Political Crossfire Forums

[JackarooSundown]

Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote:


It is indeed an interpretation. But it is NOT what the 2nd ammendment says, and that was the argument Lucky Luke.

Sorry, but I win.

What the second amendment says is what the General Attorney stated in his memorandum and what the General Attorney says goes, goes to all Attorneys as the recommendation of the US Justice Department.

Your or mine interpretation of the second amendment are not relevant to the US courts today, Ashcroft's memorandum is.

Still you haven't showed us where I lied JackarooSundown.


I did, and thintheherd agreed. We were arguing specifically about what was written in the second ammendment, and I showed where you posted your lie. You cannot stand the fact that you are wrong, so you insist that you arent, despite the evidence I posted. ANYONE who reads this thread should agree that I won that debate, case closed LuckyLuke.

:td:
:td:

This was not my argument but the argument of the Attorney General, is Ashtcroft a liar when he writes such memorandum to all US attorneys?

JackarooSundown you can't call others liars just because they disagree with you then expect to be able to run away, you have not won any debate against the Attorney General and never will you.


YOUR ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE SECOND AMMENDMENT DICTATED WHO CAN HAVE A WEAPON. YOU MADE NO ORIGINAL MENTION OF ASHTCROFT.
The argument was over what the second ammendment said, as it was originally written. It has NOT been changed. Please, verify your source of the quote. But that has NOTHING to do with the SECOND AMMENDMENT!

And fix your spelling/grammar. Its painful.

[JackarooSundown]

founding fathers wrote:

Amendment 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.



And thats all they wrote.

[Lucky Luke]

JackarooSundown wrote:

YOUR ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE SECOND AMMENDMENT DICTATED WHO CAN HAVE A WEAPON. YOU MADE NO ORIGINAL MENTION OF ASHTCROFT.
The argument was over what the second ammendment said, as it was originally written. It has NOT been changed. Please, verify your source of the quote. But that has NOTHING to do with the SECOND AMMENDMENT!

And fix your spelling/grammar. Its painful.

No need to shout I have already told you that the argument I presented was straight from the US Department of Justice written by the Attorney General:

Lucky Luke wrote:

Quote: No, the second amendment allows for reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.

The Attorney General wrote:

Quote: The Court's opinion also makes the important point that the existence of this individual right does not mean that reasonable restrictions cannot be imposed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse. In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-8780.resp.html

Please do tell us again that Ashcroft was not talking about the second amendment.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

JackarooSundown wrote: founding fathers wrote:

Amendment 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.



And thats all they wrote.

Yes, and what they wrote has been enough to imposed gun control laws on American gun lovers ever since and to disallow many American people from owning some guns or even any guns and that from the day it was written.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: JackarooSundown wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:

Forget about calling me names, just show me where I lied JackarooSundown.

:td:
:td:


How about when you said that the Second Ammendment contains clauses that specifically dictate who is fit to own a gun?

How about showing where? Where is the lie that I wrote?


Lucky Luke wrote:
No, the second amendment allows for reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.

RIGHT HERE. :dance:

I repeat JackarooSundown, was it a lie?

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Get bigger and better guns. LL will always spout off with his stats and all. There is no major trend happening in America. It's only a little wobble at best.
The second amendment never said anything about unfit people LL. Those are laws that different states put in place.
Someone stated you live on an island LL. True, just got back from there and I can state with 100% accuracy most people that I met want to have guns back. The second amendment is about defense LL. It has nothing to do with unfit.
You like gun control so much LL. Tell that to 50 million people that have been rounded up and butchered because of liberalistic bozos that want to take away or control guns. I also like silencers LL. I also like Grenade launchers and yes I am licenses to have class 3 machine guns. Am I going to give them up for any anti-gun person or any law in this land or that will "never" get passed. NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!

You will never change law abiding people into a bunch of weak kneed soft minded people that believe in an illusinonary utopia. That's your little fantasy LL and one that you have beat into the ground. Everyone has seen and heard your stats again and again and you have gained no ground. You cannot change what is. You will never take guns or control guns here because we are Americans and we do value our right to protect ourselves and be free to own guns. I own a great deal of guns and you will be very hard pressed to get mine or convince me that I should give them up. By theway Scotland s*cks..... I went to 3 different game reservations and I found it to be interesting but not my idea of hunting. I do understand the need for it but that doesn't mean I like it.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Get bigger and better guns. LL will always spout off with his stats and all. There is no major trend happening in America. It's only a little wobble at best.
The second amendment never said anything about unfit people LL. Those are laws that different states put in place.
Someone stated you live on an island LL. True, just got back from there and I can state with 100% accuracy most people that I met want to have guns back. The second amendment is about defense LL. It has nothing to do with unfit.
You like gun control so much LL. Tell that to 50 million people that have been rounded up and butchered because of liberalistic bozos that want to take away or control guns. I also like silencers LL. I also like Grenade launchers and yes I am licenses to have class 3 machine guns. Am I going to give them up for any anti-gun person or any law in this land or that will "never" get passed. NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!

You will never change law abiding people into a bunch of weak kneed soft minded people that believe in an illusinonary utopia. That's your little fantasy LL and one that you have beat into the ground. Everyone has seen and heard your stats again and again and you have gained no ground. You cannot change what is. You will never take guns or control guns here because we are Americans and we do value our right to protect ourselves and be free to own guns. I own a great deal of guns and you will be very hard pressed to get mine or convince me that I should give them up. By theway Scotland s*cks..... I went to 3 different game reservations and I found it to be interesting but not my idea of hunting. I do understand the need for it but that doesn't mean I like it.

What an angry little gun lover you are Lilwolf, law abiding citizens have had their guns taking away from them by the Supreme Court and the US Attorney General has informed all US attorneys that the second amendment does indeed allow the courts to restrict unfit persons from possessing firearms. Where were you Lilwolf when the law abiding citizen Emerson got his guns taking away from him? What make you think that anyone will care when your turn will come?
This is what you are up against Lilwolf. I understand that you would refuse to take such interpretation of the second amendment from me but this is coming from the Attorney General and it is considered by all courts in the land as the official interpretation of the amendment.
Up to you now not to become an unfit law abiding citizen Lilwolf, good luck to you.
:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Show me the case law Luke? I'll read it and then I will answer that.

Angry? No not a bit. I just refuse to accept the fact that limp d***** people are trying to push their agenda on a people that do not want it. Do not start with stats again LL. They are worthless and you know they can be manipulated all day long.

Just give me the case law and i will read it. The actual second amendment does not mention unfit. Show me where.
The Attorney general does not have the authority to impose or interpret the law. Show me the case law Luke. There is no authority for the attorney general in my state over the constitution here. What you are refering to or attempting to is the fact that each state has laws which cover unfit as a term of law. So, the US Attorney had no authority to make that statement if he did. Show me the case law LUKe.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Show me the case law Luke? I'll read it and then I will answer that.

Angry? No not a bit. I just refuse to accept the fact that limp d***** people are trying to push their agenda on a people that do not want it. Do not start with stats again LL. They are worthless and you know they can be manipulated all day long.

Just give me the case law and i will read it. The actual second amendment does not mention unfit. Show me where.
The Attorney general does not have the authority to impose or interpret the law. Show me the case law Luke. There is no authority for the attorney general in my state over the constitution here. What you are refering to or attempting to is the fact that each state has laws which cover unfit as a term of law. So, the US Attorney had no authority to make that statement if he did. Show me the case law LUKe.

Read the thread and you'll find out. Who said that the second amendment mentioned unfit if not you Lilwolf?

This is the agenda of the US Attorney General Lilwolf, not mine!

It is laughable that after pages of links about this case and the memorandum of the Attorney General you appear Lilwolf swearing, calling people names and demanding to see what has been debated for days.

Have a nice read and calm down.
:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

No one is swearing LL, least of all me. US v. Emerson did not mention "unfit" at all. It talks about the domestic violence mostly.
You mentioned "unfit" LL in an earlier post on this thread. Your words LL not mine.
The 5th circuit courts ruling is being challenged and it will more than likely go to the supreme. That law will never make it under scrutiny. However the same ruling is applicable to people with domestic violence and I would assum violent people.
No one wants a violent person to have a gun. No one in their right mind anyway.
The attorney general has no authority to make law. He also has no authority to attempt to enforce anything that challenges the constitution and the 2nd.
No where do people like the idiots that took guns in New Orleans have the right to do what they did. They are paying for it. No one has that right.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: No one is swearing LL, least of all me. US v. Emerson did not mention "unfit" at all. It talks about the domestic violence mostly.
You mentioned "unfit" LL in an earlier post on this thread. Your words LL not mine.
The 5th circuit courts ruling is being challenged and it will more than likely go to the supreme. That law will never make it under scrutiny. However the same ruling is applicable to people with domestic violence and I would assum violent people.
No one wants a violent person to have a gun. No one in their right mind anyway.
The attorney general has no authority to make law. He also has no authority to attempt to enforce anything that challenges the constitution and the 2nd.
No where do people like the idiots that took guns in New Orleans have the right to do what they did. They are paying for it. No one has that right.

Unfit is the word used by the US Attorney General in his memorandum to all US attorneys, how many times do I have to tell you this Lilwolf?

The 5th circuit court talks about people prone to violent tendencies and it found that it would be unlawful for them "to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

These people are law abiding citizens Lilwolf, law abiding citizens found unfit to own a gun in America.

The US Attorney General has the authority and the duty to make sure that the law is upheld and to clarify the law for all on behalf of the United States of America. He therefore used his authority in this memorandum to make sure that all US attorneys are aware of the law and how it should be enforced against law abiding citizens declared unfit to own guns, in accordance with the constitution and the second amendment.

Guns were talking from law abiding citizens and the one who gave the order is still in charge.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

They are indeed law abiding citizens "UNTIL" they have been found "UNFIT" to own or possess. I have no problem with the deifnation of that. But before you can be classed as "unfit" you first have to have done something to get that label. That is reality. Also, Ashcroft has the authority to "clarify" and to make sure everything is upheld - no problem there either.
Again thoug in closing off this little argument over words here - you are still a law abiding citizen until you do something wrong to get labeled and have that restriction placed upon you. Who determines that, the laws not ashcroft or any other lawyer. These people will do what they can to make a law enforceable with gray areas and that's what makes a great deal of people nervous.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: They are indeed law abiding citizens "UNTIL" they have been found "UNFIT" to own or possess. I have no problem with the deifnation of that. But before you can be classed as "unfit" you first have to have done something to get that label. That is reality. Also, Ashcroft has the authority to "clarify" and to make sure everything is upheld - no problem there either.
Again thoug in closing off this little argument over words here - you are still a law abiding citizen until you do something wrong to get labeled and have that restriction placed upon you. Who determines that, the laws not ashcroft or any other lawyer. These people will do what they can to make a law enforceable with gray areas and that's what makes a great deal of people nervous.

You don't get it, do you? Emerson was a law abiding citizen and yet he was declared unfit to own firearms.
Emerson was and still is a law abiding citizen, did nothing wrong and got labelled unfit to own a firearm. The court did confirm that the action was right and proper and the US Attorney General did confirm to all US attorneys that the Emerson case is the one to refer to when considering restricting law abiding citizens from owning, possessing or using firearms.
This is not a grey area anymore since the US attorney General's memorandum the law is very clear, law abiding citizens can be declared unfit to own or use a firearm.
:-D
:-D

[brian_in_idaho]

Lucky Luke wrote: The highest murder rate for 7 years:

Quote: .........Murder rate
2000.........5.5
2001.........5.6
2002.........5.6
2003.........5.7
2004.........5.5
2005.........5.8

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl01a.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005preliminary/05table3.htm

Violent crimes are up 2.5% compared to last year, robberies up 4.5%, aggravated assaults up 1.9% and of course murders up a staggering 4.8%.

:-D
:-D

Me thinks I need to spend some time reloading and getting in range practice, start shooting IDPA and buy some more Hydroshocks....

[lilwolf]

Yes LL but the indictment against Emerson was dismissed and all his right were restored. That was a texas law by the way. Not that it matters ,but the courts gave him back his rights. I think I am right in that am I not?
Case closed on that issue , unless there is more to debate on Emerson.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Yes LL but the indictment against Emerson was dismissed and all his right were restored. That was a texas law by the way. Not that it matters ,but the courts gave him back his rights. I think I am right in that am I not?
Case closed on that issue , unless there is more to debate on Emerson.

Lilwolf could you please read the links provided?


Quote: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 01-8780

TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON, PETITIONER

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

...................
A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Texas indicted petitioner for possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8). The district court dismissed the indictment, holding that Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. Pet. App. 1-33. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings
........................
In any event, the court's analysis produced a result that is consistent with decisions of other courts of appeals that have upheld the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(8). Further review is therefore unwarranted.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-8780.resp.html

Case closed indeed, closed by the supreme court in 2001 Lilwolf.
:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

LL I know that and that was what I said. I told you that the original indictment was under a texas law, and then it went on to other courts and I said it was dismissed ...correct?

I also read the US Supreme courts briefs and it says the same thing ... it was dismissed.

Get real LL. There is nothing more to debate on that... There is nothing you can spin and manipulate on this one we both said the same thing only differently.
Emerson was labeled unfit because of a restraining order under Texas law. That was the law LL. He got his rights restored.
Screw Ashcroft all in all. He's as bad if not worse that Janet Reno.
So you have made your point as did I so to hell with it. On to something else LL. Unless you want to keep beating up a dead horse.... If you do, do it by yourself. Good grief :-|

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: LL I know that and that was what I said. I told you that the original indictment was under a texas law, and then it went on to other courts and I said it was dismissed ...correct?

I also read the US Supreme courts briefs and it says the same thing ... it was dismissed.

Get real LL. There is nothing more to debate on that... There is nothing you can spin and manipulate on this one we both said the same thing only differently.
Emerson was labeled unfit because of a restraining order under Texas law. That was the law LL. He got his rights restored.
Screw Ashcroft all in all. He's as bad if not worse that Janet Reno.
So you have made your point as did I so to hell with it. On to something else LL. Unless you want to keep beating up a dead horse.... If you do, do it by yourself. Good grief :-|

I'll try again Lilwolf, after it was dismissed the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, the supreme court then confirmed that Emerson should not have his rights restored as you put it.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

okay LL - I will concede on only Emerson.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: okay LL - I will concede on only Emerson.

Thank you Lilwolf, you are hard work.

:-D
:-D