benwynn

Purpose of 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2019 at 6:06 AM, jocal505 said:

I did so twice, in our last discussion. Go find it. Mr. Charles had found the very name of the Duke.

And Eugene Volokh, if that is your source, is academically squishy, IMO.

It is always nice when you confirm that you didn't read the article, much less addressing what I quoted out of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 5:40 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

I never once claimed that was a verifiable fact, cunt.  But its certainly not a fake argument.  

So let's try this another way, cunt - since you're a legal scholar genius extraordinaire and an expert on all things in our criminal justice system..... Answer me these simple questions:

  1. Yes or No - Criminals who have been arrested who "allegedly" commit violent crimes are free today due to due process?  
  2. Yes or No - There are violent criminals walking the streets today wholly or in part due to lack of ability to get a warrant to search them, their house, their computer, their phone or their car?  

I know you know the answers, and I'm fascinated - edge of my seat even - by exactly how you'll attempt to twist your way out of answering them.

Hey @MR.CLEAN - I'm still waiting for you to take a shot at these easy questions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 8:09 AM, Shootist Jeff said:
On 10/30/2019 at 12:09 PM, benwynn said:

My argument is that the "well regulated" means something other than absolutely nothing. I'll take anything at this point.  That in order to own a gun you have to look at two flash cards and indentify which one has a red ball on it.

Something.

Christ...

I agree with you.  What do you propose?

@benwynn, Again - what is your angle on this militia drum banging you keep doing?  What are you arguing for?  What do you want to see happen?

So the militia isn't quite as "well regulated" as the FF's had hoped for, even though they foresaw it was always going to be an uphill battle.  Now what?

Share this post


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

It is always nice when you confirm that you didn't read the article, much less addressing what I quoted out of it.

 

I got around to reading it. It was the paid CATO writer, David Kopel. You just opened the door to discussing his work. 


DeadEye Dick just walked into a trap. 

Quote

David Kopel, the Research Director and Second Amendment Project Director at the Independence Institute, who is often presented as an "independent scholar" on gun rights has received millions in financial backing from the National Rifle Association, according to a report in The Progressive.[3] In the article, Frank Smyth writes, "David Kopel has managed to establish himself as an independent authority on gun policy issues even though he and his Independence Institute have received over $1.42 million including about $175,000 a year over eight years from the NRA."[3] The author also reports that, "Kopel received $1.39 million in grant money from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund between 2004 and 2011."[3] When asked about the disclosure of NRA money flowing to the Independence Institute and himself, Kopel replied, "If that’s her editorial judgement, that’s fine with me. I’m not going to second-guess an editor.”[3]

Ties to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity

The Independence Institute has hosted writers from the ALEC-connected Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which screens potential reporters on their “free market” views as part of the job application process.[4] The Franklin Center funds reporters in over 40 states.[5] Despite their non-partisan description, many of the websites funded by the Franklin Center have received criticism for their conservative bias.[6][7] On its website, the Franklin Center claims it "provides 10 percent of all daily reporting from state capitals nationwide."[8]

Franklin Center Funding

Franklin Center Director of Communications Michael Moroney told the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) in 2013 that the source of the Franklin Center's funding "is 100 percent anonymous." But 95 percent of its 2011 funding came from DonorsTrust, a spin-off of the Philanthropy Roundtable that functions as a large "donor-advised fund," cloaking the identity of donors to right-wing causes across the country (CPI did a review of Franklin's Internal Revenue Service records).[9] Mother Jones called DonorsTrust "the dark-money ATM of the conservative movement" in a February 2013 article.[10] Franklin received DonorTrust's second-largest donation in 2011.[9]

 

Share this post


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

Hey @MR.CLEAN - I'm still waiting for you to take a shot at these easy questions.

 

it would be dumb to debate someone whose only chance at winning is calling their opponent a cunt.  Lazy, weak, and intellectually sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

it would be dumb to debate someone whose only chance at winning is calling their opponent a cunt.  Lazy, weak, and intellectually sad.

Correction, he called you a Douche.  

Share this post


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

Correction, he called you a Douche.  

Yes, I believe he called me a cunt.

Share this post


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

Yes, I believe he called me a cunt.

Nope, he called Clean a cunt.

 

Share this post


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

Correction, he called you a Douche.  

well if all he called me was a douche i would still be debating.  I am definitely a douche, but not a cunt!

Share this post


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

@benwynn, Again - what is your angle on this militia drum banging you keep doing?  What are you arguing for?  What do you want to see happen?

So the militia isn't quite as "well regulated" as the FF's had hoped for, even though they foresaw it was always going to be an uphill battle.  Now what?

The term, preamble, first clause, or whatever the fuck you want to call it has that term "Well regulated" that has become a real pain in the ass.   What I find compelling is that whenever the term is used as a justification to regulate firearms, gun owners are quick to explain that the term actually means "training" in the traditional sense. Usually accompanied with long, copious explanations. Then, when the person is finally sold on the definition, and asks about mandatory training,  typically the guy owner does not support it.  I know I am generalizing here, but that has been my take.   It is sort of like this in a restaurant:

Waiter: "Would you like some desert?"

Customer: "Yes, I would like some Cream Brûlée"

Waiter: "It's pronounced Crème"

Customer: "What?"

Waiter: "I said It's pronounced Crème"

Customer: "Cream Crème?"

Waiter: "No, Crème Brûlée"

 Customer: "Okay... I would like some Crème Brûlée"

Waiter: "I'm sorry, we don't serve Crème Brûlée"

I  think we could just save some time and say that the FF found that "Well regulated" is "serious public inconvenience", that we don't have to do it, and the FF just sort of left it in there as extra words that really don't mean anything.  An even better option is to amend the constitution expressly stating that the preamble (as you call it) to the 2nd amendment is null and void. The lazy fucks should have done that in the first place. Instead, they left it in for us to deal with.  I say we shit or get off the pot and settle this shit.  Let's be honest: Most gun owners don't own guns to have anything to with a militia. They own guns to shoot targets, shoot animals and force their families to eat shitty meat, and/or protect themselves from someone who could burst through their front door at any moment and slaughter the entire family for some reason.   Conversely, if we want to go the militia route, fuck the "serious public inconvenience" bullshit, and twice a year you use your vacation time, buy some bus fare and attend the required training. (There could be a nice tote bag with drink cozys, croakies, and other free crap in it thrown in.  Maybe a drawing for something nice, like a field amputation kit or something.). 

And as for the "defense against a tyrannical government with a dogballs pistol" bullshit.... Fuck that.  The People can keep their dogballs, but they also may acquire field artillery, tactical aircraft, surveillance and attack drones, aircraft carriers, and short to medium range nuclear weapons. 

"Fear a Government that fears your tactical nuclear warheads" has a way better ring to it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

(There could be a nice tote bag with drink cozys, croakies, and other free crap in it thrown in.  Maybe a drawing for something nice, like a field amputation kit or something.). 

That gave me a good laugh.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

well if all he called me was a douche i would still be debating.  I am definitely a douche, but not a cunt!

I think he may have called you both a douche and a cunt.  I'm not entirely positive but may be able to confirm if you would like.  Let me know.

Carl once called me a "cunt faced cock sucking ass".    I had asked him if this meant that I was cunt faced cock that sucked ass, or a cunt faced ass that sucked cock.   I've been in suspense about it for years.  I suppose I need to accept it as part of the human condition.  Some things in life are never resolved.

