Ak's Axes And Nukes

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah it looks like you're right.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)[/url]

incorporation, which makes it apply to the states, did it by the amendment.
i think i confused incorporation with funamental rights generally. even beyond the bill of rights, justices can find some rights to be fudamental. like marriage is often said to be fundamental (even if between a man and woman only)
that's somewhat loaded... bc people would say it's not a judical imputing... it's about due process. but, my tatement is necessarily loaded cause due process varies by the person, it's relative.

importatantly though, while you were right about incorporation generally, i forgot to mention... the second amendment has not been incorporated to the states. at least yet. you can see that in the wikipedia link.

Edited February 7, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

haha actually no, you're right on this one. Judges have often held that the 2nd only applies to the Federal Government and not the states... I messed up sorry..
[quote]See Thomas v. Members of the City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir.1984) (per curiam); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir.1942) (“[T]he only function of the Second Amendment [is] to prevent the federal government and the federal government only from infringing that right.”); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir.1995) (“The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 232 (4th Cir.1999) (“[T]he law is settled in our circuit that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.”); Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. City of Columbus, 152 F.3d 522, 539 n. 18 (6th Cir.1998) (“The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Second Amendment; hence, the restrictions of the Second Amendment operate only upon the Federal Government.”); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir.1982) (“[T]he second amendment does not apply to the states.”); Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 731 (9th Cir.1992) (“[T]he Second Amendment limits only federal action, and we affirm the district court's decision ‘that the Second Amendment stays the hand of the National Government only.’ ”); see also Hamilton v. Accu-tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1318 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (“[T]he Second Amendment limits only the power of Congress.”). Cf. United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261, 266 (3d Cir.1942) (“It is abundantly clear ... that this amendment [was adopted] ...as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.”), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610, 610 (3d Cir.1973) (per curiam); United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Parker, 362 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir.2004). But see United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 221 n. 13 (5th Cir.2001).[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]it looks like the only argument that really exists is what i predicted to begin with:
QUOTE
If you want to argue, on principle, that it doesn't matter that more peple die without the bans, but that those who can defend themselves should have full opporutnity to, then sure, that's an argument that has a basis, but at least admit what you're saying, the premises.[/quote]

i think i'd add to my quote in the quote, that not just self defense, but also militias. that is a better arguent. the amount of lives lost is worth the full opportuinty to have militias.
i'm not sure i buy that argument, cause we can have militias wihtout allowing AKs to anyone who wants one, but i do put higher value on the idea of militias than on what appeas to me to be cop out self defense argument generally.

not because of the const right to militias, as i mentioned in the other thread, but bc militias are just good, generally. the complicated nature of the legal arguemnts is why i didn't want to get into all that btw, as is being shown contra those who say it's clear.

Edited February 7, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also spam. i do't want you to think i'm attacking your AKs or livlihood etc too much. it's like talking to a priest about why you're not catholic... it can get personal. with you especially since you're not just NRA but also and AK man.
so i thought i'd note, i do think some people can have those guns, and some militia power should exist. but, it should be viewed as a privilege mostly, and not a right.

that you're also an AK man combined with your responses so far does reinforce my presumption that you're not being openminded andor honest etc though...

and, even if i were generally opposed to ppl having guns, i'm sure i wouldn't be opposed to yu specifically having the guns, it's just the way the law would have to be in an even handed sort of way...
but i mean i'd probably not be opposed to you having those guns either way so..

Edited February 7, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Deb]

Has anyone seen my Lederhosen?

[gamesfanatic04]

We need tighter broadsword control.

[Deb]

........and flatulence control.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='gamesfanatic04' post='1459073' date='Feb 10 2008, 11:57 PM']We need tighter broadsword control.[/quote]
Totally. And foreign blades like Katanas are readily accessible on line

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/niu_shooting"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/niu_shooting[/url]

notice another shooting. and the last thing anyone is going to say is student's need access to AKs and machine guns. a pistol would fix the situation. free access to AKs etc would simply allow many of them, and instead of four dead, it'd be 20.
AKs etc are far and away really not needed by ordinary citizenry, and i have not been shown anything to the otherwise.
i think deep down spam knows this if he's willing to admit it.

[KnightofChrist]

Unless of course everyone was armed, and when an evil person tried to murder innocent people, the people killed the murderer.

[jeffpugh]

I'm thinking about the kind of world we live in where people have to walk to class with an AK47 on hand. Think about what that would do to our minds... how could someone genuinely trust another person without their security weapon? And seeing everyone sit at their desk w/ with their gun close at hand... and btw, whats the power of these bullets? would it go through someone if you shot them on a campus pathway? I mean, how much damage could these arms cause?


Anywho, call me a coward or what ever, but I'm not getting in this argument, I'm just speculating here... throwing ideas out. Take it or leave it.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Sacred Music Man

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1463335' date='Feb 15 2008, 11:25 AM']I'm thinking about the kind of world we live in where people have to walk to class with an AK47 on hand. Think about what that would do to our minds... how could someone genuinely trust another person without their security weapon?[/quote]

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. I'm thinking of a world in reality, one with more and more gun control and innocent and law obeying people giving up their guns, in which evil wicked men take advantage. With all the school shootings as of late, the idea of the good students being able to arm themselves with at least a sidearm seems more practical.

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1463335' date='Feb 15 2008, 11:25 AM']And seeing everyone sit at their desk w/ with their gun close at hand... and btw, whats the power of these bullets? would it go through someone if you shot them on a campus pathway? I mean, how much damage could these arms cause?[/quote]

But which would be better to see? That, or seeing defenseless dead and dying students on school grounds because they could not protect themselves from a wicked murderer. It would be practical to train the students in gun safety, and again I am not speaking of arming students with AK's but at least a select trusted number of them with rhandguns. I know that sounds crazy, but in all of the cases where students have been shot at school, if the innocent ones could shoot back there would have been fewer innocents death, and quicker stop to the rampage.

Edited February 15, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[dairygirl4u2c]

i didn't make it clear in my last post. but i agree letting them have arms is the solution, but only pistols.

having AKs etc is only going to allow people to go on rampage. people will die before they're taken down even if others had AKs. plus realisitically, people are not going to carry around AKs. they might pistols at best. so allowing AKs will only do harm, and not good.

it's fun when my adament hardcore friends say these incidents indicate the need for free gun access for protection. fun, because i agree... then go on to say but it also shows that AKs etc are not needed. they've always been flabergasted when i make that statement, cause msot people are mindless extremes on the issue, and so they didn't know how to respond.
as far as i can tell... they would never know how to respond either, cause there's no decent arguemnts against it that i have seen.

[KnightofChrist]

I would agree that a AK is not something one should just walk around with. However I do believe as explain in the NRA board, that individuals have a right to them. And even if normal people carried AK's that is not going to convert them to crazy. Most americans are normal and can be trusted, least thats what I believe, and just because they are given or buy a AK doesnt at all mean their billy the kid, or a Clyde.

Edited February 15, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[dairygirl4u2c]

one other things... if a person had an AK to defend.. it's not like you needed it to begin with. so, the idea of using AKs as defense even if they had the gun and used it doesn't really make sense.
except in ,0000001 percent of the cases. so rare as to be statistically zero.

i would say that normal people could have them, ideally.
but, i don't think the deaths that would occur with them justifies having them.

for once, i'd like a pro gun person to admit they're willing to allow more deaths that the AK would surely cause... in order to allow people to have the guns.

it's the only posistion that seems consistent/ or at least honest.