [ ]barely human
[ ] Kill yourself!
[ ] I'll kill you!
[ ] Keep making excuses freak!
[ ] That was a "mistype!"
[ ] The [ ] Nigger [ ] Mormon [ ] Winger is lying
[ ] You responded to my post so you're lonely!
[ ] You're too stupid to understand!
[ ] Have a liberal explain it to you!
[ ] You don't know what you're talking about
[ ] You don't understand [ ] science [ ] politics [ ] geography
[ ] communism [ ] socialism
[ ] Law [ ] Other
[ ] That's a lie
[ ] You're a liar.
[ ] I'm not lying
[ ] It's all [ ] Bush's [ ] Republican's
[ ] Conservative's fault

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:v10t189rds0fpne6j...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:33:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:00:39 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
>>><rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There have also been very few that reached the Supreme court. Only 35
>>>>even mention the amendment and the only serious ones to reach the court
>>>>were Miller (which did not rule on who held the right) which only ruled
>>>>on whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon considered under that
>>>>amendment. The other two were Heller (which did conclude an individual
>>>>right unconnected with militia service) and McDonald (which stated that
>>>>that protection also applied to the states).
>>>
>>>>Yes.....but not all rights are human rights.
>>>
>>>>Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic off the top of my head. Japan where
>>>>it is extremely expressed although not extremely enforced.
>>>
>>>>Correct, but ownership of them is a right in this country regardless of
>>>>that. Perhaps you may think of it as a civil right or a constitutional
>>>>one.
>>>
>>>It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
>>>drive your car, you're free to own a gun..
>>
>>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>>Constitution.
>>
> Where do they mention guns in The Constitution?

Dudu acknowledges his ignorance of the Constitution and/or his ignorance of
English, specifically the meaning of "arms".

IOW Dudu is ignorant. The only question question is the depth of his
ignorance which still hasn't been fully documented.

[deep]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:25:56 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
>>>>drive your car, you're free to own a gun..
>>>
>>>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>>>Constitution.
>>>
>>Where do they mention guns in The Constitution?
>
>The right to keep and bear arms included guns. Just like freedom of
>the press includes radio.

So just black powder guns then, right? And flintlocks only since they
didn't have percussion caps yet then.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

______
"Your reading compression sucks."
— mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011

[David Geiger]

"deep" (on Ambien) wrote in message
news:5aat18de49v0lquka...@4ax.com...

>^^^^^^

ADVERTISING that you are a retard before I call and PROVE you to be a retard
is just so very unfair! :)
Butt, at least you realize that you are so VERY stump stupid retarded by
saying and posting what YOU JUST
DID! :)

What next? Claim to say that YOU didn't indeed write what YOU just posted?

[!Jones]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:33:06 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam Klaus
Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>Constitution.
>
>Just like free speech, right to a jury trial, etc.
>

>Well, yeah, it is.
>
>"the right to keep and bear arms."
>
>Says it's a right, right in the Constitution.
>

>We should be doing both.

2A was the constitutional authority for the people to form a militia
absent a federal army. During the War of 1812, our "well regulated
militias" frequently either ran without firing a shot or failed to
show up at all; therefore, congress authorized a standing army, so the
militia idea is moot.

Now, you still have the freedom to own a gun so long as you comply
with your local laws, cut muster with the Brady bill, and haven't
somehow ended up on someone's "watch list"... how ever that happens.
You'll find that your local laws will be quite different living in
urban San Francisco than they will be in northeastern Montana; if you
don't like the laws in Arizona, you may move to Massachusetts or visa
versa.

With a "right", it cannot be modified or regulated by your local
legislative body. The way we view them is that a person's rights
weren't something granted by an amendment; they were simply
recognized. You cannot lose a right because of mental health,
criminal conviction, or the fact that you choose to move to Detroit.

Now, perhaps you see your gun as a fundamental right; however, in the
United States, it has never been such in practice.

Jones

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:33:06 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam Klaus
>Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>>Constitution.
>>
>>Just like free speech, right to a jury trial, etc.
>>
>>Well, yeah, it is.
>>
>>"the right to keep and bear arms."
>>
>>Says it's a right, right in the Constitution.
>>
>>We should be doing both.
>
>2A was the constitutional authority for the people to form a militia
>absent a federal army.

The 2A was included in the BIll of Rights because they figured some
DAFTF (Dumb Asses From the Future) wouldn't understand that if the
right weren't actually enumerated, it wouldn't exist.

AMONG the reasons for RKBA was militias. They probably never
envisioned DAFTF to think that a citizen could ONLY bear arms in
military service.

>Now, perhaps you see your gun as a fundamental right

I do. And so does the Supreme Court.

>; however, in the
>United States, it has never been such in practice.

Wrong again, Jonesy.

But you knew that before you even started typing.

[David Geiger]

"!Jones" wrote in message
news:jnct18d1jl14rj553...@4ax.com...

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:33:06 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam Klaus
Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>Constitution.
>
>Just like free speech, right to a jury trial, etc.
>
>Well, yeah, it is.
>
>"the right to keep and bear arms."
>
>Says it's a right, right in the Constitution.
>
>We should be doing both.

2A was the constitutional authority for the people to form a militia
absent a federal army.

<^^^^

I laugh out loud AT YOU!
Nothing that YOU just said above, could be further from the truth.

I am also hoping that you never had the option to raise, educate, or be near
children.

You, DooDoo, and Lookout are some kind of special retards!

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:5aat18de49v0lquka...@4ax.com...

Dudu demonstrates, again, his lack of reading comprehension.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

No shit. I can tell when he's getting tired, over worked, and
confused-- as opposed to just being confused.

.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:32:22 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam Klaus
Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The 2A was included in the BIll of Rights because they figured some
>DAFTF (Dumb Asses From the Future) wouldn't understand that if the
>right weren't actually enumerated, it wouldn't exist.
>
>AMONG the reasons for RKBA was militias. They probably never
>envisioned DAFTF to think that a citizen could ONLY bear arms in
>military service.
>

>I do. And so does the Supreme Court.
>

>Wrong again, Jonesy.
>
>But you knew that before you even started typing.

Hoo-medoggies! We got us a regular disagreement goin' here, don't we?

Jones

[!Jones]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:37:27 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam "David Geiger"
<Burni...@bass.gov> wrote:

>I laugh out loud AT YOU!
>Nothing that YOU just said above, could be further from the truth.
>
>I am also hoping that you never had the option to raise, educate, or be near
>children.
>
>You, DooDoo, and Lookout are some kind of special retards!

Aww, CRAP! I've been *flamed*!

(I just hate it when that happens.)

And, then you probably wonder why you see little intelligent discourse
in this area. Of course, that's why Quinney opened the thread.

Jones

[Andrew Swallow]

On 05/08/2012 19:37, David Geiger wrote:
{snip}

> 2A was the constitutional authority for the people to form a militia
> absent a federal army.

Forming a Militia is a states right not a human right. Only states can
appoint officers.

Andrew Swallow

[Daryl]

You are now appointed Latrine Queen, First Class with a permanent
rank of 2nd LT.



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[RD Sandman]

Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in

news:f66ac825-2c99-40ea...@sn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Big difference between theory and practice, Phil. Something you have yet
to learn.

> Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in
> their constitutions.
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/12/have_
> gun_want_to_travel.html

Yes, they do but don't try it unless you are cartel, military or law
enforcement.

> In the Dominican Republic, only licensed gun owners17 18 may lawfully
> acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
> Applicants for a gun owner�s licence in the Dominican Republic are
> required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example,
> collection or self-defence. The minimum age for gun ownership in the
> Dominican Republic is 18 years
> http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/dominican-republic

And many common citizens have them?

You do rather incomplete staff work, Phil. You will have to try harder.

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:qkss185m5knvbdolvva5avp3rkhh9ivt5b@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:00:39 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There have also been very few that reached the Supreme court. Only 35
>>even mention the amendment and the only serious ones to reach the court
>>were Miller (which did not rule on who held the right) which only ruled
>>on whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon considered under
that
>>amendment. The other two were Heller (which did conclude an individual
>>right unconnected with militia service) and McDonald (which stated that
>>that protection also applied to the states).
>
>>Yes.....but not all rights are human rights.
>
>>Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic off the top of my head. Japan where
>>it is extremely expressed although not extremely enforced.
>
>>Correct, but ownership of them is a right in this country regardless of
>>that. Perhaps you may think of it as a civil right or a constitutional
>>one.
>
> It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
> drive your car, you're free to own a gun... this is essentially how it
> should be; however, it's not a right per se.

I'm sorry but per the Supreme Court it is. It is not an absolute right...
none of them are, but it is an recognized one by the Court.

Many people abuse our
> freedoms by misbehaving... for example by shooting up road signs,
> mailboxes, and movie theaters. We should be promoting responsible
> behavior instead of shrieking about our rights.

I do. Do you think that my only comments to people are in here?

> Essentially, you can say almost anything about the lesser Caribbean
> nations and I wouldn't be able to contradict the statement.

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in
news:v10t189rds0fpne6j...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:33:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:00:39 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
>>><rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There have also been very few that reached the Supreme court. Only
>>>>35 even mention the amendment and the only serious ones to reach the
>>>>court were Miller (which did not rule on who held the right) which
>>>>only ruled on whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon
>>>>considered under that amendment. The other two were Heller (which
>>>>did conclude an individual right unconnected with militia service)
>>>>and McDonald (which stated that that protection also applied to the
>>>>states).
>>>
>>>>Yes.....but not all rights are human rights.
>>>
>>>>Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic off the top of my head. Japan
>>>>where it is extremely expressed although not extremely enforced.
>>>
>>>>Correct, but ownership of them is a right in this country regardless
>>>>of that. Perhaps you may think of it as a civil right or a
>>>>constitutional one.
>>>
>>>It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
>>>drive your car, you're free to own a gun..
>>
>>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>>Constitution.
>>
> Where do they mention guns in The Constitution?

They specifically mention arms. That includes guns and per many court
cases, that historically has been held to mean rifles, shotguns and
sidearms. Things that would be normally carried by an infantryman.

>>Just like free speech, right to a jury trial, etc.
>>
>>>. this is essentially how it
>>>should be; however, it's not a right per se.
>>
>>Well, yeah, it is.
>>
>>"the right to keep and bear arms."
>
> Don't see nothin' 'bout no guns in there.

That's because you are stupid don't realize that guns are not all spelled
g-u-n-s.

>>Says it's a right, right in the Constitution.
>>
>>> Many people abuse our
>>>freedoms by misbehaving... for example by shooting up road signs,
>>>mailboxes, and movie theaters. We should be promoting responsible
>>>behavior instead of shrieking about our rights.
>>
>>We should be doing both.
>
> You should be getting anti-psychotic drugs from your psychiatrist.

Why should he be like you?

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:5aat18de49v0lquka45flb133vrrsifkbe@
4ax.com:

Then you are ready to communicate by Gutenburg press and town criers?
TV, radio, telegraph, the internet, for example had not been invented yet
but I would imagine you hold your right to free speech to be quite dear.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:jvmf1r
$9pv$1...@dont-email.me:

Deep is actually rather shallow.

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <jdf...@x.com> wrote in news:jnct18d1jl14rj553g96noh03k3uelbl6v@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:33:06 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam Klaus
> Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>>Constitution.
>>
>>Just like free speech, right to a jury trial, etc.
>>
>>Well, yeah, it is.
>>
>>"the right to keep and bear arms."
>>
>>Says it's a right, right in the Constitution.
>>
>>We should be doing both.
>
> 2A was the constitutional authority for the people to form a militia
> absent a federal army.

Wrong. The 2A is about protecting the right of the citizens to bear arms
without interference from the central government. The militia it refers
to is the state militias, hence the term "...security of a free
state...". The central militia was armed by ArtI(8)(16) and the anti
federalists were afraid that an overreaching central government could
disarm the state militias via benign neglect and end up with the only
game in town.

Secondly, the Constitution only grants powers to the central government.
It does not grant them to the states or to the people. It protects their
powers and rights.

During the War of 1812, our "well regulated
> militias" frequently either ran without firing a shot or failed to
> show up at all; therefore, congress authorized a standing army, so the
> militia idea is moot.

In you opinion. In 1812 the central militia was also led by a general
considered to be completely inept.

> Now, you still have the freedom to own a gun so long as you comply
> with your local laws, cut muster with the Brady bill, and haven't
> somehow ended up on someone's "watch list"... how ever that happens.

Thats true.....but the reason it is is due to no right being absolute.
Even the right to life is not absolute.

> You'll find that your local laws will be quite different living in
> urban San Francisco than they will be in northeastern Montana; if you
> don't like the laws in Arizona, you may move to Massachusetts or visa
> versa.

Yep, and I would bet that many of us in here know a lot more about those
laws than you do, mon ami.

> With a "right", it cannot be modified or regulated by your local
> legislative body. The way we view them is that a person's rights
> weren't something granted by an amendment; they were simply
> recognized.

Spoken like a federalists. It was that attitude that scared hell out of
the anti federalists.

You cannot lose a right because of mental health,
> criminal conviction, or the fact that you choose to move to Detroit.
>
> Now, perhaps you see your gun as a fundamental right; however, in the
> United States, it has never been such in practice.

However, it is a protected one.....just like freedom of speech.

[RD Sandman]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:JOCdnQ6Ex5wgeoPN...@bt.com:

That's true. A state militia (2A) or national militia ArtI(8)(15 16) is
not the same as a bunch of guys meeting at the local Dairy Queen to go
shit in the woods and wear cammo on weekends.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:jvku3t
$v15$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "!Jones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message
> news:2e2r18pbaso1g4rll...@4ax.com...

>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 20:09:42 -0400, in us.military.army "jonathan"
>> <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a

>>> free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms

> Heller v. DC
>
> Laws in DC were overturned as Unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
>
>
>

Same in Chicago but the actual practice of them hasn't changed much in
either location.

[deep]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:08:00 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:5aat18de49v0lquka45flb133vrrsifkbe@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:25:56 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom to
>>>>>>drive your car, you're free to own a gun..
>>>>>
>>>>>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>>>>>Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>Where do they mention guns in The Constitution?
>>>
>>>The right to keep and bear arms included guns. Just like freedom of
>>>the press includes radio.
>>
>> So just black powder guns then, right? And flintlocks only since they
>> didn't have percussion caps yet then.
>>
>
>Then you are ready to communicate by Gutenburg press and town criers?
>TV, radio, telegraph, the internet, for example had not been invented yet
>but I would imagine you hold your right to free speech to be quite dear.

We're not allowed to have an Air Force either. Can't change or update
The Constitution. Only allowed to do exactly what it says. Like The
Bible.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

You really CAN'T read, can you?

[chuckle]

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

RD Sandman wrote:
>
> However, it is a protected one.....just like freedom of speech.

No, son, I can openly speak in downtown Miami; you gun goofballs cannot
openly carry a loaded shotgun (or sidearm).

you should get some balls and force the SC to rule, one way or the other
;-)

[Phil Smythe]

On Aug 6, 7:01 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:

Pity your claim made no mention of either, it was categorically wrong
and no amount of waffling about theory and practice" can make it
right.

>
> > Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in
> > their constitutions.
> >http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/12/have_
> > gun_want_to_travel.html
>
> Yes, they do but don't try it unless you are cartel, military or law
> enforcement.

Sorry, but that claim doesn't magically convert your false claim into
a correct one.

>
> > In the Dominican Republic, only licensed gun owners17 18 may lawfully
> > acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
> > Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in the Dominican Republic are
> > required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example,
> > collection or self-defence. The minimum age for gun ownership in the
> > Dominican Republic is 18 years
> >http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/dominican-republic
>
> And many common citizens have them?

That isn't the issue because you claimed a law-abiding citizen
couldn't own a gun in specified countries and you know that is a false
claim.

>
> You do rather incomplete staff work, Phil.  You will have to try harder.

I didn't need to do more than a few minutes browsing to debunk your
claims. There wasn't any need to try harder, it was too easy. You'll
need to try harder in the future lest you get more of your claims
shown up as patently false.

A piece of advice; steer claim of all absolute claims, they'll
generally come back to haunt you, in this rather rapidly.

[Phil Smythe]

On Aug 5, 9:12 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

> De facto bans don't count for Phil. He thinks a $6000 fee is
> "consistent" with the rest of the world.
>
> He thinks a $6000 fee in Jamaica- with a GDP per capita of $7400http://snippets.com/what-is-the-gdp-per-capita-for-every-country.htm
> is consistent with the United States, with a GDP of 47,000.
>
> That would mean a permit in the US would cost about $38,000.

The claim was that a law-abiding citizen couldn't own a gun, not that
the majority couldn't afford one. You really need to brush up on your
lamentable English skills Buck.

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:ga0u18pbrfnrntdfg...@4ax.com...

Poor Dudu......couldn't stay awake long enough to manage to read down to
Article V.

[Scout]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in message
news:Ytidnf5sl6-514LN...@supernews.com...

Heller v DC.

And the ruling on Chicago applies it via the 14th to the State and local
governments.

it's going to take time to reverse 60 years of Unconstitutional legislation.

I predict at least 30-40 years for most of it.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0A6A6228...@216.196.121.131...

Sadly that is true. One can only wonder if SCOTUS can hold the members of
their governments in contempt and order them locked up for 90 days.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

And they can't. People who are law abiding but aren't rich can't own a
gun.

Those are law abiding people.

And they can't own a gun.

Simple enough for you, Phil?

>You really need to brush up on your
>lamentable English skills Buck.

You need to brush up on your puzzled, quizzical look, Phil. When you
innocently bat your eyes pretending not to understand, nobody believes
you any more.

Unless you're just plain stupid.

[Bill]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 04:46:54 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And they can't. People who are law abiding but aren't rich can't own a
>gun.
>
>Those are law abiding people.
>
>And they can't own a gun.
>
>Simple enough for you, Phil?

Surely this is true of every society.

While I accept that in the USA almost everyone is rich enough to buy a
gun there must be some people who can't afford one.

Which is what makes the idea that owning one is some sort of human
right utterly absurd...

You can't have a 'means tested' human right...

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 04:46:54 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>And they can't. People who are law abiding but aren't rich can't own a
>>gun.
>>
>>Those are law abiding people.
>>
>>And they can't own a gun.
>>
>>Simple enough for you, Phil?
>
>Surely this is true of every society.
>
>While I accept that in the USA almost everyone is rich enough to buy a
>gun there must be some people who can't afford one.

It's not about the ability to get a gun. It's about the ability to get
PERMISSION to OWN a gun.

In most of America, NO permission is needed.

The question arose, where is ownership prohibited. In Jamaica, it was
determined it is NOT prohibited, you just have to come up with the US
equivalent of over$30,000 for the permit.

That's a de facto ban.

That's like saying, sure, you can own a TV, but you have to bring back
a cup of ammonia from Neptune.

>Which is what makes the idea that owning one is some sort of human
>right utterly absurd...

Bullshit. Just because you don't understand the idea doesn't make it
absurd. I have the right to defend myself, and I have the right to do
it with a weapon.

>You can't have a 'means tested' human right...

Says..... you?

[Bill]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:29:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>

>>

>>While I accept that in the USA almost everyone is rich enough to buy a
>>gun there must be some people who can't afford one.
>
>It's not about the ability to get a gun. It's about the ability to get

>PERMISSION to OWN a gun.rty

No, by keeping people in poverty you control access to firearms, as
was done in England in the nineteenth century.

>In most of America, NO permission is needed.

But some money is...

>The question arose, where is ownership prohibited. In Jamaica, it was
>determined it is NOT prohibited, you just have to come up with the US
>equivalent of over$30,000 for the permit.
>
>That's a de facto ban.

So is the price of a firearm to someone in poverty.

>>Which is what makes the idea that owning one is some sort of human
>>right utterly absurd...
>
>Bullshit. Just because you don't understand the idea doesn't make it
>absurd. I have the right to defend myself, and I have the right to do
>it with a weapon.

So what other human right is available only to the wealthy?

>
>>You can't have a 'means tested' human right...
>
>Says..... you?

Well no, that's the point, it's a 'human right', you have it.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:29:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>
>>>
>>>While I accept that in the USA almost everyone is rich enough to buy a
>>>gun there must be some people who can't afford one.
>>
>>It's not about the ability to get a gun. It's about the ability to get
>>PERMISSION to OWN a gun.rty
>
>No, by keeping people in poverty you control access to firearms, as
>was done in England in the nineteenth century.

So why does North Korea have to have gun control laws?

>>In most of America, NO permission is needed.
>
>But some money is...

So? I have a right to have toast in the morning too, but I need money
to buy a toaster.

>>The question arose, where is ownership prohibited. In Jamaica, it was
>>determined it is NOT prohibited, you just have to come up with the US
>>equivalent of over$30,000 for the permit.
>>
>>That's a de facto ban.
>
>So is the price of a firearm to someone in poverty.

So? They have the right to eat but food costs money.

>>>Which is what makes the idea that owning one is some sort of human
>>>right utterly absurd...
>>
>>Bullshit. Just because you don't understand the idea doesn't make it
>>absurd. I have the right to defend myself, and I have the right to do
>>it with a weapon.
>
>So what other human right is available only to the wealthy?

You don't have to be wealthy to own a gun.

>>>You can't have a 'means tested' human right...
>>
>>Says..... you?
>
>Well no, that's the point, it's a 'human right', you have it.

It is a human right. What part don't you understand?

[David Geiger]

"Bill" wrote in message news:kbev18tjrocqqfis5...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:29:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>

>>
>>While I accept that in the USA almost everyone is rich enough to buy a
>>gun there must be some people who can't afford one.
>
>It's not about the ability to get a gun. It's about the ability to get
>PERMISSION to OWN a gun.rty

No, by keeping people in poverty you control access to firearms, as
was done in England in the nineteenth century.

>In most of America, NO permission is needed.

But some money is...

>The question arose, where is ownership prohibited. In Jamaica, it was
>determined it is NOT prohibited, you just have to come up with the US
>equivalent of over$30,000 for the permit.
>
>That's a de facto ban.

So is the price of a firearm to someone in poverty.

>>Which is what makes the idea that owning one is some sort of human
>>right utterly absurd...
>
>Bullshit. Just because you don't understand the idea doesn't make it
>absurd. I have the right to defend myself, and I have the right to do
>it with a weapon.

So what other human right is available only to the wealthy?

>^^^^

The right to buy a new Bugatti Veyron?

[Bill]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:41:09 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>

>>No, by keeping people in poverty you control access to firearms, as
>>was done in England in the nineteenth century.
>
>So why does North Korea have to have gun control laws?

Because it's an oppressive tyranny?

>>>In most of America, NO permission is needed.
>>
>>But some money is...
>
>So? I have a right to have toast in the morning too, but I need money
>to buy a toaster.

So what?

Nobody is claiming that eating toast is a fundamental human right?

>>>The question arose, where is ownership prohibited. In Jamaica, it was
>>>determined it is NOT prohibited, you just have to come up with the US
>>>equivalent of over$30,000 for the permit.
>>>
>>>That's a de facto ban.
>>
>>So is the price of a firearm to someone in poverty.
>
>So? They have the right to eat but food costs money.

But if they're starving food is provided in almost all modern
societies.

Not guns though...

>>>>Which is what makes the idea that owning one is some sort of human
>>>>right utterly absurd...
>>>
>>>Bullshit. Just because you don't understand the idea doesn't make it
>>>absurd. I have the right to defend myself, and I have the right to do
>>>it with a weapon.
>>
>>So what other human right is available only to the wealthy?
>
>You don't have to be wealthy to own a gun.

Wealth is relative.

You need some liquid assets that you have no other vital use for.

>>>>You can't have a 'means tested' human right...
>>>
>>>Says..... you?
>>
>>Well no, that's the point, it's a 'human right', you have it.
>
>It is a human right. What part don't you understand?

And what other human right can be removed from you by poverty?

[Bill]

Exactly...

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:41:09 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>
>>>No, by keeping people in poverty you control access to firearms, as
>>>was done in England in the nineteenth century.
>>
>>So why does North Korea have to have gun control laws?
>
>Because it's an oppressive tyranny?

I thought poverty was to control access to firearms- what gives?
Doesn't seem to be working.

>
>>>>In most of America, NO permission is needed.
>>>
>>>But some money is...
>>
>>So? I have a right to have toast in the morning too, but I need money
>>to buy a toaster.
>
>So what?
>Nobody is claiming that eating toast is a fundamental human right?

It's still a right. But it needs money to get it.

>>>>The question arose, where is ownership prohibited. In Jamaica, it was
>>>>determined it is NOT prohibited, you just have to come up with the US
>>>>equivalent of over$30,000 for the permit.
>>>>
>>>>That's a de facto ban.
>>>
>>>So is the price of a firearm to someone in poverty.
>>
>>So? They have the right to eat but food costs money.
>
>But if they're starving food is provided in almost all modern
>societies.

So you're saying unless guns are provided it's not a "fundamental"
right?

[chuckle]

I've been pushing for free guns for YEARS.

>Not guns though...

The government WILL give you a gun if you really want it.

>>>>>Which is what makes the idea that owning one is some sort of human
>>>>>right utterly absurd...
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. Just because you don't understand the idea doesn't make it
>>>>absurd. I have the right to defend myself, and I have the right to do
>>>>it with a weapon.
>>>
>>>So what other human right is available only to the wealthy?
>>
>>You don't have to be wealthy to own a gun.
>
>Wealth is relative.

Indeed.

>You need some liquid assets that you have no other vital use for.
>
>>>>>You can't have a 'means tested' human right...
>>>>
>>>>Says..... you?
>>>
>>>Well no, that's the point, it's a 'human right', you have it.
>>
>>It is a human right. What part don't you understand?
>
>
>And what other human right can be removed from you by poverty?

Any of them.

[David Geiger]

"Bill" wrote in message news:3pfv18d0fseduv1md...@4ax.com...

>^^^^
What's your point?
There still isn't a permit needed to buy one, let alone one that costs more
than the car its self.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

Sorry, I misspoke. They will NOT "give" you a gun, but sell you one at
a reduced price.

[Bill]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:07:56 -0400, "David Geiger"

So what?

[Bill]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 06:01:40 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:41:09 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>
>>>>No, by keeping people in poverty you control access to firearms, as
>>>>was done in England in the nineteenth century.
>>>
>>>So why does North Korea have to have gun control laws?
>>
>>Because it's an oppressive tyranny?
>
>I thought poverty was to control access to firearms- what gives?
>Doesn't seem to be working.
>
>
>>
>>>>>In most of America, NO permission is needed.
>>>>
>>>>But some money is...
>>>
>>>So? I have a right to have toast in the morning too, but I need money
>>>to buy a toaster.
>>
>>So what?
>>Nobody is claiming that eating toast is a fundamental human right?
>
>It's still a right. But it needs money to get it.

No, it isn't a right.

>
>>But if they're starving food is provided in almost all modern
>>societies.
>
>So you're saying unless guns are provided it's not a "fundamental"
>right?

Yes.

>>Not guns though...
>
>The government WILL give you a gun if you really want it.

No, they'll force you to have one under certain circumstances.

There is no choice in the matter.

>>
>>And what other human right can be removed from you by poverty?
>
>Any of them.

Wrong.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 06:01:40 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:41:09 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>No, by keeping people in poverty you control access to firearms, as
>>>>>was done in England in the nineteenth century.
>>>>
>>>>So why does North Korea have to have gun control laws?
>>>
>>>Because it's an oppressive tyranny?
>>
>>I thought poverty was to control access to firearms- what gives?
>>Doesn't seem to be working.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>In most of America, NO permission is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>But some money is...
>>>>
>>>>So? I have a right to have toast in the morning too, but I need money
>>>>to buy a toaster.
>>>
>>>So what?
>>>Nobody is claiming that eating toast is a fundamental human right?
>>
>>It's still a right. But it needs money to get it.
>
>No, it isn't a right.

Well, yeah, it is.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.

See how it says "right" in there?

>
>>
>>>But if they're starving food is provided in almost all modern
>>>societies.
>>
>>So you're saying unless guns are provided it's not a "fundamental"
>>right?
>
>Yes.

I see. Well, looks like you're wrong.

Should we stop now?

>>>Not guns though...
>>
>>The government WILL give you a gun if you really want it.
>
>No, they'll force you to have one under certain circumstances.
>
>There is no choice in the matter.

Sure there is. There is always a choice.

>
>>>
>>>And what other human right can be removed from you by poverty?
>>
>>Any of them.
>
>Wrong.

Nope. ANY right can be "removed" by poverty-- if you let it.

[Oglethorpe]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in message
news:Ytidnf5sl6-514LN...@supernews.com...

There are many plces where you can carry openly. However, yo can carry a
concealed gun in downtown Miami. YOu couldn't legally carry concealed in
downtown Miami in 1986. In 1987 you could.

[David Geiger]

"Bill" wrote in message news:4tgv181pbj0k6ua7r...@4ax.com...

>^^^^^
That's what we were talking about. Why how in Jamaica, you can legally buy
a $200 gun, BUT it will cost you a about $30k just to get the permit.
That IS the entire and ONLY point of this part of the thread.

Do you always get so confused?

[Bill]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 06:22:13 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>>>It's still a right. But it needs money to get it.
>>
>>No, it isn't a right.
>
>Well, yeah, it is.
>
>AMENDMENT II
>
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>infringed.
>
>See how it says "right" in there?

So what?

I'm not disputing your right to purchase weapons.

The 2nd amendment says you may.

What I'm disputing is the idea that it is a fundamental human right.

>>>>But if they're starving food is provided in almost all modern
>>>>societies.
>>>
>>>So you're saying unless guns are provided it's not a "fundamental"
>>>right?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>I see. Well, looks like you're wrong.
>
>Should we stop now?

Look, I know you like to think you are always right, but in this
case you need to prove it.

>>No, they'll force you to have one under certain circumstances.
>>
>>There is no choice in the matter.
>
>Sure there is. There is always a choice.

Well, take the gun or go to jail..

That's about all the choice you'll get.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>What I'm disputing is the idea that it is a fundamental human right.

Being able to defend yourself is a fundamental right.

>>>>>But if they're starving food is provided in almost all modern
>>>>>societies.
>>>>
>>>>So you're saying unless guns are provided it's not a "fundamental"
>>>>right?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>I see. Well, looks like you're wrong.
>>
>>Should we stop now?
>
>Look, I know you like to think you are always right, but in this
>case you need to prove it.

I think I'm always right because I usually am. There's no way to
"prove" what a fundamental right is that I'm aware of. How about a
definition?

http://law.yourdictionary.com/fundamental-right
fundamental right legal definition
noun

A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right
deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of
Constitutional protection against government interference.

>>>No, they'll force you to have one under certain circumstances.
>>>
>>>There is no choice in the matter.
>>
>>Sure there is. There is always a choice.
>
>Well, take the gun or go to jail..
>That's about all the choice you'll get.

So there *is* a choice. You can also be a C.O. Or you can be more
valuable doing something else.

[peter skelton]

"Bill" wrote in message news:lvcv18habomkcjgpf...@4ax.com...

Most societies consider life a human right but very many apply a means test
to it through starvation, or medical care. In fact, given the cost of the
best medical care, I suspect all societies will have to accept the latter.

[Bert]

In news:lvcv18habomkcjgpf...@4ax.com Bill

<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> While I accept that in the USA almost everyone is rich enough to buy a
> gun there must be some people who can't afford one.
>
> Which is what makes the idea that owning one is some sort of human
> right utterly absurd...

Just because you have a right to own something does not mean that anyone
is required to give it to you.

You need to think about the difference between positive and negative
rights.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[David Geiger]

"peter skelton" wrote in message news:jvoovi$a08$1...@dont-email.me...

>^^^

Everybody has the right to get off their lazy ass , become educated, get a
job, and purchase the things they want.
All animals,(including us humans) have the natural right to defend
themselves.
It's called "Fight Or Flight." <----- But that IS the defense that every
living thing has, from the birds to the bees, and also us!

HOW we Humans,(top of the food chain) and as an individuals decide to do
that, it should not be of any Government's control.
As we have the Technology and priorities that betters us from the lower
life forms (Animals and Government) we have the RIGHT to use the tools that
ONLY we have, made to PROTECT THOSE RIGHTS against aggressors.



YOU have no right to live to a defined ripe old age, Pete.
You DO (or should) have the option to try to get there on your own.

It really is that simple.

[RD Sandman]

Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in

news:6a3c662e-0c78-4939...@pp9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 6, 7:01 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote
>> innews:f66ac825-2c99-40ea-88b0-e25
> 651a...@sn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

