Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to ‘start killing people’ over Obama’s gun control


  • Please log in to reply
130 replies to this topic

#61 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,727 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:37 PM

Who's to say somebody who's not quite so nice as Obama won't be president 20, 30, 40 years down the road when the citizens are disarmed according to plan?

What if you happened to have a gun and shot an intruder in your home who was attacking you or your family, and owed you or your life to it? Should you go to jail for it? Should you be a sacrificial lamb for the "greater good of society" of having a disarmed populace and fewer people getting killed overall?


That has absolutely nothing to do with assault weapons.

If someone breaks into your house, you're not going and grabbing an assault rifle. You're going and grabbing your hand gun.

That's what pro gun people seem to get so paranoid about. This is not a gun ban, this a ban on certain types of unecessary weapons.

Edited by DeNiro, 11 January 2013 - 02:43 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#62 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,727 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:43 PM

Even if assault rifles get banned (again), there will be no stop to mass shootings, they will still be just as prevalent. During the federal assault weapons ban, there were plenty of school shootings, including the ever famous Columbine / Westside Middle School shootings in which assault weapons were used:


But why do you NEED them? That's one thing that no gun owners can ever intelligently answer.

And don't say cause they're fun. Cause that's not a good enough reason for regular citizens to be armed with military style weapons.

Of course it won't eliminate mass shootings. But it can at least deter people from killing larger amounts of people. If not being able to own an assault weapon means even just one extra kid doesn't get killed, then it's worth it. Gun owners need to stop being so damn selfish, you don't need assault weapons, period.

Edited by DeNiro, 11 January 2013 - 02:44 PM.

  • 2

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#63 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:01 PM

But why do you NEED them? That's one thing that no gun owners can ever intelligently answer.

And don't say cause they're fun. Cause that's not a good enough reason for regular citizens to be armed with military style weapons.

Of course it won't eliminate mass shootings. But it can at least deter people from killing larger amounts of people. If not being able to own an assault weapon means even just one extra kid doesn't get killed, then it's worth it. Gun owners need to stop being so damn selfish, you don't need assault weapons, period.

It's pointless to answer a question that:

1) Has been answered for the umpteenth time, and:

2) You've already answered anyways.

You're not looking for an intelligent answer, or any answer that doesn't fit what you believe about assault weapons and the right to bear arms, please stop pretending to be.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#64 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:16 PM

You're not looking for an intelligent answer, or any answer that doesn't fit what you believe about assault weapons and the right to bear arms, please stop pretending to be.


Perhaps this user ^^^ should take note of his own words in regard to the issue of assault weapons and the right to bear arms and apply them personally? The evidence is present in several threads having to do with this topic.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 11 January 2013 - 03:22 PM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#65 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,727 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:19 PM

It's pointless to answer a question that:

1) Has been answered for the umpteenth time, and:

2) You've already answered anyways.

You're not looking for an intelligent answer, or any answer that doesn't fit what you believe about assault weapons and the right to bear arms, please stop pretending to be.


So basically you don't have an intelligent answer?

Pretty much what I thought.
  • 2

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#66 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:31 PM

So basically you don't have an intelligent answer?

Pretty much what I thought.

You already had "thoughts" which had nothing to do with getting answers. Again, please stop pretending.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#67 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:32 PM

That has absolutely nothing to do with assault weapons.

If someone breaks into your house, you're not going and grabbing an assault rifle. You're going and grabbing your hand gun.

That's what pro gun people seem to get so paranoid about. This is not a gun ban, this a ban on certain types of unecessary weapons.


You'd grab what's most effective, and all else being equal, rifles and shotguns are much more effective than shotguns in most people's hands.
  • 1
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#68 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:37 PM

Wow, disagree with someone's point of view and you're 'pretending' or just outright making stuff up.......good to know... I must extend my thanks for someone clarifying this for the majority of users here and in other threads. No delusions of grandeur and arrogance were intended of course, just a schooling of CDCers who don't know any better?

It's a shame that those on the pro-automatic firearms side don't seem to understand that there is a middle ground in this debate.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 11 January 2013 - 03:39 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#69 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,727 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:39 PM

You already had "thoughts" which had nothing to do with getting answers. Again, please stop pretending.


Well why can't people who are pro guns stop with circular logic and trying to create distractions in the debate, and just give a real answer?

You're the ones who have to defend your right to bear these kinds of weapons, lets hear your argument. If you can't even make one, then I question your actual need for these weapons.
  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#70 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:40 PM

Well why can't people who are pro guns stop with circular logic and trying to create distractions in the debate, and just give a real answer?

You're the ones who have to defend your right to bear these kinds of weapons, lets hear your argument. If you can't even make one, then I question your actual need for these weapons.

They've been defended already. Search the forums for Suzanna Hupp. Some of us don't feel like answering the same question 500 times for each new poster to a discussion that feels the need to ask it and pretend they want answers.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 January 2013 - 03:44 PM.

  • 1

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#71 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,727 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:44 PM

You'd grab what's most effective, and all else being equal, rifles and shotguns are much more effective than shotguns in most people's hands.


No ones saying you can't own a rifle or a shotgun.

If you can't hit a person with one or two shots with a hand gun or a shotgun, well then you probably won't be able to protect yourself worth a damn anyways.

Again, most people wouldn't grab an AR-15 to try and protect their house. You'd grab your hand gun or a shotgun. So the argument of needing them to protect your house isn't a very sound one.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#72 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,699 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:45 PM

He has answered already. It's fear and the constitution. End of story. All the semantics in the world won't get you anywhere.
  • 1

#73 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,727 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

They've been defended already. Search the forums for Suzanna Hupp. Some of us don't feel like answering the same question 500 times for each new poster to a discussion that feels the need to ask it and pretend they want answers.


Well I`ve seen all the canned answers where people continuously cite the 2nd ammendment. That really isn`t an intelligent argument to me. That document was written hundreds of years ago and has no real basis today. There has to be a limit on arms, otherwise people could walk down the street with RPG`s tucked in their coats.

And don`t tell me the government has no right to tell you what to do. Because the government tells you what to do every day of your life. That`s what laws are.

I was just hoping to get a unique perspective from someone who clearly has a passion for guns. But I guess I`m not gonna get it. Too bad, cause you're gonna need a better argument than the second ammendment if you wanna keep your assault rifles.

Edited by DeNiro, 11 January 2013 - 03:53 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#74 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:53 PM

What is this nonsense about needing assault weapons to protect yourself from an oppressive government? Paranoia much? When the amendment was written, it made a helluva lot more sense at the time when warfare consisted of muskets and cannons. But tell me more about how your ability to inadequately fire your assault rifle is going to protect you against the U.S. military.

Edited by Tortorella's Rant, 11 January 2013 - 03:54 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image

#75 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,410 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:58 PM

Wow, disagree with someone's point of view and you're 'pretending' or just outright making stuff up.......good to know... I must extend my thanks for someone clarifying this for the majority of users here and in other threads. No delusions of grandeur and arrogance were intended of course, just a schooling of CDCers who don't know any better?

It's a shame that those on the pro-automatic firearms side don't seem to understand that there is a middle ground in this debate.


Until the gun-rights defenders can explain how their semi-auto's, with 100 shot magazines, are going to stop the drone strike that takes out their house, they are 'urinating into a Chinook' .. it feels good til it cools off, apparently .. :P

Edited by Tearloch7, 11 January 2013 - 03:58 PM.

  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#76 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:00 PM

Well I`ve seen all the canned answers where people continuously cite the 2nd ammendment. That really isn`t an intelligent argument to me. That document was written hundreds of years ago and has no real basis today. There has to be a limit on arms, otherwise people could walk down the street with RPG`s tucked in their coats.

And don`t tell me the government has no right to tell you what to do. Because the government tells you what to do every day of your life. That`s what laws are.

I was just hoping to get a unique perspective from someone who clearly has a passion for guns. But I guess I`m not gonna get it. Too bad, cause you're gonna need a better argument than the second ammendment if you wanna keep your assault rifles.

I have a passion for guns? Do you know how many I own? You, like many others, have confused a non gun owner for being a gun nut. That's pretty hilarious. :lol:

And about "thats what laws are", the second amendment is law. It's amongst one of the top and most important laws of the land by being in the Constitution. I guess it isn't important though when it doesn't agree with you.

Another reason I don't bother re-answering the question for you, on top of you pretending you want answers, is that it's impossible to take seriously people who use hyperbole and talk about rocket launchers virtually no one actually has or uses, despite there being few to no restrictions throughout the US. This is much like the hyperbole used in the US to suggest that letting gays marry will result in people marrying their dogs or other pets. Unsubstantiated.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#77 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,727 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:02 PM

What is this nonsense about needing assault weapons to protect yourself from an oppressive government? Paranoia much? When the amendment was written, it made a helluva lot more sense at the time when warfare consisted of muskets and cannons. But tell me more about how your ability to inadequately fire your assault rifle is going to protect you against the U.S. military.


Don't forget keeping the King England of walking into your house and pushing you around.
  • 3

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#78 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,530 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:03 PM

Instead of hiding in the woods and stockpiling guns, why not speak out peacefully against some of the actions of the US government against it's own citizens. Americans' rights are slowly being stripped away, and it's a shame there's no Occupy style movement to bring mass attention to it.
  • 0

#79 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,699 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:04 PM

I have a passion for guns? Do you know how many I own? You, like many others, have confused a non gun owner for being a gun nut. That's pretty hilarious. :lol:

And about "thats what laws are", the second amendment is law. It's amongst one of the top and most important laws of the land by being in the Constitution. I guess it isn't important though when it doesn't agree with you.

Another reason I don't bother re-answering the question for you, on top of you pretending you want answers, is that it's impossible to take seriously people who use hyperbole and talk about rocket launchers virtually no one actually has or uses, despite there being few to no restrictions throughout the US. This is much like the hyperbole used in the US to suggest that letting gays marry will result in people marrying their dogs or other pets. Unsubstantiated.


kinda like you then?

I'm sure you've been in enough debates on these forums to understand there is no thinking with green nuts. Cars can run on grass and PC sensitivity. :lol:


  • 1

#80 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:07 PM

Well I`ve seen all the canned answers where people continuously cite the 2nd ammendment. That really isn`t an intelligent argument to me. That document was written hundreds of years ago and has no real basis today. There has to be a limit on arms, otherwise people could walk down the street with RPG`s tucked in their coats.

And don`t tell me the government has no right to tell you what to do. Because the government tells you what to do every day of your life. That`s what laws are.

I was just hoping to get a unique perspective from someone who clearly has a passion for guns. But I guess I`m not gonna get it. Too bad, cause you're gonna need a better argument than the second ammendment if you wanna keep your assault rifles.

Pretty clearly the Second Amendment has currency as SCOTUS clearly stated in 2008 in the Heller case. They also gave it a new expansive reading finding an independent individual right to bear arms for self-defence purposes - something the minority says was not supported by history or past case law.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The majority in Heller was clear that government could not ban weapons commonly used for self-defence (in that particular case handguns) and that safe storage laws were unconstitutional.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.


Seems to me that the Second Amendment is alive and well and that the US Constituion remains the supreme law of the land as interpreted by SCOTUS.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#81 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,410 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:09 PM

Breaking news .. or broken .. Yeager, the "unhinged" nutcase who is the cause of this thread, has had his handgun permit revoked .. I guess they are awaiting his arrival with gun in hand so they can shoot him down .. or do you think he is maybe hiding in his basement stroking his AR-15? .. this should be enough to trigger a violent response .. c'mon James .. dinna disappoint yer fans, boy ..

http://www.salon.com...rmit/singleton/
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#82 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,727 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:12 PM

I have a passion for guns? Do you know how many I own? You, like many others, have confused a non gun owner for being a gun nut. That's pretty hilarious. :lol:

And about "thats what laws are", the second amendment is law. It's amongst one of the top and most important laws of the land by being in the Constitution. I guess it isn't important though when it doesn't agree with you.

Another reason I don't bother re-answering the question for you, on top of you pretending you want answers, is that it's impossible to take seriously people who use hyperbole and talk about rocket launchers virtually no one actually has or uses, despite there being few to no restrictions throughout the US. This is much like the hyperbole used in the US to suggest that letting gays marry will result in people marrying their dogs or other pets. Unsubstantiated.


Well you seem pretty passionate about defending the right to own them, which is what I meant. ;)

The second ammendment is a law, yes. And like all laws they can be updated and made more appropriate for today's society. For example, the first ammendment gives you the right to freedom of speech. However certain aspects needed to be added to prevent extreme hate speech in order to protect minorities. That's what modern societies do in order to keep evolving.

Jumping from an assault rifle, which is used for military combat, to an RPG, really isn't that much of a hyperbole. I find it just as ridiculous for a person to defend themselves with an assualt rifle as it is to defend themselves with an RPG. Both are military weapons, and have no use for regualr citizens.

It seems to me like people who are pro assault weapons think that their rights trump the rights of everyone else in society. Even if it's those people's basic right for safety.

Edited by DeNiro, 11 January 2013 - 04:14 PM.

  • 3

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#83 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:19 PM

Well you seem pretty passionate about defending the right to own them, which is what I meant. ;)

The second ammendment is a law, yes. And like all laws they can be updated and made more appropriate for today's society. For example, the first ammendment gives you the right to freedom of speech. However certain aspects needed to be added to prevent extreme hate speech in order to protect minorities. That's what modern societies do in order to keep evolving.

Jumping from an assault rifle, which is used for military combat, to an RPG, really isn't that much of a hyperbole. I find it just as ridiculous for a person to defend themselves with an assualt rifle as it is to defend themselves with an RPG. Both are military weapons, and have no use for regualr citizens.

It seems to me like people who are pro assault weapons think that their rights trump the rights of everyone else in society. Even if it's those people's basic right for safety.

In what ways does owning a gun trump someone else's rights? And which right?
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#84 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

I have a passion for guns? Do you know how many I own? You, like many others, have confused a non gun owner for being a gun nut. That's pretty hilarious. :lol:

And about "thats what laws are", the second amendment is law. It's amongst one of the top and most important laws of the land by being in the Constitution. I guess it isn't important though when it doesn't agree with you.

Another reason I don't bother re-answering the question for you, on top of you pretending you want answers, is that it's impossible to take seriously people who use hyperbole and talk about rocket launchers virtually no one actually has or uses, despite there being few to no restrictions throughout the US. This is much like the hyperbole used in the US to suggest that letting gays marry will result in people marrying their dogs or other pets. Unsubstantiated.

In Heller five SCOTUS justices have one interpretation on the Second Amendment while four ascribe to a completely different interpretation - and the majority of 5 wins the argument over the minority of 4 but that does not mean the minority did not have a cogent well-reasoned position - in fact IMHO it was much more cogent and well-reasoned.

As far as the sorts of arguments about "dangerous and unusual weapons" not in common use (such as rocket launchers) and the actual inability of citizens to in fact to oppose a modern US army that would have it out-gunned... that was a matter raised by the majority in Heller.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.


  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#85 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

Betcha if we stopped feeding the troll he'd starve, just sayin'.........

Aren't we tired of being troll fodder yet? Using deliberate obtuseness to suck folks in is the troll's stock in trade.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 11 January 2013 - 04:28 PM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#86 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:28 PM

Betcha if we stopped feeding the troll he'd starve, just sayin'.........

Aren't we tired of being troll fodder yet?

The problem is that there actually is a debate to be had and trolls weighing in is just one of the downsides.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#87 SterlingArcher

SterlingArcher

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 945 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 11

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:29 PM

It's a bs threat. He'll get capped soon as he attempts to go on a killing spree. If he doesn't want to live without his assault rifle he might aswell commit suicide.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image-Mod note: Inappropriate

#88 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:30 PM

In Heller five SCOTUS justices have one interpretation on the Second Amendment while four ascribe to a completely different interpretation - and the majority of 5 wins the argument over the minority of 4 but that does not mean the minority did not have a cogent well-reasoned position - in fact IMHO it was much more cogent and well-reasoned.

As far as the sorts of arguments about "dangerous and unusual weapons" not in common use (such as rocket launchers) and the actual inability of citizens to in fact to oppose a modern US army that would have it out-gunned... that was a matter raised by the majority in Heller.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

This is why I re-assert, to which you throw a fit about how often opinion changes historically (only to turn around and say this is a major shift), that all it takes is a shift of a few justices (particularly a few like Thomas or Kennedy) and the interpretation of Heller would change completely in terms of the majority that matters. Guaranteed if Obama can get one or two of his own justices in, Heller will be reversed.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#89 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:31 PM

This is why I re-assert, to which you throw a fit about how often opinion changes historically (only to turn around and say this is a major shift), that all it takes is a shift of a few justices (particularly a few like Thomas or Kennedy) and the interpretation of Heller would change completely in terms of the majority that matters. Guaranteed if Obama can get one or two of his own justices in, Heller will be reversed.

I disagree with that.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#90 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:36 PM

I disagree with that.

Where did like-minded justices stand on Heller? How much credence do they give stare decisis? You really think Obama justices would stay with the majority on Heller? Just because of historical "precedent"? You do realise the irony of this right?

In fact, justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, etc. have blatantly criticised stare decisis when it disagrees with their progressive agenda, and employ stare decisis when it agrees.

The judicial branch is blatantly as politicised as the other two. There is absolutely no reason to believe Heller will stand when the court turns liberal.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 January 2013 - 04:39 PM.

  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.