The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[JoeB131]

"So if they pass a gun law in your state and confiscate your guns, you are really going to shoot at police officers and federal agents?"

Unless I was judged criminal or mentally incompetent through due process of law, such a law would itself be illegal as a gross violation of both the US and my State Constitutions. There would be an immediate uprising to replace whatever government was stupid and evil enough to pass such a law.
The right to keep and bear arms is the law of land. You might just as well stop whining about it.

Scalia dies of a heart attack. Obama appoints a liberal. Heller gets overturned as an awful idea and the feds start passing meaningful gun control.

I ask again, are you going to shoot at police officers when they enforce these laws?

"Scalia dies of a heart attack. Obama appoints a liberal. Heller gets overturned as an awful idea and the feds start passing meaningful gun control. "

The Constitution still says what it always has re the 2nd Amendment. The USSC does not have the authority to make law and government (in general and at all levels)
does not have the authority to make law except as allowed by the Constitution. What part of that do you have trouble understanding? What you seem to want would require a Constitutional amendment and that just is not going to happen because none but the idiotic would want one. And even at that there would remain the problem of State Constitutions.

"I ask again, are you going to shoot at police officers when they enforce these laws?"

I have the right to protect my family, myself, and my posessions from unlawful threats. And that would include from those who were once LOE's

You can have very tight gun laws under the second Amendment, and for most of our history, we did.

You know, that part abotu "A well Regulated Militia". Well, we can Regulate the shit out of gun ownership. We should probably start with not letting people who think they are the Joker buy guns. Just sayin'.

Totally who the Founders had in mind when they said "Well-Regulated Militia".

 

[JoeB131]

Then the legal threshold is too low. This ain't fucking rocket science, man.

Then amass the political capital to alter the law.

I am more comfortable that the government must meet an actual legal or medical threshold before rights disablement can be imposed. Your "common sense" standard is fraught with potential for abuse and discrimination. IOW, I would never trust you to have any influence as to the security of rights . . . You are an authoritarian with no respect for the rule of law or Liberty.

Well, the Army had a different opinion. Not only did they trust me with a gun, but they put me in charge of safeguarding hundreds of them (My MOS was 76Y). So your opinion, like most gun fetishists, doesn't count for much.

And the rest is the typical Derpa-derp about minorities and crime and all the other "blame everyone but the easy access to guns" the Fetishists go on about. So I'm going to just ignore it.

So, you are willing to reform the mental health standards so that subjective "feelings" are the standard but you are AOK with the criminal justice system that repeatedly catches gun toting criminals and then releases them without the convictions that would disable their right to own a gun?

I'm not really surprised by authoritarians but it is shocking to see such a disconnect displayed without compunction.

We let them go because more often than not, we've just run out of places to put them. That's the problem with a system that has made incarceration a big profit business. We lock up 2 million people. We have another 7 million on parole. Most of them for things they never should have been locked up for. And many of them would never have been able to commit crimes to start with if they didn't have easy access to guns.

Well, you certainly are not for locking up armed criminals. You are apparently just fine with letting them go with not even a slap on the wrist, with no legal status that impacts their right to purchase or own guns free to wreak havoc upon the citizens time and time again.

I think they should be banned for life from owning guns. But that's the point. The NRA have fought tooth and nail against ANY restriction on gun ownership.

QFT:

I was in the military, if they told me to go shoot some nutters, I'd have done it in a heartbeat.

You seem to be exactly the type of tyrant that would have no problem loading people on cattle cars . . . And I would gladly die with weapon in hand opposing you.

Yeah, right. Frankly, we had a bunch of nutters talking shit like this in the 1990's after Waco removed the Branch Davidians from the Gene Pool. And then you had 2nd Amendment Hero Tim McVeigh who decided he was going to blow up that oppressive Government Day Care center. Then you all sheepishly went away.

You gun nutters talk a lot of shit, but most of you are cowards when confronted.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Any asshole who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942."

Or maybe "Branch Davidians 1993".

Is you premise that because rights are not infallibly supported/enforced by the government that do not exist?

Um, yeah, there ARE no rights. Never were.

There are PRIVILAGES the rest of us let you have. Until the rest of us decide you don't.

Now, I'm not saying that what happened to the Nisii in WWII was a good thing. Far from it. It shows what scared panicky animals most people are. We got scared, and we abused the easiest victims we could find.

(Branch Davidians, who gives a fuck? Happy to have them out of the Gene Pool.)

I point out that we only have rights as long as everyone else recognizes you have them. And that's not really a "right", that's a privilage.

