What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gun registration in California? They just signed a law giving gun owner information to outside parties..

Abatis

VIP Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
422
Reaction score
108
Points
80
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
I alrady pointed out US v. Miller stated that there was a constitutional basis for gun control. Full stop. Done. Mike drop. That Scalia took the crazy NRA position doesn't take away from that.

I know you said that but you just saying that without any support for the statement means there is no "full stop" and definitely no "mike drop". That you never bother to actually rebut what I write shows you are stating what you FEEL the law is and maintaining your positions without any regard for that the real legal situation is.

Scalia didn't take the NRA's position, the SCOTUS has never endorsed any interpretation but:

The 2ndA recognizes a pre-existing right and secures an individual right without any reference or dependency on the Constitution and is possessed, exercised and protected without any conditioning based on the citizen's militia association / membership (or lack thereof).

Miller makes no hard determination on the constitutionality of gun control; Miller has been interpreted that government possess powers to restrict the possession and use by private citizens, the types of arms that are "dangerous and unusual".

So I'll ask, what exactly did Miller say about the possession and use by a private citizen of a shotgun with a barrel length OVER 18 inches long? I will not be holding my breath for your explanation . . .

Just for shits and giggles, I will repost what I wrote to you earlier about Miller that you chose to not acknowledge and certainly not reply to:

BEGIN--------------------

All Miller can be argued to say is the Court didn't have enough information to decide that the 2nd Amendment protected the civilian's possession and use of that one type of arm. Looking at Miller as a legal determination, the NFA-34 wasn't "upheld" by direct decision, it only received a stay of execution.

See, SCOTUS is not a fact finding body; it only considers the arguments presented to it by the parties. In Miller, the Court only heard the government's arguments, there was no appearance for Miller and Layton. The case ended with SCOTUS remanding the case for further proceedings, sending the case back down to have the lower court establish the relevant facts that were missing and perhaps SCOTUS could revisit the case if it was appealed again.

Having those facts -- is a sawed-off shotgun a type of arm that is any part of the ordinary military equipment or could it be used effectively in the common defense -- would allow the Supreme Court to actually decide the case. Of course Miller was dead and Layton took a plea deal so the case just evaporated, leaving a half-drawn picture, ripe for anti-gun liars to misrepresent the case.

Which they did to effect a couple years later in the lower federal court decisions I spoke of; Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" interpretation and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation.

SCOTUS has never endorsed any other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but that it is an individual right possessed by the private citizen, protecting his personal arms, without any militia association conditioning.

---------------------END

If you have any legal argument that refutes those legal facts, I would love to hear it. I am not interested in you emoting and telling me how icky guns are and how terrible gun rights supporters are for demanding government not exercise powers it was never granted.

.
 

Abatis

VIP Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
422
Reaction score
108
Points
80
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
I spin??
2a just spun a whopper with cheese. A third of gun owners have defended themselves with their guns?? And many more than once!!

And presumably not against lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Yes, you spin.

This little diversion proves spin is your go-to, to avoid real discourse and debate.
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
30,737
Reaction score
8,364
Points
1,330
No, it's a clarification.... that for every bad guy shot in a home, 39.7 people killed themselves, .6 died in stupid accidents and 2.7 was a family member killing another family member.

NONE of those deaths would have happened if there was no gun in the home. Period.
Total BS. Those suicides would have happened regardless.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
91,353
Reaction score
30,832
Points
2,250
No, it's a clarification.... that for every bad guy shot in a home, 39.7 people killed themselves, .6 died in stupid accidents and 2.7 was a family member killing another family member.

NONE of those deaths would have happened if there was no gun in the home. Period.


No...2.7 wasn't a family member killing another family member.......try a gain.
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
30,737
Reaction score
8,364
Points
1,330
Not true. Most mass shooters either give up because the run out of ammo or they shoot themselves.
And someone else shooting them speeds up that process. Let's see, which prevents more death, a guy shooting until he runs out of ammo or a bullet that stops him before he gets off half his shots?
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
30,737
Reaction score
8,364
Points
1,330
Naw, man, the Democrats threw those people out in 1964... and Republicans welcomed them with open arms.
Then it should be easy to produce the names of dozens or hundreds of politicians that switched parties en masse at that time.
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
30,737
Reaction score
8,364
Points
1,330
Okay, it wasn't the politicians... it was the voters.

Yeah, a politician would have no credibility saying, "I'm a Republican now that my party decided to let Negroes ride in the front of the bus". But the white racist voters who kept returning them to office just found new racist assholes to support. As Lee Atwater put it.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”

Like to move those goalposts, don't you?
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
Yes, you spin.

This little diversion proves spin is your go-to, to avoid real discourse and debate.
The only way I could see some possible truth in the 1/3 thing is if 2A is including gun owners being threatened with a punch in the face and they drew their gun to protect themselves.

And then the 1/3 would still seem like a stretch. Maybe 1 in 10?

It's likely that the Harvard study wouldn't have taken that into consideration and so it's reasonable to ask the question of why not?
Also, does 2A include needing a gun to protect oneself from an animal attack? That could be estimated at perhaps 1 in 200 or 300 or 1000. But hardly the purpose of the survey.

It's only fair to try to make some sense of his wild 1/3 claim.
 

JohnDB

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
591
Points
163
And people (on the left) wonder why ghost gun sales and private party manufactured gun resales are going through the roof...

The government IS out to get you.
 

Abatis

VIP Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
422
Reaction score
108
Points
80
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
The only way I could see some possible truth in the 1/3 thing is if 2A is including gun owners being threatened with a punch in the face and they drew their gun to protect themselves.

And then the 1/3 would still seem like a stretch. Maybe 1 in 10?

It's likely that the Harvard study wouldn't have taken that into consideration and so it's reasonable to ask the question of why not?
Also, does 2A include needing a gun to protect oneself from an animal attack? That could be estimated at perhaps 1 in 200 or 300 or 1000. But hardly the purpose of the survey.

It's only fair to try to make some sense of his wild 1/3 claim.

WTF makes you think I am interested in your take of a point 2Aguy made?

Spin, distract, spin, dissemble, spin, misdirect . . .

.
 

Polishprince

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
32,071
Reaction score
18,096
Points
1,915
What Gun Control-Freaks fail to consider is the fact that criminals aren't interested in a fair fight. They want to rob, rape and kill without being challenged. If they think someone might be armed, they will back away.

The existence of legal firearms is a huge problem in their profession.

No one has to "be shot" , whether they are good or bad, in order for firearms to save lives.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
1,364
Points
188
WTF makes you think I am interested in your take of a point 2Aguy made?

Spin, distract, spin, dissemble, spin, misdirect . . .

.
Ignore me if you aren't interested. What the fk makes you think I care about any of you crackpots?
 

Abatis

VIP Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
422
Reaction score
108
Points
80
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
Ignore me if you aren't interested. What the fk makes you think I care about any of you crackpots?

I'd be interested if you could demonstrate some self-respect and intellectual integrity and actually debate.

What I'm not interested in is your hand-waving freakout red herrings trying to divert attention away from you discarding your earlier arguments.

You erect grand scenarios just to demonize people, talking about 'black guns' and 'silhouette targets' and how that manifests fantasies of killing people and how that is just the training program for the gun nut crazies who are doing the mass shootings in America.

This chimera of gun-crazed maniacs you have invented is not the product of a rational mind and your writing exposes your personality flaws and hate for other people, especially those who are conservative. Your characterizations, accusations and assignments of detestable intent are just not what reasoned, civilized people do and it's never a substitute for discussion and debate.

As I said, these wild fantasies that you assign to gun owners is all projection, a futile attempt to mask your own insecurities and hostilities and the transfer those feelings you feel to others.

When we read the statements that you make that are supposedly grounded in facts or events, we see they aren't just wrong, they are complete misrepresentations, products of your political bias, your spin.

You claim to want to discover what "the possible reasons are" for the "far, far too many mass shootings in America" and suggest we need to take, "a closer look at a few of the extreme gun personalities posting on this board might provide some clues as to what drives their attitudes".

Wow . . .

I reply with statements on mass shootings, driven by irrefutable crime stats that I hoped you would challenge me on, but I guess it was easier to abandon your (now worthless to you) statements, and divert and try to red herring the discussion into 2ndaguy's comments, as if I'm expected to discuss / defend them.

I said, I'm not interested in your diversions for discarding of your arguments and your complete lack of intellectual integrity. I understand you can't allow yourself to be engaged in an actual debate where facts are shared, you can only operate in an insulated bubble of your prejudiced, anti-social fantasies about gun rights supporters and gun owners.

How sad.
 

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
5,974
Reaction score
2,366
Points
893
I'd be interested if you could demonstrate some self-respect and intellectual integrity and actually debate.

What I'm not interested in is your hand-waving freakout red herrings trying to divert attention away from you discarding your earlier arguments.

You erect grand scenarios just to demonize people, talking about 'black guns' and 'silhouette targets' and how that manifests fantasies of killing people and how that is just the training program for the gun nut crazies who are doing the mass shootings in America.

This chimera of gun-crazed maniacs you have invented is not the product of a rational mind and your writing exposes your personality flaws and hate for other people, especially those who are conservative. Your characterizations, accusations and assignments of detestable intent are just not what reasoned, civilized people do and it's never a substitute for discussion and debate.

As I said, these wild fantasies that you assign to gun owners is all projection, a futile attempt to mask your own insecurities and hostilities and the transfer those feelings you feel to others.

When we read the statements that you make that are supposedly grounded in facts or events, we see they aren't just wrong, they are complete misrepresentations, products of your political bias, your spin.

You claim to want to discover what "the possible reasons are" for the "far, far too many mass shootings in America" and suggest we need to take, "a closer look at a few of the extreme gun personalities posting on this board might provide some clues as to what drives their attitudes".

Wow . . .

I reply with statements on mass shootings, driven by irrefutable crime stats that I hoped you would challenge me on, but I guess it was easier to abandon your (now worthless to you) statements, and divert and try to red herring the discussion into 2ndaguy's comments, as if I'm expected to discuss / defend them.

I said, I'm not interested in your diversions for discarding of your arguments and your complete lack of intellectual integrity. I understand you can't allow yourself to be engaged in an actual debate where facts are shared, you can only operate in an insulated bubble of your prejudiced, anti-social fantasies about gun rights supporters and gun owners.

How sad.
Feel better now? That's good.
 

Abatis

VIP Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
422
Reaction score
108
Points
80
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
Feel better now? That's good.

No, actually I pine for 1990's anti-gunners; back then reasoned debate could be had . . . Of course hen the anti's had the lower federal court's interpretation of the 2ndAmendment on their side. Back then, when definitive statements were made about law or crime they would be discussed in the context of the information and attacks were confined to challenges of the claim or the information's veracity.

Now when anti-gunners make a statement that is entirely a product of misinformation or clouded by political bias, a challenge or refutation by a gun rights supporter is met with anger and hostility. This is because anti-gunners hold their policy positions as emotional constructs, not legal or logical constructs and they perceive any challenge as an attack on their feelings.

When their anger subsides and if the anti is still in the thread, we see what we see above, abandonment of the previous points and positions and various logical fallacies thrown out to divert attention from the lack of defense of the original point.

It's OK, after 30 years of enjoying the gun rights vs. gun control debate, I'm no longer surprised by how bereft of actual argument the the anti-gun side is.

I accept that someone can not be reasoned out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into but that does not negate the necessity of destroying the anti-gunners ridiculous statements / claims . . . Lest anyone believe they know what they are talking about.

.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
137,209
Reaction score
17,202
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Having a "right" does not mean that government is incapable of doing something horrible, the acceptance of that truth is the primary principle of the Constitution. The Constitution is a contract that has as its most important purpose, limiting the powers of government to only what is included in the contract, to only what the people have chosen to grant to it.
You kind of miss the point about Japanese-Americans. It wasn't the government that did it, it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who did it.

Funny thing, not one person rushed out and said, "You can't take Ito, he's my friend!!!" Quite the contrary, the interment of Japanese Americans was INCREDIBLY popular at the time. Japanese Americans sued against the policy, and were rejected by SCOTUS in three different cases. (Koramatsu v. US being the key one.)

And it didn't stop there. There were frequent hate crimes against ALL Asians, not just the Japanese-Americans. My personal favorite was that in the Green Hornet radio plays, Kato was Japanese until Pearl Harbor, when he miraculously became a Filipino.

Not that we've learned anything in 80 years, given the response to Trump Plague was to go beat up some Asian people.


Having a "right" means there is a means and mechanism to correct government abuse of power and even punish those in government or government itself for egregious illegiimate acts.

And when was the last time someone in government was actually punished? I mean besides the occasional city cop who loses his job for shooting a black kid in the back? Clinton and Trump proved we really can't hold people in government accountable, that's the thing.

The exercise of powers not granted is illegitimate and could, when those abuses have piled up and the people have reached their limit, force the nullification of the contract by the people and the reclaiming of all the powers originally conferred. If that reclaiming of power can not be completed without violence, the people retain the right to keep and bear arms and can eliminate the usurpers.

Uh, huh. And who gets to decide that? Frankly, what you are recommending is anarchy, not a process.

Let's take the 1/6 Riot. There was an election, they lost, so they stormed the capitol. What if they decided to show up with guns instead? YOu really think this is a good thing. Sadly, a lot of people on your side do, and that's the problem.


Hmmmmmm . . . What if the conveyance you see as "allowing" the people to do these things (let's call it a "Constitution") is predicated on certain fixed and unalterable principles that demand government treat the people as the origin of all government power and that the powers of government are only borrowed from the people and the people retain the powers they did not confer as rights and government only possesses those powers for as long as government respects those rights and serves the people?

I mean on general philosophy I can't argue against (beyond semantics) your statement that "the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have" certain exemptions of government exerting power on you. We just disagree that the societal agreement that recognizes the people can act beyond the direct control of government either comes from the people or is a permission given to us from government (a permission that can be licensed, limited or rescinded for any reason "society" deems necessary).

Again, point is going right over your head. "Free Speech" is a nice principle, but I can point out a dozen cases where government has stepped in to limit it. The Hayes Commission was set up to censor movies, the Comic Book Code Authority was set up to censor comic books, right now, you have a bunch of people who want to censor what goes out on Social Media...

Freedom of Religion? Okay, so if I want to cut out the heart of my enemy as a tribute to Quetzalcoatl, should I be able to do that because my religion says so? Should David Koresh been allowed to molest children?

And these are clear cut freedoms, not a kneejerk reaction like the Militia Amendment that has been distorted by the gun industry.


So when one tears away the facade, YOU are the one that believes the Constitution is a suicide pact . . . We are stuck with government no matter how far it wanders for the contract that established it, or if it alters on a whim what we are "allowed" to do, we must meekly comply or we will be eliminated.

Or you just apply a little fucking common sense.

The Founding Fathers had militias in mind with the second Amendment, because in those days, muskets were only effect when fired in volleys - hence the term -'Well regulated".

They certainly didn't think that a guy like Joker Holmes should be allowed to run about with a semi-automatic rifle, because that would be crazy.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
137,209
Reaction score
17,202
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
If you have any legal argument that refutes those legal facts, I would love to hear it. I am not interested in you emoting and telling me how icky guns are and how terrible gun rights supporters are for demanding government not exercise powers it was never granted.

Again, I gave you one... Miller v. US.

Second Amendment is about militias and the government can regulate gun ownership.

That Scalia took the Crazy NRA position in Heller is the problem.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
91,353
Reaction score
30,832
Points
2,250
Dick tiny thinks Europe is a country (snicker).


Moron.......they disarmed their people...and when the socialists took over their countries they handed over their Jews and other targets of the socialists for murder...to the tune of 12 million innocent men, women and children........

More innocent people murdered in 6 years, across Europe, than 82 years of criminals in the U.S. murdering other criminals with guns.....
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top