Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×

san jose to tax gun owners and confiscate guns for noncompliance


Recommended Posts

On 7/21/2021 at 10:35 AM, Scout said:

 

I don't read a post when it starts with a lie.

 

 

Well, it's obvious you don't read your own posts, as unrelentingly dishonest as they are.  Your irrational ravings show just a stream of consciousness  you put zero effort into refining into cohesive thought.

 

I've actually developed a sense of pity for you, Scout.  Your life is about rage and hatred and nigh-unto pathological confusion as to why anyone could find you and your arguments so sadly pathetic.

  • MORON! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2021 at 5:04 PM, Scout said:

 

Proving the Founding Fathers believed in gun control, dumbfuck, and you just ruined your own argument.  This ain't rocket science.  This isn't 1st grade science......but you still don't understand it.  

 

Those laws came into being after the CIVIL War, not the REVOLUTIONARY War, you stupid racist bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 7/21/2021 at 5:28 PM, Scout said:

Slideman: "But it is not a lie. The individual right was invented by the NRA and Scalia.

For example towns in the west during the 19th century prohibited firearms inside the city limits and no one objected as there is no individual right.

The language of the amendment is clear."

 

Yep, more evidence gun nutters have misinterpreted the 2nd amendment.

 

 

Bullshit, from both Slideman AND Scout, since the individual right was THE "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment going back to the earliest court rulings on the subject.  The NRA didn't even exist, and Scalia was a century away from even being born when the Supreme Court stated that the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms predated the Constitution and was not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

 

"Those who advance the "Collective Rights Theory" insist that the attribution of the right to keep and bear arms to "the people" meant the people in their collective capacity through the STATES... or that the Second Amendment was meant to protect a Right of the STATES to "arm their militias." Allow me to suggest that such a view reflects (to be charitable) an ignorance of the single most fundamental controversy of the Federal Convention of 1787; a controversy resolved in what came to be known as "The Great Compromise". ...The delegates had been sent to Philadelphia to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation - a forerunner (of course) to the Constitution which established a Congress composed of a single house whose members were appointed by the STATE legislatures (representing the people in their COLLECTIVE capacity as the citizens of a state) and in which every state, being represented AS a state, was afforded a single vote in the deliberations of that Congress, regardless of its population (being the number of INDIVIDUAL persons within each of the respective states). As the people, as individuals, were not allowed to participate directly in voting for their representatives in Congress, NEITHER could they be TAXED by that Congress directly. The Congress would make requests or "requisitions" for each of the STATES to contribute to its treasury and the STATE governments would then try to find a way to collect that revenue from their citizens. As this had failed quite miserably, it was decided that the PEOPLE, as INDIVIDUALS, should be afforded the ability to vote, directly, to elect their representatives in at least one House of a new BI-cameral legislature in which each state would receive a number of representatives that would be proportional to the size of its population relative to the others. More PEOPLE = More REPRESENTATIVES. As the states with smaller populations were fearful of being overwhelmed by those with larger populations, it was agreed that ONE of the TWO houses in the legislature of the NEW Government should maintain the principle of an "Equality" of members PER State, regardless of its population. And, as it was feared that the State Governments might be overwhelmed by the powers and jurisdiction of the new, Federal Government, it was agreed to allow the STATE legislatures to continue to appoint the members of that other house - the SENATE. Finally, as the Articles of Confederation required the UNANIMOUS agreement of all of the STATE legislatures to any amendments (and the government of the Articles had been sactioned only by the authority of the STATE legislatures)... and where the delegates sent to Philadelphia to AMEND the ARTICLES now realized that the refusal of the legislature of one small state (such as Rhode Island or Delaware) could prevent any new government being established, it was resolved to draft an entirely new CONSTITUTION which was to receive its sanction from the PEOPLE of the states through the agency of CONVENTIONS to be held in each state in which the PEOPLE of the states were to elect members to consider nothing but the question of whether or not to CONSENT to or RATIFY the new CONSTITUTION. I could continue to give illustrations of this point. But, to bring the point home, the simple fact is that it is impossible to begin to understand the CONSTITUTION of the United States without understanding the terms "STATES" and "PEOPLE" in the most clear and distinct terms. The SENATE represents the people COLLECTIVELY through the representatives appointed by the STATE legislatures. The HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES is composed of members elected by the PEOPLE of the United States VOTING for those representatives in their capacities as INDIVIDUALS. Where the ARTICLES were established on the sanction of the STATE legislatures, the CONSTITUTION bypassed the authority of those STATE governments and appealed directly to the fountain of all legitimate authority in the PEOPLE of the United States who, as individuals, voted for the delegates who attended the Ratifying Conventions held in each of the states. Anyone trying to suggest that a clause in which the "Right of the PEOPLE" to Keep and Bear Arms was "understood" as meaning a "Right of the STATES" to arm their militias, etc., is either IGNORANT of the most fundamental distinctions between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution... or has forgotten them... or is simply lying to you."

 

218879233_123277913336441_58265697961295

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Well, it's obvious you don't read your own posts, as unrelentingly dishonest as they are.  Your irrational ravings show just a stream of consciousness  you put zero effort into refining into cohesive thought.

 

I've actually developed a sense of pity for you, Scout.  Your life is about rage and hatred and nigh-unto pathological confusion as to why anyone could find you and your arguments so sadly pathetic.

 

Spartan.  No matter how melodramatic your emotional writings are,

it doesn't change the historic record.  The Founders had nothing against gun control and history shows us that no matter how many lies  you try telling.  We are smarter than you dumbfucks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

 

 

Bullshit, from both Slideman AND Scout, since the individual right was THE "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment going back to the earliest court rulings on the subject.  The NRA didn't even exist, and Scalia was a century away from even being born when the Supreme Court stated that the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms predated the Constitution and was not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

 

"Those who advance the "Collective Rights Theory" insist that the attribution of the right to keep and bear arms to "the people" meant the people in their collective capacity through the STATES... or that the Second Amendment was meant to protect a Right of the STATES to "arm their militias." Allow me to suggest that such a view reflects (to be charitable) an ignorance of the single most fundamental controversy of the Federal Convention of 1787; a controversy resolved in what came to be known as "The Great Compromise". ...The delegates had been sent to Philadelphia to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation - a forerunner (of course) to the Constitution which established a Congress composed of a single house whose members were appointed by the STATE legislatures (representing the people in their COLLECTIVE capacity as the citizens of a state) and in which every state, being represented AS a state, was afforded a single vote in the deliberations of that Congress, regardless of its population (being the number of INDIVIDUAL persons within each of the respective states). As the people, as individuals, were not allowed to participate directly in voting for their representatives in Congress, NEITHER could they be TAXED by that Congress directly. The Congress would make requests or "requisitions" for each of the STATES to contribute to its treasury and the STATE governments would then try to find a way to collect that revenue from their citizens. As this had failed quite miserably, it was decided that the PEOPLE, as INDIVIDUALS, should be afforded the ability to vote, directly, to elect their representatives in at least one House of a new BI-cameral legislature in which each state would receive a number of representatives that would be proportional to the size of its population relative to the others. More PEOPLE = More REPRESENTATIVES. As the states with smaller populations were fearful of being overwhelmed by those with larger populations, it was agreed that ONE of the TWO houses in the legislature of the NEW Government should maintain the principle of an "Equality" of members PER State, regardless of its population. And, as it was feared that the State Governments might be overwhelmed by the powers and jurisdiction of the new, Federal Government, it was agreed to allow the STATE legislatures to continue to appoint the members of that other house - the SENATE. Finally, as the Articles of Confederation required the UNANIMOUS agreement of all of the STATE legislatures to any amendments (and the government of the Articles had been sactioned only by the authority of the STATE legislatures)... and where the delegates sent to Philadelphia to AMEND the ARTICLES now realized that the refusal of the legislature of one small state (such as Rhode Island or Delaware) could prevent any new government being established, it was resolved to draft an entirely new CONSTITUTION which was to receive its sanction from the PEOPLE of the states through the agency of CONVENTIONS to be held in each state in which the PEOPLE of the states were to elect members to consider nothing but the question of whether or not to CONSENT to or RATIFY the new CONSTITUTION. I could continue to give illustrations of this point. But, to bring the point home, the simple fact is that it is impossible to begin to understand the CONSTITUTION of the United States without understanding the terms "STATES" and "PEOPLE" in the most clear and distinct terms. The SENATE represents the people COLLECTIVELY through the representatives appointed by the STATE legislatures. The HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES is composed of members elected by the PEOPLE of the United States VOTING for those representatives in their capacities as INDIVIDUALS. Where the ARTICLES were established on the sanction of the STATE legislatures, the CONSTITUTION bypassed the authority of those STATE governments and appealed directly to the fountain of all legitimate authority in the PEOPLE of the United States who, as individuals, voted for the delegates who attended the Ratifying Conventions held in each of the states. Anyone trying to suggest that a clause in which the "Right of the PEOPLE" to Keep and Bear Arms was "understood" as meaning a "Right of the STATES" to arm their militias, etc., is either IGNORANT of the most fundamental distinctions between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution... or has forgotten them... or is simply lying to you."

 

218879233_123277913336441_58265697961295

 

 

All fabricated by Spartan, the gunstroke.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Poor... Thing.

 

Someone may save you.

 

2e4514d76a3e700832b481140b4c07f1.jpg

No, what said was, "Yeah, unless u are in the shower.  Or do u lay it on the toilet?  Do u sleep with it under your pillow too?

 

Lol!  Paranoid little pussy ass gun scum are afraid of everything.  Poor little dick heads!"🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, supraTruth said:

No, what said was, "Yeah, unless u are in the shower.  Or do u lay it on the toilet?  Do u sleep with it under your pillow too?

 

Lol!  Paranoid little pussy ass gun scum are afraid of everything.  Poor little dick heads!"🤣

 

Liberal Pussy Victim.

 

You are safe - only by the manliness of others.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, supraTruth said:

Yeah, unless u are in the shower.  Or do u lay it on the toilet?  Do u sleep with it under your pillow too?

 

Lol!  Paranoid little pussy ass gun scum are afraid of everything.  Poor little dick 

On 7/19/2021 at 3:40 PM, supraTruth said:

While u PANSY ASS idiot SNOWFLAKE GUN SCUM ARE STILL LOOKING FOR YOUR GUNS, I SEE WEAPONS IN EVERYTHING.

 

    Oooooooo

 

 Do you hear voices too tough guy?

You're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Liberal Pussy Victim.

 

You are safe - only by the manliness of others.

 

 

U wish.  There are weapons EVERYWHERE if u are not such a PANSY ASS GUN SCUM DEPENDENT ON GUNS for your FALSE BRAVADO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Squatchman said:

    Oooooooo

 

 Do you hear voices too tough guy?

You're an idiot.

74 & have NEVER needed a gun.  When have u ever NEEDED 1 other than for varmints on your big spread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, supraTruth said:

74 & have NEVER needed a gun.  When have u ever NEEDED 1 other than for varmints on your big spread?

  Hopefully you or I never have the need to defend ourselves.

 I'm 45 ,6'5 285 lbs. and a black belt.

 You wouldn't think I would have need for a gun would you?

 Times are different than they were just 25 years ago. 

 I've owned guns all of my life but only just recently bought a few for home and personal defense.

 We had a guy have a stand off with the cops here 2 years ago. Armed. With an Ar 15. Only 3,000 people in the whole county.

 Last year a guy was killed when 2 guys broke in and shot him. They took $365.00 and a 12 pack of beer.

 The days of criminals breaking in while your away are over. Now they don't care if you're home or not because they're armed.

 My nearest neighbor is like 3/4 of a mile away and the small sheriffs office is 25 miles away.

 Nobody coming soon enough to help if someone breaks in. Just me,my wife and my dog.

  Trying to take people's guns away won't solve a thing. Legal guns that is.

 Now these ghost guns? They need to go.

 Everyone should have to have a federal background check to buy a gun. Even long guns not just hand guns. Also at gun shows and for private sales. Those 2 places are where they lose track of the weapon and it gets on the streets in the hands of criminals.

 I also believe people should have to have a pistol license to carry a gun. Openly or concealed.

  There are literally millions of gun owners like me that obey all gun laws. Democrats and Republicans.

 We are not the ones that the government should be coming after.

 It's like saying since there are so many deaths by drunk drivers we're going to take all cars away.

  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 9:20 AM, Scout said:

 

Spartan.  No matter how melodramatic your emotional writings are,

it doesn't change the historic record.  The Founders had nothing against gun control and history shows us that no matter how many lies  you try telling.  We are smarter than you dumbfucks.

 

 

Spare me your bullshit, Scout.  You're lying (as always), your claims about the Founders are demonstrably false, and your claims of being "smarter" are likewise nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 9:22 AM, Scout said:

 

 

All fabricated by Spartan, the gunstroke.

 

 

Nope.  Written by someone infinitely smarter and better educated than you will ever be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spartan said:

 

Spare me your bullshit, Scout.  You're lying (as always), your claims about the Founders are demonstrably false, and your claims of being "smarter" are likewise nonsensical.

 

YOu can post nothing that discounts my claims.

I'm solidly in the right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 1:37 PM, supraTruth said:

74 & have NEVER needed a gun.  When have u ever NEEDED 1 other than for varmints on your big spread?

 

52 and am alive today because I had a gun and knew how to use it.

 

Your dementia is showing, old man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scout said:

 

YOu can post nothing that discounts my claims.

I'm solidly in the right.

 

 

No, you're not.  You make claims without ANY backup or factual documentation.  NONE.  You have NEVER posted ANYTHING but your falsehoods and your opinions, and are delusional enough to think that's all the documentation you need.

 

I've posted plenty of historical justification for my position, and you just scream that what I posted was "proven" to be "made up" without any factual justification of that either.

 

You're a shill for the gun ban movement, a coward, a liar, and a rancid sack of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spartan said:

 

No, you're not.  You make claims without ANY backup or factual documentation.  NONE.  You have NEVER posted ANYTHING but your falsehoods and your opinions, and are delusional enough to think that's all the documentation you need.

 

I've posted plenty of historical justification for my position, and you just scream that what I posted was "proven" to be "made up" without any factual justification of that either.

 

You're a shill for the gun ban movement, a coward, a liar, and a rancid sack of shit.

 

Look, you have bought into the NRA bill of goods for decades.

I understand it is humiliating for you to discover you were suckered....just another of those Trump "suckers and losers".  But YOU CHOSE that

path and your lies will not help you now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Look, you have bought into the NRA bill of goods for decades.

I understand it is humiliating for you to discover you were suckered....just another of those Trump "suckers and losers".  But YOU CHOSE that

path and your lies will not help you now.

 

 

What have you got against self-protection and preservation.

 

A Liberty provided all living things?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

 

What have you got against self-protection and preservation.

 

A Liberty provided all living things?

 

 

 

I have nothing against people protecting their homes.  

Another gun incident thread is running in here now about 

a murder by cop in Phoenix.  He was protecting his home and

a cop murdered him for it.  Sounds like YOUR SIDE is the side that doesn't believe a man may protect his castle.

 

FACTS bite you in the ass again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scout said:

 

Look, you have bought into the NRA bill of goods for decades.

 

What is it you always say?  I don't bother with posts that start with lies?

 

The NRA is no friend of gun owners, and I've "bought into" nothing.  Instead, I've studied history and seen first hand what the benefits of weapons skill can bring in a crisis.  YOU'RE the shill; nothing but a mouthpiece for the totalitarian extremist left.

 

1 hour ago, Scout said:

I understand it is humiliating for you to discover you were suckered....just another of those Trump "suckers and losers".  But YOU CHOSE that path and your lies will not help you now.

 

 

Didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and still think he's one of the most vile human beings in existence.  Your empty partisan hyperbole has zero truth or merit... just like everything you post.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scout said:

 

I have nothing against people protecting their homes.  

Another gun incident thread is running in here now about 

a murder by cop in Phoenix.  He was protecting his home and

a cop murdered him for it.  Sounds like YOUR SIDE is the side that doesn't believe a man may protect his castle.

 

FACTS bite you in the ass again.

 

 

My Side...?

 

I am not a "side", Scout.

 

I am an Individual.

 

Do you actually believe that I do not support and defend Constitutional Liberty, in one's home as well as in public?

 

Think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skans said:

@Spartan is right; Scout is wrong in this issue.  Scout, you lose.

No, I don't.  

And that is why you post NOTHING to discount my opinion and LESS than nothing to bolster yours.  

 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...