|
Post by justjohn on Jul 24, 2012 19:58:25 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jul 24, 2012 21:12:23 GMT -7
John, Switzerland does not have the lowest rate. It has actually relatively high, much higher than Poland. See the statistics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateSouth Africa has the highest, followed by Colombia, Salvador, Jamaica. The US is 12th with rate 10.27. Switzerland is 19th with the rate 6.4. Poland rate is only 0.29, Germany - 1.57, EnglandL 0.46.
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Jul 25, 2012 3:07:59 GMT -7
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I am thinking of buying a Harley. Here's a photo. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jul 25, 2012 9:48:19 GMT -7
John, you are ready for an exciting street fight I hope you have a good life insurance for your family!
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Jul 25, 2012 10:19:56 GMT -7
John, you are ready for an exciting street fight I hope you have a good life insurance for your family! That was in jest, JAGA. Hope you didn't get offended.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jul 25, 2012 11:10:23 GMT -7
That was in jest, JAGA. Hope you didn't get offended. Me? Ofended? ;D
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jul 25, 2012 14:00:33 GMT -7
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I am thinking of buying a Harley. Here's a photo. What do you think? J.J. Where on this earth were you to find some thing like that? You know,,,,,a fellow with a Harley in Germany is king....Not very quick or fast, but boy do those things roll with class! Karl
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Jul 26, 2012 4:11:27 GMT -7
John, you are ready for an exciting street fight I hope you have a good life insurance for your family! He doesn't need insurance so long as he is able to consistently fire his gun before anyone else fires at him...
|
|
|
Post by wayneprice on Jul 26, 2012 8:24:14 GMT -7
WOW!
A great, thoughtful discussion! Let me add my 7 groszy to the discussion (2 cents), and please understand that it is my opinion, based on being a lawyer and a veteran of 36 years in the Army. The ownership of firearms in the United States is a fundamental right espoused in our Constitution. Any encroachment on that right is in fact unconstitutional. For years, there have been various and sundry encroachments on that fundamental right, with the discussions revolving around "military arms". It is my belief, that it is these arms that are enshrined in the Constitution, and it the military arms that are/should be THE most protected and allowed under the 2nd Amendment. It is the "right" of the people to own military firearms specifically to be used against an over-reaching government. And please, I'm not saying we have one, I'm not advocating "man the barricades", but that is the very reason, again in my opinion that we have the 2nd amendment. Now, having said that, do I think the mentally ill should be in possession of fire arms? - HELL NO! The failure that I see isn't with the firearms policy, but with the mental health system in the US. In this latest incident in Colorado, we have what might considered a brilliant student, studying for his doctorate. Does anyone else think this kid may have been under any kind of mental strain? HELL YES! I currently teach law at a university, and I can tell you, these students are under stress. Let us look and see what can be done as far as counseling and stress coping rather than trying to achieve a political end-run by increasing so called "gun control".
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jul 26, 2012 13:00:36 GMT -7
Wayne,
all great points. Unfortunately nobody knew that this was a mentally sick kid. But if there would be any record keeping who and when buys guns maybe somebody would saw a strange sign of a kid buying so much ammunition.
Why there is NO ANY RECORD KEEPING ON PEOPLE PURCHASING MULTIPLE GUNS when in the same time I am checked down to my private areas every time I go through the airport?
Does it make a difference whether we are killed by a foreign born terrorists or by the homel-born madman?
Why I was stripped from any private belongings (and my privacy was affected) when I was coming from Poland with Ela a couple of years ago (after a shoe bomber) but then - there is NOT EVEN RECORD KEEPING who buys what gun in the name of the privacy?
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Jul 27, 2012 5:08:00 GMT -7
second amendment2
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).
These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.
The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.
Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:
"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.
Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Jul 27, 2012 9:04:11 GMT -7
second amendment2 The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That seems like nonsense. Any act passed by Congress can be repealed by Congress, under our constitution. If not, then Congress can pass acts effectively changing that Constitution, an unbelievable act in itself. The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold. I believe many presidents from Johnson through Bush II have sent the National Guard off to fight in foreign undeclared wars. Congress has abrogated its duties and the people don't care. That second sentence I do not understand, the one with CAPS on LAW. It seems an unnecessarily complicated way of stating the obvious. The lack of direct statement makes me suspect the meaning. As for Daniel Webster or any other lawyer opinion, it is just an opinion. Hire a different lawyer and he will say the opposite; that is their job, comparable to taxi drivers and prostitutes, they are hired to do as you wish.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Jul 27, 2012 9:53:10 GMT -7
Typical American car. Watch from 8.35
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jul 27, 2012 10:47:33 GMT -7
Pieter
Yes,,,I do like American cars! But wait, was that a rifle in the rear window? The driver, he had a strange accent? Perhaps the man is a Texan? The back ground music was very really nice, I liked it....
Karl
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Jul 27, 2012 11:57:17 GMT -7
They are definitely down south. The rifle in the window appears to be a lever action probably 30 caliber and maybe a Marlin.
Depending on the state you live in, rifles are allowed in the rear window.
|
|