Jump to content
wdd:" By the way, over the years due to jobs I've had, I was given phyciatric evaluations and I've always been give a clear review. Can you [jimt]say as much?"
Yep. Very thorough background and psycological evaluations for Top Secret Codeword clearances for the CIA and Department of Energy.
Cutler: "I don't think any of the crap you intellectually dishonest and unbearably long-winded puffer fish believe about gun control, and I'm assuming, Jimt, that if you are as smart as you make yourself sound, neither do you.
If gun control to curb gun violence is your aim, then there's only one way to do it. Start confiscating guns and overturn the second amendment. At the very least, have the intellectual honesty to admit that that is the true aim of gun-controllers".
So we're to understand that you have no interest in curbing gun violence?
I agree with much of what you say. However, not every issue rises to the level of requiring a Constitutional Amendment. I'm strongly opposed to another Convention.
It seems to me those who claim the Constitution is not a living document, and that the words mean what they meant in 1787-1789 are trying to have in both ways in terms of the 2nd Amendment. We don't know what these smart men did or did not realize with respect to the evolution of firearms. All we know is that they knew what the firearms were that people owned in 1787, when the Constitution was drafted, and that these firearms had not changed by 1789 when the Constitution was ratified by enough states and went into effect.
The Framer's didn't have a clue about radio, television, personal computers, et.al. So does that mean we can't legislate things like copyright and patent protection and evolve the whole field of eletronic communications law? Of course not. So it seems to me that we can question what types of firearms, ammunition, and ammunition holders are and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, and we don't have to resort to a new Amendment to determine new or additional restrictions so long as the basic tenant of the Amendment continues to stand, i.e. that individuals can own firearms. That's what the Supreme Court ruled recently. They added the proviso, "...in common use." That's what the argument will be about should, by some miracle, Congress pass legislation to ban certain, now legal, firearms and restrict magazine capacities. I would expect the legislation to be challenged as to its constitutionality, and the Court will rule. If it goes my way I guess you'll scream that the justices are legislating from the bench. If it goes your way I'll scream that the justices live in a legal ivory tower, divorced from the real world.
Either way, the thought of you owning a gun, given the content of most of your posts, is very, very freightening
The NRA has strongly come out against biometric firearms, a gun that can only be fired by its legal owner. This is accomplished by placing a sensor in the grip that "reads" the shooter's finger and/or palm print. If there's a match, the safety is unlocked, if not, the gun cannot be fired.
They argued that it was too risky to rely on a computer in a gun when the shooter's life might be in danger. That's not an unreasonable concern. Ah, but the same NRA is 100% behind the sale of biometric gun safes. Such safes are widely advertised in NRA publications. They work just like a biometric firearm is proposed to work. The owner places his/her thumb on a sensor and voila, the safe opens, the gun is grabbed by it's legal owner and all is right in the world (or household).
So strongly does the NRA favor biometric safes that it even entered into a sales relationship with one manufacturer .http://www.nrastore.com/nrastore/ProductDetail.aspx?p=SA+24507-10&ct=e
So why is a biometric gun dangerous to the gunowner's safety while a biometric safe is not? I don't know. Maybe it's dah money! Ya Think!
Geoff, "There's no middle ground on gun control. If you're for it, then there's only one way to achieve it. You've got to take all the guns away."
Asinine comment, you're being deliberately obtuse. I answered your question seriously after making a little joke. Now it's your turn to answer mine. How do you determine who is or is not potentially "extremely disturbed," [your term] during a background check?
I'm skeptical that this can be done as a matter of objective fact. Therefore I'm for trying to place a limiter, of a sort, on the carnage a single individual can do in a short period of time. Newton, over 200 shots in less than five minutes. I think Aurora was in this ballpark too. In both cases I believe several large capacity magazines were used. I know this was the case at Virginia Tech, two semi-automatic pistols, several 30-bullet magazines. So I proposed doing away with semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines, defined as more than six bullets. You proposed background checks. So I asked, what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable question based on your observation that said massacres were perpetuated by extremely disturbed individuals. Is it a fair assumption on my part that you believe background checks can weed out these extremely disturbed individuals and keep them from acquiring firearms of the sort that can now be purchased legally, e.g. semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines? If so, how?
Geoff, please provide us with your wise counsel. Just how would you keep semi-automatic weapons and 20, 30, 40 bullet magazines out of the hands of the "extremely disturbed," ahead of time? For instance, should part of the background check involve ___ hours of sessions with a trained psychiatrist/psychologist who is specifically trained to identify these individuals?
9.Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
10.Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
11.Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
12.Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
13.M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
14.Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
I can do the same for speech, for privacy, for access to education, and so on. None of which are explicity cited in the Constitution (well speech is, but what exactly constituted "freedom of speech" was not explicity defined).
The Framers knew full-well that the Constitution needed to be general in nature with respect to individual rights and liberties. That's why there's judicial review and a process for amending the Cconstitution, which in and of itself, I would argue, proves that the Framers perceived the Constituion as a "living document." Ooh I think I just heard TAP just blow a gasket. Sorry TAP.
Sorry about having to go cut and paste, but it sure saves a lot of time. I used the term "basic rights," others cite them as "fundamental rights.," Here's a run-down of the Supreme Court's rulings that marriage is a basic/fundamental right under the Constitution. Beers.
"Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.
1.Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2.Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3.Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4.Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5.Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
6.Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7.Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8.Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Thanks for "outing" Jim Alley. There are quite a number of people, I'm sure, who would love to be educated about his beliefs. Perhaps we should consider doing so at his next wine tasting meeting? I can think of no better way of ruining his birthday party than showing otherwise very nice people who their "leader" really is. Kind of like finding out that Adolf wasn't such a nice guy even though he supposedly loved dogs.
So Geoff, what restrictions or changes, if any, would you make to Federal Laws pertaining to gun ownership?
I believe in the right to arm bears.
Seriously, I think some Americans should certainly be disarmed. Gang members, survivalists, "end times" oriented Christians, fundamentalists of all religious dominations who think God is telling them directly to kill "the other" to preserve the one true path, those judged likely to harbor deep seeded desires to harm others, people who believe that their ownership of firearms is the one and only thing keeping the Federal Government from putting them in concentration camps secretly already built by Homeland Security, i.e. potential sociopaths like Middleman and wdd, among others. Short of being able to disarm these individuals in a best of all worlds solution, I'd at least like to get rid of semi-automatic firearms with large capacity magazines by banning their sale in the future. Let's at least try to reduce the mayhem so it will be much, much harder to carry-out the next Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Newtown by lone gun-men.
People may WANT semi-automatic firerarms, whether they are shaped like weapons of war or simply pistols; but do they NEED semi-automatic firearms? I think our society as a whole has every right to make that judgment and I think banning semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines would be constitutional. The Supreme Court has already banned the possession of sawed-off shotguns and true automatic weapons, among other firearms banned to date. Forcing people who already own them semis' to turn them in would almost certainly NOT be constitutional. Still, if the Middlemans of the Country react by forcing an armed confrontation with police or military authorities under the mistaken impression that they do have to give up such guns that they may own and thus fulfill their promise to only "give up my gun when you pry my cold dead finger from the trigger," I say "deal."
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382