Sign in to follow this  
BravoBravo

"Shall not be infringed"

Recommended Posts

Do American feral hogs eat live kids and carry AK 47s? 

"Gawddamn hogs! I shot five of 'em, and two of my kids."

 

Share this post


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

If they were correct the arguments in these threads would be geared towards getting guns back.

No facts? No source? Just a claim that you have a right to fight the government, coming from Larry Pratt?

 

You have dished out an urban myth. And you sound just like @Shootist Jeff now.

To improve upon the basics which @Cal20racer offered, my source for Federal control of any state militia, during your insurrection, or during any dumbass insurrection in the deep south, is the Militia Act of 1792. 

 

Share this post


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

6397816C-ADA0-4BAD-B061-C0D618C5202D.jpeg

Warren Burger was incorrect.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rok Dog said:

Warren Burger was incorrect.

Rok Dog is a fool .

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Rok Dog is a fool .

I’m a fire arm owning individual citizen.  You’re the fool, fool.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rok Dog said:

I’m a fire arm owning individual citizen

yet another with the blood of innocent children on your hands .

whilst you maintain your firearm is of more value than children's life then that blood will remain .

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

6397816C-ADA0-4BAD-B061-C0D618C5202D.jpeg

Well, OK, let's quote SCOTUS Justices.

Quote

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from? If your answer is "the gun lobby" you might want to check the date of the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Well, OK, let's quote SCOTUS Justices.

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from? If your answer is "the gun lobby" you might want to check the date of the case.

Brilliant.

Tom Ray and Judge Taney walk into a bar.  Tom holds and folds Taney's coat. Toms finds a leather chair for the Justice.

Tom buys the drinks. Tom knods knowingly during the conversation. Tom buys a round for the house, and toasts the Justice.

Taney gives Tom the nod. 

 

 

Tom and Taney.JPG

Share this post


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

Well, OK, let's quote SCOTUS Justices.

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from? If your answer is "the gun lobby" you might want to check the date of the case.

What sort of arms do you figure he was referring to? You might want to check the date of the case. 

Share this post


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

What sort of arms do you figure he was referring to? You might want to check the date of the case. 

My guess would be those in common use at the time.

Now that I've answered your question, how about taking a shot at this one:

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

My guess would be those in common use at the time.

Now that I've answered your question, how about taking a shot at this one:

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from?

Expand upon this, PLEASE. Cuz every dogballs will eventually ejaculate.

1. Take this further. Share with us the grandness of what you have learned from humping on Taney's leg. Soon, get it over with.

2. Explain why this is as far as you have gotten. Your thoughts and considerations go no further than reconstruction, WTF?

3. Why must I now point to the backdrop of constant racebaiting, streaming from the dogballs, for five years or more, from multiple angles, on scores of threads? WTF?

3. Go to Caribou Barbie or Gone With the Wind for a better understanding, DO SOMETHING, but show some advancement on this subject matter ffs.

 

Share this post


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

Expand upon this, PLEASE. Cuz every dogballs will eventually ejaculate.

Poor Joe, can't deal with the _fact_ that there was an _actual_ antebellum SCOTUS case that made an individual right argument for the 2A.

Poor Joe can't get his head around the fact that we don't have a monarchy in the US.

Maybe you should email Patrick and ask him about what the Dred Scott decision said with regard to the 2A, Joe. Be sure to cut-n-paste what he writes.

Share this post


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

yet another with the blood of innocent children on your hands .

whilst you maintain your firearm is of more value than children's life then that blood will remain .

I disagree with you.

Share this post


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

yet another with the blood of innocent children on your hands .

And yet the echo chamber resists any call for taking reasonable action and only allowing cars to be driven by trained gov't agents only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 12:42 PM, B.J. Porter said:

"We hold these truths to be self evident......endowed by thier (sic) creator" is from the DECLARATION, dumbass.

 

It's clear you know fuck-all about what's actually in the Constitution.

The declaration declares we have rights from the creator. The constitution spells out those rights.

Share this post


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

The declaration declares we have rights from the creator. The constitution spells out those rights.

The Declaration also specifically states we have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. Those are our three natural rights which no one can deny. Nowhere in that Declaration is a right to arms, that may be found in the Bill of Rights, but the natural law of man from the creator supersedes that.

Share this post


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

The Declaration also specifically states we have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. Those are our three natural rights which no one can deny. Nowhere in that Declaration is a right to arms, that may be found in the Bill of Rights, but the natural law of man from the creator supersedes that.

Get over yourself, you are not that speciel to the rest of is..

Share this post


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

Get over yourself, you are not that speciel to the rest of is..

So sorry to upset you. What were you trying to finish in your sentence?...is...lam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, warbird said:

The declaration declares we have rights from the creator. The constitution spells out those rights.

Neither the Creator nor the Constitution (nor the Articles of Confederation) saw fit to give us the right to gunly guns. That was left to Congress and the States. But the Constitution did allow slavery so following your 'logic' we'll just have to take it on faith that the Creator was good with slavery.

Share this post


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

Neither the Creator nor the Constitution (nor the Articles of Confederation) saw fit to give us the right to gunly guns. That was left to Congress and the States. But the Constitution did allow slavery so following your 'logic' we'll just have to take it on faith that the Creator was good with slavery.

My nephew had friends over for a shooting day on sunday, 2 AK47s and AR15 showed up. That seems pretty common to me...

Share this post


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

My nephew had friends over for a shooting day on sunday, 2 AK47s and AR15 showed up. That seems pretty common to me...

How many Walmart shoppers did they kill?

Share this post


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

My nephew had friends over for a shooting day on sunday, 2 AK47s and AR15 showed up. That seems pretty common to me...

I'll bet you could smell the stupid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'll bet you could smell the stupid.

Speaking of a gang (coven? mullet?) of Afghan goat herders...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:
On 8/9/2019 at 1:42 PM, B.J. Porter said:

"We hold these truths to be self evident......endowed by thier (sic) creator" is from the DECLARATION, dumbass.

 

It's clear you know fuck-all about what's actually in the Constitution.

The declaration declares we have rights from the creator. The constitution spells out those rights.

One is an interesting historical document.

One is the actual law of the land.

 

The declaration literally has zero legal bearing on the America that was created in 1789 when the ratified constitution went into effect.

Nothing in it bears any force of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:
3 hours ago, warbird said:
On 8/9/2019 at 1:42 PM, B.J. Porter said:

"We hold these truths to be self evident......endowed by thier (sic) creator" is from the DECLARATION, dumbass.

 

It's clear you know fuck-all about what's actually in the Constitution.

The declaration declares we have rights from the creator. The constitution spells out those rights.

One is an interesting historical document.

One is the actual law of the land.

 

The declaration literally has zero legal bearing on the America that was created in 1789 when the ratified constitution went into effect.

Nothing in it bears any force of law.

And if you think I'm wrong, the please do explain to me how "all men are created equal" in the Declaration, yet we created a nation with slavery.

I'll wait.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B.J. Porter said:

And if you think I'm wrong, the please do explain to me how "all men are created equal" in the Declaration, yet we created a nation with slavery.

I'll wait.

You can be an obtuse dumb ass and you are very good at it. It is nevertheless enlightening the state of thought of the girly boy left. Like it or not, the concensus in 1779 was that darkies, slaves, blacks n-------s, were not equal to anglo saxon whites. Argue arround that all you fucking want to, it is a fact of life. There were enlightened enclaves that held a firm MINORITY in this matter but it was still a minority position 230 years ago. But suck up your lefty sissyboy outlook and continue to fantasize that history isn't history.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! We have in our presence someone who has mastered the Sun Tzu for dummies comic book edition. Good on ya, Warbird.

Share this post


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

You can be an obtuse dumb ass and you are very good at it. It is nevertheless enlightening the state of thought of the girly boy left. Like it or not, the concensus in 1779 was that darkies, slaves, blacks n-------s, were not equal to anglo saxon whites. Argue arround that all you fucking want to, it is a fact of life. There were enlightened enclaves that held a firm MINORITY in this matter but it was still a minority position 230 years ago. But suck up your lefty sissyboy outlook and continue to fantasize that history isn't history.

The latency on your homosexuality appears to be fading.  

Share this post


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

The latency on your homosexuality appears to be fading.  

What the fuck does my latent homosexuality have to do with sissy boy libtard stupidity?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

What the fuck does my latent homosexuality have to do with sissy boy libtard stupidity?

Saved for posterity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What the fuck does my latent homosexuality have to do with sissy boy libtard stupidity?

Saved for posterity.

Image result for coming out of the closet

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 4:59 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

Well, OK, let's quote SCOTUS Justices.

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from? If your answer is "the gun lobby" you might want to check the date of the case.

If your point is Supreme Court fallibility, and it’s recurrent tendency to drift to the wrong side of morality and common sense, I applaud you on finding such a great quote.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You can be an obtuse dumb ass and you are very good at it. It is nevertheless enlightening the state of thought of the girly boy left. Like it or not, the concensus in 1779 was that darkies, slaves, blacks n-------s, were not equal to anglo saxon whites. Argue arround that all you fucking want to, it is a fact of life. There were enlightened enclaves that held a firm MINORITY in this matter but it was still a minority position 230 years ago. But suck up your lefty sissyboy outlook and continue to fantasize that history isn't history.

And it was also an accepted fact of life that a gun fired one shot and was a pain in the ass to reload.

I know you believe thinking is for sissies and the weak, but it actually won't hurt you if you try it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

And it was also an accepted fact of life that a gun fired one shot and was a pain in the ass to reload.

I know you believe thinking is for sissies and the weak, but it actually won't hurt you if you try it.

It was also accepted that they had no clue what a stun gun would one day be. But a unanimous Supreme Court said it's protected in the case about Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice.

Still, I have seen recent posts here implying that muskets are protected and nothing more modern is. An idea that would never be tolerated if applied to things like broadcasting and the first amendment, but there's always a second amendment exception to TeamD principles, isn't there?

Share this post


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

It was also accepted that they had no clue what a stun gun would one day be. But a unanimous Supreme Court said it's protected in the case about Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice.

Still, I have seen recent posts here implying that muskets are protected and nothing more modern is. An idea that would never be tolerated if applied to things like broadcasting and the first amendment, but there's always a second amendment exception to TeamD principles, isn't there?

Militias are protected, but obsolete.   Any militia, no matter how well trained and how enthusiastic, would be hopelessly hampered if limited to weapon types that failed to achieve advantage a century ago during WW I.   The modern militia must become a terror organization.  It must use improvised explosives against the will of ATF, poison gas against treaty and the will of the EPA, biological weapons against the will of the FBI and CDC, or anti drone and anti armor missiles against the will of the FAA.   An effective modern militia wouldn't be a rag tag bunch of hillbillies with assault rifles hiding from infrared sensors with tin foil uniforms and using Viet Cong style tunnels to obscure camp fire smoke.   It would be a bunch of geeks hiding in plain sight using a computer network to disable enemy weapons, deploying old fashioned enemy soldiers to the wrong location and destroying infrastructure via exploited Easter Eggs. 

The Supreme court, as you demonstrate with your quote, is used to being on the wrong side of history.   Their current stance that the first half of the second amendment specifying militias should be ignored as a left over from James Madison cutting and pasting is as nonsensical as Asshole Justice Taney saying that the right to own property shall not depend on the state of residence.    It took me a minute to realize he wasn't giving black people the right to own property, but white people the right to own black people anywhere they wanted to (I went to the source before coffee, and had my eyes opened).   Just as with Citizens United and the shit our Congress passes, sausage made with tainted meat still stinks.   The decisions in no way reflect what should be, just what must be changed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It was also accepted that they had no clue what a stun gun would one day be. But a unanimous Supreme Court said it's protected in the case about Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice.

Still, I have seen recent posts here implying that muskets are protected and nothing more modern is. An idea that would never be tolerated if applied to things like broadcasting and the first amendment, but there's always a second amendment exception to TeamD principles, isn't there?

I suspect that, if the framers were around today, they would be appalled at what has become of their writing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sean said:

I suspect that, if the framers were around today, they would be appalled at what has become of their writing. 

They would surely be amazed that the East India Company has been replaced with Apple, Amazon and Alphabet.  They would be horrified with the information they hold, and frightened that they yield power greater then many countries.   

The US military machine would no doubt cause extreme consternation, based on their distrust of the Royal Army and their goal of a pastoral nation of citizen farmers, not a militant bully.   

Many would be shocked at the social advances we made, never considering women as being stable enough to own property or non Europeans as smart enough to do most anything.   Modern China would blow their minds.

In many ways mankind is lucky to have limited lifespans or we would never progress beyond the prejudices of our forefathers.   But in other ways, they would be justified in taking us to the woodshed and trying to teach us the errors of our ways.   They gave us a good start, but politics must be freed of money and people freed from the traps of the past if democracy is to endure.   

 

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 8:54 PM, Gouvernail said:

All the arguing about what the fuck the 2nd means is a waste of time. 

The proper thing to do is to Amend the Constitution using absolutely clear wording 

 

This may be the first time ever in PA that I am in 100% agreement with you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It was also accepted that they had no clue what a stun gun would one day be. But a unanimous Supreme Court said it's protected in the case about Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice.

Still, I have seen recent posts here implying that muskets are protected and nothing more modern is. An idea that would never be tolerated if applied to things like broadcasting and the first amendment, but there's always a second amendment exception to TeamD principles, isn't there?

Speech is regulated.  I'm not sure where you get that it isn't.  See, long ago we realized there are certain things that shouldn't be said, like hate speech or lies that affect one's reputation.  There are many on the left who indeed would prefer a total ban on personal guns of any kind.  But most are calling for comprehensive, reasonable controls that enable law abiding citizens access to all the murdering weapons they desire.  But the gun nuts who refuse to even have a conversation and prefer to send children to school in bullet proof backpacks only further entrench the US as a gun loving society for no other reason than "it's my right".  When I see some redneck walk into Starbucks with an AR-15 on his back, I think, sure he can, but does that mean he should?  If a black guy or an Arab-American wearing a habit did the same thing, what would be the effect?  The genius of the COTUS is that it CAN be amended.  For some reason we think Amendments are history and that's it.  But when American society has progressed, we've answered by amending the COTUS, which is why women can vote and people can't own slaves.  What's amazing to me is that the collective "we" have decided so far that easy access to guns is more important than our children not getting shot.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 11:50 PM, Left Shift said:

I was thinking of what Stephen Miller might do.  As far as I can tell, he doesn't have the arm strength to hold down a AK.

Real men single load.  Assault weapons are for pussies.

Share this post


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

Speech is regulated.  I'm not sure where you get that it isn't.  See, long ago we realized there are certain things that shouldn't be said, like hate speech or lies that affect one's reputation.  There are many on the left who indeed would prefer a total ban on personal guns of any kind.  But most are calling for comprehensive, reasonable controls that enable law abiding citizens access to all the murdering weapons they desire.  But the gun nuts who refuse to even have a conversation and prefer to send children to school in bullet proof backpacks only further entrench the US as a gun loving society for no other reason than "it's my right".  When I see some redneck walk into Starbucks with an AR-15 on his back, I think, sure he can, but does that mean he should?  If a black guy or an Arab-American wearing a habit did the same thing, what would be the effect?  The genius of the COTUS is that it CAN be amended.  For some reason we think Amendments are history and that's it.  But when American society has progressed, we've answered by amending the COTUS, which is why women can vote and people can't own slaves.  What's amazing to me is that the collective "we" have decided so far that easy access to guns is more important than our children not getting shot.  

Speech is not regulated. The forum or platform to distribute that speech is.

Share this post


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

Speech is not regulated. The forum or platform to distribute that speech is.

Bullshit.  The laws against defamation have nothing to do with the media used.  I can't tell "fire" in a crowded theater. 

Share this post


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

...    ...    ... when American society has progressed, we've answered by amending the COTUS, which is why women can vote and people can't own slaves.  What's amazing to me is that the collective "we" have decided so far that easy access to guns is more important than our children not getting shot.  

Right, except two things:

1- The Constitution does not address who can or cannot buy a firearm, or how purchase of guns should be regulated.

2- about 40% of USAneans not only hate "progress," they think "progressive" is a horrible insult.

- DSK

Share this post


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

Speech is regulated. 

Where does one apply for the permit?

6 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

I can't tell "fire" in a crowded theater. 

You are free to yell "fire" in a packed theater, there is nothing stopping you from doing so.

There will be consequences for starting the stampede.

Share this post


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

Where does one apply for the permit?

You are free to yell "fire" in a packed theater, there is nothing stopping you from doing so.

There will be consequences for starting the stampede.

If you want to protest in certain areas of a city without getting arrested you need a permit.  And you will be arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theater.  Also, try posting untrue things about someone that ruins their reputation.  I'm sure your unregulated free speech will save you from liebel laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Bullshit.  The laws against defamation have nothing to do with the media used.  I can't tell "fire" in a crowded theater. 

You can yell fire in the middle of a park. You can stand on the corner and issue hate speech, racism, sexism, whatever.  That is freedom. You are not seperating freedom to do something with paying the consequences of having done it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

If you want to protest in certain areas of a city without getting arrested you need a permit.  And you will be arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theater.  Also, try posting untrue things about someone that ruins their reputation.  I'm sure your unregulated free speech will save you from liebel laws.

What you are missing is that you have the freedom to do what you want, you just don't have freedom from the consequences. There was no prior restraint.

Imagine!

Share this post


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

What's amazing to me is that the collective "we" have decided so far that easy access to guns is more important than our children not getting shot.  

this .

Share this post


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

You can yell fire in the middle of a park. You can stand on the corner and issue hate speech, racism, sexism, whatever.  That is freedom. You are not seperating freedom to do something with paying the consequences of having done it..

If you can not say something without legal consequences, you are not free to say it.

 

By your logic, you are also free to commit murder and rape as well, though there will be consequences you are free to do it, right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

If you can not say something without legal consequences, you are not free to say it.

 

By your logic, you are also free to commit murder and rape as well, though there will be consequences you are free to do it, right?

You are free to stand on the corner and preach about the wrongs of conservatism, the short comings of Irish, Italians, Nigerians amd Mongols and the foolishness of women. Discuss at length blue dress stains, cattle futures and travelgate. You can even print your thoughts on those subjects. Your equating that with rape or murder is an ad homem leap used by sissyboy lefties who have a narrow understanding of logic.

Share this post


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

You are free to stand on the corner and preach about the wrongs of conservatism, the short comings of Irish, Italians, Nigerians amd Mongols and the foolishness of women. Discuss at length blue dress stains, cattle futures and travelgate. You can even print your thoughts on those subjects. Your equating that with rape or murder is an ad homem leap used by sissyboy lefties who have a narrow understanding of logic.

This ^^ is laugh out loud funny. I forget that I can not underestimate how truly stupid and ill informed these people are.

 

TO WARBIRD (And I'll try to type it slow for you and avoid polysyllabic big words)...

If you do not understand know what the big words and phrases mean, don't try to use them. It makes you sound like an idiot moron to the people in the room smarter than you everyone.

Ad Hominem = Messenger Guy talking attack (see red part)

There's no "leap" involved, dummy. It's a logical fallacy smart people thing you can't comprehend know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 2:25 PM, bpm57 said:

Poor Joe, can't deal with the _fact_ that there was an _actual_ antebellum SCOTUS case that made an individual right argument for the 2A.

Interesting that you glean "individual right" concepts from this case, since Taney's motivation was the suppression of humans, with gunz. 

 

Violence was legally blessed in the deep south in myriad court cases, starting during reconstruction. The dogballs' Beard case is a textbook example of the progression to outdoor gun violence. It reflects the values emerging in Texas by 1895.

Note: the legal basis for gun violence was not swayed as much in the northern USA. For one example, gun laws contained dueling in the North, better than in the South.

We find that the same differences unfold today. The Emerson case was a steppingstone for Heller. In that case, a Texan with a serious DV violation was given his gun back, and Ashcroft deep-sixed the appeal around 2002. (He then notified the NRA on his letterhead,  to feel free to tee off on the SC ASAP.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 2:06 PM, badlatitude said:
On 8/13/2019 at 1:52 PM, warbird said:

What the fuck does my latent homosexuality have to do with sissy boy libtard stupidity?

Saved for posterity.

NTTAWWT

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

This ^^ is laugh out loud funny. I forget that I can not underestimate how truly stupid and ill informed these people are.

 

TO WARBIRD (And I'll try to type it slow for you and avoid polysyllabic big words)...

If you do not understand know what the big words and phrases mean, don't try to use them. It makes you sound like an idiot moron to the people in the room smarter than you everyone.

Ad Hominem = Messenger Guy talking attack (see red part)

There's no "leap" involved, dummy. It's a logical fallacy smart people thing you can't comprehend know.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Interesting that you glean "individual right" concepts from this case, since Taney's motivation was the suppression of humans, with gunz. 

You still haven't read any of it. You scream "race baiting" when it gets quoted. Does screaming "race baiter" represent your understanding of what that line means?

And you can't blame the language on the gun lobby or libertarians. How did your last dismissal of it go? "Well a FF didn't say it."

Maybe you could ask your friend Patrick the following: If the understanding of the 2A was of a collective right until recently,  why would a chief justice of SCOTUS ever say " and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:
14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

You still haven't read any of it. You scream "race baiting" when it gets quoted. 

When quoted by Tom (45 times) I certainly do. Tom has issues about race or something,

--our Mr. Ray points fingers at others, a lot,  making needy allegations about racist others

--while offering only arms into the racial equation. (Hmmm, quite the combo there.)

--dogballs once found more proliferation, by taking a dump on MLK's church, and my dear DeadEye, I didn't care for that

Quote

Does screaming "race baiter" represent your understanding of what that line means?

. Yes, if that's all Tom posts, repeatedly. But I'm glad you find any meaning in it, you being at your level.

I just think that Tom needs to develop traction if he wants to feature the racial topic. Maybe you can lead Tom to that traction.

Share this post


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

How did your last dismissal of it go? "Well a FF didn't say it."

You have a timeframe problem. Quoting antebellum laws and the Beard caser of 1895 lends no authority to the Second Amendment. It ony shows the changes which were adopted in the following century...these laws reflect the Civil War gun production, its moral carnage, and the aftermath, which featured the KKK.

Look, your Heller scholars are claiming that the founding fathers packed guns openly for self defense, in 1776, as did the English. Both ideas are wrong, according to peer-reviewed history. Your Libertarians claim that the guns were loaded, though the powder in many guns of that day fell out unless onje carried it in firing position.

On the other hand, I have quoted the Statute of Norhampton being applied in the timeframe of the Bill of Rights, by Blackstone and others. 

The Standard Model is some seriously made-up shit. But it's the best your side can offer.

Share this post


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

Quoting antebellum laws and the Beard caser of 1895 lends no authority to the Second Amendment.

Yet your constant quoting of 14th century law from another country is the end-all-be-all "answer" to anything that happened in the 600+ years since.

10 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

 It ony shows the changes which were adopted in the following century...these laws reflect the Civil War gun production, its moral carnage, and the aftermath, which featured the KKK.

Restate this in a way an english speaker would understand, I wouldn't want to assume anything about what you think happened.

18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

though the powder in many guns of that day fell out unless onje carried it in firing position.

Not the 1st time this has been claimed on here, yet it is still inaccurate.

I can only assume it is deliberate ignorance that you still seem to think that "arms" only applies to firearms.

28 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I have quoted the Statute of Norhampton being applied in the timeframe of the Bill of Rights, by Blackstone and others. 

Joe, you have claimed that it still applies _today_ - and we are all still awaiting your cut-n-paste showing a state or federal law that does so.

If (as you endlessly claim) self defense using a firearm only applies inside the walls of your house, did your AW take itself outside and start shooting in your story of self defense using a firearm?

Share this post


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

Yet your constant quoting of 14th century law from another country is the end-all-be-all "answer" to anything that happened in the 600+ years since.

A pattern of 600 years is sustained, it just might hold some clues for you, about what works. And by the way, what you are proposing in nthe USA is not working.

4 hours ago, bpm57 said:

I can only assume it is deliberate ignorance that you still seem to think that "arms" only applies to firearms.

Have an axe to grind? I'm not sure what your problem is with this. As I have stated, these laws were applied to swords and body armor, first, then to guns, and swords, and body armor.

4 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Joe, you have claimed that it (the Statute of Northampoton) still applies _today_ 

That is correct, DeadEye. Think back, and spot the nuances in play.This very bit is what reversed the CC granted mistakenly by Peruta I.

You seem like a bitter fellow, one  who uses selective thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 12:52 PM, Lark said:

Militias are protected, but obsolete.   Any militia, no matter how well trained and how enthusiastic, would be hopelessly hampered if limited to weapon types that failed to achieve advantage a century ago during WW I.

So that's why the war in Afghanistan was won so quickly and we left so long ago. Got it.

On 8/13/2019 at 12:52 PM, Lark said:

The Supreme court, as you demonstrate with your quote, is used to being on the wrong side of history.

I have agreed that the result in Dred Scott is

On 10/27/2014 at 6:13 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

execrable


but that avoids my question.

 

On 8/12/2019 at 4:59 AM, Repastinate Tom said:
Quote

and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from?

The question can have an answer whether you agree with the bolded part or not. Where did it come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 1:57 PM, Swimsailor said:
On 8/13/2019 at 11:31 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

It was also accepted that they had no clue what a stun gun would one day be. But a unanimous Supreme Court said it's protected in the case about Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice.

Still, I have seen recent posts here implying that muskets are protected and nothing more modern is. An idea that would never be tolerated if applied to things like broadcasting and the first amendment, but there's always a second amendment exception to TeamD principles, isn't there?

Speech is regulated.  I'm not sure where you get that it isn't.  See, long ago we realized there are certain things that shouldn't be said, like hate speech or lies that affect one's reputation.

Hate speech is protected under the first amendment. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it isn't.

My idea is not that speech isn't regulated in some ways. It's that applying the first amendment only to ancient printing tech and nothing more modern would not (and should not) be tolerated, but applying the second amendment in that way is welcomed without comment because TeamD.

Share this post


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

Hate speech is protected under the first amendment. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it isn't.

My idea is not that speech isn't regulated in some ways. It's that applying the first amendment only to ancient printing tech and nothing more modern would not (and should not) be tolerated, but applying the second amendment in that way is welcomed without comment because TeamD.

It's a ridiculous comparison.  First, the 2nd amendment is about militias.  Second, are you saying the method of delivering speech is the same thing as the method used to kill people?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

It's a ridiculous comparison.  First, the 2nd amendment is about militias.  Second, are you saying the method of delivering speech is the same thing as the method used to kill people?  

The second amendment is about a right of the people, as even the progressives at Think Progress realize.

I'm saying that applying the first amendment only to ancient printing tech and nothing more modern would not (and should not) be tolerated, but applying the second amendment in that way is welcomed without comment because TeamD.

Share this post


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

The second amendment is about a right of the people, as even the progressives at Think Progress realize.

I'm saying that applying the first amendment only to ancient printing tech and nothing more modern would not (and should not) be tolerated, but applying the second amendment in that way is welcomed without comment because TeamD.

IMO, gun restrictions are usually welcomed without comment because people like you obstruct the solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this