ctdonath
Member
Somewhere in the case it was observed that keeping arms at home was meaningless if one could not transport them there.
Updates on District of Columbia v. Heller?
- Thread starter nate392
- Start date
- Status
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Easy. A right to "keep-and-bear-arms" simultaneously would allow you to keep the firearm only so long as you are able to bear it. If you put the firearm down, release your grip on it, or allow someone to take it away from you, you lose the right to keep it.
Not too far different from what exists today. What's needed is acknowledgment of the right to keep firearms that one isn't actively bearing, so that individuals don't have to go through their daily lives bearing them for the sake of retaining the right to keep them.
wcb
member
I find it somewhat humorous to read all the armchair lawyers debate these issues totally ignoring the obvious indicators that this isn't about interpreting the second amendment; these Supreme Court Justices aren't stupid you know? See the problem here is that the second amendment is pretty dang clear and they're having trouble coming up with an excuse to rewrite it's meaning but they have to.
Here's what you need to do so you can understand this. Quit watching TV and especially the news; those people are owned by the secret society that is about to take over everything so the news is programing those who watch and believe. Spend some time on the Internet seeking news from other countries talking about us; they and only then will you understand how much America is hated by all but about 1.1 countries that just haven't given up on us quite yet. There have been countless World Summits in virtually every Country in the World and not only has America not been invited, we are not allowed to attend any of them, not even our Embassy people in their countries. America screwed virtually every country out of trillions of dollars passing off fraudulent bonds so we could attempt to cover some of what will cause our economy to collapse most likely before the end of this year. We/America are screwed and before this all happens and Americans find out what our government did to us, they need to take our guns from us so that the very reason the Constitutional contains the second amendment doesn't take place. Every president since Kennedy has ignored the law that is on the books that would keep what's about to happen from happening. But no president wanted to commit suicide like Kennedy did trying to enforce it.
I know just like my last post you're all sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping your feet, screaming gibberish and I cant hear you because this is all to scary and you dont want to read it. Ultimately we're not going to stop them from essentially repealing the second amendment.
Here's what you need to do so you can understand this. Quit watching TV and especially the news; those people are owned by the secret society that is about to take over everything so the news is programing those who watch and believe. Spend some time on the Internet seeking news from other countries talking about us; they and only then will you understand how much America is hated by all but about 1.1 countries that just haven't given up on us quite yet. There have been countless World Summits in virtually every Country in the World and not only has America not been invited, we are not allowed to attend any of them, not even our Embassy people in their countries. America screwed virtually every country out of trillions of dollars passing off fraudulent bonds so we could attempt to cover some of what will cause our economy to collapse most likely before the end of this year. We/America are screwed and before this all happens and Americans find out what our government did to us, they need to take our guns from us so that the very reason the Constitutional contains the second amendment doesn't take place. Every president since Kennedy has ignored the law that is on the books that would keep what's about to happen from happening. But no president wanted to commit suicide like Kennedy did trying to enforce it.
I know just like my last post you're all sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping your feet, screaming gibberish and I cant hear you because this is all to scary and you dont want to read it. Ultimately we're not going to stop them from essentially repealing the second amendment.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
wcb said:
You aren't that "Don't Tase me Bro" guy, are you? That's the last time I heard about the secret society...
divemedic
Member
Docgmt
Member
WCB I have my tin foil hat on
ConstitutionCowboy
member
As to the subject of parsing "keep" and "bear" from each other, it really can't be done. The right is to keep and bear arms, not a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms, though one can easily do either. Keep is about possession and bear is about where you possess.
I can keep arms locked in my gun safe and I can keep arms borne upon my person.
If I bear someone else's arms, I am not keeping them. Someone else keeps them and that someone else still has possession(ownership) of those arms and merely possesses them on my person. While it would not be unconstitutional for me to bear that someone's arms, I have no right to keep and bear them. They are not mine, and the owner may remove them from my person as he or she sees fit. The only arms I have THE RIGHT to keep and bear are my own - the ones I possess.
No law could be written that would forbid the owner from bearing his arms on my person for that would infringe upon his right to keep and bear them as he sees fit. I could refuse to bear his arms, though. I'm not forbidden to infringe his right. That's how I can forbid arms to be kept and borne on my property if I see fit.
Bottom line: The right is ours, the prohibition upon infringing the right is governments. Government must abide the Second Amendment; we exercise the right at our discretion. At least, that is how it's supposed to be. We shall soon see if SCOTUS has the wherewithal to back it up.
Woody
I can keep arms locked in my gun safe and I can keep arms borne upon my person.
If I bear someone else's arms, I am not keeping them. Someone else keeps them and that someone else still has possession(ownership) of those arms and merely possesses them on my person. While it would not be unconstitutional for me to bear that someone's arms, I have no right to keep and bear them. They are not mine, and the owner may remove them from my person as he or she sees fit. The only arms I have THE RIGHT to keep and bear are my own - the ones I possess.
No law could be written that would forbid the owner from bearing his arms on my person for that would infringe upon his right to keep and bear them as he sees fit. I could refuse to bear his arms, though. I'm not forbidden to infringe his right. That's how I can forbid arms to be kept and borne on my property if I see fit.
Bottom line: The right is ours, the prohibition upon infringing the right is governments. Government must abide the Second Amendment; we exercise the right at our discretion. At least, that is how it's supposed to be. We shall soon see if SCOTUS has the wherewithal to back it up.
Woody
wcb
member
I know; Q: how do you think the government gets away with all they do to us?
A: Because people refuse to even consider that it might be happening.
Let me guess, you think the WTC towers fell because planes hit them? LMAO
Do you know what the Patriot Act really says???
Wait till you see; and they made you want it so you would be "Safe" from those evil people who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon. LMAOKeep your tin foil hats on; ignorance is bliss.
It has nothing to do with political party; if you're not willing to play the secret society game, you're not a candidate.
WCB
From what you're saying, it sounds like a "good news, bad news" situation. The bad news is that we'll likely get attacked, hit, whatever on American soil because everybody hates us. The good news is that if that occurs in a major way, we'll need to call up the militia (able bodied men and women 18-46ish), and the 2nd Amendment's need will be clarified. Our "armed forces + armed citizenry" is a wee bit larger than any invasion force.
From what you're saying, it sounds like a "good news, bad news" situation. The bad news is that we'll likely get attacked, hit, whatever on American soil because everybody hates us. The good news is that if that occurs in a major way, we'll need to call up the militia (able bodied men and women 18-46ish), and the 2nd Amendment's need will be clarified. Our "armed forces + armed citizenry" is a wee bit larger than any invasion force.
wcb
member
Yea except by then you wont have your guns anymore.
Waddison
member
If it's a "secret society", why do you know about it?
Maybe it's a not so secret society then?
Good grief....
:banghead:
Waddison
wcb
member
Good grief!! have you ever proven your ignorance; if it's so not a secret, why dont you know about it?:banghead:
Brett Bellmore
Member
I think they fell because the impact cracked the thermal insulation on the structural steel, then the burning jet fuel heated said steel enough to ruin the heat treat on it, at which point it was no longer stiff enough to support the load on it. At that point the structure above the fire fell, and the impact load was too much for the undamaged structure beneath, which was only intended to support the static weight of the building above it.
You know, that's what the insulation was on the steel to prevent. It's the standard failure mode in tall steel framed buildings during fires. It's not even slightly controversial among people who are the slightest bit informed on the subject.
But I will say: Just because something is secret, doesn't mean it's a well kept secret... There are plenty of conspiracies in government which are badly executed, but well enough for a media that doesn't WANT to take notice to avert it's gaze.
9-11 wasn't one of them.
wcb
member
The collapse had nothing to do with insulation; it was imploded. I even noticed on 9/11 as it happened that when the building dropped in free fall time (meaning as if there were no fasteners holding the building together) about 10 to 15 floors below here the so called pancaking was taking place, big puffs of smoke were blowing out the side of the buildings. And that was consistent all the way down on both buildings; that's no coincidence.
