Sign in to follow this  
SC-Texas

Heller v. DC being heard today

Recommended Posts

Regarding point 5, I have some questions about the nuances of banning and confiscating dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

You want an "assault weapon" ban that would cover Billy Backstay's Mini-14 and that naughty magazine translation: can kill lots of people in a few seconds he registered, right?

I feel these things should have gone away in 1994. Instead the AW ban was gutted, thoroughly...but had measurable, positive effects.

 

And you don't want any of those awful "grandfather" clauses watering it down this time, right? Correct. Been there, done that. I key off Tom Diaz with that view.

 

So you think his gun should be taken away, right? Which model Mini-14 does he have? If it holds a LCM, and has handholds to support sustained fire, it sounds like an AW. (Note: neither of these features is "cosmetic.")

 

And how would they find it if he did not register it? The Badgeless Loser fears registration. The general public fears AW's in the hands of untrained, unlicensed hordes.

 

aaRugerMini14-F30GB004_zpscqkpxyca.jpg

 

Once public funding is allowed to investigate gun violence, I could support special licenses to own AW's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His magazine is the registered part. The gun is not scary looking, but does hold the standard capacity magazines.

 

Yes, I fear registration. Mostly because I know what Cuomo meant when he was asked about these kinds of guns and the first thing that came to his mind was confiscation. He was talking about registered ones.

 

Maybe you can put my fears to rest. What should happen now? Should the CN State Police show up and take his magazine or should he be allowed to keep it? And how will they find the majority of them? You know, the ones people were afraid smart enough not to register?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His magazine is the registered part. The gun is not scary looking, but does hold the standard capacity magazines.

 

Yes, I fear registration. Mostly because I know what Cuomo meant when he was asked about these kinds of guns and the first thing that came to his mind was confiscation. He was talking about registered ones.

 

Maybe you can put my fears to rest. What should happen now? Should the CN State Police show up and take his magazine or should he be allowed to keep it? And how will they find the majority of them?

 

Quit your dancing. Does Mr. Backstay's weapon have an LCM, and grips to maintain sustained firepower?

My understanding is that those are the critical, non-cosmetic qualities in play with the AW problem.

Have a picture of his particular model?

How about a good-faith discussion for a change?

 

You know, the ones people were afraid smart enough not to register?

Tom, you seem to be encouraging fine citizens to form criminal intent. That sounds like unlawful conspiracy.

It doesn't sound like abiding by law, at all. It sounds like a confrontation with constitutionally-based law.

 

Gun penalties are there for a reason. My drug counsellor brother tells me such laws, when discovered, usually kick like a mule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

His magazine is the registered part. The gun is not scary looking, but does hold the standard capacity magazines.

 

Yes, I fear registration. Mostly because I know what Cuomo meant when he was asked about these kinds of guns and the first thing that came to his mind was confiscation. He was talking about registered ones.

 

Maybe you can put my fears to rest. What should happen now? Should the CN State Police show up and take his magazine or should he be allowed to keep it? And how will they find the majority of them?

 

Quit your dancing. Does Mr. Backstay's weapon have an LCM, and grips to maintain sustained firepower?

My understanding is that those are the critical, non-cosmetic qualities in play with the AW problem.

Have a picture of his particular model?

How about a good-faith discussion for a change?

 

You know, the ones people were afraid smart enough not to register?

Tom, you seem to be encouraging fine citizens to form criminal intent. That sounds like unlawful conspiracy.

It doesn't sound like abiding by law, at all. It sounds like a confrontation with constitutionally-based law.

 

Gun penalties are there for a reason. My drug counsellor brother tells me such laws, when discovered, usually kick like a mule.

 

 

The link I posted should answer some of your questions.

 

How about a good faith discussion that involves your answering my question about which guns Cuomo intended to confiscate? The answer will have some bearing on your comment about criminal intent. If you have the courage to actually give one this time.

 

I'm a noted scofflaw in other areas too. Go ahead and call me out for my other lawbreaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many Rick Rolls. Four in four days. You have made it worthwhile to NOT open your links.

 

Since "standard capacity" LCM means 20 rounds in this case, the only question on the table is whether Billy's gun has AW-type handholds...to hold the sacred thing down under sustained firepower.

 

Your link, above, went not to a ranch rifle photo, but instead to BB's Stoopid law thread.

You once demanded I meet you on that thread, a little showdown to discuss gun confiscation.

Once there, you changed the subject to airsoft guns, over and over. Not much substance there.

 

No pic of Billy's ranch rifle model, eh?

I think you are avoiding something, in another discussion of limited gun confiscation, which YOU started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal battles over ending DC's gun ban continue.

 

Appeals court strikes down parts of DC gun registry

 

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that the city cannot require gun owners to re-register a gun every three years, make a gun available for inspection or pass a test about firearms laws. The court also struck down a ban on registering more than one pistol per month.

The court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed and to complete a safety training course.

 

 

I re-register to vote when I want to change my party affiliation. Hasn't happened in quite a while.

 

I'd be good with the test thing just as soon as we implement basic civics tests for voting.

 

I'd never register a pistol but I could see purchasing more than one in a month and can't see any reason to prohibit it.

 

Maybe I'm asking too much on the civics test. How about if we just fingerprint and photograph every voter and subject them to an idiotic civics class that doesn't end with a test?

 

Favre was truly awesome, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for today''s libertarian indoctrination, Tom.

And for torturing the bill of rights to your purposes.

Gun rights aren't free 1000%.

 

BTW, I understand that say 80% of gun-related court cases are solved in favor of improved controls.

 

 

 

You left something out. From your source:

The court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed and to complete a safety training course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow joke-al, every time I think its impossible for you to get any dumber - you go and prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, the body of your criticism of me is made of ad hominems. Including this post.

 

I can stand on peer reviewed research now, to support the gun control positions I held in 2012 before studying this subject.

You can't stand on research for your views even after study.

 

So who's the dummy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for today''s libertarian indoctrination, Tom.

And for torturing the bill of rights to your purposes.

Gun rights aren't free 1000%.

 

BTW, I understand that say 80% of gun-related court cases are solved in favor of improved controls.

 

 

 

You left something out. From your source:

The court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed and to complete a safety training course.

 

 

OK, so post the part I left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your permission. I already did.

The bottom line is not as you presented it, Tom Lie.

 

Here's a NYT summary:

 

The court upheld other parts of the law

--such as requiring that so-called long guns — including rifles and shotguns — be registered along with handguns.

--The ruling also allows gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed, pay certain fees and complete a firearms safety training course. ---In all, the court upheld six gun laws and struck down four.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/court-gives-mixed-decision-on-gun-ownership-laws.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dick%20heller_zpstbs9t0qg.jpg

 

Mr. Tom Ray is a propaganda spigot. One needs to consider the source of his Heller information, if it comes from Mr. Ray.

Both gun registration and intermediate scrutiny were upheld in the Sept. 18 D.C. decision...but Tom Ray, for some reason, didn't broadcast those basics.

 

Here's Mike the Gun Guy's summary of Heller III:

He’s Ba-ack. Dick Heller And the NRA Come Up Short In Court.

From a pro-gun perspective, the Heller III decision voided some of the DC registration rules which, as far as I’m concerned, weren’t of great value at all. This included dropping the ‘one gun a month’ rule, the re-registration of guns and a requirement that every gun owner pass a test on current DC gun laws. Most importantly, what the decision upheld was the constitutionality of gun registration per se, and perhaps even more important the use of ‘intermediate scrutiny’ for deciding the constitutionality of gun-control laws.

 

Had the Court agreed with the NRA’s argument that the government’s attempt to regulate gun ownership could only be decided on the basis of ‘strict scrutiny,’ i.e., a law is only valid if it fits the exact issue for which it has been designed, you could basically throw out every gun-control statute that has ever been passed.

The Court also upheld the requirement that D.C. gun owners must take an online course in gun safety which I took while I ate breakfast, paid some bills and watched Morning Joe. If the gun-control community thinks they won a partial victory because the Court upheld this part of the D.C. law they should think again. Affirming the government’s right to control firearms is one thing; affirming a silly and useless gun regulation is something else.

Pasted from <http://mikethegunguy.com/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal battles over ending DC's gun ban continue.

 

Appeals court strikes down parts of DC gun registry

 

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that the city cannot require gun owners to re-register a gun every three years, make a gun available for inspection or pass a test about firearms laws. The court also struck down a ban on registering more than one pistol per month.

 

The court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed and to complete a safety training course.

 

 

I re-register to vote when I want to change my party affiliation. Hasn't happened in quite a while.

 

I'd be good with the test thing just as soon as we implement basic civics tests for voting.

 

I'd never register a pistol but I could see purchasing more than one in a month and can't see any reason to prohibit it.

 

Maybe I'm asking too much on the civics test. How about if we just fingerprint and photograph every voter and subject them to an idiotic civics class that doesn't end with a test?

 

Favre was truly awesome, btw.

 

Jocal, I posted the part you claimed I did not and I commented on it.

 

You just couldn't wait to mount your messenger attack, not even long enough to read my relatively short post.

 

And now you've been caught lying as a result.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cancel the victory lap.

 

The circuit court re-affirmed registration, in spades. This registration has teeth: it includes fingerprinting and a photograph.

Your worst nightmare has been upheld...but you left that out, eh?

You also left out intermediate scrutiny, and the Heller bottom line: firearm safety measures are here to stay.

 

So sayeth the superior court.

 

You included selective details (a few of which I had missed, my bad) but the bottom line is not as you glibly presented it, Tom Lie.

Heller III, the eventual outcome of Heller 2008, is now all about effective gun control...and no-nonsense registration of handguns and long guns.

 

Spatial Ed won this round, not you. You lost, on Heller itself. Time to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crickets in Hellerville, Tom?

If you ain't got no mis-truth, you ain't got no truth at all.

LMFAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I included all of the relevant parts of the article I linked, which was very short.

 

I left out this part:

 

A federal appeals court has struck down as unconstitutional parts of Washington, D.C.'s gun laws.

 

 

But did not leave out the part you said I did.

 

 

 

But Heller, Levy, and Gura pushed the envelope of firearms safety...and stiff gun registration was the result in D.C.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/court-gives-mixed-decision-on-gun-ownership-laws.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0>


 

 

Overturning the closed registry was the result and they're fighting it tooth and nail. And a federal appeals court just threw out some teeth. Yeah, as I said, they kept others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But (Tom Ray) did not leave out the part you said I did.

 

As stated, my bad. That detail is inconsequential, however.

 

You are missing the point.

Heller III, the outcome of Heller 2008, just paved the way for gun registration, with required fingerprinting and photo ID in D.C.

The Badgeless Dodger is ignorantly dancing around that outcome.

Your absolutist gun philosophy is failing in lower courts, and higher courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already said we should also fingerprint and photograph every voter and subject them to an idiotic civics class that doesn't end with a test.

 

What more did you want? Oh yeah, I forgot to mention how great Favre was. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bret Favre dancing and lofty Bill of Rights premises are nice...but you guys are screwed. The grandiose promise you saw in the original Heller decision isn't holding up.

The absolutist, extremist philosophy of the GOA is not sustainable.

Just what I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you agree that we should photograph and fingerprint voters?

 

You know, if you bend, fold, staple, mutilate, or scratch one right, that damage can find its way to others because our courts compare how various protected rights are treated. That's why you're a danger to all of our rights but people like Olsonist are only a danger to one of them. We would all be safer if you would just admit that you want to repeal the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you agree that we should photograph and fingerprint voters?

 

You know, if you bend, fold, staple, mutilate, or scratch one right, that damage can find its way to others because our courts compare how various protected rights are treated. That's why you're a danger to all of our rights but people like Olsonist are only a danger to one of them. We would all be safer if you would just admit that you want to repeal the second amendment.

 

Hi Tom.

 

You guys have no facts, research, or public safety to stand on, so, when cornered, you trot out your obtuse, twisted form of superior patriotism.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Boswell tells us that Samuel Johnson made this famous pronouncement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel on the evening of April 7, 1775. He doesn't provide any context for how the remark arose, so we don't really know for sure what was on Johnson's mind at the time.

However, Boswell assures us that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, only false patriotism.

For more of Samuel Johnson's thoughts on patriotism in general, go to the patriotism page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So do you agree that we should photograph and fingerprint voters?

 

You know, if you bend, fold, staple, mutilate, or scratch one right, that damage can find its way to others because our courts compare how various protected rights are treated. That's why you're a danger to all of our rights but people like Olsonist are only a danger to one of them. We would all be safer if you would just admit that you want to repeal the second amendment.

 

Hi Tom.

 

You guys have no facts, research, or public safety to stand on, so, when cornered, you trot out your obtuse, twisted form of superior patriotism.

 

 

Hi Jo.

 

You didn't answer the question.

 

By "you guys" do you mean the people at thinkprogress.com who wrote this? Anyone who looks at how our courts work understands that the treatment of one right affects others. If you won't accept that fact when it comes from a gun nut, at least click the link below.

 

 

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?

 

The 7th Circuit Says Yes

 

 

...Like the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment refers to a right that belongs to “the people” — “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.” In Meza-Rodriguez, the Justice Department argued that an undocumented immigrant charged with violating a federal law forbidding him from possessing a firearm is not part of “the people” who benefit from this Second Amendment right. Undocumented immigrants, this argument goes, are not “members of the political community,” and thus cannot be understood as part of “the people” as those words are used in the Constitution.

 

If this argument ultimately prevails, it will have profound ripple effects that extend far beyond the subject of guns. As mentioned above, the Fourth Amendment also refers to a right belonging to “the people,” so if that term does not include undocumented immigrants, their rights to be free from abusive police tactics could be severely curtailed. Similarly, the First Amendment refers to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Those rights could also potentially be stripped from undocumented immigrants if the Justice Department’s arguments prevail....

 

Wow, who would have thought that the treatment of one protected right could affect how others are treated?

 

Have I mentioned lately that Favre was the best there ever was?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, this is another "the baby Jesus weeps" type of thread. Everyone is talking At and past each other. No one is actually talking to each other. Jocal, it would help your cause if you ever bothered to actually answer a direct question posed to you without your endless cut n paste drivel. Tom has a legitimate question that you refuse to answer and your "peer reviewed agenda driven" studies also don't answer. Here is the question again - directly posed to you that a normal person would actually try to answer and not deflect: If you support and applaud fingerprinting, photographing and periodically re-registering individuals in order to own a gun - do you also support the same things for the ability to vote. Its really a fairly simple yes or no.

 

And Tom, your continuous use of the Farve thing just makes you look more than a bit silly and doesn't really help your cause. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question being begged is what the Constitution says. That is the exclusive purview of the Supreme Court and they have changed the definition a lot. The current right has only existed since Heller, seven or so years ago, on a 5-4 split decision. An old geezer croaks, gets replaced by someone with a different opinion, and the Constitution could mean something else right quick.

 

...

 

That post made it into a thread about me but I see no relevance to me personally. It's a post about the topic case.

I'm just glad the court unanimously cleared up the question of whether the second amendment protects an individual right in the Heller case. They disagreed over what it meant as far as the legitimacy of gun bans, but all 9 agreed on that point.

 

It was odd that the "collective right" nonsense grew out of the Miller case. If the court at that time had believed that Miller needed to be part of an organized militia to be considered part of "the people" referenced in the second amendment, they would have simply said so. Or possibly just declined the case without comment. They didn't do that. They assumed he was part of "the people" and asked whether his shotgun was an appropriate militia weapon.

 

Do you know of any legitimate military use for a short shotgun, Mark? Does our military have them? Have they been used in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know of any legitimate military use for a short shotgun, Mark? Does our military have them? Have they been used in the past?

 

 

Do weddings count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you know of any legitimate military use for a short shotgun, Mark? Does our military have them? Have they been used in the past?

 

Do weddings count?

Ive heard they were in use during WW I. Ill look into it later.

The problem I have with the Miller decision is that he was unrepresented at the SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with the Miller decision is that he was unrepresented at the SC.

 

 

Yep. Haven't convictions been overturned in the past because of inadequate legal representation? I'm somewhat surprised that the SAF or NRA hasn't revisted miller again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom Ray Posted 28 September 2015 - 01:57 AM

Hi Jo.

You didn't answer the question.

 

Tom Ray, on 26 Sept 2015 - 5:03 PM, said:

So do you agree that we should photograph and fingerprint voters?

 

 

 

 

Look, Tom, I'll answer your flip question, which falsely equates prolific gun use with voting, when you answer my question about the very basics if gun control. Is it effective?

 

I have repeated this question for four months or more. Proceed to answer it.

Where is your basis of evidence for this statement?

 

(Tom Ray :)) Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates...

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163765>

(Tom Ray:) Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime.

http://forums.sailin...31105&p=3856473

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, this is another "the baby Jesus weeps" type of thread. Everyone is talking At and past each other. No one is actually talking to each other. Jocal, it would help your cause if you ever bothered to actually answer a direct question posed to you without your endless cut n paste drivel. Tom has a legitimate question that you refuse to answer and your "peer reviewed agenda driven" studies also don't answer. Here is the question again - directly posed to you that a normal person would actually try to answer and not deflect: If you support and applaud fingerprinting, photographing and periodically re-registering individuals in order to own a gun - do you also support the same things for the ability to vote. Its really a fairly simple yes or no.

 

Jeff, my cut-and-pastes are a pipeline of pertinent information on the subject of firearms safety. For you to summarize them as "drivel" shows your closed-mindedness.

 

 

 

No Tom, no Jeff. I don't support fingerprinting and photo ID for voters' rights. Voters' rights and the ownership of lethal weapons (in a land where gun deaths are epidemic) compare poorly.

 

 

We can establish a basic brightline to challenge all analogies of this sort: regulation is justified when the benefits outweigh the costs. Regulation in one area does not necessitate regulation in all conceivable areas.

It’s tempting to reduce policy proposals to argumentum ad absurdum by invitation of analogy, but this is not how good policy is formed. That something appears absurd in a completely different context is not an argument.

Though this examination of voting laws vs. long gun/assault weapon registration is necessarily incomplete, it serves to demonstrate the disingenuousness of gun advocates’ claims: there is a middle ground in the decision between complete freedom and a total ban, and it is our obligation to investigate the options available to us in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

I have repeated this question for four months or more. Proceed to answer it.

Where is your basis of evidence for this statement?

 

(Tom Ray :)) Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates...

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163765>

(Tom Ray:) Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime.

http://forums.sailin...31105&p=3856473

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

 

 

The basis can be found in Synthetic Connecticut. Like Synthetic Missouri, it's a place that exists only in the imaginations of the oxymoronic "social scientists" and how things "would have happened" in such places is governed by their assumptions. They assume gun control works, and like magic, it works in the places they dream up. But they're imaginary places.

 

You seem to like it when I point out that lax gun laws don't decrease crime but you can't stand it when I point out that strict gun control (hilariously measured by the number, not the content, of gun laws) doesn't decrease crime either. To make it appear as if it does, they focus only on murders using guns, not on murders, or on suicides using guns, not suicides, and they cherry pick places and years until their assumptions can yield a result they like. Then they tack it up over a urinal and peers review it. I'm not impressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is the question again - directly posed to you that a normal person would actually try to answer and not deflect: If you support and applaud fingerprinting, photographing and periodically re-registering individuals in order to own a gun - do you also support the same things for the ability to vote. Its really a fairly simple yes or no.

 

No Tom, no Jeff. I don't support fingerprinting and photo ID for voters' rights. Voters' rights and the ownership of lethal weapons (in a land where gun deaths are epidemic) compare poorly.

 

Holy fuck - you actually answered a question!!! :blink: Whoever the acting secretary is for this place, could you please note the time and date of this unicorn occasion.

 

Sorry, jocal - I will simply agree to disagree. ALL rights are important and ALL rights are in danger if any one of them are stripped away too far. As with other rights - I don't have a problem with some common sense limitations on the RKBA. You attempt to cast us as an "all or nothing" block. And that is simply not true. In fact it is another of your lies because its been pointed out to you several times in the past. I will speak only for myself, but I think most here agree - beyond expanding the BGCs (which would have a very limited effect anyway), I see nothing proposed that would have any efficacy on crime yet would impact significantly a great % of law-abiding gun-owners (Fuck off Ben). Sorry, I (we) will not allow that to happen.

 

Furthermore, people like you have admitted that these are only first steps. That almost complete eradication of private gun ownership is your ultimate goal. So knowing that, you can present all your fucking studies you want and I will oppose you on pure principle knowing what your agenda is. Your agenda is disingenuous and its a lie. You claim to care about saving lives when that's a total sham. If you actually cared about saving lives - your holy grail would be the end to the war on drugs. But you don't give two fucks about saving lives - you just can't stand the fact that people have these things called rights and you can't control it as much as you would like. So OFF is the general direction in which I would like you to fuck......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perfect. Thanks, Tom.

 

BEST OF DICK HELLER from Tom's NRA linky

 

... because gun grabbers, they’re communists. They want control. The only way they’re going to get it is to take over the medical system and grab our guns...

 

...the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the city wants the criminals emboldened.

 

...The end objective would be national concealed-carry reciprocity, or national concealed carry. We need a universal standard so that everyone is on a level playing field. I think the people who intentionally infringe on our rights through the government process belong in prison because they cause loss of lives. If D.C. is so proud of their gun restrictions, they have to also take credit for the high murder rate caused by those restrictions.

 

...Whenever smoke starts pouring out of anyone’s ears from the government infringements of our Second Amendment, they need to go to HellerFoundation.org and hit the big red “Donate” button.

<http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/10/15/dick-heller-talks-heller-iii>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

 

I have repeated this question for four months or more. Proceed to answer it.

Where is your basis of evidence for this statement?

 

(Tom Ray :)) Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates...

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163765>

(Tom Ray:) Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime.

http://forums.sailin...31105&p=3856473

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

 

 

The basis can be found in Synthetic Connecticut. Like Synthetic Missouri, it's a place that exists only in the imaginations of the oxymoronic "social scientists" and how things "would have happened" in such places is governed by their assumptions. They assume gun control works, and like magic, it works in the places they dream up. But they're imaginary places.

 

 

 

Oh really?

Seigal covered all fifty states for thirty years. Fleegler covered all fifty, too.

No "imaginary places" are included in Donahue's two works--just 14 recent RTC states.

 

 

 

 

You seem to like it when I point out that lax gun laws don't decrease crime but you can't stand it when I point out that strict gun control (hilariously measured by the number, not the content, of gun laws) doesn't decrease crime either. To make it appear as if it does, they focus only on murders using guns, not on murders poisonings and beatings and stabbings don't relate to guns, do they?, or on suicides using guns, not suicides On the contrary. Gun violence relates overall, sadly, since gun suicides account for half of all suicides, and they cherry pick places and years until their assumptions can yield a result they like. Really? My recent studies cover all states. See links, above.

 

You have reverted to sweeping generalizations. The person who cherry-picks, and bolts from intelligent discussion, is yourself.

You have a script, and it excludes critical areas of this discussion.

 

 

 

Then they tack it up over a urinal and peers review it. I'm not impressed.

 

You are being cute, but not fair. To put peer-review on the level of urinals is trailer trash type ignorance. Pure hubris.

If the Badgless Phony has better studies, he should present them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syntheticut Connecticut. You are complaining about one of Webster's 2014 studies. You once correctly pointed out that it was NOT peer reviewed---and you have zoned in on its weakness.

Thanks for reading it.

The other Webster study you allude to (with innuendo) is another matter. It seems irrefutable. And it WAS peer reviewed (like four other studies Webster did in 2014, for a total of five).

 

 

Missouri, 2014 Webster Study, Journal of Urban Health

April 2014, Volume 91, Issue 2, pp 293-302

Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides

http://link.springer...1524-014-9865-8>

  • 1. Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law contributed to a fourteen percent increase in Missouri’s murder rate through 2012 (updated from sixteen percent; first paragraph of press release).
  • 2. The law’s repeal was associated with an additional 49 to 68 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012 (updated from 55 to 63 additional murders per year; second paragraph of press release).
  • 3. The repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with a twenty-five percent increase in firearm homicides rates. (updated from twenty-three percent; sixth paragraph of press release).

The study, published in the April 2014 issue of Journal of Urban Health, finds that the law's repeal was associated with additional 49 to 68 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012. State-level murder data for the time period 1999-2012 were collected and analyzed from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system.

The Badgeless Poseur tried to discount Webster's Missouri study by presenting unacceptable research: stable general violence figures were slipped to our readers.

Remember this little bit of TR research deception?

Tom Cooks the Missouri numbers, post 35

Then you covered that with a second lie, that you were quoting gun violence.

 

Tom Ray, on 22 Mar 2015 - 1:33 PM, said: I was responding to a post distorting carefully massaged gun murder stats by citing the actual gun murder stats.

 

Jocal: False. Your numbers are not gun stats.

Let the readers decide. Can they find gun-crime related stats on Tom's link?

 

Missouri Crime Rates 1960 - 2013

Violent Crime, Property Crime, Murder, Forcible Rape, Aggravated Assault, Larceny, Burglary, Vehicle Theft. Theft

http://www.disasterc...ime/mocrimn.htm>

Tom was caught presenting disinformation again, but Tom retracted nothing.

Other useless, non-relevant TR research, Brady's Best, was also featured in this same thread.

Dr. Daniel Webster is simply out of your league, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here is the question again - directly posed to you that a normal person would actually try to answer and not deflect: If you support and applaud fingerprinting, photographing and periodically re-registering individuals in order to own a gun - do you also support the same things for the ability to vote. Its really a fairly simple yes or no.

 

No Tom, no Jeff. I don't support fingerprinting and photo ID for voters' rights. Voters' rights and the ownership of lethal weapons (in a land where gun deaths are epidemic) compare poorly.

 

Holy fuck - you actually answered a question!!! :blink: Whoever the acting secretary is for this place, could you please note the time and date of this unicorn occasion.

 

Sorry, jocal - I will simply agree to disagree. ALL rights are important and ALL rights are in danger if any one of them are stripped away too far. As with other rights - I don't have a problem with some common sense limitations on the RKBA. You attempt to cast us as an "all or nothing" block. And that is simply not true. In fact it is another of your lies because its been pointed out to you several times in the past. I will speak only for myself, but I think most here agree - beyond expanding the BGCs (which would have a very limited effect anyway), I see nothing proposed that would have any efficacy on crime yet would impact significantly a great % of law-abiding gun-owners (Fuck off Ben). Sorry, I (we) will not allow that to happen.

 

Furthermore, people like you have admitted that these are only first steps. That almost complete eradication of private gun ownership is your ultimate goal. So knowing that, you can present all your fucking studies you want and I will oppose you on pure principle knowing what your agenda is. Your agenda is disingenuous and its a lie. You claim to care about saving lives when that's a total sham. If you actually cared about saving lives - your holy grail would be the end to the war on drugs. But you don't give two fucks about saving lives - you just can't stand the fact that people have these things called rights and you can't control it as much as you would like. So OFF is the general direction in which I would like you to fuck......

 

 

almost complete eradication of private gun ownership is your ultimate goal.

 

Hmmm, I think that you need a bogey man. And that you are imagining an "utimate goal" for me.

 

It's more about baby steps than goals for me now, Jeff. I see the gun culture as misguided, committed, and as once-successful.

My little niche is to discourage guns in society, using information, basically.

And to maybe expose any cavalier gun attitudes which might surface, you know, spot the common stereotype of gun-fixated guys.

I might occasionally observe that values and truthfulness each seem to have slipped in the gun culture.

I expose disinformation within the SA Gun Club, a target-rich environment.

 

But I'm not here to take your guns, as much as to speak moderately.

Mike Weisser owns 42 guns, he pretty much presents similar criticism of the SAF/NRA/Larry Pratt mindset.

He isn't coming for your guns, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal, I think you would have more effect on "gun carnage" if you directed your energy to the brothers in the inner cities rather that take your ire out on a bunch of middle aged, middle to upper-middle class, (mostly) white sailors. None of whom (i'm willing to bet) has ever shot anybody either on purpose or even accidentally with a privately owned gun. Nor have any of us gone all vigilante and shit and shot up a bad guy just because we could, as satisfying as that might be.

 

So, if you really want to make a difference in gun carnage and gun recklessness in America - might I suggest putting your car-jumping big boy pants back on and getting back out on those mean streets you once supposedly walked with impunity. And if instead, you are more comfortable being the internet warrior and crusader that you seem to want to think yourself as...... might I suggest some more, shall we say, culturally diverse forums where the inhabitants likely DO posses illegal guns, buy and sell drugs and probably boast to one another about "popping caps in niggers". I think those folks are desperately in need of your peer reviewed wisdom. Think of the difference you could make in those hoods. You know what they say? If you really want to make a difference, go to where the problem is most acute. The problem of gun violence is not terribly acute in the SA gun club.

 

Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal, I think you would have more effect on "gun carnage" if you directed your energy to the brothers in the inner cities rather that take your ire out on a bunch of middle aged, middle to upper-middle class, (mostly) white sailors. None of whom (i'm willing to bet) has ever shot anybody either on purpose or even accidentally with a privately owned gun. Nor have any of us gone all vigilante and shit and shot up a bad guy just because we could, as satisfying as that might be.

Your thought patterns are exposed, Jeffie. You are violence-oriented, and impelled to violent tools.

Meanwhile, the collective racial understanding around here is in the gutter too.

 

So, if you really want to make a difference in gun carnage and gun recklessness in America - might I suggest putting your car-jumping big boy pants back on and getting back out on those mean streets you once supposedly walked with impunity. And if instead, you are more comfortable being the internet warrior and crusader that you seem to want to think yourself as...... might I suggest some more, shall we say, culturally diverse forums where the inhabitants likely DO posses illegal guns, buy and sell drugs and probably boast to one another about "popping caps in niggers". I think those folks are desperately in need of your peer reviewed wisdom. Think of the difference you could make in those hoods. You know what they say? If you really want to make a difference, go to where the problem is most acute. The problem of gun violence is not terribly acute in the SA gun club.

 

Just sayin'

 

I went to where the problem was most acute, to the ganstas. For enough years to get burned out on it.

Some would take that into account in considering my POV.

Yo, I did okay because I was unarmed.

 

SImple Jeff, the upwardly mobile hold the solution here.

 

Part of the solution is for moderate gunowners to speak up against extreme gun positions... which result in extreme gun violence outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

jocal, I think you would have more effect on "gun carnage" if you directed your energy to the brothers in the inner cities rather that take your ire out on a bunch of middle aged, middle to upper-middle class, (mostly) white sailors. None of whom (i'm willing to bet) has ever shot anybody either on purpose or even accidentally with a privately owned gun. Nor have any of us gone all vigilante and shit and shot up a bad guy just because we could, as satisfying as that might be.

Your thought patterns are exposed, Jeffie. You are violence-oriented, and impelled to violent tools.

Meanwhile, the collective racial understanding around here is in the gutter too.

 

So, if you really want to make a difference in gun carnage and gun recklessness in America - might I suggest putting your car-jumping big boy pants back on and getting back out on those mean streets you once supposedly walked with impunity. And if instead, you are more comfortable being the internet warrior and crusader that you seem to want to think yourself as...... might I suggest some more, shall we say, culturally diverse forums where the inhabitants likely DO posses illegal guns, buy and sell drugs and probably boast to one another about "popping caps in niggers". I think those folks are desperately in need of your peer reviewed wisdom. Think of the difference you could make in those hoods. You know what they say? If you really want to make a difference, go to where the problem is most acute. The problem of gun violence is not terribly acute in the SA gun club.

 

Just sayin'

 

I went to where the problem was most acute, to the ganstas. For enough years to get burned out on it.

Some would take that into account in considering my POV.

Yo, I did okay because I was unarmed.

 

SImple Jeff, the upwardly mobile hold the solution here.

 

Part of the solution is for moderate gunowners to speak up against extreme gun positions... which result in extreme gun violence outcomes.

 

 

Given that inner city violence is way up since you left the hood - I would say your efforts were wasted. I don't think the brothers were buying what jocal was sellin'.

 

As for your extreme gun positions - that's a matter of perspective. What "extreme gun" positions would you like me to speak out against? Something tells me that what you find "extreme" is commonplace and accepted in most gun clubs. Personally I find you to be an extremist anti-gun person who never met a gun law he didn't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

<SNIP>

a legal realist would suggest that they all do that, depending on the facts of any given case.

 

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3643&context=fss_papers

 

The second page gives a pretty good description of the concept. I'm a believer.

Interesting read - thanks for sharing that. Not sure I've accurately digested all of it, but, it does present some food for thought.

 

The basic premise is that judges do whatever the hell they damn well please on any given case, and the law/precedent doesn't necessarily factor into their decision. ..

 

 

So in the topic case, the liberal justices just like gun bans and the conservative ones just don't. Is that how this works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You didn't know that your positions align perfectly with those who want to grab more and more guns? News for you: they do.

 

In the case of registered guns, "they" will get around to it upon the death of the owner. Because a disarmed grieving family is a polite grieving family.

 

Is delayed confiscation still confiscation?

 

 

 

Confiscation Boi is saddled up for action.

If he brings his precious he better ride indoors, heh heh,

The gun era is passing. Let it go, Tom.

 

 

 

Let's watch another master of hyperbole in action. This is the libertarian Alan Gura speaking with a reporter about Drake vs. Jejerian (which is the case law why Tom's indoor militias are the requirement now).

 

Note: grandiose statements like this don't fly inside a courtroom:

 

"Drake is about a state thumbing its nose at Supreme Court decisions that said the Second Amendment is about carrying in case of confrontation.” He added: “This is about the Supreme Court enforcing what they have already pronounced.”

 

No, Mr. Gura, it isn't. You are a fibber. Heller expicitly limited its decision to indoors.

 

 

 

Lying again, jocal?

 

The Heller case was about a revolver in the home. That doesn't mean the second amendment can cover no other topics. Riley vs California was about cellphones. Do you think that's the only thing the fourth amendment can cover, or just the only thing they were talking about in that case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You didn't know that your positions align perfectly with those who want to grab more and more guns? News for you: they do.

 

In the case of registered guns, "they" will get around to it upon the death of the owner. Because a disarmed grieving family is a polite grieving family.

 

Is delayed confiscation still confiscation?

 

 

 

Confiscation Boi is saddled up for action.

If he brings his precious he better ride indoors, heh heh,

The gun era is passing. Let it go, Tom.

 

 

 

Let's watch another master of hyperbole in action. This is the libertarian Alan Gura speaking with a reporter about Drake vs. Jejerian (which is the case law why Tom's indoor militias are the requirement now).

 

Note: grandiose statements like this don't fly inside a courtroom:

 

"Drake is about a state thumbing its nose at Supreme Court decisions that said the Second Amendment is about carrying in case of confrontation.” He added: “This is about the Supreme Court enforcing what they have already pronounced.”

 

No, Mr. Gura, it isn't. You are a fibber. Heller expicitly limited its decision to indoors.

 

 

Lying again, jocal?

 

The Heller case was about a revolver in the home. That doesn't mean the second amendment can cover no other topics. Riley vs California was about cellphones. Do you think that's the only thing the fourth amendment can cover, or just the only thing they were talking about in that case?

 

 

(The battle guns of the deceased are going away, sob sob...)

 

Typical. You suck the air out of the discussion by chasing your tail within the rabbit maze which is your intellect.

Dancing and twirling like a little girl, without manly discourse.

You get lost in the weeds pretty regularly.

 

Where were we? We were discussing the "need to carry" requirements of Mr. Heller.

 

In a recent chapter outside of TR hyperbole, Heller's individual gun rights were heavily restricted.

They were not extended even to his garage or sidewalk.

Heller III and MacDonald became a bust for you, Tom. No wonder you are flailing,

What captivates my attention is that you never shifted a gear as these developments progressed.

You have stuck with Larry Pratt's whole thing, pretty much.

A brotherhood of ignorance, eh?

 

 

Dick%20Heller%20this%20is%20my%20rifle_z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

WHY ARE SIX LIBERTARIAN FIGURES CENTRALLY INVOLVED IN HELLER?

 

images%2036_zpskaq5muyr.jpg

 

 

Because useless lap dogs like the NRA and GOA were not interested and viewed pursuing the Parker case as risky.

 

Libertarians viewed it as a risk worth taking and today it's darn difficult to find a politician who will say we don't have second amendment rights. The NRA acts like they never even tried to scuttle the case, but I remember when they did.

 

So libertarians won in court and in the court of public opinion. That's what happens, eventually, when you're right. It's slowly happening in the drug war too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cherry-picked my post (heavily) before quoting it. You are a weak specimen, inspired by the substance of swamp gas.

Parker, Palmer, and Heller would have each flopped, but fortunately Scalia was your bitch boy.

It's pretty easy to pop any bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cherry-picked my post (heavily) before quoting it. You are a weak specimen, inspired by the substance of swamp gas.

Parker, Palmer, and Heller would have each flopped, but fortunately Scalia was your bitch boy.

It's pretty easy to pop any bubble.

 

Yes, it was a lucky thing that the Supreme Court decided to change the rules for this case so that one justice could decide it on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

WHY ARE SIX LIBERTARIAN FIGURES CENTRALLY INVOLVED IN HELLER?

 

images%2036_zpskaq5muyr.jpg

 

 

Because useless lap dogs like the NRA and GOA were not interested and viewed pursuing the Parker case as risky.

 

Libertarians viewed it as a risk worth taking and today it's darn difficult to find a politician who will say we don't have second amendment rights. The NRA acts like they never even tried to scuttle the case, but I remember when they did.

 

So libertarians won in court and in the court of public opinion. That's what happens, eventually, when you're right. It's slowly happening in the drug war too.

 

 

 

Libertarians. led by Larry Pratt. began to lie about the second amendment. They fabricated an urban myth, successfully. But what we are discussing has a need for a strong foundation, not some concoction.

 

In two different meetings, historians and qualified constitutional experts took issue with the shabby fabrication of Libertarians.

Instead of due process, which Pooplius wanted last week, he now prefers...

the court of public opinion.

 

 

 

 

Forty five accredited scholars formally objected to Scalia's fabricated foundation, in TWO meetings.

The meetings were organized by this guy:

Justice Scalia Goes Gun Crazy

In a recent speech Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Second Amendment was in part the right to revolt against tyranny. That’s just a plain wrong and dangerous view, writes Adam Winkler.

From <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/justice-scalia-goes-gun-crazy.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Libertarians did a snow job with Heller. The court of public opinion doesn 't mean jack.

Garbage in, garbage out, eh?. Scholarship is not the same as fake news.

 

Excerpts from 2013 here:

 

2013 Statement of Professors of Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention Legislation

January 30, 2013

http://www.acslaw.org/Second%20Amendment%20Letter%20Final.pdf

 

In this sense, Justice Scalia recognized in Heller that, like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is not an absolute.

 

The founding fathers who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment also had laws to keep guns out of the hands of people thought to be untrustworthy. Such laws were necessary to ensure that the citizen militia referenced in the Second Amendment was “well regulated.”

 

. Laws such as these were routinely upheld by the courts, which recognized the legitimacy of legislative efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people.

 

Moreover, background checks imposed at the point of sale are typical of the “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller. Universal background checks, especially those conducted instantaneously through the National Instant Background Check System, do not impose a significant burden on lawabiding citizens.

 

The court of appeals recognized such weapons and magazines are not necessary for individual self-defense—what Heller called the “core lawful purpose” of the Second Amendment. Restrictions on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, the court of appeals held, do “not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.”

http://www.acslaw.org/Second%20Amendment%20Letter%20Final.pdf

 

Excerpted from the 2015 gathering:

 

Statement of Law Professors on the Constitution and Executive Action to Reduce Gun Violence November 2015 (excerpted) The Court’s recognition that these types of laws are compatible with the Second Amendment reflects the historical understanding of the constitutional right: since the Colonial and Founding Eras, robust government regulation of the ownership and use of firearms has coexisted alongside, and been understood as consistent with, the Second Amendment.3

http://www.acslaw.or...nt 11-12-15.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The search for the real FF history gets better, and gains texture when pursued.

 

 

" Even more interesting is the fact that 58 of these 88 law reviews backing Attorney General Ashcroft's interpretation of the Second Amendment were published between 1990 and 1999.70 Thus, the publication of law review articles supporting the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment outpaced the publication of articles supporting Attorney General Ashcroft's view, until this latter group made a surge in publication, largely in the last decade.

 

There's a background to Winkler et al's position. John Ashcroft had had to willfully booger the historical context of the FF to justify individual rights. This DOJ complicity gave the green light to CATO's Robert Levy in 2002.

 

Here's a third group of scholars who formally objected to the Libertarian historical fabrication at that time.

 

 

Second, because legal scholarship is generally more interesting, controversial, and original when it is contrary to accepted legal doctrine or longstanding court decisions , many constitutional law scholars and historians have focused their energies elsewhere, viewing Second Amendment jurisprudence as well-settled law. As the friend-of-the-court brief filed in Emerson by the Ad Hoc Group of Law Professors and Historians states:

The individual rights theorists labeled their account of the Second Amendment the "Standard Model,"
Slip Op
. at 5, which
implies that it is espoused by the majority of constitutional law scholars. Amici deny that this is the case.
Perhaps because the
Miller
view of the Second Amendment has been settled law for so long, few constitutional law scholars have published analyses of the Amendment.
66

The 52 law and history professors who signed onto this brief67 plainly do not think that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. For them, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is both historically and legally sound.

 

 

Ashcroft Deconstructed

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ashbody.htm>

  • Attorney General Ashcroft: "While I cannot comment on any pending litigation..."

(Scholars objecting to the FOPA scholarship of John Ashcroft)

the Ad Hoc historians and legal scholars were

Bruce Ackerman,

Joyce Appleby,

Jack M. Balkin,

Michael Bellesiles,

Adele Bernhard,

Ruth Bloch,

Carl T. Bogus,

Frank Bowman,

John Brooke,

Chandos Michael Brown,

Darryl Brown,

Edwin G. Burrows,

Andrew Cayton,

Erwin Chermerinsky,

Saul Cornell,

Edward Countryman,

John DiPippa,

Michael Dorf,

Norman Dorsen,

David Dow,

Susan R. Estrich,

Heidi Li Feldman,

Hendrik G. Hartog,

Bruce Hay,

Don Higginbotham,

Peter Charles Hoffer,

Nancy Isenberg,

Sheri L. Johnson,

Stanley N. Katz,

Arthur LaFrance,

Jan Lewis,

Jill Lepore,

Rory K. Little,

Mari J. Matsuda,

Andrew J. McClurg,

Frank Michelman,

Dawn Nunziato,

Michael Perlin,

Carl Prince,

Norman L. Rosenberg,

Malinda L. Seymore,

Peter Shane,

Billy G. Smith,

Peter J. Strauss,

Richard Uviller,

Spencer Weber Waller,

Eldon D. Wedlock, Jr.,

Leila Sadat Wexler,

Welsh S. White,

Steve Winter,

David Yassky, and

Michael Zuckerman.

  1. Robert J. Spitzer, Symposium at 384.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think what the court said about there being an individual right is in line with constitutional thinking," Clinton said

 

Find a Dem candidate saying anything remotely like that prior to the Heller decision. Only libertarians said such things. But we were right and now everyone says them, whether or not they mean them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says you were "right"? Certainly not the real historians. Are you following the thread?

Do you ever get tired of cherry-picking?

Gun misbehavior has increased significantly since Heller.

We are living within a gun violence epidemic. The philosophy itself is not sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "philosophy"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a canard you have going here.

 

Larry Pratt comes up with a two-bit idea that our guns are political forces, in the land of domestic tranquility.

Additionally, we have what you call an immature power pose, his "good guy with a gun" full-on vigilante presentation.

 

Do REAL historians and public health researchers authenticate these ideas? Not at all.

But such a cheap wedge idea will find plenty of support among lowlife despicables.

 

Your clinton link is poofery. It's a vacuous answer for the historical deception being presented by libertarian liars...using historians whom you cannot name. Tellingly your claims are based on two federalist papers, and neither mentions or discusses individual rights.

 

 

 

I can name one of your "historians": David Hardy.

His memoirs show his activity behind the scenes of the FOPA act for six years, 1980-1986.


 

THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT:

A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

David T. Hardy[*]

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "philosophy"??

 

You and I have sparred about the U.S. gun mentality for four full years.

That philosophy.

 

 

 

The poison has two parts. Each seems lofty, but actually appeals to our baser instincts.

1. Tyrants need to be controlled with personal guns (and of course guns means battle-bred weaponry and ammo)

2. Good guys with guns generate domestic tranquility.

A solid argument can be made that neither of these ideas is supported by the men of letters in each respective field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who says you were "right"?

 

"I think what the court said about there being an individual right is in line with constitutional thinking," Clinton said

 

 

Among others.

 

 

Adam Winkler, for one, agrees with Hillary and me that individual rights are real enough to be acknowledged. They are considerable.

Then he suggests that individual rights may effectively be symbolic. since even strict scrutiny (his expertise, by the way) will support beau coup gun restrictions.

 

All three of us (Winkler, Hillary and myself) also recognize the courts have widespread latitude is protecting public safety from extremist interpretations of this individual right.

 

Note: you guys got pinned in a corner with your own Heller. I like it more and more each day, as the courts use both its logic and text against libertarian misunderstandings. Heller was quoted repeatedly and relentlessly against Gura in three of his recent defeats. He's had seven.

YCMTSU,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROTFLMFAO.

 

My homespun detective work painted a picture that David Hardy was probably a Libertarian. It isn't mentioned in his many bios and writings online.

Eureka. Using a different search engine I discovered this a moment ago:

 

 

Source: the AZ Daily Wildcat Online:

Pima County Attorney

 

David Hardy

Libertarian

 

Hardy was born in Phoenix in 1951, and earned his bachelor's degree (1972) and doctorate in law (1975) from the University of Arizona. He has practiced law for the past 25 years - 16 in Tucson and 9 in Washington D.C. as a lawyer for the U.S. Department of the Interior.

 

Hardy said he thinks many resources have been wasted in the "war on drugs" because adults should be able to engage in such business transactions. He would not consider the death penalty as an option in nearly all cases

. http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/94/53/01_8_m.html

 

As predicted twice before, I expect to be able to demonstrate that this guy will had associations with Barry Goldwater's clique between 1970 and 1973. Their rallying cry was the CGA of '68.

 

Here's our Mr. Hardy in 1974, at age 23:

 

Of Arms and the Law

David T. Hardy

Independent

John Stompoly

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1974

The SAF came into existence in 1974.

Larry Pratt's GOA was started in 1975.

The usurpation of the NRA by these extremists happened in 1977.

It's all libertarian conspiracy. They needed some fabricated history, didn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone fart in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Now let's discuss the Koch brothers, ALEC, and their track record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Now let's discuss the Koch brothers, ALEC, and their track record.

 

I did not even know they competed. At what level? I ran some cross country in high school. I've got giraffe legs but can't clear a hurdle so never got into track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone fart in here?

 

This isn't much of a post. I have just laid out a pattern of the falsification of constitutional history, spanning forty two years.

I thought you wanted me to post original thoughts, and to fight with you in direct engagement, etc.

My original thought is that the SAF types are a farce.

 

Here, I openly fight about any authenticity of your hyperbolic claims of "constitutional rights".

I have documented some 130 historians here you fool.

I can now name the name of a phony GOA historian, named David Hardy.

Curiously, a seventh Libertarian personality.

 

This "Independent" was admittedly working with the NRA, the FOPA constructors, and gun industry figures.

Pretty fishy activity for a historian, eh?

He also writes in obsessive detail about alleged overstepping by the BATFE.

Sounds rather political, and sounds just like Pooplius too.

 

You two "ultra patriots" are both dazed, and laying flat on your backs. You have no homework to present, you can't refute.

Yeah, you look kinda like idiots.

 

I get crickets, not engagement, from you Simple Jeff.

You need more than suggestions of flatulence.

To be continued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Gun banning" itself is a canard and a straw man.

Registration, licensing, and background checks are favored, they do not ban guns.

 

If AW's are not constitutionally protected because of their design intent, it's still not a gun ban.

Not in any fair use of the term.

 

 

A closed registry is a ban. In fact, it's about the only kind of ban we have ever had in America.

 

That's why the topic case forced DC to open the registry again.

 

And banning ordinary .22's is still banning guns, even if you think all the ones except the one you own are evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The closed registries don't apply to all gun models. Far from it.

Your straw man applies to AW's now though, don't it?

 

On the Heller thread, allow me to introduce one court decision, in a wave of court decisions, based on Heller.

 

 

 

 

Kolbe vs Hogan 3/2016: AW's Not a Constitutional Right

P60 gun popularity mandating constitutionality is discussed

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3470578-Kolbe-v-Hogan-en-Banc-Opinion.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Gun banning" itself is a canard and a straw man.

Registration, licensing, and background checks are favored, they do not ban guns.

 

If AW's are not constitutionally protected because of their design intent, it's still not a gun ban.

Not in any fair use of the term.

 

 

A closed registry is a ban. In fact, it's about the only kind of ban we have ever had in America.

 

 

Not truthful, Tom. We've had a ban on federal gun violence research for 19 years so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2013 at 6:18 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

From the(Heller)  majority opinion:

Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

This content was just after Sandy Hook. You sound like quite an expert. Who are the three scholars you have quoted, Tom?

Quote

***A. The Rise and Fall of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s Thesis on the Anglo-American Right p1795   Patrick J. Charles

The 2nd in Historiographical Crisis: Why the Supreme Court Must Reevaluate the Embarrassing 'Standard Model' Moving Forward 139 pgs

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2013 at 4:34 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I did not watch the video, but it appears to be a black man singing.

 

Searching for some relevance to the Heller decision, I came across this excerpt about the discussion of the second amendment rights of newly freed slaves after the Civil War:

3. Post-Civil War Legislation.

Who is your author and source? What's up with you not presenting proper cites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh WONDERFUL!!! An old gun thread has been brought back for more endless bickering 

Share this post


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

Oh WONDERFUL!!! An old gun thread has been brought back for more endless bickering 

Tom is found boosting certain "founding era scholars". Very cool. I'd like to hear a lot more about them. 

Hello, Tom Ray? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2015 at 2:04 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

That post made it into a thread about me but I see no relevance to me personally. It's a post about the topic case.

I'm just glad the court unanimously cleared up the question of whether the second amendment protects an individual right in the Heller case. They disagreed over what it meant as far as the legitimacy of gun bans, but all 9 agreed on that point.

 

It was odd that the "collective right" nonsense grew out of the Miller case. If the court at that time had believed that Miller needed to be part of an organized militia to be considered part of "the people" referenced in the second amendment, they would have simply said so. Or possibly just declined the case without comment. They didn't do that. They assumed he was part of "the people" and asked whether his shotgun was an appropriate militia weapon.

 

Do you know of any legitimate military use for a short shotgun, Mark? Does our military have them? Have they been used in the past?

Actually, you have been repeatedly mis-quoting Miller. The court accepted Mr. Miller as part of a select group., it was an age-and-gender-specific group. Parker defined the militia in the broad way you suggest that Miller does.

Quote

In Miller the Court confirmed that the militia is comprised of all individuals “physically capable of acting for the common defense.”320 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939)

 

Share this post


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

In Miller the Court confirmed that the militia is comprised of all individuals “physically capable of acting for the common defense.”320 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939)

I'm glad you have finally come around to the notion that THE PEOPLE are "the militia" and that the militia does not have to be something pre-ordained and pre-organized.  

If you are physically capable of acting for the common defense, YOU are in the militia by default.  Whether you want to be or not, assuming you are not a cripple in a wheelchair, you are part of the militia.  As is razr, as is bad latte, as is your boy hemminway, etc.  

There seems to be hope for you yet, jocal.  Baby steps........

Oh and BTW - we meet at Starbucks on Sunday mornings to talk gunz, politics and cooking recipes.  You're welcome to join us if you want.

Share this post


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

I'm glad you have finally come around to the notion that THE PEOPLE are "the militia" and that the militia does not have to be something pre-ordained and pre-organized.  

If you are physically capable of acting for the common defense, YOU are in the militia by default.  Whether you want to be or not, assuming you are not a cripple in a wheelchair, you are part of the militia.  As is razr, as is bad latte, as is your boy hemminway, etc.  

There seems to be hope for you yet, jocal.  Baby steps........

Oh and BTW - we meet at Starbucks on Sunday mornings to talk gunz, politics and cooking recipes.  You're welcome to join us if you want.

DO NOT MIS-QUOTE ME. What I find that the militia is an anachronistic, transparent, immature, and dangerous excuse for battlefield weapons and shitty civics.

One jurist described "The People" as a "term of art," eh?

  1. The Heller case is based on Miller concepts. Neither accepts guys one step short of the wheelchair (old geezes like me would = military folly).
  2. Indeed, you have a poor basis for this claim in the Militia Act of 1792, which outline the FF's idea of a relatively effective force.
  3. You have a very poor basis for this definition based on what we find in English Law...while Scalia featured our own relationship to English weapons policies.
  4. Under Scalia's alleged "originalism," you just excluded gun rights for women.
  5. Whoops, you have just mixed military jurisprudence with criminal law.  (The basis for the former is protected within its official capacity; the second is often regulated carefully and publicly by states. Military acts of violence and violent self defense acts do not share a common legal foundation.)
  6. You have departed from many reservations outlined by and accepted within the discussions of 1791. They lampooned your idea Jeffie.
  7. Pragmatically, as this regards public safety, your idea is not a slippery slope. It's a cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Tom Ray, Post 151: From the majority opinion:

 

  Quote
Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

The Heller majority says these scholars are "important." What are their names? Malcolm, Kates, and Halbrook?

What is their "importance"? Are they PhD-level historians? If not, why not? Was their work peer-reviewed? If not, why not? Is any of the three a non-Libertarian? Were any financially compensated for the preparations for Parker and Heller? Were not the Kates briefs in Quilici vs Morton Grove paid for by the SAF in 1982? Did the NRA not publish Malcolm in 1983?

The weapons control wisdom in the Deep South after the Civil War, if any, does not reflect on any lust for self defense violence on the part of the founding fathers. The Heller majority is quoting self defense logic which is not that of the FF's.

 

Tom Ray, give us access to whom you are quoting in Post 133, levering the racial issue for gun rights.  BTW both Kates and Halbrook played the race card non-stop. Kates recycles his antics from one amicus brief to another, a carbon copy without re-write, citing the former court case's plea verbatim in new cases.  Halbrook is like Pooplius: he carries a short-sightedness about racial equality, but can't stop offering gun remedies. He's okay, though, because his understanding is an improvement over Judge Taney...

You are backed by a group of discredited clowns, Big Tom.

Share this post


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

DO NOT MIS-QUOTE ME. What I find that the militia is an anachronistic, transparent, immature, and dangerous excuse for battlefield weapons and shitty civics.

How did I misquote you??  I quoted your post exactly word for word.  

Quote

In Miller the Court confirmed that the militia is comprised of all individuals“physically capable of acting for the common defense.”320 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939)

You used this passage exactly in your post to make your point.  It means you agree with this.  I think this is very forward thinking from you and shows some signs of growth in your evolution.  Well done, joe.  Baby steps......

Share this post


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

How did I misquote you??  I quoted your post exactly word for word.   

You used this passage exactly in your post to make your point.  It means you agree with this.  I think this is very forward thinking from you and shows some signs of growth in your evolution.  Well done, joe.  Baby steps......

I would know my POV better than you, and I stated it clearly, Princess. The militia was real in times past, and it once built character and social responsibility in men.  But for you boys it is now a wanker fantasy to justify gun activity, just a springboard for laughable civics.

Quote

(the Miller court said) the militia is comprised of all individuals physicaly capable of acting for the common defense.

Look into it. The Militia Act considered two specific age groups, the younger being the select militia, prime for battle. Neither group would accept 46 year old males.

Hmmm. Under Miller's agreed standards, where are the gun rights for older males, grandmothers, and the infirm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites