Abington Murder

[M1911]

I am not saying her Brother should have shot him, but I certainly would support him if he had. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but I am sure I am not alone...

Then he would have likely wound up in jail for murder. At that point, his sister was already dead and it appears that the perp was no longer a threat.

The brother did the right thing. This way he is out of jail and able to help take care of her two kids. That's a far more noble gesture than killing the slime.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

Well, at least this post didn't drift off-topic as some do.

 

[TomH]

I agree that there is a constant assault upon second amendment rights. I also agree that most of these laws give us a false sense of security and make no sense. But it aggravates me when the NRA opposes legislation such things as database legislation or restrictions for those with previous mental illness. These to me are common sense rules which do have a far greater effect on public safety than laws which tell us what we can have, how to store it, etc. It is these seemingly extreme positions which paint gun owners in a poor light drive people on the left to take extreme positions the other way and which in turn turn those in the middle into single issue voters, especially in this neck of the woods. These single issue voters tend to swing many elections and I fear they shall again. If the NRA were to cease taking the more extreme positions you would see those on the left have less to react against and overall you would see a greater acceptance of second amendment rights and an overall lessening of restrictions.

How to begin...

Why is being against gun restriction an "extreme" view? It's only extreme to people who have an overly emotional reaction to an inanimate object. See the real problem: PEOPLE WITH NO MORALS. Why put normal, law abiding citizens under the scrutiny of being on a "list" that catogorizes them unfairly?? Would you want to be fingerprinted, photographed, etc for buying a kitchen knife? A CAR?? (more lethal than a gun on average by far). And the mental illness thing just opens too many doors. A lot of returning veterans are seeking help for stress disorders; and rightfully so! They do a hard job, and it takes a toll on one's mental health. But are the same people that fought for our country to be restricted from ever holding a gun legally again because they had trouble dealing with seeing a friend die next to them, or has trouble dealing with having to take a human life even though it was wartime? It's not an extreme position, just standing up for the rights that should be afforded to us under the Constitution without having to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it.

 

[Scrivener]

I have never made mention about opposing the second amendment as I support it. If I did oppose it I would not be a gun owner, I just believe in reasonable restrictions upon it.

Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

- Sen. Barry Goldwater

Put another way, just what part of "shall not be infringed" can you not parse?

If the ACLU defended the entire Constitution, instead of cherry-picking just the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, I would join. However, it is a collection of cafeteria constitutionalists who speciously declare the Second Amendment, which expressly states it is a "right of the people," magically means "the states."

The Bill of Rights uses "the people" five times: The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The use of "people" in the First and Fourth has always been held an individual right; the clear language and history of the other three shows that that same word used in the same document for the same reason has - amazingly enough - the same meaning. The 1982 report of the Senate on the subject, the later report by the Justice Department and even Liberal Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe all agree. Who do you believe?

Under the ACLU's mendacious analysis, you must accept and acknowledge one of two scenarios:

1. The hitherto-individual rights in the First and Fourth Amendments are not; they merely allow the states to hold meetings, publish papers and associate freely among themselves; and protect the states' records from federal meddling, respectively; OR

2. James Madison was so shoddy and aberrant in his drafting that he misused a specific term with a clear legal meaning in a carefully drawn document, which was vetted, debated and then approved with that error by people (mostly lawyers) with trained eyes and minds, fully cognizant of the fact that the document they were approving was MEANT to be a clear and specific limit on Federal power.

So - which utterly untenable premise do you adopt? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

- Sen. Barry Goldwater

Put another way, just what part of "shall not be infringed" can you not parse?

If the ACLU defended the entire Constitution, instead of cherry-picking just the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, I would join. However, it is a collection of cafeteria constitutionalists who speciously declare the Second Amendment, which expressly states it is a "right of the people," magically means "the states."

The Bill of Rights uses "the people" five times: The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The use of "people" in the First and Fourth has always been held an individual right; the clear language and history of the other three shows that that same word used in the same document for the same reason has - amazingly enough - the same meaning. The 1982 report of the Senate on the subject, the later report by the Justice Department and even Liberal Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe all agree. Who do you believe?

Under the ACLU's mendacious analysis, you must accept and acknowledge one of two scenarios:

1. The hitherto-individual rights in the First and Fourth Amendments are not; they merely allow the states to hold meetings, publish papers and associate freely among themselves; and protect the states' records from federal meddling, respectively; OR

2. James Madison was so shoddy and aberrant in his drafting that he misused a specific term with a clear legal meaning in a carefully drawn document, which was vetted, debated and then approved with that error by people (mostly lawyers) with trained eyes and minds, fully cognizant of the fact that the document they were approving was MEANT to be a clear and specific limit on Federal power.

So - which utterly untenable premise do you adopt? Inquiring minds want to know.

Best post ever. If I could give you 20 rep points for it, I would.

