Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

Uncooperative Californicators

Recommended Posts

Uncooperative Californicators

Quote

 

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.
The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?
Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

 

Only a couple more days for gun owners to comply and I doubt the attitude will change.

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Quote

Even the staunchest pro-gun sheriffs, including Bosenko, the Shasta County sheriff, say they’ll be more than happy to tack a magazine-possession charge on to a drug dealer’s or a gang member’s rap sheet should deputies catch them with a high-capacity magazine.

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.

 

This is usually what seems to happen. I've felt for a long time that the 'possession' laws are really just a quick bypass to lock people up when they - the police - don't really have evidence to prosecute the crime they were ACTUALLY arrested for.  It's cheaper and faster.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If seven round limits are "unconstitutional", as we've heard, then these LCMs and AWs will soon be "unconstitutional" too.

 

Laws signal the intention of the courts, and the acceptability or non-acceptability of behavior. Laws are a signal of the direction of the social contract which binds society. The respect for our system is what maintains social order, not weaponry.

Tom's link goes to the Stoopid Law thread, where his ass was handed to him.

Quote

(Post 65), Tom Ray asks Woofsey) Does Billy have a right to his rifle, including the standard capacity magazine, Mike?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote is from the last page of the Stoopid law thread. After Tom set up and encouraged lawbreaking in CT and NY for three years, the SAFE Act was finally upheld.

See the jibberish, examine a sham. After Tom had howled that a panicky, secret midnight special session had jammed this legislation in CT, the upper courts upheld the AW ban. Check out how Tom presented the major development to our community, after three years of Tom's polemic. (His disinformation evolved into the idea that this court decision was a victory against seven round limits. Such is whimpering.)

Tom got pounded off Billy's Stoopid Law thread not long ago, in Dec, 2016.  Kolbe vs Kogan removed constitutional protection from AW's three months later. Let's discuss weapons "in lawful use at the time", shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - let's discuss instead that you are trying to use semantics to further your own position that guns are evil, and that anything that can be done to limit their availability is a step worth taking.  

None of your drivel beyond that is worth discussing, because it's all tangential to your main point: Get rid of all the guns while trying to pretend that you're not. 

I wish this "show notifications" button kept people on ignore on ignore... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tom,

I am still waiting for an explanation of what your favourite table means, I asked ages ago.

brady-vs-census.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

JoCal - let's discuss instead that you are trying to use semantics to further your own position that guns are evil, and that anything that can be done to limit their availability is a step worth taking.  

None of your drivel beyond that is worth discussing, because it's all tangential to your main point: Get rid of all the guns while trying to pretend that you're not. 

I wish this "show notifications" button kept people on ignore on ignore... 

Weak, and like a chickenshit from a duck blind. I never use semantics. WTF> I use peer-reviewed research, vetted scholarship, and tenacity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Weak, and like a chickenshit from a duck blind. I never use semantics. WTF> I use peer-reviewed research, vetted scholarship, and tenacity. 

Of course you do... as long as that research appears to support your personal notion that firearms are bad, and that bad people won't be as bad if guns aren't around, while refusing to discuss anything having to do with causality.  Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?  
"Chicago's only bad because people can get guns someplace else and bring them into the city limits"?   

Please - keep flailing away, it's entertaining, and provides a wonderful example of how prohibitionists think. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course you do... as long as that research appears to support your personal notion that firearms are bad, and that bad people won't be as bad if guns aren't around, while refusing to discuss anything having to do with causality.  Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?  
"Chicago's only bad because people can get guns someplace else and bring them into the city limits"?   

Please - keep flailing away, it's entertaining, and provides a wonderful example of how prohibitionists think. 

 

An ad hominem. Hmmm. No example of semantics. hmmm.

If you have better research, you sure haven't presented any. You are not prepared for this discussion. I have presented a variety of unimopeachable sources, in a body of work with a consistent conclusion.

You are made of air and bondo, Guy Where is any source supporting your claim that the U.S. has an abnormal violence index? We don't. We have guns everywhere, and logic which justifies their use when disagreements occur. We have a lethally violent outcome, but our kids don't scuffle 19.5 times more than other leading nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?

Not much. It means that sailing sheep on Political Anarchy will follow Tom Ray's misrepresentations.

It's a useless fabrication, and tellingly, no effort to improve it was undertaken. Tom Ray is another intellectual heavyweight around here

 

Your turn. What does this chart mean to you?

Quote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moderate said:

I read everything Gandhi wrote at age 13. I had a bicycle and a library card, didn't I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

I read everything Gandhi wrote at age 13. I had a bicycle and a library card, didn't I?

Sorry Jo, that doesnt answer the question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Moderate said:

Sorry Jo, that doesnt answer the question

Read SAILING ANARCHY.  My candid, non-gamey posts have dwelt upon your question on PA for six years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More deflection.

Answer the fucking question.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

If seven round limits are "unconstitutional", as we've heard, then these LCMs and AWs will soon be "unconstitutional" too.

 

Laws signal the intention of the courts, and the acceptability or non-acceptability of behavior. Laws are a signal of the direction of the social contract which binds society. The respect for our system is what maintains social order, not weaponry.

Tom's link goes to the Stoopid Law thread, where his ass was handed to him.

 

Our system maintains social order for those who respect the system.  Weapons maint social order of those who don't respect our system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moderate said:

More deflection.

Answer the fucking question.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Crickets.....

Pathetic........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moderate said:

Crickets.....

Pathetic........

If you have to ask whether I grasp nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience, you haven't taken my pulse, or the pulse of MLK. So I have nothing to discuss with you on the subject.

All yes or no questions should be referred to Jeffie, they are his forte. Good luck, the Cuntfinder has been AWOL for one week, but you can leave a message with Pee Wee. Want to see Pee Wee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rockdog said:

Our system maintains social order for those who respect the system.  Weapons maint social order of those who don't respect our system.

Really? When and where? Is that for you to say?

 King George and Henry VIII were both dumbasses, and they figured shit better than you.  Show me some due process, mate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gree2056 said:

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.

This law is not unconstitutional. You don't determine constitutionality, Officer.. The Ninth Circuit does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Really? When and where? Is that for you to say?

 King George and Henry VIII were both dumbasses, and they figured shit better than you.  Show me some due process, mate..

All over. All the time.

you are small minded.  Not a big picture person. 

The most obvious is areas of high rates of violent crime.  Why does it continue to occur there and and not other places?  think about it from a modern perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, random said:

Hey Tom,

I am still waiting for an explanation of what your favourite table means, I asked ages ago.

brady-vs-census.jpg

You asked me what the census used as their definition of "violent crime" and when I didn't know you said their stats were "debunked" which is about the level of scientific knowledge I'd expect from a guy like you who believes crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

This quote is from the last page of the Stoopid law thread. After Tom set up and encouraged lawbreaking in CT and NY for three years, the SAFE Act was finally upheld.

See the jibberish, examine a sham. After Tom had howled that a panicky, secret midnight special session had jammed this legislation in CT, the upper courts upheld the AW ban. ..

 

When are you going to start getting basic facts right?

In NY, the legislature used emergency rules to bypass debate and pass the SAFE Act. But NY is not CT. The confiscation program in CT was not passed using emergency rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You asked me what the census used as their definition of "violent crime" and when I didn't know you said their stats were "debunked" which is about the level of scientific knowledge I'd expect from a guy like you who believes crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11.

This thing was bullshit, Tom. It  appeared frequently. It had your name all over it. You own this Tom Ray garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

When are you going to start getting basic facts right?

In NY, the legislature used emergency rules to bypass debate and pass the SAFE Act. But NY is not CT. The confiscation program in CT was not passed using emergency rules.

Thanks for the correction of minor, inconsequential details, Tom. The Circuit Court in that region combines both NY and CT. And it supported both laws after review, and long after any Sandy Hook "do something" panic. This is the law of the land now.  

You rode into the sunset, singing a Libertarian ditty. Your cheap jingo was to equate the AW ban to a victory over seven round limits. You lost big, posted a dishonest and incomplete account for the cheap seaters, and slithered away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gree2056 said:

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.

Help me out. Am I reading your words correctly?

I want to know how the hell this works. CA officers hop out of bed in the morning, execute some means to hide personal AW's in CA, then roll out to fail to enforce the CA law on their beats, based on personal interpretations of constitutionality. Did I sum up Officer Green's POV correctly?

 

Oswald for Boothy.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You asked me what the census used as their definition of "violent crime" and when I didn't know you said their stats were "debunked" which is about the level of scientific knowledge I'd expect from a guy like you who believes crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11.

You posted it as supposed proof that more guns do not kill more people.  When I asked you to explaining the table you had no idea how those numbers were defined.  But that did not stop you from repeatedly posting it.

You still have no idea, but you still defend it because it looks 'sciencey' but it complete fabricated bullshit, like everything else you post.

I submitted this Your Honour, as evidence for the prosecution that Tom Ray knowingly posts misinformation, he is a disinformation agent for the gun lobby as this proves.  I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

You posted it as supposed proof that more guns do not kill more people.  When I asked you to explaining the table you had no idea how those numbers were defined.  But that did not stop you from repeatedly posting it.

You still have no idea, but you still defend it because it looks 'sciencey' but it complete fabricated bullshit, like everything else you post.

I submitted this Your Honour, as evidence for the prosecution that Tom Ray knowingly posts misinformation, he is a disinformation agent for the gun lobby as this proves.  I rest my case.

Exhibit 2,673

Quote

Post 163, Highland Park Thread

 On 5/27/2015 at 1:34 AM, Tom Ray said: No, I have never advocated arming anyone

After hard work telling falsehoods all day, Tom relaxes at night mis-quoting case law, tossing racial zingers, and protecting grannie's AW.  I wonder about the Pooplius thought process now; The Tom Ray thread features a few collections of past fibs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting data from the US Census is fibbing because random says so. Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Posting data from the US Census is fibbing because

Show me where the US census created that table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Posting data from the US Census is fibbing because random says so. Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.

You are such a dumbshit that your handiwork factors strangulations and poisonings against gun violence laws. Jesus Christ, Tom, try slinking away, or mentioning confiscation or something. You can't defend such a piece of shit as Brady's Best. Be classy like Arthur Kellerman was, and fix the thing, before cherry picking it into nonsense.

1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.

What a petty little man. Hide the junior sailors in the local bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 7:01 PM, jocal505 said:

This law is not unconstitutional. You don't determine constitutionality, Officer.. The Ninth Circuit does.

The Supreme Court does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Help me out. Am I reading your words correctly?

 

 

Oswald for Boothy.PNG

Looks like Meli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Exhibit 2,673

After hard work telling falsehoods all day, Tom relaxes at night mis-quoting case law, tossing racial zingers, and protecting grannie's AW.  I wonder about the Pooplius thought process now; The Tom Ray thread features a few collections of past fibs.

And what of your lies jocal?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncooperative Federal Judge

Quote

 

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.


 


We know from proposals in NY, WA, FL, and elsewhere that the real number that currently defines a "high" capacity magazine is seven, not ten. But that's only because they haven't tried five yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moderate said:

And what of your lies jocal?  

Let's see documentation of any falsehoods. That's how we do it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Moderate said:

The Supreme Court does

(Moderate is responding here to Jocal to V Green: This law is not unconstitutional. You don't determine constitutionality, Officer.. The Ninth Circuit does.

Wrong. Supreme Court didn't determine squat over Peruta vs San Diego last week, did it? After mulling for 11 weels.  Did they accept Drake vs Jejerian? Neither. Until they loosen gun laws more, assuming they do, the circuit court rulings are the law of the land.

We're discussing AW's, right? The SC only handles contrasting circuit court rulings. There are NO favorable rulings to contrast the four circuits which banned "Modern Sporting Rifles." How long will it take to get to the SC? Some while. And the evidence against AW's will probably compile, not diminish. in the interim.

The courts are not dazzled by bumper stickers, or by distractions on the third grader trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

How long will it take to get to the SC? Some while. 

Likely after Trump has replaced Kennedy and Ginsburg.  Possibly Thomas as well.

Suck it up, buttercup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, random said:

Show me where the US census created that table.

Still waiting Tom old mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, random said:

Still waiting Tom old mate.

Show me where I claimed they made it, Mr. Science Guy.

I posted data from the US Census and you asked about their definitions and declared the data "debunked" when I didn't know them off the top of my head.

This method of "debunking" does explain how you fall for the 9/11 conspiracy crap. Really, a nanothermite-seeking autopilot built by aliens in cahoots with Saddam is not all that plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge's injunction mentioned above.
 

Quote

 

As the Supreme Court recognized a decade before Heller, “[g]uns in general are not ‘deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials.’” Staples v. United States

...

  It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the constitutional rights of other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

 

The part at the end on takings was interesting. Even if the court accepts the "dubious" claim that the banned magazines are a public nuisance, he makes the case that Cooperative Californicators who turn in their magazines should be compensated.

Quote

In a similar vein, the Supreme Court holds that a law enacted pursuant to the state’s “police powers to enjoin a property owner from activities akin to public nuisances” is not immune from scrutiny under the regulatory takings doctrine.  Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 1003, 1020-27 (1992).  The Court reasoned that it was true “[a] fortiori” that the “legislature’s recitation of a noxious-use justification cannot be the basis for departing from our categorical rule that total regulatory takings must be compensated.”

There are other cases cited saying that banning "dangerous" guns is not a taking that must be compensated but those cases are different because they're not about the state taking away arms that are currently legally owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The judge's injunction mentioned above.
 

The part at the end on takings was interesting. Even if the court accepts the "dubious" claim that the banned magazines are a public nuisance, he makes the case that Cooperative Californicators who turn in their magazines should be compensated.

"dubious"     Remove the quotations.

You read some court briefs, don'tcha Tom? You claim to. Most of the briefs about LCM's document the running, measurable social danger of these devices. The judges note the predominant numbers as evidence, discuss the angles, then justify restricting LCM's based on that. Even Mother Jones is quoted by these judges. No doubt is involved when one looks at the pattern and outcomes.

Quote

There are other cases cited saying that banning "dangerous" guns is not a taking that must be compensated but those cases are different because they're not about the state taking away arms that are currently legally owned

"dangerous"   Remove the quotations. One AW court ruled that the public fear alone, public perception, justified banning the guns. 

Quote

 Yet may an affray be without worde or blow given as if a man shall sh[o]w himself furnished with armour or weapon, which is not usually worne and borne, it will strike a feare to others that be not armed as he is: and therefore both the Statute of Northampton . . . made against the wearing of Armour and weapon and the Writte thereupon grounded, doe speake of it, by the words, effrey del pays , an, in terrorem populi .23

More disinformation. Are you taking the position that AW guns and LCM's are not dangerous? What about the facts and occurances in the briefs in the four circuit courts which banned AW's for cause? Should we review that, long text? 

 

As to your compensation plea, you have a point. But let me summarize what happened here.

The gun lobby had poor sales, so in the eighties they began hyping the general public into buying AW's. Individuals of a certain elk herd bought millions of them, until 1% of the population (a minority) owned three each. Note: Jeffie owns dozens of LCM's.

 Unrelated personal angst factors developed, and the battle guns began to be turned on the public during personal grievances or personal aggravation. Informed areas began to control the dangerous devices. Citizens were faced with becoming part of the solution, for the benefit of the broader society. The elk herd with the AW's,  consumers composing 1% of the elk, wanted their money back, from the endangered 99% of the herd.

Stay tuned for the next chapter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Show me where I claimed they made it, Mr. Science Guy.

I posted data from the US Census and you asked about their definitions and declared the data "debunked" when I didn't know them off the top of my head.

This method of "debunking" does explain how you fall for the 9/11 conspiracy crap. Really, a nanothermite-seeking autopilot built by aliens in cahoots with Saddam is not all that plausible.

More lies Tom, you can't help yourself, every time you say something lies come out,  I can't see any data from the US Census in your bullshit post, only numbers in a table that Brady's Best fabricated.

Now for the encore ... where did I say anything about "a nanothermite-seeking autopilot" or anything else you attribute to me?  You lie Tom Ray.  You are a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Show me where I claimed they made it, Mr. Science Guy.

I posted data from the US Census and you asked about their definitions and declared the data "debunked" when I didn't know them off the top of my head.

This method of "debunking" does explain how you fall for the 9/11 conspiracy crap. Really, a nanothermite-seeking autopilot built by aliens in cahoots with Saddam is not all that plausible.

Here's the thread.  Your children and your mother must be proud.

Your response to random's exposure of Brady's Best was to re-quote your own race-baiting. You offered the Black Panthers, Judge Taney, and MLK's church in ONE post. It was ten weeks before Dylann Roof. You spent those weeks race-baiting gleefully, on two threads.

I have displayed the future, if we use the wisdom of my favorite libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This law obviously infringes on the right to keep and bear arms . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

Now for the encore ... where did I say anything about "a nanothermite-seeking autopilot" or anything else you attribute to me?  You lie Tom Ray.  You are a liar.

Still waiting Tom old mate.

But of course you could always go and start a new thread about it!!!

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

...Are you taking the position that AW guns and LCM's are not dangerous? ..

 

Among others, yes. No more dangerous than other guns.

Specifically, I'm taking the position that neither of our .22's are "battlefield weapons," as you call them, because I've never heard of one being on a battlefield nor being issued to a soldier.

Yes, they could be used to kill. If lethality is the standard, we can skip right to soak-ed's position of banning all non-government guns.

I think you get to the same result either way. Calling ordinary guns "assault weapons" first is just a bit less honest than Ed's approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Among others, yes. No more dangerous than other guns. YOU ARE LYING TOM. AW'S ARE SO DANGEROUS THAT HIGHER COURTS BAN THEM.

Specifically, I'm taking the position that neither of our .22's are "battlefield weapons," as you call them, because I've never heard of one being on a battlefield nor being issued to a soldier.

Yes, they could be used to kill. If lethality is the standard, we can skip right to soak-ed's position of banning all non-government guns.

I think you get to the same result either way. Calling ordinary guns "assault weapons" first is just a bit less honest than Ed's approach.

 

Quote

"battlefield weapons," as you call them

I am cutting edge, I guess. I used the term first, then the Fourth CIrcuit concurred with me, firmly. They make AW's "unconstitutional." (to use the terminology of Poplius, LOL.)

Basically, your argument is to conflate target shooting guns with guns designed for battle. This is self-inflictedTR confusion. Again, the pattern here is applied dishonesty.

Did you read any recent court cases? You need to explain why four federal appeals courts have benned AW's, but none have banned tube feeder .22's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

This law obviously infringes on the right to keep and bear arms . 

Talk to Scalia, Gouv. He approved half a dozen infringements within Heller. The other courts are building on Scalia's fine work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

 

I am cutting edge, I guess. I used the term first, then the Fourth CIrcuit concurred with me, firmly. They make AW's "unconstitutional." (to use the terminology of Poplius, LOL.)

Basically, your argument is to conflate target shooting guns with guns designed for battle. This is self-inflictedTR confusion. Again, the pattern here is applied dishonesty.

Did you read any recent court cases? You need to explain why four federal appeals courts have benned AW's, but none have banned tube feeder .22's.  

I can't help it that the term "assault weapons" is defined to include two of our .22's, only one of which is tube-fed, as you well know.

You already explained why the court rulings apply to my wife's Ruger 10-22. It's a scary AW with an LCM!! Like an M-16! Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go wank in front of someone else. Your thread content needs substance someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, random said:

More lies Tom, you can't help yourself, every time you say something lies come out,  I can't see any data from the US Census in your bullshit post, only numbers in a table that Brady's Best fabricated.

Now for the encore ... where did I say anything about "a nanothermite-seeking autopilot" or anything else you attribute to me?  You lie Tom Ray.  You are a liar.

Hey Tom-boy!

Still waiting old mate, what's the matter?

But then you could always start a new thread about it.

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Talk to Scalia, Gouv. He approved half a dozen infringements within Heller. The other courts are building on Scalia's fine work.

If I lived in CA I would purchase the appropriate arms, call the various media, and announce it.

i would happily go through the court system explaining to each judge what infringe means.

if people want to enact laws about arms those people need to either amend the Constitution or move to a country where infringement is allowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

If I lived in CA I would purchase the appropriate arms, call the various media, and announce it.

i would happily go through the court system explaining to each judge what infringe means.

if people want to enact laws about arms those people need to either amend the Constitution or move to a country where infringement is allowed. 

You would school them indeed. Then find that that particular horse left the barn long ago, headed in a certain direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2017 at 5:53 AM, jocal505 said:

Go wank in front of someone else. Your thread content needs substance someday.

You've answered the question before and are now afraid of it?

Is my wife's gun a scary AW with a scary LCM like an M-16 or is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

Quote

from the standpoint of political symbolism, having a fight on the implementation is a plus for the people who passed the law, not a minus.

That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You've answered the question before and are now afraid of it?

Is my wife's gun a scary AW with a scary LCM like an M-16 or is it not?

Is your mind in a rut, Tom?  This claptrap ^^^ surfaced the first week of Dec. 2016. Seven months of this pablum?  You embarass yourself, shamelessly. It's just sad, and revealing, that you have nothing intelligent and worthy to contribute... as the upper courts identify you as a hollow pariah.

Up your game. Please respond to the scholarship in play in the matter within the OP.

Quote

The Second Amendment in Historiographical Crisis: Why the Supreme Court Must Reevaluate the Embarrassing 'Standard Model' Moving Forward 

Source: Patrick Charles, a patient, careful scholar quoted in Heller and MacDonald

In Part I, this Article exposes the Standard Model for what it is not—an objective and thoroughly researched history. It identifies four unquestioned historical methodologies to which the Model has failed to adhere and how one poor account has been built upon another, which ultimately has made the “modern” Second Amendment unrecognizable to the founding generation.

 

Part II then summarizes why historians view the Standard Model as nothing short of a historical embarrassment. In particular, Part II focuses on the rise and fall of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s work on the right to arms. It then illustrates the interpretative consequences that Malcolm and other Standard Model accounts have had on the AngloAmerican understanding of the right to arms.

 

Lastly, Part III discusses the prudential reasons for reevaluating the Standard Model. In particular, it weighs three historical options that the Supreme Court could adopt for adjudicating future Second Amendment cases and controversies. It then concludes that there is a simple and reasonable construct available to the Court when weighing history. Known as a “historical guidepost” approach, the construct not only ensures the preservation of our history in context, but also allows for constitutional jurisprudence to evolve in the process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.

No one wants your guns. There's a nice little shop not far from the office. Still in business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on out Tom. We can go look at some gunz you can buy here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.

"Nobody wants to take your non-LCM guns."  

99% of U.S. citizens would be unaffected by such a ban. 1% would give up three AW's each...

You have some social adjustments to make. Bans like this have been supported in upper court appeals. Such bans never been opposed by circuit courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Come on out Tom. We can go look at some gunz you can buy here.

Why would I be interested in the neutered guns that are legal in California?

We're allowed to have standard capacity magazines with ordinary magazine release buttons here.

And our government has not yet made possession of legal guns a felony like yours has. Cling to the "no one wants your guns" line if you must but when they make it a felony to keep them instead of handing them over to the state, that makes it seem just a bit to me like they want to confiscate guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Why would I be interested in the neutered guns that are legal in California?

We're allowed to have standard capacity magazines with ordinary magazine release buttons here.

And our government has not yet made possession of legal guns a felony like yours has. Cling to the "no one wants your guns" line if you must but when they make it a felony to keep them instead of handing them over to the state, that makes it seem just a bit to me like they want to confiscate guns.

1.Why would you be interested in WA state laws, as they apply in FL?

2. These AW guns and LCM's are no longer legal, and never were in common use. Life is a progression, mate. 

3. "They" only need to confiscate battle-bred weaponry. Not all guns.

Gun Grabber Boogaloo.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

 

 

3. "They" only need to confiscate battle-bred weaponry. Not all guns.

 

Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.

You need to answer your own question. What's the big issue with voters in CA feeling the need to restrict battle guns, and perhaps other guns? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You need to answer your own question. What's the big issue with voters in CA feeling the need to restrict battle guns, and perhaps other guns? 

Liars?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies

You know a great deal about lies Tom, everyone should listen to you ... or maybe they shouldn't because, ah never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You need to answer your own question. What's the big issue with voters in CA feeling the need to restrict battle guns, and perhaps other guns? 

Same issue as always. Restrict means confiscate and we don't want our guns taken. Not even the battlefield .22's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, random said:

You know a great deal about lies Tom, everyone should listen to you ... or maybe they shouldn't because, ah never mind.

This is how Tom quotes an honest nemesis:

Quote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Liars?

 

Votes don't lie, the votes follow personal perceptions about personal safety. You just provided a falsehood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.

It's ok Tom, we don't really want you out here anyway. We'll live in our "neutered" gun society, just fine, thankyouverymuch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom's fucking scared.  He is so scared of the slaves revolting that he and his family must have a loaded weapon within reach at all times.  His wife has one.

Must be a cunt to live like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raz'r said:

It's ok Tom, we don't really want you out here anyway. We'll live in our "neutered" gun society, just fine, thankyouverymuch

Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Tom Ray are a fucking liar.

More lies Tom boy, you just can't help it.  Although it is not there, please link for the rest of us where you think I said that.

stock-photo-young-man-filing-his-nails-9article-2724443-1A621A8300000578-974_306

Linky or it's stinky!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, random said:

...please link for the rest of us where you think I said that.

 

Linky or it's stinky!

 

 

On 6/15/2017 at 6:49 PM, random said:

So you disagree with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

What qualifications do you have in this area?


But we should really take that discussion to the thread you suggested on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.

 

If a gun doesn't take an LCM, it is a "neutered" gun. That would be a big fat lie, within a stream of lies.

 

11 hours ago, random said:

Tom's fucking scared.  He is so scared of the slaves revolting that he and his family must have a loaded weapon within reach at all times.  His wife has one.

Must be a cunt to live like that.

Tom's mom has a gun, too. Randy Weaver moves to FL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 3:15 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Uncooperative Californicators

Only a couple more days for gun owners to comply and I doubt the attitude will change.

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.

 

 

This law is a signal of the desired behavior within CA communities, innit? But you don't  personally care for this law. Your lack of respect for the legal fabric (the constitution, that is) which formed the law is showing. You would rather be criminally-inclined, while spouting cherry-picked bits of the constitution. 

So far, you have applauded criminals, and coached others to become felons for your cause, in CT, NY, FL, NC, and CA. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 3:11 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

You've answered the question before and are now afraid of it?

Is my wife's gun a scary AW with a scary LCM like an M-16 or is it not?

Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?

 

Please post a link to that event.  I would like to read that for myself.  - Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, F395 said:

Please post a link to that event.  I would like to read that for myself.  - Thank you!

I posted the incident twice, with white noise in the background. Thanks for your interest and awareness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.

 

Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.

May I present...the piper.

Tom Ray, Pied Piper.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 10:11 AM, Raz'r said:

No one wants your guns. ...

Or...

17 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.

By "breaking the law" you mean "keeping their guns" so how you can claim no one wants them is beyond belief. The people who made them illegal clearly want them. That's why they made it a felony to keep them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?

 

So were they killed on a battlefield? I mean, it's a battlefield weapon, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tom, how many guns do you have?  I've got this theory that there is a relationship between the number of guns you have in your house and how fucking scared you are.  Help me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites