Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

The debate over assault weapons

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Well,  first off, the legal basis for it is iffy.

And secondy, lonesailor,  CC needs to work out. 

 

So how many states have CCW? Why won't you answer it? Here is a map for you. If it is on "iffy ground" then how are the majority of states allowing it? That is not iffy, that is rock solid states rights!

concealed-carry-in-states.png

Share this post


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

In March, April, May, and June of 2017, for four months, weekly notes on CCW were exchanged among SC justices. The fucking SC did not step up for Scott Peruta, did they? And the SAF had said this was the "right case" to present to them.

Dude, I find Gorsuch concurrence to writings which cover the basics I trust. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

As of 2017, the Supreme Court is just letting Peruta and his "individual right" to a gun rot away in California. Tom Ray followed Palmer and Peruta very closely. Peruta collapsed because Palmer collapsed, and for the same reason: our American basis of English law considered gun rights, in their words, alienable.

Tom Ray's little checklist, with outdoor guns as a number one assumption, was aborted with Peruta. He went all silent about it.

So more blah, blah, blah from you, Joe? I still don't see this thing called _proof_ that the vote was as you claimed. You _assume_ that because 2 of them said something about denial of cert, the vote must of been 7-2. How about some real evidence of it?

Share this post


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

Well,  first off, the legal basis for it is iffy.

Joe,. you really need to move on from the Statute of Northhamton, or start providing links the the relevant US or state codes that use it.

Share this post


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

This isn't the "9th Circuit", as presented. It's a partial, three-judge panel, sitting in Hawaii, which faces opposing opinions in the full 9th circuit court.

So you only like 3 judge panels that agree with you, Joe?

11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

And Mr. Volokh, showing his true character, explains how Peruta's CCP was approved by part of the Ninth, then was reversed in the full en banc setting, where the full history, as related by Patrick J Charles, based on the 80's work of Lois Schwoerer, was considered. Those writings were presented on PA.

I knew you had gone far to long without mentioning your favorite lawyer.

But good job proving Tom's point, which is that you never read the actual rulings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2018 at 6:33 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 8/19/2018 at 1:55 PM, bpm57 said:
On 8/19/2018 at 12:58 PM, Mark K said:

dodge the problem of nut cases getting ahold of large cap weapons and hosing down crowds with them? 

So the solution is? Ban everything? Might want to consider the manpower needed to enforce that. Maybe examine how well prohibitions have worked in the US.

If I put a sombrero instead of a flower on the S&W Victory thread protector, it would be a "large cap weapon" but I'm not aware of anyone using a gun decorated in that way to hose down a crowd. My largest one is about 3' in diameter (an assault sombrero for sure) and would seriously interfere with shooting.

The top of my sombrero turns out to be too flimsy for this application.

I think I need one that comes to a point like this:

hat-300x225.jpg

Share this post


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

Haha, I’m on a dive boat in the Maldives and the website is blocked. Is it something to do with porn, booze or anti-Muslim??  

Share this post


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

Haha, I’m on a dive boat in the Maldives and the website is blocked. Is it something to do with porn, booze or anti-Muslim??  

Facebook, that's the platform for "Oh look at me I'm on a fucking holiday and your not!

Well I'm on a holiday 24x7, you still working for the 9/11 guys?  The Arabs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2018 at 2:35 PM, bpm57 said:

Joe,. you really need to move on from the Statute of Northhamton, or start providing links the the relevant US or state codes that use it.

Okay. You are DeadEye Dick, and you may have better information to share, but here are today's current, vibrant extensions of the Statute of Northampton. You need to overcome them to claim rights to outdoor guns.

Source: Wrenn Dissent, 7pgs

My colleagues attempt to minimize the Supreme Court’s declarations by insisting that the relevant history speaks with “one voice on the Amendment’s coverage of carrying as well as keeping arms.” Maj. Op. 12-13 p32 (internal quotation marks omitted). But their view of history is with blinders on as it is contradicted by our sister circuits’ extensive review of the same historical  record.

 

p 32  Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 91

(“History and tradition do not speak with one voice here. What history demonstrates is that states often disagreed as to the scope of the right to bear arms, whether the right was embodied in a state constitution or the Second Amendment.”);

Drake, 724 F.3d at 431 (same);

Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 470-71

 (“[A]s we move outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.”);

cf. Peruta, 824 F.3d at 939

(in U.S. history, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public”).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Haha, I’m on a dive boat in the Maldives and the website is blocked. Is it something to do with porn, booze or anti-Muslim??  

Porn stars and Muslims also need assault weapons. Drunks not so much.

Share this post


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

You can find conversation, differing opinions and compromise all over the left.


Philly, you're generally respectful and I don't mean this to be personally insulting, but do you see how funny your comment looks in this thread? Where none of the three are at all in evidence?

Share this post


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

Haha, I’m on a dive boat in the Maldives and the website is blocked. Is it something to do with porn, booze or anti-Muslim??  

Depends. Do Muslims hate rimfire dogballs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Depends. Do Muslims hate rimfire dogballs? 

I’m certain they do. Dogballs are locked down here even more than in the US. Arab states don’t like having their citizens own Dogballs caliber weapons much less really scary assault weapons. Makes their ability to brutally repress them if need be that much easier. 

Share this post


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

Masciandaro

3 judge panel, Joe. Or do they only not count in the 9th circuit?

Also from that ruling:

On Masciandaro's constitutional challenge, we conclude that Masciandaro's Second Amendment claim to a right to carry or possess a loaded handgun for self-defense is assessed under the intermediate scrutiny standard, and, even if his claim implicates the Second Amendment, a question we do not resolve here, it is defeated by applying that standard.

Gotta make sure those 2nd class rights never use strict scrutiny, right Joe?

14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Source: Wrenn Dissent, 7pgs

You should try quoting Henderson in pre-Heller rulings, Joe. Her true colors come out.

 

 

Share this post


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

... Arab states don’t like having their citizens own Dogballs caliber weapons much less really scary assault weapons. ...

Your sentence suggests there's a difference. Review the laws under discussion. All assault weapons are really scary, even if they have a pretty pink flower on the thread protector.

Weapon of war:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

Share this post


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

Your sentence suggests there's a difference. Review the laws under discussion. All assault weapons are really scary, even if they have a pretty pink flower on the thread protector.

Weapon of war:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

^^^ The latest, best info available from Tom's database. Stay on the edge of your seats for more on the assault sombrero. 

Let's toss in the latest addition to Joe's database too. It shows once again, aside from McDonald,  Tom's white ass Libertarian elk capitalizing on the fourteenth amendment.

Quote

'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie ADAM WINKLER MAR 5, 2018

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

inspired by a rare 1970s model

It didn't occur to them that "it's rare" means "it didn't sell?"

That's a seriously homely car. When it was designed, the front end had to look at least a bit that way to cool the engine. Do electric cars even have radiators?

Back on topic: I wonder if it has an excessive amount of power? That can encourage people to use it as a murder weapon. The electric motor would probably enable it to sneak up on crowds better. Is there any legislation to ban this kind of thing that we should be discussing?

Share this post


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

It didn't occur to them that "it's rare" means "it didn't sell?"

That's a seriously homely car. When it was designed, the front end had to look at least a bit that way to cool the engine. Do electric cars even have radiators?

Back on topic: I wonder if it has an excessive amount of power? That can encourage people to use it as a murder weapon. The electric motor would probably enable it to sneak up on crowds better. Is there any legislation to ban this kind of thing that we should be discussing?

No dogballs? No race-baiting?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2018 at 6:53 AM, jocal505 said:

Stay on the edge of your seats for more on the assault sombrero. 

It turns out that finding a big one that is sturdy enough to hold shape when held only by an assault weapon thread protector is darn difficult. I might really have to weave one out of leftover straw from one of Mark K's men.

Share this post


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

It turns out that finding a big one that is sturdy enough to hold shape when held only by an assault weapon thread protector is darn difficult. I might really have to weave one out of leftover straw from one of Mark K's men.

Hey Tom ... say dogballs

Share this post


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

Hey Tom ... say dogballs

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here's a pic of a couple of assault weapons:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Share this post


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

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here's a pic of a couple of assault weapons:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

They are legal again in NJ, no longer an AW. Joe would be rejoicing, but he never admitted to owning an AW.

Share this post


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

dogballs

Geez, the gungrabby chorus can't get enough of their new toy.

