"Most important"... you're putting words in my mouth.... why is that? You've quoted me five times.... twice I never mention size at all.... never once do I try and say "size is most important"... I think maybe you don't have a very good sense of perception.

Have you been reading something the rest of us haven't read? How do you know that she might be 5'1", or that she might be 5'2".... but she is definitely not 5'0"?

Astounding!!! You are able to determine from just one photo of the woman's face that she's overweight... truly amazing powers of perception...

Says who? Have you seen a survey of proficiency reports for prison guards that does a big vs. small breakdown?

I used to be pretty good at logic problems....

You mentioned three other factors.... demeanor, presentation, and carriage.... pretty generic terms and you've provided no clearer definitions, but I'm guessing:

demeanor- stern face with a serious outlook?
presentation- shined shoes... creases in the pants... shirt tucked in?
carriage- good posture... straight back.... shoulders are square?

Using your argument authority can be maintained simply by being a good dresser... or simply by keeping good posture... or by keeping a straight face. According to you any one of these factors can maintain authority all by themselves, therefore proving that each individual factor is more important than size.

^^^^^If any of that were true people would be WAY TOO INTIMIDATED to shut the door in the faces of those straight backed, serious looking, well dressed Mormon missionaries.... let alone slamming the door.

When it comes to commanding authority in some circles, perhaps a $600 shirt and a power tie work.

riddle me this: IF IT’S SOOO OBVIOUS THAT MICHAEL JACKSON IS INNOCENT, WHY DIDN’T THEY GIVE THE POOR LAD AN INNOCENT RULING IN THE FIRST PLACE?

WHY WOULD AN INNOCENT MAN SETTLE FOR AN ACQUITTAL?

If I was accused of child molestation and I was innocent, I would want to see it through and win myself an innocent ruling to clear my name.

I have as much of a right to my opinion as you do.

If MJ's acquittal means "case closed" to you, have a nice day. I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you or anyone else here, thank you very much.

ACQUIT: (uh – kwit)
1. to relieve from a charge of fault or crime. (The jury acquitted her, but I still think she's guilty.)
2. to release or discharge a person from an obligation.
3. to settle or satisfy (a debt, obligation, claim, etc.)
4. to free or clear oneself: He acquitted himself of suspicion.

Anyone spot the word INNOCENT anywhere in this definition? I don't.

In criminal law, the legal finding, by judge or jury, that an accused person is not guilty of the crime he is charged with.

The action taken by a jury when, upon trial, they find that the accused is not guilty and enter a verdict accordingly

A legal finding that an individual charged with a crime is not guilty.

ACQUITTAL, crim. law practice. The absolution of a party charged with a crime or misdemeanor.
2. Technically speaking, acquittal is - the absolution of a party accused on a trial before a traverse jury. 1 N. & M. 36; 3 McCord, 461.
3. Acquittals are of two kinds, in fact and in law. The former takes place when the jury upon trial finds a verdict of not guilty; the latter when a man is charged merely as an accessary, and the principal has been acquitted. 2 Inst. 384

b : to absolve (a criminal defendant) of a charge by judicial process
c : to clear of wrongdoing

Oopsie-daisy mungojoe, I didn't get all the legal mumbo jumbo right for you? The FACT is there was a judge AND a jury in that case. The jury may have been the ones deliberating the case but THE JUDGE announced the ruling. (Whew, good thing I said RULING, or I probably would have to listen to you hollering about how there's no such thing as an acquital verdict.) It's apples and oranges anyway. Let me guess what you base your belief in MJ's innocence on, "innocent until proven guilty", right? It's my opinion that that proclamation didn’t apply to MJ anymore. This applies to people that follow through with the process and are CONFIRMED innocent, not to someone that caves in to his accusers demands and gets himself acquitted. It's our obligation as good citizens to defend ourselves! Finding justice is a process. MJ stopped that process with his money and popularity. Because he wasn't proven guilty, (he wasn't proven innocent either.) that means he's instantly innocent in your mind? That "innocent until proven guilty" clause was created so people wouldn't get their asses kicked before they went to trial, not for the selective few that can afford to purchase a more suitable ruling. If criminals were automatically innocent no matter what they do, nobody would get arrested! I can see it now. "You can't arrest me for that dead guy with my knife in his chest, cop! I'm already innocent!"

Sometimes getting acquitted simply means that someone has satisfied the court and got the case dismissed. Paying off his accusers off was the only way for MJ to get to get his charges dropped rather than follow through with it and risk a possible guilty verdict. The law was trying to teach him that there are standards of conduct in this country and he had crossed the line!

Because he bought himself an acquittal

But bear in mind that there will always be people who believe he was guilty as hell!

I've never made the claim that size is the most important qualification for being a prisoner guard and I realize that there are other factors involved in determining how intimidating another person may be... but size is definitely a factor... and an important one.

I would put forth that the psychological element involved in transporting prisoners would dictate that a big burly man would be less likely to be attacked than a five foot tall woman. Even if the woman turned out to be the toughest of all the people she works with, if (because of her size) she was more likely to be attacked while performing her duties then she shouldn't have the job.

I say that it matters very little that she was known for her ability to "handle herself". A man who was twice her size and had a history of doing violent acts against women should not have been under her supervision...

Yes you are... you haven't addressed once whether an ability to intimidate should be a neccesary tool for someone who's job is to guard prisoners... no weight given whatsoever. If your position is that an intimidating presence would not be an important quality to have in a guard then I would say you are dead wrong.

....

When it comes to commanding authority in some circles, perhaps a $600 shirt and a power tie work. When dealing with violent criminals my suspicion is that neanderthal methods work best.

I think I've made a fair argument in saying the ability to intimidate is a valuable tool for someone guarding prisoners. I have absolutely no doubt that the majority of people would agree that size is indeed a determining factor in how intimidating another person may be...

The OFFICIAL JUDGE that presided over MJ's case ACQUITTED him. HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT.

but the judge's ruling in this case remains FINAL AND INDISPUTABLE

Anyone else that presents evidence to the contrary is simply doing what his fans have been doing all along, giving you their OPINION, nothing more.

In the world of political correctness, a 5' petite, female, deputy weighing 100 pounds is an acceptable choice to guard a 6' 2" 200 pound prisoner by herself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCMP_recruiting

The RCMP wanted men over six feet. I'm sure that they're not much different than any other police force in the world.

Size is the LEAST important? Common sense tells me that this isn't true. I defy you to find some sort of scientific study that would back that particular claim.

If you can find examples of other 5' tall, 100 lb Sherriff's Deputies who have never been overpowered with the end result of four people getting killed it would make a stronger argument for you. WITHOUT INCIDENT.... REALLY?!?

Yes you are... you haven't addressed once whether an ability to intimidate should be a neccesary tool for someone who's job is to guard prisoners... no weight given whatsoever. If your position is that an intimidating presence would not be an important quality to have in a guard then I would say you are dead wrong.

In our prisons, unless we're willing to employ ten guards for every prisoner, we need the prisoners to be scared of the guards (a politically correct person might say that the guards must maintain respect... but I think fear is a better word).

Well that's how this whole topic of discussion would fit in this thread titled "Politically correctness". I've heard that fitness requirements for jobs such as firefighting, military and law enforcement are less strict for females with the intention of mandating that more women be hired for these jobs.... this has all happened fairly recently and is very PC oriented. Would Cynthia Hall have ever been hired if she had to meet hiring requirements from 50 years ago (even just height and weight requirements, forget gender, forget strength tests)? My guess is no...

Again, you've ignored the "intimidation factor" that I've mentioned in every one of my posts.... her diminutive size is a very real factor.

If you want to completely ignore the psychological aspects that should be adressed when people are put in positions to gaurd over dangerous prisoners then I guess the argument is over (by the way... I win)

As I said earlier, if a woman want's to be a fireman... and she's strong enough to be a fireman... then she should be a fireman... assuming there are job openings for that position.. nobody should be forced to hire her just because she's a woman.

but don't try to catogorize me (based on my thoughts here) into a position where I don't belong.

I say that it matters very little that she was known for her ability to "handle herself"

There are probably some small women who are freakishly strong who could, for instance, meet all the physical requirements for, let's say, a firefighter.

Her incompetence--perhaps a bit of over-confidence?--got four people killed.

I say that it matters very little that she was known for her ability to "handle herself". A man who was twice her size and had a history of doing violent acts against women should not have been under her supervision.... I highly doubt that 30 years ago she would have been put in this situation.... and thirty years ago they would have been right.

I would say that this is a very good example of "PC gone wild".

Cynthia Hall tried to warn us, but we didn’t listen.

Hall, as you may recall, was a 51-year-old Fulton County sheriff’s deputy assigned to escort alleged rapist Brian Nichols to court in 2005. Alone. He was a strapping six foot, 200-plus pounds. She stood five feet, maybe around 100 pounds; it would be impolite to ask a woman how much she weighs.

It was also impolite, apparently, to ask whether she could handle her prisoner without help. Oh, and Nichols was unshackled, so jurors wouldn’t jump to conclusions about him.

......Nichols overpowered Hall, almost killing her in the process. He shot and killed four more people before he surrendered to police. They were all victims, it seems, of a political correctness that insists we ignore physical differences and pretend deputies such as Hall can handle desperate prisoners such as Nichols.

The OP's topic title should be: "Glenn Beck attacks FAIR USE and loses", because that's the reality of it.

Seems there is a heavier present of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Appears that the Taliban have a permanent present in 80% of theAfghanistan.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9

Read Eiland Hall's letter to Beck.

The SC General Assembly is not congress.

ARTICLE I.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

...

SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition.

The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)

In this instance, the intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government. It does not apply to state legislatures, if you abide by the strict meaning of the language. However, if you wish to subscribe to the philosophy the constitution is a "living document" then you can pretty much say it means whatever we feel like it says at the moment. Pretty much renders the document useless.

And finally the issuance of license plate hardly constitutes the "establishment" of a religion. Establishment would imply that only one religion would be recognized as valaid for such things as marriages. Such as the Church of England was at the time. To suggest that towns erecting nativity scences at Christmas, for instance, is establishing a religion is absurd.

I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO... But guys try telling your S/O that her leggs look FAT in hose...OR...She looks just like her MOM when she wares hose.

So someone explain to me how the state legislature of South Carolina is acutally Congress. And since Congress took no action in this matter, how is the action of "not congress" unconstitutional?

ARTICLE I.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. Political power in people.

All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.).

SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition.

The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)

It was also impolite, apparently, to ask whether she could handle her prisoner without help.

http://www.cnsnews.com

History

The Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.

....

In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission.

CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues.

Obama wants to pretend like he is concerned with the environment so that he can acheive his goal of a Global world order,,,,

Well, I did a "Search" on "FT HOOD",...and I only came back with 3 hits on POF,.....
these 3.

Ok you mean the New Nation created under the Articles of Cenfederation

Your problem was that that New Nation ended its national governement by unilteral secesion of every member states against the express provision of that new nations national governemnt laws that require all states consent to do so.

No it did not, it was examples of stare dacis, which had you taken Constitional law would have ment something to you.

whats the point of haveing a written constition if any leader can simply tell any minority the constition no longer applies to you, now get in line for genocide as in Germany experience, or in the USA told they were now citizens of something against there consent and coerced into doing so.

^^^I may be cynical but all that poll tells me is that 30% of Americans are too stupid to understand what the word "option" means.

To show EXACTLY, what this Thread should of been about,....the reasoning behind this tragic event,... or lack of,...the Dead, ... the Injured,... the Families,... and the Horror.

Most Americans today believe that the National Guard is the Militia reserved to the states in the State Constitutions and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Nothing could be further from the TRUTH. The National Guard did not exist from the beginnings of the Republic until 1903 when it was instituted and created by Congress as the Act of January 21, 1903, known by the name of its sponsor as "The****Act".

(b) The classes of the militia are -


(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia

"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

All the arms, munitions, armament and equipment of the National Guard is owned and controlled by the federal government

At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights.

The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.

- Saying "submitting to the authority of prophet" could mean anything. You need to be very clear on here. 1. When he fought the pagans of the time and succeeded, did he actually force people to convert?

Or..............

2. Were the people left the way they were and whoever joined Islam, they did and whoever didn't, they didn't?

- As for the caliphate and force conversion, you had better provide the evidence and whether their decision of "forced conversion" was because the Koran had directed them to do so or was it simply their own doings.

- Saying "submitting to the authority of prophet" could mean anything.

Which new nation do you refer to btw?

it becomes the sovreign authorty with full force of law untill supresed or sucedes

No, the law on sovreignty in time of insurection is the same in the UK and USA, it becomes the sovreign authorty with full force of law untill supresed or sucedes

Intresting how you went from no secesion at all is what Texas said to no unilateral secesion is what it says, sadly you still cant get it right.

The Constitution does NOT provide for a right of a state to "vote themselves out"...

....

You may FEEL secession to be a right but the Constitution does not support you... You would need a Constitutional Amendment for that...

or to be blunt if i acept all your claim, you can only show case law from 69 onwards, and have nothing but the reverse upto that point in time from SCOTUS.

Second, the only picking and chosing is done by you, the UK was at that time, and still is, a constitional monarchy

Your confused even more than usual, you made false claim as to *why* NY RI and VA ratifications conatain a right of secesion, your claim ( about geography) that which is not to be found in the debates on those states as to why they adopted those measures. Instead you change the authors words to mean other than he intended.

You mean, when by removing the opening sentence you can change the original intent to be something differnet

I already pointed out what the debates said where the legal reasons why the right of secesion had to be expressed in the ratification ordinaces of those states, that you have not read them is self evident.

German supreme court justices felt the laws that Himmler introduced to exterminate underiables were unconstitional...

That was not a SCOTUS case.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington could all jump into this thread and tell you (which they did in their writings such as the Virginia Resolution, Kentucky Resolution, The Constitution, The Ninth Amendment, The Tenth Amendment) that secession is permissible

Some important facts should be pointed out.

First, the ratifications of the Constitution by New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island were not given conditionally upon those states being granted the right to secede by the other states. Had that been the case, the ratifications would have been invalid. Ratifications of the Constitution had to be unconditional.

they would not sway you one bit

They MUST award these prizes ....and MUST pay out the money......

The only case that remotely touched on the area was 140 years ago. There will be no other cases until a State secedes. The Supreme Court does not deal in hypothetical situations.

They come from generations of masons designed to crush this country. Unless we start turning to God this country will turn into a fascist government really really really soon.

Whether or not commentators are lieing on any station has nothing to do with there news programs legitimacy.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/25/states-have-historical-right-to-secede/

Good article on Secession

Thanks for making my point. The same principle applies to secession of States today.

Incorrect the debates are avalible online and the provision was inserted to provide the right of sece
sion, as explained by Justcie Pendleton just Marshal ande Madison in va for instance.

..... Virginia’s ratification (with a vote of 89 to 79) came on June 25, 1788 and New York’s (with a vote of 30 to 27) on July 26, 1788. Even though the ratifications by Virginia and New York occurred after the ratification of the Constitution by the necessary ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788, they were nevertheless still viewed as crucial. When the ratifications of Virginia and New York finally occurred, confidence was high that the new nation would at least have a fighting chance to succeed.

It was very close in the House. If some of the major obstacles the house used to get it to pass do not pass mustard with the Senate then it will be an interesting merry-go-round with the two chambers.

Appears that qutie a few of the House Democrats that are considered conservative either did not vote for the bill and/or are memebers of the Blue Dog Coalition.
....
By one measure Doggett is among the most liberal white Democrats ever to represent Texas in Congress.[6] He has long supported more open government, and is also a leading advocate for campaign finance reform. On the Ways and Means Committee, he has sought to close many overseas tax shelters. Rep. Doggett has authored legislation to create tax incentives for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and to create a nationwide Silver Alert system.

No, im pointing out in UK contitional law the colonies seceded as per Uk constitional law allowed them to do so, and then the crown decided it was above the law, which as the soveriegn it is allowed to do, and denied them that right. Itsa fact of law, and logic is rested on facts, the UK crown was where sovreignty rested, the right of secesion is allowed in the UK constition, Sovreignty passed in the TOP to the 13 seperate Coloniees who now posseed it. Secesion is a unlitareral action, because if it requires others consent, the body attempting it is not a sovereign body.
....
Logic dictates that when the UK crown passed sovreignty to the 13 seperate former colonines that the right of secesion passed to them as this is now the location of sovriegnty.

Case laW yes, but not on secesion as secesion is not whats on the court documents.

B. Secession Is Clearly Unconstitutional.
Kohlhaas argues that the appropriate time to review the
constitutionality of 03INDP is after its enactment rather than
before its certification, since there is no controlling authority
clearly establishing its unconstitutionality. The crux of his
argument is that neither the Alaska Constitution nor the United
States Constitution contains provisions expressly prohibiting
secession. The state argues that 03INDP is clearly
unconstitutional under Supreme Court decisions addressing
secession. We agree with the state that secession is clearly
unconstitutional.
Shortly after the Civil War, the Supreme Court
considered whether the Confederate Texas legislature had the
power to pass legislation resulting in the sale of bonds that the
federal government had issued to Texas on its admission to the
Union in 1845. The bonds in Texas v. White,19 issued by the
United States before the Civil War, were not payable without the
Texas governors signature. During the war, the Confederate Texas
legislature repealed the signature requirement and sold the
bonds. After the war, the Supreme Court held that the sales were
invalid since the Confederate legislation was void, having been
enacted for the unlawful purpose of funding treason.20 The
nullity of the Confederate legislation is essential to the
holding.21
Kohlhaas maintains that Texas v. White contains highly
suspect reasoning because it fails to discuss the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments. He argues that because the Constitution is
otherwise silent on secession, secession is one of the rights
reserved by those amendments. The decision quotes the Tenth
Amendment almost exactly and discusses at great length the rights
of the states and the people within the Union:
Under the Constitution, though the powers of
the States were much restricted, still, all
powers not delegated to the United States,
nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people. .
. . [T]he people of each State compose a
State, having its own government, and endowed
with all the functions essential to separate
and independent existence[;] . . . without
the States in union, there could be no such
political body as the United States. Not
only, therefore, can there be no loss of
separate and independent autonomy to the
States, through their union under the
Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably
said that the preservation of the States, and
the maintenance of their governments, are as
much within the design and care of the
Constitution as the preservation of the Union
and the maintenance of the National
government. The Constitution, in all its
provisions, looks to an indestructible Union,
composed of indestructible States. When,
therefore, Texas became one of the United
States, she entered into an indissoluble
relation. All the obligations of perpetual
union, and all the guaranties of republican
government in the Union, attached at once to
the State. The act which consummated her
admission into the Union was something more
than a compact; it was the incorporation of a
new member into the political body. And it
was final. The union between Texas and the
other States was as complete, as perpetual,
and as indissoluble as the union between the
original States. There was no place for
reconsideration, or revocation, except
through revolution, or through consent of the
States.[22]

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Tenth
Amendment in a manner contrary to the interpretation Kohlhaas
urges. In considering whether states could impose term limits on
their federal legislators, the Court held that the Amendment
could only reserve that which existed before.23 Thus The states
can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out
of the existence of the national government . . . . No state can
say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed. 24 Like
representation in Congress, secession from the Union springs from
joinder to the Union. No state possessed a right to secede
before admission, and so no state would retain such a right under
the Tenth Amendment.
Kohlhaas also suggests that Texas v. White should not
be taken as black letter law since the decision is tainted by the
context, emotions, and political situation immediately following
the Civil War, and has not been cited except as dicta by modern
cases. This argument not only trivializes the impact of the
Civil War on the Nation but also ignores a plenitude of Supreme
Court cases holding as completely null the purported acts of
secession by other Confederate states.25 Unsurprisingly, the
Supreme Court has had little occasion since Reconstruction to
address the legality of secession. In 2004 the Supreme Court
observed that inclusion of the word indivisible in the Pledge of
Allegiance was significant because the question whether a State
could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was
unresolved prior to the Civil War.26
Even though secession is not explicitly addressed in
the United States or Alaska Constitutions, it is clearly
unconstitutional since opinions of the Supreme Court interpreting
the federal constitution including Texas v. White constitute
controlling authority.27 Kohlhaass attempt to discount the force
of Texas v. White is wholly misplaced. In 1960 Justice
Frankfurter characterized that decision thus:
The readjustment of the relationship between
the States that had remained in the Union and
those that had seceded presented major issues
not only for the political branches of the
Government, the President and the Congress,
but also for this Court. Insofar as the
perplexing and recalcitrant problems of
Reconstruction involved legal solutions, the
evolution of constitutional doctrine was an
indispensable element in the process of
healing the wounds of the sanguinary
conflict. It was in aid of that process that
this Court formulated the doctrine expressed
in the famous sentence in State of Texas v.
White: The Constitution, in all its
provisions, looks to an indestructible Union,
composed of indestructible States.[28]

When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we
Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for
good or ill, in perpetuity. To suggest otherwise would disparage
the republican character of the National Government.

V. CONCLUSION
Secession is clearly unconstitutional and therefore an
improper subject for the initiative. Accordingly, the lieutenant
governor correctly declined to certify the petition, and the
superior court correctly affirmed his decision. We therefore
AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court.

For the many Americans who do not want another $$$$Trillion Dollar$$$$ bill this is the good news.

So if you can justify not liking guns/blaming them for crime, I can justify racism/racial profiling, etc.

Buddy, you're trying to argue that the availability of guns isn't related to the large number of incidents of gun violence in your country.

This may be true but it is our right as American citizens to keep and bear arms.....that is your choice to be against it but the founders of our Country thought that it was important enough that they added an amendment to insure that we maintained that right

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Sorry Jack, but the Bill of rights is what it is, there is no limitation specified...

how the Supreme(lol) Court rules may make changes but the original intent was for citizens to be able to raise and bear arms if necessary...

So what you are saying is that immediately after the Revolution the Founding fathers were in constitutional Violation since they allowed the public to keep and to continue buying arms.

By removing the right to bear arms we remove the right of the people to form a non-government unpaid militia like during the revolution.

(During the American Revolution)--Militiamen were lightly armed, slightly trained, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience, but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston.

Our Militia men (at that time) were our farmers and towns people and they were non-government and un-paid. So how can a non-government, un-paid militia force be created when needed

The Founding fathers also had no way of anticipating things like Radio, the Internet, Cell Phones, TV's, etc. So by your theory that mean's that free speech only applies to what the Founding Fathers were familiar with. Correct?

There is no where in the Constitution that says that the Only Guns that should be allowed are those for Sports and Hunting or any other thing.Its says the Right to Keep and Bear arms. I agree the Founding Fathers were intelligent people and realized the importance of citizens being able to Arm themselves if necessary.

...is well above $200 billion a year and rising.

There are many parts that are broken that can be fixed individually.

However, when you are already in debt up to your eyeballs you don't replace an item with sometime that you can't even figure out how it will be paid for or if it can be paid for.

At least you were honest in your post when you said the will of the Senate,,,not the will of the people....

It's quite obvious you have never looked into IPSC or IDPA and what it takes to be competative.

You ever shoot a 5.56 caliber weapon at night?

I want a FH on my AR if I have to use it at night. Being blinded by your own weapon SUCKS. I hate it.

It is very common to expend more than 6-10 rounds in a SD scenario.

Why do you think cops carry back-up mags even when their primary holds 17 rounds?

Your post stems from a lack of experience/knowledge.

Nor does it say anything about "sporting" and "non-sporting"...and That too is a FACT.

In NJ flash-hiders are illegal but muzzle-brakes arent. Deadly...unsporting...HORRIBLE flash-hiders, oh noez!!!

What makes another 2 rounds in a magazine non-sporting in a pistol with a 4" barrel? It's used for IPSC/IDPA/Self-Defence/Whatever.

Also remember that Joe is one of the people they were counting on to get their 60.