 

[ericdimarzio]

Scrivener, I too would like to draw your attention to the text of the Second Amendment as I see you doing a fair amount of cherry picking yourself. Of particular importance I would like to draw your attention to the part that states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" It seems to me that everybody who adopts the position in favor of a complete lack of firearms regulation seems to overlook this part. It is an important piece because it speaks to the founder's intent in granting the right to keep and bear. Therefore it could be reasoned, rather successfully that the founders only intended to grant the right for the purpose of keeping the militia. With this in mind it can therefore be reasoned that since we have the National Guard, which supposedly (See Katrina, Hurricane: classism + abuse and overuse of the Guard at it's finest) fills this role and is fully funded by the government, this purpose is no longer relevant and as such the constitutional right no longer exists. Given this line of reasoning the only way then find a reasoning for the right to keep in bear would be in a fundamental right to self defense which your champion Scalia, if he were consistent, would never approve of. If then we ground our right to keep and bear on a fundamental right to self defense you would then open yourself up to the limitations we have upon capacity, assault weapons, etc.

Like it or nor Scrivener, we are all hypocrites who pick and choose how we read the constitution based upon our ideology. You have proven this with your interpretation of the 2nd just as much as I have likely done it with the 14th and first. It occurs everywhere. Without a distorted view of the constitution and an emasculated Congress we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, Vietnam or Iraq. We are ALL GUILTY!!!! Given this it is going to come down Common sense in the end. I tend to subscribe to the fundamental right to self defense argument I proposed up above. Therefore I see nothing wrong with limiting what people can have to Pistols, rifles and shotguns and limiting the ability to use these to those who aren't nut jobs and have some basic level of competency. We are all going to have our own interpretation; we are all going to be eventually called hypocrites. If we can accept that, we can engage in a dialogue which will allow us to find a middle ground and learn from each other. That is all I was trying to do.

The fact of the matter is we all have our ideologies. Mine have become somewhat more conservative over time, but that is only because I had people around me who were willing to engage in dialogue rather than a shouting match. Like it or not you live in a liberal state, if you truly wish for things to get better try dialogue and toning some of your views down, because it will in the end allow the other side to tone theirs down

 

[jar]

Like it or not you live in a liberal state, if you truly wish for things to get better try dialogue and toning some of your views down, because it will in the end allow the other side to tone theirs down

That's what got us in the mess we're in now. I support complete and unregulated gun rights. VPC and Joyce and their ilk support complete bans. Current law is somewhere in the middle. The gun-grabbers calls for compromise aren't to find a middle position between total freedom and a total ban. We're already there. Their calls for compromise are for a position between what we have now and a total ban.

 

[blindndead]

Therefore I see nothing wrong with limiting what people can have to Pistols, rifles and shotguns??? I think not.

 

[dwarven1]

Scrivener, I too would like to draw your attention to the text of the Second Amendment as I see you doing a fair amount of cherry picking yourself. Of particular importance I would like to draw your attention to the part that states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" It seems to me that everybody who adopts the position in favor of a complete lack of firearms regulation seems to overlook this part.

Eric, PLEASE do some research before you demonstrate your overwhelming ignorance. The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined" - it has NOTHING to do with the modern meaning of the word "regulated".

Your National Guard red herring is likewise

bullshit, as the National Guard didn't exist until the early 1900's - OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THAT AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN.

And last, are you seriously trying to argue that "the People" refers not to the populace at large but the states? I suppose that means that the First Amendment means that the states can say anything they want, since the EXACT SAME PHRASE - "the People" is being used. Tell me, WHY would the Founding Fathers use the exact phrase to mean two different things? Why do you persist in creating your own little fantasy where the same phrase means two different things depending on what YOU want it to mean?

Please... spare us the gunbanner bullshit.

.

 

[Admin]

Ross, he's a liberal college kid, we all know they know everything.

I mean after all with all of his life's experiences and world travels he knows what he's talking about.

 

[blindndead]

Eric, PLEASE do some research before you demonstrate your overwhelming ignorance. The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined" - it has NOTHING to do with the modern meaning of the word "regulated".

Your National Guard red herring is likewise

bullshit, as the National Guard didn't exist until the early 1900's - OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THAT AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN.

And last, are you seriously trying to argue that "the People" refers not to the populace at large but the states? I suppose that means that the First Amendment means that the states can say anything they want, since the EXACT SAME PHRASE - "the People" is being used. Tell me, WHY would the Founding Fathers use the exact phrase to mean two different things? Why do you persist in creating your own little fantasy where the same phrase means two different things depending on what YOU want it to mean?

Please... spare us the gunbanner bullshit.

.

Thank You. Ross Rep point given

 

[dwarven1]

You'll notice that he still hasn't tried to refute anything I put in my LAST post disputing his liberal BS. Sorry, but he just pegs my BS meter.

 

[Scrivener]

Scrivener, I too would like to draw your attention to the text of the Second Amendment as I see you doing a fair amount of cherry picking yourself. Of particular importance I would like to draw your attention to the part that states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" It seems to me that everybody who adopts the position in favor of a complete lack of firearms regulation seems to overlook this part. It is an important piece because it speaks to the founder's intent in granting the right to keep and bear. Therefore it could be reasoned, rather successfully that the founders only intended to grant the right for the purpose of keeping the militia. With this in mind it can therefore be reasoned that since we have the National Guard, which supposedly (See Katrina, Hurricane: classism + abuse and overuse of the Guard at it's finest) fills this role and is fully funded by the government, this purpose is no longer relevant and as such the constitutional right no longer exists. Given this line of reasoning the only way then find a reasoning for the right to keep in bear would be in a fundamental right to self defense which your champion Scalia, if he were consistent, would never approve of. If then we ground our right to keep and bear on a fundamental right to self defense you would then open yourself up to the limitations we have upon capacity, assault weapons, etc.

1. A law student should grasp the importance of paragraphs to the greater achievement of a readable text. Put that on your list of Lessons to be Learned.

2. Your reasoning is defective because your grasp of the controlling law is flawed. Specifically, you have no concept of what the "militia" is, nor the National Guard.

Read the following:

10 USC 311

MGL c. 33, secs. 2 and 3. In fact, here it is:

G.L.c. 33, § 2. Membership.

Section 2. The militia of the commonwealth shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of seventeen and forty-five, and who are residents of the commonwealth, and of such other persons, male and female, as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to any provision of this chapter, subject, however, to such exemptions as are now, or may be hereafter, created by law.

G.L.c. 33, § 3. Organized and unorganized militia.

Section 3. The militia shall consist of two classes, namely, the organized militia, composed and organized as provided in this chapter, and the remainder, to be known as the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia shall not be subject to duty except in case of war, actual or threatened, invasion, the prevention of invasion, the suppression of riots, and the assisting of civil officers in the execution of the laws.

Got that? "...all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of seventeen and forty-five." Note the complete and utter absence of ANY reference to the National Guard, an entity which did not even exist until just a century ago.

Here's a hint to assist your comprehension of the foregoing: It's called the "NATIONAL Guard" for a reason - it is an arm of the Federal government; an integrated adjunct to the standing army and air force.

Note further that Sec. 2 is almost verbatim from the Federal definition, 10 USC 311. Note again the utter irrelevance of your "National Guard" argument.

Advanced reading: U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez [110 S.Ct. 1056 at 1063 (1990)], in which the court, in dicta, notes that the right to bear arms is one of the indicia of a citizen.

What year are you in and where?

 

[ephemeratta]

Scrivener, I too would like to draw your attention to the text...

I'd love for my attention to be drawn to your text but it drones.
Please, for the sake of Pete, learn how to use this - ¶.

What year are you in and where?

I'm guessing first year and that fine institution over in Andover.



Thanks Dwarven1 and Scriv for saying so well what I'd wanted to.

 

[Riverside]

Therefore I see nothing wrong with limiting what people can have to Pistols, rifles and shotguns and limiting the ability to use these to those who aren't nut jobs and have some basic level of competency. We are all going to have our own interpretation; we are all going to be eventually called hypocrites. If we can accept that, we can engage in a dialogue which will allow us to find a middle ground and learn from each other. That is all I was trying to do.

Like it or not you live in a liberal state, if you truly wish for things to get better try dialogue and toning some of your views down, because it will in the end allow the other side to tone theirs down

This poor little sheep has lost his way.
Baaa. Baaaaa. Baaaaa!
Can someone point him to the forum he really wants to be accepted in?
Best Regards.

 

[Admin]

This poor little sheep has lost his way.
Baaa. Baaaaa. Baaaaa!
Can someone point him to the forum he really wants to be accepted in?
Best Regards.

www.democraticunderground.com

 

[dwarven1]

Hey, Eric! I think Lil Bo Peep wants you to join her here: www.democraticunderground.com.

 

[M1911]

Gosh. Where to start.

First, the phrase "well-regulated" at the time of the drafting of the constitution meant "well-trained." See the Federalist Papers No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Therefore it could be reasoned, rather successfully that the founders only intended to grant the right for the purpose of keeping the militia. With this in mind it can therefore be reasoned that since we have the National Guard, which supposedly (See Katrina, Hurricane: classism + abuse and overuse of the Guard at it's finest) fills this role and is fully funded by the government, this purpose is no longer relevant and as such the constitutional right no longer exists.

Nice try, but no cigar. You see the militia is defined in statute and the National guard is but a part of the militia, not the militia its entirety:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Effectively, we are all members of the militia. The National Guard is but one part of the militia, it is not the militia in its entirety.

