Jump to content

Purpose of 2nd Amendment


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, benwynn said:
43 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

It's hard to understand your engrish sometimes.  Above, did you mean to ask if I think if the First Amendment protects internet speech?  

If so, then yes.  What's your next question?

I tried that.   You'll probably still get branded as not answering the question. 

You darn wishy-washy gun-grabby libby-rulls need to stop twisting and spinning, and ANSWER THE QUESTION!!

oh wait

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 580
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The term, preamble, first clause, or whatever the fuck you want to call it has that term "Well regulated" that has become a real pain in the ass.   What I find compelling is that whenever the term is

The thread was intended to be an examination of the often memtioned purpose of the 2nd amendment, to protect us from our government, and the complete lack of response to very serious transgressions of

First thing to burn will be the 2A

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck off Alan, what is your hard-on for me lately?  I already have a stalker, so the position is not available yet.

Identify this "stalker." You've started half a dozen threads with my name on them, and have my name is implanted beneath your avatar, as you broadcast the idea I am a racist, for years on end. I'm the guy who forced you to join the NRA, remember? 

Hmmm. You feel victimized, as you bully about in public. A sharp guy like you might think it out better.

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

Identify this "stalker." You've started half a dozen threads with my name on them, and have my name is implanted beneath your avatar, as you broadcast the idea I am a racist, for years on end. I'm the guy who forced you to join the NRA, remember? 

Hmmm. You feel victimized, as you bully about in public. A sharp guy like you could think it out better.

I have met Jeff (and his girl), I really like Jeff, and Jeff and I have had some great conversations over the years, but no one has ever accused him of being a genius.

After seeing him kick his OCD into high gear this year with conspiracy theories and an interesting knack for making the incorrect sound reasonable, I started to call him on the made-up shit.  Rather than trying to be more truthful and accurate in his postings, he seems to have ratcheted up the bullshit and I ain't havin' it.  There are smart people on this site that can debate a point with facts and reason; Jeff used to be one of those, and I'll keep hoping he returns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I have met Jeff (and his girl), I really like Jeff, and Jeff and I have had some great conversations over the years, but no one has ever accused him of being a genius.

After seeing him kick his OCD into high gear this year with conspiracy theories and an interesting knack for making the incorrect sound reasonable, I started to call him on the made-up shit.  Rather than trying to be more truthful and accurate in his postings, he seems to have ratcheted up the bullshit and I ain't havin' it.  There are smart people on this site that can debate a point with facts and reason; Jeff used to be one of those, and I'll keep hoping he returns.

 

About the thread title, and Jeffie.

Through most of 2018, Jeff was exposed to links to the finest modern defenses of Second Amendment strengths. (Patrick J. Charles orgsanizes them, for the courts, in thirty interesting, pretty brief, essays.)

Jeff picked up nothing. He could not use his own scholars to his advsantage (and neither could the dogballs). Now, the scholarship has moved further...and these boys are presenting the full genius of the "indoor militia" argument.

 

Patrick Charles does NY, 33 pgs

 Patrick J. Charles, The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home, Take Two, and Take Three

 

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

 

About the thread title, and Jeffie.

Through most of 2018, Jeff was exposed to links to the finest modern defenses of Second Amendment strengths. (Patrick J. Charles orgsanizes them, for the courts, in thirty interesting, pretty brief, essays.)

Jeff picked up nothing. He could not use his own scholars to his advsantage (and neither could the dogballs). Now, the scholarship has moved further...and these boys are presenting the full genius of the "indoor militia" argument.

  

Patrick Charles does NY, 33 pgs

 Patrick J. Charles, The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home, Take Two, and Take Three

 

tl dr; though i love when an author cites his own scholarship.  High points?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

tl dr; though i love when an author cites his own scholarship.  High points?

I can't wait to see what Joe cut-n-pastes as "high points". Maybe he will be emailing Mr. Charles later to find out his take.

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

 

tl dr; though i love when an author cites his own scholarship.  High points?

