Uncooperative Californicators

[Pertinacious Tom]

A bit of both, actually. Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do, as long as it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this:

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

 

[Raz'r]

A bit of both, actually. Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do, as long as it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this:

That's nice. Wake me when I should get concerned.

 

[jocal505]

 it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this...

Federal judges say lots of stuff (and you need to cherry pick it). Such LCM's have a capacity which is opposed by four different federal districts.

 Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do...

What the hell do you expect if we taste praline and dick flavor? You make your own bed around here. Your routine lies become poison to a quality community. Two weeks ago you denied Blackstone's layout of the British right to oppose tyrants four times, in spite of quality sourcing. You trashed your creds again last week, Tom. You dis-respected yourself, IMO.



This week, you posted a innocent-looking long gun picture, failing to display the offending feature within the .22 weapon, an LCM receiver. When corrected you didn't man up. (You played boring, coy, girly games about your deception.)

"Personal attacks, waah?"? I feel I am attacking the deception, not my fellow sailor here. You are a fine fellow, I suppose, but somehow one who doesn't mind soiling himself frequently. 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

That's nice. Wake me when I should get concerned.

If I could wake people up and cause them to be concerned about their rights, you'd see lots of drug warriors suddenly concerned about the fourth amendment, lots of evangelicals suddenly concerned about abortion rights, and yes, lots of lefties suddenly concerned about second amendment rights.

But I can't. Only you can decide you're interested in your rights.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Benitez doesn't sound like a British name but he does have some gift for understatement...
 

Miller implies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon that could be part of the ordinary military equipment for a militia member, or that would contribute to the common defense, is protected by the Second Amendment. Concluding that magazines holding more than 10 rounds might be found among today’s ordinary military equipment or that such magazines would contribute the common defense, requires only a modest finding.

...

Another exhibit, the Attorney General’s Exhibit 50, appears to be a 100-page, 8-point type, 35-year survey of shooting incidents published by  Mother Jones magazine.  Oppo. Gordon Declaration at Exh. 50.  Mother Jones magazine has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence.  It is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.

 

[Blue Crab]

My badass AW has a black stock and ss barrel. It comes apart for ease in concealment. And magazines? I could get thru college selling them. Hi-power scope? You know it. When I'm not actually killing small children and puppies, I shoot at jet skiers and power boaters. You gotta gimme that.

 

[jocal505]

My badass AW has a black stock and ss barrel. It comes apart for ease in concealment. And magazines? I could get thru college selling them. Hi-power scope? You know it. When I'm not actually killing small children and puppies, I shoot at jet skiers and power boaters. You gotta gimme that.

Hmmpph. A manly man, no doubt. 

 

[Blue Crab]

Hmmpph. A manly man, no doubt. 

View attachment 245937

My two little ladies would have laughed their butts off at that pic.

 

[jocal505]

(Mother Jones) lacks some of the earmarks for the scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.

Pooplius, this is the conclusion from YOUR unsourced.quote. Are you now speaking in favor of scientific presentation and conclusion?

The MIller case is not your friend, buddy. Far from it. And where is your cite? Benitez?

 

[Raz'r]

Benitez doesn't sound like a British name but he does have some gift for understatement...
 

Hold on now. Back to militia? You can't have it both ways. It's either a personal right, subject to local regulation, or it's a militia clause subject to regulation as part of the state militia. 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Pooplius, this is the conclusion from YOUR unsourced.quote. Are you now speaking in favor of scientific presentation and conclusion?

The MIller case is not your friend, buddy. Far from it. And where is your cite? Benitez?

Haven't you learned yet?

When something is apparently uncited in a post of mine, look upthread.

You might find mention of an uncooperative federal judge. You might have been complaining about repeated mentions of him for weeks.

And, as usual, it appears you might not have read his injunction.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Hold on now. Back to militia? You can't have it both ways. It's either a personal right, subject to local regulation, or it's a militia clause subject to regulation as part of the state militia. 

The personal right and the miltia clause intersect at the people.

That's us.

 

[jocal505]

Haven't you learned yet?

You want me to learn how to play hide and seek, On PA? That's not how the big boys do it.

When something is apparently uncited in a post of mine, look upthread.

You are too slippery for that, buster. Still not cite, eh?

You disguise shit and mis-lable shit and misquote shit and twist shit. You directly misquoted Winkler in one link phrasing. John R. Lott 's input on may i$$ue was hiddsn "upthread, under a deceptive link phrasinga double deception to hide your shitty source),. That guy (your double-hidden disgraced source),.suggested background checks for voting before a Republican voting committee last week. But back to the point.

On Political Anarchy, the big boys regularly provide cites to support their positions. Especially you, Tom.

 

[jocal505]

The personal right and the miltia clause intersect at the people.

That's us.

Oh no you don't. What a collosal fail, because military justice is handled on an entirely different legal basis than civilian gun mayhem. Your underwear militia needs a state sponsorship and a muster, or you are civilians, in your underwear, with gunz. At home, I might add.   

What a joke. You are a delusional poser with poor reading habits, my friend. I sourced thus detail elsewhere. At least read SAILING ANARCHY dammit.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Uncooperative Federal Judge

Here's your cite again, Joe. So you can not read it again.

 

[Blue Crab]

Here's your cite again, Joe. So you can not read it again.

Joe, he's calling yer ass out.

 

[jocal505]

Here's your cite again, Joe. So you can not read it again.

Thank you. I checked it out, there's not much there. I think you're grasping at straws. Judge Benitez may be your hero, but this is a snoozer for me, a no-brainer, since four district courts have upheld the logic of containing LCM's. (The guns they slide into are severely restricted or totally banned in eight states.)

Secondy, it's the Ninth CIrcuit, where they will never accommodate Judge Benitez, IMO.  Speaking of the Ninth Tom, what happened to your breakthrough case approving OC for AW's in the Marianas Islands?

 

[jocal505]

Joe, he's calling yer ass out.

You're pretty good, BC, you fit right in with the posers. The Gun Club Choir needs to replace choir members, you should join up. WIth you and Greever singing they have two occasional singers in the choir.

Here's a tip: Eugene Volokh will make you look really smart in that crowd...and nobody reads him.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I checked it out, there's not much there.

BS. There's no more reason to believe you would actually read material I post this time than any previous time. Over several years of debate, you failed to learn the difference between Jack Miller and Otis McDonald.

If you had read Judge Benitez's injunction, you would probably quote some part of it with which you agree or disagree. But you didn't.

There's enough there to temporarily halt this summer's confiscation program. Which is kind of unfortunate to me. I was sorta looking forward to seeing how many Uncooperative Californians we have. I suspect it's more than the "scores of thousands" who declined to sign up to have their guns confiscated in CT.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Several posters in other threads have been attempting to help Mitch find examples of previously-legal consumer products that are now illegal to possess.

The answers are revealing.

Gun ownership is pretty much like owning a slave, subjecting minor girls to sex, or possessing illegal drugs.

The last example is really the best one, and the most relevant to the judge's injunction that stopped this summer's confiscation program.

If a gun is property, there's a constitutional problem with taking it without just compensation. It's a fifth amendment problem, so Joe will probably mistake it for a fourth amendment problem again.

OTOH, if a gun is just a public nuisance, no such compensation is needed.

Needless to say, California legislators take the "public nuisance" view of exercising our rights.

So are guns property or a nuisance?