Supreme Court ruling on P2P announced

[BKK-OZ]

mmm... not to be a smart ass, but I don't think you are right about their being 'mountains' of supreme court rulings that guarantee an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Give me three references and I will concede the point.

Otherwise, I will have to insist that's just another fallacy/modern myth used by people who like guns -they will always be trying to find some justification for their idiocy.

Sorrry about this being OT.

<small>[ July 26, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: BKK-OZ ]</small>

[builder]

Sorry, I am little comfused, are you saying that American's do not have the right to bear arms?

[BKK-OZ]

Yep, that's what I am saying.

Not by virtue of the constitution anyway, not unless they are part of a '...well regulated militia..." (which would also rule out those beasts (yes, that's all they are, just beasts) who have tried to set up their own private militias.

Americans tend to think that they have some inherited, inalienable right to have a gun. They don't.

Now, if you want to talk about the pursuit of happiness, well, you can look that up in another document.

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by BKK-OZ:

Give me three references and I will concede the point.

Here are fifty cases referred to on one website: http://www.saf.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html

[BKK-OZ]

ahh yes, the selective editing trick so loved by NRA enthusiasts (just like the NRA's own editing of the 2nd amendment as part of their motto, deleting the bit about militias).

Most of those are either a) not supreme court (they are the only ones who can make rulings on the US constitution), b) disenting opinions (in other words, not the real decision) or c) so selectively edited as to lose all original meaning.

The Supreme Court has never held that the right is individual.

Right back atcha: the real history of rulings, not so heavily edited

I quote: " ...The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia,'" the Supreme Court reiterated in 1980 (Lewis v. United States)."

Man, what was that topic again?

[qo]

I know this is off topic, but I can't resist. Does anyone think our militia, the one that's terrorizing the middle east and gets away with it because of the virtual blackout in our media of the atrocities that occur on an almost daily basis over there, is "well regulated" ? Sounds more accurate to me to say that they are running roughshod over the planet in service of the corporate power elite and are about as unregulated as they can be.

Regulation implies restraint and responsibility. Remember, Congress (defying comprehension and shirking their duty) voted to allow one man to declare war, and his close minions to direct the activities of "our" militia. "Well regulated militia" indeed! Explain to the folks who suffered and died at Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo, that their experience is OK because, after all, it was administered in a "well regulated" manner. Explain to the thousands of mothers and children slaughtered and maimed at Fallujah that the tons of bombs that flattened their neighborhoods were "well regulated."

IMHO, we have traded a "well regulated militia" for a "well regulated media." Exactly the opposite of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Where was the objective reporting prior to the war? Why did the mainstream media not question the motives for war? Why, in fact, did they beat the drums of war? Because, sadly, the media, not the militia, is "well regulated." Where are the pictures of GI's coming home in caskets? You don't see them because George Bush banned them from being shown. Because, lord knows, if we saw them, our support for his war might be diminished. The first blitzkrieg on Fallujah was covered by e.g. Al Jazzera and other (non-US) middle eastern media outlets who interviewed doctors describing the carnage. Meanwhile, our "well regulated" media was going gaga over the military "success." Al Jazzera's coverage resulted in a tremendous backlash against US occupation in Iraq and a large increase in suicide bombings that continues to this day. Military success?

During our second pass of Fallujah, five days after our presidential "election," the US banned Al Jazzera from Iraq because they didn't want the coming atrocities to be reported. Our unregulated militia at work regulating media of other countries no less. Meanwhile, our regulated media served up the Michael Jackson trial to placate and distract.

Sorry for the rant, but the phrase "well regulated militia," like so much of our increasingly fragile Constitution, seems a joke within this new world order.

<small>[ July 26, 2005, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: qo ]</small>

[BKK-OZ]

oh dear, and I thought I was being provocative!

But, in the end mister Qo, I agree with you 100%.

Fighting for freedom, Bah! More like fighting for the freedom to deny others freedom and due process - like those held for YEARS in Guantanamo without even being charged, allowed to have representation or other basic human rights.

Welcome to this century's version of a concentration camp.

oh-oh, this thread is now officially hijacked and likely to get ugly...

sorry, what was the topic again?

[qo]

Sorry, I shouldn't have on this forum. I slipped. There are other more appropriate places for discussions like this. Back to Big Bens, and SATA, and such...

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by BKK-OZ:
oh-oh, this thread is now officially hijacked and likely to get ugly...

sorry, what was the topic again?

. . . enough about guns. It's making me sick.

So how about those p2ps . . .

[BKK-OZ]

I think P who have P are the luckiest P of all.

[Timeline]

It's great to see a feww out there that knows what's up.

Thanks guys..