• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dabnis2

SCOTUS to revise gun laws?

205 posts in this topic

Gov, not sure I understand your reply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv, are you five years old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Gouv, are you five years old?

I am communicating at Dabs level. He has the very finest level of posting and I am trying to write posts that contain as much useful information as Dabs can use. Only Dabs knows how to communicate at Dabs level though. I can only try. 

SA needs more trying! 

Dabs posts are always  trying 

 

oh my!! did I just post again??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

I am communicating at Dabs level. He has the very finest level of posting and I am trying to write posts that contain as much useful information as Dabs can use. Only Dabs knows how to communicate at Dabs level though. I can only try. 

SA needs more trying! 

Dabs posts are always  trying 

 

oh my!! did I just post again??

Not worth it! You can play with him if he lets you in his sand box. I'm putting the dweeb on ignore or at least thinking about it. LB 15 made the cut. Must be lonely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?? That would cut your posts by a couple dozen a day 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv, you forgot to put "Dabs, you're an idiot" in that block of Ha Ha Has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the OP is Chris Cox, the NRA spokesman, with an appeal of the Kolbe decision to the SC. The Fox article is weak and full of holes. it confuses AW's generically with other semi-automatics.. The objections of the article were answered in the March 2017 Kolbe decision, the Fox reporters must not have read it..

AW assaults on police in Baton Rouge and Dallas occured during the Kolbe deliberations.  Go Heller: here is the majority's logic:

Quote

When Maryland appealed the decision to the full appeals court, a 10-4 majority determined, “[W]e have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit Gov, I had to show that to my wife, with predictable results.  It's ok.  You Sir, may stay....

Share this post


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

Really?? That would cut your posts by a couple dozen a day 

Certainly a lot less than yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being like Dabs. He wouldn't call himself an idiot 

 ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha MrLeft8  thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha MrLeft thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha MrLeft Thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha MrLeft thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Mr Left thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Mr Left Thinks Dabs is an idiot. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all should call ourselves idiots-

I am an idiot!

wee!  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

I was being like Dabs. He wouldn't call himself an idiot 

 ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha MrLeft8  thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha MrLeft thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha MrLeft Thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha MrLeft thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Mr Left thinks Dabs is an idiot ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Mr Left Thinks Dabs is an idiot. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Mrs. Dabs might though with good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gouvernail: It ain't over 'til it's over, sir. Talk among yourselves. And Happy Algorithm-ing to all.

Such smart kids we have in computer science nowadays. Now, back in my day...
"UBC software teaches computer characters to walk, run, even play soccer," UBC Public Affairs, July 31, 2017, 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. "Weapons of war" huh?

Like the Marlin .22 in this picture?

xw9Gjdu.jpg

Quote

Pelleteri, an expert marksman who was once employed as a firearms instructor, won a contest hosted by a police department.  He received, from the police, a legal Marlin semi-automatic rifle that held 17 rounds of ammunition.  Several years later, the State of New Jersey amended N.J.S.A  2C:39-1(w)(4) dealing with firearms and because his rifle held more than 15 rounds, Mr. Pelleteri's rifle was subject to the "assault firearm" ban enacted in 1990.  The decision in his case says that "[w]hen the police recovered the gun from defendant's residence in December 1993, it still had the manufacturer's tags and the owner's manual attached to the trigger guard."

I'm still waiting to see some soldiers carrying these tube-fed .22's. Apparently, they're "weapons of war" because they meet the definition of an "assault weapon."

They seem like ordinary rifles to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nine months of this harangue? Grow up, Tom. Get a life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to once again point out some common "weapons of war" that the grabbers don't seem concerned about.

1.  Ordinary, common hunting rifle

Model700-CDL-SF.jpg

1.  Weapon of war

5871042293_0c548aca93_b.jpg

2.  Ordinary common Handgun

10105872.jpg

 

2.  Weapon of war638969-840x420.jpg  

3.  Ordinary common shotgun

Model870-Wingmaster.jpg

3.  Weapon of war

7401068850_5f013fa422_b.jpg

4.  Squirrel assault rifle

1103.jpg

4.  Weapon of war

hqdefault.jpg

5.  Weapon of war

AR15A4_700w.png

 

5.  Ordinary, common hunting rifle

ced58d4d6d947a36079fcc9daca99c52--countr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these nice citizens have other guns they can go to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pooplius case is from 1996. Twenty one years ago. The article is four years old. Tom is scraping the bottom of the barrel for content.

Mr. P built a clever little case which burdened to court to prove that Mr. P knew it was an illegal gun..The court replied we don have to prove it,:"it is within the power of the Legislature to declare an act criminal irrespective of the motive of the actor."

The appeaks court explained that guns are dangerous, that the burden is upon the owner to know the law, and to register this gun in a timely manner.  When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.

This guy had so many guns this gun was never shot? I have one of these guns and, before long, counted to seventeen while loading the tube.

The artice is from Gunwatch, which openly displays two mis-truths on it's home page. It disinforms the gullible public (e.g. NGS and Big Tom) by brazenly misquoting Jefferson. The article is misleading, and slanted. Mr. P was not jailed (as suggested); he got probation. Police held probable cause  and a warrant to search Mr. P's home, but the article can't say why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the sometimes-successful efforts to ban ordinary .22's as "assault weapons" has been going on for decades and continues.

51 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I have one of these guns and, before long, counted to seventeen while loading the tube.

So your assault weapon is illegal in New Jersey. They woke up and realized that these battlefield .22's are dangerous. When will you wake up and get rid of yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get rid of it when you sort out a fraction of your disinformation. Seriously. Let's pick a few Pooplius turds out of a hat. 

I will ditch my gun and miss it too...

  • When  you get honest about the blockage of gun research.
  • When you get honest that gun restrictions are demonstrably effective, however odious.
  • When you admit that there are democratic conflicts involved with CATO's very sketchy generation of Heller.
  • When you show admirable compassion for gun suicide situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't convince yourself to get rid of your battlefield weapon without my help?

No wonder you can't convince anyone else.

Share this post


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

You can't convince yourself to get rid of your battlefield weapon without my help?

No wonder you can't convince anyone else.

hqdefault.jpg

Share this post


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

I think it's important to once again point out some common "weapons of war" that the grabbers don't seem concerned about.

1.  Ordinary, common hunting rifle

Model700-CDL-SF.jpg

1.  Weapon of war

5871042293_0c548aca93_b.jpg

2.  Ordinary common Handgun

10105872.jpg

 

2.  Weapon of war638969-840x420.jpg  

3.  Ordinary common shotgun

Model870-Wingmaster.jpg

3.  Weapon of war

7401068850_5f013fa422_b.jpg

4.  Squirrel assault rifle

1103.jpg

4.  Weapon of war

hqdefault.jpg

5.  Weapon of war

AR15A4_700w.png

 

5.  Ordinary, common hunting rifle

ced58d4d6d947a36079fcc9daca99c52--countr

And the right  to keep and bear those arms shall not be infringed

Share this post


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

I think it's important to once again point out some common "weapons of war" that the grabbers don't seem concerned about.

1.  Ordinary, common hunting rifle

Model700-CDL-SF.jpg

1.  Weapon of war

5871042293_0c548aca93_b.jpg

2.  Ordinary common Handgun

10105872.jpg

 

2.  Weapon of war638969-840x420.jpg  

3.  Ordinary common shotgun

Model870-Wingmaster.jpg

3.  Weapon of war

7401068850_5f013fa422_b.jpg

4.  Squirrel assault rifle

1103.jpg

4.  Weapon of war

hqdefault.jpg

5.  Weapon of war

AR15A4_700w.png

 

5.  Ordinary, common hunting rifle

ced58d4d6d947a36079fcc9daca99c52--countr

Yep, and you cheered personal right, so now military style weapons are now easily regulated. You got what you wanted. Y u bitching?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weapon of War:

4e01b4512dfc8743e7e5c2a1ded771c4--patton

 

Common, ordinary automobile:

military-humor-bad-parking-level-tank.jp

Share this post


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

Yep, and you cheered personal right, so now military style weapons are now easily regulated. You got what you wanted. Y u bitching?

What do you mean by "now" in that statement?

Ordinary .22's that hold more than 15 rounds have been illegal in New Jersey because they're "military style" since 1990. Lots of other bans on mean-looking weapons date to the 1990's and early 2000's. Seems that "military style" .22's have been easily regulated (meaning banned) for quite some time.

Share this post


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

hqdefault.jpg

 If I were a leading intellectual on PA, I could make posts like this ^^^ too. I would impress Pee Wee, between my vacations.

Share this post


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

What do you mean by "now" in that statement?

Ordinary .22's that hold more than 15 rounds have been illegal in New Jersey because they're "military style" since 1990. Lots of other bans on mean-looking weapons date to the 1990's and early 2000's. Seems that "military style" .22's have been easily regulated (meaning banned) for quite some time.

Poor Tom. He has been either manic or sobbing about the .22 non-issue, through one winter, spring, and summer. He can't keep up, he seems to have lost it after the Kolbe decision. The Kolbe deciders are now mulling basic "good cause" issues.

Tom is stressed out and weepy, with the vapors. Our Pooplius is on the kleenex. 

Share this post


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

Yep, and you cheered personal right, so now military style weapons are now easily regulated. You got what you wanted. Y u bitching?

Personal rights are settled by different laws and courts than militia rights. When Scalia's stinkpot gets up on a plane, the good ship Heller will grind  "gun rights" with the propeller. 

Share this post


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

the .22 non-issue,

Keeping a battlefield weapon like your .22 is illegal in New Jersey and grabbers in your state wish to make it illegal where you live.

If you went ahead and got rid of your assault weapon, that would be a non-issue for you. But you can't convince yourself that battlefield weapons like yours don't belong in civilian hands, so it will remain an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are lost in a silly series of statements. You have no better concerns in life than to fret (for nine months) that all .22's are AW's. You are an avowed Libertarian, and an intellectual dynamo.

But you aren't honest enough to claim the Libertarian's group of Libertarian historians. In the Standard Model, I'm guessing that the "palladium of liberty" is a gun, or the right to use a gun in confrontation. Let's take a closer look...

Quote
Quote

The Palladium of liberty? P49 Charles' Historic Guideposts

This understanding of a “well-regulated militia” as the “palladium of liberty” was frequently conveyed in the popular print culture.  For example, a July 1789 edition of The New-York Packet discussed how a “well regulated Militia” requires the “habitual exercise” of military training and “manly discipline, which is the bulwark of the country[.]” 195 

 

This knowledge of the military art was the “sole means to render a standing army useless” and to “form a truly warlike militia.”196

 

-- It was not “arms” in itself that secured the nation.  It was the maintenance of knowledge in the military art, for “education is a bulwark against tyranny, it is the grand palladium of true liberty in a republican government.”197 

--James Simmons similarly described the “militia of America” as the “palladium of our security, and the first effectual resort in case of hostility.”198

--Isaac Crane wrote that the national assemblage of the militia was the “grand palladium of our liberties[.]”199  --Meanwhile, a 1798 militia address published in the Connecticut Gazette stated,

 “The importance and practicability of a well regulated and disciplined Militia, in a free country, cannot be doubted, this day you have evinced that such a thing is altogether practicable—You are the palladium of which your country leans for the protection against all foreign invasion[.]”200

 

Therefore, given that there were

(a) more “well-regulated militia” analogues than Heller right analogues,

(b) not one Heller right analogue protected a right to “keep arms,” and that

(c) St. George Tucker and Joseph Story were referring to the militia as a “palladium of liberty,”

 it makes little sense for Alito to claim that the Second Amendment analogues protected “an individual right to keep and bear arms” that “legal commentators confirmed the importance of[.]”

file:///C:/Users/Joe/Downloads/Charles, 2nd A Review after Macdonald.pdf

 

 

Share this post


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

And the right  to keep and bear those arms shall not be infringed

I wish it were that simple. Jo jo disagrees with you. 

Share this post


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

I wish it were that simple. Jo jo disagrees with you. 

Scalia and a full history of court decisions disagree with Gouv as well. Gouv is a fine man in a cool area with a studied degree, and at least one seriously limited mental parameter.

Share this post


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

Scalia and a full history of court decisions disagree with Gouv as well. Gouv is a fine man in a cool area with a studied degree, and at least one seriously limited mental parameter.

I comprehend English. The Second Amendment is quite clear. The SCOTUS has allowed the other branches to ignore the  2nd on multiple occasions. 

Were I on the Court, and I am not and shall never be, I would disallow ANY law pertaining to ANYTHING that could be considered a scintilla of an infringement.

i do think some forms of controls on  arms bearing could perhaps be a good idea and certainly would be interested in reading and considering various proposals for a Constitutional Amendment  which would allow a scintilla of arms control

but

No such Amendment has been proposed, passed,  and ratified. 

Until such time as We The People decide to allow the government to infringe, the Government may not.

note: I am simply being a purist. The government cannot tax those building arms.... No income tax. No sales tax. No property tax on properties where arms are created or stored. 

In fact, no one needs to fill out a form to inform the government his is claiming tax  exemption because his property  has arms. That would take time and therefore be an infringement. 

The 2nd Amendment is so poorly written and overly broad in its scope it inclusion in the Constitution fundamentally stymies the government's ability to function. 

The  currently used solution is to ignore the words we don't find convenient. That is wrong!! The proper solution is an Amendment. 

i am quite certain I couid stand before the SCOTUS and cause all nine judges to admit my position is 100% correct. I don't know whether such an admission would cause any of them to immediately move to overturn 100% of all arms laws.

They should, at the very least, cite the impractical nature of a total and immediate repeal, set a date for the judicial  repeal, and perhaps offer wording for the Amendment which would allow previous SCOTUS decisions to stand.

Until such time as the 2nd is repealed and replaced, we shall really have no 2nd Amendment 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Little talent, less humor, and no relevance to the topic at all since we all already know that a revolver is protected, unlike battlefield weapons like Jocal's .22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You're forgetting that Sol's only here to troll. He has no stance or position.

Other than Malarkey HJ Dog or the mininster he has nothing.

Edit to add. He has YOO HOO on tap.

Edited by Scratchanot
He's an asshole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol has a position. Mr. Rosenberg supports the Second, and percieves that when rights go away in this system, they don't come back. Sol has stated his position unequivocally, but you haven't. 

That said, Sol didn't care for the outcome of The Charleston Loophole at a Charleston Church.

Share this post


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

I comprehend English. The Second Amendment is quite clear. The SCOTUS has allowed the other branches to ignore the  2nd on multiple occasions. 

Were I on the Court, and I am not and shall never be, I would disallow ANY law pertaining to ANYTHING that could be considered a scintilla of an infringement.

i do think some forms of controls on  arms bearing could perhaps be a good idea and certainly would be interested in reading and considering various proposals for a Constitutional Amendment  which would allow a scintilla of arms control

but

No such Amendment has been proposed, passed,  and ratified. 

Until such time as We The People decide to allow the government to infringe, the Government may not.

note: I am simply being a purist. The government cannot tax those building arms.... No income tax. No sales tax. No property tax on properties where arms are created or stored. 

In fact, no one needs to fill out a form to inform the government his is claiming tax  exemption because his property  has arms. That would take time and therefore be an infringement. 

The 2nd Amendment is so poorly written and overly broad in its scope it inclusion in the Constitution fundamentally stymies the government's ability to function. 

The  currently used solution is to ignore the words we don't find convenient. That is wrong!! The proper solution is an Amendment. 

i am quite certain I couid stand before the SCOTUS and cause all nine judges to admit my position is 100% correct. I don't know whether such an admission would cause any of them to immediately move to overturn 100% of all arms laws.

They should, at the very least, cite the impractical nature of a total and immediate repeal, set a date for the judicial  repeal, and perhaps offer wording for the Amendment which would allow previous SCOTUS decisions to stand.

Until such time as the 2nd is repealed and replaced, we shall really have no 2nd Amendment 

 

 

 

Thanks for finally developing your thoughts, and doing it clearly. (I agree with your point as a purist, I snore thru your point as a pragmatist.)

Did you attempt to grasp the issues within Scribble Scrabble? In short, the conversation discusses the legality of armed mobs vs. the legality of lawful assemblies. The former have alienable gun rights. The latter have authority to police certain situations. The former had their guns taken away for a bit, without mention of the Second Amendment  or sacred individual gun rights by either side.

Infringe has a yuge qualifier, and has a history. The preferatory clause did not happen in a vacuum. Between 1689 and 1791, infringing on the feds or monarch was a downhome tradition, not a word.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Comprehending English" is the boast of a child, unfortunately.

Gouv, you need to understand the use here of their word, infringe. You need historical guideposts before shooting your opinions all about. Gage himself claimed self defence, it was a term used by muster, to quell armed insurrections under color of authority. Self defence was a right to confront tyrants, and was not to be infringed by them. England's recent "Glorious Revolution" had been peaceful, but Parliament had thereby re-claimed the right to legal, armed rebellion as a fifth auxiliary right (to be used by muster, after four failures). Self defence. The FF copied that English right...but individual gun actions were alienable.

With a backdrop of gunlock and powder seizures in multiple locations, such offenses to individual gun rights were left out of the 27 complaints in the Declaration of Independence. There were no such rights flowing from England.

Quote

p443   “Arms for Their Defence”? Patrick Charles

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=clevstlrev

Besides, in understanding the American perception of the English allowance to “have arms,” one cannot forget that the Founding Fathers and the American pamphleteers frequently referred to the 1689 Declaration of Rights to support their arguments.660  The British Constitution was always on their minds.  This is significant because the Founders would have been particularly familiar with the protective scope of the “have arms” provision.  If the Individual Right Scholars are correct in their interpretation, it does not make sense that the Founders did not list the seizure of arms by Thomas Gage, Josiah Martin, Lord Dunmore, and the restrictions on the importation of arms by Lord Dartmouth in the Declaration of Independence.  Any of these seizures would have unequivocally infringed on the “individual right” theory of armed self-defense.   However, such an argument was never made in the Declaration of Independence. 

 

Share this post


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

I comprehend English. The Second Amendment is quite clear. The SCOTUS has allowed the other branches to ignore the  2nd on multiple occasions. 

Were I on the Court, and I am not and shall never be, I would disallow ANY law pertaining to ANYTHING that could be considered a scintilla of an infringement.

i do think some forms of controls on  arms bearing could perhaps be a good idea and certainly would be interested in reading and considering various proposals for a Constitutional Amendment  which would allow a scintilla of arms control

but

No such Amendment has been proposed, passed,  and ratified. 

Until such time as We The People decide to allow the government to infringe, the Government may not.

note: I am simply being a purist. The government cannot tax those building arms.... No income tax. No sales tax. No property tax on properties where arms are created or stored. 

In fact, no one needs to fill out a form to inform the government his is claiming tax  exemption because his property  has arms. That would take time and therefore be an infringement. 

The 2nd Amendment is so poorly written and overly broad in its scope it inclusion in the Constitution fundamentally stymies the government's ability to function. 

The  currently used solution is to ignore the words we don't find convenient. That is wrong!! The proper solution is an Amendment. 

i am quite certain I couid stand before the SCOTUS and cause all nine judges to admit my position is 100% correct. I don't know whether such an admission would cause any of them to immediately move to overturn 100% of all arms laws.

They should, at the very least, cite the impractical nature of a total and immediate repeal, set a date for the judicial  repeal, and perhaps offer wording for the Amendment which would allow previous SCOTUS decisions to stand.

Until such time as the 2nd is repealed and replaced, we shall really have no 2nd Amendment 

Repeal and replace..... now where have we heard that before?  How has it worked out so far?

BTW gove, I have to give you props for making jocal's head explode

Share this post


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

Sol has a position. Mr. Rosenberg supports the Second, and percieves that when rights go away in this system, they don't come back. Sol has stated his position unequivocally, but you haven't. 

That said, Sol didn't care for the outcome of The Charleston Loophole at a Charleston Church.

My position in regards to my previous post in this thread is that Betty went nuts, making this a mental health issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Repeal and replace..... now where have we heard that before?  How has it worked out so far?

BTW gove, I have to give you props for making jocal's head explode

  Leading the way for Pee Wee ^^^.  Note the profound mental capacity in play here.                                                                           

pee wee herman.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand the desire to read flexibility into  #2.

i contend; no such flexibility exists.

Had the court simply recognized that inflexibility 200 years ago, the Amendments could have been made before the ongoing fight about "how much infringing  to do anyway" would never have started. 

 

Share this post


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

Repeal and replace..... now where have we heard that before?  How has it worked out so far?

BTW gove, I have to give you props for making jocal's head explode

I love it when somebody posts a simple "but wait a minute" opinion in the  middle of a shit fight and both sets of extremists  go nuts. 

Share this post


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

Sol has a position. Mr. Rosenberg supports the Second, and percieves that when rights go away in this system, they don't come back. Sol has stated his position unequivocally, but you haven't. 

That said, Sol didn't care for the outcome of The Charleston Loophole at a Charleston Church.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2017 at 6:04 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I think it's important to once again point out some common "weapons of war" that the grabbers don't seem concerned about.

1.  Ordinary, common hunting rifle

Model700-CDL-SF.jpg

1.  Weapon of war

5871042293_0c548aca93_b.jpg

2.  Ordinary common Handgun

10105872.jpg

 

2.  Weapon of war638969-840x420.jpg  

3.  Ordinary common shotgun

Model870-Wingmaster.jpg

3.  Weapon of war

7401068850_5f013fa422_b.jpg

4.  Squirrel assault rifle

1103.jpg

4.  Weapon of war

hqdefault.jpg

5.  Weapon of war

AR15A4_700w.png

 

5.  Ordinary, common hunting rifle

ced58d4d6d947a36079fcc9daca99c52--countr

Weapons of war have a fucking bayonet on the business end. For when it gets personal.

Hell, I've got a baseball bat with a bayonet, just in case.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have another wrench>>>>

 

When the USA forces overran Iraq it also served to define exactly what are and are no longer effective "arms."

#2 does not include the word "effective" but, historically,  the SCOTUS has had no problem adding "implied" wording.

It became quite apparent in Iraq, when battling the government of the USA is involved,  tanks and machine guns are no longer effective arms. 

In fact it seems arms now include not just cruise missiles and jets but the silicon chip my now be the ultimate "arm."

 

For those  wish to regulate guns, a case could be made our guns no longer have any use against the government. If we want to assemble a militia to preserve democracy we need nukes, jets, cruise missiles, computers, and the hackers who can use those computers to disrupt the operation of the government.

So, if you want to infringe on our right to keep and bear fixed bayonets, sling shots, handguns, tanks, machine guns, propeller driven airplanes, and other "no longer effective" arms, I wouid encourage you to base your case on the fact those tools are no longer arms. 

Please note: Those who say things like "nobody needs a machine gun to shoot Bambi" have absolutely no clue why the Constitution specifically prohibited the government from disarming the people. 

Share this post


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

Have another wrench>>>>

 

When the USA forces overran Iraq it also served to define exactly what are and are no longer effective "arms."

#2 does not include the word "effective" but, historically,  the SCOTUS has had no problem adding "implied" wording.

It became quite apparent in Iraq, when battling the government of the USA is involved,  tanks and machine guns are no longer effective arms. 

In fact it seems arms now include not just cruise missiles and jets but the silicon chip my now be the ultimate "arm."

 

For those  wish to regulate guns, a case could be made our guns no longer have any use against the government. If we want to assemble a militia to preserve democracy we need nukes, jets, cruise missiles, computers, and the hackers who can use those computers to disrupt the operation of the government.

So, if you want to infringe on our right to keep and bear fixed bayonets, sling shots, handguns, tanks, machine guns, propeller driven airplanes, and other "no longer effective" arms, I wouid encourage you to base your case on the fact those tools are no longer arms. 

Please note: Those who say things like "nobody needs a machine gun to shoot Bambi" have absolutely no clue why the Constitution specifically prohibited the government from disarming the people. 

Well, I'll just say that those who need a machine gun to shoot Bambi are not very good shots, nor are they likely to find their venison sausage very wholesome.

I'll also say that those who believe the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government within the US should study a little history.

Whatever, I am going to cling to my baseball bat and bayonet!

-DSK

Share this post


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

Have another wrench>>>>

 

When the USA forces overran Iraq it also served to define exactly what are and are no longer effective "arms."

#2 does not include the word "effective" but, historically,  the SCOTUS has had no problem adding "implied" wording.

It became quite apparent in Iraq, when battling the government of the USA is involved,  tanks and machine guns are no longer effective arms. 

In fact it seems arms now include not just cruise missiles and jets but the silicon chip my now be the ultimate "arm."

 

For those  wish to regulate guns, a case could be made our guns no longer have any use against the government. If we want to assemble a militia to preserve democracy we need nukes, jets, cruise missiles, computers, and the hackers who can use those computers to disrupt the operation of the government.

So, if you want to infringe on our right to keep and bear fixed bayonets, sling shots, handguns, tanks, machine guns, propeller driven airplanes, and other "no longer effective" arms, I wouid encourage you to base your case on the fact those tools are no longer arms. 

Please note: Those who say things like "nobody needs a machine gun to shoot Bambi" have absolutely no clue why the Constitution specifically prohibited the government from disarming the people. 

If I am reading your posts correctly, it appears you may be in favor of allowing people to own a gun, or guns of their choice? Also, from reading your posts, it appears you may be left handed? A rare situation, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read any of the sad old guy's posts, nor most of the others, but has anyone pointed out to the addled old dabbler that the SCOTUS doesn't write, or revise laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

I haven't read any of the sad old guy's posts, nor most of the others, but has anyone pointed out to the addled old dabbler that the SCOTUS doesn't write, or revise laws?

Yes, I know that, but they can effectively change or nullify enforcement of existing laws, I think it is called "Interpreting the law"? 

You folks on the left are really falling down on the personal insults & name calling job, getting tired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dabnis2 said:

Yes, I know that, but they can effectively change or nullify enforcement of existing laws, I think it is called "Interpreting the law"? 

You folks on the left are really falling down on the personal insults & name calling job, getting tired?

Perhaps they are sick of trying to communicate with you 

Share this post


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

I'll also say that those who believe the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government within the US should study a little history.

For example,

Quote

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

Not much in there about armed citizens fighting a tyrannical govt at all. Just stuff about fighting a govt that is "formidable to the liberties of the people" which is very different from tyrannical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Have another wrench>>>>

 

When the USA forces overran Iraq it also served to define exactly what are and are no longer effective "arms."

#2 does not include the word "effective" but, historically,  the SCOTUS has had no problem adding "implied" wording.

It became quite apparent in Iraq, when battling the government of the USA is involved,  tanks and machine guns are no longer effective arms. 

In fact it seems arms now include not just cruise missiles and jets but the silicon chip my now be the ultimate "arm."

 

For those  wish to regulate guns, a case could be made our guns no longer have any use against the government. If we want to assemble a militia to preserve democracy we need nukes, jets, cruise missiles, computers, and the hackers who can use those computers to disrupt the operation of the government.

So, if you want to infringe on our right to keep and bear fixed bayonets, sling shots, handguns, tanks, machine guns, propeller driven airplanes, and other "no longer effective" arms, I wouid encourage you to base your case on the fact those tools are no longer arms. 

Please note: Those who say things like "nobody needs a machine gun to shoot Bambi" have absolutely no clue why the Constitution specifically prohibited the government from disarming the people. 

Where did you get the impression that small arms are no longer effective against a modern well equipped army??  Do I need to remind you again that a ragtag band of bearded goat and little boy fuckers with not much more than AK-47s has held the most powerful military on the planet with tanks, jets, satellite guided bombs and aircraft carriers at bay for going on what..... 16 years and counting??

I think your analogy of Iraq and Afghanistan is actually THE PERFECT example of what small arms in the hands of dedicated militia fighting on its home soil can do against modern technology  

I thank you again for making my point FOR and using this analogy  

 

Share this post


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

Well, I'll just say that those who need a machine gun to shoot Bambi are not very good shots, nor are they likely to find their venison sausage very wholesome.

I'll also say that those who believe the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government within the US should study a little history.

Whatever, I am going to cling to my baseball bat and bayonet!

-DSK

What is it for then Sooper Genius?

Share this post


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

My position in regards to my previous post in this thread is that Betty went nuts, making this a mental health issue.  

Uh oh. That's not exactly reassuring to gun nutz who are fans of due process.

On 8/1/2017 at 5:45 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

SAFE Act: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
 

Quote

 

the deputies produced an official document demanding that Hall, a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran who is a retired pipefitter, turn over his guns to them on the spot. On the document Hall said he was described as "mentally defective."

When Hall told police he'd never had any mental issues, Hall said, deputies told him he must have done something that triggered the order under the New York state's SAFE Act.

The deputies left that night with six guns - two handguns and four long guns.

Hall, who lives in the Oneida County hamlet of Taberg, hired a lawyer and secured affidavits from local hospitals to prove he hadn't been recently treated. At one point, he was told he'd have to get some of his guns back from a gun shop.

Eventually, his lawyer convinced a judge that authorities had him confused with someone else who had sought care and that his weapons should never have been seized.

To this day, no one at a hospital or the state and local agencies involved in taking Hall's guns has admitted to Hall that a mistake was made, explained what happened or apologized. A county judge did acknowledge the mistake and helped him get his guns back.

...

Although it took Hall several months to get his guns back, he's happy to have the ordeal behind him.

Hall said he does believe what happened to him points out a legal flaw. People should have the right to know why they were flagged, he said.

 

Why would they admit a mistake or apologize? He's just a gun nut, after all, and he eventually got his guns back, so there's no problem.

 

Share this post


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

I love it when somebody posts a simple "but wait a minute" opinion in the  middle of a shit fight and both sets of extremists  go nuts. 

The word infringe = anarchy. You did it half a dozen times. Feel free to do it again.

Share this post


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

Uh oh. That's not exactly reassuring to gun nutz who are fans of due process.

 

What the eff do you want? Did you read your own post? Two very similar social security numbers under an identical name, but your journalist couldn't see how such a mistake would happen? 

 

VALIDATION! THE PERILS OF GRANNIES AW, Ch 39

Feb. 2017 SAFE Act enforcers (acting on Jeffie's wisdom to "enforce the laws on the books") find an unused, currently illegal, .22 long gun. The weapon, which has a 17 round capacity, is seized.

Feb or March 2017 Due process hearing held, after proper notification.

March 2017 Acting on advice of counsel, The kindly gunowner documents his mental health, and schools his kindly judge, without drama, by mail. The documentation took a few days of effort in three hospital locations.

April 2017 Kindly gunowner receives vocal confirmation of return of handguns, followed by judicial notification that ALL weapons will be returned.

August 2017. Weapons returned. 

August 2017. Whinerbaby article appears in local press, thrilling Pooplius.

August 2017. Major crime unit unimpressed.

Share this post


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

Where did you get the impression that small arms are no longer effective against a modern well equipped army??  Do I need to remind you again that a ragtag band of bearded goat and little boy fuckers with not much more than AK-47s has held the most powerful military on the planet with tanks, jets, satellite guided bombs and aircraft carriers at bay for going on what..... 16 years and counting??

I think your analogy of Iraq and Afghanistan is actually THE PERFECT example of what small arms in the hands of dedicated militia fighting on its home soil can do against modern technology  

I thank you again for making my point FOR and using this analogy  

 

How does this ragtag bit work, soldier boy? Let's say a few armed uncooperatives, or a thousand armed uncooperatives, act out. Where is their legal right without a muster? How can they stand on the constitution and attack constitutional institutions at the same time?

Quote

dedicated militia fighting on its home soil

Your actors would trigger several articles within the constitution the moment they act. Who defined the tyrants for their cause?

Jeffie, you are floating assassinations and social chaos here, in a representative democracy. Our constitutions protects us from your elk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, I'll just say that those who need a machine gun to shoot Bambi are not very good shots, nor are they likely to find their venison sausage very wholesome.

I'll also say that those who believe the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government within the US should study a little history.

Whatever, I am going to cling to my baseball bat and bayonet!

-DSK

Steamer, here is the current scoop on Insurrectionist Theory. This man be a world class summary of where this sits, from the Wrenn briefs. The SC judges will view these conflicting authors as they sort out Wrenn or Peruta.

