The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[Antares]

Roo in no way postures anything, I am intelligent enough to know that the 2nd amendment guarantees me the "right" to own guns.

I also know that any attempt by the Fed to come get them will be unconstitutional, it is very simple.

Leave it to you to try and help Joe defend his indefensible statement.

9IDdoc is correct: no one state lege is going to pass a gun confiscation law.

Roo postures that he is a Constitutional authority. If the police comes for him, he will go meekly.

 

[JoeB131]

acutally, I do. It's called "voting".

So if the rest of us vote to take your guns, because quite frankly, you are frightening the children, are you really going to shoot the cops when they try to do their job?

Your "question" is an attempt to deflect from your own stupid words.

You don't have the authority to "allow" anyone to keep their guns...nomatter you spin, shuck, or jive those are your words...own them.

You got caught being stupid, deal with it.

You see Joe....we are talking about YOUR words kiddo.

YOUR words, not the law...one must remember what one posts dad...cause I will.

Again, you didn't answer my question. If the majority decides we are going to put an end to private gun ownership like the UK did, are you really going to shoot at police officers when they come to collect your guns.

Yes or no. I want to know how far your fanaticism goes and just how fuckin' crazy some of you people are.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Or maybe "Branch Davidians 1993".

Roo in no way postures anything, I am intelligent enough to know that the 2nd amendment guarantees me the "right" to own guns.

I also know that any attempt by the Fed to come get them will be unconstitutional, it is very simple.

Leave it to you to try and help Joe defend his indefensible statement.

9IDdoc is correct: no one state lege is going to pass a gun confiscation law.

Roo postures that he is a Constitutional authority. If the police comes for him, he will go meekly.

 

[zeke]

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

Or maybe "Branch Davidians 1993".

Roo in no way postures anything, I am intelligent enough to know that the 2nd amendment guarantees me the "right" to own guns.

I also know that any attempt by the Fed to come get them will be unconstitutional, it is very simple.

Leave it to you to try and help Joe defend his indefensible statement.

9IDdoc is correct: no one state lege is going to pass a gun confiscation law.

Roo postures that he is a Constitutional authority. If the police comes for him, he will go meekly.

Yea, the Federal government can pick you up for a "terrorist" and deny you due process in court. Who would have ever, EVER thought that would happen. And I think the COTUS give us access to due process under our laws. Until the "Patriot Act" was passed by Congress.
The gun rights of Americans could be superseded as well. Just label gun owners
"terrorists".

 

[Abatis]

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

Then amass the political capital to alter the law.

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

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

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

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

Consider this. Every other major industrialized country in the world has tighter controls on guns than we do. They have less murders, less people in prison, etc.

Those nations have had gun control for a long, long time enacted for political control, not crime control. That generations of compliant disarmed subjects don't use guns to kill each other is not really noteworthy. It is interesting that recent gun controls enacted in response to crime haven't been all that successful in keeping gun crime down. If it's just a matter of having highly restricted legal access to guns then Jamaica should be the safest place on Earth.

I really love the line about "Coddling" criminals. Seriously, What the ****? We lock up 2 million Americans and have another 7 million on probation, parole or supervision. We lock up more people than Communist China does.

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

As a conservation minded fisherman I endorse the concept of catch and release . . . not or armed criminals though.

You are willing to ignore the havoc cause by those who have demonstrated their willingness to violate society's rules and instead focus your ire on the law-abiding citizens who are the least likely to commit a crime.

That's coddling in my mind and even worse, it shows that you really think that law-abiding fellow citizens are more of a threat to your vision of society than armed criminals running amok.

You truly are a despicable individual and it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would be eager to kill those standing up for rights you have decided don't exist (nutters as you call them).

QFT:

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

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

 

[Abatis]

If the majority decides we are going to put an end to private gun ownership like the UK did, are you really going to shoot at police officers when they come to collect your guns.

__________________________

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).
​

__________________________
​

Yes or no. I want to know how far your fanaticism goes and just how fuckin' crazy some of you people are.

And how far does yours go? Say a sizable insurgency was begun would you support the injuries to other rights that would happen with government engagement against a sizable citizen resistance?

A couple off the top of my head:

Control of information, newspapers, radio, TV
Control of communication, cell phones, text messaging and internet
Control of travel / movement
Control of necessary consumer goods and services, food, water, fuel, electricity
Warrantless search and seizure

The more government cracks down the more people say enough and join the resistance to the illegitimate government (and the more the military looses its appetite for killing citizens and join the resistance). This has been a debate of political philosophy since Aristotle and Plato. It is clear which side the framers were on and which side you are one . . . Big hint, they ain't the same.

What would you see the post-insurgency government / citizen relationship to be, after the government won? Really, after killing off all those willing to fight them do you really think that an administration that just used weapons of war against US citizens would hold normal elections and just hand over power if they lost? Why the hell would they feel any requirement to ask the citizens for any approval / direction in governance?

Of course you really could just be advocating for the rise to power of a dictator or other form of authoritarian government who would ignore the Constitution, Congress and the courts. Seems like another odd disconnect though, you seem to take pride in your military service but then you are so vocal in your opposition to the principles you swore to support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, the question to you (and the others here endorsing your position) is . . .

Given said insurgency, could you envision a point where YOU would recognize that the government is no longer, 'the government established by the Constitution', recognize that it has mutated into something else, with no connection to the Constitution and say ENOUGH and join the "nutters"?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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

Or maybe "Branch Davidians 1993".

Roo in no way postures anything, I am intelligent enough to know that the 2nd amendment guarantees me the "right" to own guns.

I also know that any attempt by the Fed to come get them will be unconstitutional, it is very simple.

Leave it to you to try and help Joe defend his indefensible statement.

9IDdoc is correct: no one state lege is going to pass a gun confiscation law.

Roo postures that he is a Constitutional authority. If the police comes for him, he will go meekly.

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

 

[Crackerjack]

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

Or maybe "Branch Davidians 1993".

Roo in no way postures anything, I am intelligent enough to know that the 2nd amendment guarantees me the "right" to own guns.

I also know that any attempt by the Fed to come get them will be unconstitutional, it is very simple.

Leave it to you to try and help Joe defend his indefensible statement.

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

Meet Joe. He generally makes it up as he goes.

 

[Abatis]

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

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

You have a child-like understanding of these things.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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

Or maybe "Branch Davidians 1993".

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

Meet Joe. He generally makes it up as he goes.

That may be, but I just want to know if that is his premise? I don't want to jump to conclusions.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

Gosh! Unconstitutional. Whoda thunk it?
How's that gun ban thing workin out there for ya, Joe?

 

[Antares]

Joe made an asinine statement, got called on it and came up with this silly scenario to deflect from his gaffe.

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

Gosh! Unconstitutional. Whoda thunk it?
How's that gun ban thing workin out there for ya, Joe?

 

[Antares]

Any length to justify your silliness, I get it.

Let me know when YOU get to vote on my "right" bear arms, I'll wait.

You really aren't very good at this.

acutally, I do. It's called "voting".

So if the rest of us vote to take your guns, because quite frankly, you are frightening the children, are you really going to shoot the cops when they try to do their job?

Your "question" is an attempt to deflect from your own stupid words.

You don't have the authority to "allow" anyone to keep their guns...nomatter you spin, shuck, or jive those are your words...own them.

You got caught being stupid, deal with it.

Again, you didn't answer my question. If the majority decides we are going to put an end to private gun ownership like the UK did, are you really going to shoot at police officers when they come to collect your guns.

Yes or no. I want to know how far your fanaticism goes and just how fuckin' crazy some of you people are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why are the gun nuts acting Too Stupid?

No one is going to confiscate their guns.

 

[Abatis]

Why are the gun nuts acting Too Stupid?

No one is going to confiscate their guns.

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

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

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

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

 

[Borillar]

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

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

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

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

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

Inside Clackamas Town Center Mall - CNN.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why are the gun nuts acting Too Stupid?

No one is going to confiscate their guns.

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

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

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

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

Recall this when someone on the right claims there’s no right to privacy concerning abortion.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Or maybe "Branch Davidians 1993".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JoeB131]

Any length to justify your silliness, I get it.

Let me know when YOU get to vote on my "right" bear arms, I'll wait.

You really aren't very good at this.

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

But keep stroking your gun, it makes up for your tiny penis. Really. I know you need to believe that.