Read the subject a bit. The author is cutting edge, he and others MUST quote his work. He is quoted and supported from the top of the food chain.

He follows the guns laws through the 1800's in one section, and through the 1900's in another. Mr. Beard's development falls between the two timeframes, in a progression of behavioral change. OC gun laws hit the South hard, just because, and that's where a problem developed with concealed firearms.

Guns have always been regulated, including outdoors, but gun have also been allowed to be transported, durting duress, during security work, or routinely, the latter if unloaded, and wrapped or sealed.

In the twenties, the automobile came into play, and the NRA sportsmen et all dictated only unloaded guns in cars. Fast forward to 1970 here--

Quote

p20 of 33    I dedicate this knowledge, and these facts, to bpm57

In 1938, the second commandment of the NRA’s gun safety rules read: “Carry only empty guns, taken down or with the action open, into your automobile, camp and home. Do not load your gun until you are actually in the field and hunting. Unload it the moment you leave.” Ten Commandments of Gun Handling—Going Hunting? Association Advises to Read Rules, DES MOINES REGISTER, Nov. 4, 1938, at 20. Decades later, the NRA streamlined this rule: “A person should have little or no difficulty in transporting a target or hunting-type rifle or shotgun, provided that such firearm is unloaded and suitably cased or wrapped. It is suggested that the rifle or shotgun be carried in the back seat or trunk (preferably the latter) of the automobile.” Transporting Your Firearms, AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, Jun. 1970, at 41.  

These three common themes in the laws governing the transport and carrying of dangerous weapons remained largely unchallenged until the 1980s. Charles, Faces, Take Two, supra, at 466-73. It was at this juncture that the politics of the Second Amendment and gun rights heated up, and with it, efforts to liberalize the laws governing the transporting and carrying of dangerous weapons. Id.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles%20Brief.pdf

 

 

 

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

I dedicate this knowledge, and these facts, to bpm57

What, the cute fact that he is quoting himself? Patrick J Charles, so cutting edge that he can only quote himself.

 

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

What, the cute fact that he is quoting himself? Patrick J Charles, so cutting edge that he can only quote himself.

 

He matches the well-stated gun positions of your authors (Libertarians all) to the broad historical context. Name the controversy, and he can offer the best-stated positions of both sides, with linkability, and the pertinent page numbers.. Which is your cue.

A well-read DeadEye Dick should be able to tee off on Patrick J. Charles. Have at it, but this USAF guy fills my boots.

 

You tried (unlike Tom or Jeff), to go against Mr. Charles, wrt your lame Sir John Knight distortion. You failed miserably when you faced the court evidence, presented by Mr. Charles, from the 15th century. (Knight's entourage rode armed, with orders from his Duke, to arrest a priest, under the lawful authority of the day.)

Each of the Libertarian positions seems to fail in a similar way, when challenged by sound research.

 

 

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

Knight's entourage rode armed, with orders from his Duke, to arrest a priest, under the lawful authority of the day.

You should have no problem backing that with a source.

"Although the jury acquitted Knight, the Attorney General moved that Knight be required to post bond for good behavior. The Chief Justice of the King’s Bench agreed. Rex v. Sir John Knight, 90 Eng. Rep. 331, Comberbach, 41 (1686). This does not seem like the treatment of someone who was “cloaked with government authority.”

Mr. Charles also argues that Knight’s lawyer had argued that Knight was protected by “Richard II’s statute exempting governmental officials from punishment” for violating the Statute of Northampton. Knight’s attorney made no such argument.

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

Straightforwardly, this is an argument about the primary purpose of the Statute of Northampton: to stop “great men” (nobles) from interfering in the public administration of justice. Rather than being a matter of public concern, Knight’s actions were “a private matter.” So argued his attorney. This seems like the opposite of claiming to be like “governmental officials.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/31/wrenn-history/

 

 

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

Should I have gone straight to the minimum and assume "never"?

I cannot tell you how suspenseful it can be when I get you close to answering this.  Its like a treasure hunt.