As a background, one particularly respected, rather liberal constitutional scholar has bought into the idea of guns vs. politicians. Without discussion,Tom Ray has cryptically offered us Sanford Levinson's writing with his particularly influential work, The Embarassing Second Amendment. Levinson's contribution is great reading, and a rare pro-rights contribution from a non-libertarian. Levinson has formidable critics with interesting footnotes.

Quote

From Ch V. THE "RIGHT OF REVOLUTION"

LOST AND FOUND: RESEARCHING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

ROBERT J. SPITZER* 

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3294&context=cklawreview

 One of the most startling qualities of the individualist law review literature is the rapidity and enthusiasm with which some teachers of law embrace the virtues of armed American insurrection.66

 

P362 Sanford Levinson, for example, states in a widely cited article published in the Yale Law Journal that "It is not my style to offer 'correct' or 'incorrect' interpretations of the Constitution. '67  Yet he then proceeds to do just that, calling into question the conventional (court) understanding of the Second Amendment. In the process, he asserts that the Second Amendment is an expression of republicanism that does and should take citizen participation beyond peaceful, constitutional means:

 Just as ordinary citizens should participate actively in governmental decision-making through offering their own deliberative insights, rather than be confined to casting ballots once every two or four years for those very few individuals who will actually make decisions, so should ordinary citizens participate in the process of law enforcement and defense of liberty rather than rely on professionalized peacekeepers, whether we call them standing armies or police.68

In short, Levinson offers a bona fide constitutional argument proposing that vigilantism and citizen violence, including armed insurrection, against the government are legal, proper, and even beneficial activities within the Second Amendment umbrella. The idea that vigilantism and armed insurrection are as constitutionally sanctioned as voting is a proposition of such absurdity that one is struck more by its boldness than by its pretensions to seriousness. Yet it appears repeatedly in the individualist literature.6 9

(...) Academics who toy with any serious notions about revolutions would be well advised to consult the voluminous scholarly literature on the subject found in political science and related fields, which details and underscores the extent to which violence (especially including, but not limited to, the murder of top governmental leaders), societal dislocation, and disruption of a nation's economic, social, and political fabric make revolution or armed insurrection anything but a simple, reasoned, desirable, or commensurate alternative to peaceful methods of societal change.72

(...) As for the formulation of the Second Amendment, there is no evidence — none — that those who authored, debated, and approved the amendment somehow vested within it anything resembling a right of revolution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
17 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

...   ...   ...

I'll also say that those who believe the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government within the US should study a little history.

...   ...   ...

3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 

What is it for then Sooper Genius?

To defend against a foreign military power. I thought that was pretty obvious what with the issue of 'quartering' and all.

Let me ask -you- a question, Sooper-Dooper Genius: what happened to the citizens who tried armed rebellion against the tyrannical US Government, within the time of the Founding Fathers themselves? What was their reaction?

-DSK

Edited by Steam Flyer
typo

Share this post


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

The word infringe = anarchy. You did it half a dozen times. Feel free to do it again.

Now you're just being a dick.

You don't really know anarchy. I've seen it and anarchy goes far beyond infringing.

(I don't want to hear your story about jumping across car bonnets again.)

Share this post


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

Now you're just being a dick.

You don't really know anarchy. I've seen it and anarchy goes far beyond infringing.

(I don't want to hear your story about jumping across car bonnets again.)

I could go over the doors of an MGB or an XKE. At best, I was an average athlete. 

Anarchy is what you get in the laws of nature, anything goes. As we gather in community, one-on-one violence is judged and managed by the commu nity. We give up the right to instantaneous vindication, for the public good. Such is life, such is Hobbes, such is Locke, such is Blackstone... such is the higher road.

Such is not anarchy. 

Share this post


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

What the eff do you want? Did you read your own post? Two very similar social security numbers under an identical name, but your journalist couldn't see how such a mistake would happen? 

 

VALIDATION! THE PERILS OF GRANNIES AW, Ch 39

Feb. 2017 SAFE Act enforcers (acting on Jeffie's wisdom to "enforce the laws on the books") find an unused, currently illegal, .22 long gun. The weapon, which has a 17 round capacity, is seized.

Feb or March 2017 Due process hearing held, after proper notification.

March 2017 Acting on advice of counsel, The kindly gunowner documents his mental health, and schools his kindly judge, without drama, by mail. The documentation took a few days of effort in three hospital locations.

April 2017 Kindly gunowner receives vocal confirmation of return of handguns, followed by judicial notification that ALL weapons will be returned.

August 2017. Weapons returned. 

August 2017. Whinerbaby article appears in local press, thrilling Pooplius.

August 2017. Major crime unit unimpressed.

Do you actually read anything?

The SAFE Act doesn't ban .22's. The guy who got his .22 confiscated as an "assault weapon" was in New Jersey and it happened decades ago.

I'm glad you were at least able to figure out that a mistake was made. That's apparently a difficult thing for those who made it to figure out.

Quote

no one at a hospital or the state and local agencies involved in taking Hall's guns has admitted to Hall that a mistake was made, explained what happened or apologized.

Acknowledging a mistake is a good first step toward preventing it from happening again.

Share this post


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

Let me ask -you- a question, Sooper-Dooper Genius: what happened to the citizens who tried armed rebellion against the tyrannical US Government, within the time of the Founding Fathers themselves?

They lost. If you lose, history remembers you as a terrorist. That's why we call the "the Founding Fathers" instead of saying "that rabble" in an English accent through what's left of our teeth.

Share this post


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

Acknowledging a mistake is a good first step toward preventing it from happening again.

You can't point that finger around here. This ^^^ is my long-term problem with yourself. You make intentional mistakes, not just errors. You don't admit the calculated errors, and you feel you don't have to acknowledge the mistakes.  Fine, but next, you need to STFU about unintentional mistakes, which seldom come with apologies.

Acknowledging mistakes within propaganda is a good first step toward preventing alternate facts from being repeated again. Can you "acknowledge" these?

  1. You clipped Wintemute statements to outright reverse his POV, no acknowledgement.
  2.  You totally reversed Adam Winkler's POV on due process, no comment when corrected.
  3. You cooked the books to hide the murder increases in MO after background check repeal.
  4. You repeatedly lied that no research ban is in play.
  5. You claim that gun control doesn't work, but four circuit courts have accepted a body of evidence concluding otherwise. Seigal's potent evidence is that higher gun ownership is connected to problems in fifty states for over thirty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 8/8/2017 at 9:34 AM, Steam Flyer said:

To defend against a foreign military power. I thought that was pretty obvious what with the issue of 'quartering' and all.

Let me ask -you- a question, Sooper-Dooper Genius: what happened to the citizens who tried armed rebellion against the tyrannical US Government, within the time of the Founding Fathers themselves? What was their reaction?

-DSK

They lost. If you lose, history remembers you as a terrorist. That's why we call the "the Founding Fathers" instead of saying "that rabble" in an English accent through what's left of our teeth.

Very good. "They lost" is the real answer here.

So, if the Constitution enshrines the right of armed rebellion against the US gov't, why didn't they guys who wrote the Constitution allow it? Why did they stamp out rebellion and in a few cases, hang them (actually it was the state gov'ts that hung a few, but George Washington deliberately looked the other way and let it happen). Clearly, the guys who wrote the Constitution do not agree with this theory about why we have the 2nd Amendment.

Another little historical tidbit, one you might like more: with enemy warships threatening coastal ports, several towns bought their own cannons and formed artillery companies in their militia. Privately owned anti-ship weapons. Of course, back when the main revenue source for the Federal Gov't was postage stamps, they couldn't afford the weaponry like nowadays

-DSK

Share this post


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

They lost. If you lose, history remembers you as a terrorist. That's why we call the "the Founding Fathers" instead of saying "that rabble" in an English accent through what's left of our teeth.

These are the very issues of Scribble Scrabble. Broke-ass militia fighters, bankrupted by the Revolution, vs. foreclosing lenders.

The uncooperatives lost, then were prosecuted under the orderly terms of the Constitution. They were defined as traitors by the Constitution, and they made no individual gun rights claims in their own defense. The FF's norms and pamphleteers did not protect their "individual rights." The public courts agreed to take their weapons for three years or in some cases until loyalty oaths were witnessed.

From the scuttlebutt in the press, the man on the street knew the difference between attacking the new government, and attacking the monarch's forces. He knew it under the honored British tradition of a well-regulated society, one building the public good.

Washington had been challenged to get the aid of the militia. His lack of federal command soon influenced the ratification matters within the Second. The influence did not increase individual rights over guns, but rather federal authority over the militia and it's arms specifications.

 

Share this post


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

Very good. "They lost" is the real answer here.

So, if the Constitution enshrines the right of armed rebellion against the US gov't, why didn't they guys who wrote the Constitution allow it? Why did they stamp out rebellion and in a few cases, hang them (actually it was the state gov'ts that hung a few, but George Washington deliberately looked the other way and let it happen). Clearly, the guys who wrote the Constitution do not agree with this theory about why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

I'd say the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution itself, enshrines the right of rebellion. It's hard to argue that the people who signed it didn't believe they had a right to do it and impossible to argue that they didn't actually do it. Exercising their right of armed rebellion is what got them called Founding Fathers.

You haven't replied to Publius' idea that a standing army could never be formidable to the liberties of the people. Here it is again:

Quote

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

Do you think he was talking about armed resistance to a tyrannical government? I do.

Share this post


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

I'd say the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution itself, enshrines the right of rebellion. It's hard to argue that the people who signed it didn't believe they had a right to do it and impossible to argue that they didn't actually do it. Exercising their right of armed rebellion is what got them called Founding Fathers.

You haven't replied to Publius' idea that a standing army could never be formidable to the liberties of the people. Here it is again:

Do you think he was talking about armed resistance to a tyrannical government? I do.

Uh huh.

Is all that actually law, or just nice sounding talk-talk?

The Founding Fathers did NOT think they had a "right" to rebel and King George's tyrannical gov't. The pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their honor, to attempt it. They knew that they would have been shot or hanged if they did not succeed. Fortunately for them and us, they did. But not because it was a legal right.

Furthermore, as you agreed, under the US gov't while it was still in the hands of the Founding Fathers themselves, several groups decided the gov't was tyrannical and they would rebel. the Founding Fathers did not agree with them, and they were militarily defeated by their fellow citizens. Some were hanged although there is some discussion how much the various signers and continental leaders in the game knew about this beforehand, and agreed. It seems very likely to me that they could have arranged the aftermath such that the rebels would not have been hanged; many were pardoned and sent home. "OK boys, you lost fair and square, now go home and forget about it.... but don't forget to pay taxes, y'hear?"

The facts of history -all- point pretty firmly in the opposite direction from what you suggest.

-DSK

Share this post


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

I'd say the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution itself, enshrines the right of rebellion. It's hard to argue that the people who signed it didn't believe they had a right to do it and impossible to argue that they didn't actually do it. Exercising their right of armed rebellion is what got them called Founding Fathers.

You haven't replied to Publius' idea that a standing army could never be formidable to the liberties of the people. Here it is again:

Quote

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

Do you think he was talking about armed resistance to a tyrannical government? I do.

Oh Snappy Snaps.

Share this post


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

Uh huh.

Is all that actually law, or just nice sounding talk-talk?

The Founding Fathers did NOT think they had a "right" to rebel and King George's tyrannical gov't. The pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their honor, to attempt it. They knew that they would have been shot or hanged if they did not succeed. Fortunately for them and us, they did. But not because it was a legal right.

Furthermore, as you agreed, under the US gov't while it was still in the hands of the Founding Fathers themselves, several groups decided the gov't was tyrannical and they would rebel. the Founding Fathers did not agree with them, and they were militarily defeated by their fellow citizens. Some were hanged although there is some discussion how much the various signers and continental leaders in the game knew about this beforehand, and agreed. It seems very likely to me that they could have arranged the aftermath such that the rebels would not have been hanged; many were pardoned and sent home. "OK boys, you lost fair and square, now go home and forget about it.... but don't forget to pay taxes, y'hear?"

The facts of history -all- point pretty firmly in the opposite direction from what you suggest.

-DSK

Holy fucking shit, you are delusional.  I see you completely glossed over and ignored this quote that UT posted:

Quote

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

What do you think the FF's were saying here?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
  Quote

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

31 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 

Holy fucking shit, you are delusional.  I see you completely glossed over and ignored this quote that UT posted:

What do you think the FF's were saying here?  

Right, I'm delusional for pointing to 1- the body of law and not private writings and 2- the actual factual history of the country

The problem is that you guys are sold on a fairy tale, and you cannot begin to admit to it to yourselves. Run along back to the right-wing gun nut blogosphere happyland fantasy world; there's really no need for me to say any more.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Holy fucking shit, you are delusional.  I see you completely glossed over and ignored this quote that UT posted:

What do you think the FF's were saying here?  

Federalist 29, taken in context, is Shays' fallout. It's not about usurpation of government but rather about better usurpation of uprisings. It's an appeal for better federal control. It identifies the Pooplius types and questions their motives for assuming a runaway federal government, if it were given any militia control.  The Federalist 29 has a structured authority in place with the state in a commanding position, but allows involvement of the feds. It concludes this way:

Quote

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object (to "resist a common enemy:), in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

 

Quote

Tom Ray: Do you think he was talking about armed resistance to a tyrannical government? I do

Your snippet is a reference to Blackstone's classic "fifth auxiliary right." You needed to fail four other ways before using it. The right existed, but such "armed resistence" was not rash, cowboy stuff, or McVeigh type stuff. This is the context of your cherry-picked fraction of Federalist 29.

Quote

The five auxiliary rights (From Charles' Historiography, see p1753

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

History Lesson 101: Interpreting Text Without Historical Context Is Just a Con

Blackstone’s reference to “the natural right of resistance and selfpreservation” does not refer to armed self-defense for private purposes.140 It is a public allowance (under due restrictions) of a “natural right”—and that allowance is made for a particular, public purpose: to “restrain the violence of oppression” from a tyrannical sovereign.141 This indeed is the only interpretation that comports with Blackstone’s definition of an “auxiliary right”: a means to ensure that rights “ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, [would remain in force] if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment.”142

  1. The first auxiliary right (the first means to protect primary rights) is Parliament’s exercise of its powers;
  2. the second is the sovereign;
  3. and the third is the courts of justice.143 When those fail, the people may resort to
  4. the fourth auxiliary right: the right to petition Parliament or the King for the “redress of grievances.”144
  5. And only after that right is exhausted may the people resort to “having arms.”145

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 3:00 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Where did you get the impression that small arms are no longer effective against a modern well equipped army??  Do I need to remind you again that a ragtag band of bearded goat and little boy fuckers with not much more than AK-47s has held the most powerful military on the planet with tanks, jets, satellite guided bombs and aircraft carriers at bay for going on what..... 16 years and counting??

I think your analogy of Iraq and Afghanistan is actually THE PERFECT example of what small arms in the hands of dedicated militia fighting on its home soil can do against modern technology  

I thank you again for making my point FOR and using this analogy  

 

on home soil is the key part. They are fighting a foreign force.

 

still waiting for your criteria on when an insurrection is warranted.

Share this post


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

Right, I'm delusional for pointing to 1- the body of law and not private writings and 2- the actual factual history of the country

The problem is that you guys are sold on a fairy tale, and you cannot begin to admit to it to yourselves. Run along back to the right-wing gun nut blogosphere happyland fantasy world; there's really no need for me to say any more.

-DSK

FTFY.  Finally - something everyone can agree upon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

...

The Founding Fathers did NOT think they had a "right" to rebel and King George's tyrannical gov't.

How do you know what they thought?

I only know what they said:

Quote

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think the "right of the people to alter or abolish" their government speaks to a right to rebel. What do you think it's talking about?

 

13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The problem is that you guys are sold on a fairy tale, and you cannot begin to admit to it to yourselves. Run along back to the right-wing gun nut blogosphere happyland fantasy world; there's really no need for me to say any more.

The grabber blogosphere thinks the second amendment was written to apply inside homes only and thinks it should apply only to technology that existed in 1791 but we're in fantasyland? The Supreme Court already unanimously rejected the latter argument and will eventually reject the former. Because they're ridiculous. A bit like reading the Declaration of Independence and thinking the people who wrote it were not writing about why they had a right to revolt.

Share this post


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

still waiting for your criteria on when an insurrection is warranted.

Hard to improve on Jefferson.

Quote

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

The rest is kinda wordy but boils down to "when The People decide it is."

Share this post


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

Hard to improve on Jefferson.

The rest is kinda wordy but boils down to "when The People decide it is."

Jefferson did not mention several incidents of gun and powder confiscation in the Declaration, since no current laws were violated by those actions.

CATO's Heller brief quotes Blackstone eighteen times in the first few pages. According to Justice Blackstone, "The People" have five auxiliary rights by which to sort the decision out.  The fifth involves the arms of a state-sanctioned militia. 

Steam Flyer is right. You guys live in your own gun-driven fairy tale.

Share this post


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

How do you know what they thought?

I only know what they said:

That's a fair point.

I think the "right of the people to alter or abolish" their government speaks to a right to rebel. What do you think it's talking about?

 

Uh huh. And that's why we have voting. Did they SAY 'you have a right to armed rebellion" ... nope.

What you are quoting IS NOT LAW. Period, full stop.

You can also infer the intention of the Founding Fathers by what they did. They stamped out armed rebellion. Guess they didn't approve of those particular rebels? But surely they'd like -you-??

As to living in a talk-talk bubble, I offer you this

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3223/what-are-vaccines-saving-us-from-exactly

If you live in the anti-vaxer yack-yack-o-sphere, vaccines are more dangerous than diseases. Problem- these people live in a world of modern medical care, where these diseases have been almost eradicated for two or more generations, to them the diseases are a distant almost mythical threat. To you, the real fact in front of you is that everybody you know and talk to is all full of this 'right of armed rebellion' yack-yack and facts can't get in thru the wall. But the facts -are- there if you look.

Almost any social group has it's little common delusions they share and reinforce among themselves. Sailors, bikers, welders, Jethro Tull fans, wine snobs, Cubs fans (oh wait, it's not a delusion, they actually did win). Most are harmless. FWIW I have as much disdain for gun-grabbing theory as for right-of-armed-rebellion theory.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh. And that's why we have voting. Did they SAY 'you have a right to armed rebellion" ... nope.

What you are quoting IS NOT LAW. Period, full stop.

You can also infer the intention of the Founding Fathers by what they did. They stamped out armed rebellion. Guess they didn't approve of those particular rebels? But surely they'd like -you-??

As to living in a talk-talk bubble, I offer you this

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3223/what-are-vaccines-saving-us-from-exactly

If you live in the anti-vaxer yack-yack-o-sphere, vaccines are more dangerous than diseases. Problem- these people live in a world of modern medical care, where these diseases have been almost eradicated for two or more generations, to them the diseases are a distant almost mythical threat. To you, the real fact in front of you is that everybody you know and talk to is all full of this 'right of armed rebellion' yack-yack and facts can't get in thru the wall. But the facts -are- there if you look.

Almost any social group has it's little common delusions they share and reinforce among themselves. Sailors, bikers, welders, Jethro Tull fans, wine snobs, Cubs fans (oh wait, it's not a delusion, they actually did win). Most are harmless. FWIW I have as much disdain for gun-grabbing theory as for right-of-armed-rebellion theory.

-DSK

Thing of beauty. ^^^

51 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

FWIW I have as much disdain for gun-grabbing theory as for right-of-armed-rebellion theory.

-DSK

I hope you are equally eloquent and equally grounded discussing gun grabbing theory. Seriousy.

Share this post


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

How do you know what they thought?

I only know what they said:

I think the "right of the people to alter or abolish" their government speaks to a right to rebel. What do you think it's talking about?

What did they think? Is that the question? The vetted scholars in MacDonald suggest using historical guideposts.

In the context of 400 years, Jefferson is talking about the swaying to and fro of the English tradition of (get this) self defence. You see, desperate for a monarch after anarchy, they gave up the right to legally rebel to get Charles the I back. Their militias were inactive for 70 key years. They beheaded poor Charles, but his Catholic son James II became the ruler during Stuart/Tudor power struggles. In the background, Ireland and Scotland were thoroughly disarmed.

Sometimes Parliament wanted guns around, and sometimes they didn't. But when, as feared, James appointed Catholic militia actions and disarmed Protestants, Parliament was asked to approve legal gun mayhem. Instead, they re-asserted their legal right to rebel, lawfully. And they took control of militia officer appointments. They called this self defence.

Quote

What do you think it's talking about?

In a word, the five auxiliary rights. Sort that shit, Tom, and find that Jefferson's thoughts began with discussion, petitition, grievance, then maybe a mustered, lawful action against a sovereign or other.

 

Quote

The grabber blogosphere thinks the second amendment was written to apply inside homes only

The English legal tradition, not "The grabber blogosphere",  evidently thinks that.  Heller was big on the English tradition.

The civilized norm at the time of the FF, was against riding about armed, because it disturbed the good people of the land. 

Militia gun activities were not a problem, they had state authority.

Quote

The Supreme Court already unanimously rejected the latter argument (Tom suggests that M-16's should be treated just like 1791 weapons)

The jury is out, and you are hereby glossing over the significant Kolbe decision, March 2017. It clearly differentiated between M-16's and the blunderbuss, and removed constitutional protection for primary weapons designs. Then it dynamically encouraged intermediate scrutiny into AW discussions, having been ordered to act under strict scrutiny. Your "modern weapons are protected" bit snowballed, buddy.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think the "right of the people to alter or abolish" their government speaks to a right to rebel. What do you think it's talking about?

 

Uh huh. And that's why we have voting. Did they SAY 'you have a right to armed rebellion" ... nope.

What you are quoting IS NOT LAW. Period, full stop.

HO LEE FUK!  "Delusional" does not even begin to describe you.  The very foundational document that this nation was formed on was the DoI.  It may not be LAW, but our entire Constitution was founded on and sprang forth from that document.  It clearly said what was in the minds of the same people who later actually wrote the FUCKING LAW (i.e. the Constitution).  

Remind me again what "vote" will allow me to abolish the gov't?  Do you think that the FF's were talking about holding a vote to abolish the British Monarchy from the Colonies?  Or were they talking about a rebellion?  

Jesus, you're dumber than Meli.  And that's an insult to Meli at this point.....  just saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

HO LEE FUK!  "Delusional" does not even begin to describe you.  The very foundational document that this nation was formed on was the DoI.  It may not be LAW, but our entire Constitution was founded on and sprang forth from that document.  It clearly said what was in the minds of the same people who later actually wrote the FUCKING LAW (i.e. the Constitution).  

Remind me again what "vote" will allow me to abolish the gov't?  Do you think that the FF's were talking about holding a vote to abolish the British Monarchy from the Colonies?  Or were they talking about a rebellion?  

Jesus, you're dumber than Meli.  And that's an insult to Meli at this point.....  just saying.  

Well Princess, if it's not law, what does it rate? 

Share this post


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

Well Princess, if it's not law, what does it rate? 

Don't you have any links or volumes of cunt-n-pastes urinal reviewed scholars to back that  statement up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--CATO presented Heller, using discredited history, which no man jack among you can defend. LMFAO. 

Standard Model urinal.JPG

Share this post


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

Right, I'm delusional for pointing to 1- the body of law and not private writings and 2- the actual factual history of the country

Yes you are delusional wrt both.  These "Private Writings" were the expanded notes of the dudes that actually fucking wrote the constitution!  And these "private writings" have been the basis for Supreme Court decisions for centuries since they were the only way to actually get into the FF's heads to see what they were actually thinking.

JFC.  I'm truly embarrassed to call you my countryman if you actually think this way.  :angry::(:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes you are delusional wrt both.  These "Private Writings" were the expanded notes of the dudes that actually fucking wrote the constitution!  

 

And are they LAW?

Has the US Supreme Court pardoned any armed rebels? The only ones I know of are the Confederate generals and gov't officeholders; and they were not pardoned, they were pretty much sent home and forgotten... never charged. It was considered more important to re-unify the country (and make a profit by imposing economic burdens on the south); if all that was ever embodied into law then you may have a case.

Last time I checked, "delusional" referred to people who insist things that are not real, are real. What you're saying refers to thing that are NOT law, and are NOT backed up by actual factual happenings in history. They -are- backed up by the rantings of gun nuts similar to yourself. Social reinforcement is very important but it ain't quite the same as physics or even legislation.

-DSK

Share this post


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

Hard to improve on Jefferson.

The rest is kinda wordy but boils down to "when The People decide it is."

So, you're waiting for a resurrection of Jefferson. Hey, I can get behind that. If Jefferson rises from the grave and calls for armed insurrection, I'd say you've got a reason. Might not be a good one, but a reason.

Otherwise, anyone who decides to rebel will be labeled a domestic terrorist, and be treated accordingly.  car chase and shot? sure.

Share this post


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

FWIW I have as much disdain for gun-grabbing theory as for right-of-armed-rebellion theory.

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

I hope you are equally eloquent and equally grounded discussing gun grabbing theory. Seriousy.

Heh... maybe. First of all, an armed society is a polite society.

Second, a person with no right to defend his person or his property is a peasant, not a citizen. When we live in a society where the average person may be confronted by a murderous criminal, the average person must be allowed the potential to use deadly force in self-defense or he is worse than a peasant, he is a hostage.

Politics- there are a lot of forces at work in the USA tending to push us into a society of lords and peasants. A plutocracy of the super-wealthy and the rabble who exist to scuttle from one sweat-shop job to another. Interestingly enough the same forces pushing guns-guns-guns are allied with the plutocrats. I don't have a clue why, but it seems like both are destructive to good order and American values (as understood thru most of our history).

-DSK

Share this post


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

So, you're waiting for a resurrection of Jefferson. Hey, I can get behind that. If Jefferson rises from the grave and calls for armed insurrection, I'd say you've got a reason. Might not be a good one, but a reason.

Otherwise, anyone who decides to rebel will be labeled a domestic terrorist, and be treated accordingly.  car chase and shot? sure.

Did you mean Jefferson Davis? His case is actually the best thing the gun nuts have, but they don't even know it. Maybe because he lost and they'd prefer to pretend otherwise? Whatever:

****************************************************************************

Quoted from http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/06/19/the-clever-way-jefferson-davis-avoided-being-convicted-of-treason/

When Davis was indicted on a charge of treason in the federal court system, he stood before US Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who ... preferred to dismiss the treason charges... . Davis’s defense team argued that he had already been punished by the 14th Amendment, which stopped him from serving in public office in the future. ... the Chief Justice gave the Davis team another interesting argument for dropping the treason charge. Chase asked if a person could be prosecuted for treason against the US if he were not a US citizen. Clearly, no. Then Chase asked if there was a reference to the concept of a US citizen in the Constitution. Again, there was not. A person could only be a citizen of his state. Therefore, by proving that the US had no citizens, Davis couldn’t be tried for treason against the US. It was a clever argument that has never been used again as far as we know.  ... it ultimately didn’t matter. President Andrew Johnson pardoned everyone who fought for the Confederacy on December 25, 1868, as long as they applied for the pardon. ...  various amnesty provisions passed at that time never reinstated Davis’s citizenship. His citizenship rights were finally restored in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter.

****************************************************************************

FWIW if something is not a crime, you don't need amnesty or a pardon for it, so maybe it's not such a good case after all. Either way, I learned something interesting this morning. Jimmy Carter a Confederate sympathizer! Who knew??

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Did you mean Jefferson Davis? His case is actually the best thing the gun nuts have, but they don't even know it. Maybe because he lost and they'd prefer to pretend otherwise? Whatever:

****************************************************************************

Quoted from http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/06/19/the-clever-way-jefferson-davis-avoided-being-convicted-of-treason/

When Davis was indicted on a charge of treason in the federal court system, he stood before US Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who ... preferred to dismiss the treason charges... . Davis’s defense team argued that he had already been punished by the 14th Amendment, which stopped him from serving in public office in the future. ... the Chief Justice gave the Davis team another interesting argument for dropping the treason charge. Chase asked if a person could be prosecuted for treason against the US if he were not a US citizen. Clearly, no. Then Chase asked if there was a reference to the concept of a US citizen in the Constitution. Again, there was not. A person could only be a citizen of his state. Therefore, by proving that the US had no citizens, Davis couldn’t be tried for treason against the US. It was a clever argument that has never been used again as far as we know.  ... it ultimately didn’t matter. President Andrew Johnson pardoned everyone who fought for the Confederacy on December 25, 1868, as long as they applied for the pardon. ...  various amnesty provisions passed at that time never reinstated Davis’s citizenship. His citizenship rights were finally restored in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter.

****************************************************************************

FWIW if something is not a crime, you don't need amnesty or a pardon for it, so maybe it's not such a good case after all. Either way, I learned something interesting this morning. Jimmy Carter a Confederate sympathizer! Who knew??

-DSK

I consider myself a minor scholar of Civil War history - and had never heard that.  Thanks - I enjoyed the contribution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Heh... maybe. First of all, an armed society is a polite society.

Second, a person with no right to defend his person or his property is a peasant, not a citizen. When we live in a society where the average person may be confronted by a murderous criminal, the average person must be allowed the potential to use deadly force in self-defense or he is worse than a peasant, he is a hostage.

Politics- there are a lot of forces at work in the USA tending to push us into a society of lords and peasants. A plutocracy of the super-wealthy and the rabble who exist to scuttle from one sweat-shop job to another. Interestingly enough the same forces pushing guns-guns-guns are allied with the plutocrats. I don't have a clue why, but it seems like both are destructive to good order and American values (as understood thru most of our history).

-DSK

Thanks. I notice that deadly force is in your mix there. And I doubt that the definition of a peasant involves weaponry. And the graciousness of polite behavior is hardly driven by weaponry. But I get, and honor, your direct answer. CATO wants to undermine authority: guns (and their cheap power) are a perfect tool for their social disruption. 

"Gun grabber" is an outcome directly desired by few IMO...but indirectly may be a worthy outcome, and subconsciously desired by many. View the present devastation in this landscape: doctors, lawyers, teachers, public health professionals, criminologists, bullet-fearing police, gun researchers, core historians, lower courts, circuit courts, ownership factors, and the millennium generation have lined up against guns. Yet few guns have been grabbed, and those which were have had exposure and due process.

I'll think about your response, after commenting that weapons restrictions (as opposed to gun grabbing) have a positive relationship with public health benefit. My preference is that the population would inform itself outside the barage of CATO's untruthfulness, and choose gun-free homes. Courts are presently sending signals that limit gun enthusiasm, IMO.

I admit, Steam Flyer, that I enjoy debunking the steady supply of gunboy disinformation in play.

 

 

Share this post


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

I consider myself a minor scholar of Civil War history - and had never heard that.  Thanks - I enjoyed the contribution. 

You're welcome. Interesting stuff...

Our town library held a Civil War reading group a few years back, Mrs Steam was part of the group and got me into it. During one of the discussions, a fellow-from-up-north-somewhere said "What is it with the Civil War? Why can't you Southerners just get over it?" and the leader said, rather calmly and gently, "Why are you here, then?" He said "Well, I am interested in history." The leader then asked for a show of hands of Southerners.... small auditorium almost full, 40 to maybe 60 people.... two hands, one of them mine. There was a lot of interesting material covered but they wandered in women's fiction of the Civil War era and I kind of drifted away.

-DSK

Share this post


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

Thanks. I notice that deadly force is in your mix there. And I doubt that the definition of a peasant involves weaponry. ...    ...    ...

If you give a peasant weapons, he won't be a peasant much longer. Maybe the term "serf" would be a better fit IYHO?

To digress a little- Our governmental traditions rose out of what was the equivalent of a protection racket... pay tithes to armed thugs to protect you from marauders long enough to get in a crop to get thru the winter. Any surplus, along with anything else desirable that turned up, going to the thug/protectors. We are very fortunate that our civic cooperation and civic ideals have evolved above that level, many societies in the world have not. And there is a lot of evidence that we are regressing............

 

I admit, Steam Flyer, that I enjoy debunking the steady supply of gunboy disinformation in play.

 

I noticed. You should go sailing more, too

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites