0
gregpso

Guns No search at Walt disney World

Recommended Posts

Quote

>If you can show where nuclear devices are a common infantry weapon, you might
>have a point.

Looks like Mike found an example where the right to bear arms can be infringed!



Non-sequitur. Nuclear weapons have never been a common infantry weapon.

Nice try.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>If you can show where nuclear devices are a common infantry weapon, you might
>have a point.

Looks like Mike found an example where the right to bear arms can be infringed!



do we have any nukes in the US forces that a man can pick up with his arms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does it highlight what they consider to be appropriate?



Why not just read it instead of asking me? That way you will have no reason to argue with me over what I think it says.

But: Justice James Clark McReynolds:
Quote

We construe the amendment as having relation to military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia.’



Fact is that there WERE sawed of shotguns in the Army back then, and I was issued a sawed off shotgun during my service. But Miller was not there and there was no council for Miller.

Quote

“The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is
one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed
by Congress
." -- McReynolds



Quote

So what did Miller hold? At a minimum, it held the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals. At the maximum, dicta suggest the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service. -- Frye, B. (2008). The Peculiar Story of US v Miller. NYU Journal of Law and Liberty



And it discussed who would comprise the militia:
Quote

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting:

Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"?

You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool.

But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16.

You have not been able to counter that claim.

United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,"

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause"

McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States

You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'.

But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States.

Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment?

Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Still waiting:

Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"?

You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool.

But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16.

You have not been able to counter that claim.

United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,"

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause"

McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States

You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'.

But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States.

Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment?

Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.



You seem to have an issue with set theory and logic.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US.

Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"?

You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool.

But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16.

You have not been able to counter that claim.

United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,"

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause"

McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States

You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'.

But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States.

Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment?

Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US.

Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"?

You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool.

But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16.

You have not been able to counter that claim.

United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,"

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause"

McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States

You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'.

But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States.

Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment?

Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to skip over most of crap that's in here and just respond by saying, yes I carry in Disney World, along with at many other parks. I will say I have not in the water parks yet though. Just doesn't seem right ya know?:ph34r:



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rap is to music what etch-a-sketch is to art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US.

Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"?

You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool.

But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16.

You have not been able to counter that claim.

United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,"

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause"

McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States

You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'.

But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States.

Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment?

Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a real dilema this gun question. (In Australia no one is allowed to carry hanguns except Police/security. ) I started the post as I knew folk must have been carrying at WDW due to lack of searches I experienced there. (bag searches only)

There is argument for and against! I mean if some whacko started shooting there I would be grateful if a normal citizen shot him before he could do much damage BUT if the vast majority of normal folk have guns so do the whackos.

So in Aust no one has them. (sure a few crims do manage to get them but handgun crime is almost non existent very rare)

However I would fell safer travelling on public transport at night "carrying" or being in the middle of no where carrying. BUT not an option here.

Can see both sides of the argument.

Foot note
never felt unsafe at WDW as I am sure there is convert security there. In fact never saw any aggro at all except parents telling off kids. What a wonderful place and i will return. (and quite cheap really)
I tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the bag checks are like the ones at Disneyland, they're not really looking for weapons. They're looking for food and glass bottles and alcohol. Disneyland is a dry park, so people often try to smuggle in a flask, or their own food so they don't have to buy park food. If they find you have more with you than a snack or two, or glass bottles, you're pointed to the lockers by the picnic area outside the park.

As far as I know, there are NO signs outside Disneyland prohibiting weapons. (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me). I don't know about DisneyWorld. The feeling here is that posting signs would detract from the "family atmosphere"...same reason why you don't walk through metal detectors. They don't want to start your experience at the "happiest place on Earth" by treating you like a criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Still waiting:

Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"?

You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool.

But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16.

You have not been able to counter that claim.

United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,"

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause"

McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States

You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'.

But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States.

Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment?

Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.



Another of your Strawman arguments: I haven't disputed Heller at all.

You, however, seem to have a big problem understanding the wording of Heller.

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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."
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The Court’s opinion should not 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."



The Court's opinion may not be taken to cast doubt on those longstanding prohibitions but reality does when it comes to schools and government buildings. IIRC, schools and government buildings are where most of the bigtime mass shootings take place along with private businesses where no firearms are allowed. Then again, it may be too many Type A personalities in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already said that...... Maybe you should READ a post before you reply?

"You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. "

But you still continue to tap dance around the issue.

But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States.

Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment?

Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok can i ask a question of all of you that like to exercise your right to carry concealed firearms... Why do you feel the need to? are you really all involved in stuff that warrants the need for guns? or is it all just paranoia?

Serious question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

ok can i ask a question of all of you that like to exercise your right to carry concealed firearms... Why do you feel the need to? are you really all involved in stuff that warrants the need for guns? or is it all just paranoia?

Serious question



Why do you feel the need to vote? To speak in public? To be protected from unwarranted search? Especially the latter, you must be up to no good!

More to your point, I've known people beaten to death in a not-at-all scary area, nor was he involved in any "stuff". I've known people attacked and nearly killed (thank God he had a gun on him at the time) just from walking out of their office late one night, again, not in a scary place. A friend of ours neighbor came home (very nice area) to a burglary in progress. I had a knife pulled on me years back just outside the grocery store that catered to a six figure+ neighborhood. etc. etc.

Better to have and not need than need and not have.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0