 |
|
It is thought he had been arrested earlier in the day over another stabbing. A 45-year-old railway worker was treated in hospital for a stab wound to his arm after challenging a man for trespassing at Leeds station on Sunday morning, British Transport Police said.
Mrs Regan set up a Leeds branch of Mothers Against Guns after her son Danny, 25, was shot at his home in Haydock, near St Helens, Merseyside in December 2002. His killer has not been found. She had met government officials to discuss how to tackle the problems of guns and gang-related crime. Dee Edwards, co-founder of campaign group Mothers Against Murder and Manslaughter, said Mrs Regan would visit schools and give talks about the dangers and consequences of getting involved in crime. She said: “She made such a big difference to so many people’s lives. This is an absolute tragedy for so many people.” Mrs Edwards said she had known Mrs Regan for about six years and described her as the “most incredible woman”.
“It’s just the most dreadful news for everyone. She’s just an amazing woman,” she added.
I have noticed in the British press lately quite a few murders by stabbing, as well as a proposal for a ban on kitchen knives.
>>I ask, who are the militia? They consist of
>>now of the whole people, except a few public
>>officers.
I’m with ya on the militia thing, Lester.
#30–Mustard, heh, heh, heh!! Since you may not have taken the time, the last line of your post #17 says: “We report. You decide.”
Not confusing to me for my response to say “I’ll decide.” but that sends you into a catatonic state of avoidance because of the complexity?????
Indeed, maybe you should sleep it off. Leave discussion blogs for those who wish to discuss.
[Bobbo | /dev/null]
#29–Lew==I used to think the preamble did limit gun ownership until I read ((ON THIS BLOG!!)) the ladder analogy. Paraphrased–“In order to prevent fires and form a fire militia, the right of the people to own ladders shall not be infrigged.”
While still restricted by necessity as to lethality, I do think “the consitution” raises legitimate issues regarding gun bans. Now, the 2 Amend was written when guns were less lethal today. Single shot musket loaders and the burden of gun inspired crime was not screamingly outrageous as it is today. I would think the argument for constitutional protection could be defeated by this change in reality. Either by interpretation, or by amendment.
>>Lew==
The guy’s name is “Les”, Bobbo.
As to the rest of your post, I have only one thing to say: WHAT THE FUCK??? That looks like something that’s been run through BabelFish a few too many times.
As a strict constitutionalist, I hate to see anything changed by “interpretation”. If we allow this, we have no constitution, we have what some judge says we have. The framers gave us a way to change it, the amendment process. It the constitution is amended, then that will be the new law of the land. Until then, the constitution means what the framers meant when they wrote it.
#35–Mustard, I probably should take your call for help and not respond to you, “BUT” it is quite one thing to not understand your own posts and repeatedly respond with the notion that I am so confused you cannot respond any further, and from that retarded position to start posting the same thing in response to other peoples’ posts???
Hang in their Mustard, I called 911 for you, the ambulance is on the way.
Les/Lew–I blame my typing.
#36–Les, I agree completely. Did the framers of the Consitution mean for the militia to have flame throwers, tanks, nuclear bombs? If not, then why six shooters? What is the logical/historical distinction?
[Bobbo | /dev/null]
As indicated.
#38,
my (obviously biased) study on this subject leads me to believe that the framers intended for the militia to have what “arms” (also a historicly defined term) the normal soldier could carry (bear). That today would include flame throwers, but does not protect the other items you listed.
The Miller ruling in 1939 found that Millers sawed off shotgun did not have any militia utility, and was therefore not protected.
FWIW, would the first amendment therefore only cover quill pens and Gutenberg presses?
#40–Les==quite rational. Thanks. But you are interpreting and assuming right off the bat. Unavoidable actually–for any position.
So, on your terms==should flame throwers, grenades, and shoulder fired missles be constitutionally protected or not?
The analogy to quill pens is quite appropriate and is hotly debated whenever words lead to the killing of people. In that analysis, the benefits of freedom of speech weigh very heavily as pen, quill, and video-cam are the very stuff of freedom. Guns are used exclusively to kill people–seems like another argument against them rather than in their favor.
#41. booboo- didnt HITLER implement gun control…..and that went well. HITLER…discussion over.
So, on your terms==should flame throwers, grenades, and shoulder fired missiles be constitutionally protected or not?
Yes, all protected.
Guns are used exclusively to kill people
Damn, my guns must be defective. I fire thousands of rounds every year, and they have never killed anyone.
After countless social experiments, eventually it will be discovered that land-owners tend to use guns for self-defense and non-land-owners (the educated, the mature, employed people) tend to use guns for crime (the young, the poor, the uneducated, unemployed).
Rich vs. poor.
Or rather the responsible vs. irresponsible, tinged with a little bit of “life’s lottery” in the mix skewing the stats.
C’mon booboo, dont you think our Hitler loving president and his grandfather sympathetic to Nazi doctrine would love to see us give up any chance of defending ourselves. Do you want to be emasculated, or has that already happened?
#29, Les;
That’s nice, but ignores what “well regulated” means.
#36, Les;
Then, as worded, does the Constitution allow me to possess hand grenades? Anti-personnel mines? Howitzers? Tanks? Submarines? Nuclear warheads?
#38, Les;
Earlier you said you were a strict constitutionalist. Now you’re taking some liberties when interpreting “arms”. It can’t cut both ways…
If I recall correctly, the Miller case also found that the 2nd Amendment applies to militias and does not prevent the government from regulating guns.
Also, your analogy to the First Amendment is weak, unless you consider “speech” to only consist of writing.
#44, Hmeyers;
Actually, I think you’d find that most guns are used accidentally.
Certainly not for self-defense.
Wanker–not ignoring you, just a case of gas.
Hitler. Fair on this thread. I assume you know the winning counter arguments as well as I do. Post again if the obvious is not clear to you.
Actually, I think you’d find that most guns are used accidentally
I don’t think that I have ever accidentally used a gun. Use would tend to indicate intent.
Natefrog==a fun fact (but I lost the source, so it is ignorable, but still fun): more Westward Ho settlers were killed by accidents and disputes than by indians. This is supported as you indicated: More homeowners killed by accident by their own weapons than by burglars and criminals.
Pesky things- – – – facts.
#46,
I am looking at the use of these terms in 1776. ie well regulated = well trained.
In your second two points I was referring to a period definition of arms. I have already answered the second point. Bombs are not arms. You seem to be “interperting” the Miller decision, not reading it.
miller decision
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
It says a short barreled shotgun is not related to a militia.
#49, Les;
I’ll spell it out for you since you are willfully ignoring the gist of my statement.
Since we are talking about stats on guns, namely, stats on how they are used in crime or self-defense, we are limiting our scope to how guns hurt others.
Unless you happen to know any stats on how many times guns are used correctly and can somehow make it relevant to the subject at hand.
Bobbo- whats obvious is that you agree with the fascists and communists that the peasants shouldnt be allowed to defend themselves against tyranny….thats the only thing obvious to me…you dont want to defend your self fine, I dont give a fuck. Dont you ever fucking tell me I cannot. It none of your damn business.
#51, Les;
Ah, so you mean your interpretation? All of this is quite subjective, and the courts are the ones who determine the interpretation unless things are more specifically worded.
That’s not the entire text of the Miller decision.
#54–wanker==very well reasoned. Always enjoy talking to someone who reads both sides of an issue. Yes, I’m submitting legislation to take your gun from you AND to require you to wear your pants down around your ankles. You freedom fighters cause too much collateral damage and all of you should be in jail or mental institutions==just like Hitler and Jesus wanted.
#53 – Wanker – whats obvious is that you agree with the fascists and communists that the peasants shouldnt be allowed to defend themselves against tyranny
The usual I-need-my-guns-to-protect-myself-my-family-and-the-constitution bullshit. I’ve not heard anyone talking about overthrowing the current regime that has been eroding freedoms left and right.
Its called Martial Law, it happened in New Orleans, Give the Neocons a chance, it will probably happen again…but oh no, the governement would never do such a thing. Wake up babies.
>>and all of you should be in jail or mental
>>institutions==just like Hitler and Jesus
>>wanted.
==–==Bobbo-==-==-/// You are REALLY fucking losing it now. I suggest you go back and look at some of your posts. Please.
Whew!!
#58–Mustard==I keep getting disappointed in expecting YOU to be a spice of your rack. STFU as you repeatedly state you are yet break on every thread, leaving you in a puddle of speckled induced chest splatter ((yes, you created the image)) that is unpleasant to view.
Why don’t you post a counterpoint instead of an inanity? You can do both, why favor the latter?
You can do better.
>>disappointed in expecting YOU to be a spice of
>>your rack. STFU as you repeatedly state you are
>>yet break on every thread, leaving you in a
>>puddle of speckled induced chest splatter
Bobster, I’m worried about you. I don’t know whether to call 911 or just ignore you. More and more, you’re gibbering like a chimp. “a puddle of speckled induced chest spatter”??
Christ. Whatever that means, it’s very disturbing.