Jump to content

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Deadric said:

 

Just like the ones making decisions on abortion? Or are legislators only experts when you agree with them?

 

A slave was 2/3 of a person for census purposes.

Now, their descendants are WHOLE people with a vote.

 

We eventually get it right, eh?  And it will NOT be by stripping women of the right to control their own reproductive system. 

Share this post


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

 

Experts like Carolyn McCarthy who wanted to ban barrel shrouds, but didn’t  know what they were?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wideopenspaces.com/whats-a-barrel-shroud-carolyn-mccarthy-doesnt-know-what-shes-trying-to-ban/amp/

 

 

I hope you are intentionally trying to make silly statements rather than it being your norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deadric:  Unless you work on the Hill, there isn't one feckin' law ever passed whose author you know.

 

It makes you look really stupid to pretend you should know who is writing a gun control bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching the news.

 

America knows the Trump nightmare will be on its way out in less than 17 months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Scout said:

Since I didn't name countries and you all are ignoring the ones I meant (stupidity or cowardly intent?)........

 

 

Not a mind reader . . .   You made the point, it would be conducive to discussion if you let us know what countries you are thinking of.

 

For my point, I would say England would be exemplary.

 

19 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

I think you need to specify what actions you consider "political control".

 

 

Well, keeping commoners disarmed and without the means to resist or overthrow an unjust government.

 

This has been one of the primary political debate points for going on a couple thousand years, back to Plato and Aristotle . . .  Who shall comprise the arms bearers, a general militia of regular citizens or professional soldiers.

 

As I said, I would point to England where Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, explained the right to arms in 18th Century England and the real intent of her game laws (which reserved the ownership of a gun to just titled or landed persons).  Blackstone noted that, "the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws".

 

 

19 minutes ago, Scout said:

I know what needs to be done to make this a better, safer place to live.

 

 

But in the USA there stands a very high hurdle for you to clear.  You don't get to enact laws violating fundamental rights even if you and your ilk can form a majority.

 

19 minutes ago, Scout said:

I never said the neanderthals that voted for Trump would

have the intelligence to enact it.   Right now I'm thinking of one of them whose son shot his brains out recently. 

 

I am confident, if gun nuts no longer had their guns to caress, they would be impotent.

 

 

Well, that's just emotional hyperbole that has no bearing on the discussion.  You should consider trying to not look like an unhinged, statist authoritarian leftist that would find it entirely too easy to order people into boxcars.

 

That people like you are "out there" is precisely why people like me who cherish liberty, will never, ever surrender the means to stop your hate and resist any force you could muster against us.

 

Have a nice day!

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

A slave was 2/3 of a person for census purposes.

Now, their descendants are WHOLE people with a vote.

 

We eventually get it right, eh?  And it will NOT be by stripping women of the right to control their own reproductive system. 

 

It was 3/5ths and there could be an argument that it was a good thing because it reduced the representation of slave states in the House (which reduced their political power). 

 

So you are one of them, that wants to kill the right to arms and erase the 2nd Amendment but you hold abortion rights to be sacrosanct and absolute.

 

A question for you . . .

 

Can a right that is recognized to exist in the "penumbras" and emanations" of the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights, be more cherished, more respected, more vital and more secure legally, than a right that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?  

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jeerleader said:
57 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

I think you need to specify what actions you consider "political control".

 

 

Well, keeping commoners disarmed and without the means to resist or overthrow an unjust government.

 

This has been one of the primary political debate points for going on a couple thousand years, back to Plato and Aristotle . . .  Who shall comprise the arms bearers, a general militia of regular citizens or professional soldiers.

 

As I said, I would point to England where Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, explained the right to arms in 18th Century England and the real intent of her game laws (which reserved the ownership of a gun to just titled or landed persons).  Blackstone noted that, "the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws".

I disagree that this is the typical law banning guns in countries. 

 

And I am confident your gun ownership has NOTHING to due with  cherishing liberty. 

Share this post


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

Deadric:  Unless you work on the Hill, there isn't one feckin' law ever passed whose author you know.

 

It makes you look really stupid to pretend you should know who is writing a gun control bill.

 

I knew exactly who is writing the bills. People who only want agents of the state armed with semi-auto rifles. No thanks on that. If the cops are keeping their ARs, we are keeping ours, keep everyone even Steven. Red states will just do with liberal gun bans what blue states do with drug laws and immigration laws and ignore them.

Share this post


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

 

It was 3/5ths and there could be an argument that it was a good thing because it reduced the representation of slave states in the House (which reduced their political power). 

 

So you are one of them, that wants to kill the right to arms and erase the 2nd Amendment but you hold abortion rights to be sacrosanct and absolute.

 

A question for you . . .

 

Can a right that is recognized to exist in the "penumbras" and emanations" of the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights, be more cherished, more respected, more vital and more secure legally, than a right that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?  

 

.

Of course, women's rights are the most important thing in the Constitution - so yes, they are more important that the latter.

