Zone1 We need a left vs. right experiment

[Lockback]

Protip. Your kids aren't moving to oklahoma, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, and West Virginia.

Can you show your bigotry any more clearly?
"I hate rural white folk. They're so ... so ... simple, you know. Now hand me some more brie, dear."

 

[postman]

Rallies fall under the purview of the event organizer, and when considering the President of the United States they may be subject to regulations enforced by the Secret Service (only included that because you nitwits like to argue with every little thing, and I am unsure what rallies you are talking about).

Otherwise, it is not federal law.

The purview of the event organizer?

So the owner of the property or business, can restrict gun possession?

So the state, or the country, as the owner of public roads, can do the same?

 

[progressive hunter]

The purview of the event organizer?

So the owner of the property or business, can restrict gun possession?

So the state, or the country, as the owner of public roads, can do the same?

the people own those things not the government,,

 

[postman]

not me,,

judges give opinions and dont set law,, and last I heard the 2nd A is still the law of the land,,

And every law can have restrictions placed upon it by a compelling government interest.
As the supreme court has said over and over, The no right is absolute.
Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose.

 

[Bitterhook]

what did you mean when you said you dont keep it on your nightstand so couldnt post it??

Now you just aren't following what was the conversation, and the comment you had made that I was responding to.
You had asked me if I was "going to post it or not" (and that would indicate impatience and expectations on your part).

'Not having it posted on my nightstand' means I had to look it up, which I stated directly before indicating it wasn't on my nightstand, because if it was there I wouldn't have to look it up

You did that 8 minutes after the initial request to post it, and 4 minutes prior to when I actually posted it, like I am somehow on your time clock, and wasn't already looking it up when you asked me the second time. Not including the fact of how hard is to find something when a search engine tries to steer you away from the actual information you are searching for in regard to some subjects and whatever their agenda may, until you ask the perfect question (it took me about 5 tries to get it to cough up the goods).

Is there anything else I posted that you might not understand, and that you feel unreasonably insecure and compelled to ask about?

 

[progressive hunter]

And every law can have restrictions placed upon it by a compelling government interest.
As the supreme court has said over and over, The no right is absolute.
Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose.

the government is the people, the rules are the constitution and it says

Second Amendment​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

of course I have a right to keep and bear arms,, but its not to just shoot you for no reason,,

you failed again,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Now you just aren't following what was the conversation, and the comment you had made that I was responding to.
You had asked me if I was "going to post it or not" (and that would indicate impatience and expectations on your part).

'Not having it posted on my nightstand' means I had to look it up, which I stated directly before indicating it wasn't on my nightstand, because if it was there I wouldn't have to look it up

You did that 8 minutes after the initial request to post it, and 4 minutes prior to when I actually posted it, like I am somehow on your time clock, and wasn't already looking it up when you asked me the second time. Not including the fact of how hard is to find something when a search engine tries to steer you away from the actual information you are searching for in regard to some subjects and whatever their agenda may, until you ask the perfect question (it took me about 5 tries to get it to cough up the goods).

Is there anything else I posted that you might not understand, and that you feel unreasonably insecure and compelled to ask about?

Second Amendment​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[postman]

the people own those things not the government,,

Actually the state or county owns them.
Think of it as the government holds all public land and property in trust of the people. Like national parks. As an individual citizen you have no right of ownership.

 

[Stryder50]

Ah, the mythical Defensive Gun Use.

here's the thing with that argument.

According to the FBI, there are only 200 justifiable homicides a year by civilians with guns. So you gun fetishist would have us believe there are a million times a year that you can prevent a crime with a gun, and you can fulfill your fantasy of shooting a darkie...er, I mean a 'bad guy'. But 99.9998% of the time, you don't do it.

What guns do make it easy if for criminals to commit crimes, and this is NOT a problem they have in Europe or Japan. Worse, a gun in the home makes it easier for that argument over a silly domestic issue to turn into a tragedy.

Not sure which of the many mental illnesses you have applies to this distortion of a post, but where does "prevent a crime" equal a "justifiable homicide". ????

One of many problems with you lying "liberals" is you lack of reading comprehension skills and your over abundance of distortions and misrepresentations.

Problems they have in Europe and Japan would be two different situations.

Japan tends to be largely a single ethnic culture/population and since there is very little immigration and blending of ethnics and races there, seems they have less social frictions than in the Americas and Europe.

As for Europe, lumping all the countries together mangles the data on crimes and weapons usage. However, overall where they don't have firearms as readily available, that doesn't stop use of blades, clubs, "blunt instruments", and fists and feet, etc.

 

[progressive hunter]

Actually the state or county owns them.
Think of it as the government holds all public land and property in trust of the people. Like national parks. As an individual citizen you have no right of ownership.

the people,, unless its clearly marked as restricted its open for all under constitutional law,,

 

[Bitterhook]

The purview of the event organizer?

So the owner of the property or business, can restrict gun possession?

So the state, or the country, as the owner of public roads, can do the same?

The owner of the property can set requirements for any use of their property.
In the case of an event, the event organizer can request requirements or limits with the property owner.

Legally, an attendee agrees to the requirements and limitations, when they enter a contract with the property owner and the event organizer, by purchasing a ticket to the event.

It has nothing to do with the US Constitution outside of property rights.

 

[postman]

the government is the people, the rules are the constitution and it says

Second Amendment​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

of course I have a right to keep and bear arms,, but its not to just shoot you for no reason,,

you failed again,,

The partisan supreme court ignored the first clause.

That unrestricted right by clear text, and historical usage granted unrestricted arms to the states in order to arm their militia. Not their general population.

Antonin Scalia did a great job twisting the meaning of "the people" to mean both individual and collective rights.

 

[postman]

the people,, unless its clearly marked as restricted its open for all under constitutional law,,

If it can be restricted, you have no ownership rights.
Therefore the people don't own public lands.

 

[progressive hunter]

The partisan supreme court ignored the first clause.

That unrestricted right by clear text, and historical usage granted unrestricted arms to the states in order to arm their militia. Not their general population.

Antonin Scalia did a great job twisting the meaning of "the people" to mean both individual and collective rights.

you have yet to explain what you mean by regulate,,

and as stated in the 2nd A of the constitution the right is for the people not the militia,,

 

[postman]

The owner of the property can set requirements for any use of their property.
In the case of an event, the event organizer can request requirements or limits with the property owner.

Legally, an attendee agrees to the requirements and limitations, when they enter a contract with the property owner and the event organizer, by purchasing a ticket to the event.

It has nothing to do with the US Constitution outside of property rights.

Interesting.
If Taylor Swift put a clause on all of her tickets, that purchase of the ticket, means they can't bring a firearm within 100 miles of the venue.

That would be legal, and O.K. with you?

 

[progressive hunter]

Interesting.
If Taylor Swift put a clause on all of her tickets, that purchase of the ticket, means they can't bring a firearm within 100 miles of the venue.

That would be legal, and O.K. with you?

you leftist ask some of the dumbest questions,,

 

[postman]

you have yet to explain what you mean by regulate,,

and as stated in the 2nd A of the constitution the right is for the people not the militia,,

Only if you totally ignore the first clause.

As in any contract. The basic principle is that every clause of a contract has to have significance in understanding the contract.

In short. no dicta allowed.

 

[postman]

you leftist ask some of the dumbest questions,,

Questions for which you have no answer.

Can the event giver make any requirement they want when a person agrees to buy a ticket?

 

[Bitterhook]

Second Amendment​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, now you have posted it twice and I have posted once.
Do you want a cookie?

 

[progressive hunter]

Only if you totally ignore the first clause.

As in any contract. The basic principle is that every clause of a contract has to have significance in understanding the contract.

In short. no dicta allowed.

the first clause is very significant,,

it describes whats needed,,

the 2nd describes why its needed,, "the security of a free state"

and the third describes how we get it,,


are you ever going to explain what you mean by "well regulated"??