NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut Convicted of Murder

[WinterBorn]

... No, the 2nd Amendment was written to allow the population to be armed. It is as relevant today as ever. ...

No. The Second Amendment guarantees civilian control of the military.

No, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizen's right to bear arms. And the SCOTUS has agreed with that consistently.

 

[Joe Steel]

No. The Second Amendment guarantees civilian control of the military.

No, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizen's right to bear arms. And the SCOTUS has agreed with that consistently.

First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution. Secondly, it's a clown show. No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation. They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. The Second Amendment guarantees civilian control of the military.

No, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizen's right to bear arms. And the SCOTUS has agreed with that consistently.

First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution. Secondly, it's a clown show. No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation. They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.

But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of given laws. And those rulings have consistently ruled that it is an individual right.

 

[Joe Steel]

First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution. Secondly, it's a clown show. No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation. They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.

But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of given laws. And those rulings have consistently ruled that it is an individual right.

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution. Secondly, it's a clown show. No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation. They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.

But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of given laws. And those rulings have consistently ruled that it is an individual right.

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

 

[Joe Steel]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

 

[turtledude]

[
suicides are not a criminal issue

I don't feel unsafe because the dude down the road ate a revolver after being told he has ALS or his entire family was wiped out in the world trade center bombing

It's not about you, dude. It's about the 32,000 gun deaths we have every year because we let people have guns who just plain shouldn't have them.

and morons like you are unable to come up with a sensible way of preventing that

 

[turtledude]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

if the right only applied to militia members, Miller would have lost on standing.

Your understanding of constitutional law is as piss poor as your support for freedom in america

 

[turtledude]

Funny that you bring his name up so many times. Brown had actually committed crimes and been convicted of violent crimes. Yet you defend him. Weaver had not been convicted of anything and had lived an honest life, but you celebrate the slaughter of his son and wife. You are a sick fuck.

Um, Brown had never been convicted of a violent crime.

Official Michael Brown had no felony conviction as juvenile

A juvenile court official said Wednesday that Ferguson Police shooting victim Michael Brown was never convicted of a serious felony such as first-degree murder or second-degree murder. The information came out in St. Louis County Circuit Court as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and GotNews.com petitioned to have Brown's juvenile record made public, if it existed.

The Nazis did kill a federal agent.

are you a closet nazi? seems to be so

Nazis were gun banners

You are a gun banner

Nazis used men with guns to kill people who Nazis disliked

You support men with guns killing people you don't like

 

[WinterBorn]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

No, the framers were clear in their intent, at least those who wrote about it in other papers. They wanted the population to have the means to defend the country against foreign armies or our own gov't. The idea that the population is armed makes the freedoms much more difficult to take away.

 

[Impenitent]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

No, the framers were clear in their intent, at least those who wrote about it in other papers. They wanted the population to have the means to defend the country against foreign armies or our own gov't. The idea that the population is armed makes the freedoms much more difficult to take away.

The 2nd Amendment wording was an acquiescence to the slave states to allow slave posses. They existed with constitutional guarantee. You'll see the same sort of thing in the Confederate constitution. It is even more specific that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for militias.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution. Secondly, it's a clown show. No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation. They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.

You claimed that "NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut Convicted of Murder" which means you are a fucking liar, since Dowlut was in fact NOT convicted. Given that you are indeed a fucking liar, then one cannot view you as reasonable - lying is not reasonable in discussion. Ergo, you have no authority to comment on what a "reasonable person" would or would not do.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

No, the framers were clear in their intent, at least those who wrote about it in other papers. They wanted the population to have the means to defend the country against foreign armies or our own gov't. The idea that the population is armed makes the freedoms much more difficult to take away.

The 2nd Amendment wording was an acquiescence to the slave states to allow slave posses. They existed with constitutional guarantee. You'll see the same sort of thing in the Confederate constitution. It is even more specific that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for militias.

No, the constitution recognizes that a citizen militia is necessary, and allows for the citizens to bear arms.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Yes, murdering a marshal is a capital offense. But Sammy Weaver and Vicki Weaver did not murder anyone. Yet you celebrate their deaths because of their beliefs.

No, the senate did not convict him of either crime. But the point is that you claimed they tried to impeach Clinton because of a blowjob. That the questions should not have been asked or whether he was convicted or not does not change the fact that you lied about why they tried to impeach Clinton. The charges were perjury and obstruction, not getting a blowjob, as you claimed.

Impeached for a blow-job. Sorry. Deal with it. You wingnuts got so obsessed with this man's sex life you couldn't see straight.

[
I am not crying about you wanting to take away my rights. I am simply arguing your ridiculous points.

I think your celebration of the murder of two people because of their beliefs is sick. Not crying, just calling you a sick fucker.

Yeah, I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead Nazis... the only good kind of Nazi.

[
And the study you refuse to accept was not done or funded by the NRA. That you deny that at least 100,000 crimes are stopped annually by civilians with guns does not make the facts any less true. And I am not crying, I am mocking you.

Unhinged? lmao That you can make that accusation without any shred of evidence shows it is simply another lie. Keep lying. It makes your argument look even worse.

Guy, you are definitely unhinged....

But, no, 100,000 DGU's would mean everyone would know someone who did it.

 

[ChrisL]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

No, the framers were clear in their intent, at least those who wrote about it in other papers. They wanted the population to have the means to defend the country against foreign armies or our own gov't. The idea that the population is armed makes the freedoms much more difficult to take away.

Yes, I was going to bring that up too. There are MANY accompanying documents, some of them the founders personal papers, which clearly denote the exact intent of the founders when it comes to the 2nd amendment, and that is that they wanted the citizenry to be armed and ready to go at a moment's notice. They also wanted the citizens to have protection against a tyrannical government.

The people on this thread are lying about the intent of the framers of the constitution. It is quite obvious by reading accompanying documents that the intent was for Americans to be armed.

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

VI. Conclusion
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a freestate, just as it says.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Whether a report was filed or not does not change the facts of what Brown did.

Did Sammy Weaver know it was federal agents that shot his dog and fired at him? I mean, before he was shot in the back while running away? The feds had nightvision gear, but the murdered 14 year old boy did not.

1) The Marshals identified themselves.
2) It wasn't like he didn't know who was after him.
3) Do we know this happened at night?

 

[JoeB131]

[
suicides are not a criminal issue

I don't feel unsafe because the dude down the road ate a revolver after being told he has ALS or his entire family was wiped out in the world trade center bombing

It's not about you, dude. It's about the 32,000 gun deaths we have every year because we let people have guns who just plain shouldn't have them.

and morons like you are unable to come up with a sensible way of preventing that

Uh, yeah. We have a sensible way. Strict licensing and gun control. HOld gun sellers criminally liable.

 

[WinterBorn]

[
Yes, murdering a marshal is a capital offense. But Sammy Weaver and Vicki Weaver did not murder anyone. Yet you celebrate their deaths because of their beliefs.

No, the senate did not convict him of either crime. But the point is that you claimed they tried to impeach Clinton because of a blowjob. That the questions should not have been asked or whether he was convicted or not does not change the fact that you lied about why they tried to impeach Clinton. The charges were perjury and obstruction, not getting a blowjob, as you claimed.

Impeached for a blow-job. Sorry. Deal with it. You wingnuts got so obsessed with this man's sex life you couldn't see straight.

[
I am not crying about you wanting to take away my rights. I am simply arguing your ridiculous points.

I think your celebration of the murder of two people because of their beliefs is sick. Not crying, just calling you a sick fucker.

Yeah, I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead Nazis... the only good kind of Nazi.

[
And the study you refuse to accept was not done or funded by the NRA. That you deny that at least 100,000 crimes are stopped annually by civilians with guns does not make the facts any less true. And I am not crying, I am mocking you.

Unhinged? lmao That you can make that accusation without any shred of evidence shows it is simply another lie. Keep lying. It makes your argument look even worse.

Guy, you are definitely unhinged....

But, no, 100,000 DGU's would mean everyone would know someone who did it.

The impeachment was on specific charges. No mention of a blowjob at all.

And I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead thugs or union thugs.

100,000 DGUs would mean 1 person in every 3,139. I know two personally, and am one myself. You probably know one as well. They just don't want to hear your lies, so they avoid the topic.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Whether a report was filed or not does not change the facts of what Brown did.

Did Sammy Weaver know it was federal agents that shot his dog and fired at him? I mean, before he was shot in the back while running away? The feds had nightvision gear, but the murdered 14 year old boy did not.

1) The Marshals identified themselves.
2) It wasn't like he didn't know who was after him.
3) Do we know this happened at night?

1) They identified themselves to Randy Weaver. The stories differ as to whether they did to Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris. It is known that their camo clothing had no badges or other markings identifying them as federal agents.
2) No one was after Sammy Weaver. And this was the first incursion by the feds.

 

[WinterBorn]

[
suicides are not a criminal issue

I don't feel unsafe because the dude down the road ate a revolver after being told he has ALS or his entire family was wiped out in the world trade center bombing

It's not about you, dude. It's about the 32,000 gun deaths we have every year because we let people have guns who just plain shouldn't have them.

and morons like you are unable to come up with a sensible way of preventing that

Uh, yeah. We have a sensible way. Strict licensing and gun control. HOld gun sellers criminally liable.

How about we hold the violent criminals liable and keep them in prison?

And I am fine with holding gun sellers criminally liable, as long as you do the same for any other type of commerce. You know, like holding Ford Motor Company liable for how their products are used? If the gun seller breaks the law, burn him. If he doesn't, then he is not liable. The person responsible is the person committing the crime.