The founders never intended that the government have sole control over arms. For example, commentary on the Amendments in the Federal Gazette in 1789:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens,the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

St. George Tucker, a revolutionary war militia officer, wrote:

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.

 

[ephemeratta]

This poor little sheep has lost his way.
Baaa. Baaaaa. Baaaaa!
Can someone point him to the forum he really wants to be accepted in?
Best Regards.

I'm not catchin' that vibe from him, but, I'm definitely feeling that there's a need for further education and meditation on the finer points of constitutional law.

Thankfully, Scriv has school in session.

 

[BOBKATT]

Therefore I see nothing wrong with limiting what people can have to Pistols, rifles and shotguns and limiting the ability to use these to those who aren't nut jobs and have some basic level of competency.

In what world do you live in where you think that it is fair to limit self defense to ten rounds? Well after ten rounds if the victim is a poor shot or the bad guy is hopped up on meth and still alive then its just tough shit? You have a distorted point of view my friend. Bad guys get 30, you get 10. Bad guys get to pick the time and place of the attack, you get to pick up your limited capability self defense shooter.

Second of all, you still are having a problem with coming to terms with one of the most important reasons for the Second Amendment. That is to protect a society from a form of government that is tyranny. Your single shot rifles are gonna do a hell of a lot of good against the standard issue m-16's that if it ever were to happen, your enemy would be packing. Happened in New Orleans, as a matter of fact.

Like it or not you live in a liberal state, if you truly wish for things to get better try dialogue and toning some of your views down, because it will in the end allow the other side to tone theirs down

This is probably the most cowardly and uninformed thing that I have heard in a long time. Try dialogue? Do you have any idea the efforts and educated legal battles that have been fought and lost over what we are talking about? You want to see lack of decent dialogue and endless propaganda? Take a look at the Brady website, take a look at the AHSA, take a look at the Anti's arguments. You're one of 'em. Take a look.

 

[Erebus]

Hey, Eric! I think Lil Bo Peep wants you to join her here: www.democraticunderground.com.

Actually I lurk there quite often, he wouldn't do much better in the guns section of that forum either.

When I was a newbie here I thought Scriv was just an ass. Now I realize he is just sick of squashing the exact same BS argument over and over and over again.

 

[clinotus]

I like how he moved from: Just another poster -> Well versed shooter -> Brady.org poster -> Constitutional Scholar.


Edit: Eric I eagerly await your next evolution of: Gunsmithing -> Was in the marines -> Special forces -> I met the Pope last week to discuss this topic -> ...

 

[Admin]

 

[Lugnut]

Best post ever. If I could give you 20 rep points for it, I would.

Not sure it's the best post ever, but it's an angle I haven't heard and it's damn good. Top Ten for sure.

 

[theGringo]

Like it or nor Scrivener, we are all hypocrites who pick and choose how we read the constitution based upon our ideology. You have proven this with your interpretation of the 2nd just as much as I have likely done it with the 14th and first. It occurs everywhere. Without a distorted view of the constitution and an emasculated Congress we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, Vietnam or Iraq. We are ALL GUILTY!!!!

Please speak only for yourself.

What a bunch of sophomoric claptrap, the likes of which I haven't heard since I was in that "marketplace of ideas", college. I see that our institutions of higher learning are still capable of producing empty-headed and unreasoning fools.

Eric, I was sympathetic toward you at first, but no more. You really ought to research the history of the Constitution before you present your case on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.

 

[Scrivener]

Don't hold your breath.

He announced his departure. Apparently this alleged law student could not handle well-framed arguments with citations to history and law........

Perhaps he attends a certain NON-accredited law school which had a 35% bar pass rate in 1993. I think the admission test was on the back of a matchbook:

Can you find the tort in this picture?

Sign up for Famous Lawyers School!

 

[Blitz1]

Don't hold your breath.

He announced his departure. Apparently this alleged law student could not handle well-framed arguments with citations to history and law........

Perhaps he attends a certain NON-accredited law school which had a 35% bar pass rate in 1993. I think the admission test was on the back of a matchbook:

Can you find the tort in this picture?

Sign up for Famous Lawyers School!

B

 

[Garys]

Don't hold your breath.

He announced his departure. Apparently this alleged law student could not handle well-framed arguments with citations to history and law........

Perhaps he attends a certain NON-accredited law school which had a 35% bar pass rate in 1993. I think the admission test was on the back of a matchbook:

Can you find the tort in this picture?

Sign up for Famous Lawyers School!

Hey, you're stealing my material! That's the world famous "Close Cover Before Striking" law school to you pal.

So, if he wants to do an internship, should he call you?

 

[Admin]

Boy he's going to make a great attorney....... IN FRANCE!!!!!

 

[Half Cocked]

Boy he's going to make a great attorney....... IN FRANCE!!!!!

Future public defender....