For the 2nd amendment "buffs"

[TSA]

TyXcY7NJHFg
Joyce Lee Malcolm, 2nd amendment scholar.

[ChumpDumper]

You mean the ban that isn't in the bill?

OK.

[TSA]

You're not a buff. Run along.

[TSA]

Blake, get out of here. You're not a buff either, and chump already posted, using your would be exact same reply.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you are?

You are poorly educated as demonstrated by your intellectual laziness, poor reading comprehension, and poor critical thinking skills. Frankly you are too dimwitted to be able to make that type of judgement much less be able to speak with any credibility about Constitutional matters.

Fearless prediction: TSA will now fixate on some aspect of my personal life and ask questions trying to get more details about me. Go on, beachcomber.

[TSA]

You've been exposed as a hypocritical gun owner, run along Fuzzy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No one cares about facets of my personal life but you. Apparently you are too slow to understand that you are all along on your Fuzzy possession fascination, beachcomber.

Semiautomatic bans work. Deal with it.

[Clipper Nation]

Semiautomatic bans work. Deal with it.
If they work so well, why do you personally choose to own guns? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If they work so well, why do you personally choose to own guns? :lol

I don't own any semi-autos.

Why don't you get to own automatic weapons?

[TSA]

I don't own any semi-autos.

Why don't you get to own automatic weapons?
You act like automatics are illegal, that's a stupid question.

[DMX7]

This "ban" is completely unprecedented and such "ban", if it ever were to be enacted, would most certainly be declared unconstitutional immediately.

[DMC]

You cannot find any real information in agenda based videos or websites. The real information is in USSC case law and in the BoR itself. Whether or not it makes anyone safer is irrelevant. The BoR isn't a luxury. The 2nd Amendment is to not be fucked with, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That's had hundreds of years of understood meaning and case law tied to it. When those raised in the naive bubble of security their entire lives start to oppose the security of the bubble, they will be defeated. You guys are recipients of generations of sacrifice, and if you think the 2nd Amendment isn't tied to the 1st, you're sadly mistaken.

Either way, you're just pissing in the wind. Law has never stopped a person from carry a weapon, legal or not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You act like automatics are illegal, that's a stupid question.

So where can you buy a full auto weapon?

Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons. There is a difference between a ban and a confiscation. No one is proposing confiscation although I think a buyback makes a lot of sense.

[Blake]

Blake, get out of here. You're not a buff either, and chump already posted, using your would be exact same reply.

I'm an amateur constitutional buff and i actually was only here watching the YouTube.

What exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish with this thread? If you run off anyone that might disagree with you, all you'll have left is a bunch of you high fiving/circle jerking with each other.

Is that really what you want?

[spursncowboys]

And you are?

You are poorly educated as demonstrated by your intellectual laziness, poor reading comprehension, and poor critical thinking skills. Frankly you are too dimwitted to be able to make that type of judgement much less be able to speak with any credibility about Constitutional matters.

Fearless prediction: TSA will now fixate on some aspect of my personal life and ask questions trying to get more details about me. Go on, beachcomber.

You just spent your entire post attacking him personally. Why wouldn't he do the same?

[spursncowboys]

I don't own any semi-autos.

Why don't you get to own automatic weapons?
Before I die, I will own a M2 Browning 50 cal. And not these new ones where you don't have to do the headspace and timing.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i dont see what the zionists and obama is doing thats anything different then commies, gettin rid of laws and reforms you all once enjoyed

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just spent your entire post attacking him personally. Why wouldn't he do the same?

Who says he can't? When I start asking him what kind of car he drives and his address you let me know. And no TSA, I don't want to know.

[boutons_deux]

Bowing to Second Amendment Myths

“We think of gun control as a modern 20th century invention, but in fact we’ve had gun control since the beginning of America. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that the leaders of today’s NRA wouldn’t support them.


“The Founding Fathers did not view the Second Amendment as a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun, anywhere he wanted. They restricted large portions of the population who they thought to be untrustworthy from possessing firearms.


“Not only were slaves and free blacks barred from having guns, but at times even law-abiding white men. If you weren’t willing to swear an oath of loyalty to the revolution, you were subject to disarmament. We’re not talking about traitors here. We’re talking about Americans who were exercising their freedom of conscience to oppose the war.


“The Founding Fathers also had very strict militia laws that required gun owners to appear at mandatory musters with their firearms in tow. The militiamen’s guns would be inspected and even registered on public rolls.”


A similar reality regarding gun control existed in Wild West towns, Winkler noted: “When you went into a frontier town where the civilized people lived, you had to check your guns at the marshal’s office. The famous gun havens of Dodge City, Kan.; Tombstone, Ariz.; and Deadwood, S.D., had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. They all banned carrying any firearms in public.” [See “Why the NRA once led the fight for gun control.”]

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/21/bowing-to-second-amendment-myths/

:lol

We get as much truth and history from the guns-ammo industry and its marketing/press agency/pimp aka NRA as we did from Communist Russia's PRAVDA.

2nd Amendment? :lol

It's All About the Benjamins

[TeyshaBlue]

Bowing to Second Amendment Myths

We get as much truth and history from the guns-ammo industry and its marketing/press agency/pimp aka NRA as we do from alternet.borg



Fify

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol Always messager attack, never the message. GFY, stalker

[TeyshaBlue]

lol stalker. When I post on topic, you run away like the little bitch you are.

[TeyshaBlue]

I destroy your idiotic messages.

[TeyshaBlue]

Just for the fun of it......

[boutons_deux]

I destroy your idiotic messages.

Between your own ears

[TeyshaBlue]

Between your own ears

Absolutely. And I don't have to use that organ very much to bust your idiotic takes.

[Blake]

TyXcY7NJHFg
Joyce Lee Malcolm, 2nd amendment scholar.


NRA Money Helped Reshape Gun Law


In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.”

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-13/world/37681218_1_second-amendment-gun-law-don-kates


(George Mason University)PROFESSOR OF LAW JOYCE LEE MALCOLM*is a historian and constitutional scholar active in the area of constitutional history, focusing on the development of individual rights in Great Britain and America. She has written many books and articles on gun control, the Second Amendment, and individual rights. Her work was cited several times in the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in*District of Columbia v. Heller...

http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/malcolm_joyce

I'd like to ask her in depth regarding the circular reasoning of "weapons of common use"

[boutons_deux]

2nd Amendment! :lol

marans! :lol

It's all about profits for guns and ammo industry, and paranoid dickless gun fellators hiding behind the 2nd Amendment and NRA lies.

[DisAsTerBot]

marans!


http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg221/cccchris007/black-birchen-marans2_zps787ee9a0.jpg
:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry I can't create a cogent, original thought. :cry

[TSA]

I'd like to ask her in depth regarding the circular reasoning of "weapons of common use"

Here is her email, [email protected]
Please repost your in depth questions and her responses in this thread. Thanks.

[Blake]

Here is her email, [email protected]
Please repost your in depth questions and her responses in this thread. Thanks.

Will do. Thanks for the idea.


Greetings Dr. Malcolm,

I just finished watching an 8 minute interview you did on the PBS Newshour, and I had a question regarding it.

In this interview, you referred to what seemed to be a cut off of "right to bear arms" at what the Supreme Court itself has referred to as "weapons of common use."

I have read Justice Breyer's dissent in 2008 "D.C. vs Heller" and tend to concur that the "common use" distinction is in fact, circular reasoning.

If Congress still retains the ability to say what a common use weapon shall be, aren't we right back at square one?

I fail to see how this can pass constitutional "muster".

I'm an amateur Constitution buff who enjoys these 2ND Amendment debates. If you would explain how this wouldn't be circular reasoning, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Blake
San Antonio, TX

[Blake]

Reading it again, i asked the question the wrong way.

I should have asked how the 2008 ruling passes constitutional muster and why they are now changing course after 200 years of precedence.

Oh well.

[TSA]

You'd think one writing a constitutional scholar would double check their question to make sure it was right, regardless, please post the response when you get it. Should be interesting.

[Blake]

I'd say the chances of getting a response are low, even if I asked it the way I wish I had.

She has no good reason to respond to an anonymous email, especially in this day and age of trolls looking to make smart people look like fools......like I would be looking to do to her.

If she does respond, I will most definitely take better care of my questioning.

[Blake]

I also won't use my cell phone to write it. smh.

but looking at it again, I think the question I gave her should be sufficient enough to get going on achieving my ultimate goal here.

[TSA]

If your ultimate goal is getting curb stomped by a woman who's devoted much of her life to the constitution, and specifically the 2nd amendment, I'm looking forward to it. I wish Fuzzy would join in but this woman has shit all over every study he's posted, so I don't see that happening.

[Blake]

I've got my game plan ready for what I want to accomplish.

Since you and every other 2nd Amendment flag flyer on this board tend to pussy out, it would be great to actually get a real conversation going with someone like that regarding what point a weapons ban passes constitutional muster.

[TSA]

Be sure you can actually define "excessive" firearms this time, you've had a few months now.

[Blake]

Be sure you can actually define "excessive" firearms this time, you've had a few months now.

I don't care about defining it.

You however have had months to come up with a good reason why semi automatics are necessary for self defense when a simple pistol....or a knife....or a car....depending on which argument you 2nd amendment nuts are trying to make......should suffice.

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like Blake is one who lives in poverty and believes nobody's personal preference needs to go beyond needs.

[TSA]

Well you should care since "excessive" has been the basis of your reasoning. By the way, I have a handful of simple pistols that happen to be semiautomatic. You act like a firearm being semiautomatic is so much more dangerous. If I wanted to pluck off people one by one I wouldn't choose a semiautomatic, I'd use a single shot bolt action, much more deadly and accurate from distance.

How do you define a "simple" pistol? A revolver? You know that almost all revolvers are semiautomatic now correct?

[Blake]

Looks like Blake is one who lives in poverty and believes nobody's personal preference needs to go beyond needs.

smh per par

[Blake]

Well you should care since "excessive" has been the basis of your reasoning. By the way, I have a handful of simple pistols that happen to be semiautomatic. You act like a firearm being semiautomatic is so much more dangerous. If I wanted to pluck off people one by one I wouldn't choose a semiautomatic, I'd use a single shot bolt action, much more deadly and accurate from distance.

How do you define a "simple" pistol? A revolver? You know that almost all revolvers are semiautomatic now correct?

Awesome. So when can I buy my nuke.

[TSA]

Awesome. So when can I buy my nuke.

Define simple pistol and quit your illogical nuke angle.

[TSA]

As a non-cuck I got better things to do then argue on the Internet all night. 24 hours should be plenty of time for you to define simple pistol.

[Blake]

Define simple pistol and quit your illogical nuke angle.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to bear a nuclear arm.

simple pistol would be the simplest gun out on the market that can kill.

run away from these simple questions, pussy.

[Blake]

As a non-cuck I got better things to do then argue on the Internet all night. 24 hours should be plenty of time for you to define simple pistol.

you should use your non internet time to learn to communicate better.

As a dumbfuck, you won't.

And you'll be back soon.

[DMC]

So where can you buy a full auto weapon?

Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons. There is a difference between a ban and a confiscation. No one is proposing confiscation although I think a buyback makes a lot of sense.

www.subguns.com

lol

[DMC]

The common use thing isn't circular reasoning. A nuke isn't a common use weapon. A .22lr is a common use weapon. A handgun is a common use weapon, but a Glock 18 is not a common use weapon. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Where's the circular reasoning? No law is exhaustive in it's terminology. They make broad statements and those will be interpreted by courts later (just as "right to keep and bear arms" is interpreted today). Arms can be anything, or it can exclude anything depending on how the USSC chooses to interpret the meaning.

The only way it could be circular reasoning is if they said "The USSC determines what is and what isn't a common use weapon" followed by "the 2nd Amendment only applies to common use weapons". That's not what was done. We can illustrate many things by using argumentum absurdum. If it's true at the absurd level it's true. Example would be that we do not feel that the 2nd Amendment allows us to have nuclear weapons. That seems like a no brainer, but then where is the line? How about conventional ordinance? Could I own a Hellfire missile? A shoulder fired AA missile? It's legal to own AA artillery, but not shoulder fired AA missiles.

There will always be interpretation, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't hinge on common sense decisions. It has to stand on its own as an individual right, just like the 1st Amendment. Common sense changes over time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

www.subguns.com

lol

The site is for accessories. I assume that you are referring to the classifieds?

You can buy cocaine with federal licensing but that doesn't make it any less illegal. You have to go through the ATF for title 2 weapons just like you have to go thru the FDA for cocaine.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sure there is a legal standard for what is considered 'common use.' Theorizing here is fun I guess though.

She brings up the Heller case but that was over a gun that was not given back ie confiscated. SCOTUS approved the 1986 law.

I have also heard conflicting reports about the historical legal basis she claims. She invokes English law but that is what we were overthrowing. The colonial assemblies of the 1780s were banning guns and forming militias. We have had this conversation before.

One thing that stuck out to me was her referring to the framers as 'they thought' and similar bullshit. It seems to be a constant refrain but anyone with a sense of history should at the very least acknowledge that they were hardly a unified mind of things.

None of this is a new conversation though. I am disappointed if not surprised that the OP once again failed to recognize a previous discussion. That is a very WC thing to do.

[Blake]

The common use thing isn't circular reasoning. A nuke isn't a common use weapon. A .22lr is a common use weapon. A handgun is a common use weapon, but a Glock 18 is not a common use weapon. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Where's the circular reasoning? No law is exhaustive in it's terminology. They make broad statements and those will be interpreted by courts later (just as "right to keep and bear arms" is interpreted today). Arms can be anything, or it can exclude anything depending on how the USSC chooses to interpret the meaning.

nukes is not part of the circular reasoning to be clear.

Declaring that certain types of guns are legal because they are already legal is circular reasoning.


There will always be interpretation, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't hinge on common sense decisions. It has to stand on its own as an individual right, just like the 1st Amendment. Common sense changes over time.

Since times have changed, common sense would be to amend the 2nd Amendment.

[Blake]

I am disappointed if not surprised that the OP once again failed to recognize a previous discussion

No surprise, imo

[Wild Cobra]

nukes is not part of the circular reasoning to be clear.

Declaring that certain types of guns are legal because they are already legal is circular reasoning.



Since times have changed, common sense would be to amend the 2nd Amendment.
Funny how you liberals fight like hell for the first and fourth amendment but wish to throw away the 2nd.

What's wrong. Do you only believe in freedoms that you agree with?

[Blake]

Funny how you liberals fight like hell for the first and fourth amendment but wish to throw away the 2nd.

What's wrong. Do you only believe in freedoms that you agree with?

I might respond for humor sake, but you and your response here are both so far beyond pathetic it's just not worth it.

[DMC]

nukes is not part of the circular reasoning to be clear.

Declaring that certain types of guns are legal because they are already legal is circular reasoning.

No, it's because they are common, not because they are legal. There are legal things that aren't common. I didn't see the reference you're referring to.


Since times have changed, common sense would be to amend the 2nd Amendment.
No, you just ignored what I said. Common sense is nothing more than group thinking. If we were going to go that route, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights.

[DMC]

The site is for accessories. I assume that you are referring to the classifieds?

You can buy cocaine with federal licensing but that doesn't make it any less illegal. You have to go through the ATF for title 2 weapons just like you have to go thru the FDA for cocaine.

The NFA sales board. National Firearms Act did not ban fully automatic rifles. It banned the manufacture of them for sale to the public after the date of the act, but there are thousands in circulation (I know) that are sold daily ergo not banned.

They aren't banned. You have to pay a tax stamp, you don't need a license. You have to go through the ATF for any firearm purchase from a dealer when a background check is performed. Why don't you shut the fuck up until you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Banned and regulated are not the same thing, otherwise cigarettes are banned as is alcohol and driving a vehicle since you need to go through the licensing process.

[Blake]

No, it's because they are common, not because they are legal. There are legal things that aren't common. I didn't see the reference you're referring to.


Definition of COMMON
1a: of or relating to a community at large : public <work for the common good>

b: known to the community <common nuisances>

I'm not seeing any specific number/percent here that makes something common. Do you?


No, you just ignored what I said. Common sense is nothing more than group thinking. If we were going to go that route, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure where you are going with any of this semantical rambling.

Amendments happen because times and common sense change. The BoR is not some kind of timeless, untouchable 10 Commandments. If it needs to be altered for the betterment of our society then alter the mother fucker.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NFA sales board. National Firearms Act did not ban fully automatic rifles. It banned the manufacture of them for sale to the public after the date of the act, but there are thousands in circulation (I know) that are sold daily ergo not banned.

They aren't banned. You have to pay a tax stamp, you don't need a license. You have to go through the ATF for any firearm purchase from a dealer when a background check is performed. Why don't you shut the fuck up until you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Banned and regulated are not the same thing, otherwise cigarettes are banned as is alcohol and driving a vehicle since you need to go through the licensing process.

:lol

Typical semantic bullshit coming from DMC. Whoever would have seen that coming?

The cessation of the assault weapon ban only moved those particular weapons from title 2. In order to have an existing title xfered to you you have to get a stamp for your FFL or otherwise jump through hoops with the ATF. You can sit there and grandstand on your particular meaning of the word ban but as I said with the cocaine example: it's bullshit.

Is cocaine banned according to your definition? No, because it is regulated and potentially obtainable by anyone via licensing from the FDA just as full-auto's can be via the ATF.

In most people's mind, is cocaine banned from the US? I would say that it is.

Nevermind that the original assault weapons 'ban' did.

You have a really difficult time understanding the concept of nuance or specifically that a word can have many different meanings.

[Blake]

Alright, got a response already:


"Interesting question. The fact is Congress does not retain the right to decide that weapons commonly used for self-defense and lawful purposes can be banned. If that was the case than Chicago would have been able to preserve its ban on handguns in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case. The people decide. Only a weapon not appropriate for lawful purposes, e.g. rocket launcher, can be banned. In the Heller case Washington, D.C. claimed it was lawful to ban handguns since residents could still own long guns. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Remember, Breyer's dissent is not law. He lost.

Best wishes, Joyce Malcolm"


I'm going to politely remind her that "he" lost by one vote. I'm also going to ask her how she thinks "common use" is defined by the SC.

She states that "the people decide" then right away uses the "weapons appropriate for lawful purpose" circular reasoning Breyer is talking about.

I'm disappointed that she is simply brushing Breyer's opinion aside just because he lost.....Either that, or the fallacy is going over her head like it is DMC's.

Anyone want to add something for me to ask? I'll wait until Monday or Tuesday to reply.

[Th'Pusher]

Alright, got a response already:


"Interesting question. The fact is Congress does not retain the right to decide that weapons commonly used for self-defense and lawful purposes can be banned. If that was the case than Chicago would have been able to preserve its ban on handguns in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case. The people decide. Only a weapon not appropriate for lawful purposes, e.g. rocket launcher, can be banned. In the Heller case Washington, D.C. claimed it was lawful to ban handguns since residents could still own long guns. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Remember, Breyer's dissent is not law. He lost.

Best wishes, Joyce Malcolm"


I'm going to politely remind her that "he" lost by one vote. I'm also going to ask her how she thinks "common use" is defined by the SC.

She states that "the people decide" then right away uses the "weapons appropriate for lawful purpose" circular reasoning Breyer is talking about.

I'm disappointed that she is simply brushing Breyer's opinion aside just because he lost.....Either that, or the fallacy is going over her head like it is DMC's.

Anyone want to add something for me to ask? I'll wait until Monday or Tuesday to reply.

Tell her that the word than is a conjunction mainly used when making comparisons. She should have used the word then when she wrote' "If that we're the case, than Chicago...".

Then give her a :lmao constitutional scholar my ass.

[Blake]

Tell her that the word than is a conjunction mainly used when making comparisons. She should have used the word then when she wrote' "If that we're the case, than Chicago...".

Then give her a :lmao constitutional scholar my ass.

:lol since she's responding to some unknown slappy at 8am CST on a Saturday, I'll give her a grammar break.

I may toss her a few emoticons before I drop the mic and walk off stage.

[DMC]

:lol

Typical semantic bullshit coming from DMC. Whoever would have seen that coming?

Semantics? lol fucking idiot.
It's evident you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like to talk. This "semantics" defense is typical for those who have a superficial understanding of things they want to run their faces about.


The cessation of the assault weapon ban only moved those particular weapons from title 2. In order to have an existing title xfered to you you have to get a stamp for your FFL or otherwise jump through hoops with the ATF. You can sit there and grandstand on your particular meaning of the word ban but as I said with the cocaine example: it's bullshit.

lol keep going with the song and dance routine.

Show me the website where people have cocaine for sale.


Is cocaine banned according to your definition? No, because it is regulated and potentially obtainable by anyone via licensing from the FDA just as full-auto's can be via the ATF.

You don't need a license to own a fully automatic weapon. How many fucking times do I need to say that? There's a difference between a controlled substance and a regulated device. You cannot suddenly have a medical reason to acquire cocaine. You can suddenly decide you want a subgun and fork over the money, do the transfer and have one.

Goddamn you're an idiot and your mega-ego won't allow you to walk away from it.


In most people's mind, is cocaine banned from the US? I would say that it is.

Keep trying.


Nevermind that the original assault weapons 'ban' did.

Hey dumbass, you said:

"Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons."

They didn't. They banned the manufacture for sale to the public, and imports for the same. The transfer and sale of automatic weapons is not banned. If it were, you wouldn't be allowed to do it. That's what a ban means. I guess it's just more semantics. You can use whatever misguided term you pull from your ass and defend it with your ignorant ass "same thing" noise. Fuck off.


You have a really difficult time understanding the concept of nuance or specifically that a word can have many different meanings.

lol nuance. You're just an idiot. There's no nuance to that.

[DMC]

Alright, got a response already:


"Interesting question. The fact is Congress does not retain the right to decide that weapons commonly used for self-defense and lawful purposes can be banned. If that was the case than Chicago would have been able to preserve its ban on handguns in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case. The people decide. Only a weapon not appropriate for lawful purposes, e.g. rocket launcher, can be banned. In the Heller case Washington, D.C. claimed it was lawful to ban handguns since residents could still own long guns. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Remember, Breyer's dissent is not law. He lost.

Best wishes, Joyce Malcolm"


I'm going to politely remind her that "he" lost by one vote. I'm also going to ask her how she thinks "common use" is defined by the SC.

She states that "the people decide" then right away uses the "weapons appropriate for lawful purpose" circular reasoning Breyer is talking about.

I'm disappointed that she is simply brushing Breyer's opinion aside just because he lost.....Either that, or the fallacy is going over her head like it is DMC's.

Anyone want to add something for me to ask? I'll wait until Monday or Tuesday to reply.

You shouldn't chase rabbits. There are many instances where one vote would have changed the outcome of a decision. You cannot go back to all of them and change the world. It's not law because it didn't pass, end of story.

[DMC]

I'm not seeing any specific number/percent here that makes something common. Do you?



I'm not sure where you are going with any of this semantical rambling.

Amendments happen because times and common sense change. The BoR is not some kind of timeless, untouchable 10 Commandments. If it needs to be altered for the betterment of our society then alter the mother fucker.

Lay people like you and fuzz nuts get lost in the semantic tangents and draw false conclusions from where they lead you. You end up falsely equivocating a term you used wrongly many pages back and draw some conclusion that is totally off base, so someone has to recalibrate your ignorant ass.

Consider it for the betterment of society.

[Th'Pusher]

Lay people like you and fuzz nuts get lost in the semantic tangents and draw false conclusions from where they lead you. You end up falsely equivocating a term you used wrongly many pages back and draw some conclusion that is totally off base, so someone has to recalibrate your ignorant ass.

Consider it for the betterment of society.
Wait, so if I have a Tula M44 YY18 Training rifle, which is by no means common and is quite rare, but nothing more than a .22 caliber rifle, can that be banned?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Semantics? lol fucking idiot.
It's evident you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like to talk. This "semantics" defense is typical for those who have a superficial understanding of things they want to run their faces about.

lol keep going with the song and dance routine.

Show me the website where people have cocaine for sale.

You don't need a license to own a fully automatic weapon. How many fucking times do I need to say that? There's a difference between a controlled substance and a regulated device. You cannot suddenly have a medical reason to acquire cocaine. You can suddenly decide you want a subgun and fork over the money, do the transfer and have one.

Goddamn you're an idiot and your mega-ego won't allow you to walk away from it.

Keep trying.

Hey dumbass, you said:

"Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons."

They didn't. They banned the manufacture for sale to the public, and imports for the same. The transfer and sale of automatic weapons is not banned. If it were, you wouldn't be allowed to do it. That's what a ban means. I guess it's just more semantics. You can use whatever misguided term you pull from your ass and defend it with your ignorant ass "same thing" noise. Fuck off.


lol nuance. You're just an idiot. There's no nuance to that.

:lol Well you are certainly butthurt. Having a bad Saturday? The semantics argument is being made because you are questioning my use of the word "ban." Your characterizations are just as lame as the argument.

You can no more simply go to a gun dealer and buy an automatic weapon by filling out a registration form than you can go to Glaxo-Klein and order a gram of blow. You have to do the same thing that you had to do to obtain a semi-auto AR-15 or any other title 2 weapon during the 1994 'ban' which the full-auto weapons are still privy to which is to get approval of the ATF and local law enforcement. You cannot just go to the gun store on whim.

It unequivocally banned the manufacture of machine guns for future public consumption.

'Ban' was the word that they used over 15 years ago in order to move the 'assault weapons' to the title 2 list.

Now go ahead and get red assed some more because they used the word 'ban' in a way that you don't approve of 15 years ago.

[Blake]

Lay people like you and fuzz nuts get lost in the semantic tangents and draw false conclusions from where they lead you. You end up falsely equivocating a term you used wrongly many pages back and draw some conclusion that is totally off base, so someone has to recalibrate your ignorant ass.

Consider it for the betterment of society.

What term are you referring to, expert, and how should it have been used?

[DMC]

Wait, so if I have a Tula M44 YY18 Training rifle, which is by no means common and is quite rare, but nothing more than a .22 caliber rifle, can that be banned?

Anything can be banned.

[Blake]

Anything can be banned.

Semantics

[DMC]

:lol Well you are certainly butthurt. Having a bad Saturday? The semantics argument is being made because you are questioning my use of the word "ban." Your characterizations are just as lame as the argument.

You can no more simply go to a gun dealer and buy an automatic weapon by filling out a registration form than you can go to Glaxo-Klein and order a gram of blow. You have to do the same thing that you had to do to obtain a semi-auto AR-15 or any other title 2 weapon during the 1994 'ban' which the full-auto weapons are still privy to which is to get approval of the ATF and local law enforcement. You cannot just go to the gun store on whim.

It unequivocally banned the manufacture of machine guns for future public consumption.

'Ban' was the word that they used over 15 years ago in order to move the 'assault weapons' to the title 2 list.

Now go ahead and get red assed some more because they used the word 'ban' in a way that you don't approve of 15 years ago.

Now you play the "u mad" card.

Let's go over your approach here:

1. You make a false statement about purchasing fully automatic weapons.
2. I show you where they can be purchased
3. You play the semantics card as if the term "ban" is the thrust of my objection
4. You make a bad analogy (cocaine)
5. You throw out a red herring (the ban term again)
6. You play the "u mad" card.

Any questions?


Ok then. They did not ban the sale or transfer of fully automatic weapons. In fact they did just the opposite. They allowed the sale or transfer of these weapons and it's been as it's been since the NFA was enacted with the caveat of registered sears.

[DMC]

Semantics

I was accurately answering the question "can it be banned".

[DMC]

:lol Well you are certainly butthurt. Having a bad Saturday? The semantics argument is being made because you are questioning my use of the word "ban." Your characterizations are just as lame as the argument.

You can no more simply go to a gun dealer and buy an automatic weapon by filling out a registration form than you can go to Glaxo-Klein and order a gram of blow. You have to do the same thing that you had to do to obtain a semi-auto AR-15 or any other title 2 weapon during the 1994 'ban' which the full-auto weapons are still privy to which is to get approval of the ATF and local law enforcement. You cannot just go to the gun store on whim.

It unequivocally banned the manufacture of machine guns for future public consumption.

'Ban' was the word that they used over 15 years ago in order to move the 'assault weapons' to the title 2 list.

Now go ahead and get red assed some more because they used the word 'ban' in a way that you don't approve of 15 years ago.
It's not because they are banned. Suppressors undergo the same checks and approvals. They are not banned for manufacture. It's because they are NFA weapons, not because of the 1986 ban, which was a ban on manufacturing automatic rifles for sale to the public and requiring existing autos to have their sears registered in order to be legally retained. A ban on manufacture exists on other items that the military and police use that cannot be sold to the public, and that includes some radios, night vision and other technologies. There are some of these things available to purchase by the public because some were grandfathered in. It's not a ban on the technology, it's a ban on the use of the manufactured good. Therein lies the difference and it's an important one, yet you and Cuck seem to ignore it.

It's considered a defense to prosecution that you are in compliance with the NFA laws if you are in possession of an NFA weapon. The 1986 ban has nothing to do with it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

fucking idiot.

It's evident you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like to talk. This "semantics" defense is typical for those who have a superficial understanding of things they want to run their faces about.

lol keep going with the song and dance routine.

How many fucking times do I need to say that?

Goddamn you're an idiot and your mega-ego won't allow you to walk away from it.

Hey dumbass, you said:

lol nuance. You're just an idiot. There's no nuance to that.

:lol

I 'pulled the "u mad" card because as these snippets demonstrate: you are very butthurt. For that I laugh at you especially considering it is another of your cliche semantic arguments.

The cocaine example is not a bad one. You just throw out a shitty argument and assume it sticks. Just because a medical reason is one of the reasons why you can obtain a thing does not mean that it invalidates it being banned. That there are other reasons and other approvals to obtain said thing just furthers the point.

The assault weapon ban expired in 2004. That is why you can buy your AR-15 now. Try and use some critical thinking especially in light of much of an expert in regards to gun law you claim. Had that ban been in existence then you would have to gone through the same thing that you need to do now with full-autos.

[DMC]

:lol

I 'pulled the "u mad" card because as these snippets demonstrate: you are very butthurt. For that I laugh at you especially considering it is another of your cliche semantic arguments.

The cocaine example is not a bad one. You just throw out a shitty argument and assume it sticks. Just because a medical reason is one of the reasons why you can obtain a thing does not mean that it invalidates it being banned. That there are other reasons and other approvals to obtain said thing just furthers the point.

The assault weapon ban expired in 2004. That is why you can buy your AR-15 now. Try and use some critical thinking especially in light of much of an expert in regards to gun law you claim. Had that ban been in existence then you would have to gone through the same thing that you need to do now with full-autos.

I am no more butthurt than a professor who scolds you for making an off the cuff remark as a first week freshman in his class who is trying to show just how smart he is. You're naive and self-assured in your ignorance. You need to be called a cocksucker at every turn until you learn to look before you leap. If that makes me butthurt, I don't mind.

If a law abiding citizen of this state cannot obtain a permit to legally acquire cocaine, it's a bad analogy. I cannot legally park in a handicapped parking space. I cannot purchase a permit that will allow me to do so. I can purchase a machine gun and I don't need a permit to do so. I only need to pay a tax stamp and have my locals sign off on it. It's been done countless times, even by me.

Tell you what, I'll meet you where you designate. You bring the coke, I'll bring the subguns, we'll see.

You could buy the AR-15 even in 1995. You couldn't manufacture it.

You really are a novice at this, and you reek of misunderstanding Wiki and you have bits and pieces of information but you haven't spent enough time in your life understanding it. Basically you're not a gun person, you're a liberal. It's like a woman trying to tell a man what it's like to have an erection. Maybe you've held one, but you've no idea.

[TSA]

The assault weapon ban expired in 2004. That is why you can buy your AR-15 now. You are such a fucking idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am no more butthurt than a professor who scolds you for making an off the cuff remark as a first week freshman in his class who is trying to show just how smart he is. You're naive and self-assured in your ignorance. You need to be called a cocksucker at every turn until you learn to look before you leap. If that makes me butthurt, I don't mind.

If a law abiding citizen of this state cannot obtain a permit to legally acquire cocaine, it's a bad analogy. I cannot legally park in a handicapped parking space. I cannot purchase a permit that will allow me to do so. I can purchase a machine gun and I don't need a permit to do so. I only need to pay a tax stamp and have my locals sign off on it. It's been done countless times, even by me.

Tell you what, I'll meet you where you designate. You bring the coke, I'll bring the subguns, we'll see.

You could buy the AR-15 even in 1995. You couldn't manufacture it.

You really are a novice at this, and you reek of misunderstanding Wiki and you have bits and pieces of information but you haven't spent enough time in your life understanding it. Basically you're not a gun person, you're a liberal. It's like a woman trying to tell a man what it's like to have an erection. Maybe you've held one, but you've no idea.

:lol professor fuck you im butthurt, esq. If that is your behavior towards your students then you are an awful teacher. Well your ability to convey knowledge in general is pretty bad. You certainly have a penchant for substituting characterization for analysis.

I read the laws and the ATF licensing and registration forms. I have 2 friends with FFL with STO tags. I understand very well. You are not at any point arguing to requirements for title 2 registration xfer. You instead try and attack me. If I am a fool then you should be able to point out how I am wrong about, amongst other things, title 2 weapons provisions.

A law abiding citizen of any state can get cocaine provided they meet the requirements asked by the FDA. This is akin to the requirements that the FPA via the ATF. AR-15's in 1995 required the approval of the ATF which also required local law enforcement just as the remaining title 2 weapons still do today. What you are arguing is a matter of degree ie it is more difficult to get the FDA to approve cocaine than it is the ATF to approve registration xfer but that does not mean they are not analogous. Thus my comment about you lacking a concept of nuance.

As for my familiarity with the weapons, I have two things. You have no idea and you gun liberals sure do like discussing other's personal lives as if it is relevant. You are just wrong. Second familiarity with the weapon has nothing to do with the registration process ie it is irrelevant. How about you talk about the issues rather than my personal life. I suspect you don't because you have no leg to stand on.

When you guys do the "what does Fuzzy do" routine, it hearkens me back to Eleanor's Roosevelt.


Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

I try discussing the concept of the word 'ban,' characterizations as a method of argument, the process by which title 2 weapons are xfered, what the 1994 act did, etc. You mostly want to discuss me.

Then of course there was the 1994 action which simply moved weapons that met the 'assault weapon' standard into title 2 along with machine guns, etc. The machine guns et al, are still classified under the same law as before. It hasn't been amended since 1994 afaik.

Finally, calling me a liberal is simpleminded claptrap. I am 'liberal' when it comes to gun control but in regards to immigration, capital punishment, foreign policy, and many other things is harldy that. The liberal/conservative label is just something to dumb reality down so it's easier to understand. That's just sad. Quit being WC.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are such a fucking idiot.

Have you ever applied for a title 2 xfer?

[TSA]

Why don't you get to own automatic weapons?


So where can you buy a full auto weapon?

Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons.

You can man up and admit you were wrong at any time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can man up and admit you were wrong at any time.

Sure, I have. Can you go into a gun store, find an automatic weapon for sale and walk out without only having passed a background check? Can you freely xfer title 2 registrations?


Did the 1994 assault weapon ban put these same requirements on those weapons?

[TSA]

You implied I couldn't own an automatic weapon, you were wrong.
You implied there was nowhere to purchase an automatic weapon because they were banned, you were wrong.
Now you're just back peddling and looking stupid.

[Blake]

I was accurately answering the question "can it be banned".

You said "anything can be banned."

That's not really accurate.

[Th'Pusher]

Anything can be banned.
Can you ban handguns in Washington DC?

[DMC]

:lol professor fuck you im butthurt, esq. If that is your behavior towards your students then you are an awful teacher. Well your ability to convey knowledge in general is pretty bad. You certainly have a penchant for substituting characterization for analysis.

I read the laws and the ATF licensing and registration forms. I have 2 friends with FFL with STO tags. I understand very well. You are not at any point arguing to requirements for title 2 registration xfer. You instead try and attack me. If I am a fool then you should be able to point out how I am wrong about, amongst other things, title 2 weapons provisions.

I think you mean SOT tags (special occupational taxpayer). Does your friend have a class II or class III FFL? I am sure he's not an importer.

Let your friends get on here and argue. You suck at it. You cannot even get your damn terminology correct shit for brains.


I have pointed out your flaws. You tend to ignore that shit though. Carry on.


A law abiding citizen of any state can get cocaine provided they meet the requirements asked by the FDA. This is akin to the requirements that the FPA via the ATF. AR-15's in 1995 required the approval of the ATF which also required local law enforcement just as the remaining title 2 weapons still do today. What you are arguing is a matter of degree ie it is more difficult to get the FDA to approve cocaine than it is the ATF to approve registration xfer but that does not mean they are not analogous. Thus my comment about you lacking a concept of nuance.

"Provided they meet the requirements..." You act as if that's a side note. That's the main aspect of the qualification, meeting the requirements. You cannot just decide to meet the requirements. There's a difference between hoops you have to jump through and a medical condition you must be diagnosed with. Again, you're desperately seeking an out here but this aint it.


As for my familiarity with the weapons, I have two things. You have no idea and you gun liberals sure do like discussing other's personal lives as if it is relevant. You are just wrong. Second familiarity with the weapon has nothing to do with the registration process ie it is irrelevant. How about you talk about the issues rather than my personal life. I suspect you don't because you have no leg to stand on.

You are just more pithy version of WC. You think you can browse a few pages and suddenly have the knowledge to debate a subject. Try reading a Wiki on plasma physics then debating it with a physicist, if you haven't already.


When you guys do the "what does Fuzzy do" routine, it hearkens me back to Eleanor's Roosevelt.

I don't give a fuck if it harkens you back to when you were sucking a dick during your coffee break. I believe you were read quite well and the wall of text you vomited shortly thereafter is evidence of that.


I try discussing the concept of the word 'ban,' characterizations as a method of argument, the process by which title 2 weapons are xfered, what the 1994 act did, etc. You mostly want to discuss me.

No, you cry "semantics". The word "ban" means what it means, and it's not the word "ban" that's the issue as much as it's the fact that you equivocate a manufacturing ban with a ban on transfer and ownership. You've not recovered from that. You went from the "u mad" card to the "I'm a victim" card. Carry on.


Then of course there was the 1994 action which simply moved weapons that met the 'assault weapon' standard into title 2 along with machine guns, etc. The machine guns et al, are still classified under the same law as before. It hasn't been amended since 1994 afaik.

No... really?


Finally, calling me a liberal is simpleminded claptrap. I am 'liberal' when it comes to gun control but in regards to immigration, capital punishment, foreign policy, and many other things is harldy that. The liberal/conservative label is just something to dumb reality down so it's easier to understand. That's just sad. Quit being WC.
"I'm financially conservative yet liberal on human rights" blah blah blah... You're a liberal through and through. Just own it already.

[DMC]

You said "anything can be banned."

That's not really accurate.

It's accurate. Anything can be banned. Name something that cannot be banned.

[DMC]

Can you ban handguns in Washington DC?

I cannot. I am not in the position of making law.

[TSA]

I think you mean SOT tags (special occupational taxpayer). Does your friend have a class II or class III FFL? I am sure he's not an importer.

Let your friends get on here and argue. You suck at it. You cannot even get your damn terminology correct shit for brains.


I have pointed out your flaws. You tend to ignore that shit though. Carry on.

"Provided they meet the requirements..." You act as if that's a side note. That's the main aspect of the qualification, meeting the requirements. You cannot just decide to meet the requirements. There's a difference between hoops you have to jump through and a medical condition you must be diagnosed with. Again, you're desperately seeking an out here but this aint it.

You are just more pithy version of WC. You think you can browse a few pages and suddenly have the knowledge to debate a subject. Try reading a Wiki on plasma physics then debating it with a physicist, if you haven't already.

I don't give a fuck if it harkens you back to when you were sucking a dick during your coffee break. I believe you were read quite well and the wall of text you vomited shortly thereafter is evidence of that.

No, you cry "semantics". The word "ban" means what it means, and it's not the word "ban" that's the issue as much as it's the fact that you equivocate a manufacturing ban with a ban on transfer and ownership. You've not recovered from that. You went from the "u mad" card to the "I'm a victim" card. Carry on.

No... really?

"I'm financially conservative yet liberal on human rights" blah blah blah... You're a liberal through and through. Just own it already.should be fun watching the man take his lumps, or back pedal.

[boutons_deux]

Fox Repug Propaganda network spewing lies about guns

Americans Need Assault Weapons To Protect Themselves From An Iranian Invasion, Al Qaeda

“What scares the hell out of me we have a president, as we were discussing during break, that wants to take away our guns, but yet he wants to attack Iran and Syria. So if they come and attack us here, we don’t have the right to bear arms under this Obama administration,” Angela McGlowan, a former lobbyist for News Corp., said in the midst of a conversation about violence in Syria.

The panel also falsely argued that widespread gun ownership in Israel has helped prevent terrorist attacks, though access to firearms is strictly limited to people who “can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger.” Approximately “170,000 guns are licensed for private use in Israel,” while assault weapons are “banned for private ownership.”

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/03/23/1766581/fox-americans-need-assault-weapons-to-protect-themselves-from-an-iranian-invasion-al-qaeda/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ahh how cute. You two are having a circle jerk. Just leave me out of it. And I find it interesting that you find it so important to characterize me as on a coffee break, some homoerotic fantasy or reading or whatever you picture in your head. You two have no club but you are so desperate to label me. Keep on trying it's entertaining.


No, you cry "semantics". The word "ban" means what it means, and it's not the word "ban" that's the issue as much as it's the fact that you equivocate a manufacturing ban with a ban on transfer and ownership.

:lol You certainly are narrowminded. Ban means what it means?
:lol no sense of degree of nuance

Again. The assault weapon ban from 1994 had the same provisions. That one way of determining what it means. That ban designated assault weapons as title 2.

Further, you keep on fixating on the need for a prescription to get cocaine. You neglected the other means by which it can be acquired ie by a research scientist or a pharmacy for resale. Again its not the same requirements but the point is that there are requirements. There is no free transfer. In one case you need to approval of the ATF and the other FDA. One a doctor, the other a head law enforcement head. What you are arguing is a matter of degree but your brain can only consider binary logic it would seem. The law in question prohibits the free transfer of the good in both cases unless a provision is made by a local expert or by the law enforcement agency in question.

If you are going to come back with more homoerotic imagery based off of your own butthurtedness along with characterizations in place of analysis I am just going to ignore you. It's boring.

[Blake]

It's accurate. Anything can be banned. Name something that cannot be banned.

Breathing

[TSA]

You implied I couldn't own an automatic weapon, you were wrong.
You implied there was nowhere to purchase an automatic weapon because they were banned, you were wrong.
Now you're just back peddling and looking stupid.

[DMC]

Breathing

Breathing can be banned. The ban is only a law. It's not a physical barrier.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/12/01/Belarus-bars-man-from-breathing-in-public/UPI-36981322728200/

[redzero]

marans!

It's "morans," by the way.

[Blake]

Breathing can be banned. The ban is only a law. It's not a physical barrier.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/12/01/Belarus-bars-man-from-breathing-in-public/UPI-36981322728200/

breathing can't be banned. It wasn't banned in your link either.

Your use of semantics sucks.

[DMC]

breathing can't be banned. It wasn't banned in your link either.

Your use of semantics sucks.

Your understanding of the term "banned" sucks. You seem to think banning something makes it physically impossible to do. It's simply a law. Are you saying that it's impossible to create a law that bans breathing? I am not talking about unlikely, but if someone was challenged to create such a law, could it be done if everyone involved was in agreement? Sure it could. Anything can be banned. If you can write it here, it can be written in a legal document.

[DMC]

Ahh how cute. You two are having a circle jerk. Just leave me out of it. And I find it interesting that you find it so important to characterize me as on a coffee break, some homoerotic fantasy or reading or whatever you picture in your head. You two have no club but you are so desperate to label me. Keep on trying it's entertaining.



:lol You certainly are narrowminded. Ban means what it means?
:lol no sense of degree of nuance

Again. The assault weapon ban from 1994 had the same provisions. That one way of determining what it means. That ban designated assault weapons as title 2.

Further, you keep on fixating on the need for a prescription to get cocaine. You neglected the other means by which it can be acquired ie by a research scientist or a pharmacy for resale. Again its not the same requirements but the point is that there are requirements. There is no free transfer. In one case you need to approval of the ATF and the other FDA. One a doctor, the other a head law enforcement head. What you are arguing is a matter of degree but your brain can only consider binary logic it would seem. The law in question prohibits the free transfer of the good in both cases unless a provision is made by a local expert or by the law enforcement agency in question.

If you are going to come back with more homoerotic imagery based off of your own butthurtedness along with characterizations in place of analysis I am just going to ignore you. It's boring.

Nuance, is that what makes a feral hog a javelina?

You cannot legally acquire cocaine. There's not a regulating agency that sells transferable machine guns. They are bought and sold by civilians. Your analogy is fucking stupid. Based on your analogy, registering a vehicle is no different than getting cocaine legally.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nuance, is that what makes a feral hog a javelina?

You cannot legally acquire cocaine. There's not a regulating agency that sells transferable machine guns. They are bought and sold by civilians. Your analogy is fucking stupid. Based on your analogy, registering a vehicle is no different than getting cocaine legally.

How do you know what I can or cannot do? Oh yeah you don't. Quit trying to make this about me. I am only one of 100's of millions in this country despite you getting hung up on me. Oh NOES! I confused native pigs to feral pigs. That doesn't bother me and it certainly does not automatically invalidate what I say.

You can get it for research purposes. Pharmacies get it. Doctors can get it as well via those sources.

I never said the ATF sold title 2 weapons. Try again and try to keep up.

You can go into the tax assessor and register a vehicle with the title and a bill of sale. If you have the required documents then the clerk has to issue. Title 2 weapons do not work like that. You have to get approval from two law enforcement agencies. Neither of which are beholden to documents or compelled to issue the transfer. For someone that acts like he is an expert on guns, you sure are clueless as to title 2 xfers.

You still don't address the 1994 assault weapons ban and how this is procedurally the same ie they are both a classification of title 2. Further underscoring the point is the schedule 2 classification of cocaine. Not only in number but in how the differences in numerical classification are used to determine control. Again a matter of degree which you are blind to.

[TSA]

So where can you buy a full auto weapon?

Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons.why do you keep ignoring your stupid claim. Admit you were wrong and we'll move on.

[DMC]

How do you know what I can or cannot do? Oh yeah you don't. Quit trying to make this about me. I am only one of 100's of millions in this country despite you getting hung up on me. Oh NOES! I confused native pigs to feral pigs. That doesn't bother me and it certainly does not automatically invalidate what I say.

Why didn't you take me up on my offer? I will prove to you that I can/have acquired subguns, you prove to me that you can/have acquired cocaine, both legally of course.


You can get it for research purposes. Pharmacies get it. Doctors can get it as well via those sources.

You're no doctor nor are you a researcher.


I never said the ATF sold title 2 weapons. Try again and try to keep up.

Of course not, but you made the comparison to a substance that's only sold legally by regulating agencies, and a device that's owned by the general public and tracked by regulating agencies. If you could get this cocaine, like if you had a license to acquire it, you couldn't sell it. I can sell my subguns, the buyer just needs the tax stamp and the local approval.

You've gone beyond absurdity now with this comparison. Just stop.


You can go into the tax assessor and register a vehicle with the title and a bill of sale. If you have the required documents then the clerk has to issue. Title 2 weapons do not work like that. You have to get approval from two law enforcement agencies. Neither of which are beholden to documents or compelled to issue the transfer. For someone that acts like he is an expert on guns, you sure are clueless as to title 2 xfers.

Not really. You can create a trust or a corporation, and then the signatures aren't required.
Keep trying though. This is why I say you're in over your head here. You keep making false statements as if you've reached the end of the internet.


You still don't address the 1994 assault weapons ban and how this is procedurally the same ie they are both a classification of title 2. Further underscoring the point is the schedule 2 classification of cocaine. Not only in number but in how the differences in numerical classification are used to determine control. Again a matter of degree which you are blind to.
You keep jumping around between machine guns, "assault weapons" which aren't machine guns and title II or NFA weapons which include short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles, suppressors and other items. Try to separate these things in your mind as being completely different things, because they are. The 1994 ban did nothing to NFA weapons. It did not ban the sale of pre-existing AR-15s or "assault weapons". It addressed manufacturing, and the possession of illegally imported (duh!) assault weapons.

You need to back up 10 yards and punt.

[Blake]

Your understanding of the term "banned" sucks. You seem to think banning something makes it physically impossible to do. It's simply a law. Are you saying that it's impossible to create a law that bans breathing? I am not talking about unlikely, but if someone was challenged to create such a law, could it be done if everyone involved was in agreement? Sure it could. Anything can be banned. If you can write it here, it can be written in a legal document.


In a vacuum, even though the logistics would be next to impossible, I guess so.

But as long as the Declaration of Independence is recognized, life is an unalienable right to law abiding citizens....which means as of today and the foreseeable future, a ban on breathing in America is impossible.

Due to the ambiguity of the 2nd Amendment, however, a total ban on weapons for non-militia citizenry is most certainly possible. Fwiw.

[DMC]

In a vacuum, even though the logistics would be next to impossible, I guess so.

Something is either possible or it's not possible. In a debate, there are too many opinions and "nuances" in the way of progress. Those subjective tangents prevent any real discourse since the goal becomes to avoid the appearance being wrong instead of being right. Your opinion is that a ban wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean it cannot be done. The odds of it are nil, but it's possible to do. So when I say "can", I am referring to "possible" not the likelihood of it happening.


But as long as the Declaration of Independence is recognized, life is an unalienable right to law abiding citizens....which means as of today and the foreseeable future, a ban on breathing in America is impossible.

No. You misunderstand the concept of the word "impossible". For it to be impossible, we could not get there from here. That means it cannot be done. It can be done though, so it's not impossible. It's unlikely.


Due to the ambiguity of the 2nd Amendment, however, a total ban on weapons for non-militia citizenry is most certainly possible. Fwiw.
Since you don't have a firm grasp on the concept of possibility vs impossibility, your opinion on the 2nd Amendment is moot.

[boutons_deux]

as long as the Declaration of Independence is recognized

... is not law.

No rights are "God-given" and "unalienable". Rights, their definition/protection/enforcement, come from society, government, not God.

No gun fellators have said where the Constitution "bans" regulation, even heavy regulation, of personal firearms, or any other weapon. Gun fellators can still have the fictional "right" to firearms, but the firearms can be (heavily) regulated, subject to conditions, AND TAXED, even restricted in certain cases.

[Blake]

Something is either possible or it's not possible. In a debate, there are too many opinions and "nuances" in the way of progress. Those subjective tangents prevent any real discourse since the goal becomes to avoid the appearance being wrong instead of being right. Your opinion is that a ban wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean it cannot be done. The odds of it are nil, but it's possible to do. So when I say "can", I am referring to "possible" not the likelihood of it happening.

No. You misunderstand the concept of the word "impossible". For it to be impossible, we could not get there from here. That means it cannot be done. It can be done though, so it's not impossible. It's unlikely.

Since you don't have a firm grasp on the concept of possibility vs impossibility, your opinion on the 2nd Amendment is moot.

The probability of breathing being banned in our lifetime in America is so ridiculously small, I'll go ahead and stick with it being not possible.

And my opinion of a breathing ban being impossible doesn't have anything to do with the topic, nor does it make my opinion of the 2nd amendment moot.

No semantic: you're being ridiculous.

[Blake]

... is not law.

It's Organic Law as defined in US Code (2007).

[boutons_deux]

It's Organic Law as defined in US Code (2007).

who at state or federal level enforces my "organic" right to "life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness" ?

what are the penalties?

any actual cases prosecuted?

WTF is "liberty" legally?

WTF is "happiness" legally?

[TeyshaBlue]

These concepts have been codified in law. It's not rocket science.
Really, you should just do a little reading on the subject. These answers are not hidden.

Here's a start, with relevant cases cited.
http://www.gemworld.com/usa-unalienable.htm

[DMC]

The probability of breathing being banned in our lifetime in America is so ridiculously small, I'll go ahead and stick with it being not possible.

And my opinion of a breathing ban being impossible doesn't have anything to do with the topic, nor does it make my opinion of the 2nd amendment moot.

No semantic: you're being ridiculous.

It negates your opinion on the possibility of something else, including the 2nd Amendment. That's final.

[Blake]

It negates your opinion on the possibility of something else, including the 2nd Amendment. That's final.

Since there is a possibility you're wrong, no, it's not final.

[Blake]

who at state or federal level enforces my "organic" right to "life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness" ?

what are the penalties?

any actual cases prosecuted?

WTF is "liberty" legally?

WTF is "happiness" legally?

they would mostly be civil suits.

[DMC]

Since there is a possibility you're wrong, no, it's not final.

Your take on possibilities is void of meaning, ergo you've bit your own tail.

[Blake]

Your take on possibilities is void of meaning, ergo you've bit your own tail.

I'm using your take on possibilities now.

which would mean there's a possibility you're wrong about possibilities.

[Blake]

Breathing can be banned.

:lol :lol

[DMC]

:lol :lol
Pretty sure I took you by the hand the first time you scoffed at that, and led you to the woodshed. Are you asking for a fresh one?

[Blake]

:lol :lol

[DMC]

well, my significant other finally got into the teaching ranks out at
a high school in the southern parts of SA. woo hoo.

Lemme tell ya though.......however bad you have heard that teachers have it,
go ahead and multiply that by 20 and you have an idea of what she's
gone through.

Forget the kids that get ready to throw down right there in the
classroom on a daily basis or the ones that drop F bombs, and when she
tells them to cut it out, they drop 1000 more.....
she got to her class room and had to bring in her own desk, desk
chair, waste baskets and yes, even her own chalk board eraser.

oh, and the intercom that is supposed to page the adminstrative
offices in case of an emergency.......she doesn't have one...

it's so bad, it's almost hilarious.

oh, almost forgot the 7am - 10pm days she has put in so far.


:lmao

Teaching is a hell of a gig. Hard on the back I hear.

[Blake]

Now that's rent free.

[DMC]

Now that's rent free.

Says the one who bumped a 4 year old post.

It took you long enough to conjure up what to say, and even then it was really predictable because what are you going to say about something like that?

You're dishonest, Blake. You're a lapdog for Chumpy who's just a chatterbox of shit narratives. Neither of you knows the first thing about 90% of the shit you argue about, and your arguments amount to little more than circular gibberish for lulz.

[Blake]

Says the one who bumped a 4 year old post.

That you linked.

You're an idiot.

[DMC]

That you linked.

You're an idiot.

"oh, almost forgot the 7am - 10pm days she has put in so far."

And I'm the idiot? :lol

I still have my wife.

[Blake]

And I'm the idiot? :lol


Yes

[RandomGuy]

What does America’s Second Amendment really say?

Who is right and who is wrong about the bearing of arms

https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21731377-who-right-and-who-wrong-about-bearing-arms-what-does-americas-second?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whatdoesamericassecondamendmentreallysayjohnson

[boutons_deux]

The Second Amendment’s Fake History


Gun-rights advocates insist that the carnage can’t be stopped because it was part of what the Constitution’s Framers designed. :lol

the Constitution’s Framers in 1787 and the authors of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress in 1789 never intended the Second Amendment to be construed as the right for individuals to take up arms against the Republic. In fact, their intent was the opposite.

The actual goal of the Second Amendment was to promote state militias for the maintenance of order in a time of political uprisings, potential slave revolts and simmering hostilities with both European powers and Native Americans on the frontiers. Indeed, its defined purpose was to achieve “security” against disruptions to the country’s republican form of government.

In the late Eighteenth Century, the meaning of “bearing” arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army.

In the South, one of the principal reasons for a militia was to rally armed whites to put down slave uprisings. Again, the Second Amendment was meant to maintain public order even an unjust order rather than to empower the oppressed to take up arms against the government. That latter idea was a modern reinterpretation or distortion of the history.

For most of the years of the Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as a collective right, allowing Americans to participate in a “well-regulated Militia,” not an individual right to buy the latest weaponry at a gun show or stockpile a military-style arsenal in the basement.

That bogus history gave rise to the image of the Framers being wild-eyed radicals encouraging armed rebellion against the Republic.

Rather than people who believed in the rule of law and social order,

the Framers were contorted into crazies who wanted citizens to be empowered to shoot police, soldiers, elected representatives and government officials.

the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was overtaken by the “right” to own an AR-15 with a 30-or-100-bullet magazine.?

When right-wing politicians talk about the Second Amendment now, they don’t even bother to include the preamble that explains the point of the amendment.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/07/the-second-amendments-fake-history/

In order to increase gun/ammo profit, BigCorp/gun-division paid the NRA to pervert the 2nd Amendment, a perversion that has been swallowed ignorantly by all you dickless gun fellators, who also believe Trash is a truth-tell and a giver of fucks about "the common people"

10Ks of people slaughtered by guns EVERY FUCKING YEAR is what NRA, etc calls "the price of freedom"

[boutons_deux]

Four Wisconsin hunters shot on opening day of deer hunting season—one dead (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/21/1717582/-Four-Wisconsin-hunters-shot-on-opening-day-of-deer-hunting-season-one-dead)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/21/1717582/-Four-Wisconsin-hunters-shot-on-opening-day-of-deer-hunting-season-one-dead?detail=emaildkre

How many were shot by Muslims?

[boutons_deux]

Mistaken for deer, New York woman shot dead

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/mistaken-for-deer-new-york-woman-shot-dead/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[DMC]

What does America’s Second Amendment really say?

Who is right and who is wrong about the bearing of arms

https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21731377-who-right-and-who-wrong-about-bearing-arms-what-does-americas-second?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whatdoesamericassecondamendmentreallysayjohnson

So then tell that to your buddies here who say an outright ban on guns is unconstitutional.

:lol "America's second amendment"

Yeah, I give a shit what the losing side thinks.

You expect someone to register or pay for that shit?

[Th'Pusher]

So then tell that to your buddies here who say an outright ban on guns is unconstitutional.

:lol "America's second amendment"

Yeah, I give a shit what the losing side thinks.

You expect someone to register or pay for that shit?

Uh oh. Emo DMC got his gun boner in a twist.

:lol losing side

[DMC]

Uh oh. Emo DMC got his gun boner in a twist.

:lol losing side

Tard cannot even talk shit without needing to edit :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh oh. Emo DMC got his gun boner in a twist.

:lol losing side

Nuance is tough for DMC. The Heller interpretation of the 2nd is what it is. There is certainly a valid argument to be made against it and the originalists like Thomas suddenly seem to forget what is written by the founders in their decisions but SCOTUS is the one who makes the decision so all of that is moot.

It's not so much that it is unconstitutional as it the judicial reality we live in.

Regardless effective policies like ban of all semiauto sales and transfers, closing the LLC loophole, buybacks, and having police handle all background checks through the already existing waiver system don't require confiscations.

DMC of course has no canned arguments against that so he tries to insist on irrelevant arguments that he sees as winners. Pseudointellectual is as pseudointellectual does.

[Th'Pusher]

Tard cannot even talk shit without needing to edit :lol

My phone autocorrected emo to Elmo. I thought it was important to call out your reflexive emotional response to a gun thread.

Remember when Adam Lambert had you spinning like a top?

[DMC]

My phone autocorrected emo to Elmo. I thought it was important to call out your reflexive emotional response to a gun thread.

Remember when Adam Lambert had you spinning like a top?

Sure it did :lol

:lol Adam Lambert

Was that just before I buried him alive?

[DMC]

Nuance is tough for DMC. The Heller interpretation of the 2nd is what it is. There is certainly a valid argument to be made against it and the originalists like Thomas suddenly seem to forget what is written by the founders in their decisions but SCOTUS is the one who makes the decision so all of that is moot.

It's not so much that it is unconstitutional as it the judicial reality we live in.

Regardless effective policies like ban of all semiauto sales and transfers, closing the LLC loophole, buybacks, and having police handle all background checks through the already existing waiver system don't require confiscations.

DMC of course has no canned arguments against that so he tries to insist on irrelevant arguments that he sees as winners. Pseudointellectual is as pseudointellectual does.


Puts me on ignore list

Can't stop talking about me

:lol rent free

[Th'Pusher]

Sure it did :lol

:lol Adam Lambert

Was that just before I buried him alive?

You mean how you creepily looked up his email address and cross referenced it with other accounts created with the same email address?

Yeah I remember that.

:lol buried him alive

[Th'Pusher]

Puts me on ignore list

Can't stop talking about me

:lol rent free

He’s right about your inability to construct a coherent rebuttal to the OP.

:lol losing side :cry

[Adam Lambert]

Sure it did :lol

:lol Adam Lambert

Was that just before I buried him alive?

trigger warning

[Th'Pusher]

trigger warning

He has risen!

[DMC]

He’s right about your inability to construct a coherent rebuttal to the OP.

:lol losing side :cry

I can't even read the link, idiot. I said so in my first response.

[DMC]

You mean how you creepily looked up his email address and cross referenced it with other accounts created with the same email address?

Yeah I remember that.

:lol buried him alive

After he swore up and down it wasn't him?

:lol

And you... you freaked the fuck out :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

I can't even read the link, idiot. I said so in my first response.

But you don't give a shit what the losing side thinks anyway, right? :cry

[Th'Pusher]

After he swore up and down it wasn't him?

:lol

And you... you freaked the fuck out :lmao

yeah. I was a little taken aback by the fact that you looked up the email address I used to register my ST account with and then used it to research my personal information. Sue me.

[Adam Lambert]

After he swore up and down it wasn't him?

:lol

:lol not one single time. im so in your head that youve now invented conversations with me.

[boutons_deux]

Mistaken for deer, New York woman shot dead

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/mistaken-for-deer-new-york-woman-shot-dead/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Next door neighbor shot her, at 200 yards, what a sharpshooter, except he shot her after daytime hunting hours.

“Supposedly it was 200 yards away.

"The bullet had traveled through her hip and out her back"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/11/24/he-thought-he-saw-a-deer-and-fired-his-pistol-now-his-neighbor-is-dead/?undefined=&utm_term=.11afd1238cb3&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

[boutons_deux]

https://images.dailykos.com/images/469602/story_image/Pray_to_the_NRAweb.jpg?1510007055

[DMC]

But you don't give a shit what the losing side thinks anyway, right? :cry

You can't have it both ways dipshit.

A. Can't read it
B. Don't give a shit

Don't piss and moan about "no rebuttal" when it's locked behind a registration wall. I'm not going to register.

[DMC]

:lol not one single time. im so in your head that youve now invented conversations with me.

Anyone here can read it for themselves.

:lol logging in just to "prove" you weren't neutered

[DMC]

yeah. I was a little taken aback by the fact that you looked up the email address I used to register my ST account with and then used it to research my personal information. Sue me.

:lol thinking I researched you or know anything at all about you, JP.
:lol paranoid

[Th'Pusher]

You can't have it both ways dipshit.

A. Can't read it
B. Don't give a shit

Don't piss and moan about "no rebuttal" when it's locked behind a registration wall. I'm not going to register.

I can have have it both ways though. You don't give a shit about what the "losing side says", so why would you bother rebutting what "they" say (as if The Econimist represents the losing side...god, you're such a fucking moron) :lol

[DMC]

I can have have it both ways though. You don't give a shit about what the "losing side says", so why would you bother rebutting what "they" say (as if The Econimist represents the losing side...god, you're such a fucking moron) :lol

I don't have to give a shit about their opinion to rebut it.

That's how debates work. You don't have to be emotionally invested.

You cannot even spell "The Economist" :lol

And you call me a moron :lol

[Th'Pusher]

:lol thinking I researched you or know anything at all about you, JP.
:lol paranoid

You're so sly. Using those initials you pulled from the email address I used to register with...

paranoid :lol

[DMC]

You're so sly. Using those initials you pulled from the email address I used to register with...

paranoid :lol

:lol thinking I'm a moderator

[Th'Pusher]

I don't have to give a shit about their opinion to rebut it.

That's how debates work. You don't have to be emotionally invested.

You cannot even spell "The Economist" :lol

And you call me a moron :lol

rebut it. And don't embarrass yourself with "shall not be infringed".


JUST weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in American history, in Las Vegas, America faced its fifth-worst attack, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on November 5th. Both assailants were armed with military-style rifles. Why does American law let people buy such weapons?


The answer is the Second Amendment to the constitution, which reads: “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.” (Commas were used differently in the 18th century, but these do not affect meaning.) Gun-rights advocates insist the second half of that sentence is absolute.
Those in favour of tighter regulation insist that the framers used the first clause to tie gun-rights to the need for a militia. Since no American state has the sort of militia that existed in the 1780s (consisting of all able-bodied men, subject to call-up at any time and expected to bring their own weapons), this would make wider curbs on guns legal. (https://www.economist.com/latest-updates)


What is that clause doing there? In the 1960s Paul Grice, a philosopher, wrote his seminal works on the unspoken rules of language, how often people observe them, and what they do when they break them. He codified these into several maxims of conversation now famous among linguists. One is the “maxim of relevance”: if someone randomly veers off-topic they break that maxim. The other is the “maxim of quantity”: speakers should say enough, but not too much.


These maxims can be broken. But because the maxims are so widely understood and observed, Grice argued, breaking them is significant. When you hear a speaker break them, your first instinct is to look for new meaning. For example, imagine a man arriving home, and his wife asking: “Where were you?” If he replies: “I am not cheating on you,” she would be right to be worried. Perhaps the information was supposed to be reassuring. But by breaking the maxim of relevance it sends an entirely different message.


Or take the maxim of quantity. Information should only be included for a reason. So what is the militia clause there for? Antonin Scalia tried to explain it in the Supreme Court’s opinion in DC v Heller, which in 2008 upheld an individual right to own and carry guns for hunting, self-defence or, really, for any reason. Like Grice, Scalia thought that the clause should be relevant. In fact, he insisted that it was. England’s Stuart kings had disarmed those likely to be disloyal. So an arms-keeping citizenry ready to muster as a militia, even against its own rulers, was indeed “necessary for the security of a free state”. Scalia said that prefatory clauses can announce a law’s purpose—but cannot restrict it.


Why have them, then? The writers of the constitution could have included all manner of philosophical navel-gazing in the prefatory clause: “The right of self-defence being inalienable…” and so forth. Some state constitutions did mention self-defence in their gun-rights clauses. The federal constitution does not. This makes the prefatory clause a rather odd bit of throat-clearing. If the framers meant to include self-defence, it violates the maxim of quantity by saying both too little (it did not mention self-defence) and too much (by not being needed at all).


A linguist at San Diego State University, Jeffrey Kaplan, argues that the prefatory clause is false. America, despite having no more militias, remains “a free state”, as do many other countries. He says that in parallel constructions like “Today being St Patrick’s Day, I will buy drinks for everyone in the bar,” if it turns out today is not in fact St Patrick’s Day, the promise in the main clause needs “repair”: a chance to cancel the offer or negotiate something else with the patrons. He put the St Patrick’s Day problem to 50 experimental subjects—80% said that if the presupposition was false, the offer was no longer operative.


In a second experiment, he invented a statute: “Water being an abundant resource, property owners shall have an unrestricted right to irrigate their property as they see fit.” If, a century later, water is now scarce, is the law still in effect? Of those who replied, 81% said no.


It is hard to believe the framers would be happy with the result of their work. America remains bitterly divided over guns, thanks to a bizarrely worded amendment that is introduced by a statement about militias that is superfluous (if Scalia and gun advocates are right), and was arguably never true at all. At the very least, it has not stood the test of time.


This article appeared in the Books and arts section of the print edition under the headline "Right and wrong on bearing arms"

[Th'Pusher]

:lol thinking I'm a moderator

Who said anything about a moderator?

[Adam Lambert]

Anyone here can read it for themselves.

:lol logging in just to "prove" you weren't neutered

no one else cares, but youre right, its public so im sure youll easily be able to show one post where i denied it. should be easier to look up than emails.

logging in to an alt takes three clicks. posting about an alt repeatedly as you do takes a lot more effort. lol rent free

[DMC]

Who said anything about a moderator?

"Do you have admin access to view usernames and passwords through the UI or do you have direct access to the ST database?" -You

:lol

[DMC]

no one else cares, but youre right, its public so im sure youll easily be able to show one post where i denied it. should be easier to look up than emails.

logging in to an alt takes three clicks. posting about an alt repeatedly as you do takes a lot more effort. lol rent free

:lol "no one else cares"
:lol Pretends to have an audience
:lol logs in under his outed alt to save face
:lol still living with mom at age 30

[DMC]

rebut it. And don't embarrass yourself with "shall not be infringed".


JUST weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in American history, in Las Vegas, America faced its fifth-worst attack, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on November 5th. Both assailants were armed with military-style rifles. Why does American law let people buy such weapons?


The answer is the Second Amendment to the constitution, which reads: “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.” (Commas were used differently in the 18th century, but these do not affect meaning.) Gun-rights advocates insist the second half of that sentence is absolute.
Those in favour of tighter regulation insist that the framers used the first clause to tie gun-rights to the need for a militia. Since no American state has the sort of militia that existed in the 1780s (consisting of all able-bodied men, subject to call-up at any time and expected to bring their own weapons), this would make wider curbs on guns legal. (https://www.economist.com/latest-updates)


What is that clause doing there? In the 1960s Paul Grice, a philosopher, wrote his seminal works on the unspoken rules of language, how often people observe them, and what they do when they break them. He codified these into several maxims of conversation now famous among linguists. One is the “maxim of relevance”: if someone randomly veers off-topic they break that maxim. The other is the “maxim of quantity”: speakers should say enough, but not too much.


These maxims can be broken. But because the maxims are so widely understood and observed, Grice argued, breaking them is significant. When you hear a speaker break them, your first instinct is to look for new meaning. For example, imagine a man arriving home, and his wife asking: “Where were you?” If he replies: “I am not cheating on you,” she would be right to be worried. Perhaps the information was supposed to be reassuring. But by breaking the maxim of relevance it sends an entirely different message.


Or take the maxim of quantity. Information should only be included for a reason. So what is the militia clause there for? Antonin Scalia tried to explain it in the Supreme Court’s opinion in DC v Heller, which in 2008 upheld an individual right to own and carry guns for hunting, self-defence or, really, for any reason. Like Grice, Scalia thought that the clause should be relevant. In fact, he insisted that it was. England’s Stuart kings had disarmed those likely to be disloyal. So an arms-keeping citizenry ready to muster as a militia, even against its own rulers, was indeed “necessary for the security of a free state”. Scalia said that prefatory clauses can announce a law’s purpose—but cannot restrict it.


Why have them, then? The writers of the constitution could have included all manner of philosophical navel-gazing in the prefatory clause: “The right of self-defence being inalienable…” and so forth. Some state constitutions did mention self-defence in their gun-rights clauses. The federal constitution does not. This makes the prefatory clause a rather odd bit of throat-clearing. If the framers meant to include self-defence, it violates the maxim of quantity by saying both too little (it did not mention self-defence) and too much (by not being needed at all).


A linguist at San Diego State University, Jeffrey Kaplan, argues that the prefatory clause is false. America, despite having no more militias, remains “a free state”, as do many other countries. He says that in parallel constructions like “Today being St Patrick’s Day, I will buy drinks for everyone in the bar,” if it turns out today is not in fact St Patrick’s Day, the promise in the main clause needs “repair”: a chance to cancel the offer or negotiate something else with the patrons. He put the St Patrick’s Day problem to 50 experimental subjects—80% said that if the presupposition was false, the offer was no longer operative.


In a second experiment, he invented a statute: “Water being an abundant resource, property owners shall have an unrestricted right to irrigate their property as they see fit.” If, a century later, water is now scarce, is the law still in effect? Of those who replied, 81% said no.


It is hard to believe the framers would be happy with the result of their work. America remains bitterly divided over guns, thanks to a bizarrely worded amendment that is introduced by a statement about militias that is superfluous (if Scalia and gun advocates are right), and was arguably never true at all. At the very least, it has not stood the test of time.


This article appeared in the Books and arts section of the print edition under the headline "Right and wrong on bearing arms"


I don't disagree with it.

This is why I said you should go for an outright ban on guns. If there is no 2nd Amendment "spirit" that protects gun ownership, then why is it even legal for non military folks to own firearms?

Why just go for the semi-auto? The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify and being moot is being moot, all encompassing moot in fact.

Do you lack the courage?

[Th'Pusher]

"Do you have admin access to view usernames and passwords through the UI or do you have direct access to the ST database?" -You

:lol

Who said anything about a moderator?

[Adam Lambert]

:lol "no one else cares"
:lol Pretends to have an audience
:lol logs in under his outed alt to save face
:lol still living with mom at age 30

:lol you sad idiot, my entire point is there is no audience.

beyond people now knowing that you look up emails when someone makes you mad, its basically just the two of us engaging at all in this ongoing discussion about my alts.

which makes it doubly sad that you have to make shit up to feel some kind of reward

[Th'Pusher]

I don't disagree with it.

This is why I said you should go for an outright ban on guns. If there is no 2nd Amendment "spirit" that protects gun ownership, then why is it even legal for non military folks to own firearms?

Why just go for the semi-auto? The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify and being moot is being moot, all encompassing moot in fact.

Do you lack the courage?

Stare decisis.

Nice rebuttal by the way. Seems you agree with the losing side :lol

[Th'Pusher]

beyond people now knowing that you look up emails when someone makes you mad...

Yep.

[DMC]

Who said anything about a moderator?

Who else has admin access?

:lol desperate times

[DMC]

Stare decisis.

Nice rebuttal by the way. Seems you agree with the losing side :lol

There are some semantic issues with their stance. Overall they have a point, but they don't necessarily make a solid case while presenting it. Water rights when water is abundant /= "right" where a bill of rights is concerned. The right to water does not provide abundance of water, however in the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is to provide a free state. Just because a free state exists already doesn't mean the foundation for it can be pulled away.

Also, a statute isn't the same as a right. A statute is just a law.

I can successfully argue both sides, but the left will do nothing about their stance, except repeat it. They are too afraid to take a hard stance on the issue, because voters might not like it.

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3295&context=wmlr

This explains the nuances much better than that hack of an article

[DMC]

:lol you sad idiot, my entire point is there is no audience.

beyond people now knowing that you look up emails when someone makes you mad, its basically just the two of us engaging at all in this ongoing discussion about my alts.

which makes it doubly sad that you have to make shit up to feel some kind of reward

"people knowing"

"there is no audience"

:lol Tell mom I said hi!

[Th'Pusher]

Who else has admin access?

:lol desperate times

Are you denying you accessed the email address Spuminator and I used to register?

[Th'Pusher]

There are some semantic issues with their stance. Overall they have a point, but they don't necessarily make a solid case while presenting it. Water rights when water is abundant /= "right" where a bill of rights is concerned. The right to water does not provide abundance of water, however in the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is to provide a free state. Just because a free state exists already doesn't mean the foundation for it can be pulled away.

Also, a statute isn't the same as a right. A statute is just a law.

lol. You cherry pick that example as the crux of the argument. I don't think you understood what you were reading.


I can successfully argue both sides
You haven't yet.


but the left will do nothing about their stance, except repeat it. They are too afraid to take a hard stance on the issue, because voters might not like it.

The LEFT!!!



http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3295&context=wmlr

This explains the nuances much better than that hack of an article

:lol I would hope so. It's a 20+ page legal study.

[Adam Lambert]

"people knowing"

"there is no audience"

:lol Tell mom I said hi!

"beyond"

that means "aside from"

since we both know you dont know anything personally about me or where i live, its really sad watching this pretense, but keep trying. :lmao

[DMC]

"beyond"

that means "aside from"

since we both know you dont know anything personally about me or where i live, its really sad watching this pretense, but keep trying. :lmao

We'll go with that narrative for now :lol

[DMC]

lol. You cherry pick that example as the crux of the argument. I don't think you understood what you were reading.

Sure I did.


You haven't yet.

Yes I have.


The LEFT!!!

As in "left behind"


:lol I would hope so. It's a 20+ page legal study.
Vs a liberal piece from another country.

[DMC]

Are you denying you accessed the email address Spuminator and I used to register?

Explain "accessed"

[Th'Pusher]

Sure I did.

disagree


Yes I have.

No you haven't. All you've done is bolster the argument for gun control. Make the arguement for "shall not be infringed" without saying shall not be infringed.


As in "left behind"

as in, that's an embarrassing response :cry is that a Kirk Cameron reference?



vs a liberal piece from another country.

Another country? As if someone from another country can't analyze American law. You're a fucking moron.

[Th'Pusher]

Explain "accessed"

:lol you were so emotionally affected by posts from anonymous men on the internet that you accessed their emails to out their alts and research personal information about them.

[Adam Lambert]

We'll go with that narrative for now :lol


Play coy and make sure to use an emoji.


:lmao

[DMC]

disagree



No you haven't. All you've done is bolster the argument for gun control. Make the arguement for "shall not be infringed" without saying shall not be infringed.



as in, that's an embarrassing response :cry is that a Kirk Cameron reference?




Another country? As if someone from another country can't analyze American law. You're a fucking moron.

When did the BoR become American law?

The argument for the 2nd has to support the 2nd. How can someone argue "shall not be infringed" any other way? It's like saying "argue "do not enter" without saying "do not enter". What you want me to do is argue for gun ownership, but the 2nd doesn't support gun ownership. It simply states that a pre-existing right will not be taken away or neutered by congress. It doesn't grant the right, else it would say so. The language implies a right already existed. So you'd have to go back beyond that amendment to find the spirit of the right to bear arms. I've done so on this forum. Use the search feature.

Let's look at the 4th:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Notice it doesn't grant a right, but grants protections for what was presumed to be existing rights. Notice people aren't saying that the 4th Amendment doesn't guarantee the right of people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, because that would fly in the face of the actual statement in the amendment itself. So "shall not be violated" and "shall not be infringed" are being used in similar ways. However the latter also includes encroachments on rights that the founding fathers knew would happen (based on experience) that might not be considered as an actual binary go/no go for "right to bear arms", like the stuff some of you are proposing.

[DMC]

:lmao

So triggered you had to resurrect the Adam Lameburt account just to try to fish more information from me. You have no idea what I know or don't, and :lol if you think I'd actually tell you.

Too vulgar a display of power. In time, in time.

[DMC]

:lol you were so emotionally affected by posts from anonymous men on the internet that you accessed their emails to out their alts and research personal information about them.

What personal information did I access about you or anyone else? Be specific.

Again, explain "accessed". Again, be specific.

[Adam Lambert]

So triggered you had to resurrect the Adam Lameburt account just to try to fish more information from me. You have no idea what I know or don't, and :lol if you think I'd actually tell you.

Too vulgar a display of power. In time, in time.

:lol thinking im trying to fish info from you
:lol empty threats
:lol email searcher
:lol rent free presidential suite

[DMC]

"beyond"

that means "aside from"

since we both know you dont know anything personally about me or where i live, its really sad watching this pretense, but keep trying. :lmao


:lol you were so emotionally affected by posts from anonymous men on the internet that you accessed their emails to out their alts and research personal information about them.


:lol thinking im trying to fish info from you
:lol empty threats
:lol email searcher
:lol rent free presidential suite

It's quite obvious that you two are of the mind that I have all the goods on you both.

Maybe I do. So?

:lol using "rent free" while using your outed alt that you resurrected just for me

[Adam Lambert]

imagine being so insecure about your ability to articulate your perspective on an online message board that you rely on the fantasy of others being unsuccessful in life in order to feel some kind of intellectual upper hand.

imagine pretending to know personal information about them and issuing veiled threats to reveal it, and thinking this is something to be proud of.

:lol

[Adam Lambert]

It's quite obvious that you two are of the mind that I have all the goods on you both.

Maybe I do. So?

to be clear, i dont think you have any goods on me other than my registration email, and i think its hilarious that you think i do, or that you think this makes you look cool.


:lol using "rent free" while using your outed alt that you resurrected just for me

3 clicks for me to log in.
??? hours of you thinking about this alt

just giving you what you want. thank me.

[DMC]

to be clear, i dont think you have any goods on me other than my registration email, and i think its hilarious that you think i do, or that you think this makes you look cool.



3 clicks for me to log in.
??? hours of you thinking about this alt

just giving you what you want. thank me.

You're right, I have nothing on you. Just like before when I said that.

So why are you so salty about your alty?

[DMC]

imagine being so insecure about your ability to articulate your perspective on an online message board that you rely on the fantasy of others being unsuccessful in life in order to feel some kind of intellectual upper hand.

imagine pretending to know personal information about them and issuing veiled threats to reveal it, and thinking this is something to be proud of.

:lol

Imagine all the people, living for today. YooHOOOOooooooo

[Th'Pusher]

You're right, I have nothing on you.

This is a lie. What you have on him is the email he registered his accounts with.

The same as you have on me and likely anyone on this forum who gets under your skin.

[Th'Pusher]

When did the BoR become American law?

The argument for the 2nd has to support the 2nd. How can someone argue "shall not be infringed" any other way? It's like saying "argue "do not enter" without saying "do not enter". What you want me to do is argue for gun ownership, but the 2nd doesn't support gun ownership. It simply states that a pre-existing right will not be taken away or neutered by congress. It doesn't grant the right, else it would say so. The language implies a right already existed. So you'd have to go back beyond that amendment to find the spirit of the right to bear arms. I've done so on this forum. Use the search feature.

Let's look at the 4th:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Notice it doesn't grant a right, but grants protections for what was presumed to be existing rights. Notice people aren't saying that the 4th Amendment doesn't guarantee the right of people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, because that would fly in the face of the actual statement in the amendment itself. So "shall not be violated" and "shall not be infringed" are being used in similar ways. However the latter also includes encroachments on rights that the founding fathers knew would happen (based on experience) that might not be considered as an actual binary go/no go for "right to bear arms", like the stuff some of you are proposing.

so your argument hinges on "shall not be infringed" being absolute. Yet, any for of gun control would be an infringement on a person's right to keep and bear arms. We know that you, and more importantly the SCOTUS, accept certain forms of gun control which undermines the basis of your argument.

[Adam Lambert]

Just like before when I said that.

:lol okay we'll go with that narrative for now


So why are you so salty about your alty?

only one of us is salty about my alty and its not me, email investigator

:claw

[DMC]

This is a lie. What you have on him is the email he registered his accounts with.

The same as you have on me and likely anyone on this forum who gets under your skin.

:lmao

[DMC]

so your argument hinges on "shall not be infringed" being absolute. Yet, any for of gun control would be an infringement on a person's right to keep and bear arms. We know that you, and more importantly the SCOTUS, accept certain forms of gun control which undermines the basis of your argument.

My argument isn't whether or not "shall not be infringed" is absolute, but whether it intentionally differs from "shall not be violated" and that hinges on the word "unreasonable". There is no such word in the 2nd Amendment. For example, no one said "canons are unreasonable for arms" because the term "arms" means firearms you can carry on your person. You cannot bear a canon, not without a liberal use of the word "bear".

Again, the 2nd doesn't grant the right so even if you said the 2nd is bunk, the right is presumed to still exist. The real meat of the 2nd is "the right to keep and bear arms", not "shall not be infringed".

The BoR is still subject to the will of the nation, just like it was when the founding fathers created it.

The right to keep and bear arms isn't removed by removing certain types of arms. Otherwise arms that are in development and not currently available to the public are violating our rights by not being available. A person could be allowed to have a single shot rifle and that would meet the requirements of "shall not be infringed".

See, I just argued it both ways. It's quite easy. This is why the make up of the USSC is so important. You can bet that the Vegas shooter did not feel he had the right to take those firearms into that hotel, or that the Texas shooter didn't have the right to walk into that church with firearms. So you have to back up a step and say they didn't even have the right to own those firearms. That horse has left the barn though. The firearms are owned, by millions.

So you either push for a ban/confiscation or you just continue with placebo legislation while tip toeing around the fears of losing voters.

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao

Email investigator. Data miner. These are terms people associate with you.

[Th'Pusher]

So you either push for a ban/confiscation or you just continue with placebo legislation while tip toeing around the fears of losing voters.

And there it is. Also, can you mention the left more explicitly? Someone might not know what your talking about.

[DMC]

Email investigator. Data miner. These are terms people associate with you.

"people"

:lol

[DMC]

And there it is. Also, can you mention the left more explicitly? Someone might not know what your talking about.

You won't ban semi-autos in a way that matters since so many of them are in existence already. I'm waiting for your alternative that makes any sense at all.

[Th'Pusher]

"people"

:lol

Yep. People.

[Th'Pusher]

You won't ban semi-autos in a way that matters since so many of them are in existence already. I'm waiting for your alternative that makes any sense at all.

Buyback and time.

[DMC]

"people knowing"

"there is no audience"

:lol Tell mom I said hi!


Email investigator. Data miner. These are terms people associate with you.


"people"

:lol


Yep. People.

:lol

[DMC]

Buyback and time.

:lmao

You expect the taxpayers to buy every semi-auto someone wants to sell?

Have you ever researched gun buyback programs in the US to see how effective they were?

[Th'Pusher]

:lol

Full DMC :lol

[DMC]

Full DMC :lol

Still waiting for just a modicum of rationality and sense from you. The magic wand was cute, but get down to brass tacks now. How do you propose to institute a gun ban when you don't know who owns the guns to begin with? You'd have to have a ban for a buyback to mean anything, else you have a supply/demand loop that would result in taxpayer money flowing to low end gun manufacturers. Make a gun for 50.00, sell it for 100.00. Do that all day.

So you ban the semiauto. What does it mean? You ban manufacturing of the semiauto but do you ban sales of pre-existing stock? If you do both, do you ban the sale of a semi-auto between citizens? How would you track it?

"just do it" sounds cool for Nike, but not for any real legislation.



CINCINNATI -- The rifles, pistols and shotguns always look impressive when they're displayed at news conferences celebrating the end of gun buyback campaigns.

Spread across tables or piled high into overflowing stacks, all those weapons reinforce the notion that trading cash for guns works. It gets guns off the street, organizers say, and makes the city safer.

The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither.

Cincinnati will join a growing list of cities this week that have embraced gun buyback programs in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. The first of Cincinnati's three planned gun buybacks for 2013 is Tuesday.

POLITICS: Biden to produce gun package this week

The local campaign begins as the national debate over gun violence is intensifying, and as President Barack Obama awaits recommendations this week from his task force on gun-related crime.

Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks.

The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens.

The government estimates there are more than 310 million guns in America today, nearly enough to arm every man, woman and child in the country.

"They make for good photo images," said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, based at the University of Wisconsin's law school. "But gun buyback programs recover such a small percentage of guns that it's not likely to make much impact."

The relatively small number of guns recovered isn't the only problem, Scott said. Buyback programs tend to attract people who are least likely to commit crimes and to retrieve guns that are least likely to be used in crimes.

Scott and others say violent criminals – the people who do most of the shooting and killing – steer clear of buyback programs unless they're trying to make some quick cash by selling a weapon they don't want anymore.

That means buyback campaigns more often end up with hunting rifles or old revolvers from someone's attic than with automatic weapons from the trunk of a criminal's car.

"They don't get a lot of crime guns off the street," said Matt Makarios, a criminal justice professor who studied buyback programs while at the University of Cincinnati in 2008. "You're only going to reduce the likelihood of gun crimes if you reduce the number of guns used in crimes."

A buyback in Tucson, Ariz., last week collected about 200 firearms, many of them old or inoperable, in exchange for about $10,000 worth of grocery gift cards. A few hundred feet away, gun dealers set up tables and offered cash for any guns in good enough condition to resell.

"Every gun that came in was an old gun, no assault weapons," Tom Ditsch, who watched the event, told The Associated Press. "They didn't even take any weapons off the streets."

Supporters: Buybacks save lives

Even with their shortcomings, Makarios said buyback programs have a few things going for them. They raise awareness about a serious problem. They also rally community groups to get more involved.

And they really do collect guns, an average of about 30 per event. Some big-city buybacks in Los Angeles and Seattle have brought in 2,000 or more guns in a single day.

When BLOC Ministries held a buyback two years ago in Cincinnati, it became a neighborhood happening that involved several churches and community groups. The program netted 50 guns, most of them old pistols and rifles.

Dwight Young, the director of BLOC Ministries, said he knows statistics show buybacks don't put a dent in serious street crime. But he said the effort is worthwhile because, even if it doesn't address the big problem, it still might save a few lives.

During the buyback, Young said a worried mom brought in a handgun she'd found in her 16-year-old daughter's purse. The girl had been holding the gun for her boyfriend when her mom discovered it.

"Who knows what would have been done with that?" Young said. "We have to assume that we deterred some kind of crime, even if statistically it doesn't show. I have to believe it's worth the time."

The United States is far and away the world's leader in gun-related deaths, with more than 31,000 a year. Organizers of the upcoming buybacks in Cincinnati say taking some kind of action is better than doing nothing.

"If we can save one life, if we can stop one act of violence, if we can get a gun out of one person's hands, we have made progress in the fight to end violence in our communities," said Ennis Tait, pastor of Church of the Living God in Avondale.

But some say that energy could be better put to use in other ways. Alex Tabarrok, research director of the nonpartisan Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., said investing in buyback programs makes little sense when study after study shows they don't work.

A few researchers believe buybacks may even do some harm: A 1999 article in the Law and Order journal found that some people sold guns to police during buybacks and then used the money to buy new guns.

Tabarrok said buybacks consume thousands of dollars, most of it donated, that would be better spent on police overtime to put more officers on the street, or on other law enforcement efforts that are more likely to have an impact.

Programs 'badly flawed'

Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky, given all the things that can influence crime rates. But several studies over the years have examined the weapons retrieved during buybacks and the level of gun violence in the months after the events.

Most reached the same conclusion: The guns collected usually aren't the type used in crimes, and the impact of the buybacks on crime was "not statistically significant."

So what does work? Makarios, now a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, said more stringent gun laws that limit access to certain weapons or require background checks are slightly more effective in reducing violence than gun buybacks. But not much more.

The most successful efforts involve old-fashioned police work, in which officers, probation departments and other law enforcement agencies work together to identify and target the biggest threats.

One program, known as "focused intervention," singles out people with a history of criminal activity so police and probation officers can keep close tabs on them.

The approach is part carrot, part stick. Officers meet with high-risk individuals regularly to offer help through social service agencies – and to remind them they will land back in prison if they commit new crimes.

"It is focused on those people who are more likely to be involved in gun violence," said Capt. Paul Humphries of Cincinnati police, which uses the program.

He wouldn't discuss gun buyback programs, but police across the country are divided on the issue.

Scott, of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, said most police departments now see buybacks as either a distraction, or as a harmless way to mobilize community groups. He said few believe they will solve the problem.

"There's some merit to them," he said. "But if they're done with an eye to reducing intentional gun violence, there's not much evidence they will."

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao

You expect the taxpayers to buy every semi-auto someone wants to sell?
Sure. Ive seen tax dollars spent on worse.



Have you ever researched gun buyback programs in the US to see how effective they were?

Why would I limit my research to the US where buyback programs have only been implemented regionally when I am proposing a federal buyback program?

[DMC]

Sure. Ive seen tax dollars spent on worse.


So that makes it a working solution?


Why would I limit my research to the US where buyback programs have only been implemented regionally when I am proposing a federal buyback program?
Because we're talking about the US?

[Th'Pusher]

Still waiting for just a modicum of rationality and sense from you. The magic wand was cute, but get down to brass tacks now. How do you propose to institute a gun ban when you don't know who owns the guns to begin with? You'd have to have a ban for a buyback to mean anything, else you have a supply/demand loop that would result in taxpayer money flowing to low end gun manufacturers. Make a gun for 50.00, sell it for 100.00. Do that all day.

So you ban the semiauto. What does it mean? You ban manufacturing of the semiauto but do you ban sales of pre-existing stock? If you do both, do you ban the sale of a semi-auto between citizens? How would you track it?

All of these questions would be answered through the legislative process. You and I aren't legislators and don't need to have all of the answers.




CINCINNATI -- The rifles, pistols and shotguns always look impressive when they're displayed at news conferences celebrating the end of gun buyback campaigns.

Spread across tables or piled high into overflowing stacks, all those weapons reinforce the notion that trading cash for guns works. It gets guns off the street, organizers say, and makes the city safer.

The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither.

Cincinnati will join a growing list of cities this week that have embraced gun buyback programs in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. The first of Cincinnati's three planned gun buybacks for 2013 is Tuesday.

POLITICS: Biden to produce gun package this week

The local campaign begins as the national debate over gun violence is intensifying, and as President Barack Obama awaits recommendations this week from his task force on gun-related crime.

Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks.

The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens.

The government estimates there are more than 310 million guns in America today, nearly enough to arm every man, woman and child in the country.

"They make for good photo images," said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, based at the University of Wisconsin's law school. "But gun buyback programs recover such a small percentage of guns that it's not likely to make much impact."

The relatively small number of guns recovered isn't the only problem, Scott said. Buyback programs tend to attract people who are least likely to commit crimes and to retrieve guns that are least likely to be used in crimes.

Scott and others say violent criminals – the people who do most of the shooting and killing – steer clear of buyback programs unless they're trying to make some quick cash by selling a weapon they don't want anymore.

That means buyback campaigns more often end up with hunting rifles or old revolvers from someone's attic than with automatic weapons from the trunk of a criminal's car.

"They don't get a lot of crime guns off the street," said Matt Makarios, a criminal justice professor who studied buyback programs while at the University of Cincinnati in 2008. "You're only going to reduce the likelihood of gun crimes if you reduce the number of guns used in crimes."

A buyback in Tucson, Ariz., last week collected about 200 firearms, many of them old or inoperable, in exchange for about $10,000 worth of grocery gift cards. A few hundred feet away, gun dealers set up tables and offered cash for any guns in good enough condition to resell.

"Every gun that came in was an old gun, no assault weapons," Tom Ditsch, who watched the event, told The Associated Press. "They didn't even take any weapons off the streets."

Supporters: Buybacks save lives

Even with their shortcomings, Makarios said buyback programs have a few things going for them. They raise awareness about a serious problem. They also rally community groups to get more involved.

And they really do collect guns, an average of about 30 per event. Some big-city buybacks in Los Angeles and Seattle have brought in 2,000 or more guns in a single day.

When BLOC Ministries held a buyback two years ago in Cincinnati, it became a neighborhood happening that involved several churches and community groups. The program netted 50 guns, most of them old pistols and rifles.

Dwight Young, the director of BLOC Ministries, said he knows statistics show buybacks don't put a dent in serious street crime. But he said the effort is worthwhile because, even if it doesn't address the big problem, it still might save a few lives.

During the buyback, Young said a worried mom brought in a handgun she'd found in her 16-year-old daughter's purse. The girl had been holding the gun for her boyfriend when her mom discovered it.

"Who knows what would have been done with that?" Young said. "We have to assume that we deterred some kind of crime, even if statistically it doesn't show. I have to believe it's worth the time."

The United States is far and away the world's leader in gun-related deaths, with more than 31,000 a year. Organizers of the upcoming buybacks in Cincinnati say taking some kind of action is better than doing nothing.

"If we can save one life, if we can stop one act of violence, if we can get a gun out of one person's hands, we have made progress in the fight to end violence in our communities," said Ennis Tait, pastor of Church of the Living God in Avondale.

But some say that energy could be better put to use in other ways. Alex Tabarrok, research director of the nonpartisan Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., said investing in buyback programs makes little sense when study after study shows they don't work.

A few researchers believe buybacks may even do some harm: A 1999 article in the Law and Order journal found that some people sold guns to police during buybacks and then used the money to buy new guns.

Tabarrok said buybacks consume thousands of dollars, most of it donated, that would be better spent on police overtime to put more officers on the street, or on other law enforcement efforts that are more likely to have an impact.

Programs 'badly flawed'

Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky, given all the things that can influence crime rates. But several studies over the years have examined the weapons retrieved during buybacks and the level of gun violence in the months after the events.

Most reached the same conclusion: The guns collected usually aren't the type used in crimes, and the impact of the buybacks on crime was "not statistically significant."

So what does work? Makarios, now a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, said more stringent gun laws that limit access to certain weapons or require background checks are slightly more effective in reducing violence than gun buybacks. But not much more.

The most successful efforts involve old-fashioned police work, in which officers, probation departments and other law enforcement agencies work together to identify and target the biggest threats.

One program, known as "focused intervention," singles out people with a history of criminal activity so police and probation officers can keep close tabs on them.

The approach is part carrot, part stick. Officers meet with high-risk individuals regularly to offer help through social service agencies – and to remind them they will land back in prison if they commit new crimes.

"It is focused on those people who are more likely to be involved in gun violence," said Capt. Paul Humphries of Cincinnati police, which uses the program.

He wouldn't discuss gun buyback programs, but police across the country are divided on the issue.

Scott, of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, said most police departments now see buybacks as either a distraction, or as a harmless way to mobilize community groups. He said few believe they will solve the problem.

"There's some merit to them," he said. "But if they're done with an eye to reducing intentional gun violence, there's not much evidence they will."

Cool unsourced regional examples that don't apply email sleuth.

[Th'Pusher]

So that makes it a working solution?

why wouldn't it?


Because we're talking about the US?

we're talking about a federal buyback program, not a regional one.

[DMC]

All of these questions would be answered through the legislative process. You and I aren't legislators and don't need to have all of the answers.



Cool unsourced regional examples that don't apply email sleuth.

USA Today

So you want to just suggest a solution with hand-wavium when "how" is presented? That's how you got here in the first place.

[DMC]

why wouldn't it?

Because it's only slightly better than "just fix it". Why discuss something like this if your only offering is "make it so"? Obviously you don't know and can't be bothered to learn, but you nonetheless have an opinion on it.


we're talking about a federal buyback program, not a regional one.
So? How is that any different? You act like you know the difference but you haven't explained except to say it's different.

[Th'Pusher]

Because it's only slightly better than "just fix it". Why discuss something like this if your only offering is "make it so"? Obviously you don't know and can't be bothered to learn, but you nonetheless have an opinion on it.

You're free to stop responding at any time.


So? How is that any different? You act like you know the difference but you haven't explained except to say it's different.

You know the answer to this one email detective, it's the same answer THE LEFT gives for why any state or local gun control doesn't work.

[DMC]

You're free to stop responding at any time.



You know the answer to this one email detective, it's the same answer THE LEFT gives for why any state or local gun control doesn't work.

More non-answers from the resident know-it-all.

[boutons_deux]

White male gun owners with money stress more likely to be morally attached to their guns

They are also more likely to see violence against US government as sometimes justified,

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/bu-wmg112117.php (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/bu-wmg112117.php)

Well, no surprise.

Poor, out-of-work, low-status males think, with their low-info "schooling", that guns give them power and status (and bigger dicks).

I'd say the same goes for guys who find self-empowerment by bullying, by joining KKK to feel superior to knitters, Jews, Mexicans, women, and by supporting a "leader" like Trash who is racist, misogynist and also has clinical problems with self-esteem.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Localized bans and buybacks don't work because of how state and city borders work within US borders. This should not be hard especially considering in past gun debates here. Such programs in Chicago don't work because guns sourced to IN keep on showing up.

Trading in guns across international borders is a different animal. It's widely known they get their guns from here as there is not exactly a flourishing mexican firearm industry. That would be an ancillary benefit: it would be harder for the juarez and sinaloa cartels to arm themselves.

Also DMC is trying to make a false dichotomy in terms of whether a ban would be successful and making the strawman of what would be considered success. While a transfer ban and buy back would not automatically "solve" gun violence it would provide an immediate and ever increasing benefit.

It is been an established relationship between the amount of guns in an area and gun violence in an area. The buyback would get a lot of guns off the street immediately. The ban of transfers would have a profound effect on the volume over the following decades.

Would it be a perfect solution? No but it would reduce gun violence with no real downside. While DMC maes bullshit arguments about solubility he does nothing to show a detriment. The original intent of a check against tyranny already went out the window with the past 2 centuries of military technology and people who do give up their weapons will do so voluntarily and for a cash payment. Even home protection is sustained through the use of non automatic nor semiautomatic weapons.

What you don't get are the ability to purchase an arsenal of high capacity/high rate of fire weapons on a whim as well as a reduction in the overall volume of weapons immediately and over time. No downside.

It won't be perfect but it certainly will be better that the status quo. Throw in an expansion of the law enforcement background check, closing the LLC loophole, and a prohibition of firearms for all violent criminals and you will be getting somewhere.

[boutons_deux]

Texas dad accidentally killed by son during shooting lesson

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/texas-dad-accidentally-killed-by-son-during-shooting-lesson/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

Florida man accidentally shoots himself during road rage incident

A Florida man drew his gun during a road rage incident — and then accidentally shot himself.

Deputies said two drivers stopped at an intersection in Orlando, got out of their vehicles and began arguing, reported WESH-TV (https://www.wesh.com/article/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-road-rage-incident-ocso-deputies-say/13930544).

One of the men pulled out a gun because he felt threatened, deputies said.

The man then accidentally fired the weapon and shot himself in the leg, authorities said.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-during-road-rage-incident/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-during-road-rage-incident/)

:lol goddam, you fucking gun fellators are fucking stupid! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Top court spurns challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guncontrol/top-court-spurns-challenge-to-maryland-assault-weapons-ban-idUSKBN1DR1SE

"... shall not be infringed" :lol

[boutons_deux]

The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-22-at-10.03.15-PM.png

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and

why it says “State” instead of “Country”

(the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was

to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote.

Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state.

The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

“The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?”

book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas (https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Patrols-Violence-Carolinas-Historical/dp/0674012348/), notes that,

“Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller.”

most southern men between ages 18 and 45 – including physicians and ministers – had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified,

hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South.

Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out,

slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

Henry laid it out:

“Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

“By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.”

“If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.”

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson’s insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution,

changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue

to make sure it was unambiguous

that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/second-amendment-ratified-preserve-slavery/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/second-amendment-ratified-preserve-slavery/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

I bet NONE of all y'all pussy-grabbin white male supremacist KKK/Nazi types knew the 2nd was for suppressing knitters and NOT for fighting the Feds,

[koriwhat]

Florida man accidentally shoots himself during road rage incident

A Florida man drew his gun during a road rage incident — and then accidentally shot himself.

Deputies said two drivers stopped at an intersection in Orlando, got out of their vehicles and began arguing, reported WESH-TV (https://www.wesh.com/article/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-road-rage-incident-ocso-deputies-say/13930544).

One of the men pulled out a gun because he felt threatened, deputies said.

The man then accidentally fired the weapon and shot himself in the leg, authorities said.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-during-road-rage-incident/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-during-road-rage-incident/)

:lol goddam, you fucking gun fellators are fucking stupid! :lol




better outlaw coffee because there's some dumbfucks who spill it on themselves and file lawsuits. dipshits are everywhere.

[spurraider21]

better outlaw coffee because there's some dumbfucks who spill it on themselves and file lawsuits. dipshits are everywhere.
ask yourself why murderers tend to use guns instead of hot coffee

and then rethink your retarded post

[RandomGuy]

better outlaw coffee because there's some dumbfucks who spill it on themselves and file lawsuits. dipshits are everywhere.

oooh the stupid... it burns...

ow, that hurt to read. It was dumb, even for you.

[koriwhat]

ask yourself why murderers tend to use guns instead of hot coffee

and then rethink your retarded post

lmao! so black & white... murderers only use guns? you sure of that?

[pgardn]

better outlaw coffee because there's some dumbfucks who spill it on themselves and file lawsuits. dipshits are everywhere.

See some people would ask you to kill yourself with hot coffee.
But I would not. Maybe some analogy with pain meds next time...

Edit:
Maybe jumping in a giant hot coffee machine one could scald themselves and then die slowly and painfully.
Or jump into a bunch of beans while they are roasting?

F it. I don't drink coffee so I should not have a say.
Apologies to all.

[koriwhat]

See some people would ask you to kill yourself with hot coffee.
But I would not. Maybe some analogy with pain meds next time...

Edit:
Maybe jumping in a giant hot coffee machine one could scald themselves and then die slowly and painfully.
Or jump into a bunch of beans while they are roasting?

F it. I don't drink coffee so I should not have a say.
Apologies to all.

my analogy gets to the bottom of this issue. blame the guns but not the psychos who use them to murder others, right? last time i checked, and yall call me crazy all the time, i never shot another person nor have i had the thought to mass murder anyone ever. i guess the guns i shot were good guns and not murderous guns?

[spurraider21]

ask yourself why murderers tend to use guns instead of hot coffee

and then rethink your retarded post


lmao! so black & white... murderers only use guns? you sure of that?
but great dodge.

why don't murders use hot coffee as a weapon of choice?

[spurraider21]

my analogy gets to the bottom of this issue. blame the guns but not the psychos who use them to murder others, right? last time i checked, and yall call me crazy all the time, i never shot another person nor have i had the thought to mass murder anyone ever. i guess the guns i shot were good guns and not murderous guns?
no. the psychos are the ones who get arrested, tried for murder, and go to prison. the guns don't get charged with crimes.

its an inescapable truth that guns enable murder (by far the most common weapon used), and AR-15 type weapons enable mass murder more often than anything else

[koriwhat]

so SR if they only "tend to" then why aren't you advocating for the outlawing of all other "weapons" used as well? narrative.

[pgardn]

my analogy gets to the bottom of this issue. blame the guns but not the psychos who use them to murder others, right? last time i checked, and yall call me crazy all the time, i never shot another person nor have i had the thought to mass murder anyone ever. i guess the guns i shot were good guns and not murderous guns?


There are are plenty of people who are psychotic (divorced from reality) who have no desire to kill anyone but themselves.
Just stating crazy people shoot other people does not do it. Actually, it could get a bunch of depressed people who wanted to buy a gun for self defense to impulse buy and then shoot themselves during a bad patch of life.

So I'm gonna say you need more than a crazy person box to check on the background form.
But, kick the can.

[koriwhat]

There are are plenty of people who are psychotic (divorced from reality) who have no desire to kill anyone but themselves.
Just stating crazy people shoot other people does not do it. Actually, it could get a bunch of depressed people who wanted to buy a gun for self defense to impulse buy and then shoot themselves during a bad patch of life.

So I'm gonna say you need more than a crazy person box to check on the background form.
But, kick the can.

yep. maybe just maybe, the PD, the FBI, the school system, and the psychiatrist should be held accountable and not the gun. they came before the shooting but where were they to stop it?

[pgardn]

yep. maybe just maybe, the PD, the FBI, the school system, and the psychiatrist should be held accountable and not the gun. they came before the shooting but where were they to stop it?

You can give all the criteria after the fact on this guy.
Vegas guy was much more effective. How was Vegas guy IDed as a crazy threat?

[koriwhat]

You can give all the criteria after the fact on this guy.
Vegas guy was much more effective. How was Vegas guy IDed as a crazy threat?

was known to the fbi already... was on meds... etc... need i say more?

btw, you don't think the calls and warnings to the PD and FBI prior to Cruze's spree weren't enough?

[boutons_deux]

This pink plastic kitty keychain could get you a year in Texas jail —

even as AR-15s and ninja swords are legal

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CatKeychain.jpg

possessing a pink plastic keychain shaped like a cat could lead to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine,

That’s because a plastic pink kitty cat key chain falls under the Lone Star State has

a bizarre ban on “brass knuckles.”

State law makes possession of them a Class A misdemeanor, which comes with stiff possible penalties.

“It’s a prohibited weapon,”

a staff attorney with the Texas District and County Attorneys Association told the paper. :lol

“These are always and everywhere prohibited.”

The oddity of the situation is, of course, about money—the keychains cost about $10 (https://www.thehomesecuritysuperstore.com/) and don’t have a huge lobby behind them.

“There isn’t a big lobby for self-defense key chains so they don’t get as much attention as other weapons,”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/pink-plastic-kitty-keychain-get-year-texas-jail-even-ar-15s-ninja-swords-legal/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/pink-plastic-kitty-keychain-get-year-texas-jail-even-ar-15s-ninja-swords-legal/)

Fucking Texas and its sicko gun fellators! :lol