Guns

[Bob Blaylock]

See post #595.

See post 315.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

See post 315.

Bob you know how Clayton loves to make wild ass unknowledgeable claims.

 

[Batcat]

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that codifies insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment does not ‘authorize’ private citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government predicated on the subjective, incorrect, and wrongheaded notion that the government has become ‘tyrannical’:

‘Justice Scalia, writing in Heller, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’

The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"

By Mike Dorf As I reported here , a few months ago I debated gun rights advocate Alan Gura about the future of gun regulation in the U.S....

www.dorfonlaw.org

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘deter crime,’ not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.

It is simply foolish to say the founders of our nation who had just engaged in an uprising against a tyrannical government would be opposed to allowing citizens in the future to do the same if the new government turned tyrannical. If they had really wanted their new government to be difficult to overthrow they would have implemented some form of gun control. Instead they guaranteed the right of a citizen to own firearms in the Bill of Rights.

Tanks are wonderful but eventually the rulers have to get out of the tanks and rule. We definitely had the superior army in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and yet in the end we lost. It is easy but not wise to underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare.

In passing we are nowhere close to needing an uprising to overthrow a tyrannical government but we are slowly moving in that direction.

When Guerrilla Warfare Can Succeed — And When It Will Fail – Jay Taylor Media

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bob you know how Clayton loves to make wild ass unknowledgeable claims.

Well, I could speculate about a donkey that is not domesticated, but then I would just be making a wild-ass guess.

 

[Open Bolt]

Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit.

That is incorrect. Everything that I said is true.

Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing,

Gun stats are hardly relevant.

I have looked up US and UK crime stats before, but that was 20 years ago. I am not interested enough to bother looking up current stats again.

You can look them up if you want to bother. If neither one of us wants to bother looking up current stats, then perhaps the issue of our comparative crime violence stats isn't that important to us.

per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't).

Insults are a poor substitute for a compelling argument.

The police are made up of police and certain officers trained to use firearms.

Are those "certain trained officers" willing to shoot people??

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is simply foolish to say the founders of our nation who had just engaged in an uprising against a tyrannical government would be opposed to allowing citizens in the future to do the same if the new government turned tyrannical. If they had really wanted their new government to be difficult to overthrow they would have implemented some form of gun control. Instead they guaranteed the right of a citizen to own firearms in the Bill of Rights.

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson​

Tanks are wonderful…

You're welcome.

 

[Open Bolt]

no rights are ‘violated’ when government enacts limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment consistent with its case law.

That is incorrect. If case law allows a right to be violated, those "allowed violations" are very much violations.

But do note that current case law says that people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

Current case law also says that people have the right to have any gun that the government has no compelling government interest in restricting.

Rightwing Second Amendment absolutists will often lie about background checks or carry permits being an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Having a different opinion than you do does not make someone a liar.

Having an honest disagreement with you about the facts also does not make anyone a lair.

Now, given the nature of facts, if you guys disagree on the facts, at least one party is likely to be wrong. But being wrong does not make someone a liar.

Indeed, that’s why most on the right have come to loathe Heller and its holding that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Some people on the right may loathe Heller. But there are also plenty on the right who remain delighted by the ruling.

 

[Blues Man]

We're talking about a society, not just a bunch of people that have no common interest.

And what part about a person's obligation to society isn't about society?

And FYI all societies are comprised of people with different interests which is why all societies have rules and laws.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually, the people have no such responsibility.

The concept of rights concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities; private individuals can’t ‘violate’ the rights of other private individuals.

Only government has the potential to violate rights.

Now, it could be said that people have the responsibility to follow the Constitution and its case law, to not use the authority of the state to violate others’ rights.

And no rights are ‘violated’ when government enacts limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment consistent with its case law.

I don't know anyone who doesn't think murder is a violation of the victim's rights

 

[Blues Man]

Actually, many conservatives say just that.

See posts #526 and #547 as examples.

Rightwing Second Amendment absolutists will often lie about background checks or carry permits being an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, that’s why most on the right have come to loathe Heller and its holding that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

The second is limited

There is only a right to keep and bear, or own and carry,

There is no right to discharge a weapon and no right to shoot any person. In fact there are very clear very strict laws in every state city and town regarding where and when a firearm can be discharged.

We already have clear federal laws defining who and who cannot legally own firearms and those laws are constitutional.

It's you people that want to keep passing more and more laws that are the problem because all we have to do is enforce the laws we have but we refuse to do so.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't know anyone who doesn't think murder is a violation of the victim's rights

You openly defend the murder of unborn children, and refuse to acknowledge it for the egregious human rights violation that it is.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We already have clear federal laws defining who and who cannot legally own firearms and those laws are constitutional.

Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find a Constitutional basis for government to infringe the right being affirmed?

 

[Blues Man]

You openly defend the murder of unborn children, and refuse to acknowledge it for the egregious human rights violation that it is.

A zygote is a potential person not a person YET.

I have always said viability outside the womb is where the line should be drawn.

 

[Blues Man]

Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find a Constitutional basis for government to infringe the right being affirmed?

HAs SCOTUS struck down those federal gun laws?

No?

Get back to me when they do.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

No they haven't. Handguns 12 inch, 30 cms, in length are legal to own. You utter thick mong.

You are American, your knowledge beyond your borders is below zero, get a passport and get your sorry fat arse moving.

And you can carry a handgun in public? Why hell no...lol. You can't even carry a pair of pliers in public. How's all that freedom working for you?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A zygote is a potential person not a person YET.

A lie does not become truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[Open Bolt]

A lie does not become truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I think you guys are arguing opinion, not truth vs falsehood (or lie).

But carry on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The second is limited

There is only a right to keep and bear, or own and carry,

There is no right to discharge a weapon and no right to shoot any person. In fact there are very clear very strict laws in every state city and town regarding where and when a firearm can be discharged.

We already have clear federal laws defining who and who cannot legally own firearms and those laws are constitutional.

It's you people that want to keep passing more and more laws that are the problem because all we have to do is enforce the laws we have but we refuse to do so.

In a lawful manner you do have the right to discharge a firearm example in self-defense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think you guys are arguing opinion, not truth vs falsehood (or lie).

But carry on.

Well someone can say something and it be wrong such as give in correct information. That's just a mistake. But when they keep repeating the false information that's when it becomes a lie.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think you guys are arguing opinion, not truth vs falsehood (or lie).

But carry on.

“Opinion” is often a cover for lies.

If I say that it is my “opinion” that two plus two equals ten, then I am not expressing a legitimate opinion, but an outright lie.