 

Set an example. Give me a non sarcastic answer to the question about whether a 9 round revolver in the censored caliber or an AR 15 is a more suitable militia weapon.

 

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

You're right - it's difficult for new disruptive technologies like the internet to be stuffed into a set of laws written before electricity and airplanes were applied / invented.  How's this for an answer.  "Yes."  The first amendment can no longer apply in a meaningful manner when we have institutions like facebook, twitter, etc that reason such a huge number of people and can be abused.

In the exact same way that the second amendment can no longer be adequately applied to cover weapons.

On both fronts, there needs to be additional control and laws.  Somewhere between the "Just don't cry fire in a crowded theater" and "Feel free to go on a rampage with a troll farm and disseminate blatant lies to a population that seems incapable of individual thought.  I.e., RPG's versus dogballs.

They did have newspapers back then - but editors and the like (i.e. educated and semi-intelligent people) were generally in charge of content.  No Joe-Schmoe could start a worldwide dis information campaign.

What are the yuge harms of Facebook and Twitter that justify repealing the first? Who has been abused and how? I did call that Austrian politician a corrupt oaf but she was asking for it. Thomas Paine would have published electronically if he could have. I'm glad we all now can.

Violent crime has been falling for years and weapons haven't changed much. What has changed is what politicians want to ban and the partisan nature of the argument. That's why the censored caliber can't be discussed.

Thomas Paine would have published electronically if he could have. I'm glad we all now can.

By the way, the fourth probably needs to go on your chopping block too. Are computer files really "papers and effects?"

In any case, ending amendments is a fine discussion to have. Eroding them instead is not, and that's what's happening when we see SCOTUS considering the question of whether the Bill of RIghts was meant to apply to new technology. Also what's happening in the absurd case of NYC transport laws, scheduled to elicit laughter in the SCOTUS on Dec 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

What are the yuge harms of Facebook and Twitter that justify repealing the first? Who has been abused and how? I did call that Austrian politician a corrupt oaf but she was asking for it. Thomas Paine would have published electronically if he could have. I'm glad we all now can.

Violent crime has been falling for years and weapons haven't changed much. What has changed is what politicians want to ban and the partisan nature of the argument. That's why the censored caliber can't be discussed.

Thomas Paine would have published electronically if he could have. I'm glad we all now can.

By the way, the fourth probably needs to go on your chopping block too. Are computer files really "papers and effects?"

In any case, ending amendments is a fine discussion to have. Eroding them instead is not, and that's what's happening when we see SCOTUS considering the question of whether the Bill of RIghts was meant to apply to new technology. Also what's happening in the absurd case of NYC transport laws, scheduled to elicit laughter in the SCOTUS on Dec 2.

Dogballs can't be discussed because you wouldn't shut the fuk up.  We still discuss guns and abortion.  You just managed to make such an ass of yourself that the word was banned.  Even then you can't take the hint and are still bitching about it. It wasn't partisan. People on both side just are sick of your crap.

 

The fourth needs to be extended to cover phones, laptops, etc.

And while we are at it, I didn't say repeal.  They need to be adjusted.  Or new laws need to be passed about the responsibility of these large media groups to police both themselves and their users.

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

Set an example. Give me a non sarcastic answer to the question about whether a 9 round revolver in the censored caliber or an AR 15 is a more suitable militia weapon.

 

Do I need to spoon feed your ass? Fine. I'll even bold it:

An AR 15 is a more suitable militia weapon than a twenty two caliber revolver.

Consider your question succinctly answered. (I even threw in a way around the censorship as a bonus. You're welcome.)

Now please... Please... Return the favor and answer my question.  I'm begging you if that is what you need. Pretty please. With sugar in top:

In the 2nd amendment, what does the term "well regulated" mean  and how would it be specifically applied today?

Consider this your very last dodge. The rubber has hit the road.  I am tired of fucking around. No references to TeamD. No inside the home militia horseshit. No digging up something someone posted here 15 fucking years ago. No "woe is me" Presidential grade whines about how unfair everyone is to you here.  If you cannot definitely answer my question, you will be considered full of shit. I mean from this moment forward.

This is your moment. Take it seriously. Don't fuck this up.

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

Do I need to spoon feed your ass? Fine. I'll even bold it:

An AR 15 is a more suitable militia weapon than a twenty two caliber revolver.

Consider your question succinctly answered. (I even threw in a way around the censorship as a bonus. You're welcome.)

Now please... Please... Return the favor and answer my question.  I'm begging you if that is what you need. Pretty please. With sugar in top:

In the 2nd amendment, what does the term "well regulated" mean  and how would it be specifically applied today?

Consider this your very last dodge. The rubber has hit the road.  I am tired of fucking around. No references to TeamD. No inside the home militia horseshit. No digging up something someone posted here 15 fucking years ago. No "woe is me" Presidential grade whines about how unfair everyone is to you here.  If you cannot definitely answer my question, you will be considered full of shit. I mean from this moment forward.

This is your moment. Take it seriously. Don't fuck this up.

 

I won't answer for Tom but,  the amendment describe what the government CANNOT do, the 2nd notwithstanding the "militia preamble" cannot infringe the right to bear arms. Real simple, dont you think. (No, you dont think, sad)

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

I won't answer for Tom but,  the amendment describe what the government CANNOT do, the 2nd notwithstanding the "militia preamble" cannot infringe the right to bear arms. Real simple, dont you think. (No, you dont think, sad)

Interesting, as the Supremes have found that the Govt can do exactly that. Who doesn’t think?

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

I won't answer for Tom but,  the amendment describe what the government CANNOT do, the 2nd notwithstanding the "militia preamble" cannot infringe the right to bear arms. Real simple, dont you think. (No, you dont think, sad)

Cute. Nice try. Think hard: What does the preamble mean? Specifically.

Make something up, if you have to.  I really don't give a fuck if your reasoning even makes sense. I just want to see an effort.

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

Cute. Nice try. Think hard: What does the preamble mean? Specifically.

Make something up, if you have to.  I really don't give a fuck if your reasoning even makes sense. I just want to see an effort.

Let me clarify, since my honest queries about where i'm supposed to muster and how my militia unit contacts me have been unanswered.

A "Well regulated militia"--

  • has no chain of command, nor organizational units 
  • no training requirements
  • no designated places to muster when called
  • but that doesn't matter because there is nobody to issue the call nor a way for folks to get it
  • no fucking clue as to what weapons to bring.  So a revolver is just fine.
  • no physical screening 
  • and so on

This "well-regulated militia," as dogballs and his elk understand it, is as real as unicorns. 

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

Let me clarify, since my honest queries about where i'm supposed to muster and how my militia unit contacts me have been unanswered.

A "Well regulated militia"--

  • has no chain of command, nor organizational units 
  • no training requirements
  • no designated places to muster when called
  • but that doesn't matter because there is nobody to issue the call nor a way for folks to get it
  • no fucking clue as to what weapons to bring.  So a revolver is just fine.
  • no physical screening 
  • and so on

This "well-regulated militia," as dogballs and his elk understand it, is as real as unicorns. 

There is an astounding amount of effort on the part of @Hypercapnic Tom, @Shootist Jeff, and @warbird on what it does NOT mean.  But with not much acknowledgement of what it possibly DOES mean.

 

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

There is an astounding amount of effort on the part of @Hypercapnic Tom, @Shootist Jeff, and @warbird on what it does NOT mean.  But with not much acknowledgement of what it possibly DOES mean.

 

Looking for a well-regulated militia is like looking for a black cat in a dark room and the cat isn't there. 

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

Finally, we are getting to some actual adult conversation.  I'll let Tom answer for himself but here's my take on your question:

Yes, the preamble to the 2A regarding militias did originally envision Hamilton's notion that it would be a desirable thing for the militia to assemble a couple of times a year just to make sure all was good and that if necessary citizens would have the means (arms) and the training (regulated) to be used in the event the state needed them.  