Share this post


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

I got around to reading it. It was the paid CATO writer, David Kopel. You just opened the door to discussing his work. 

I see that you are unwilling to actually address the article itself, are you waiting for answers from a penpal?

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

DeadEye Dick just walked into a trap. 

Scary. Will you ever get around to addressing the article, rather then what some unknown group thinks of him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 7-year-old is in critical condition after being shot while trick-or-treating with her family,

aren't guns fun? 

Share this post


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

Conversely, if we want to go the militia route, fuck the "serious public inconvenience" bullshit, and twice a year you use your vacation time, buy some bus fare and attend the required training.

But according to the Miller decision, we're supposed to appear bearing arms supplied by ourselves. Hard to do if those are banned.

2 hours ago, benwynn said:

The People can keep their dogballs...

Also hard to do if those are "weapons of war" like all the Presidential candidates from a Team that shall remain nameless believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

But according to the Miller decision, we're supposed to appear bearing arms supplied by ourselves. Hard to do if those are banned.

Suppossed to appear?  Fucking where and when? 

Share this post


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

The People can keep their dogballs, but they also may acquire field artillery, tactical aircraft, surveillance and attack drones, aircraft carriers, and short to medium range nuclear weapons. 

 

39 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Also hard to do if those are "weapons of war" like all the Presidential candidates from a Team that shall remain nameless believe.

Tom is referring only to the dogballs on my list. But in consideration of the context (which has been just critical as fuck to him up until exactly now) is he the only one who doesn't realize I was posting a hypothetical? I thought that was clear earlier in my post.

Share this post


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

The term, preamble, first clause, or whatever the fuck you want to call it has that term "Well regulated" that has become a real pain in the ass.   What I find compelling is that whenever the term is used as a justification to regulate firearms, gun owners are quick to explain that the term actually means "training" in the traditional sense. Usually accompanied with long, copious explanations. Then, when the person is finally sold on the definition, and asks about mandatory training,  typically the guy owner does not support it.  I know I am generalizing here, but that has been my take.   It is sort of like this in a restaurant:

Waiter: "Would you like some desert?"

Customer: "Yes, I would like some Cream Brûlée"

Waiter: "It's pronounced Crème"

Customer: "What?"

Waiter: "I said It's pronounced Crème"

Customer: "Cream Crème?"

Waiter: "No, Crème Brûlée"

 Customer: "Okay... I would like some Crème Brûlée"

Waiter: "I'm sorry, we don't serve Crème Brûlée"

I  think we could just save some time and say that the FF found that "Well regulated" is "serious public inconvenience", that we don't have to do it, and the FF just sort of left it in there as extra words that really don't mean anything.  An even better option is to amend the constitution expressly stating that the preamble (as you call it) to the 2nd amendment is null and void. The lazy fucks should have done that in the first place. Instead, they left it in for us to deal with.  I say we shit or get off the pot and settle this shit.  Let's be honest: Most gun owners don't own guns to have anything to with a militia. They own guns to shoot targets, shoot animals and force their families to eat shitty meat, and/or protect themselves from someone who could burst through their front door at any moment and slaughter the entire family for some reason.   Conversely, if we want to go the militia route, fuck the "serious public inconvenience" bullshit, and twice a year you use your vacation time, buy some bus fare and attend the required training. (There could be a nice tote bag with drink cozys, croakies, and other free crap in it thrown in.  Maybe a drawing for something nice, like a field amputation kit or something.). 

And as for the "defense against a tyrannical government with a dogballs pistol" bullshit.... Fuck that.  The People can keep their dogballs, but they also may acquire field artillery, tactical aircraft, surveillance and attack drones, aircraft carriers, and short to medium range nuclear weapons. 

"Fear a Government that fears your tactical nuclear warheads" has a way better ring to it. 

FWIW, I agree with you about mandatory training.  I have no issues with that sort of requirement.  However, what I find ultimately amusing is "be careful what you ask for".  Firstly, do you really want gangbangers and mass shooters to be BETTER trained?  I think the death tolls in both cases are much lower than they could be specifically because both groups are often poorly trained and just spray bullets.  But I digress.  But 2ndly - how do you envision "training" or marching in a militia platoon a couple of times a year is going to address what are obviously your concerns about gunz being in the hands of citizens and the public risk you think they represent?  If we all did that 2x per year drilling - or even quarterly.... is that going to make you suddenly embrace the 2A as a fundamental right?  Something tells me I should seriously doubt that.  But hey, surprise me.

To the point about whether the "well regulated" prefatory clause means guns can be regulated - that already has been definitively answered by the SCOTUS in Heller vs DC.  I posted the relevant passage for you earlier, but if you need me to post it again, I'll be happy to.  If however, you think that SCOTUS landmark decision is not enough - then by all means work to get the 2A amended to take that clause out.   Good luck with that.

But even aside from amending the amendment...... Of course guns can be regulated, but for reasons other than the "well regulated" clause.  You gun grabbers glom onto that phrase as justification and it just makes you all look silly.  They can be regulated (to a point) just like all the other BoR's can be regulated.  The entire point of the SCOTUS is to be that goal keeper and decide where the lines are drawn.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:
8 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

But according to the Miller decision, we're supposed to appear bearing arms supplied by ourselves. Hard to do if those are banned.

Suppossed to appear?  Fucking where and when? 

The modern answer is, of course, that we should appear for service in our homes, assuming we can afford permission to exercise our rights. I guess those who can't afford such permission are also supposed to stay home but unarmed.

The opinion I referenced said:
 

Quote

 

...the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion....

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

 

On 10/30/2019 at 10:57 PM, benwynn said:
On 10/30/2019 at 7:54 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

If the guns he wants to ban are suitable for militia use, he's ignoring that clause, right? Or is that only sometimes bad?

It is been my consistent  position that ignoring that clause is always bad.  I'm disappointed that you have not been paying attention.


The thing about that is, I have never seen you call out those from a certain unnamed Team who wish to ban and confiscate "assault" weapons for their obvious attempts to ignore the crucial prefatory clause, not to mention the operative clause.

I try to pay attention, but I guess I missed it. Or maybe you didn't do it. Which is it?

 

Share this post


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

FWIW, I agree with you about mandatory training.  I have no issues with that sort of requirement.  However, what I find ultimately amusing is "be careful what you ask for".  Firstly, do you really want gangbangers and mass shooters to be BETTER trained?  I think the death tolls in both cases are much lower than they could be specifically because both groups are often poorly trained and just spray bullets. 

Keeping those armed with firearms untrained in the use of them as a way to keep us safe.  I had not thought of that. And now that you mention it....

I'm still not thinking about it.

8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But 2ndly - how do you envision "training" or marching in a militia platoon a couple of times a year is going to address what are obviously your concerns about gunz being in the hands of citizens and the public risk you think they represent?  If we all did that 2x per year drilling - or even quarterly.... is that going to make you suddenly embrace the 2A as a fundamental right?  Something tells me I should seriously doubt that.  But hey, surprise me.

I am asking for a strict interpretation of the 2A.  Both parts. Give us the "preamble" and I see no way to argue the rest of the 2A.  It would be a logical given.

8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But even aside from amending the amendment...... Of course guns can be regulated, but for reasons other than the "well regulated" clause.  You gun grabbers glom onto that phrase as justification and it just makes you all look silly. 

That's why I was not making that argument.

Share this post


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

I see that you are unwilling to actually address the article itself, are you waiting for answers from a penpal?

Scary. Will you ever get around to addressing the article, rather then what some unknown group thinks of him?

You (and David Kopel, and writer paid by CATO and the NRA, and by dark money) are claiming that Sir John Knight was a typical citizen, riding around armed, routinely,  with his armed buddies, in Merry Old England. You are claiming all his neighbors did the same in that culture, correct? As for the founding fathers and their buddies, they were free to pack loaded firearms, right?

Did they do CC, kinda like Larry Pratt?

Share this post


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

The modern answer is, of course, that we should appear for service in our homes, assuming we can afford permission to exercise our rights. I guess those who can't afford such permission are also supposed to stay home but unarmed.

The opinion I referenced said:
 


The thing about that is, I have never seen you call out those from a certain unnamed Team who wish to ban and confiscate "assault" weapons for their obvious attempts to ignore the crucial prefatory clause, not to mention the operative clause.

I try to pay attention, but I guess I missed it. Or maybe you didn't do it. Which is it?

 

I have stated more than once that I do not support bans on assault weapons.  If "calling someone out" gives you a better understanding of my position, then let me know specifically who you would like me to call out and I will do so. I will even call them a name if you would like to provide one. 

Share this post


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

But according to the Miller decision, we're supposed to appear bearing arms supplied by ourselves. Hard to do if those are banned.

One size fits all? Are you sure? Let's see a cite on that, Tom.

Because the requirements varied in colonial times, by both location, and by timeframe. And in 1939, American men were not presenting militia guns for jack shit.

The states had the burden to provide arms, as per the 1792 Militia Act. In some cases they passed that to citizens...who then needed to find suppliers of the right government model. The guns which were spec'd were not popular among the settlers, they were too big and awkward, and the bayonet attachment was superfluous. Back when the militia was real, not a wanker fantasy, the settlers loathed the guns which Tom is making proud claims about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 2:28 PM, bpm57 said:

You should have no problem backing that with a source.

CHARLES_CHRISTENSEN  HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CRISIS page 1835 

Carrying a firearm was merely a misdemeanor.

Q. Why did Knight get thrown in goal, and then have to face a jury trial?

A. Because it was a political mess, partially based on religion.

 

Knight was tasked to arrest a Catholic priest, and King James II went off on him. Knight was accused of violating the Statute of Northampton. 

Q. Why was he found innocent?

A. Because he was lawfully leading a posse for the Duke. He had formal orders.

Q. Why did he have to post a surety bond after the trial?

A.  Becauase gunz. To insure the public safety around firearms. This was routine, when firearms were in use, for centuries.

Share this post


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

CHARLES_CHRISTENSEN  HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CRISIS page 1835 

That is not a source, Joe. Provide a link to the original law review article.

26 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Carrying a firearm was merely a misdemeanor.

Q. Why did Knight get thrown in goal, and then have to face a jury trial?

A. Because it was a political mess, partially based on religion.

I'm sure your source wrote exactly like this, not a cite in sight.

29 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Knight was tasked to arrest a Catholic priest, and King James II went off on him.

The King showed up to charge him? Have a cite for that?

30 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Q. Why was he found innocent?

A. Because he was lawfully leading a posse for the Duke. He had formal orders.

Yet you seem to be unable to quote anything saying that.

31 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Q. Why did he have to post a surety bond after the trial?

A.  Becauase gunz. To insure the public safety around firearms. This was routine, when firearms were in use, for centuries.

Of course, government officials always have to post a bond when they are found innocent of doing things in the course of their job. Have a cite?

 

Share this post


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

I am asking for a strict interpretation of the 2A.  Both parts. Give us the "preamble" and I see no way to argue the rest of the 2A. 

Well, first of all - the SCOTUS has already interpreted the 2A (by a fairly strict originalist no less) and they've said that the Prefatory clause is just that.... a description or a desire, but not binding in any way.  So this discussion is simply a thought exercise for you.

But if you want both parts strictly followed - I'm more than happy to assemble a couple of times a year and march around for a few hours and shoot targets on the range in exchange for "Shall NOT be Infringed".  Like as in ZERO infringy stuff.  Dillon Aero Gatling guns, fighter jets with JDAMs, Main battle tanks, privateers with cannons (full sized ones, not miniature Happy Jack cannons), etc.  Where do I sign up?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
23 hours ago, benwynn said:

I am asking for a strict interpretation of the 2A.  Both parts. Give us the "preamble" and I see no way to argue the rest of the 2A. 

Well, first of all - the SCOTUS has already interpreted the 2A (by a fairly strict originalist no less) and they've said that the Prefatory clause is just that.... a description or a desire, but not binding in any way.  So this discussion is simply a thought exercise for you.

But if you want both parts strictly followed - I'm more than happy to assemble a couple of times a year and march around for a few hours and shoot targets on the range in exchange for "Shall NOT be Infringed".  Like as in ZERO infringy stuff.  Dillon Aero Gatling guns, fighter jets with JDAMs, Main battle tanks, privateers with cannons (full sized ones, not miniature Happy Jack cannons), etc.  Where do I sign up?  

 

As a Libertarian originalist fantasy, sounds cool. And the history supports this idea, during the War of 1812 several communities pooled their resources to buy cannon to defend their harbors. In modern times, a militia would be totally pointless without anti-armor weapons, and would be a hell of a lot better off with anti-air weapons too.

However, picture this, now, here.... how long before the West Bumfuck Militia decides to strafe the state house? I give it about a half hour.

So, no. I'm trying live in reality here.

- DSK

Share this post


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

Well, first of all - the SCOTUS has already interpreted the 2A (by a fairly strict originalist no less) and they've said that the Prefatory clause is just that.... a description or a desire, but not binding in any way.  So this discussion is simply a thought exercise for you.

But if you want both parts strictly followed - I'm more than happy to assemble a couple of times a year and march around for a few hours and shoot targets on the range in exchange for "Shall NOT be Infringed".  Like as in ZERO infringy stuff.  Dillon Aero Gatling guns, fighter jets with JDAMs, Main battle tanks, privateers with cannons (full sized ones, not miniature Happy Jack cannons), etc.  Where do I sign up?  

You just did.   Get on it.  

I've got a shitload of Hilton Honors points if you need to block out some rooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 9:55 AM, bpm57 said:

That is not a source, Joe. Provide a link to the original law review article.

I'm sure your source wrote exactly like this, not a cite in sight.

The King showed up to charge him? Have a cite for that?

Yet you seem to be unable to quote anything saying that.

 

 

We went over this a year ago, so I'd like to ask you why you did not retain it.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/69325-heller-v-dc-being-heard-today/&do=findComment&comment=6378221

 

Quote

(Patrick J, Charles here:) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1938950

Here again, we see the difference between myth and reality. Those that read Sir John Knight's case as a turning point in the popular understanding of the Statute of N0rthampton are purporting a historical myth to advance a Second Amendment Agenda. 155

Knight was accused of walking "about the streets armed with guns,: 156 but the jury acquitted Knight because he was a government official that was well affected to the crown. 157

The jury agreed with this defense, finding Knight to be “loyall.”  See 1 LUTTRELL, supra note 144, at 389

 

(“Sir John Knight, the loyall, was tried at the court of kings bench for a high misdemeanour, in goeing armed up and down with a gun att Bristoll; who being tried by a jury of his own citty, that knew him well, he was acquitted, not thinking he did it with any ill design . . . ’tis thought his being concerned in taking up a popish priest at Bristoll occasioned this prosecution.”).    146 3 THE ENTRING BOOK OF ROGER MORRICE, supra note 139, at 307.

p30 CLEVELAND STATE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:1

 

 Knight admitted that he was armed upon going to the church, but refused to concede that he was disaffected.145  In explaining the turn of events, Knight also informed the King’s Bench of an assault and identifiable threat to his person.146  Days earlier, two Irishmen had been waiting outside Knight’s home to assault his person.   After waiting to no avail, the Irishmen approached a woman for Knight’s whereabouts, and brutally beat her for failing to reveal the location.147  In addition to this incident, there was another involving Mack Don, who Knight claimed to have assaulted his person, although no charges were ever brought against Don.148  It was for these reasons that Knight confessed to the court that he always “rode with a Sword and a Gun,” and had a number of armed attendants,149 which had been the nobility’s allowance under the common law.150 

 

However, Knight never rested his innocence or legal defense on preparatory selfdefense or the nobility’s common law right to go armed with lawful attendants.  It was not the act Knight was being charged with, nor was any of the “attendants” charged in violation of the Statute. 

Instead, Knight defended the case in terms of “active Loyalty” to the crown151 and even cited Richard II’s statute exempting governmental officials from punishment.152  It is a historical point of emphasis that when Knight was armed to apprehend the priest he was under the license of the king’s service.  It is for this reason the King’s Bench doubted the conduct “came within the equity and true meaning of the Statute of Northampton about goeing armed . . . .”153 

 

The Chief Justice even scolded the Attorney General for indicting Knight.  The Chief Justice stated, “If there be any blinde side of the Kings business you will always lay your finger upon it, and shew it to the Defenants…" 154

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

We went over this a year ago, so I'd like to ask you why you did not retain it.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/69325-heller-v-dc-being-heard-today/&do=findComment&comment=6378221

Now go read the link I gave again, Joe. Maybe you will notice that it is covering that exact topic.

Share this post


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

I'm more than happy to assemble a couple of times a year and march around for a few hours 

Do you even pay taxes here?

Share this post


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

 

As a Libertarian originalist fantasy, sounds cool. And the history supports this idea, during the War of 1812 several communities pooled their resources to buy cannon to defend their harbors. In modern times, a militia would be totally pointless without anti-armor weapons, and would be a hell of a lot better off with anti-air weapons too.

However, picture this, now, here.... how long before the West Bumfuck Militia decides to strafe the state house? I give it about a half hour.

So, no. I'm trying live in reality here.

- DSK

I'm ok with reality too.  Better tell @benwynn that, he's on a tear to get Apaches and SA-400s approved for militia use.  Heller is looking betterer and betterer all the time, eh?

Share this post


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

You just did.   Get on it.  

I've got a shitload of Hilton Honors points if you need to block out some rooms.

PM your Hilton HHonors login details and I'll work on the booking this weekend.  Thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Do you even pay taxes here?

Unfortunately, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 11:42 AM, benwynn said:

I have stated more than once that I do not support bans on assault weapons.

Have you ever said why? I must have missed it. Would you mind repeating if you have?

Share this post


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

Now go read the link I gave again, Joe. Maybe you will notice that it is covering that exact topic.

Your link is deceptive lawyering, done by a Libertarian, sporting an idea which has been debunked. Let's review this, you know, the nuances... 

  • You want to use Sir John Knight's needs (and his habit of packing for his own self defense) as a standard of the day. 
  • You hold his admitted habit as a status quo for English behavior in 1689.
  • But Knight was the de facto sheriff, as proven in court.
  • He was a landed Protestant out and about, arresting a priest while armed, carrying frigging written orders,
  • So hmmm,  he was found innocent of violating the Statute of Northampton.
  • He was not just a weaponized rascal (as accused by King James II).

And you knew this a year ago, after your Sir John Knight BS was de-bunked on PA. You knew that David Kopel was making shit up, but you posted his baloney anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh

Share this post


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

Have you ever said why? I must have missed it. Would you mind repeating if you have?

You regularly quote what someone posted 3+ years ago on a given subject.  I sense a trap.  Why not spring it on me now and save some time. 

Share this post


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

ut Knight was the de facto sheriff, as proven in court.

Proven?

" The case report is terse about what Knight’s lawyer said: “Winnington, pro defendente. This statute was made to prevent the people’s being oppressed by great men; but this is a private matter, and not within the statute. Vide stat. 20 R. 2.”

From the link you claimed to read.

Will you now say that it was normal for government officials to claim that things they do on the job are a private matter?

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

He was a landed Protestant out and about, arresting a priest while armed, carrying frigging written orders,

Cite

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

So hmmm,  he was found innocent of violating the Statute of Northampton. 

The same one his lawyer claimed didn't apply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Do you even pay taxes here?

The entertainment lawyer is still far more concerned about the opinions of a US citizen that lives abroad.

The citizenship and location of a participant in PA only matters if they disagree with the echo chamber, huh "clean"?

Share this post


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

The entertainment lawyer is still far more concerned about the opinions of a US citizen that lives abroad.

The citizenship and location of a participant in PA only matters if they disagree with the echo chamber, huh "clean"?

entertainment lawyer?  that's so early oughts bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

So hmmm,  he was found innocent of violating the Statute of Northampton. 

The same one his lawyer claimed didn't apply.

Correct, DeadEye. But follow his lawyer's (successful) logic.  The Statute of Northampton's gun control did not apply to government officials. In common law as we know it, the state carries a monopoly on outdoor violence, and this has worked better than the alternative for 600 years.

Today, the application of the Statute of Northampton can be appreciated within Peruta II. Scott Peruta enjoys an indoor gun in San Diego, legally,  but has no CC or OC outdoor gun, legally.

Are you with me so far?

Share this post


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

Correct, DeadEye. But follow his lawyer's (successful) logic.  The Statute of Northampton's gun control did not apply to government officials. In common law as we know it, the state carries a monopoly on outdoor violence, and this has worked better than the alternative for 600 years.

So when his lawyer said this:

" The case report is terse about what Knight’s lawyer said: “Winnington, pro defendente. This statute was made to prevent the people’s being oppressed by great men; but this is a private matter, and not within the statute. Vide stat. 20 R. 2.” 

From the link you claimed to read.

Will you now say that it was normal for government officials to claim that things they do on the job are a private matter?

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

the state carries a monopoly on outdoor violence, and this has worked better than the alternative for 600 years.

Even Blackstone disagrees with you. As has been pointed out before.

"THE defense of one's self, or the mutual and reciprocal defense of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray . For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It confiders that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to fay, to what wanton lengths of reapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defense therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away be the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor"

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk3ch1.asp

I don't see a restriction on location, Joe. Maybe you could run it past your penpal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 6:30 PM, bpm57 said:

I don't see a restriction on location, Joe. Maybe you could run it past your penpal.

Well, DeadEye Dick only needs to exert himself to get to the next paragraph of his own material.

 

What a poser. So poorly informed--but to your credit, you alone have taken the challenge of historical facts. Tom and Jeff run from such conversation.

