Very sad, but very true. :>(

Airplanes don't blow up because of a puncture in the skin. People, like Payne Stewart, and whomever doesn't immediately get oxygen die. If you hit the wiring....possible death. Hit the fuel....death for all. Nobody...and I mean NOBODY is going to agree that a complete imbecile such as yourself should be allowed on a plane with a firearm. It's simply amazing that you are allowed one at all.

They use frangible bullets. Not designed to penetrate solid objects. Just don't steep in front of one.

Here's the thing on this whole assault weapon ban. The proposal does not fit the statistics. Based on 2010 data from the FBI, out of 8,775 firearm related murders, 358 were directly linked to rifles. 358 as a percentage of 8,775 is 4.1%.

Please justify banning something that is responsible for 4.1% of all firearms murders, and 2.7% of all murders? Knives were respionsible for 14% of ALL murders, 12,996. Hands fists and feet were responsible for 745 murders, about 5.7% of all murders.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Maybe it's because I demonstrate how to vote sanely. You GW lovers shouldn't have any rights.

By Golly, there's an option for FeatherButt.......New York. I'll bet the house would be filled with "I love NY" in every nook and cranny. Go for it, Beautiful. It's your kind of town.

Air Marshalls most definitely do not carry or use frangible ammunition. Most use some sort of a hollow-point though, which many agencies have moved away from based on more recent wound ballistics studies.

Putting a bullet sized hole in the hull of an airliner is not much of a problem. The training that most folks carrying guns on airplanes receive can be summed up as this, shoot as much as you need to, just don't miss.

Interesting statistics there Andy, again illustrating that we first need to get a handle on the problem, which doesn't seem to be the existence and ownership of semi-automatic and automatic rifles.

Just duct tape the damn hole...no biggie.

Keerist. What a bunch of long winded drivel mixed with a bit of
actually thoughtful ideas.
I seems that Air Marshals get enough training to be considered
effectie in case of an airborne need in Civil air service.
I suspect the school system could also find the wherewithal to
create some of those types of skills in individuals.
We will always have the psychos and attention starved ones.

Viva NRA

Todd you're still a malignant misinformed pussy.
No point in being concise on this thread.

Can't argue with that!

Coming from you two, I think he would consider that a compliment of the highest order.

Polishing odds ball sacks tonight? congrats?

Lilly your a d1pshit, thanks for proving it over and over again.
It all boils down to one issue, people who own guns are OK with the government limiting the amount of rounds when hunting, but they are outraged at limiting the amount of rounds when killing people.

The second amendment is not about hunting. Its about protection from those who can take your life and liberty. If the ones who can take your life and liberty have 30 rounds then I want 30 rounds to fight back with. Its not just whacko's in school shootings either. Its foreign nation attackers and potentialy even our own government. Remember the constitution was written as an act of independance from a tyrant government/monarchy. Using hunting laws and pratices as some sort of leverage from either side is silly.

The 2nd Amendment's main focus when written was preserving the ability of government to form a militia when and if needed.

The amendment in and of itself is actually quite short. The extrapolation and application of it due to some "tricky" language is of course a much longer story.

"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."

If you look at much of the discussion that lead to the amendments, all of what was discussed regarding the 2nd had to do with protecting the nation against foreign invasion via militias, the military, a navy, etc. This history does not include anything in the way of dialog regarding individuals rights to protect themselves, but rather it speaks to their duty to protect their country. It does seem logical that those two things would go hand in hand though.

Conversely, much of the content or the foundation of the first ten amendments (bill of rights) was based on other existing bills and laws which did speak more clearly to the rights of individuals to bear arms for personal protection and hunting specifically. There is also language that talks about the government right to disarm the people when and if needed in those preceding documents as well.

All good context to keep in mind when folks start quoting the 2nd amendment as their "right" to own any weapon they want, unimpeded and unregulated by the man. That simply wasn't the intent near as we can tell.

You should reread your post illashe. kinda amusing I think.

number of rounds, Black rifle or flintlock. Doesn't matter it's the
psychos in the mix that cause the problems. Wise one, you should
cough up a cure for the nuts on the street.

You mean the one's Ronney turned loose?

Why have such a narrow literal interpretation of the 2nd when so many people use a much more open intepretation of other amendments like the 1st, 4th, 5th, and the 6th?

How do you mean?

Courts are the ones that get to interpret and apply constitutional law.

Well some porn and some really disgusting art forms are protected under the 1st but it dosent say them specifically. I'm OK with them but other people are highly offened by it. Admitedly caught red handed crooks and murderers go free by loop hole open interpretations to search and seizure, trials, and due process. The courts do make the decisions but there are some who view the 2nd as only applying to militias. Its the "security a free state" part that is the most open to me. A gunman with intent of killing people at a school presents a portion of a non-free state localized to that school. Do we need armed well regulated militia volunteers to guard the schools instead of police? Or can one person act as their own well regulated militia and make a choice to weather to bear arms for the protection of that free state? I believe that gun free zones at schools have created high potential for a localized non-free state.

There isn't much in the way of gray area with regard to protected forms of speech. What is prohibited is very clearly spelled out and case law is well developed to the point that very little new case law is coming out that affects the first amendment. As I am sure you know, case law is the ongoing interpretation of the constitution, state, and local laws that the courts use to guide their future actions and decisions. In other words, case law is a record of interpretation that is used by the courts until they have reason to deviate from that, typically new and unique circumstances that have not been encountered previously.

Paraphrasing, forms of speech and expression that are not protected include those that would incite lawless action, real threats, and things that are "obsecene" among others. Case law has carefully and fairly completely defined each of these things and there are standards and/or tests in each case. For example, obscenity: "The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Miller V California.

Fortunately for all of us we have these standards as terms like "really disgusting" are entirely subjective.





There are no loop holes in the application of the 4th amendment in fact there is probably more case law for this amendment than any other. It is a very hot topic for obvious reasons. Rather than loop holes, there are extremely well developed policies and procedures that government must follow to ensure that the rights of the people are not violated. When government fails to adhere to these standards, policies, and procedures, their work, even if it is for the purpose of convicting the guilty, must be thrown out. This has to be the case as the alternative is to not hold government (law enforcement) to sharp standards and in the process open the door for significant abuses of power, and infringement upon rights, and a loss of objectivity and reason in the system. As long as everything is done "correctly" there are no loop holes and the guilty will be convicted as long as their guilt can be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" and searches and seizures will be carried out with "probable cause."





Regarding the 2nd, I am playing the devils advocate to some degree here. I for one am entirely glad that we have adopted a liberal interpretation and I do think arming ourselves for the purpose of defending ourselves and others is a right we should all have as long as we are responsible with it.

These days we have obviously replaced the need for a militia with well developed state, local, and federal law enforcement and military. It was different times back then.