Johnny Coli

The moderates are killing this country...Killing it.

Won't that be settled by the courts? Not a single handgun in SF will ever be collected (in the near future) because there will undoubtedly be an injunction filed while it is being fought in the courts. How was this handled in DC and Chicago? Up until today, I had no idea there were bans in those cities. Edit: I'm actually looking forward to the shot of the NRA lawyers walking hand-in-hand up the courthouse steps with the lawyers from the ACLU.

Well, there goes another one off the list: 1. Who shot JR? check 2. Who was Deep Throat? check 3. Whatever happened to dag1? check 4. Where are the WMDs?

People get hauled off all the time during protests, and if it's peacable, they are let go by a judge on a case-by-case basis. For your scenario to take place, the people of Crawford would have to have an open vote, the police would have to go along, as well as the judicial system in that town. I just don't think your scenario would ever happen.

Why do the amendments differentiate between "person" and "the people"? Just asking, for the basis of semantics, because they seem to go out of their way when speaking of broader rights, vs. individual rights. One: : "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." Two: "...the right of the people..." Three: "...without the consent of the Owner..." Four: "...The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."[...] "...the persons or things to be seized." Five: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital..."[...]"; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..." Six: "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."[...]"...; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Seven and Eight are not specific. Nine: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ten: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constituiton, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Clearly, the last one should not be interpreted to allow any citizen to make own laws, and could be interpreted to mean a majority consent.

Who's job is it to interpret the Constitution? Certainly not the people. In this case, a majority of the people of their own free will decided to ban guns, Second Amendment be damned. The burden, rightly so, will now fall on the court to determine whether the vote of this particular majority is in conflict with the Constitution, and infringes on individual rights as established by other parts of the Constitution. Isn't that how the process is supposed to work?

Like gay rights?

In a similar, but polar opposite vein, I posted this way back on July 6th: --------------------- My original Post in this thread (refers to another thread) got me musing on how many people that are registered on this site never post, ever. Not a single post. So I went looking to see how many that could be, thinking there were always going to be a few people lurking around. I myself was a lurker for several years, then registered, and lurked for a few more years, so I could relate to these “others.”. Here’s what I found….. Of the 5171 registered users on this forum (numbers from July 6): 1875 (36%) have NEVER posted…ever. Some date back to the inception of the board. These people who, for reasons known only to them took the effort to register a name (maybe a name that is/was significant to them, maybe a clever play on an existing name, maybe complete gibberish) then never posted. One person registered 45 variations of the name “booya” (booya011, booya012, etc.) all on November 13th, 2003. That’s a staggering amount of work for someone that never posted in a single thread. 575 (11%) have posted ONCE. They registered, made their point, then faded into the internet mist. Was that all they had to say? Was the thought so profound that they never needed to post again? What chased them back into the mist? dag1 joined on September 2, 2001 and was last active on the board on August 22, 2004 at 2:05PM. He/she never posted once…not a single time. Now he/she's gone. What happened to dag1? Who was this person? Who are these “lost” members peering into the windows and through the keyholes of TSW...watching.

Well, that's the crux of the whole argument, isn't it? Was the writer's intent to mean "the people" as a plural majority, or "the people" as an individual. IMO, this means the people (meaning the State) have the right to an armed militia, and the federal governing body cannot infringe upon that right. To me, and this is only my own interpretation, that does not mention anything about an individual right. If the will of the people by a majority vote infringes on an individual's rights as set up in another part of the constitution, then wouldn't that majority vote become void when held to the scrutiny of a court? SF voted by a majority to ban handguns. You can bet that a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of that ban will be filed soon. One final thing, while I am against guns, I don't care if you own one provided it is used in a lawfull manner. That's not what I'm debating here. I'm just debating the semantics of the second amendment. I will always vote against having guns, but if the majority wants them, it doesn't bother me.

I'm not arguing statistics, I'm wondering how the two major cities in America that already have a ban in place handled enforcing that ban.

Satire is lost on the stupid. Edit: I am not calling you stupid.

The ban already exists in DC and Chicago. How was it handled in those two cities?

Where did I say that it couldn't be questioned or argued? Just because there was a majority vote does not mean I have to agree with it, it only means that I would have to abide by it. There is a system in place where if the minority do not agree with the majority they can turn to the courts to determine if the rights of the minority are being infringed by the will of the majority. I believe this amendment (as worded) goes too far. It seems to me that there are plenty of rights getting trampled.

Spending eternity with the Christian Right would be hell for me, indeed.

Was the original intent simply to limit the power of a government from infringing on a person's right to bear arms, or is it implying that it is the right of the people to make the choice? All that sentence states is that the governing body can not infringe on the peoples' right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about interpreting the will of an informed public. If the will of the people is to ban arms by a majority vote, then the right of the people is not being infringed.

The Pin Pals The Be Sharps..."Baby on Board". That's completely on another level of brilliant.

Good post, SDS. This show is tanking hard. Much of these episodes are total filler and teases for the next week's "big" show. I'll continue to watch because I invested ( ) the time to do so already, and there's nothing else on at 9:00 on Weds. As my wife so eloquently put it last night..."This show blows, now."

I don't believe in a Hell, but I almost wish there was one just to see the look on the Christian Right's faces when they end up there.

The people voted for the ban, and the article states that similar bans exist in DC and Chicago. I just don't see the big deal. As for the Second Amendment, I thought, and I may be wrong, that one interpretation is Governement (federal or state) could not infringe on the peoples' right to bear arms. However, in this case, it is the will of the people by a majority vote, not the government. What say you?

Don't mess with the Killa Kroo, 'cause they're comin' for Yoo!

Spot on, Newbie. The same tactics have been used somewhat unsuccessfully by the Aboriginal "Killer Kangaroos" (also known as the Abaroos, the AKK, and the Killer Roos) in their quest for independence from the oppressive left-leaning non-native Australian government that currently holds power down under. The AKK cause has been mostly funded by the ultra-liberal Outback Steakhouse and Bugaboo Creek restaurant chains, and a line of sporting goods stores fronted by someone named "Dick". Their insidious manipulation of the American media through programming on the Animal Planet channel has been well documented. Unfortunately, the AKK reign of "terror" has been roundly ignored by the Australian government, and largly defined by inter-tribal squabbles and outright confusion arising from their many dialects, which to date has only managed to eliminate thier own members. There has been a recent surge in AKK violence mostly centered around gang activity in the city of Sydney by young hoodlums going by the moniker "The Killa Kroo", but no one can take them seriously because they are short and look foolish covered in dried mud.

Everytime I go to the store for something for my wife, I usually forget one of the three or so things I'm supposed to be getting. The first thing that pops into my head every time is "Dental Plan...Dental Plan."

But that's what makes this whole argument about self-examination a pain to debate. Science already does it, but what it won't do is change the way it does this to satisfy a few nuts. It's almost impossible to have this discussion, because you can't have a "scientifically sound" debate with someone that wants to change the meaning of "science" to fit their argument. Edit: I do not mean that "someone" is you, of course.

I just don't think it's widespread enough to warrant the introspection. PA just got rid of everyone on the board that was pro-creationism. The Kansas board vote was 6-4. Whatever. Notice (timeline table ) how since 1999 it's been switched back and forth...1999:6-4 creationism....2001:7-3 evolution...now it's 6-4 creationism again. It'll change next year. Quite frankly, Kansas is good in that it keeps this out in the open, and the debate shows this for what it is...a conservative religious agenda.

Can I ask what science would hope to gain from inwardly examining how it is taught, if the majority of us involved in science think it's being taught just fine? Science already questions just about everything it does. That's science.