OK, OK, if you insist, here's the ammo used by my assault weapon again:

On 6/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark K said:

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.    

And Mark K is still right that TeamD Senators are morons for treating guns that fire both rounds the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mock the heretic! That's OK, it amuses me.

But doesn't shake my agreement with TeamD Ranger's former position:

On 3/26/2018 at 4:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm just still in agreement with this post, except the part calling me a liar for noting that all the "assault weapon" bans include our dogballs's.

On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

Dear Clueless Tom - I don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything More Dogballs.  That you use it makes you just as big a disingenuous fucktard as Jack.  


And yes, D'Ranger, when you go out of your way to call me a liar for telling the truth, you might just see that post a few more times.

Just so he doesn't get in trouble with the chorus, I should point out that he quickly reversed his position and called me a bunch of names, so he's OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2018 at 5:00 PM, bpm57 said:

They are legal again in NJ, no longer an AW. Joe would be rejoicing, but he never admitted to owning an AW.

That's puzzling to me. As I mentioned in the thread on that topic, I can't see anyone in NJ who would benefit politically from ending the ban.

The law tightened lots of restrictions, which makes sense in NJ. But who wanted to eliminate one and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2018 at 3:19 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's puzzling to me. As I mentioned in the thread on that topic...

....and Tom whips a link out of his computer memory, a database he denies using...

On 8/27/2018 at 2:21 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

Tom is generating daily confusion, and unwanted dogballs in our lives, over which guns are battle guns, and the use of the word rimfire.

AFTER THE DOGBALLS   

Tom says he will remain stuck there, while vocal. Yet Tom wants to be considered wise in all things XYZ. He sounds like a dumbshit, and he can't really discuss The Federalist in the context of the 1600's which generated them.

 

On 8/27/2018 at 2:26 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Just so he (d'ranger) doesn't get in trouble with the chorus, I should point out that he quickly reversed his position and called me a bunch of names, so he's OK.

Tom is OCD, and still butthurt over d'ranger. Tom goes to his database to regurgitate the d'ranger-related  butthurt, repeatedly.  Let's all stay informed on this one. 

Share this post


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

Tom is generating daily confusion, and unwanted dogballs in our lives, over which guns are battle guns

I'm not confused by the definitions I read. I know you won't read actual legislation to clear up your own confusion, but if you're confused, maybe I can help.

I don't know much about ammosexual overcompensators like the one badlat sold, but I'm familiar with the guns we actually own and how the laws apply to them.

Share this post


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

I don't know much about ammosexual overcompensators like the one badlat sold, but I'm familiar with the guns we actually own and how the laws apply to them.

Hey Tom, I'm curious.  I happen to own several "ammosexual overcompensators" like Badlat sold.  We all know you think dogballs shouldn't be banned, but what's your feeling on those other scary gunz that the rest of us own?  

Share this post


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

Hey Tom, I'm curious.  I happen to own several "ammosexual overcompensators" like Badlat sold.  We all know you think dogballs shouldn't be banned, but what's your feeling on those other scary gunz that the rest of us own?  

That you guys are scaring hoplophobes into banning my ordinary... well, you know.

That I hope I continue to see no need to own one.

That I hope I continue to be able to legally buy one.

That you and Billy and badlat probably wouldn't kill anyone just because of your penis size issues. Not so sure about Badlat's friend.

Share this post


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

This very week, @Uncooperative Tom tossed in a picture of his assault sombrero

It was last week and that's just a picture I found on the internet.

I'm still looking for a large sombrero that can be attached to the thread protector of a S&W Victory so I can have a large cap weapon.

Share this post


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

It was last week and that's just a picture I found on the internet.

I'm still looking for a large sombrero that can be attached to the thread protector of a S&W Victory so I can have a large cap weapon.

Let's not quote partial sentences. Let's present context, and the light of day, not just the dodgy chosen shadows which a rat prefers

Quote

(Jocal's full quote)

This very week, @Uncooperative Tom tossed in a picture of his assault sombrero, from his ghost database. Let's hope we ever see it again. If we do, in your honor, we can call it the assault buttplug.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 9:54 AM, jocal505 said:

....and Tom whips a link out of his computer memory, a database he denies using...

Tom is generating daily confusion, and unwanted dogballs in our lives, over which guns are battle guns, and the use of the word rimfire.

AFTER THE DOGBALLS   

Tom says he will remain stuck there, while vocal. Yet Tom wants to be considered wise in all things XYZ. He sounds like a dumbshit, and he can't really discuss The Federalist in the context of the 1600's which generated them.

 

Tom is OCD, and still butthurt over d'ranger. Tom goes to his database to regurgitate the d'ranger-related  butthurt, repeatedly.  Let's all stay informed on this one. 

That’s rich, you putting someone on blast for allegedly using a data base to store links and quotes. At least he wasn’t so prideful of his DB that he didn’t admit to it in proud and glowing terms. 

Share this post


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

That’s rich, you putting someone on blast for allegedly using a data base to store links and quotes. At least he wasn’t so prideful of his DB that he didn’t admit to it in proud and glowing terms. 

I collect articles, and I organize research. I study various stuff, highlight it, and take notes. It leaves a body of entries. Those entries meet the definition of database. Um, you ought to see my work on native fighting in the PNW.

 After getting tired of a few liars, while being abused and villified on PA, I was compelled to study the subject of gun violence.  While uninformed, and therefore defenseless, I began to document the contradictory statements of men playing both sides of morality.Actually, I missed a few gems.

 

DOES MURDER PROHIBITION REALLY WORK?

Boothy was a different study. His constant subconscious need for violence flowed constantly into his ideas. He was a poster boy for the underlying problem with Larry Pratt's thing, and by that I mean all the vigilante motivation. Boothy left the octagon in 2016, not long after he had seen the compilation I just presented.

Boothy was a fixture, and we ALL enjoyed him. But let's examine the mechanisms and rationalities he uses, as he plans lethal violence. You may have a problem with such a blatant airing of your own, not very hidden, mentality. Or YMMV,  you may accept that Boothy is good to go, with an arsenal...outdoors.

To conclude, Boothy and his elk are the reason we still need castle doctrine, IMO.

Boys, U have been lured into many discussions of the advantages of non-violence.

 

Share this post


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

Let's not quote partial sentences. Let's present context, and the light of day, not just the dodgy chosen shadows which a rat prefers

Quote

(Jocal's full quote)

This very week, @Uncooperative Tom tossed in a picture of his assault sombrero, from his ghost database. Let's hope we ever see it again. If we do, in your honor, we can call it the assault buttplug.

 

Hah!

Do you really think your buttplug fetish adds anything?

FYI, you presented content. In my post, your quote links back to the original, presenting context.

Learn to work Scot's database.

Share this post


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

Learn to work Scot's database.

The problem is scot's database seems to only go back to 2015 or so

Share this post


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

Hah!

Do you really think your buttplug fetish adds anything?

 

Fetish? You have nerve to mention the word? You have a dogball fetish, Mr. Ray. I've typed the word buttplug maybe three times.

Quote

FYI, you presented content. In my post, your quote links back to the original, presenting context.

Learn to work Scot's database.

If a person wants the whole picture, he must start pushing buttons? Your shit has to be fleshed out and verified by readers?

You are clipping what suits you, out of partial sentences. You have to hide from, and cannot present,  the actual complete thoughts of others. Your mind works like Donald Trump, standing on half-truths. The net effect can be untruthful.

Man on dike, Tom's credibility.PNG

Share this post


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

FYI, you presented content. In my post, your quote links back to the original, presenting context.

Learn to work Scot's database.

If a person wants the whole picture, he must start pushing buttons?

In my post, one would start and finish the context-seeking process by pushing one button.

In yours, yes, one would have to start pushing buttons to figure out which thread provides the context since there's no link back.

Learn to work Scot's database.

19 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The problem is scot's database seems to only go back to 2015 or so

And threads just disappear sometimes. It's not perfect, but still a good idea to learn how it works to link back for context.

Share this post


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

And threads just disappear sometimes. It's not perfect, but still a good idea to learn how it works to link back for context.

Especially in your case, since you regularly clip partial sentences to present non-truthful ideas. Thank you.

Seriously, Tom, when I follow those red arrows you usually look twisted and distorted within the content on the other side. Therefore, I know the information you provide on other subjects is probably also twisted. You have quite the cottage industry going.*

*Research provided to us from the Tom Ray Ghost Database

Quote

Item: TR's non-gun-posts jpg, by Tom Ray

 

non-gun-posts.jpg

Share this post


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

And threads just disappear sometimes.

Dabs got the whole Wrenn thread disappeared. From that thread, this is Tom's brain on The Federalist. Tom needs to retract something, if he wants to quote Mr. Hamilton as a fighter of federal tyrants with gunz.

Quote

First Correction Post 113, Aug 13

(Tom ) Unfortunately, King George and Parliament, much like our government, neglected to put into law the proper procedures for overthrowing the government

(Joe) Parliament passed Blackstone's fifth auxiliary right, bubba.

Second correction, Post 155 Aug. 14

(Tom) The Founders were not following any "right of armed rebellion" that had been written into British law. 

(Joe) This is my second correction of this mis-statement, Tom.

Third correction, Post 172 Aug. 17

(Tom)  ...despite there being no provision in British laws for the violent overthrow of the government.

... no form of government has ever had prescribed procedures for the violent overthrow of the government.

(Joe) WTF? Tom, this is your third correction.

Fourth correction, Post 186 Aug 17

(Tom) …ones  that did not have a constitutionally-prescribed procedure for the violent overthrow of the government. Meaning, again, every government.

(Joe)  DAILY LIES? You are repeating an untruthful statement for the fourth or fifth time.

I don't know what Tom's problem was on that day. But he is wrong, and needs to retract, to support the quality and growth of our group.

You see, Hamilton had a legal standing to be spouting off about fighting tyrants. Where?

 

When intimidated by Catholic gunz, Parliament had faced King James II down, non-violently, and had spelled out their natural, legal, and procedural right to fight a sovereign, if necessary.

But the process was orderly, and had layers, redress, communication, elected representation, process...THEN fighting with arms, if necessary. Here, we place Hamilton in context. HONEST historical context. In this context, in their words, those militia arms, controlled by Parliamenarily-sworn officers, were not to be infringed. 

Mr. Tom Ray can't say if his militia will be sworn in and mustered, whether they will elect a captain approved by the Governor, or whether lone wolf actors can have constitutionally-based, individual, militia credentials. Tom is very vague with the specifics of his ideas of insurrection theor, while Hamilton's belief system about fighting tyrants was based on The Glorious Revolution. Hamilton's confrontation of tyrants was honorable, legal, and formal, not loosey-goosey.

Tom needs to be careful about quoting The Federalist.

Share this post


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

HONEST historical context. In this context, in their words, those militia arms, controlled by Parliamenarily-sworn officers, were not to be infringed. 

Dumfuk, go learn what the battles at Lexington and Concord were about.

Share this post


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

Dumfuk, go learn what the battles at Lexington and Concord were about.

You are mistaken. Don't call me a dumfuk, at least not about FF history. You can't begin to support The Standard Model. You can't even say if you support it, or not.

But here's what those skirmishes were about: broad issues with smugglers. Non-gun issues and general disagreement led to Samuel Adams stealing British powder, from a British fort, in broad daylight, in NH, while ringing the bell in Town Center. This triggered the orders which Gage acted on, which led to Lexington.

 

Many Colonists were listening to lawbreakers, absorbing a flood of propaganda pamphlets, failing to pay their taxes, were beating up tax collectors, and had driven the governor of MASS into fort. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was full of human cunts, it seems. At this time, the Colonists religious persecution of Quakers and others had drawn leal action, and attention from English courts.

The conflict reflected in gunplay, but according to non-Libertarian writers, was not based on established gun rights.

 

TRIVIA FOR TOM    Who owned the ship which was sequestered in Boston Harbor until taxes were paid on its cargo?

American criminals kidnapped and detained the government official, and sailed the boat away, as he watched. IIRC it was Hamilton's boat. Let's debate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys know that two guys in love can get married, right? This affair has gone well beyond courtship.

Go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

You guys know that two guys in love can get married, right? This affair has gone well beyond courtship.

Go for it.

I don't care for bullies. I have always wanted a situation with a few bullies who couldn't get away. Boothy and Kevin went away, and the crude end of the spectrum of white noise died down around here.

I am enjoying PA more after having done the reading of my choice. The McDonald briefs are a gold mine of footnotes, because Heller pissed off the scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 5:47 AM, jocal505 said:

TRIVIA FOR TOM    Who owned the ship which was sequestered in Boston Harbor until taxes were paid on its cargo?

There were three, not counting the one that wrecked. Which one are you talking about?

Share this post


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

There were three, not counting the one that wrecked. Which one are you talking about?

The Boston Tea Party is the setting for taxation issues (and violence). You are on the right track now The war was over smuggling issues, it was all about the avoidance of taxation.

The ship I asked about is the one where colonists kidnapped the English tax official, and sailed away with un-taxed cargo in a ship belonging to a founding father. This stunt, and the Boston Tea Party, demonstrate sketchy, commerce-related behavior, unrelated to the gun issues which you claim started the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 1:16 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Dumfuk, go learn what the battles at Lexington and Concord were about.

The gun issues were hot, but they reflected broader problems. They were an effect, not a cause. Plus, we find from the record that the colonists' guns were unprotected by the courts.

During the skirmishes, and even after the dust settled, colonists would proceed to take away the guns of their American political adversaries. Guns would be taken from insurrectionists after the Shay's Rebellion, by 13,000 militia volunteers. The Second was ratified soon after, largely because the PA militia was no help with Shay's. With the new gun policy in place, the Whiskey Rebellion actors were disarmed a few years later.

The idea that colonists stood upon strong gun rights is a romantic fabrication.

 

Share this post


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

During the skirmishes, and even after the dust settled, colonists would proceed to take away the guns of their American political adversaries. Guns would be taken from insurrectionists after the Shay's Rebellion, by 13,000 militia volunteers. The Second was ratified soon after, largely because the PA militia was no help with Shay's. With the new gun policy in place, the Whiskey Rebellion actors were disarmed a few years later.

Joe, the PA militia had nothing to do with Shay's Rebellion - that was put down by 3000 volunteers from MA. By "soon after", you mean _4 years_, right?

The whiskey rebellion actually did happen in PA, and VA, MD, NJ, and PA all sent militia.

But feel free to continue misstating easily checked history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2018 at 1:16 PM, lonesailor said:

On and guns on the decline? That is a lie too! Why do you keep lying?

20160925%20-%20Guns%206.jpg

3% of truly crazed gun nutters own a third of all gun more than 50% of what I like to characterize as reasonable, non terrified Americans don’t own guns and that number increases every years.  What we got here is the true crazies buying massive amounts of guns and ordinance.

 

i recommend nose bleed levels of taxes and bans on certain calibers to attract the problem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

Joe, the PA militia had nothing to do with Shay's Rebellion -

Correct, Deadeye. You are a sharp one. When they were needed for intervention, the PA militia was complicit instead. The problem pointed for a need of Federal authority over militia activity. It inspiried the title of The Federalist. 

 

\

Share this post


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

Correct, Deadeye. You are a sharp one.

Then why did you say

14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Guns would be taken from insurrectionists after the Shay's Rebellion, by 13,000 militia volunteers. The Second was ratified soon after, largely because the PA militia was no help with Shay's.

Do you count on people not actually checking your work, Joe? Because what you wrote is factually incorrect in multiple ways.

18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

When they were needed for intervention, the PA militia was complicit instead.

Cite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Then why did you say

Do you count on people not actually checking your work, Joe? Because what you wrote is factually incorrect in multiple ways.

Cite.

You are a time waster, Pal. Do you support The Standard Model, or not?

And I notice you haven't disputed the only point I was making. They confiscated a lot of guns in those days... during years when our search and seizure amendment was in place, right next to the Second. Where were individual gun rights, if political loyalty determined the right to a gun?

Gun Grabber Boogallo II.PNG

Share this post


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

You are a time waster, Pal. Do you support The Standard Model, or not?

Bob, weave, deflect, change the question... Not the behavior of someone who claims to "play it straight".

We are talking about your misrepresentation of Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion, Joe. I can't really help it if you are unable to spend 30 seconds checking the history of those 2 events. If you are unable to correctly talk about the basics of those 2 events, why should anyone believe what you write on any topic?

Are you ever going to understand a major issue with your new favorite meme gif? Are you really to thick to understand that there was a war going on then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Bob, weave, deflect, change the question... Not the behavior of someone who claims to "play it straight".

We are talking about your misrepresentation of Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion, Joe. I can't really help it if you are unable to spend 30 seconds checking the history of those 2 events. If you are unable to correctly talk about the basics of those 2 events, why should anyone believe what you write on any topic?

Are you ever going to understand a major issue with your new favorite meme gif? Are you really to thick to understand that there was a war going on then?

I don't feel I have mis-represented squat. You just ask too many questions, in general, and you have become high maintenance and annoying, ot ulike a sea-lion. 

But mainly you DeadEye at the little things, to avoid the big things. 

2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Are you really to thick to understand that there was a war going on then?

Wars are not special. Whereas this revolution had new and special ideas in play,  arming up for insurrection against the King was not one of them.

Share this post


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

Wars are not special. Whereas this revolution had new and special ideas in play,  arming up for insurrection against the King was not one of them.

I see. So when there is a shooting war going on, leaving enemy sympathizers armed is the normal and expected thing in your imagination.

Or are you saying that our gov't is illegal, and the sovereign of the UK is still our rightful head of gov't?

15 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I don't feel I have mis-represented squat.

So you stand behind this bit of..misrepresentation?

On 9/11/2018 at 5:51 AM, jocal505 said:

Guns would be taken from insurrectionists after the Shay's Rebellion, by 13,000 militia volunteers. The Second was ratified soon after, largely because the PA militia was no help with Shay's. With the new gun policy in place, the Whiskey Rebellion actors were disarmed a few years later.

Well, I guess you got the _names_ correct. The numbers are wrong, the timeline is wrong, Can't find anything that says the PA militia was even invited to MA for Shay's..

20 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

to avoid the big things.

Well, we could talk about "Peruta II", but I can't find any sources for it.

Or maybe you could explain the "big win" in Palmer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I see. So when there is a shooting war going on, leaving enemy sympathizers armed is the normal and expected thing in your imagination.

Or are you saying that our gov't is illegal, and the sovereign of the UK is still our rightful head of gov't?

So you stand behind this bit of..misrepresentation?

Well, I guess you got the _names_ correct. The numbers are wrong, the timeline is wrong, Can't find anything that says the PA militia was even invited to MA for Shay's..

Well, we could talk about "Peruta II", but I can't find any sources for it.

Or maybe you could explain the "big win" in Palmer.

 

You are a non-stop whiner machine, but you haven't disproven the rampant confiscation in Colonial times. Not even the search and seizure improvement over the English Declaration of Righty could prevent gun confiscation. The Colonists had no individual rights evidently. 

You are DeadEye Dick, with the superior comprehension thing happening. You need to tell me what is so clever about violence, and using guns to fight battles.

Now, go find something else to be miserable about.

Share this post


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

You are a non-stop whiner machine, but you haven't disproven the rampant confiscation in Colonial times.

I haven't seen anything except uncited claims about the Whiskey rebellion. Do you understand why Shay's can be skipped in this analysis?

Do you understand why we can skip discussion about what happened during wartime? (When the "legal" gov't was still british)

7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You are DeadEye Dick, with the superior comprehension thing happening.

Why bother to discuss anything with you, when your main thing now is "make shit up"?

Maybe you could run your version of history past one of your email penpals.

9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Now, go find something else to be miserable about.

If your delusions about being able to read my mind are acting up again go see a mental health professional, Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bpm57 said:

I haven't seen anything except uncited claims about the Whiskey rebellion. Do you understand why Shay's can be skipped in this analysis?

Do you understand why we can skip discussion about what happened during wartime? (When the "legal" gov't was still british)

Why bother to discuss anything with you, when your main thing now is "make shit up"?

Maybe you could run your version of history past one of your email penpals.

If your delusions about being able to read my mind are acting up again go see a mental health professional, Joe.

Boring!  (both of you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 9/12/2018 at 6:18 AM, jocal505 said:

You are a time waster, Pal. Do you support The Standard Model, or not?

Bob, weave, deflect, change the question... Not the behavior of someone who claims to "play it straight".

The moment you get joe to post his MS Paint Art masterpieces and he calls you a time waster...... you know you're winning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don’t give a shit about the standard model.  I wouldn’t piss on it if it were on fire.  Same for your other models.

Share this post


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

...weapons most useful in military service are off limits.*

 

*Source: Heller


Even if they're pretty in pink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk about pink now, shall we? Or dogballs. We are hanging with TR.

Share this post


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

Tom if you really want to start building bridges, throw all you dogballs into the lake and renounce you gun nuttery. 


Randumbly Bent 15, if you really want to discuss banning assault weapons, general anarchy isn't the place. This is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not discussing pink any more. Silver now.

WHAT WINNING LOOKS LIKE: Tom Ray is out with a whimper, basically. I am Tom's nemesis, and for engagement, am reduced to discussing the colors of dogballs.

Share this post


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

We're not discussing pink any more. Silver now.

WHAT WINNING LOOKS LIKE: Tom Ray is out with a whimper, basically. I am Tom's nemesis, and for engagement, am reduced to discussing the colors of dogballs.

You spelled narcissist wrong. 

Share this post


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

You spelled narcissist wrong. 

I spelled anarchist, correctly.

My antithesis is a dissembler, when he shows up. Flowers in gun barrels? No working knowledge of common law and self-defense? 
Yo, I welcome you to do any better, chinabald.

Share this post


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

Flowers in gun barrels?

No, that might be a bad idea. Keep up. The flowers are to be mounted on the thread protector. It's just a metal cylinder that screws onto the end of the barrel, but on the outside, not in it.

You have to protect the threads because they're what make it an assault weapon. At least, that would be my reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

No, that might be a bad idea. Keep up. The flowers are to be mounted on the thread protector. It's just a metal cylinder that screws onto the end of the barrel, but on the outside, not in it.

You have to protect the threads because they're what make it an assault weapon. At least, that would be my reason.

You are hiding behind flowers, in gun barrels? The big furor,  the new dogballs lexicon, has gone mainstream. Stupid shit abounds, after 21 months of it, and it's starring an elusive sort, Tom Ray.  As you cement your legacy, I note the lost and useless energy in play.

Quote

A Top NRA Executive’s Trail of Business Flops and Unpaid Debt

As the gun group confronts serious financial straits, it has entrusted its operations to Josh Powell, a failed mail-order mogul who attracted a mountain of lawsuits in his former career.

(...) “Carry Guard is Josh’s baby,” a source close to the NRA told The Trace. “It was his brainchild, billed by Josh as an integral part of securing the NRA’s finances well into the future. But it’s a huge fucking mess.” 

 https://www.thetrace.org/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, there's a gun thread going where you get to be gun-ban king for a day.  Hell for the month.....  But you have to explain what makes it bannable or why it can stay.  

 

Share this post


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

Joe, there's a gun thread going where you get to be gun-ban king for a day.  Hell for the month.....  But you have to explain what makes it bannable or why it can stay.  

 

No one care about your stupid gun thread which is failing bigly. 

Share this post


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

Uncropped. For some reason, Jeff didn't want to go full LGBT.

LGBT.jpg

Might be the same reason Mid cropped this one:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2018 at 8:05 PM, Olsonist said:

Uncropped. For some reason, Jeff didn't want to go full LGBT.

LGBT.jpg

Huh???

I need one of those Tshirts, BTW!  Love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2018 at 6:27 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Huh???

I need one of those Tshirts, BTW!  Love it.

I don't think Olsonist knows that when you post a link to another thread the preview image is automagically cropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2018 at 3:23 AM, dogballs Tom said:

I think I need one that comes to a point like this:

hat-300x225.jpg

Buttplug anarchy. Thanks, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 7:31 AM, jocal505 said:

Buttplug anarchy. Thanks, Tom.

One man's "large cap" is another man's buttplug. Whatever turns you on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Shooting In Tulsa

Quote

 

TULSA, Oklahoma - Four people are recovering tonight from gunshot and shrapnel wounds after an early morning shooting.

...

During the fight police say a young man pulled a handgun and fired 7 or 8 shots in the crowd. Two people outside were hit and two inside the club with shrapnel. All of the victim’s injuries are considered not life-threatening, but other people in the crowd were hurt as well.

...

The police say they've responded before to problems in and outside the club. Other tenants in the shopping center say they're afraid they'll be caught up in the problems created by patrons of the club.

 

This kind of thing could not happen if people did not put adjustable stocks on their squirrel assault weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites