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

[Abatis]

Abatis said:

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.

It's fine that you describe your personal opinion as "common sense" but it's obvious you do that to avoid defending your goofy "suicide pact" statement. You are the one arguing a model that leaves the people without any relief from a bad government that no longer respects and obeys the principles of its establishment or the rules of its operation.

You demand only unquestioning obedience from the people without any recognition of their sovereignty and their right to consent to be governed.

Is "consent to be governed" just voting? What happen when elections are corrupt or cancelled by government?

What the hell is the, "consent to be governed" to you, if you reject any notion (let alone action) of the people rescinding their consent to be governed?

Instead of the Constitution being a contract to limit government and protect the people from government, you are arguing it is a delayed death warrant, able to be imposed at the discretion of the government at a time they shall determine.

THAT's why I call you people, leftist, statist authoritarians . . .


I'm combining your last comment in this post on militias, with my reply in your next post about Miller

.

 

[JoeB131]

By that description / definition, you are not discussing any right, thus this red herring is dismissed.

Except we aren't talking about "rights", we are talking about societal privileges. 50 years ago, the idea that some crazy person could stockpile an arsenal would have been considered crazy. Someone would have done something about it.

When the Black Panthers walked around carrying guns after some of their members were murdered by police in their own beds, Republicans signed off on laws against open carry, and the NRA supported it.

The vast majority of violence / assaults against Asians and Asian businesses were perpetrated by Blacks. Blacks have always had a grudge against Asians for their business models in Black neighborhoods and their success. COVID was just a convenient excuse for the perpetuation of the already existing hate and violence, and for its escalation.

Which Trump encouraged.. that's the point. But nice to see you try to blame black people... how racist of you.

I'm not sure if it was your point, (I can't assume it wasn't, given the stupid crap you throw out), but there certainly wasn't any motivation needed or marching orders received by Blacks from Trump, prodding them to assault Asians on the street.

Except why weren't Blacks beating up Asians or whites shooting up Happy Ending Massage Parlors before Trump started screaming "China Virus" and "Kung Flu"?

True Dat . . . But that does not alter the foundational principle.

Principles and an empty sack are worth the Empty sack.

The people demanding government to respect and obey the Constitution is not anarchy.

Does the significance and weight of that, register with you?

Not really. Again, what you are advocating is anarchy. Any bunch of asshole with guns can take down the government until the next bunch of assholes with guns comes along. That's not America, that's Afghanistan.

Seems to me your "self policing" examples are more comparable to the woke / cancel movement today in the private sector. The woke movement is doing exactly the same thing as the Hayes / Motion Picture Production Code was doing.

I think you miss the point. The Hayes Code was imposed because government was threatening to regulate the Motion Picture Industry, and not only because of what was going on screen, but what was happening behind the cameras. (For instance, the media-created Fatty Arbuckle Scandal, which got people very upset about Hollywood debauchery that wasn't happening.) Hayes got there because they were trying to beat the government to the punch.

Which goes back to my argument about holding gun sellers responsible. The government did the exact opposite. Some victims of gun violence actually did sue gun makers and sellers, namely the victims of the DC Snipers. Even though one was a felon and the other a minor, the gun sellers were sued for letting them have guns, and they were held accountable.

And Congress' response was to immunize gun sellers from lawsuits.

Whatever governmental action that's being proposed 'against' social media, is for government to remove special privileges and protections government had given to social media platforms for as long as they acted as impartial content platforms . . . Now that social media companies are using their platforms to advance policial agendas and are actively censoring content and people for political positions, I agree the protections should be removed. That isn't censorship.

The problem I see with Facebook isn't the problem you see with Facebook. The problem you see is that people flooded it with memes about Trump pointing out the absurdity of his presidency. The problem I see with it misinformation on it abounds, and not just about politics. The problem with Facebook is that they don't want to spend the money monitoring content for misinformation.

Bullshit argument, at least in the context of gun rights vs gun control. Are you arguing that the rights of consistence are defined by human sacrifice rituals in the same way you define the RKBA by murder?

Naw, I think both are pretty simple applications of common sense. There is no sane reason in the world where it made sense to sell a mentally ill person like Joker Holmes an automatic rifle and a 100 round clip, just like there is no sane reason to let Neo-Aztec cultists cut the hearts out of people.

 

[JoeB131]

It's fine that you describe your personal opinion as "common sense" but it's obvious you do that to avoid defending your goofy "suicide pact" statement. You are the one arguing a model that leaves the people without any relief from a bad government that no longer respects and obeys the principles of its establishment or the rules of its operation.

You demand only unquestioning obedience from the people without any recognition of their sovereignty and their right to consent to be governed.

Is "consent to be governed" just voting? What happen when elections are corrupt or cancelled by government?

Only people I see corrupting elections is your side... but when you still lose, you want to storm the capital and stockpile guns.

You people are a lot more fucking scary than any government.

What the hell is the, "consent to be governed" to you, if you reject any notion (let alone action) of the people rescinding their consent to be governed?

We have elections for that. When Republicans let us have elections.

Instead of the Constitution being a contract to limit government and protect the people from government, you are arguing it is a delayed death warrant, able to be imposed at the discretion of the government at a time they shall determine.

Again, the government isn't going to burst into a school or a theater or a shopping mall and start mowing people down... that would be one of your fellow Second Amendment Enthusiasts.

We have 400 mass shootings every year, and you really, really think that's an acceptable price to pay for the ability to overthrow government. This is an absurd argument.

If government goes off the rails, they have professional armies to back them up. They have tanks, bombers, drones... You really aren't going to do much about that with your personal arsenal.

So it's really not a good reason why I should have to be worried a disguntled coworker might shoot up the office the day he gets fired because you want to reserve a right to hold a failed revolt against the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Disagree of course.

You disagree with facts?
So much for your willingness to debate.

 

[Abatis]

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".

You continually throw out words and terms that have very specific meaning and definitions in constitutional philosophy, history and law but you apply your own meanings and definitions that have no reference to, or association with, the Constitution's foundational principles, its action and enforcement in law.

Your use of these specific terms and words has only one purpose, to advance an anti-gun and anti-rights agenda that is anti-historical and anti-constitutional and is hostile to the long and unwavering consideration and treatment of the possession and use of guns by private citizens under the Constitution.

You have created an alternate universe that is not based in legal reality, but you speak of it as if it is real and avoid at all cost, discussion that proves you are living a delusion.

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.

On multiple times now I have answered your Miller references and proven you are wrong and that what you present as the legal situation regarding the right to arms is not just wrong, but a complete perversion of the legal record.

You have ignored those posts, you have never quoted the pertinent parts or addressed any part of my arguments and yet you keep coming back with citations to the Miller case.

Wassupwiddat?

So I guess I could re-re-post my Miller series of posts for what it's worth, which you have proven is nothing to you.

You and I know you will run away from these facts again, but, as long as you keep coming back with "Miller v. US clearly stated" and "I gave you one... Miller v. US", I guess I could keep posting and re-posting and re-re-reposting again, a reference to and link to POST #221, which itself includes a copy of POST #118---- that both addressed Miller and went unanswered by you.

That you never bother to actually rebut what I write proves you are just spouting what you FEEL the law is or want the law to be and would rather not acknowledge anything that disrupts your fantasies.

You would rather maintain your falsehoods and illogisms without any regard for what is true, what the real legal situation is . . . And that situation is, SCOTUS has never endorsed any other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but that secures an individual right possessed by the private citizen, protecting his personal arms, without any militia association conditioning -- and it has done so in boringly consistent fashion, for going on 145 years.

.

 

[Abatis]

Yeah, he repeated a lot of the NRA spooge you guys repeat... but Heller ignored hundreds of years or precedent to give the NRA what it wanted.

I don't repeat NRA splooge, my arguments are based in and can be supported by or include original sources, either the words of the framers, the words of the Constitution or the words of the courts, including SCOTUS.

 

[Abatis]

Yet England didn't have widespread gun ownership, and neither did the United States until recent decades.

Of course England didn't have "widespread gun ownership". Arms in the hands of commoners were deemed a danger to the King and were restricted only for the landed gentry earning income from their land and the titled aristocracy. As Blackstone noted, English game laws were more intended to keep arms out of the hands of commoners, than protect any Grouse or Rabbits. . .

Madison in 1788 stated that, in a nation of just over 3 million souls, 500,000 citizens had "arms in their hands" and that the largest standing army the national government could assemble and maintain (1% of the population / 25K-30K soldiers) would be opposed by those armed citizens by a ratio of 17 armed citizens to each soldier.

Today, Madison's ratio still holds true -- with a bit of widening given the rights expansion for Blacks and Women!

Now we have 80,000,000 gun owners owning >400,000,000 guns standing "opposed" to a 'standing army' of 2,245,500 million active duty and reserve armed forces = 36 armed citizens vs 1 "soldier" . . .

 

[Abatis]

Except we aren't talking about "rights", we are talking about societal privileges.

Well, that's the cute little box you have put the gun law issue in (well, really, the entire Constitution). Whatever "discussion" you think you are having with "we", it is actually only occurring in your head.

You have constructed this fantasy as a coping mechanism so you don't need to engage in the actual discussions and operate in the legal realities of the gun law issue.

When the Black Panthers walked around carrying guns after some of their members were murdered by police in their own beds, Republicans signed off on laws against open carry, and the NRA supported it.

Aren't we are discussing the 2nd Amendment?

But nice to see you try to blame black people... how racist of you.

Since when are facts racist?

I did not make those statements out of malice.

Except why weren't Blacks beating up Asians or whites shooting up Happy Ending Massage Parlors before Trump started screaming "China Virus" and "Kung Flu"?

Is every reference you make completely disingenuous and manufactured emotion? The motive for the massage parlor murders was the perp's sexual hang-ups, there was no racial animus (COVID fluffed or otherwise) involved.

Principles and an empty sack are worth the Empty sack.

I would expect nothing else from someone who argues rights don't exist.

I think you miss the point.

Sez the guy who does nothing but ignore / bury / obfuscate / distract / dismiss the point.

Which goes back to my argument about holding gun sellers responsible. The government did the exact opposite. Some victims of gun violence actually did sue gun makers and sellers, namely the victims of the DC Snipers. Even though one was a felon and the other a minor, the gun sellers were sued for letting them have guns, and they were held accountable.

And Congress' response was to immunize gun sellers from lawsuits.

Another god-damned, utterly detestable mischaracterization of events and duplicitous misrepresentation of facts. IOW, typical . . .

Naw, I think both are pretty simple applications of common sense. There is no sane reason in the world where it made sense to sell a mentally ill person like Joker Holmes an automatic rifle and a 100 round clip, just like there is no sane reason to let Neo-Aztec cultists cut the hearts out of people.

Well, you have proven you either don't understand the legal processes here or simply reject them, so it is useless to try to explain them.

 

[Abatis]

We have 400 mass shootings every year,

According to the compiler that is the most accepted and cited in media and politics to track "mass shootings", the number of "mass shootings" for 2021, as of October 13, 2021 was 561.

The total number for 2020 was 611, for 2019 it was 417, for 2018 it was 336 . . .

and you really, really think that's an acceptable price to pay for the ability to overthrow government. This is an absurd argument.

You sound like a lunatic when you speak for other people, assigning them a position that they have never said . . . And then you have the gall to call that argument absurd. Well, I wholeheartedly agree, your characterization of what other people believe is absurd!

That argument you assign to me, that you say that "I really, really think", is entirely a product of your own mind, a position that your crazed imagination tells you that crazy gun rights supports must support . . .

You state as a fact what your deranged mind tells you gun right supporters must think, they just have to! Really, if they hold such "absurd" beliefs, you don't need to treat them as having any legitimacy or competency in the gun debate, you can claim total moral superiority and hold yourself immune to any opposing viewpoints . . . How wonderful that must be!

Calling your foolishness a straw-man is generous, really it is a sad tale of narcissism with a bit of psychopathy thrown in.

I understand you, I "get" you and know why you say what you say and do what you do. It's why you gravitate to leftism, it doesn't require thinking or knowing, only feeling and imposing your ego on others. That's why I'm so effective against you, I know what your weaknesses are:

​

Have you ever paid close attention to how a narcissist speaks? They use excessive, long-winded language charged with grandiose emotion. They skew reality to meet their worldview, and they believe their truth is always the truth.​

​

Additionally, through the use of cognitive empathy, they’ve spent their entire lives observing the emotional language of other people and using it to their advantage. So, when you speak in facts instead of using emotion, they intuitively understand they have less of an upper hand.​

​

Therefore, they hate when someone challenges them with facts instead of emotion. They will usually retaliate with more arguing or hysteria. This childish response simply shows that they feel out-of-control. They attempt to elevate the conversation’s intensity by throwing an emotional temper tantrum.​

​

If anything, this dynamic only highlights the narcissist’s immaturity. Their inability to absorb facts demonstrates their incompetence in approaching most adult interactions. They are not skilled in the language of facts because they are always lying and hiding things, so speaking factually throws them completely off-balance.​

​

You should, if you wan to be a more effective debate opponent, understand yourself and your faults but especially how you are perceived by others, especially those you denigrate, demean, demonize and disingenuously misrepresent.

You aren't as smart as you feel you are . . . LOL

How to Make a Narcissist Miserable: 12 Things They Hate

Wondering how to make a narcissist miserable? These 12 things they hate will do the trick. Learn what they are in the article.

kimsaeed.com

 

[JoeB131]

You continually throw out words and terms that have very specific meaning and definitions in constitutional philosophy, history and law but you apply your own meanings and definitions that have no reference to, or association with, the Constitution's foundational principles, its action and enforcement in law.

Your use of these specific terms and words has only one purpose, to advance an anti-gun and anti-rights agenda that is anti-historical and anti-constitutional and is hostile to the long and unwavering consideration and treatment of the possession and use of guns by private citizens under the Constitution.

You have created an alternate universe that is not based in legal reality, but you speak of it as if it is real and avoid at all cost, discussion that proves you are living a delusion.

Naw, man, I'm living in a world where we have active shooter drills, militarized police, and 43,000 gun deaths a year because of your bizarre fetish that the Founding Slave Rapists totally said you can have guns, so that makes it okay.

You and I know you will run away from these facts again, but, as long as you keep coming back with "Miller v. US clearly stated" and "I gave you one... Miller v. US", I guess I could keep posting and re-posting and re-re-reposting again, a reference to and link to POST #221, which itself includes a copy of POST #118---- that both addressed Miller and went unanswered by you.

I did answer it, just not an answer you wanted to hear.

What happened in Miller is that the Court realized the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and when you had Al Capone gunning people down in the street with tommy guns, we damned well needed to do something about that.

Of course England didn't have "widespread gun ownership". Arms in the hands of commoners were deemed a danger to the King and were restricted only for the landed gentry earning income from their land and the titled aristocracy. As Blackstone noted, English game laws were more intended to keep arms out of the hands of commoners, than protect any Grouse or Rabbits. . .

Actually, guns weren't terrible useful for hunting in colonial days... they just weren't that accurate... The real reason why commoners didn't have guns in the UK or US in the colonial period is that they were too expensive to afford. A gun cost more than a months wages for a skilled craftsman. It's why the militias had to get their guns from local government.

Lexington and Concorde wasn't the British taking guns from local owners, theywere trying to seize an armory with guns.

Madison in 1788 stated that, in a nation of just over 3 million souls, 500,000 citizens had "arms in their hands" and that the largest standing army the national government could assemble and maintain (1% of the population / 25K-30K soldiers) would be opposed by those armed citizens by a ratio of 17 armed citizens to each soldier.

Probably full of shit. Gun ownership was rare in colonial times.

Is every reference you make completely disingenuous and manufactured emotion? The motive for the massage parlor murders was the perp's sexual hang-ups, there was no racial animus (COVID fluffed or otherwise) involved.

Um, yeah, that's why he drove past a couple of strip joints full of white naked ladies to go shoot up a massage parlor with Asian Chicks in their 50's, 60,' and 70's

Because nothing says "Sexual hangup" better than an elderly Asian woman.

"Me so Horny... love you long time!"

Another god-damned, utterly detestable mischaracterization of events and duplicitous misrepresentation of facts. IOW, typical . . .

Not at all. The DC Snipers happened because of the negligence of the gun sellers. Either selling guns to people who had no business buying them or making it easy for them to steal one.

YOu see, any other industry would take measures to keep their products from being misused. When it was found that allergy medicine was being used to make Crystal Meth, the pharmaceutical industry took measures to limit their sale so these guys wouldn't buy them.

Not the gun industry, though! Bad guys with guns is good for business. You let some gangbanger buy a gun, you know that 100 scared nervous white people will want them, too!!!

Well, you have proven you either don't understand the legal processes here or simply reject them, so it is useless to try to explain them.

The legal process is that when you've watered down the rules on buying guns to be meaningless, you are going to have lots of bad guys with guns.

SO, yes, let's have the ATF regulate gun traffic, and then not fund it, and not put anyone in charge the NRA objects to. It's like letting the Mafia choose the FBI director.

So every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.

1) Everyone in that person's life KNEW he was crazy.
2) Despite that, they had no problem getting their hands on lots of guns and ammo.

So again, simple enough solution. Don't rely on the government. They'll just fuck it up.

Instead, rely on private industry. You can sell your guns, but when one of your prime customers shoots up a theater or a pre-school, the people harmed can sue you for selling to him to start with.

 

[JoeB131]

You sound like a lunatic when you speak for other people, assigning them a position that they have never said . . . And then you have the gall to call that argument absurd. Well, I wholeheartedly agree, your characterization of what other people believe is absurd!

That argument you assign to me, that you say that "I really, really think", is entirely a product of your own mind, a position that your crazed imagination tells you that crazy gun rights supports must support . . .

Uh, guy, you spent a couple pages here arguing the reason why we need guns is to threaten the government. Your boyfriend, 2AGuy gets on here every day claiming that every massacre in history was due to a lack of guns. (even if they were carried out with... guns.)

I understand you, I "get" you and know why you say what you say and do what you do. It's why you gravitate to leftism, it doesn't require thinking or knowing, only feeling and imposing your ego on others. That's why I'm so effective against you, I know what your weaknesses are:

Actually, you aren't effective at all... I mean, as some point, I'll get bored with your NRA Spooge and move on to other topics... but you aren't effective.

Here's the gag. Up until 2008, I was probably more right wing than you are. As far as being afraid of guns, I was in the Army for 11 years, and my MOS was 76Y, which means I've probably handled more guns than you and 2AGuy wank off about.

(For those playing along at home, 76Y was Unit Supply Specialist, or it was until the early 90's when the Army changed all the MOS Classifications. This included unit armorers who managed the arms vault and weapon maintenance.)

What changed for me is that instead of the sensible conservativism of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have devolved to using sexual, racial and religious fears to get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests. I realized this in 2008, when after having my career derailed by a twit who said, "This is why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union", I found myself with an underwater mortgage, a busted 401K and taking a job with a 25% pay cut because I was glad to just have a job after the 2008 Crash.

Now, you would think that after Republicans being in charge for 10 of the last 11 recessions, working folks like myself would have the good sense to say, "Man, let's not ever let those guys are the controls again!!!"

But the GOP is very, very good at playing at the fears I mentioned above... which is why they can't stop talking about God, Guns and Gays. When Obama talked about people bitterly clinging to their guns and their bibles, they meant people like you.

Now, how does this apply to our discussion on guns?

Well, pretty simple. Up until the 1970's, most people were fine with sensible gun laws and gun control. When you had a spike of violence, you got more gun laws.

Then this funny thing happened. The Gun industry realized that with hunting falling out of fashion as a sport, they needed to sell guns to someone, and who better than a scared little white person terrified some darkie might want to take their stuff...

So let's flood the streets with cheap guns. Let's weaken the ATF to the point of irrelevance. Let's fight every sensible gun law, and go to full battle stations every time an Adam Lanza shoots up a school.

It's fucking insane.

 

[2aguy]

Naw, man, I'm living in a world where we have active shooter drills, militarized police, and 43,000 gun deaths a year because of your bizarre fetish that the Founding Slave Rapists totally said you can have guns, so that makes it okay.




I did answer it, just not an answer you wanted to hear.

What happened in Miller is that the Court realized the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and when you had Al Capone gunning people down in the street with tommy guns, we damned well needed to do something about that.



Actually, guns weren't terrible useful for hunting in colonial days... they just weren't that accurate... The real reason why commoners didn't have guns in the UK or US in the colonial period is that they were too expensive to afford. A gun cost more than a months wages for a skilled craftsman. It's why the militias had to get their guns from local government.

Lexington and Concorde wasn't the British taking guns from local owners, theywere trying to seize an armory with guns.




Probably full of shit. Gun ownership was rare in colonial times.



Um, yeah, that's why he drove past a couple of strip joints full of white naked ladies to go shoot up a massage parlor with Asian Chicks in their 50's, 60,' and 70's

Because nothing says "Sexual hangup" better than an elderly Asian woman.

View attachment 552445
"Me so Horny... love you long time!"




Not at all. The DC Snipers happened because of the negligence of the gun sellers. Either selling guns to people who had no business buying them or making it easy for them to steal one.

YOu see, any other industry would take measures to keep their products from being misused. When it was found that allergy medicine was being used to make Crystal Meth, the pharmaceutical industry took measures to limit their sale so these guys wouldn't buy them.

View attachment 552447

Not the gun industry, though! Bad guys with guns is good for business. You let some gangbanger buy a gun, you know that 100 scared nervous white people will want them, too!!!



The legal process is that when you've watered down the rules on buying guns to be meaningless, you are going to have lots of bad guys with guns.

SO, yes, let's have the ATF regulate gun traffic, and then not fund it, and not put anyone in charge the NRA objects to. It's like letting the Mafia choose the FBI director.

So every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.

1) Everyone in that person's life KNEW he was crazy.
2) Despite that, they had no problem getting their hands on lots of guns and ammo.

So again, simple enough solution. Don't rely on the government. They'll just fuck it up.

Instead, rely on private industry. You can sell your guns, but when one of your prime customers shoots up a theater or a pre-school, the people harmed can sue you for selling to him to start with.

Moron….the actual shooter stated he didn’t target them because they were Asian…you lying piece of crap……….

You are insane.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron….the actual shooter stated he didn’t target them because they were Asian…you lying piece of crap……….

You are insane.

Wow, so you are taking the word of a criminal at face value?

Yes, he realized that it didn't play well that he was targeting elderly Asian women, so he tried to claim it was about a sex addiction. Forget that he drove past a couple of strip joints between the first place he hit and the second and third places he hit. He shot those women because he was sex obsessed, but frankly, it would take a pretty serious case of "Yellow Fever" to find an 74 year old sexy.

 

[2aguy]

Wow, so you are taking the word of a criminal at face value?

Yes, he realized that it didn't play well that he was targeting elderly Asian women, so he tried to claim it was about a sex addiction. Forget that he drove past a couple of strip joints between the first place he hit and the second and third places he hit. He shot those women because he was sex obsessed, but frankly, it would take a pretty serious case of "Yellow Fever" to find an 74 year old sexy.

Yeah...moron....he isn't getting anything for saying he targeted them because of his sex addiction so there is no fucking reason for him to lie...he is already going to prison for life....you dumb ass....

Those were the types of places he frequented, and he targeted them......he stated this.....

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah...moron....he isn't getting anything for saying he targeted them because of his sex addiction so there is no fucking reason for him to lie...he is already going to prison for life....you dumb ass....

Those were the types of places he frequented, and he targeted them......he stated this.....

There's a very good reason for him to lie. Going to prison for the rest of his life vs. going to death row.

Even if he only gets a life sentence, being sent to prison branded as a racist is not a healthy thing, either.

But, yeah, he shot the 74 year old Asian Grandmother because he was sexually obsessed.. no, really.

 

[Abatis]

Naw, man, I'm living in a world where we have active shooter drills, militarized police, and 43,000 gun deaths a year because of your bizarre fetish that the Founding Slave Rapists totally said you can have guns, so that makes it okay.

None of that is the true nature of gun rights vs. gun control and none of the emotional import you feel from those things, alters the legal realities of the protection of right to arms or even the criteria for the right to be disabled for people who have been convicted of crimes or who have been legally declared insane.

I did answer it, just not an answer you wanted to hear.

You did not answer anything; you spun and dissembled and evaded and lied.

All I "want" to hear is you discussing Miller within the facts of the case and the actual determinations of the Court. I know you can't do that so, I guess I'll have to be happy posting that information and facts and showing you to be the leftist liar you are.

What happened in Miller is that the Court realized the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and when you had Al Capone gunning people down in the street with tommy guns, we damned well needed to do something about that.

And again, you are making statements, presenting them as legal facts "what happened in Miller" but of course are nowhere in the evidence presented or in the Court's statements in the decision.

As usual, all your posts are, are peeks into the alternate reality you have invented for the COTUS, SCOTUS and gun law in general, that allows you to hold the stupid positions you hold.

Nothing you say "happened in Miller" actually, really, "happened in Miller" . . . It is just your imagination spouting shit.

.

 

[Abatis]

Lexington and Concorde wasn't the British taking guns from local owners, theywere trying to seize an armory with guns.

Armory???????

The arms that Gage ordered seized on April 18, 1775, were stored in barns, stables, root cellars and houses in Concord because Gage was finally moving on the forced disarmament of Boston citizens, originally ordered in late 1774.

The arms of private citizens who supported the cause were being spirited out of Boston by Patriots for months as the earnest confiscation of citizens arms ramped-up. So while the arms in Concord on the morning of April 19th weren't all owned by "local owners", they sure as hell were privately owned arms and poweder and ball and provisions, amassed for the singular purpose of arming citizens, "for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty" (as Gage described it, in his orders to LtCol Smith, linked above).

Probably full of shit.

Yeah, James Madison was full of shit . . . SMH, your idiocy knows no bounds.

Gun ownership was rare in colonial times.

When Gage really cracked down and forbade anyone to leave Boston with guns or ammunition, an accounting of the confiscated arms for one day read:

"On the 27th of April the people delivered to the selectmen 1778 firearms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses; and on the same day it was announced in a town-meeting, that General Gage had given permission to the inhabitants to remove out of town, with their effects, either by land or by water; and applications for passes were to be made to General Robertson."​

Yeah, guns were rare which is why it was so important for the British to ban and confiscate them . . . You do know Bellesiles is a fraud, right? The lying POS won Columbia University's Bancroft Award in 2001, and Columbia rescinded it in 2002, the only time ever . . .

.

 

[Abatis]

Um, yeah, that's why he drove past a couple of strip joints full of white naked ladies to go shoot up a massage parlor with Asian Chicks in their 50's, 60,' and 70's

The FBI said there was no racial animus, they investigated Long and found no evidence of racial motivation.

Sorry.

The legal process is that when you've watered down the rules on buying guns to be meaningless, you are going to have lots of bad guys with guns.

If you think things are "watered down" now, you better have some therapy lined up for late June.

So every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.

1) Everyone in that person's life KNEW he was crazy.
2) Despite that, they had no problem getting their hands on lots of guns and ammo.

So again, simple enough solution. Don't rely on the government. They'll just fuck it up.

It's easy to find people willing to make the grand diagnosis after the person has done the crazy, that's too late though.

The people in a nutjob's life are the first line of protection (or defense), they are the ones who know the person best and see the changes but often deny the troubles are there and the person is delayed in being helped.

As the person descends into madness, untreated, with the people around them in denial, exactly what process do you envision could be brought to bear to stop them getting a gun, or disarm them if one is already owned?

You really, really, really seem to feel there is now, or should be, such a process or mechanism beyond what is in the law now, as set out in U.S.C 18 §922(g)(1-9). That of course says that no legal prohibition on gun ownership or purchase can be imposed without involuntary commitment or a judge adjudicating them as a mental defective.

You got anything along those lines beyond your typical fanciful leftist goofyness?

.

 

[2aguy]

There's a very good reason for him to lie. Going to prison for the rest of his life vs. going to death row.

Even if he only gets a life sentence, being sent to prison branded as a racist is not a healthy thing, either.

But, yeah, he shot the 74 year old Asian Grandmother because he was sexually obsessed.. no, really.

Moron, we can’t execute people anymore……….he has no reason to lie.

 

[2aguy]

Armory???????

The arms that Gage ordered seized on April 18, 1775, were stored in barns, stables, root cellars and houses in Concord because Gage was finally moving on the forced disarmament of Boston citizens, originally ordered in late 1774.

The arms of private citizens who supported the cause were being spirited out of Boston by Patriots for months as the earnest confiscation of citizens arms ramped-up. So while the arms in Concord on the morning of April 19th weren't all owned by "local owners", they sure as hell were privately owned arms and poweder and ball and provisions, amassed for the singular purpose of arming citizens, "for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty" (as Gage described it, in his orders to LtCol Smith, linked above).



Yeah, James Madison was full of shit . . . SMH, your idiocy knows no bounds.



When Gage really cracked down and forbade anyone to leave Boston with guns or ammunition, an accounting of the confiscated arms for one day read:

"On the 27th of April the people delivered to the selectmen 1778 firearms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses; and on the same day it was announced in a town-meeting, that General Gage had given permission to the inhabitants to remove out of town, with their effects, either by land or by water; and applications for passes were to be made to General Robertson."​

Yeah, guns were rare which is why it was so important for the British to ban and confiscate them . . . You do know Bellesiles is a fraud, right? The lying POS won Columbia University's Bancroft Award in 2001, and Columbia rescinded it in 2002, the only time ever . . .

.

He knows all about Belleville’s because I schooled the idiot on the fraud…the revoking of his award and the guy getting fired……..he knows all about that….