>> > registration fee of $6,000.00. There were about 65,000 licensed
>> > firearms in Jamaica in 2002, and approximately 700 licenses
>> > approved per year. All crimes involving firearms are tried by a
>> > special Gun Court established in 1975.
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Act_%28Jamaica%29
>>
>> Big difference between theory and practice, Phil.  Something you have
>> y
> et
>> to learn.
>
> Pity your claim made no mention of either, it was categorically wrong
> and no amount of waffling about theory and practice" can make it
> right.
>
>>
>> > Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in
>> > their constitutions.
>> >http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/12/hav
>> >e_
>> > gun_want_to_travel.html
>>
>> Yes, they do but don't try it unless you are cartel, military or law
>> enforcement.
>
> Sorry, but that claim doesn't magically convert your false claim into
> a correct one.
>
>>
>> > In the Dominican Republic, only licensed gun owners17 18 may
>> > lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
>> > Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in the Dominican Republic are
>> > required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example,
>> > collection or self-defence. The minimum age for gun ownership in
>> > the Dominican Republic is 18 years
>> >http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/dominican-republic
>>
>> And many common citizens have them?
>
> That isn't the issue because you claimed a law-abiding citizen
> couldn't own a gun in specified countries and you know that is a false
> claim.
>
>>
>> You do rather incomplete staff work, Phil.  You will have to try
>> harder
> .
>
> I didn't need to do more than a few minutes browsing to debunk your
> claims. There wasn't any need to try harder, it was too easy. You'll
> need to try harder in the future lest you get more of your claims
> shown up as patently false.
>
> A piece of advice; steer claim of all absolute claims, they'll
> generally come back to haunt you, in this rather rapidly.
>

You should take your own advice. Try buying a gun in Mexico. There is
only one gunshop and it is in Mexico City. It is also manned with
members of the Mexican army. IOW, to the normal citizen in Mexico, it
doesn't really matter what their constitution says......that isn't how it
gets practiced.

--

The three most common last words in aviation are: "Did you hear that?",
"What was that noise?" and "Oh, Shit!!!"


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Bill]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:03:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>
>>What I'm disputing is the idea that it is a fundamental human right.
>
>Being able to defend yourself is a fundamental right.
>

True.

However access to firearms isn't necessarily part of that.

>>Look, I know you like to think you are always right, but in this
>>case you need to prove it.
>
>I think I'm always right because I usually am. There's no way to
>"prove" what a fundamental right is that I'm aware of. How about a
>definition?
>
>http://law.yourdictionary.com/fundamental-right
>fundamental right legal definition
>noun
>
>A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right
>deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of
>Constitutional protection against government interference.

That's a touch American though.

How about the usually agreed universal definition.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

No mention of pistols or any material items at all.

>
>
>>>>No, they'll force you to have one under certain circumstances.
>>>>
>>>>There is no choice in the matter.
>>>
>>>Sure there is. There is always a choice.
>>
>>Well, take the gun or go to jail..
>>That's about all the choice you'll get.
>
>So there *is* a choice.

That's not a choice, that's compulsion. It means 'Do as I say or be
punished'.

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in
news:ga0u18pbrfnrntdfg...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:08:00 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:5aat18de49v0lquka45flb133vrrsifkbe@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:25:56 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>It is one of the freedoms we enjoy. Just as you have the freedom
>>>>>>>to drive your car, you're free to own a gun..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Except for the fact that it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the
>>>>>>Constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Where do they mention guns in The Constitution?
>>>>
>>>>The right to keep and bear arms included guns. Just like freedom of
>>>>the press includes radio.
>>>
>>> So just black powder guns then, right? And flintlocks only since
>>> they didn't have percussion caps yet then.
>>>
>>
>>Then you are ready to communicate by Gutenburg press and town criers?
>>TV, radio, telegraph, the internet, for example had not been invented
>>yet but I would imagine you hold your right to free speech to be quite
>>dear.
>
> We're not allowed to have an Air Force either. Can't change or update
> The Constitution. Only allowed to do exactly what it says. Like The
> Bible.
>

Then why are you still using the internet?

[Bill]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:10:18 -0400, "David Geiger"
<Burni...@bass.gov> wrote:


>Everybody has the right to get off their lazy ass , become educated, get a
>job, and purchase the things they want.

There is no right to education in much of the world.

[Bill]

That's just sophistry.

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in news:Ytidnf5sl6-
514LNnZ2dn...@supernews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>> However, it is a protected one.....just like freedom of speech.
>
> No, son, I can openly speak in downtown Miami; you gun goofballs cannot
> openly carry a loaded shotgun (or sidearm).

HOwever, one can carry concealed in Miami. I spent 20 years in SoFla.

> you should get some balls and force the SC to rule, one way or the
other
> ;-)

Why? I have no problem carrying concealed. It keep me from scaring
little old ladies of both sexes.

[David Geiger]

"Bill" wrote in message news:qvuv185mr3n3so0t0...@4ax.com...

>^^^^

Name ONE place where one is not allowed to learn or gain information.
I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU!

You just declared stupidity! :)

[David Geiger]

"Bill" wrote in message news:jnuv18lnif09q3r4r...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:03:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>
>>What I'm disputing is the idea that it is a fundamental human right.
>
>Being able to defend yourself is a fundamental right.
>

True.

However access to firearms isn't necessarily part of that.

>^^^
It most certainly is, for a free people.
Aren't you free?
What do YOU use and have available for self defense?
A cell phone?
What others TELL you can use for personal self defense?
If so, then You are not a free person.