Originally Posted by Gator

Do you see the pattern? Do you see anything about the protection of people in a Shopping Mall or anywhere else for that matter?
The loss of a mere 14 Americans in a Shopping Mall Shooting pales in comparison to the loss of the United States Constitution, as the United States Federal Government has the power to end just about all human life on Earth, and the United States Constitution is in my opinion the only thing keeping such a potentially destructive force at bay.

That is plain scary that you can so obviously believe what you just put in words.

The US Constitution is going no where. It would take an act of Congress (literally) to make small changes to it. Let alone for what you are implying to happen. Odd, perhaps that is why there are so many amendments and such in the Constitution. Perhaps because the Constitution is considered to be an always growing evolving thing that keeps up with the times that there are so many amendments?

If the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime were life in prison without chance of parole, and the penalty for shooting someone with a firearm in the commission of a crime were death I believe there would be less crime involving firearms in America.

So you support life imprisonment and the death penalty for using a weapon in the execution of a crime? You would refuse to allow the Government the right to make it illegal for a person having committed such a crime to own a firearm. (No, I won't get into the pro/cons life imprisonment/death debate.)

So basically you are saying: "Take away their life - either through imprisonment or death - but let them retain the right to own a firearm."

Arguing with logic like that . . . what can one say except

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

That is plain scary that you can so obviously believe what you just put in words.

The US Constitution is going no where. It would take an act of Congress (literally) to make small changes to it. Let alone for what you are implying to happen. Odd, perhaps that is why there are so many amendments and such in the Constitution. Perhaps because the Constitution is considered to be an always growing evolving thing that keeps up with the times that there are so many amendments?

Um there really isn't that many amendments there is a whopping 27, the most recent ones being setting the voting age to 18 and limiting congressional pay increases....HOWEVER THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS ARE THE BILL OF RIGHTS which is a little different then say amendment 18 which was appealed by amendment 21, yes prohibition....

It is plain scary that you are so naive you don't believe what he put into words....as for the rest of your post I am not even going to bother....

Originally Posted by Donkey

Um there really isn't that many amendments there is a whopping 27, the most recent ones being setting the voting age to 18 and limiting congressional pay increases....HOWEVER THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS ARE THE BILL OF RIGHTS which is a little different then say amendment 18 which was appealed by amendment 21, yes prohibition....

It is plain scary that you are so naive you don't believe what he put into words....as for the rest of your post I am not even going to bother....

Considering that the Constitution was supposed to be a standalone document I would say 27 is a very large amount. I would also venture to say that since. . .

. . . The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’ s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution . . . http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm

. . . is part of the reason why their have been no more than 27 amendments. The other part would likely be the arudous process to ratify an amendment.

As for the rest of my post, please, let us hear what you have to say. If I was not prepared to defend my opinions and statements I would not have put them up for all and sundry to see.

As for gun control and who should and should not be able to own weapons: I suggest you read and comprehend this article http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm in it's entirety then look up the cases involved in refusing to allow felons to legally purchase firearms.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Considering that the Constitution was supposed to be a standalone document I would say 27 is a very large amount. I would also venture to say that since. . .


. . . is part of the reason why their have been no more than 27 amendments. The other part would likely be the arudous process to ratify an amendment.

As for the rest of my post, please, let us hear what you have to say. If I was not prepared to defend my opinions and statements I would not have put them up for all and sundry to see.

As for gun control and who should and should not be able to own weapons: I suggest you read and comprehend this article http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm in it's entirety then look up the cases involved in refusing to allow felons to legally purchase firearms.

First the constitution was not supposed to be a stand alone document but a framework of the federal government...Furthermore many of the things you say is why certain people would not sign the constitution like oh say George Mason...

Have a little education session on the constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I would like to point out these particular sections of the above page since they do a much better job explaining it then I could....

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Furthermore the 2 Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights....have a look here
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm

As for the rest of your post....I don't really follow maybe I missed something in a prior post but last time I checked a felon could not own a firearm.....Hence anyone committing the crimes you suggest would be a felon and therefore regardless of life in prison would never be able to own a firearm legally....

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

That is plain scary that you can so obviously believe what you just put in words.

The US Constitution is going no where. It would take an act of Congress (literally) to make small changes to it. Let alone for what you are implying to happen. Odd, perhaps that is why there are so many amendments and such in the Constitution. Perhaps because the Constitution is considered to be an always growing evolving thing that keeps up with the times that there are so many amendments?



So you support life imprisonment and the death penalty for using a weapon in the execution of a crime? You would refuse to allow the Government the right to make it illegal for a person having committed such a crime to own a firearm. (No, I won't get into the pro/cons life imprisonment/death debate.)

So basically you are saying: "Take away their life - either through imprisonment or death - but let them retain the right to own a firearm."

Arguing with logic like that . . . what can one say except

And time for the reality check....

You believe that for the protection of a mere 14 Americans at a Shopping Mall that all Firearms should be taken off the Civilian Population?

It is a black and white issue.... yes or no....

As for the rest of your rant, you are sworn to defend and follow the US Constitution not to protect 14 Americans at a US Shopping Mall, I'm shocked that the USMC did not teach you that.

And....

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Considering that the Constitution was supposed to be a standalone document I would say 27 is a very large amount. I would also venture to say that since

Constitution of the United States


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Try reading the US Constitution first.

Originally Posted by Donkey

First the constitution was not supposed to be a stand alone document but a framework of the federal government...Furthermore many of the things you say is why certain people would not sign the constitution like oh say George Mason...

Have a little education session on the constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I would like to point out these particular sections of the above page since they do a much better job explaining it then I could....

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Furthermore the 2 Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights....have a look here
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm

As for the rest of your post....I don't really follow maybe I missed something in a prior post but last time I checked a felon could not own a firearm.....Hence anyone committing the crimes you suggest would be a felon and therefore regardless of life in prison would never be able to own a firearm legally....

I educate myself on an "as needed" basis but thanks for the reference to my ignorance. The links you provided are also links I had viewed when I searched for references to the Constitution. I was more interested in the Supreme Court and it's judiciary rights rather than a comprehensive look into the Constitution.

You apparently did miss what I was trying to say. Read the post I quoted then read my reply.

To clarify when I said:

That is plain scary that you can so obviously believe what you just put in words.

I was referring to:

"The loss of a mere 14 Americans in a Shopping Mall Shooting. . . "

comment made by Gator. Perhaps I was shocked by the word usage more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Note I said: "I believe that if a person is convicted of a crime with a weapon then that person has lost all rights to own a weapon. . . " That puts a different type of light on the topic than what you seem to be implying.

And I will ask again; what gives the United States Federal Government the Constitutional Authority to infringe upon a Citizens right to keep and bear Arms? You have Posted that the Federal Government has such a right in Law..... I was looking again to see if I missed something in the Constitution of the United States.

I can find where the Founding Fathers used the word Felony twice in the Constitution, so, is it your contention that they ran out of ink when in the process of writting the Second Amendment?.... or that they left the Second Amendment intentionally vague so as to allow the Federal Government some wiggle room down the road?

Amendments to the Constitution
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html
ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENTS OF, THE
Amendments to the Constitution
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As for those conviced of a crime, I can find nothing which allows the United States Federal Government the right to deny the protection of the Second Amendment in full force once said person is released, if said person still retains his or her Citizenship of course.

Originally Posted by Gator

I believe the Federal Government is restricted by law from entering into the Gun Control debate as long as the Second Amendment is in place as is, unless the Federal Government wants to go through the formal process of revoking ones citizenship to take the right to keep and bear Arms away.

Which I pointed out already.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Not sure where you see that I said anything about the Government having the actual constitutional power to deny anyone anything. But it is my understanding - though it may be wrong - that the Supreme court does have that power. The references were for your edification on the power that the Supreme court holds over all and sundry regardless or even in regards to the Constitution.

I'm well well versed in the power of the United States Supreme Court, as such power is outlined in the Constitution of the United States...

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I'll point out now that the United States Supreme Court views Abortion as a Right covered by Amendment IV dealing with the right to privacy.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

You apparently believe that there should be absolutely no infringement upon people to own or purchase firearms regardless of their history or background.

I believe what the Constitution says, I believe that the Federal Government is resrticted by law from entering into the Gun Control debate as it pertains to Citizens of the United States pursuant to the Second Amendment to the Constituton of the United States.

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm stuck on the words "shall not be infringed".

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

So tell me, a person gets out of jail on parole after killing 2 people with a handgun and wounding two others for one reason or another. Would it be wise to allow this very same person to walk down to the local gun store and allow him to legally purchase a weapon?

I believe there should be no parole for someone illegally killing 2 people with a handgun and wounding two others, and, as a matter of fact, I believe a person convicted of illegally killing 2 people with a handgun and wounding two others should be put to death for his or her crimes.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. I would rather convicted criminals be denied the right to own a firearm than read about a convicted criminal having killed someone with a firearm purchased from the local gun store.

And yet you seem in my opinion to view the needs of a mere 14 Americans as outweighing the Constitutional Rights of many millions of Americans.

As for the needs of the many and the Federal Govenment, I notice a lot of people drive Automobiles, and yet a lot of people get hurt and killed by people driving Automobiles.
I notice older people get in accidents, their vision goes, there reaction time slows, and yet I still find it legal for people over the age of 65 to drive.... just why is that?..... One can retire on Social Security by 65.... so one does not need to drive to work.

I also find it strange that someone convicted of drunk driving can still buy an Automobile, even if that same person is not allowed (for a time) to legally drive said Automobile.

I can find no right in law to operate an Automobile in the Constitution of the United States, and view legally the operation of an Automobile as a mere privilege and not a right.... why is it the Federal Government does not just force everyone to walk or take the bus or train?

As for what I would rather have, I would rather the Constitution of the United States be followed word for word.

And on the moral high ground valuing all life as important and no one as "mere" we have Marinerhodes. I agree that was a shocking statement.

. . . to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party. . .

If the Gun Control Bill/Ban/Law is not a controversy to which the United States is a party then I am not sure what is.

In rebuttal to

And I will ask again; what gives the United States Federal Government the Constitutional Authority to infringe upon a Citizens right to keep and bear Arms? You have Posted that the Federal Government has such a right in Law..... I was looking again to see if I missed something in the Constitution of the United States.

I refer you to Clasue 2 (listed in your previous post)

. . . In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. . .

and I present this argument

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit. http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm

The Judiciary Branch is part of the United States Government(Supreme Court and all), thus the you have the judiciary power of the Supreme Court to make laws that might conflict with the letter of the Constitution but is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. This spirit of the Constitution is represented in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

In closing I will ay this:

You can not literally interpret the Constitution. It was not intended to be interpreted literally. It is as much a rule book as it is guidelines to govern by.

You still have not told me why you feel it is better for a convicted felon to be killed or imprisoned for life for using a firearm rather than take away that right for a convicted felon to own one. We are talking convicted felons here. Not your every day Joe Schmoe. I am not talking about the rights of the law abiding citizen to own a firearm.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

If the Gun Control Bill/Ban/Law is not a controversy to which the United States is a party then I am not sure what is.

In rebuttal to


I refer you to Clasue 2 (listed in your previous post)


and I present this argument



The Judiciary Branch is part of the United States Government(Supreme Court and all), thus the you have the judiciary power of the Supreme Court to make laws that might conflict with the letter of the Constitution but is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. This spirit of the Constitution is represented in the preamble:



In closing I will ay this:

You can not literally interpret the Constitution. It was not intended to be interpreted literally. It is as much a rule book as it is guidelines to govern by.

You still have not told me why you feel it is better for a convicted felon to be killed or imprisoned for life for using a firearm rather than take away that right for a convicted felon to own one. We are talking convicted felons here. Not your every day Joe Schmoe. I am not talking about the rights of the law abiding citizen to own a firearm.

That you view Firearm ownership by the Civilian population of the United States of America as a privilege extended by the Federal Government and not a Right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States is, once again, all I was after.