This is YOUR repeated conversation, and here is your claim, simply put: that William Blackstone is supporting outdoor violence. And you provided a link. This is the very next fucking paragraph of that link. Pay attention to it, you are about to get drilled on it, Bubba. 

Quote

(From page 4)

PRIVATE WRONGS
BOOK III.(of Blackstone's Four Volumes)
Ch. 1 

Section I, See bpm's clever choice, above

Section II. RECAPTION or reprifal is another fpecies of remedy by the mere act of the party injured. This happens, when any one hath deprived another of his property in goods or chattels perfonal, or wrongfully detains one's wife, child, or fervant; in which cafe the owner of the goods, and the hufband, parent, or mafter, may lawfully claim and retake them, wherever he happens of find them; fo ti be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peacec . The reafon for this is obvious; fince it may frequently happen that the owner may have this only opportunity of doing himfelf juftice: his goods may be afterwards conveyed away or deftroyed; and his wife, if he had no fpeedier remedy than the ordinary procefs of law. If therefore he can fo contrive it as to gain poffeffion of his property again, without force or terror, the law favours and will juftify his proceeding. But, as the public peace is a fuperior confideration to any one man's private property; and as, if individual were once allowed to ufe private force as a remedy for private injuries, all focial juftice muft cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a ftate of nature; for thefe reasons

.P 5

it is provided, that this natural right of recaption fhall never be exerted, where fuch exertion muft occafion ftrife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of fociety. If, for inftance, my horfe is taken away, and I find him in a common, a fair, or a public inn, I may lawfully feife him to my own ufe: but I cannot juftify breaking open a private ftable, or entering on the grounds of a third perfon, to take him, except he be felonioufly ftolenf ; but muft have recourfe to an action at law.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk3ch1.asp

 

Share this post


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

Your article has problems.

  • It relies on he bullshit Scalia got from Clayton Kramer, you know, the dead wrong stuff about the term to bear arms. You posted about it on these forums. (New technology has quantified how the term "bear arms" was used in original times, and it was 97% military. Your own link once reported on this, right beneath the fog you laid down.)
  • Your article tries to quote George Tucker as supporting individual gun rights...but the full context is that Tucker supports both Blackstone, and the basics of the Statute of Northampton. 
  • Your article relies on tortured operative and prefatory flip-flops to totally dismiss "well regulated." 
  • The article then makes a grand, false, and hyperbolic claim about The Glorious Revolution.
  • In one place the article denies the textual existence of well regulated within the second.

 

MILLER TIME ALREADY > Way down in your link, did the dogballs not get smacked down after his reply , reply number fifty one?

 

Share this post


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

What a poser. So poorly informed

Aww, how cute. Your inability to understand written english is the issue, Joe.

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

that William Blackstone is supporting outdoor violence. And you provided a link.

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it? I gave a link because disingenuous assholes such as yourself would claim I made it up.

But how did Blackstone put it.. " if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray ."

Seems straightforward to me, maybe you could get some help at your local community college?

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

This is the very next fucking paragraph of that link. Pay attention to it, you are about to get drilled on it, Bubba. 

Oh, Joe goes all alpha male. Lets see what Blackstone says, shall we?

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

RECAPTION or reprifal is another fpecies of remedy by the mere act of the party injured.

Definition of recaption: the act of retaking specifically : the peaceable retaking of one's own goods, chattels, wife, or children from one who has taken and wrongfully detains them

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recaption

Definition of reprisal 1 : a retaliatory act 2 : the regaining of something (as by recapture) 3 : something (such as a sum of money) given or paid in restitution —usually used in plural 4a : the act or practice in international law of resorting to force short of war in retaliation for damage or loss suffered b : an instance of such action

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprisal

You do realize that these are not self defense, right?

Most readers would understand that putting in the header "II" indicates that he is moving on from "I", not continuing his thoughts on the topic of "I".

 

Share this post


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

but the full context is that Tucker

I'm sure you will post your analysis of Tucker's Blackstone shortly?

I'll help you by quoting what he said about the 2nd amendment.

"8. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."

https://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d12000.htm

Share this post


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

. If therefore he can fo contrive it as to gain poffeffion of his property again, without force or terror, the law favours and will juftify his proceeding. But, as the public peace is a fuperior confideration to any one man's private property; and as, if individual were once allowed to ufe private force as a remedy for private injuries, all focial juftice muft cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a ftate of nature; for thefe reasons

.P 5

it is provided, that this natural right of recaption fhall never be exerted, where fuch exertion muft occafion ftrife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of fociety.

Your author, William Blackstone,  admits that one must sometimes react quickly to theft or aggression. Your citizen gets to act on the law of nature, but this must " be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peacec"

Then, in the adjoininhg section you left out,  he rules against any "strife and bodily contention", he wants no "strife and terror," and he dictates from the bench that DeadEye and his elk many not "endanger the peace of society."

I like your Blackstone. Your genteel author's final words insist that the wronged party take a problem about a stolen horse to court.

But cheer up. Your citizen could blast away, and could use swords and introduce mayhem, in his main living quarters, with his friends at his side.

 

Share this post


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

Then, in the adjoininhg section you left out,  he rules against any "strife and bodily contention", he wants no "strife and terror," and he dictates from the bench that DeadEye and his elk many not "endanger the peace of society."

I would ask if you really are this dense, Joe, but based on your posting history - I think we all know the answer.

54 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Your citizen gets to act on the law of nature, but this must " be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peacec"

He does not say that in section I, which is about self defense. Section II is still not about self defense. I realize this is difficult for you to understand, Joe, but the whole text isn't about self defense. Unless "no diftrefs of cattle can be driven out of the hundred where it is taken" has something to do with it in your mind.

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Your citizen could blast away, and could use swords and introduce mayhem, in his main living quarters, with his friends at his side.

And we are back to your fever dream of "you are only allowed to defend yourself when you are physically in your house".

When are you going to turn yourself in for the mayhem when you threatened someone with a firearm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bpm57, you have the patience of a saint.  On ya.

Share this post


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

ceHe does not say that in section I, which is about self defense.

The second section deals with public behavior while settling grievances. Outdoor behavior. Blackstone indicates that courts will accept no violence.

Quote

At no part did Blackstone link the right of personal security with the possession of arms, nor did he cite to the Declaration of Rights’ “having arms” provision in his discussion of personal security.147  The omission was deliberate, for Blackstone was referring to a rather distinct principle—lawful rebellion and resistance to restore the Constitution.148

Blackstone did not support outdoor gunz. Instead, Justice Blackstone references the Statute of Northampton.

Quote

William Blackstone Said What?

p1823 Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

 In all fairness, there are instances where Malcolm grasps Blackstone’s articulation of the “fifth auxiliary right” in context.553 However, in most places, she breaks the bounds of historical elasticity by casting Blackstone in modern libertarian terms.554 Such an interpretation is embarrassing, especially when one compares Blackstone with the writings of other contemporary authors.555 In the four volumes of the Commentaries there is not one instance of Blackstone stating or inferring such a libertarian understanding of the right. He does not mention a right to arms in his sections of life, personal liberty, personal security, the hue and cry, or self-defense and homicide.556 If anything, Blackstone undercuts Malcolm’s interpretation when he affirmed the Statute of Northampton as a lawful exercise of police power557—the very same statute that Malcolm mischaracterizes and claims was never in force.558

 

Share this post


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

The second section deals with public behavior while settling grievances.

So when he said " In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray .", he really didn't mean it. What he _really_ meant was "you can take your aggressors to court if you survive it, be sure to not fight back." 

Maybe you should ask this question of one of your email acquaintances. I don't think anyone else would read "I" and then come to the same conclusion you do.

Much more readable version of the commentaries here: https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Blackstone did not support outdoor gunz.

I wonder how many licenses were sold under the gun licence act of 1870? You only needed it if you were taking a firearm away from your dwelling-house or the curtilage. I would expect none, since you endlessly claim it has been illegal for any non government agent to "bear arms" since 1328.

What did Blackstone actually write?

"5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute, 1 W. and M. st. 2, c. 2, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

Looks like he is ok with them "under due restrictions", which is just restating what the English BoR already says. Currently those restrictions are "carry a whistle, otherwise you risk being the one put in jail."

And there is that pesky "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", and it comes right in the 1st chapter of the 1st volume.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 9:30 AM, benwynn said:

A wise person sees Democrats who own guns. A wise person does not extrapolate the action and views of some members of a group to all members of the group.

https://theliberalgunclub.com

In advance, you are very welcome. Let me know if I can be of more help. 

Article on a recent Liberal Gun Club event
 

Quote

 

...

Progressives and moderates, people of color, members of the LGBTQ-plus community, veterans, and yes, even middle-aged white men make up its more than 2,600 paying members across the country. Since Trump got elected, its membership has more than doubled and The Liberal Gun Club is starting to find its political footing—pro-2A (Second Amendment) but definitely left of center.

"We're trying to get those folks in the middle and to the immediate left to pay attention," Gardner said. "It's hard to have a conversation with a Democrat about guns without it becoming an emotional conversation."

But Gardner is a Democrat. And so are the other members. For them, talking about the Second Amendment isn't a partisan issue, it's a civil rights issue. Guns, though, are a political issue, and Liberal Gun Club members don't always feel comfortable talking to fellow liberals about the guns they own.

"We joke about it. It's a safe space," he said with a laugh.

...

 

Can't blame them for feeling uncomfortable.

Quote

 

...

Eric Wooten, a Liberal Gun Club member who grew up in Morro Bay and now lives in Atascadero, eats lunch as he tells me another unique thing about the range: You don't have to be a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to be a SLOSA member. He used to belong to a private gun range in Atascadero, where members were required to belong to the NRA.

"I had to join the NRA. I made up for it by giving an equal amount of money to the ACLU," he says between bites of food. "So the whole Constitution was covered."

...

 

Always glad to see a fellow ACLU supporter but the implication that the ACLU doesn't "cover" the second amendment was fair some years ago but has become less so as they repeatedly push for that annoying "due process" thing to apply to gun control. There's an example later in the article.

Quote

 

...

Gun control, Gardner says, is an issue that Democratic politicians use to prove they're liberal. It's a false indicator, he adds, pointing out that U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) is a great example of the sleight-of-hand that politicians use to prove their partisanship.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) gave her a 73 percent in its Congressional Scorecard on votes between January 2017 and May 2018.

"She's really not that liberal," he says. "Rather than saying, 'Oh, let's raise the minimum wage,' or, 'Oh, let's get universal health care,' it's, 'Oh, let's get gun control.'"
...

 

He knows a partisan litmus test when he sees one.
 

Quote

 

...

Of the nearly 40,000 people who died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. in 2017, 60 percent were suicides, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Almost 24,000 suicides in 2017 used a gun, but that number accounts for only half of the suicides in 2017. In total, there were a little more than 47,000 suicides in 2017, according to the CDC.

"When I look at that, it tells me that we have a suicide problem," Gardner says.

And when he looks at homicide statistics, he sees that a majority of the murders involving firearms aren't committed by long guns such as the assault-style weapons banned in California; Connecticut; Washington, D.C.; Hawaii; Maryland; Massachusetts; and New Jersey.

Of the more than 15,000 murders reported to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics in 2017, almost 11,000 involved firearms. A little more than 7,000 of those homicides were committed with a handgun, 400 with rifles, and 260 with shotguns. In the remaining 3,200 murders related to a firearm, the type of gun is unknown.

According to the FBI statistics, long guns (rifles)—which include the assault-style firearms that mass shootings have made famous—make up way less than 1 percent of gun homicides, Gardner says.

...

 

It's refreshing to see someone mention that we have about twice as many self-murders in which no gun was involved as we do actual murders involving a gun.

Odd that he doesn't seem to realize that "assault" weapon bans generally cover handguns and shotguns.
 

Quote

 

...

The small (censored) caliber bullet firing out of this variant of the AR-15 are hitting the metal targets in front of me, but never the one I aim for. I laugh at myself because my arm is getting tired and I can't hold the gun steady.

This thing is heavy. And although it may look like an assault weapon—one of the ones that's banned in California—it's not. Black, with a magazine that clicks into place below the trigger, this particular gun is about 90 percent less powerful than a standard AR-15 because of the size of the bullet and the way it fires.

Details like this are key to understanding guns, according to Michael Sodini who founded Walk the Talk America and was the keynote speaker at that night's Liberal Gun Club dinner. The only difference between something like the AR-15 and a hunting rifle in many cases—Sodini told me over the phone later—is that one's painted black and has a bunch of tactical extras.

...

 

He's more or less right about that last part but it's odd that he doesn't seem to realize that there are plenty of "assault" weapons that fire censored caliber bullets, at least if one looks at legislation supported by every Presidential candidate from a certain part of the Duopoly. I know, I know, looking at and discussing the details of such legislation is extremely antisocial behavior. Sorry.
 

Quote

 

...

"When I say tactical, it almost means scary looking," he said. "Assault rifles aren't automatic; they're semi-automatic."

Every time a bullet comes out of a semi-automatic weapon (and this is most of the guns available for purchase), someone had to depress a trigger.

Sodini said he spends a lot of time explaining details like these as part of the work he does for his nonprofit, which is attempting to bridge the gap between the mental health and gun communities. He takes mental health professionals to gun shows to talk about mental health and the stigmas associated with it. And he does the same in the mental health world exposing mental health professionals to firearms, gun culture and safety, and the associated stigmas.

The goal is to expose the two to one another and hopefully get people the help that they need in the process.

...

 

Almost means scary looking?

Speaking of scary looking, here's the Liberal Gun Club t-shirt:

news1-6-a7f48dba905e2734.jpg?cb=15730915

The Minutemen must have been pretty careful swinging such a long gun around indoors, which is the only place the second amendment was meant to allow it.

Or something.

Share this post


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

And there is that pesky "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", and it comes right in the 1st chapter of the 1st volume.

The evidence is voluminous, and spreads over decades, that these terms relate to militia politics. Um, Patrick J. Charles has lined these terms up, in several articles. 

You have been played by Larry Pratt...and by myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

The Minutemen must have been pretty careful swinging such a long gun around indoors, which is the only place the second amendment was meant to allow it.

Or something.

Correct, Tom. How about that gun, it's about a mile long. Welcome to the factual world.

The colonists detested the gun models which were spec'd (and required, and often supplied, and stored) by the states. These guns were not popular, they were awkward and heavy. The presence of these guns in the farmhouse, when it happened, was a civic burden. Those guns were designed for soldiery, not farming.

Share this post


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

"We're trying to get those folks in the middle and to the immediate left to pay attention," Gardner said. "It's hard to have a conversation with a Democrat about guns without it becoming an emotional conversation."

But Gardner is a Democrat. 

So was he angrily yelling or quietly crying when he said this?

Share this post


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

The evidence is voluminous, and spreads over decades, that these terms relate to militia politics. Um, Patrick J. Charles has lined these terms up, in several articles. 

You have been played by Larry Pratt...and by myself.

So when Blackstone said " In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray .", he really didn't mean it. What he _really_ meant was "you can take your aggressors to court if you survive it, be sure to not fight back." 

Well Joe? We await your latest hot take on Blackstone and self defense.

When Blackstone said "5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute, 1 W. and M. st. 2, c. 2, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

He _really_ meant was "You don't have any rights outside of your dwelling, you can only use self defense if you are attacked inside your dwelling, if it happens outside, you or your survivors can take the attacker to court"

I can't find anything by any lawyer or historian that suggests that Blackstone had some hidden message when talking about self defense, only you claim to know what he _really_ meant.

Please avoid changing the topic this time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ILLINOIS TEENAGER BECOMES FIRST WOMAN TO WIN OVERALL NATIONAL TRAP SHOOTING CHAMPIONSHIP

trap-shooting-champ-630x339.jpg
 

Quote

 

During competition at the Scholastic Clay Target Program Nationals in Marengo, Ohio, Grace shot a perfect 200 of 200 at the 16-yard level which gave her the Ladies division title. 

Later, tied with two male shooters, including the defending champion, miss Marlen then won a shoot off by hitting 75-of-75 clay targets!

 

That girl is a serious threat to flying clay discs!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Looking at this schedule for Marengo, OH,  the contestants assemble twice in the course of a year, which reflects some nice regulation that is not a real grievance to the people, nor a serious public inconvenience and loss

http://shot.sssfonline.com/shot/web/publish/results/index.asp?eid=149

 

Share this post


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

So when Blackstone said " In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray .", he really didn't mean it. What he _really_ meant was "you can take your aggressors to court if you survive it, be sure to not fight back." 

Well Joe? We await your latest hot take on Blackstone and self defense.

When Blackstone said "5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute, 1 W. and M. st. 2, c. 2, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

He _really_ meant was "You don't have any rights outside of your dwelling, you can only use self defense if you are attacked inside your dwelling, if it happens outside, you or your survivors can take the attacker to court"

I can't find anything by any lawyer or historian that suggests that Blackstone had some hidden message when talking about self defense, only you claim to know what he _really_ meant.

Please avoid changing the topic this time.

 

You haven't been reading the material, not even the stuff from yesterday. Placed within the adjoining context (which you snipped), Blackstone says your natural right to fight is suspended short of public violence. No disturbing the peace, no bodily contention, no terror, no force, etc. He said no violence in four ways.)  You are lost in misconceptions, because that is what works for you.

I've covered this. Arms for Their Defence was political rhetoric in the aftermath of the English Civil War in the 1600's. Sir John Knight was arresting priests, and King James II was arresting Protestants...and that would never do. The Glorious Revolution was the outcome, and the glory they found was in the lack of gunplay. Another outcome was that they spelled out that the militia guns were no to be infringed upon, though their own gun rights were alienable enough for regular confiscations by the Parliament in four countries (England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland)

According to the vetted historians, the "natural right of self defense" was the defense against tyrants. The evidence is easy to come by, and was thoroughly presented here in 2018.

And Blackstone's Fifth Auxiliary Right was the idea of the militia standing up to a sovereign, under muster, after four lawful efforts had failed. Read SAILING ANARCHY some day.

Quote

 Above and beyond what they considered to be their natural rights to fight tyranny, they laid out their legal right. Beyond their natural right, Blackstone summarized their five other, auxiliary rights:

  1. The right of fairness from the monarch. If this failed...
  2. The right of fairness of the Parliament. . If this failed...
  3. The right of redress through resolutions before the courts. If this failed...
  4. The right to enumerate resulting grievances to those usurping. If this failed...
  5. The right to muster a militia and confront the unjust ruler with arms.

It was an orderly affair. Our Declaration of Independence was an expression of Blackstone's Fourth Auxiliary Right. Blackstone's Fifth was the basis and model for Hamilton's clarion call in the Federalist 29. 

 

Share this post


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

Blackstone says your natural right to fight is suspended short of public violence. No disturbing the peace, no bodily contention, no terror, no force, etc. He said no violence in four ways.)  You are lost in misconceptions, because that is what works for you.

I really can't help it if you are unable to understand written English, Joe. The "Jocal Way" of reading Blackstone's Commentaries is to assume that Book 3, Chapter 1, I-V (is it just I-V, or does it go further?) is just about self-defense. I'll quote V to help you out, Joe.

" V. A FIFTH case, in which the law allows a man to be his own avenger, or to minister redress to himself, is that of distraining cattle or goods for nonpayment of rent, or other duties; or, distraining another’s cattle damage-feasant, that is, doing damage, or trespassing, upon his land. The former intended for the benefit of landlords, to prevent tenants from secreting or withdrawing their effects to his prejudice; the latter arising from the necessity of the thing itself, as it might otherwise be impossible at a future time to ascertain, whose cattle they were that committed the trespass or damage. "

https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-301/

Now, Joe, I'm sure you would agree that this has nothing to do with self defense, which is covered in I. Yet you insist that what came before this is all about restricting self defense.

You refuse to address what is written in I, and quote II, and III as if they are restrictions on I.

" I. THE defense of one’s self, or the mutual and reciprocal defense of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray.4 For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defense therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor. "

It seems pretty clear to me, can you quote any of your favorite authors claiming the same thing you do?

Can you explain the gun licence act of 1870? If it was illegal since 1328 to carry "arms", why would the UK gov't pass a law to raise revenue off of the thing you claim was _illegal_ for over 500 years?

40 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

glory they found was in the lack of gunplay.

Catholics all died in Joe-approved "non-violent" ways? Then again, you did seem confused about Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, so maybe you do actually believe nobody died in the Glorious Revolution.

41 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

According to the vetted historians, the "natural right of self defense" was the defense against tyrants.

What is the "defense of one's self" that Blackstone refers to, Joe?

In any event, how does one defend against tyrants if the only place "arms" are ever allowed to be is in your dwelling?

Share this post


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

And Blackstone's Fifth Auxiliary Right was the idea of the militia standing up to a sovereign, under muster, after four lawful efforts had failed. Read SAILING ANARCHY some day

Oh look, we have your fantasy version of the glorious revolution.

Share this post


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

(insert screaming and wailing about William Blackstone's basics, all the rulings aqainst outdoor violence)

You seem angry, poorly informed, and prone to distracting behavior. But the fat lady is singing, it's a song about outdoor gun mayhem, and here are the lyrics:

 

Quote

Verse one:

WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND at p148–49

 ("of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the Statute of Northampton . . . in like manner as, by the laws of Solon, every Athenian was finable who walked about the city in armour.");

Quote

Verse Two:

231  Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego (Peruta II), 824 F.3d 919, 939 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) ("The historical materials . . . are remarkably consistent . . . 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.") 

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4034&context=clevstlrev

 

Share this post


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

You seem angry, poorly informed, and prone to distracting behavior.

Poorly informed.. because you keep changing the topic?

The "Jocal Way" of reading Blackstone's Commentaries is to assume that Book 3, Chapter 1, I-V (is it just I-V, or does it go further?) is just about self-defense. I'll quote V to help you out, Joe.

" V. A FIFTH case, in which the law allows a man to be his own avenger, or to minister redress to himself, is that of distraining cattle or goods for nonpayment of rent, or other duties; or, distraining another’s cattle damage-feasant, that is, doing damage, or trespassing, upon his land. The former intended for the benefit of landlords, to prevent tenants from secreting or withdrawing their effects to his prejudice; the latter arising from the necessity of the thing itself, as it might otherwise be impossible at a future time to ascertain, whose cattle they were that committed the trespass or damage. "

https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-301/

Now, Joe, I'm sure you would agree that this has nothing to do with self defense, which is covered in I. Yet you insist that what came before this is all about restricting self defense.

You refuse to address what is written in I, and quote II, and III as if they are restrictions on I.

" I. THE defense of one’s self, or the mutual and reciprocal defense of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray.4 For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defense therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor. "

It seems pretty clear to me, can you quote any of your favorite authors claiming the same thing you do?

Can you explain the gun licence act of 1870? If it was illegal since 1328 to carry "arms", why would the UK gov't pass a law to raise revenue off of the thing you claim was _illegal_ for over 500 years?

Any comments?

 

 

37 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Verse one:

WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND at p148–49

 ("of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the Statute of Northampton . . . in like manner as, by the laws of Solon, every Athenian was finable who walked about the city in armour.");

Is that self defense, Joe? You know, the topic you keep changing to anything else.

Does "dangerous or unusual" cover everything that can be used as a weapon? What qualifies as a weapon that _isn't_ dangerous?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 10:42 AM, benwynn said:
On 11/4/2019 at 3:35 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Have you ever said why? I must have missed it. Would you mind repeating if you have?

You regularly quote what someone posted 3+ years ago on a given subject.  I sense a trap.  Why not spring it on me now and save some time. 

Yoo Hoo! Sometimes people quote others around here. I'm not sure why that's bad. I think it's worse to make up some mischaracterization of what someone said than to quote what they did say.

Anyway, no trap is intended. I'm just wondering why you oppose bans on scary looking weapons? Is it because they ignore both parts of the second amendment? Is ignoring all of it better than just ignoring some of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bpm57 said:
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Verse one:

WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND at p148–49

 ("of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the Statute of Northampton . . . in like manner as, by the laws of Solon, every Athenian was finable who walked about the city in armour.");

Is that self defense, Joe? You know, the topic you keep changing to anything else.

Yes, my child. Think back. You and Larry Pratt and others want CC all over the place, expressly for self defense. But history shows that carrying weapons never has been legal... and never has worked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Clay birds lives matter!

Share this post


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

Yoo Hoo! Sometimes people quote others around here. I'm not sure why that's bad. I think it's worse to make up some mischaracterization of what someone said than to quote what they did say.

Anyway, no trap is intended. I'm just wondering why you oppose bans on scary looking weapons? Is it because they ignore both parts of the second amendment? Is ignoring all of it better than just ignoring some of it?

Largely because the ban is not practical in that the term "assault weapon" cannot be adequately defined.

And no, ignoring all of it is NOT better than just ignoring some of it. 

Is ignoring part of it better than not ignoring any of it?

Share this post


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

Largely because the ban is not practical in that the term "assault weapon" cannot be adequately defined

C'mon, Ben.  The Sturmgewehr showed up in 1944

"select fire" is not available in civilian equipment,, but you knew that too.

 

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first put into mass production and accepted into widespread service during World War II.[6][7][8] Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles.[8] Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the 7.62 an intermediate cartridge? I'm thinking the AK-47 is a battle rifle just like the FN, and not an assault rifle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 7.62 AK round is roughly same power (KE) as the 5.56.

They do have a 7.62 round roughly equal power as our 30.06, 

, which was used in the Mosin Nagant as their Main Battle Rifle , while our 30.06 was used in the Garand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting quirk of gun laws that Chinese made Garand copies are sold in Canada, but not in the US. 

Share this post


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

Yes, my child. Think back. You and Larry Pratt and others want CC all over the place, expressly for self defense. But history shows that carrying weapons never has been legal... and never has worked.

Can you explain the gun licence act of 1870? If it was illegal since 1328 to carry "arms", why would the UK gov't pass a law to raise revenue off of the thing you claim was _illegal_ for over 500 years?

And still no comment about why Sir John Knight's lawyer would call his conduct "a private affair". Was that normal for government agents at the time?

The "Jocal Way" of reading Blackstone's Commentaries is to assume that Book 3, Chapter 1, I-V (is it just I-V, or does it go further?) is just about self-defense. I'll quote V to help you out, Joe.

" V. A FIFTH case, in which the law allows a man to be his own avenger, or to minister redress to himself, is that of distraining cattle or goods for nonpayment of rent, or other duties; or, distraining another’s cattle damage-feasant, that is, doing damage, or trespassing, upon his land. The former intended for the benefit of landlords, to prevent tenants from secreting or withdrawing their effects to his prejudice; the latter arising from the necessity of the thing itself, as it might otherwise be impossible at a future time to ascertain, whose cattle they were that committed the trespass or damage. "

https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-301/

Now, Joe, I'm sure you would agree that this has nothing to do with self defense, which is covered in I. Yet you insist that what came before this is all about restricting self defense.

You refuse to address what is written in I, and quote II, and III as if they are restrictions on I.

21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

According to the vetted historians, the "natural right of self defense" was the defense against tyrants. The evidence is easy to come by, and was thoroughly presented here in 2018.

What is the "defense of one's self" that Blackstone refers to, Joe?

In any event, how does one defend against tyrants if the only place "arms" are ever allowed to be is in your dwelling?

Share this post


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

Largely because the ban is not practical in that the term "assault weapon" cannot be adequately defined.

Caught in the static, are we? Enough already. Cut the games.

Given what is at stake, we could accept a lousy definition and do better than such intellectual and semantic procrastination. FFS.

The nature of the beast is that this "definition" will be dynamic, because the AW phenomena is dynamic. Any def will get more and more restrictive over time, just to combat the the deadly hijinks of the hardware. Part of the dynamism can involve relief for certain dogballs and other allegedly innocent guns.

Did I mention enough already?

Share this post


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

Enough already. Cut the games.

Given what is at stake, we could accept a lousy definition and do better than such intellectual and semantic procrastination. FFS.

The nature of the beast is that this "definition" will be dynamic, because the AW penenomena is dynamic. Any def will get more and more restrictive over time, just to combat the the deadly hijinks of the hardware.

Did I mention enough already?

I think what jockal is saying is:  “Uncle!  Enough with the facts already.”

Share this post


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

I think what jockal is saying is:  “Uncle!  Enough with the facts already.”

Right, Jeffie. Hold my beer, wouldja?

Quote

(history by @bpm57Catholics all died in Joe-approved "non-violent" ways?

 

how many people died in the glorious revolution? and in ...

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070528172610AAvFvtQ

.Best Answer: Zero people died in the Glorious Revolution

"William of Orange was a famous soldier who had defeated the powerful French. When he landed in England at the head of a Dutch army in 1688, James fled to exile in France. Parliament gave the crown of England to William and Mary as joint rulers,...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites