Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
President Barack Hussein Obama
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BrownShark" data-source="post: 346980" data-attributes="member: 12148"><p>Big arrow, </p><p> </p><p>Maybe you should take your strong Legal interpretation to Mr. Heller and tell him you want to repesent him when he loses the case.</p><p> </p><p>From your post, you are obviously more qualified than the supreme justices who "disagree" with you.</p><p> </p><p>As I stated, most people "deliberately" look past the commas and try to create three separate meanings out of 1 continuing sentence.</p><p> </p><p>Arrow, I am sure with your extreme knowledge of law and history, you could convince the high court to accept your interpretation where a high paid lawyer failed.</p><p> </p><p>LMAO.....</p><p> </p><p>Dont worry, you can still shoot cans with your AR-15....<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>Language and interpretation is whats key here. What the founding fathers wrote over 200 years ago will be put to the test.</p><p> </p><p>But i will ask you again, maybe you will get it:</p><p> </p><p>"where do you see a STAND ALONE sentence in the 2nd amendment (<em>and by stand alone, that means connected to nothing else in a sentence</em>) where it gives an individual the right to bear anything?"</p><p> </p><p>If you respond, only respond to the question, not political rhetoric about guns or gun rights.</p><p> </p><p>Then we can move the conversation along to the next point.</p><p> </p><p>Here's a little help, I will try to break it down to 3rd grade level.</p><p> </p><p>First a link wih comma usage:</p><p><a href="http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp" target="_blank">http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp</a></p><p> </p><p>Next, your very argument is silly. First you say there are 2 rights being protected. Yet, you separate those rights by the comma, but there are three commas, that would make three seperate rights, wouldnt it??</p><p>.............................................^comma</p><p> </p><p>This was Hellers argument to the high court and it was rejected.</p><p> </p><p>Your argument is that the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED applys directly after the words THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, yet you separate these two lines from the first two lines....</p><p> </p><p>How do you reconcile this?</p><p> </p><p>Why after the last comma you connect it to THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, but separate it from A WELL REGULATED MILITIA?</p><p> </p><p>Explain this in some legal detail?</p><p> </p><p>Hellers counsel didnt have an answer for this, maybe you could provide the case breaker.</p><p> </p><p>This issue will come down to applied language at the time. (200 years ago)</p><p> </p><p>I am sure the founding fathers didnt intend for citizens to be armed with machine guns, bazookas, tanks, 50 cal. machine guns, ak 47's, hand grenades, chemical weapons,rocket launchers, shoulder fired missiles, land mines and the like since they are all considered ARMS by definition.</p><p> </p><p>And before you cancel your own argument by saying that there are some limitations to people having certain ARMS, remember this, HELLERS counsel said the same thing and had his case blow up in his face by admitting to the high court that REGULATION was necessary to control the type of ARMS people could be allowed to have.</p><p> </p><p>HELLERS counsel had to admit to the high court that the weapons I mentioned would be considered ARMS and they should NOT be allowed to be in the possession of citizens.</p><p> </p><p>This concession that regulation was a necessary evil went against HELLERS case of having the sole right to bear an ARM.</p><p> </p><p>Regulation by the state will always be the case. No where in the constitution does it specify what TYPE of ARM can be brandished by a citizen.</p><p> </p><p>This is why there needs to be regulation. You can thank HELLERS counsel for admitting this to the high court. HELLERS counsel admitted that by having people go through background checks and registration, it was an appropriate form of state regulation. </p><p> </p><p>Each state no longer needs militias to protect the state, the goverment now takes care of this. The local police forces in a state provide first line of defense for citizens. The need to have a civilian defense force with ARMS is no longer a necessity.</p><p> </p><p>In my opinion, and this opinion coming from my geographical area where there are no open areas like in the deep south, guns should be banned in big cities. No handguns, rifles or the like.</p><p>..............^comma</p><p> </p><p>In the open parts of the country I could care less if some farm boy wants to shoot birds with his AK 47, just keep them out of the big cities.</p><p> </p><p>Anyone who feels the need to have an automatic weapon in the first place has to problem to begin with.</p><p> </p><p>Sporting guns would be ok in the appropriate areas, but not in downtown Los Angeles. There are way to many homocides with guns in the big cities.</p><p> </p><p>Peace<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BrownShark, post: 346980, member: 12148"] Big arrow, Maybe you should take your strong Legal interpretation to Mr. Heller and tell him you want to repesent him when he loses the case. From your post, you are obviously more qualified than the supreme justices who "disagree" with you. As I stated, most people "deliberately" look past the commas and try to create three separate meanings out of 1 continuing sentence. Arrow, I am sure with your extreme knowledge of law and history, you could convince the high court to accept your interpretation where a high paid lawyer failed. LMAO..... Dont worry, you can still shoot cans with your AR-15....:happy-very: Language and interpretation is whats key here. What the founding fathers wrote over 200 years ago will be put to the test. But i will ask you again, maybe you will get it: "where do you see a STAND ALONE sentence in the 2nd amendment ([I]and by stand alone, that means connected to nothing else in a sentence[/I]) where it gives an individual the right to bear anything?" If you respond, only respond to the question, not political rhetoric about guns or gun rights. Then we can move the conversation along to the next point. Here's a little help, I will try to break it down to 3rd grade level. First a link wih comma usage: [URL]http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp[/URL] Next, your very argument is silly. First you say there are 2 rights being protected. Yet, you separate those rights by the comma, but there are three commas, that would make three seperate rights, wouldnt it?? .............................................^comma This was Hellers argument to the high court and it was rejected. Your argument is that the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED applys directly after the words THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, yet you separate these two lines from the first two lines.... How do you reconcile this? Why after the last comma you connect it to THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, but separate it from A WELL REGULATED MILITIA? Explain this in some legal detail? Hellers counsel didnt have an answer for this, maybe you could provide the case breaker. This issue will come down to applied language at the time. (200 years ago) I am sure the founding fathers didnt intend for citizens to be armed with machine guns, bazookas, tanks, 50 cal. machine guns, ak 47's, hand grenades, chemical weapons,rocket launchers, shoulder fired missiles, land mines and the like since they are all considered ARMS by definition. And before you cancel your own argument by saying that there are some limitations to people having certain ARMS, remember this, HELLERS counsel said the same thing and had his case blow up in his face by admitting to the high court that REGULATION was necessary to control the type of ARMS people could be allowed to have. HELLERS counsel had to admit to the high court that the weapons I mentioned would be considered ARMS and they should NOT be allowed to be in the possession of citizens. This concession that regulation was a necessary evil went against HELLERS case of having the sole right to bear an ARM. Regulation by the state will always be the case. No where in the constitution does it specify what TYPE of ARM can be brandished by a citizen. This is why there needs to be regulation. You can thank HELLERS counsel for admitting this to the high court. HELLERS counsel admitted that by having people go through background checks and registration, it was an appropriate form of state regulation. Each state no longer needs militias to protect the state, the goverment now takes care of this. The local police forces in a state provide first line of defense for citizens. The need to have a civilian defense force with ARMS is no longer a necessity. In my opinion, and this opinion coming from my geographical area where there are no open areas like in the deep south, guns should be banned in big cities. No handguns, rifles or the like. ..............^comma In the open parts of the country I could care less if some farm boy wants to shoot birds with his AK 47, just keep them out of the big cities. Anyone who feels the need to have an automatic weapon in the first place has to problem to begin with. Sporting guns would be ok in the appropriate areas, but not in downtown Los Angeles. There are way to many homocides with guns in the big cities. Peace:peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
President Barack Hussein Obama
Top