Now, I'll give the NRA credit, they've gotten SOOOO good at propagandizing that a large section of the country can't even think straight on guns. So when a crazy person like HOlmes mows down a theatre full of people, they say some crazy horseshit like, "Well, only if someone else in that theatre had a gun!" and people totally buy that as a premise. (Like more guns would have done a bit of good in that situation.)

Trite.

Rights are fundamental normative rules. They exist because people conceive them, and governments establish and enforce them. Your premise that they don't exist is as over-the-top as your frequent use of pictures to elicit emotional responses.

 

[Papageorgio]

Woooo...I think the 2nd amendment is very clear. Any weapon the government has, the people should have. We will need to be on equal footing if we ever want to overthrow the government like we overthrew the one in the late 18th century. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I will let this picture explain it more easily:

Yes, the nutjob down the street should have tactical nukes in his basement because "any weapon the government has, the people should have." You should be able to have weaponized anthrax and VX nerve gas because the government has it.

When the founders created the Constitution, the weapons of the day were single shot muzzle loading muskets and rifles. They didn't envision weapons that could level an entire city or kill every living thing on the planet. If they could have foreseen these weapons, I bet they would have worded the 2nd amendment very differently.

If you want to bring this discussion down to what weapons an infantry soldier carries should be available to ordinary citizens, that is more reasonable, yet still too much. The carnage that can be caused just by semi-automatic weapons is considerable, but at least it won't take out whole cities. Just scores of ordinary people. Coming soon to a theater or shopping mall near you.

Turns out that the latest mall shooting happened today across town. Wonder how many more of these will happen before any change in gun control laws are finally made.

Inside Clackamas Town Center Mall - CNN.com

What changes do you want to see?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Yes, the nutjob down the street should have tactical nukes in his basement because "any weapon the government has, the people should have." You should be able to have weaponized anthrax and VX nerve gas because the government has it.

When the founders created the Constitution, the weapons of the day were single shot muzzle loading muskets and rifles. They didn't envision weapons that could level an entire city or kill every living thing on the planet. If they could have foreseen these weapons, I bet they would have worded the 2nd amendment very differently.

If you want to bring this discussion down to what weapons an infantry soldier carries should be available to ordinary citizens, that is more reasonable, yet still too much. The carnage that can be caused just by semi-automatic weapons is considerable, but at least it won't take out whole cities. Just scores of ordinary people. Coming soon to a theater or shopping mall near you.

Turns out that the latest mall shooting happened today across town. Wonder how many more of these will happen before any change in gun control laws are finally made.

Inside Clackamas Town Center Mall - CNN.com

What changes do you want to see?

Thank you. A "change" could be removal of all control. I always find it refreshing when change is called for with absolutely no specificity.

I support the 2nd Amendment for two reasons: a) it is part of the Constitution and b) I understand the fundamental justification for it. Aside from that, I don't believe in lawlessness and there has to be sensible laws in place concerning these handy little devices that are designed for no other reason than to kill. I am all ears to solutions, but rarely in these debates do we see actual specificity offered. It's usually a cavalcade of emotional appeals, horror stories, slippery slopes, and the occasional picture thrown in to fire up the senses. The 2nd Amendment is there. If you want change to gun control, give us a solution. Otherwise, STFU.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sorry that in your country you have those worries, but here in the USA folks have the 2nd Amendment. They do not have to worry about "councils" or "reformed courts" or "majority opinion". You need to move here.

Why are the gun nuts acting Too Stupid?

No one is going to confiscate their guns.

We are just kinda-sorta responding to the prolific postings telling us that the rights we claim don't exist and whatever rights could be said to exist are going to be completely removed by either a majority vote or a leftist reformed court and that any talk about us resisting the government agents sent to enforce the disarmament decree is just a gunnut fantasy cause we are all a bunch of pussies and will just roll over and "go meekly" and whoever among us that don't comply will be killed (by a certain poster's own hand, if only . . . ).

So, is your above comment telling us that you think you and your cohort in absolutism is/are completely full of shit with all that, that our guns are completely safe and we should just ignore you and those other posters?

Thanks for the heads up but where's the fun in that?

Exposing you and your ilk's constitutional and legal ignorance is just too much fun.

 

[Abatis]

You are a lot closer to tighter gun laws than you think.

Actually, YOU are a lot closer to witnessing a vast swath of gun control being swept off the books and suffering a long period of complete and utter impotence of the left in getting any meaningful restrictions enacted.

You can have very tight gun laws under the second Amendment, and for most of our history, we did.

Where? You do know the difference between federal and state laws don't you?
You have heard of a 2010 Supreme Court case titled McDonald v Chicago?
The 2nd Amendment has only been enforced on state action since June 28th of 2010.

So far you have ignored a post above from 9thIDdoc:

"The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions," he continued.

Do you know who uttered that and when and about what? LOL

You know, that part abotu "A well Regulated Militia". Well, we can Regulate the shit out of gun ownership.

You haven't a clue do you? I doubt you could catch a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues even if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.

Totally who the Founders had in mind when they said "Well-Regulated Militia".

You are spouting nonsense demonstrating multiple levels of constitutional ignorance and misconstruction.

 

[Abatis]

Well, the Army had a different opinion. Not only did they trust me with a gun, but they put me in charge of safeguarding hundreds of them

What are you babbling about? Who's rights were you safeguarding sitting in a wire cage in the bowels of a supply depot?

(My MOS was 76Y). So your opinion, like most gun fetishists, doesn't count for much.

LOL. As if the fantastical detached from reality mutterings of a supply clerk with delusions of shooting civilians means anything.

We let them go because more often than not, we've just run out of places to put them.

Well, in the situation I quoted it is all about case clearance; in typical leftist MO, it's appearances over substance. The primary focus is just moving the criminals through the system, not punishment for crime or "protecting society".

Between this "taking the easy way out" and the leftist social engineering policies infecting the mental health and criminal justice system you have created a 'catch and release' conservation program for kooks and criminals. You keep letting them out while telling the law-abiding to live their lives in the society you have created full of homicidal maniacs while actively promoting that the means for the regular citizen to defend themselves from your progeny be forcibly removed from them.

This is quite evident in the oft heard gun control rant that because cities (usually Democrat led for decades) are such hellholes of crime and human degradation and death and the leftist created social misfits that prey on the cities use guns, cities should be 'have the right' to enact whatever gun control they wish because nobody should have a gun in Chicago because Chicago and Montana are so different they demand different laws (so much for equality) . . .

You sound like lawmakers in 1866 Mississippi enacting the Black Codes . . . Yeah, now you can't call out "Negros and Mulattoes" for disarmament but you can be geographically specific, (wink, wink).

Democrats never change.

And many of them would never have been able to commit crimes to start with if they didn't have easy access to guns.

Bullshit. The majority of both murder victims and murderers are already criminals and have significant prior criminal histories. In some cities the percentages for victims are upward of 75, 80, even 90%.

For those CONVICTED of murder, 58% had at least one prior felony arrest, 21% had 5 or more prior felony arrest charges, and 10% had 10 or more.

36% of those convicted of murder had an active criminal justice status when arrested for that murder (out of jail on some form of supervised release like parole or probation).

Combine those stats with what I quoted earlier about gun criminals being arrested again and again and again and again and again and again and again for gun crimes and getting some sort of perverted probation and expungement of all charges and records and I declare your focus on gun control on the law-abiding is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

I think they should be banned for life from owning guns.

Yeah sure you do. Your ignoring of what I posted and dismissal of it shows you, like most leftists would rather not attack the real problem of criminals running rampant and instead focus your ire on law-abiding fellow citizens because your political / social anti-gun agenda is more important.

But that's the point. The NRA have fought tooth and nail against ANY restriction on gun ownership.

Once again proving you have no attachment to reality.

You gun nutters talk a lot of shit, but most of you are cowards when confronted.

I can beat you on any field of battle be it philosophical, historical, legal, constitutional or actual combat and if you doubt me just give it a try.

For the first four you have offered nothing but a faithful impersonation of the Black Knight.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw"]JoeB131 debating the Constitution:[/ame].

 

[Abatis]

I am sorry that in your country you have those worries, but here in the USA folks have the 2nd Amendment. They do not have to worry about "councils" or "reformed courts" or "majority opinion". You need to move here.

Why are anti's so irredeemably obtuse and ignorant?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You haven't a clue do you? I doubt you could catch a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues even if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.

Am I the only parent of small children thinking of this right now?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Trite.

Rights are fundamental normative rules. They exist because people conceive them, and governments establish and enforce them. Your premise that they don't exist is as over-the-top as your frequent use of pictures to elicit emotional responses.

If people conceive rights, then they aren't granted by a all-loving sky pixie.

People used to think they had a "right" to smoke whenever they wanted. Today, you pretty much can't smoke inside any office, resturant, bar, school or anywhere else. Frankly, we've kind of stigmatized the smoker.

Which would indicate it was never a "right", it was a privilage the rest of us slowly but surely took away.

I think you are making my argument for me...

 

[JoeB131]

[

LOL. As if the fantastical detached from reality mutterings of a supply clerk with delusions of shooting civilians means anything.

More than you did, I'm sure.

You sound like lawmakers in 1866 Mississippi enacting the Black Codes . . . Yeah, now you can't call out "Negros and Mulattoes" for disarmament but you can be geographically specific, (wink, wink).

Thanks for outing your racism. That didn't take long at all. Hey, Stormfront, you are missing one of your idiots...

 

[JoeB131]

You are a lot closer to tighter gun laws than you think.

Actually, YOU are a lot closer to witnessing a vast swath of gun control being swept off the books and suffering a long period of complete and utter impotence of the left in getting any meaningful restrictions enacted.

Keep telling yourself that.

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Bet we'll find out that everyone in his life knew he was crazy and he had no problem getting a gun. AGAIN.

So far you have ignored a post above from 9thIDdoc:

.

I usually ignore 9thIDdoc because I think he's slightly retarded, and I'm just happy they are letting him out of the home.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

[

Trite.

Rights are fundamental normative rules. They exist because people conceive them, and governments establish and enforce them. Your premise that they don't exist is as over-the-top as your frequent use of pictures to elicit emotional responses.

If people conceive rights, then they aren't granted by a all-loving sky pixie.

People used to think they had a "right" to smoke whenever they wanted. Today, you pretty much can't smoke inside any office, resturant, bar, school or anywhere else. Frankly, we've kind of stigmatized the smoker.

Which would indicate it was never a "right", it was a privilage the rest of us slowly but surely took away.

I think you are making my argument for me...

Nice try. Sky pixie. You're a hoot.

What you're talking about are rights people "think" they have for which they have no basis for claiming. I think even you can differentiate between the ability to smoke in a public building and something in the Bill of Rights such as due process or freedom of the press.

Smoking. Are you pulling my leg?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Bet we'll find out that everyone in his life knew he was crazy and he had no problem getting a gun. AGAIN.

Last I heard he stole the gun from a friend...

There is ALREADY a law against theft, Joe...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Glad to see your meds are working, GuyPinestra.

Joe, the kid stole the gun, and there are laws against theft.

2nd Amendment is clear.

You don't like it, change the Constitution, because SCOTUS won't do this one for you.

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Bet we'll find out that everyone in his life knew he was crazy and he had no problem getting a gun. AGAIN.

Last I heard he stole the gun from a friend...

There is ALREADY a law against theft, Joe...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You statist right wing "engineering project" would turn American into a Wild West.

We are fine the way we are, and you have no worry about anyone coming for your guns unless you are a criminal.

Now stop being anti-America.

I am sorry that in your country you have those worries, but here in the USA folks have the 2nd Amendment. They do not have to worry about "councils" or "reformed courts" or "majority opinion". You need to move here.

Why are anti's so irredeemably obtuse and ignorant?

 

[9thIDdoc]

You are a lot closer to tighter gun laws than you think.

Actually, YOU are a lot closer to witnessing a vast swath of gun control being swept off the books and suffering a long period of complete and utter impotence of the left in getting any meaningful restrictions enacted.

Keep telling yourself that.

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Bet we'll find out that everyone in his life knew he was crazy and he had no problem getting a gun. AGAIN.

So far you have ignored a post above from 9thIDdoc:

.

I usually ignore 9thIDdoc because I think he's slightly retarded, and I'm just happy they are letting him out of the home.

Poor ole Joe is just too busy living in his fantasy world where gun control laws actually effect gun access to anyone who doesn't wish to abide by them to be concerned about reality much less current events. Reality:

"Appeals court overturns Illinois concealed carry law in gun rights victory"

SPRINGFIELD - In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a divided federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois' Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.

"The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

So Joe, what was that you were saying about gun bans?
Do try to be a good loser.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Actually, YOU are a lot closer to witnessing a vast swath of gun control being swept off the books and suffering a long period of complete and utter impotence of the left in getting any meaningful restrictions enacted.

Keep telling yourself that.

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Bet we'll find out that everyone in his life knew he was crazy and he had no problem getting a gun. AGAIN.

So far you have ignored a post above from 9thIDdoc:

.

I usually ignore 9thIDdoc because I think he's slightly retarded, and I'm just happy they are letting him out of the home.

Poor ole Joe is just too busy living in his fantasy world where gun control laws actually effect gun access to anyone who doesn't wish to abide by them to be concerned about reality much less current events. Reality:

"Appeals court overturns Illinois concealed carry law in gun rights victory"

SPRINGFIELD - In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a divided federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois' Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.

"The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

So Joe, what was that you were saying about gun bans?
Do try to be a good loser.

That's gonna leave a mark!!

 

[GuyPinestra]

This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.

Ahhh, sweet sanity!