But you know what.... shit happens.  Shit changes.  Stuff evolves.  The FF's were also pretty adamant about not having a standing army either, but look where we are.  Should we then abolish the standing Army, Air Force since the Connie only provided funding for a Navy?  

I think You are getting hung up on the well regulated part.  Fact:  According to the Federalist papers - the militia was always envisioned as a bulwark against the possibility of a standing army being created.  The FF's knew a standing army was likely to emerge despite their efforts to not have that happen, and the militia was to be the State's counter-balance in the event a despot emerged and attempted to use it against the people.  Fortunately (so far) that has not happened, so the militia (i.e. The People) have not been needed.  That they have not been well-regulated much since 1789 doesn't change the fact that the militia is still important for its core purpose of being a check on an out of control dicktater, should that ever come to pass.  

With the Heller decision, an additional core purpose of the 2A was defined.  Personal self-defense.  Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.  It is the law as it stands today and will be until the 2A is amended or repealed or another SCOTUS overturns Heller (good luck with that).  So the personal self-defense aspect further moves away from any notion that the "well regulated" aspect of the preamble is binding on the current way the right is applied.  

So having said all that - In no way do I or any other reasonable gun owner think that there can be no gun regulations.  For instance, I do not think that Felons or violent domestic abusers should have guns.  I do not have an issue with background checks, I would in fact like them to be more thorough and comprehensive.  I do not think we are entitled to have personal tactical nukes as "arms".  I think that people should be held criminally and civilly liable if someone gets their gun and hurts another with it because it wasn't stored or secured properly.  And lots of other regulations......  So let's get that silly argument off the table for good, shall we?

The bottom line: is that there are many things in our laws and even the Connie itself that are enforced unevenly.  From state to state and even within the FedGov itself.  But that doesn't invalidate the law.  IMHO, not strictly enforcing the "well regulated" part simply because the militia is not mustering 1-2x per year doesn't mean the gov't can then do whatever the fuck it wants on the "Shall not be infringed" operative part.  

For those of you who did your usual TL;DR - fuck off.  You are not welcome in this conversation.  An issue this complex requires more than the usual one-liner that your short attention span brain can handle.  Just saying.  

Don't think I don't appreciate entire post. I still digesting it. But this jumped out at me:

"But you know what.... shit happens.  Shit changes.  Stuff evolves."

So can I assume this statement applies only to the "well regulated"  part of the 2nd, while the "shall not be infringed" part remains carved in stone?

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

Does this mean you're back to scratching your nuts while watching the Hallmark Channel? 

What a shame. You'll be missed 

little blue pills got you feeling like a tiger? Bitch

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

Nope it applies to both.  Its already evolved significantly in the sense that the 2A has certainly been "infringed" upon over the last couple of centuries.  But it seems to me your argument is that if there is no "well regulated" part then the entire amendment is invalid.  Is that what you are arguing?  If not, can you be clear what your point of your question is? 

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

Something.

Christ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, benwynn said:

In the 2nd amendment, what does the term "well regulated" mean  and how would it be specifically applied today?

It means that if a person can actually afford to get permission to exercise her right to keep and bear arms, she must get government permission prior to taking her gun to a gunsmith each time that is needed. It also means that the only places to which it can be taken without prior permission are a few facilities within her city and none outside of it. Those things might change soon, but that's what it means today.

 

6 hours ago, benwynn said:

An AR 15 is a more suitable militia weapon than a twenty two caliber revolver.

So would you agree that Beto's confiscation plan ignores the crucial prefatory clause as well as the operative clause of the second amendment?

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

Dogballs can't be discussed because you wouldn't shut the fuk up.  We still discuss guns and abortion.  You just managed to make such an ass of yourself that the word was banned.  Even then you can't take the hint and are still bitching about it. It wasn't partisan. People on both side just are sick of your crap.

 

The fourth needs to be extended to cover phones, laptops, etc.

And while we are at it, I didn't say repeal.  They need to be adjusted.  Or new laws need to be passed about the responsibility of these large media groups to police both themselves and their users.

