Buzz and bullets: Gun fans cheer Starbucks' policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch... obamas supreme court nominee

Pzoneue,
You drone on about article, section, paragraph, and clause. Why? It is not unconstitutional to ban felons from havimg guns. It is against the law for felons to have guns and you blather about constitutional law -not saying something.
You are in a rut and try to justify your reasoning with something that is not there.
The constitution does not address abortion, yet abortion is legal. How can that be? Duh.
States laws regulate what is not specifically addressed in the constitution, such as felons banned from having guns.
Is it unconstitutional? No. It has been tried in court and the state can regulate and restrict felons from carrying guns.
Your argument is baseless and you keep trying to twist the constitution to say what you want it to say.
But it doesn't.
And your slavery innuendo is pure stupidity and to align a felon with a gun law is an affront to those that died to end slavery.
You are grasping for something, anything, that you can manipulate to try to prove your redundant statements.
If you so believe in what you write, why not try a case in court?
Or do you just run at the mouth and hopw nop one can see your ignorance?
I guess you have already answered that question.

Ocean View wrote:

<quoted text>
The Tenth Amendment addresses the authority of the states and the people to regulate all other circumstances not reserved to the federal government.

In general that's an accurate statement. However, it neglects to remark that the states are NOT given carte blanche authority to dissemble at will and make all manner of laws inimical of individual liberty.

I seek to remind you of U.S. Constitution Article IV, Sections 2 & 4:
~~~~~~~~~~
Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
~~~~~~~~~~
Taken together, the states are NOT allowed powers to remove rights in a capricious fashion.

Further, their powers are limited to necessity only.

Finally, by dint of the 14th Article of Amendment, they —the states— must abide by the Bill of Rights fully.

Any matter of regulation then, must fall into that area known as 'municipal authority' which deals directly with rules and regulations, but none of those —in the strictly constitutional sense— has the power to deprive rights without due process.

Finally, the Tenth Article of Amendment was primarily meant as a limit upon the power of the United States to influence purely state and private matters of the citizens. That is the reason for '... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

truthful 1 wrote:

Pzoneue,
You drone on about article, section, paragraph, and clause. Why? It is not unconstitutional to ban felons from havimg guns. It is against the law for felons to have guns and you blather about constitutional law -not saying something.
You are in a rut and try to justify your reasoning with something that is not there.
The constitution does not address abortion, yet abortion is legal. How can that be? Duh.
States laws regulate what is not specifically addressed in the constitution, such as felons banned from having guns.
Is it unconstitutional? No. It has been tried in court and the state can regulate and restrict felons from carrying guns.
Your argument is baseless and you keep trying to twist the constitution to say what you want it to say.
But it doesn't.
And your slavery innuendo is pure stupidity and to align a felon with a gun law is an affront to those that died to end slavery.
You are grasping for something, anything, that you can manipulate to try to prove your redundant statements.
If you so believe in what you write, why not try a case in court?
Or do you just run at the mouth and hopw nop one can see your ignorance?
I guess you have already answered that question.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

Once again: WHERE in the U.S. Constitution —Article, Section, Paragraph/Clause— is there ANY enumerated power to regulate the exercise of individual rights?

AND, WHERE in either the 2nd, 14th Articles of Amendment is the word/term 'felon' mentioned?

ADDITIONALLY, WHERE in the 14th Article of Amendment is there the enumerated authority for the Congress to create a two-class society, where some people have rights, and others do not?

You'll be getting back on those issues, won't you?

Real soon now?

Pzoneue,
Wow. Are you stuck on stupid?
Read real S L O W L Y.
States regulate felons and restricts them from having a gun.
The US constitution have given states that right.
A felon loses his right to carry a gun when he commits a felony, state law.
Nothimg there about a two class society.
Nothing there about slavery.
A just law that prevents felons from having firearms.
Easy.
So simple a P-zon ue can do it.
You seem to deny the fact that your opinion is wrong. Sorry but it is.
Your continued blather is meaningless and moot.
No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it will not change the fact that felons are not permitted, by law, to have a gun.
That is the point. Why you must prove your ineptness on that point is staggering.
Your attempt to interpet the law fails miserbly and you fail each time you try to do so.
There ought to be a law...get it?

truthful 1 wrote:

Pzoneue,
Wow. Are you stuck on stupid?
Read real S L O W L Y.
States regulate felons and restricts them from having a gun.
The US constitution have given states that right.
A felon loses his right to carry a gun when he commits a felony, state law.
Nothimg there about a two class society.
Nothing there about slavery.
A just law that prevents felons from having firearms.
Easy.
So simple a P-zon ue can do it.
You seem to deny the fact that your opinion is wrong. Sorry but it is.
Your continued blather is meaningless and moot.
No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it will not change the fact that felons are not permitted, by law, to have a gun.
That is the point. Why you must prove your ineptness on that point is staggering.
Your attempt to interpet the law fails miserbly and you fail each time you try to do so.
There ought to be a law...get it?

At ANY time someone remarks 'there ought to be a law,' they should have the snot slapped out of them!

NOW, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

Once again: WHERE in the U.S. Constitution —Article, Section, Paragraph/Clause— is there ANY enumerated power to regulate the exercise of individual rights?

AND, WHERE in either the 2nd, 14th Articles of Amendment is the word/term 'felon' mentioned?

ADDITIONALLY, WHERE in the 14th Article of Amendment is there the enumerated authority for the Congress to create a two-class society, where some people have rights, and others do not?

You'll be getting back on those issues, won't you?

Real soon now?

truthful 1 wrote:

Pzoneue,
Wow. Are you stuck on stupid?
Read real S L O W L Y.
States regulate felons and restricts them from having a gun.
The US constitution have given states that right.
A felon loses his right to carry a gun when he commits a felony, state law.
Nothimg there about a two class society.
Nothing there about slavery.
A just law that prevents felons from having firearms.
Easy.
So simple a P-zon ue can do it.
You seem to deny the fact that your opinion is wrong. Sorry but it is.
Your continued blather is meaningless and moot.
No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it will not change the fact that felons are not permitted, by law, to have a gun.
That is the point. Why you must prove your ineptness on that point is staggering.
Your attempt to interpet the law fails miserbly and you fail each time you try to do so.
There ought to be a law...get it?

What about unconvicted felons like you ?

ToryII,
What about unconvicted felons like me?
What is your question?

truthful 1 wrote:

ToryII,
What about unconvicted felons like me?
What is your question?

What's the question?

How about the ones you've obstinately refused to address:

Once again: WHERE in the U.S. Constitution —Article, Section, Paragraph/Clause— is there ANY enumerated power to regulate the exercise of individual rights?

AND, WHERE in either the 2nd, 14th Articles of Amendment is the word/term 'felon' mentioned?

ADDITIONALLY, WHERE in the 14th Article of Amendment is there the enumerated authority for the Congress to create a two-class society, where some people have rights, and others do not?

You'll be getting back on those issues, won't you?

Real soon now?

truthful 1 wrote:

Magister,
affirmative defense is an infrequent if not rare circumstance. The law states that felons cannot have a gun.

Actually, the law doesn't state, "that felons cannot have a gun". "Guns" are used on naval ships and to manufacture Puffed Wheat http://www.vaughnmonroesociety.org/resume/ADq...

tnutts wrote:

<quoted text>Why aren't non-violent criminals allowed to own weapons then?

I don't know. Over the years convicted felons have lost a number of rights, and most courts have ruled this is not in violation of the constitution. There's a lot of established case law, and certainly no shortage of arguments pro and con in this area.

FWIW even in the most liberal (in the classical sense) shall issue states for concealed carry permits there are a number of things that would cause any permit holder to have his permit revoked:

- Physical infirmity that renders handling of firearm unsafe
- Felony conviction
- Found guilty of any drug crime
- Committed as substance abuser
- Three convictions within 12 months for disorderly intoxication
- Two DUI convictions within three years
- Adjudicated as an incapacitated person
- Committed to a mental institution
- Chronic user of alcohol or other substances
- Convicted of using firearm while unde the influence
- Convicted of any crime of domestic violence even misdemeanor

The above are just examples. Perhaps this is the modern interpretation of "well-regulated". This is a subject for lawyers to argue.

P_Zon-ue wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that is emphatically untrue!
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution?
Here, just for you:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ar...
~~~~~~~~~~
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph/Clause (8)—
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
~~~~~~~~~~
Since the Founders didn't expect science and technology to 'stand still,' then neither did include any statement to that effect when the Second Article of Amendment was composed, as otherwise the Amendment in question would have included a statement to that effect.
Now, tell us: What about that device you employed to compose your post prior to sending out on the Internet?
Back in the Founder's day, the most technologically advance machine for propagation of ideas was the moveable type printing press.
When will you resort to using only a quill pen and paper, as according to yourself, those were the only things 'intended' at the time of the Founders.
You'll be getting back on that matter, won't you?
Additional matter: Since the U.S. Constitution is a document of POWERS which LIMIT the government to that which is allowed only, and since INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are NOT MENTIONED AT ALL, then your statement falls flat on just that aspect alone.
The Founders had NO THOUGHT to limit the rights of the People, and as much is abundantly clear by the Bill of Rights.

Actually, during the founder's day great technological advances were being made. The one very notable advance was the Pennsylvania rifle , first developed in Germany and refined to use on the frontier, extending the range of accurate fire thus changing the nature of warfare in the colonies. We had it and the British army still was using smooth bore muskets. Ben Franklin , invented specticals, a stove that replaced fireplace cooking, and many other inventions still in use today. Canning was invented and used to supply European armies with rations that would not spoil . small pox vaccinations were used in the early colonies. Krupp steel cannon were first purchased by the first congress , extending the range of artillery fire beyond the range of brass cannon. The founding fathers were very forward looking intelligent people. They foresaw a lot more that the crop of politicians we have today who can not see past the next election cycle.

travis wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know. Over the years convicted felons have lost a number of rights, and most courts have ruled this is not in violation of the constitution. There's a lot of established case law, and certainly no shortage of arguments pro and con in this area.
FWIW even in the most liberal (in the classical sense) shall issue states for concealed carry permits there are a number of things that would cause any permit holder to have his permit revoked:
- Physical infirmity that renders handling of firearm unsafe
- Felony conviction
- Found guilty of any drug crime
- Committed as substance abuser
- Three convictions within 12 months for disorderly intoxication
- Two DUI convictions within three years
- Adjudicated as an incapacitated person
- Committed to a mental institution
- Chronic user of alcohol or other substances
- Convicted of using firearm while unde the influence
- Convicted of any crime of domestic violence even misdemeanor
The above are just examples. Perhaps this is the modern interpretation of "well-regulated". This is a subject for lawyers to argue.

These laws are unfair.I will give them the using the firearm while intoxicated and the domestic violence because they are dangerous people but the others,they are just people who drink or do drugs.As long as they hide the guns while intoxicated,they pose no threat to society.

P Zon eu,
Sorry you are so repetative, it must be mind numbing.
You have answered your own question but you fail to unsedstand the law.
Instead of admitting that ther is nothing you can do about it, you stutter with evasion.
The law in its present form does not allow felons to carry, own or be near a gun,
No article, clause or paragraph is gfoing to change the law without an amendment.
That is where you get stuck.
It won't happen and you can't handle it. Just reapeat yourself over and over and hope no one will see the ignorance in it. That didn't work.
You can cry and whine and repeat all you like but it has no effect on the law.
Felons cannot have a gun
End of story.

P zone,,
Simple truth,,,
"Felons cannot have a gun,,,,,
Your re-hashing of the constitutional laws does not change that simple point.

Tedro wrote:

<quoted text>
Constitutional rights! Go ahead, carry a matchlock gun or musket. That's what the authors of the Constitution had in mind.

This is an old, tired argument. You fn dipshit.

truthful 1 wrote:

P Zon eu,
Sorry you are so repetative, it must be mind numbing.
You have answered your own question but you fail to unsedstand the law.
Instead of admitting that ther is nothing you can do about it, you stutter with evasion.
The law in its present form does not allow felons to carry, own or be near a gun,
No article, clause or paragraph is gfoing to change the law without an amendment.
That is where you get stuck.
It won't happen and you can't handle it. Just reapeat yourself over and over and hope no one will see the ignorance in it. That didn't work.
You can cry and whine and repeat all you like but it has no effect on the law.
Felons cannot have a gun
End of story.

The ignorance is all your's. Just answer the questions - Where is the Constitutional authority for any state power to remove rights indefinitely? There is none. This is usurpation of individual liberties & rights. Simple.

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>What about unconvicted felons like you ?

What about undiagnosed/uncommitted insane people like you?

"a well-regulated militia being necessary .... etc ... " So tell me, why was that wording necessary if the founders intended that there be absolutely no regulation of firearms?

Anne wrote:

"a well-regulated militia being necessary .... etc ... " So tell me, why was that wording necessary if the founders intended that there be absolutely no regulation of firearms?

The words - "well regulated" (as in drilled, prepared, equipped) apply to the militia not firearms or the "people".