Colorado Shooting Rekindles Gun Control Debate

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Please show us where my definition is at odds with the Founding Fathers.

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>English common law.

Judged:

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>" The interesting question for historians is what happened when legislatures enacted laws that severely limited the right to own and use weapons intended primarily for self-defense. During the Jacksonian era, this is precisely what happened as states reacted to a widespread perception that handguns and bowie knives posed a serious threat to social stability. Legislatures acted on this perception by passing the first comprehensive laws prohibiting handguns and other concealed weapons.6 Most of the legal challenges to these gun/knife control statutes were dismissed by the courts, including the case Churchill uses as one of the anchors for his argument, Aymette v. State. According to Churchill, Aymette "found within the constitutional right to keep and bear arms an individual citizen's right to own guns, grounded in an American rejection of English precedent." Once again, Churchill's thesis rests on a misreading of the evidence. Aymette's distinction between a right to keep and bear arms only referred to military-style weapons needed for militia service. The court rejected the argument that non-military weapons had any claim to constitutional protection. Churchill's summary of the court's ruling ignores the crucial passage in the court's decision that clearly establishes that the right to keep arms referred to militia-style weapons, not pistols, bowie knives, or other weapons intended primarily for individual self-defense. The court did not mince words when it came to asserting this vital distinction.

The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.7"

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lh...

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
You want to apply English Comman Law to the other rights as well? If not, don't bring it up.
A 10 year old is a US citizen. There is only one right where an age is mentioned.
And if you want to go down that right. Change the 10 year old to an 18 year old senior in HS. Or an 18 year old 8th grader that has failed several grades.

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
You want to apply English Comman Law to the other rights as well?

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
First, I would not have to show anything about what the founding fathers said or did about concealed carry, I would only have to show that the founding fathers allowed laws pertaining to arms.
Second, the same thing applies to SCOTUS. What about the 18" ruling on shotguns?
The claim is "ANY" law is an infringement, say one that makes it illegal for a 10-year old to openly carry in his classroom at school, not a specific law.

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
" The interesting question for historians is what happened when legislatures enacted laws that severely limited the right to own and use weapons intended primarily for self-defense. During the Jacksonian era, this is precisely what happened as states reacted to a widespread perception that handguns and bowie knives posed a serious threat to social stability. Legislatures acted on this perception by passing the first comprehensive laws prohibiting handguns and other concealed weapons.6 Most of the legal challenges to these gun/knife control statutes were dismissed by the courts, including the case Churchill uses as one of the anchors for his argument, Aymette v. State. According to Churchill, Aymette "found within the constitutional right to keep and bear arms an individual citizen's right to own guns, grounded in an American rejection of English precedent." Once again, Churchill's thesis rests on a misreading of the evidence. Aymette's distinction between a right to keep and bear arms only referred to military-style weapons needed for militia service. The court rejected the argument that non-military weapons had any claim to constitutional protection. Churchill's summary of the court's ruling ignores the crucial passage in the court's decision that clearly establishes that the right to keep arms referred to militia-style weapons, not pistols, bowie knives, or other weapons intended primarily for individual self-defense. The court did not mince words when it came to asserting this vital distinction.
The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.7"
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lh...

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
A 10 - year old citizen has a right to carry in school, right? Or are you infringing his right?
The right to vote starts at 18. The Constitution says so. Where is there an age mentioned for the right to bear arms?

Judged:

1

1

1

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>What do you think was the basis for the Constitution or where the Castle Doctrine came from?

Judged:

1

1

1

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, show laws which would support your position on carriage method during the times of the founders. I’ll accept that despite the fact you stated “Based on things our founding fathers said”
How exactly does the 18” rule on shotguns apply? That law is also foolish.
You continue to make claims about the founding fathers and SCOTUS, you’ve not delivered a shred of proof to support your claims.

Judged:

1

1

1

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the details.
Commonwealth v. Selfridge 1894 - http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/15...
Your author comes to an incorrect conclusion on the case. The reality of this case was the right to self-defense using a firearm is indeed protected.
Aymette v. State – careful here this isn’t a SCOTUS case. Here’s more details on that case http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.ht...
Prior to the fourteenth amendment the US Constitution was a burden on the federal government. It wasn’t until the more recent McDonald case did we manage to force the second amendment on the states. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521
Nice try though.

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>You want to apply English Comman Law to the other rights as well? If not, don't bring it up.

A 10 year old is a US citizen. There is only one right where an age is mentioned.

And if you want to go down that right. Change the 10 year old to an 18 year old senior in HS. Or an 18 year old 8th grader that has failed several grades.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
I realize you probably don't understand parenting. I contend that the Founding Fathers knew and understood parenting.
The problem today stems from what you want more of. Government taking over as the parent instead of the parent being the parent is the problem.
Because of that, our children would probably be safer carrying a weapon to school. Without the government playing mommy, that wouldn't even be a topic for discussion.

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>I suppose have some data to back up your contention that 10 year olds are safer when they carry a loaded gun to school.

Now had you said that those that survive school would be safer as adults.......

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
I love the way you request data on subjects there can be no data on.
Since students are not allowed to carry at school we will never know.
But I'm willing to bet the dead and injured from the numerous school shootings, that weren't prevented by guns being banned in schools btw, would have gladly taken a gun in hand to defend themselves right before being shot.

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>Interesting, I am willing to bet there would be more dead and injured if carry was permitted in schools.

Either they are too young to understand the implications of their actions or they are a little older with hormones and perceptions of self interferring in their decision making process.

College kids at keg parties with someone coming on to someone elses girlfriend or even boyfriend comes to mind.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol, re-read my posts.
That's where parenting comes into play. Something that has been put off on or relinquished to the government to be done for us, unfortunately.
I simply pointed out that schools being a gun free zone did nothing to prevent Columbine, VA Tech,...
You often point out that voting is the only thing with an age assigned in our Constitution/Bill Of Rights. I suggest that since We The People are the ones addressed and the ones voting, the people mentioned in the second amendment are of voting age.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol, re-read my posts.
That's where parenting comes into play. Something that has been put off on or relinquished to the government to be done for us, unfortunately.
I simply pointed out that schools being a gun free zone did nothing to prevent Columbine, VA Tech,...
You often point out that voting is the only thing with an age assigned in our Constitution/Bill Of Rights. I suggest that since We The People are the ones addressed and the ones voting, the people mentioned in the second amendment are of voting age.

Judged:

2

2

2

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>And yet, we still have kids bringing guns to school all during the school year. Where is the parenting?

We also have parents leaving their kids in hot cars in the summer, where is parenting?

You are welcome to suggest what you would like, but a 10 year old is a citizen and they even have a right to free speech, a right to feel secure in their homes,......So why would they not have a right to bear arms?