Uh huh. All the arrow holes in my left side tell me a different story. People endlessly talk about AR15's as if that's what "assault" weapons are but when I pointed out that "assault" is just a convenient label that is put on a gun that half of our Duopoly wants to ban it was unacceptable because it was true.

It still is.

Why should the fourth cover cell phones and computers but not the first? I'm still wondering what harm the first is causing and to whom?

We don't "adjust" amendments. We didn't adjust the one creating alcohol prohibition nor did we remove it because that's not how it works. We pass a new one that supplants the old one.

I think we have the internet as it exists because Section 230 says large media groups and international media organizations like Sailing Anarchy don't have to police everything we say.

On 10/7/2019 at 8:31 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

 

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

Cute. Nice try. Think hard: What does the preamble mean? Specifically.

Make something up, if you have to.  I really don't give a fuck if your reasoning even makes sense. I just want to see an effort.

I’ll speak for the pidgeon

YCMTSU

WTF

GFY

etc etc etc

 

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

You should have no problem backing that with a source.

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:
7 hours ago, benwynn said:

An AR 15 is a more suitable militia weapon than a twenty two caliber revolver.

So would you agree that Beto's confiscation plan ignores the crucial prefatory clause as well as the operative clause of the second amendment?

I would say that ship sailed centuries ago, and noone cared until 1980 because the amendment as written cannot be supported.

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

 

According to most of you all here, when it comes to saving a child's life, even just one..... the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper."  Right?

 

Combining straight up fiction,  pure conjecture 'because common sense', and now full straw man argument all in one post.  Kids, this is a cautionary tale of how not to debate or use logic to argue...personified.

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

The ONLY one making up shit here is you.  Did you bother to even read the rest of my post before you wrote that?  Of course you didn't.  Douche.

I had been wanting to give you a decent response and this is what I get instead?  Never mind.  I'm definitely not the dummy here, as evadent.

 

It's not your fault you were educated by fucking retards

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

So IOW, you don't have a counter to what I posted 

A counter to a fake argument with zero data?  Definitely not.  If you can learn basic reason maybe.  Or at least if you stop posting fake facts and then spending two days trying to find support for them before finally admitting that you made it all up.

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

It means that if a person can actually afford to get permission to exercise her right to keep and bear arms, she must get government permission prior to taking her gun to a gunsmith each time that is needed. It also means that the only places to which it can be taken without prior permission are a few facilities within her city and none outside of it. Those things might change soon, but that's what it means today.

 

So would you agree that Beto's confiscation plan ignores the crucial prefatory clause as well as the operative clause of the second amendment?

 

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

Uh huh. All the arrow holes in my left side tell me a different story. People endlessly talk about AR15's as if that's what "assault" weapons are but when I pointed out that "assault" is just a convenient label that is put on a gun that half of our Duopoly wants to ban it was unacceptable because it was true.

It still is.

Why should the fourth cover cell phones and computers but not the first? I'm still wondering what harm the first is causing and to whom?

We don't "adjust" amendments. We didn't adjust the one creating alcohol prohibition nor did we remove it because that's not how it works. We pass a new one that supplants the old one.

I think we have the internet as it exists because Section 230 says large media groups and international media organizations like Sailing Anarchy don't have to police everything we say.

 

poor little dogballs doesn't like people creating definitions. Here's the thing, if they write a law that says "assault weapons" they will define what "assault weapons" means, and it might include dogballs just to piss you off.

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

poor little dogballs doesn't like people creating definitions. Here's the thing, if they write a law that says "assault weapons" they will define what "assault weapons" means, and it might include dogballs just to piss you off.

It's practically impossible to do. I believe this was attempted in the past, and ended up being a list of specific model numbers of guns. The manufacturers would make a small change to the weapon, creating a new model, effectively taking it off the list.

I am going by memory and not citing any of this because I don't have time.  But I figure Tom won't chew my ass about it this time as he probably agrees with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

gaslighting would imply Jeffreaux knows the difference between true and false anymore.

bullying while wrong

Pee Wee dresses for Jeffie.PNG

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

It's practically impossible to do. I believe this was attempted in the past, and ended up being a list of specific model numbers of guns. The manufacturers would make a small change to the weapon, creating a new model, effectively taking it off the list.

I am going by memory and not citing any of this because I don't have time.  But I figure Tom won't chew my ass about it this time as he probably agrees with me.

You know there's an easy way around that.

"The secretary shall decide..."

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

So would you agree that Beto's confiscation plan ignores the crucial prefatory clause as well as the operative clause of the second amendment?

Not sure how your reply in another thread is relevant. Doesn't seem to answer my question at all, and you were so big on answering questions just a few posts ago.

Try again, starting with a yes or a no, then an explanation if you feel one is needed.

Would you agree that Beto's confiscation plan ignores the crucial prefatory clause as well as the operative clause of the second amendment?

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

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

Not sure how your reply in another thread is relevant. Doesn't seem to answer my question at all, and you were so big on answering questions just a few posts ago.

You were so NOT big on answering questions just a few posts ago.

And I'm surprised you take issues with my referencing a post I made in another thread. You have a habit of copying my posts to other threads.

3 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Try again, starting with a yes or a no, then an explanation if you feel one is needed.

Would you agree that Beto's confiscation plan ignores the ascrucial prefatory clause as well as the operative clause of the second amendment?

Yes. 

 

3 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

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

It is been my consistent  position that ignoring that clause is always bad.  I'm disappointed that you have not been paying attention. How could one be against a TRAINED militia?

Wait a minute.... Now that I think about it. You have been.

Is ignoring that crucial prefatory clause only sometimes bad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

'murka has an excessively bloated military, it has militarized pigs, what's the point of 'militias' other than stereotype reinforcement, comedic relief and target practice?

'just sit down, bubba'

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 6:06 AM, jocal505 said:

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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


DeadEye Dick just walked into a trap. 

Quote

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

Ties to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity

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

Franklin Center Funding

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Waiter: "Would you like some desert?"

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

Waiter: "It's pronounced Crème"

Customer: "What?"

Waiter: "I said It's pronounced Crème"

Customer: "Cream Crème?"

Waiter: "No, Crème Brûlée"

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

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

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

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

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

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

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

That gave me a good laugh.  Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

DeadEye Dick just walked into a trap. 

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

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

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

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

2 hours ago, benwynn said:

The People can keep their dogballs...

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

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

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

Suppossed to appear?  Fucking where and when? 

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

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

 

39 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

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

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

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

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

Suppossed to appear?  Fucking where and when? 

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

The opinion I referenced said:
 

Quote

 

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

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

 

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

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

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


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

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

 

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

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

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

I'm still not thinking about it.

8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

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

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

8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

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

That's why I was not making that argument.

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

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

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

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

Did they do CC, kinda like Larry Pratt?

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

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

The opinion I referenced said:
 


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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

You should have no problem backing that with a source.

CHARLES_CHRISTENSEN  HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CRISIS page 1835 

Carrying a firearm was merely a misdemeanor.

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

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

 

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

Q. Why was he found innocent?

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

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

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

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

CHARLES_CHRISTENSEN  HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CRISIS page 1835 

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

26 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Carrying a firearm was merely a misdemeanor.

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

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

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

29 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

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

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

30 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Q. Why was he found innocent?

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

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

31 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

- DSK

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

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

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

You just did.   Get on it.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

Quote

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

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

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

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

 

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

p30 CLEVELAND STATE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:1

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proven?

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

From the link you claimed to read.

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

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

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

Cite

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

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

The same one his lawyer claimed didn't apply.

 

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

Do you even pay taxes here?

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

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

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

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

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

entertainment lawyer?  that's so early oughts bro

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

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

The same one his lawyer claimed didn't apply.

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

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

Are you with me so far?

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

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

So when his lawyer said this:

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

From the link you claimed to read.

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

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites