CDZ Gun control laws what a joke

[oldsoul]

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller

I mis-represented nothing; nothing I said about Heller had anything to do with its application to the states or federal enclaves.

Your argument is based in whole, or in part on the findings in Heller. Heller only addressed the issue as it pertains to federal enclaves. McDonald, however, pertains to the states at large. By only referencing Heller you imply that that is the only case that speaks to the issue, hence the mis-representation. If, however, you where to reference both cases, you would have been quite correct, and not mis-representing anything. Call it splitting hairs, or nit-picking if you want. The fact remains the Court thought it an important enough distinction to have ruled twice on the matter, once for federal enclaves, and once for the states at large.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller

I mis-represented nothing; nothing I said about Heller had anything to do with its application to the states or federal enclaves.

Your argument is based in whole, or in part on the findings in Heller.

Yup. And I never once discussed to which level of government Heller did or did not apply.
And so, your ranting has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller

I mis-represented nothing; nothing I said about Heller had anything to do with its application to the states or federal enclaves.

Your argument is based in whole, or in part on the findings in Heller. Heller only addressed the issue as it pertains to federal enclaves. McDonald, however, pertains to the states at large. By only referencing Heller you imply that that is the only case that speaks to the issue, hence the mis-representation. If, however, you where to reference both cases, you would have been quite correct, and not mis-representing anything. Call it splitting hairs, or nit-picking if you want. The fact remains the Court thought it an important enough distinction to have ruled twice on the matter, once for federal enclaves, and once for the states at large.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here considering the point in question had nothing to do with the level in government whatsoever. The point was about the fact that the second has been ruled as an individual right.

Heller made that clear.

 

[oldsoul]

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller

I mis-represented nothing; nothing I said about Heller had anything to do with its application to the states or federal enclaves.

Your argument is based in whole, or in part on the findings in Heller. Heller only addressed the issue as it pertains to federal enclaves. McDonald, however, pertains to the states at large. By only referencing Heller you imply that that is the only case that speaks to the issue, hence the mis-representation. If, however, you where to reference both cases, you would have been quite correct, and not mis-representing anything. Call it splitting hairs, or nit-picking if you want. The fact remains the Court thought it an important enough distinction to have ruled twice on the matter, once for federal enclaves, and once for the states at large.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here considering the point in question had nothing to do with the level in government whatsoever. The point was about the fact that the second has been ruled as an individual right.

Heller made that clear.

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

 

[FA_Q2]

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller

I mis-represented nothing; nothing I said about Heller had anything to do with its application to the states or federal enclaves.

Your argument is based in whole, or in part on the findings in Heller. Heller only addressed the issue as it pertains to federal enclaves. McDonald, however, pertains to the states at large. By only referencing Heller you imply that that is the only case that speaks to the issue, hence the mis-representation. If, however, you where to reference both cases, you would have been quite correct, and not mis-representing anything. Call it splitting hairs, or nit-picking if you want. The fact remains the Court thought it an important enough distinction to have ruled twice on the matter, once for federal enclaves, and once for the states at large.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here considering the point in question had nothing to do with the level in government whatsoever. The point was about the fact that the second has been ruled as an individual right.

Heller made that clear.

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

 

[oldsoul]

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller

I mis-represented nothing; nothing I said about Heller had anything to do with its application to the states or federal enclaves.

Your argument is based in whole, or in part on the findings in Heller. Heller only addressed the issue as it pertains to federal enclaves. McDonald, however, pertains to the states at large. By only referencing Heller you imply that that is the only case that speaks to the issue, hence the mis-representation. If, however, you where to reference both cases, you would have been quite correct, and not mis-representing anything. Call it splitting hairs, or nit-picking if you want. The fact remains the Court thought it an important enough distinction to have ruled twice on the matter, once for federal enclaves, and once for the states at large.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here considering the point in question had nothing to do with the level in government whatsoever. The point was about the fact that the second has been ruled as an individual right.

Heller made that clear.

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

Aparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything about who's right the second protects, merely that the statements where mis-leading and that the case was being mis-represented.

 

[FA_Q2]

I mis-represented nothing; nothing I said about Heller had anything to do with its application to the states or federal enclaves.

Your argument is based in whole, or in part on the findings in Heller. Heller only addressed the issue as it pertains to federal enclaves. McDonald, however, pertains to the states at large. By only referencing Heller you imply that that is the only case that speaks to the issue, hence the mis-representation. If, however, you where to reference both cases, you would have been quite correct, and not mis-representing anything. Call it splitting hairs, or nit-picking if you want. The fact remains the Court thought it an important enough distinction to have ruled twice on the matter, once for federal enclaves, and once for the states at large.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here considering the point in question had nothing to do with the level in government whatsoever. The point was about the fact that the second has been ruled as an individual right.

Heller made that clear.

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

Aparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything about who's right the second protects, merely that the statements where mis-leading and that the case was being mis-represented.

*Sigh*

Yes you did. You directly challenged M14's use of the case and he was using it to show that there was a personal right that is protected. YOU apparently have a reading comprehension problem. It might be better if you didn't project your failure on others.

 

[KissMy]

Okay i personally am getting sick & tired of all these new laws there trying to pass to ban guns or have stronger background checks so certain people cant get guns these are known as gun control laws & you know what here is what i think of these dumb laws they are pointless & not needed because the more laws you create gun prices will just go up & it will just create more of a black market for them & if there are less laws & no background checks more people could have guns & defend themselves & crime would be at a low level & having a ton of false flag/hoax shooting attacks happen isn't helping ether i believe the right to bare arms & that everyone should get a gun & well if someone goes out & makes a bad choice & uses a gun on somebody blame the person not the gun so gun control laws are really unnecessary end of conversation.

Some gun control laws make us safer & some put us at greater risk. So your blanket statement that all gun control laws are pointless is retarded. All gun laws do not make prices go up, so again your statement is retarded. We are not having a ton of false flag/hoax shooting attacks so again your statement is retarded. Yes some gun control laws are really necessary end of conversation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes you did. You directly challenged M14's use of the case and he was using it to show that there was a personal right that is protected.

Correct. His rant against something I never addressed is full of poo.

 

[oldsoul]

Your argument is based in whole, or in part on the findings in Heller. Heller only addressed the issue as it pertains to federal enclaves. McDonald, however, pertains to the states at large. By only referencing Heller you imply that that is the only case that speaks to the issue, hence the mis-representation. If, however, you where to reference both cases, you would have been quite correct, and not mis-representing anything. Call it splitting hairs, or nit-picking if you want. The fact remains the Court thought it an important enough distinction to have ruled twice on the matter, once for federal enclaves, and once for the states at large.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here considering the point in question had nothing to do with the level in government whatsoever. The point was about the fact that the second has been ruled as an individual right.

Heller made that clear.

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

Aparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything about who's right the second protects, merely that the statements where mis-leading and that the case was being mis-represented.

*Sigh*

Yes you did. You directly challenged M14's use of the case and he was using it to show that there was a personal right that is protected. YOU apparently have a reading comprehension problem. It might be better if you didn't project your failure on others.

Where? I never challeged his use of Heller, I only pointed out his mis-representation of it. If you doubt me, prove it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here considering the point in question had nothing to do with the level in government whatsoever. The point was about the fact that the second has been ruled as an individual right.

Heller made that clear.

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

Aparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything about who's right the second protects, merely that the statements where mis-leading and that the case was being mis-represented.

*Sigh*

Yes you did. You directly challenged M14's use of the case and he was using it to show that there was a personal right that is protected. YOU apparently have a reading comprehension problem. It might be better if you didn't project your failure on others.

Where? I never challeged his use of Heller, I only pointed out his mis-representation of it. If you doubt me, prove it.

Since you;re asking for proof, prove that I mis-represented Heller.
Be sure to use the words I actually typed.

 

[oldsoul]

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

Aparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything about who's right the second protects, merely that the statements where mis-leading and that the case was being mis-represented.

*Sigh*

Yes you did. You directly challenged M14's use of the case and he was using it to show that there was a personal right that is protected. YOU apparently have a reading comprehension problem. It might be better if you didn't project your failure on others.

Where? I never challeged his use of Heller, I only pointed out his mis-representation of it. If you doubt me, prove it.

Since you;re asking for proof, prove that I mis-represented Heller.
Be sure to use the words I actually typed.

Already did.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

Aparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything about who's right the second protects, merely that the statements where mis-leading and that the case was being mis-represented.

*Sigh*

Yes you did. You directly challenged M14's use of the case and he was using it to show that there was a personal right that is protected. YOU apparently have a reading comprehension problem. It might be better if you didn't project your failure on others.

Where? I never challeged his use of Heller, I only pointed out his mis-representation of it. If you doubt me, prove it.

Since you;re asking for proof, prove that I mis-represented Heller.
Be sure to use the words I actually typed.

Already did.

That is, of course, a lie.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here considering the point in question had nothing to do with the level in government whatsoever. The point was about the fact that the second has been ruled as an individual right.

Heller made that clear.

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

Aparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything about who's right the second protects, merely that the statements where mis-leading and that the case was being mis-represented.

*Sigh*

Yes you did. You directly challenged M14's use of the case and he was using it to show that there was a personal right that is protected. YOU apparently have a reading comprehension problem. It might be better if you didn't project your failure on others.

Where? I never challeged his use of Heller, I only pointed out his mis-representation of it. If you doubt me, prove it.

LOL. So now you want to focus on word usage rather than your misstep. You didn't challenge his use just said he misrepresented it...

It is, essentially, the same thing. I am done with you, you are doing nothing but bogging down what would have otherwise been a good conversation with arguments that are accusatory and invalid.

Ill wait for 320 to come back - it is rare that we get a poster here of that caliber.

 

[oldsoul]

Heller made that clear for Federal Enclaves, McDonald made that clear for the states at large. So, to argue that the Heller ruling would pertain to anywhere outside of a Federal Enclave, would be to mis-represent the ruling. That, is the point. Yes, it is a minor pooint, however, in a debate that is as "controversial" as the debate surrounding the 2nd, it is essential to be very clear and accurate with your statements and argument, IMO.

It is not a minor point - it is an entirely incorrect point.

The FACT is that the second as an individual right or collective one has no relation WHATSOEVER with the level that the amendment applied to. That is a stone cold fact. IF McDonald was decided in another way that allowed the stated to do anything they wanted the second WOULD STILL BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. Just as Heller found. The states not being subject to a particular protected right does not change that to a collective one - it simply changes who is subject to those protections.

Aparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything about who's right the second protects, merely that the statements where mis-leading and that the case was being mis-represented.

*Sigh*

Yes you did. You directly challenged M14's use of the case and he was using it to show that there was a personal right that is protected. YOU apparently have a reading comprehension problem. It might be better if you didn't project your failure on others.

Where? I never challeged his use of Heller, I only pointed out his mis-representation of it. If you doubt me, prove it.

LOL. So now you want to focus on word usage rather than your misstep. You didn't challenge his use just said he misrepresented it...

It is, essentially, the same thing. I am done with you, you are doing nothing but bogging down what would have otherwise been a good conversation with arguments that are accusatory and invalid.

Ill wait for 320 to come back - it is rare that we get a poster here of that caliber.

Ill wait for 320 to come back - it is rare that we get a poster here of that caliber.

Agreed.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oldsoul and FA_Q2, if you are waiting for me to resume discussing the matter with M14, move on. I've decided he's not someone with whom I can have a substantive discussion on the topic at hand in this thread, so I have nothing further to say in reply to his remarks. I've basically determined that I'm "fighting an unarmed man." I just won't do that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oldsoul and FA_Q2, if you are waiting for me to resume discussing the matter with M14, move on. I've decided he's not someone with whom I can have a substantive discussion on the topic at hand in this thread, so I have nothing further to say in reply to his remarks. I've basically determined that I'm "fighting an unarmed man." I just won't do that.

Good to see you understand you do not have the capacity to stand and deliver.

 

[Dan Daly]

Historically, there was a time when you had the right to own a slave. Historically, there was a time when women didn't have the right to vote. Historically, there was a time when blacks weren't citizens.

Those deficiiencies in the Constitution have been corrected. Now it's time to correct another mistake in the Constitution. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Is somebody stopping you from trying? When you pull it off wake me...but keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment only attempts to guarantee an inalienable human right that predates both governments and constitutions. Molon labe.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Historically, there was a time when you had the right to own a slave. Historically, there was a time when women didn't have the right to vote. Historically, there was a time when blacks weren't citizens.
Those deficiiencies in the Constitution have been corrected. Now it's time to correct another mistake in the Constitution. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Bring it.
Don't just sit there and hide behind the internet -- get off your ass and do it.
Don't like the 2nd Amendment? Get off your ass and repeal it. Really. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I dare you.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oldsoul and FA_Q2, if you are waiting for me to resume discussing the matter with M14, move on. I've decided he's not someone with whom I can have a substantive discussion on the topic at hand in this thread, so I have nothing further to say in reply to his remarks. I've basically determined that I'm "fighting an unarmed man." I just won't do that.

?

I was referring more to the discussion that we were having...