 

Share this post


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

 

The lower federal court decisions that sustained state AWB's are a joke.  Heller's "M-16's and the like" statement is not comparing M-16's and semi-auto AR-15's, it is comparing M-16's and other Title II arms that can fire more than one bullet with a single trigger pull.  Having an auto-sear is what makes a gun "bannable", not pistol grips, or heat shields or collapsible stocks . . .   NFA-34 makes no mention of any cosmetic feature or furniture that makes an arm fall under Title II of NFA-34.  Absolutely ridiculous reasoning.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad such stupid crap is in writing, the more ridiculous anti-gun theories that SCOTUS gets examine and invalidate, the less you anti-Constitution scoundrels have to proffer.

 

I do have to you points for stating that the reason the'94 ban sunsetted was Congressional inaction.  Most anti-gunners say, "President Bush let the Assault Weapons Ban expire!"

 

Wow
Someone who actually knows what he's talking about!
How do?
I'm Chuck

Welcome to the fray

 

 

1 hour ago, Scout said:

First tell me why I would care about your little.  How is it relative to this discussion? 

 

My little what?
Is that your position?
Ban them all?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scout said:

I disagree that this is the typical law banning guns in countries. 

 

 

Have you studied history or is that just wishful thinking?

 

Enacting restrictive gun control as a crime control measure is a very recent development.  Even in the USA the history of gun control is a story of disarming specific classes of people who those in power wanted to make and keep harmless / powerless.  From laws disarming Slaves to laws forbidding Freemen to possess guns -- as citizens, under the Black Codes -- which of course led to the 14th Amendment, to certain ethnic groups in New York City that the Sullivan Law was intended to keep disarmed. 

 

Gun control is USUALLY just people control and the greatest farce is gun control as criminal control . . .   The last people impacted by gun control laws are the people who should be disarmed.  What works of course is removing criminals from society.

 

17 minutes ago, Scout said:

And I am confident your gun ownership has NOTHING to due with  cherishing liberty. 

 

And there is your hate talking again.  If you have a logical thought in your head it is cowering in a dark corner, scared for its life.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jeerleader said:

 

Have you studied history or is that just wishful thinking?

 

Enacting restrictive gun control as a crime control measure is a very recent development.  Even in the USA the history of gun control is a story of disarming specific classes of people who those in power wanted to make and keep harmless / powerless.  From laws disarming Slaves to laws forbidding Freemen to possess guns -- as citizens, under the Black Codes -- which of course led to the 14th Amendment, to certain ethnic groups in New York City that the Sullivan Law was intended to keep disarmed. 

 

Gun control is USUALLY just people control and the greatest farce is gun control as criminal control . . .   The last people impacted by gun control laws are the people who should be disarmed.  What works of course is removing criminals from society.

 

 

And there is your hate talking again.  If you have a logical thought in your head it is cowering in a dark corner, scared for its life.

 

 

No, it is my careful observation of human nature talking.  Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

      40 minutes ago, Scout said:

I disagree that this is the typical law banning guns in countries. 

 

 

Have you studied history or is that just wishful thinking?

 

Enacting restrictive gun control as a crime control measure is a very recent development.  Even in the USA the history of gun control is a story of disarming specific classes of people who those in power wanted to make and keep harmless / powerless.  From laws disarming Slaves to laws forbidding Freemen to possess guns -- as citizens, under the Black Codes -- which of course led to the 14th Amendment, to certain ethnic groups in New York City that the Sullivan Law was intended to keep disarmed. 

 

Gun control is USUALLY just people control and the greatest farce is gun control as criminal control . . .   The last people impacted by gun control laws are the people who should be disarmed.  What works of course is removing criminals from society.

 

==========================================

 

Tell it to the legislatures of Australia and New Zealand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Scout said:

Of course, women's rights are the most important thing in the Constitution - so yes, they are more important that the latter.

 

 

Sorry to break this to you, the right to abortion depends upon the inviolate nature of the right to arms.

 

Do you understand the theory of penumbral rights? 

 

Do you know the theory's origin and its legal foundation?

 

The path to destroy the right to abortion is being blazed by leftists trying to destroy the individual right to arms.

 

If the individual right to arms can be destroyed, the "rational continuum" of liberty embodied in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights, can not be said to exist.

 

If it doesn't exist, if the chain can be broken, the penumbral rights theory by which the right to privacy and the derivative rights of abortion and contraception and LGBTQ rights etc, were recognized and secured, is bullcrap.

 

As SCOTUS said in Planned Parenthood v Casey, quoting the foundational treatise of penumbral rights:

 

_________________________________

 

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

 

"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment." Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

 

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, . . ."

 

__________________________________

 

See it???? 

 

"the right to keep and bear arms"?????

 

Explain to me how you can destroy an enumerated right but preserve the theory by which the right to privacy was "found" . . .

 

Take your time.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Sorry to break this to you, the right to abortion depends upon the inviolate nature of the right to arms.

 

Do you understand the theory of penumbral rights? 

 

Do you know the theory's origin and its legal foundation?

 

The path to destroy the right to abortion is being blazed by leftists trying to destroy the individual right to arms.

 

If the individual right to arms can be destroyed, the "rational continuum" of liberty embodied in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights, can not be said to exist.

 

If it doesn't exist, if the chain can be broken, the penumbral rights theory by which the right to privacy and the derivative rights of abortion and contraception and LGBTQ rights etc, were recognized and secured, is bullcrap.

 

As SCOTUS said in Planned Parenthood v Casey, quoting the foundational treatise of penumbral rights:

 

_________________________________

 

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

 

"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment." Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

 

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, . . ."

 

__________________________________

 

See it???? 

 

"the right to keep and bear arms"?????

 

Explain to me how you can destroy an enumerated right but preserve the theory by which the right to privacy was "found" . . .

 

Take your time.

 

 

First explain where the Constitution strips women of the rights - endowed them by their Creator.

Share this post


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

First explain where the Constitution strips women of the rights - endowed them by their Creator.

 

And then explain why the Founding Fathers had gun control laws if they believed the 2nd Amendment didn't allow it?  Good luck.

Share this post


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

I thought you were talking about nugginfutz.

I admit to being a FUDDIST!

Elmer is cool!

Share this post


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

I'm watching the news.

 

America knows the Trump nightmare will be on its way out in less than 17 months. 

You forget the part where Trump is reelected in 2020 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Guns    mucho more guns

 

we need more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love your passion Merrill, but you don’t live in reality. Americans on fly over country love their guns. You aren’t going to take those guns away from them. You might be shot if you try bud

Share this post


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

Expert legislatures can determine that.

Another leftist moron who trusts the government. LMAO! You are a clueless monkey. 

 

You said that owning a lot of guns makes you a bad person. I asking you how many can own before you are a bad person? Legislation isn't going to determine that. It is completely subjective and made up in your infertile little mind. 

Share this post


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

First explain where the Constitution strips women of the rights - endowed them by their Creator.

 

But the right to privacy and the derivative right to abortion can not be said to be among our original, inherent rights.  It was recognized to exist in the 'aura' of our original, inherent rights that were enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and only because of the original and inviolate nature of those rights, could the right to privacy and abortion be conjured into being.  The rights of privacy and abortion only exist and are secured because of a legal contrivance, an invention of the Court . . .   That's my point.  If the right to arms, a right that is recognized to be among the bedrock, the foundation of the principle that allowed the Court to create this "penumbral rights" theory can be destroyed, the penumbral rights theory is exposed as false and the legal structure built around it stands on nothing and it collapses.

 

That you would use the "endowed in them by their Creator" to defend abortion rights but not see the hypocrisy in ignoring that principle and attacking the right to arms, is simply incredible.

 

12 hours ago, Scout said:

 

And then explain why the Founding Fathers had gun control laws if they believed the 2nd Amendment didn't allow it?  Good luck.

 

That's easy.  The federal 2nd Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) only forbade actions of the federal government. There were no federal gun control laws until the 20th Century (National Firearms Act of 1934) and that was written in the tax code, taxing the transfer of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, bazookas, anti-aircraft artillery etc.  Congress knew then that they did not have the legislative authority to ban any personal arms (even machine guns etc that I listed) from citizen possession and use, but they believed they could charge a tax ($200) on the change of ownership between citizens.

 

Whatever gun control laws you are thinking of that existed in the founding period, they were state laws.  State gun control has always been discriminatory and after the Civil War, states created the Black Codes to keep former slaves disarmed.  Those laws and the brutal enforcement of them is why we have the 14th Amendment which intended to enforce the federal Bill of Rights on the states.  Because of legal bullcrap and the Court deciding it would apply the 14th Amendment in piecemeal fashion (selective incorporation) it wasn't until 2010 that the 2nd Amendment was enforced on the states (McDonald v Chicago).

 

The full and complete enforcement of the 14th on state gun control has not even begun.  There are wide swaths of federal, state and local gun control that is unconstitutional and will, as cases rise through the lower courts to SCOTUS, be stuck down / invalidated.

 

 

Share this post


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

No, it is my careful observation of human nature talking.  Again.

 

Well, that and $1.79 will get you a cup of coffee at 7-11.

 

We are discussing legal decisions and foundational principles; emotional pleas and wishful thinking count for nothing.

Share this post


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

You forget the part where Trump is reelected in 2020 

I didn't forget anything.  :lol:

Share this post


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

Another leftist moron who trusts the government. LMAO! You are a clueless monkey. 

 

You said that owning a lot of guns makes you a bad person. I asking you how many can own before you are a bad person? Legislation isn't going to determine that. It is completely subjective and made up in your infertile little mind. 

If a person opposes gun control they are definitely a bad person.  Worry about that first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...