Those building were designed to survive a plane crashing into them and collapsed in about an hour. The amount of structure above the fire floors was about 10% of the buildings weight yet if collapsed almost immediately compared to buildings I have read about that burned for 24 hours with 80% of the building weight above the fire and no collapse and the buildings weren't designed to survive a plane strike.
Google First Interstate Bank Fire, Los Angeles and read about a building, again not designed to survive a plane strike, and more than 50% of the buildings load above the fire and no collapse.
How gullible do you have to be to believe planes brought down WTC? Then watch video of WTC 7 collapse, exactly like an implosion and when you compare the amount of fire in that building to cause collapse; you would have to believe that if your bathroom caught fire, your house would collapse. Didn't happen like they said.
Nowadays, dont believe anything the government says; find news off shore.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
What?
Discussion of a topic in a discussion website? Nooooooooooooo.
__________________
divemedic
Member
wcb- Read this book. Then go ahead and read this one. Then this one, and this one as well.
Once you have done that, come back here and we will have an intelligent discussion about how buildings collapse under fire conditions, the escape and movement of pressurized gases in a building in fire conditions, and the failure of structural steel under fire conditions. Until then, you are really showing your ignorance of the subject.
ETA:
I will also address your claims:
1 Pancaking was taking place, and this is caused by the way each floor was attached to the steel columns. The fire weakened the steel (this happens FAR below steel's melting point) of the angle clips and it could no longer support the load of the building. Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F. This is a well documented phenomenon.
2 The smoke you saw was most likely a combination of smoke and dust being forced out of the building under pressure from the collapsing floors above. Vertical travel was facilitated by utility chases and stairwells, another well documented phenomenon.
3 I would point out that the building DID survive the aircraft impact. What the impact did was destroy the fireproofing on the steel members, and disable the building fire suppression system. The building was destroyed by the 200,000 pounds of jet fuel that burned inside of it for over an hour.
4 The cause of the First Interstate Bank Fire was electrical. This fire was totally different in behavior and facts.
Once you have done that, come back here and we will have an intelligent discussion about how buildings collapse under fire conditions, the escape and movement of pressurized gases in a building in fire conditions, and the failure of structural steel under fire conditions. Until then, you are really showing your ignorance of the subject.
ETA:
I will also address your claims:
1 Pancaking was taking place, and this is caused by the way each floor was attached to the steel columns. The fire weakened the steel (this happens FAR below steel's melting point) of the angle clips and it could no longer support the load of the building. Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F. This is a well documented phenomenon.
2 The smoke you saw was most likely a combination of smoke and dust being forced out of the building under pressure from the collapsing floors above. Vertical travel was facilitated by utility chases and stairwells, another well documented phenomenon.
3 I would point out that the building DID survive the aircraft impact. What the impact did was destroy the fireproofing on the steel members, and disable the building fire suppression system. The building was destroyed by the 200,000 pounds of jet fuel that burned inside of it for over an hour.
4 The cause of the First Interstate Bank Fire was electrical. This fire was totally different in behavior and facts.
wcb
member
Geezzzz and to think I spent 6 years studying high-rise and structural fires when I was a fireman and know as a fact that what happened on 9/11 is absolutely impossible. Then divemedic shows up and is smarter that the NFPA instructors.
Do any of those books tell how a building falls in free fall time as a result of a fire? That means that constructed building fell as fast as a steel beam would fall to the ground if you dropped it from a helicopter with nothing under it. Do these publications explain how the only buildings in the history of mankind to collapse in about an hour even though they were specially constructed to withstand what hit them? Do those books explain how buildings with 80% of their weight above the fire floors dont collapse after burning for 24 hours while the WTC buildings fell in as little as less than an hour with only 10% of the weight above the fire floors?
You are way too gullible.
How about you watch these and see why the WTC fell:
911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change
911 The Road to Tyranny watch this one last
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105&q=loose+change
Painful Deceptions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480
Police State 3: Total Enslavement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2235455191538141308
And I think this one has gone far enough off topic. Members interested in discussing Heller, feel free to start a new thread.
Jeff
Jeff
- Status