gun owners

[CosmicCowboy]

And congrats for finally getting it.

just for you

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41JohFJ6bBL.jpg

[pgardn]

This is what happens when you show your hand early on. The CDC has been down the gun control road before and this is why they have been restricted from doing so again.

You really like to wave your hands around and talk about how important gun registry would be because the stats are important. You cannot say how they are important though, just that they are. I think you've already realized you don't have a case here and so you're just stalling. Else you'd make a numbered list of the reasons gun registry is important, other than just saying it's important or "police allocation" and "talking points on forums".

We have already been through this. I led you along. Popped that head, and you can't let go now. So in areas with a gun ownership of more than 8 per average household, are there more gun accidents than with 1 per household. Does actually owning more guns lead to a larger number of accidents than owning fewer guns? You do realize it is highly possible that owning multiple guns in a household actually trends towards fewer accidents. Maybe because this is more common in rural areas where they take great care in gun safety and hunt with various types of guns and are very familiar with guns in general. But we will not know this.

You apparently got the answer to the above. Do I need to continue? Are you not creative enough to think on your own? Do you need more help? Can you come up with another question that could lead to important public policy? Public health stats can give us some sort of answer. But you don't care to have it as it's not important to YOU.

Why is car registry important. Ohh for road taxes...

Jesus....

And it's fully clear to me it is you that have zero for a case against registry. Except but, but, they would know something about me and find me. Like, like, they could do with my car or house.

[pgardn]

just for you

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41JohFJ6bBL.jpg

Good for you.
Very nice.

[CosmicCowboy]

We have already been through this. I led you along. Popped that head, and you can't let go now. So in areas with a gun ownership of more than 8 per average household, are there more gun accidents than with 1 per household. Does actually owning more guns lead to a larger number of accidents than owning fewer guns? You do realize it is highly possible that owning multiple guns in a household actually trends towards fewer accidents. Maybe because this is more common in rural areas where they take great care in gun safety and hunt with various types of guns and are very familiar with guns in general. But we will not know this.

You apparently got the answer to the above. Do I need to continue? Are you not creative enough to think on your own? Do you need more help? Can you come up with another question that could lead to important public policy? Public health stats can give us some sort of answer. But you don't care to have it as it's not important to YOU.

Why is car registry important. Ohh for road taxes...

Jesus....

And it's fully clear to me it is you that have zero for a case against registry. Except but, but, they would know something about me and find me. Like, like, they could do with my car or house.

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-15-at-11.00.50-AM.jpg

[DMC]

We have already been through this. I led you along. Popped that head, and you can't let go now. So in areas with a gun ownership of more than 8 per average household, are there more gun accidents than with 1 per household. Does actually owning more guns lead to a larger number of accidents than owning fewer guns? You do realize it is highly possible that owning multiple guns in a household actually trends towards fewer accidents. Maybe because this is more common in rural areas where they take great care in gun safety and hunt with various types of guns and are very familiar with guns in general. But we will not know this.
Again, how is this important? What would be done with the information?

Are there more electrical accidents in houses with more electrical outlets?

Information like this does nothing without a followup plan. This plan would eventually have to incorporate gun control legislation. Ergo it's a gun control issue.

What, are you going to suggest that people need to be told that accidental gun deaths are possible, like drownings, auto accidents, electrocutions, accidental overdoses and such? Does having more pill bottles mean more chance of accidental overdose?


You apparently got the answer to the above. Do I need to continue? Are you not creative enough to think on your own? Do you need more help? Can you come up with another question that could lead to important public policy? Public health stats can give us some sort of answer. But you don't care to have it as it's not important to YOU.

You're the one supporting gun registration, calling it important. I don't need to conjure up ways to support that, you do. Everything you've mentioned is already being studied from another angle. If you can show accidental gun deaths are more prevalent in specific areas than in others, then you can drill down on why. That's being done already. You still have nothing but a thinly veiled gun control argument.


Why is car registry important. Ohh for road taxes...

Otherwise it wouldn't cost so much and need to renewed every year. They know the owner didn't change nor did the plate number, they just say it's expired. How is it possible that it expired when none of the information changed? You're not even asked to verify the information. You just pay the money and get your new registration.

Would someone need to renew their gun registration every year? I mean, since you're making absurd comparisons...


Jesus....

Another myth no one can provide any evidence for.


And it's fully clear to me it is you that have zero for a case against registry. Except but, but, they would know something about me and find me. Like, like, they could do with my car or house.

Something proposed with no evidence doesn't merit evidence against it to show it's useless. When you apply for a job, do they have to show you how you're not qualified?

Basically you don't need the information you claim to need. It's not your business. If it was, you'd not need the CDC to do it, you could do it with local legislation.

[Chucho]

News from NRA/GunIndustry fantasyland

Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law increased homicides by 31 percent — and now they want to expand it

Gun homicides have jumped in Florida by more than 30 percent in the decade since lawmakers passed the “stand your ground” self-defense law.Florida was the first state to pass the law, which allows deadly force if a person believes they faces great bodily harm, and a recent study found an “abrupt and sustained” increase in the state’s homicide rate since then

monthly rate of homicides by firearm had increased by 31.6 percent since the law was enacted in 2005.

“It’s not surprising because when you lessen the standard for self-defense you create more opportunity for the use of deadly force,”

“When you have more opportunity for the use of deadly force you are going to have more fatalities. It’s pretty much guaranteed.”

Florida’s crime rate has been dropping, with few exceptions, since the law was passed — but that trend began a decade earlier, in 1995.

Baxley would like to expand the law by requiring prosecutors to prove the law does not apply in individual cases.

“The stand your ground law has been and will remain a political statement about the constitutional right to bear arms,” Rose said.

“It creates misunderstandings and a more dangerous environment on the streets of Florida.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-increased-homicides-by-31-percent-and-now-they-want-to-expand-it/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29



Hop a plane to Florida, stat.

[DMC]

But let's look at auto registration:

Imagine gun registration was enacted. You would likely eventually see something like auto registration where:

1. You have to renew frequently to maintain the registry and pay the people who keep it, another tax.
2. You cannot register if you don't have some form of other caveat like gun owners insurance, some training class certificate or other issue that the government can use to force people into compliance on other things some entity like the CDC decides is "good for public health" like inoculations. This becomes an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. Suddenly you can be denied your rights because you don't comply with peripheral issues, much like auto registration and auto insurance/inspection. You might even have to undergo gun inspection and home inspected to show you have a safe storage location and get random inspections to check that you have trigger locks installed and that the guns aren't accessible to kids. Hey though, that's a good thing because it protects people, right?
3. People who cannot afford the requirements will become illegal, just like people who drive without insurance, with expired registration and inspections are driving illegally. Now you have a situation where you can simply deny these people the right to ever own a gun.

Oh but as long as you can have a different talking point in your posts, it's worth it, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

But let's look at auto registration:

Imagine gun registration was enacted. You would likely eventually see something like auto registration where:

1. You have to renew frequently to maintain the registry and pay the people who keep it, another tax.
2. You cannot register if you don't have some form of other caveat like gun owners insurance, some training class certificate or other issue that the government can use to force people into compliance on other things some entity like the CDC decides is "good for public health" like inoculations. This becomes an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. Suddenly you can be denied your rights because you don't comply with peripheral issues, much like auto registration and auto insurance/inspection. You might even have to undergo gun inspection and home inspected to show you have a safe storage location and get random inspections to check that you have trigger locks installed and that the guns aren't accessible to kids. Hey though, that's a good thing because it protects people, right?
3. People who cannot afford the requirements will become illegal, just like people who drive without insurance, with expired registration and inspections are driving illegally. Now you have a situation where you can simply deny these people the right to ever own a gun.

Oh but as long as you can have a different talking point in your posts, it's worth it, right?

This would be terribly discriminatory against minorities. After all, liberals say they are already too lazy and stupid to get an ID to vote. How could they possibly handle something as complicated as gun registration?

[boutons_deux]

But let's look at auto registration:

Imagine gun registration was enacted. You would likely eventually see something like auto registration where:

1. You have to renew frequently to maintain the registry and pay the people who keep it, another tax.
2. You cannot register if you don't have some form of other caveat like gun owners insurance, some training class certificate or other issue that the government can use to force people into compliance on other things some entity like the CDC decides is "good for public health" like inoculations. This becomes an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. Suddenly you can be denied your rights because you don't comply with peripheral issues, much like auto registration and auto insurance/inspection. You might even have to undergo gun inspection and home inspected to show you have a safe storage location and get random inspections to check that you have trigger locks installed and that the guns aren't accessible to kids. Hey though, that's a good thing because it protects people, right?
3. People who cannot afford the requirements will become illegal, just like people who drive without insurance, with expired registration and inspections are driving illegally. Now you have a situation where you can simply deny these people the right to ever own a gun.

Oh but as long as you can have a different talking point in your posts, it's worth it, right?

Yep, all that's great. Would greatly reduce gun ownership, greatly increase NATIONAL gun tracing, and the annual re-registration fees and govt insurance would pay for the bureaucracy and help pay the many $Bs per year that gun violence causes.

Add in fines for losing your gun, restriction of gun ownership for dangerous, ill, violent offenders. Less guns is always less gun violence

[CosmicCowboy]

Yep, all that's great. Would greatly reduce gun ownership, greatly increase NATIONAL gun tracing, and the annual re-registration fees and govt insurance would pay for the bureaucracy and help pay the many $Bs per year that gun violence causes.

Add in fines for losing your gun, restriction of gun ownership for dangerous, ill, violent offenders. Less guns is always less gun violence

Boo wants to discriminate against minorities.

[Th'Pusher]

But let's look at auto registration:

Imagine gun registration was enacted. You would likely eventually see something like auto registration where:

1. You have to renew frequently to maintain the registry and pay the people who keep it, another tax.
2. You cannot register if you don't have some form of other caveat like gun owners insurance, some training class certificate or other issue that the government can use to force people into compliance on other things some entity like the CDC decides is "good for public health" like inoculations. This becomes an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. Suddenly you can be denied your rights because you don't comply with peripheral issues, much like auto registration and auto insurance/inspection. You might even have to undergo gun inspection and home inspected to show you have a safe storage location and get random inspections to check that you have trigger locks installed and that the guns aren't accessible to kids. Hey though, that's a good thing because it protects people, right?
3. People who cannot afford the requirements will become illegal, just like people who drive without insurance, with expired registration and inspections are driving illegally. Now you have a situation where you can simply deny these people the right to ever own a gun.

Oh but as long as you can have a different talking point in your posts, it's worth it, right?

Is CHL an infringement on the second amendment?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is CHL an infringement on the second amendment?

It's certainly discriminatory against minorities.

[boutons_deux]

Boo wants to discriminate against minorities.

Repugs in red/slave states already legislate against (poor) women's "settled law" right to abortion, but that's OK with you racist misogynists.

[CosmicCowboy]

Repugs in red/slave states already legislate against (poor) women's "settled law" right to abortion, but that's OK with you racist misogynists.

You just like to pick and choose how you discriminate against minorities? Fuckem if it's something you advocate for, right?

[DMC]

Is CHL an infringement on the second amendment?

Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.

[boutons_deux]

"2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms" :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.

That wouldn't stand up in court imo as SCOTUS has already established the 2nd amendment is not limitless. Otherwise, you'd have gun nuts suing states with CHL laws. The NRA won't have that. They know they'd lose and they don't want that precedent established.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just like to pick and choose how you discriminate against minorities? Fuckem if it's something you advocate for, right?

So you take one position in regards to voting rights and you take the other here. Hypocrisy suits you.

Registration taxes are fearmongering and not a necessity. There is no such issue with handgun registration and that has been in place for decades. Fearmongering with empirical proof to the contrary is for fools and idiots.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You you have to love how right wingers ignore the part where it says "a well regulated militia" and where in the federalist it is explained that the militia comprises all citizens.

[boutons_deux]

So you take one position in regards to voting rights and you take the other here. Hypocrisy suits you.

Registration taxes are fearmongering and not a necessity. There is no such issue with handgun registration and that has been in place for decades. Fearmongering with empirical proof to the contrary is for fools and idiots.

Just like you, guns everywhere for everyone all the time, and don't GAF about 10Ks gun injuries, death per year, $10Bs medical/disability, and $100Ms revenue for BigGun and NRA.

rich woman can fly out of TX, spend $1000+ total for an abortion, while a poor woman, denied condoms, contraception, perinatal care, is stuck with coat hangers, or an unwanted baby.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you take one position in regards to voting rights and you take the other here. Hypocrisy suits you.

Registration taxes are fearmongering and not a necessity. There is no such issue with handgun registration and that has been in place for decades. Fearmongering with empirical proof to the contrary is for fools and idiots.

:lmao

I'm pointing out your liberal hypocrisy. You say minorities are too lazy and stupid to get photo ID's so how the hell are they going to be able to register their guns? You want to make criminals out of innocent minorities!

[boutons_deux]

CAP Report Finds 43,000 Hate Crimes Involved Guns from 2010 to 2014, Calls for Legislation Barring Individuals Convicted of Misdemeanor Hate Crimes from Obtaining Guns

Washington, D.C. — According to an analysis conducted by the Center for American Progress, roughly 43,000 hate crimes committed from 2010 to 2014 involved the use or threat of a gun.

The analysis, based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, or NCVS, was included in a CAP report (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/report/2016/02/24/131670/hate-and-guns-a-terrifying-combination/) released today at an event featuring U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and other experts on the intersection of gun violence and hate crimes.

The report looks at data from the NCVS and finds that hate-motivated individuals terrorizing communities with guns is not limited to high-profile cases such as the attack on the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, or a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Hate-motivated criminals and violent extremists often use guns as a tool to threaten and intimidate members of historically marginalized and vulnerable communities.

The use of this uniquely lethal instrument in the commission of hate crimes inflicts substantial damage on the targeted community, even in cases in which the trigger is never pulled.

Recognizing the heightened risk posed by individuals with a demonstrated history of bias-motivated threats and violence against members of historically vulnerable groups that are protected by hate crime laws, the report offers a new policy idea to help keep guns out of their hands:

legislation to prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from buying or possessing guns.

Rep. Cicilline announced today that he will introduce this legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2016/02/24/131653/release-cap-report-finds-43000-hate-crimes-involved-guns-from-2010-to-2014-calls-for-legislation-barring-individuals-convicted-of-misdemeanor-hate-crimes-from-obtaining-guns/

[Sportcamper]

On a happy note: Colt SSA’s & Python’s are worth 10X what buyers paid in the 70’s & 80’s…Not a bad investment…

[CosmicCowboy]

On a happy note: Colt SSA’s & Python’s are worth 10X what buyers paid in the 70’s & 80’s…Not a bad investment…

My three screw Rugers have done the same.

[SpursforSix]

My three screw Rugers have done the same.

Bend over, I'll fucking give ya a Three Screw Ruger.

[Th'Pusher]

Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.


Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#26)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[Sportcamper]

My three screw Rugers have done the same.
Wish I bought a hundred of those Ruger's...They could be had for under 200 in So Cal...

[CosmicCowboy]

Wish I bought a hundred of those Ruger's...They could be had for under 200 in So Cal...

One of my sleazy ex brother in laws talked my dad out of his factory nickel plated 1st gen Colt .45 SSA with mother of pearl grips. I was just sick when I found out. That was a $10,000 pistol and my dad had no idea.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

I'm pointing out your liberal hypocrisy. You say minorities are too lazy and stupid to get photo ID's so how the hell are they going to be able to register their guns? You want to make criminals out of innocent minorities!

You are assuming that 'liberals' are for a gun tax on the strength of DMC's wishcasting. And in order for it to be hypocrisy you are granting the efficacy of the Voting Rights argument. That is how it works, dimwit.

As for the Constitution and the Equal Protection, the issue boils down to the same issue in regards to the second amendment. There is a right to life and a duty for the government to provide public safety. The cliche the SCOTUS uses in reference to the 1st amendment is someone using their speech to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Ultimately such things have to be weighed for their impact. It is not so cut and dry as you would make it seem; frankly, you approach the issue like a simpleton. It's why in the voting rights argument the hot issue is whether or not there is actual fraud endangering our democracy justifying the ID laws to weigh against the impact on sufferance.

It is also adorable that a fat, white, bigoted, old man acts like it is in a position to speak for minorities. If you look at at black and latino advocacy groups they typically support gun control measures. In fact, they are vocal about it because of the violence in the poor communities concurrent with the massive influx of firearms into the inner cities.

And again the current statute has been in place regarding hand guns for decades at this point and minority groups have not complained about it one bit. Nor has there been a gun tax implemented much less a recurring one.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One of my sleazy ex brother in laws talked my dad out of his factory nickel plated 1st gen Colt .45 SSA with mother of pearl grips. I was just sick when I found out. That was a $10,000 pistol and my dad had no idea.

Profiteering over your inheritance. How typical.

Covet your sister's husband and kill your brother. Nice.

[CosmicCowboy]

Profiteering over your inheritance. How typical.

Covet your sister's husband and kill your brother. Nice.

You are such a faggot. I would have never sold it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are such a faggot. I would have never sold it.

You coveted nonetheless. Something does not have to be liquidated to have value anyway. Quite the contrary. You put it in dollar terms regardless. It shows where your mind is.

We know you backbit your brother to your father. Did you do it to sis and her husband as well? I bet you did.

[CosmicCowboy]

You coveted nonetheless. Something does not have to be liquidated to have value anyway. Quite the contrary. You put it in dollar terms regardless. It shows where your mind is.

It shows how rare it was you stupid fuck. You are a disgusting little ankle biting piece of shit.

[SpursforSix]

You are such a faggot. I would have never sold it.

Why'd you bring up the dollar amount then? You could have just said it meant something to you. Would you have been just as upset if it was only worth $100?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It shows how rare it was you stupid fuck. You are a disgusting little ankle biting piece of shit.

You told us that your brother died alone. You told us this was after you had convinced your parents to cut him off.

Here you are now keeping score over what your sister gets. You try and get her cutoff too?

I don't really care if you think I am disgusting. You show a propensity to play Cain to your sibling's Abel in making sure you get your piece of the pie. We both know how that is viewed I don't have to wishcast insults and hope people believe it.

[CosmicCowboy]

You told us that your brother died alone. You told us this was after you had convinced your parents to cut him off.

Here you are now keeping score over what your sister gets. You try and get her cutoff too?

I don't really care if you think I am disgusting. You show a propensity to play Cain to Abel in making sure you get your piece of the pie.

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. It was an EX brother in law that shit my dad out of it as he was divorcing my sister. My sister didn't get it, dumbass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. It was an EX brother in law that shit my dad out of it as he was divorcing my sister. My sister didn't get it, dumbass.

I read just fine. They were married at the time. That was apparent despite your obfuscation. I notice you dodged the question. I bet you want that score kept in the final accounting.

[CosmicCowboy]

And yeah, my adopted "brother" died of a cocaine induced heart attack punching in the gate code to his stripper girlfriends apartment at 5 in the morning after partying all night a couple weeks after his wife kicked him out of their house with a restraining order for beating her and choking her out in front of their two young kids. The world is a better place that he is dead.

Keep bringing him up, though. It reminds me what a piece of shit you are too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And yeah, my adopted "brother" died of a cocaine induced heart attack punching in the gate code to his girlfriends apartment at 5 in the morning after partying all night a couple weeks after his wife kicked him out of their house with a restraining order for beating her and choking her out in front of their two young kids. The world is a better place that he is dead.

Keep bringing him up, though. It reminds me what a piece of shit you are too.

You left out the part where prior to that you had ostracised him and even better convinced your parents to do the same thing. Of course predictably his behavior deteriorated.

Introspection and accountability from you though? Nope, your glad he is dead.

You don't like me but I don't really care. Someone that is able to betray his family and feel good about it has nothing to offer me.

[CosmicCowboy]

You left out the part where prior to that you had ostracised him and even better convinced your parents to do the same thing. Of course predictably his behavior deteriorated.

Introspection and accountability from you though? Nope, your glad he is dead.

You don't like me but I don't really care. Someone that is able to betray his family and feel good about it has nothing to offer me.

:lol

You left out the part where you totally rewrote history without knowing a damn thing about it, faggot. You take a phrase out of context and then make up shit. Not that I give a fuck what a piece of shit like you thinks of me but I don't particularly like you making up shit and spreading it in here like it's the truth.

[CosmicCowboy]

And yeah, the world is a better place because that evil son of a bitch is dead.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

You left out the part where you totally rewrote history without knowing a damn thing about it, faggot. You take a phrase out of context and then make up shit. Not that I give a fuck what a piece of shit like you thinks of me but I don't particularly like you making up shit and spreading it in here like it's the truth.

If you are going to make such claims then it helps to set the record straight with the truth. This is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.

You admitted that you convinced your parents to cut him off. Your accounts demonstrate a deterioration in and of themselves. You admit that you are pleased by the outcome. In fact you double down on it in machismo stupidity.

It's obvious that you are keeping score. You even told us what the score is with your sister or at least what you think it should be: $10k.

You should probably just shut up about yourself. You aren't anything to brag about.

It is what it is.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you are going to make such claims then it helps to set the record straight with the truth. This is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.

You admitted that you convinced your parents to cut him off. Your accounts demonstrate a deterioration in and of themselves. You admit that you are pleased by the outcome. In fact you double down on it in machismo stupidity.

It's obvious that you are keeping score. You even told us what the score is with your sister or at least what you think it should be: $10k.

You should probably just shut up about yourself. You aren't anything to brag about.

It is what it is.

:lol

I don't owe you any explanations on anything and my sister doesn't owe me ten grand you stupid fuck. I never said anything about her except that the scumbag divorced her.

Your fixation on my life is alarming.

That coupled with your constant mention of the high school athletes that got blow jobs from Hastert leads me to believe there is something much deeper going on.

Do you have sexual desires for attention from older men? A Daddy syndrome?

It certainly seems to be an obsession of yours.

Your constant response to anything i post is like the socially awkward third grade boy pulling the ponytail of the girl he has a crush on.

Unfortunately for you, even if I swung that way which I don't, you do actually repulse me.

You might have better luck hitting on Boutons.

Meanwhile, just put me on ignore and quit addressing me in here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

I don't owe you any explanations on anything and my sister doesn't owe me ten grand you stupid fuck. I never said anything about her except that the scumbag divorced her.

Your fixation on my life is alarming.

That coupled with your constant mention of the high school athletes that got blow jobs from Hastert leads me to believe there is something much deeper going on.

Do you have sexual desires for attention from older men? A Daddy syndrome?

It certainly seems to be an obsession of yours.

Your constant response to anything i post is like the socially awkward third grade boy pulling the ponytail of the girl he has a crush on.

Unfortunately for you, even if I swung that way which I don't, you do actually repulse me.

You might have better luck hitting on Boutons.

Meanwhile, just put me on ignore and quit addressing me in here.

You bring it up. I don't ask, dim. You like to show your ass.

In response to Hastert getting convicted you said that his victims should have stopped it, saying you would have stopped it, implying that it was their fault. You can try and talk around it coward style if it makes you feel better but everyone here read it. You cannot even talk about it directly. You try these deflections instead. It reeks of someone who knows they are culpable intent on avoidance.

That personality trait of yours is why I think you are scum more than any other. There is no reason why anyone should trust you in anything. If shit goes bad you will throw anyone and everyone under the bus to save your own ass. Fairweather friend; poor weather backstabber.

You also now have stopped denying your role in your brother's death. That last ambiguous denial was pretty pathetic after all. It is all consistent with who you are. At least you are simple.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Fuzzy the wanna be internet psychic...:lol

I'd say don't quit your day job but I doubt you have one.

Like I said, put me on ignore and quit stalking me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

Fuzzy the wanna be internet psychic...:lol

I'd say don't quit your day job but I doubt you have one.

You cannot even address it directly anymore.

See this is the thing, CC, everyone knows you like to talk yourself up; that is what started this in the first place. If you thought you could vindicate yourself you would and you would love nothing more than to rub my face in it. You are typical in so many ways. Everyone here has seen it.

Your avoidance speaks louder than anything.

[CosmicCowboy]

You bring it up. I don't ask, dim. You like to show your ass.

In response to Hastert getting convicted you said that his victims should have stopped it, saying you would have stopped it, implying that it was their fault. You can try and talk around it coward style if it makes you feel better but everyone here read it. You cannot even talk about it directly. You try these deflections instead. It reeks of someone who knows they are culpable intent on avoidance.

That personality trait of yours is why I think you are scum more than any other. There is no reason why anyone should trust you in anything. If shit goes bad you will throw anyone and everyone under the bus to save your own ass. Fairweather friend; poor weather backstabber.

You also now have stopped denying your role in your brother's death. That last ambiguous denial was pretty pathetic after all. It is all consistent with who you are. At least you are simple.

You are such a fucking liar.

Since you continue to lie and then say my not responding somehow implies guilt I will respond once and thats it. Your persistent lying is tedious.

I'm glad Hastert was convicted and I am glad Hastert is in jail. I never once equivocated on that point. EVER. That being said, I played sports in high school and college and there is no way in hell I would have let a coach suck my dick. Since you are so fascinated with the subject I assume you would. Each to his own.

As to my adopted brother that you keep bringing up, Yeah he is dead and no I don't feel a shred of guilt. He had every chance in the world and was just an evil little bastard. He was a liar, a thief and a brutal piece of shit to his family. He had a petulant and totally uncontrollable temper which coupled with drug and alcohol abuse is a deadly combination. If he hadn't blown his heart up at 35 someone would have eventually killed him or the other way around and he would have ended up in prison. I finally gave up trying to help him and yeah, I take zero responsibility for his death., so FUCK YOU.

[Stevie Johnson]

This thread just became personal.


And now more queerer since I'm in here. Adam Lambert what's up babycakes?

[DMC]

That wouldn't stand up in court imo as SCOTUS has already established the 2nd amendment is not limitless. Otherwise, you'd have gun nuts suing states with CHL laws. The NRA won't have that. They know they'd lose and they don't want that precedent established.

Too bad its a state issue.

[DMC]

So you take one position in regards to voting rights and you take the other here. Hypocrisy suits you.

Registration taxes are fearmongering and not a necessity. There is no such issue with handgun registration and that has been in place for decades. Fearmongering with empirical proof to the contrary is for fools and idiots.

There are no voting rights.

[pgardn]

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-15-at-11.00.50-AM.jpg

Maybe by ALLOWING less strict gun laws in rural areas v. the burbs. The states could make more informed decisions. I could go through so many more...


Now just think about the possibility that owning guns in certain areas actually is correlated to less gun related crime. Maybe leave them alone and maybe advertise the stats to other communities and do a thorough explanation of the validity of the correlation. Maybe?

You were dense on the Israeli posts, I figured you could handle gun related issues. You probably can but the status quo is fine. Gun public safety is really not an issue for you.
Next.

[pgardn]

Again, how is this important? What would be done with the information?

Are there more electrical accidents in houses with more electrical outlets?

Information like this does nothing without a followup plan. This plan would eventually have to incorporate gun control legislation. Ergo it's a gun control issue.

What, are you going to suggest that people need to be told that accidental gun deaths are possible, like drownings, auto accidents, electrocutions, accidental overdoses and such? Does having more pill bottles mean more chance of accidental overdose?

You're the one supporting gun registration, calling it important. I don't need to conjure up ways to support that, you do. Everything you've mentioned is already being studied from another angle. If you can show accidental gun deaths are more prevalent in specific areas than in others, then you can drill down on why. That's being done already. You still have nothing but a thinly veiled gun control argument.

Otherwise it wouldn't cost so much and need to renewed every year. They know the owner didn't change nor did the plate number, they just say it's expired. How is it possible that it expired when none of the information changed? You're not even asked to verify the information. You just pay the money and get your new registration.

Would someone need to renew their gun registration every year? I mean, since you're making absurd comparisons...

Another myth no one can provide any evidence for.

Something proposed with no evidence doesn't merit evidence against it to show it's useless. When you apply for a job, do they have to show you how you're not qualified?

Basically you don't need the information you claim to need. It's not your business. If it was, you'd not need the CDC to do it, you could do it with local legislation.

It must be torturous to reply with something so utterly disingenuous that takes time and is so repetitive.

You have zero to add.
I get that now.

[DMC]

It must be torturous to reply with something so utterly disingenuous that takes time and is so repetitive.

You have zero to add.
I get that now.

Basically you are a libtard in training.

[DMC]

Maybe by ALLOWING less strict gun laws in rural areas v. the burbs. The states could make more informed decisions. I could go through so many more...


Now just think about the possibility that owning guns in certain areas actually is correlated to less gun related crime. Maybe leave them alone and maybe advertise the stats to other communities and do a thorough explanation of the validity of the correlation. Maybe?

You were dense on the Israeli posts, I figured you could handle gun related issues. You probably can but the status quo is fine. Gun public safety is really not an issue for you.
Next.

"I could go through so many more"

Doesn't go through any... types several paragraphs of unrelated shit...again.

Your solution: leave them alone.

We got there already. You need a registry to tell you to fuck off.

[pgardn]

Basically you are a libtard in training.

And you are a pile of old.

In logic and reasoning.

[pgardn]

"I could go through so many more"

Doesn't go through any... types several paragraphs of unrelated shit...again.

BS

You don't get this.
And You got nothing left.

Old leads to inflexible rot. I see that now.

[DMC]

And you are a pile of old.

In logic and reasoning.

"Leave them alone"

[DMC]

BS

You don't get this.
And You got nothing left.

Old leads to inflexible rot. I see that now.

Age discrimination?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It must be torturous to reply with something so utterly disingenuous that takes time and is so repetitive.

You have zero to add.
I get that now.

there is already handgun registration and all that shit that he is fearmongering has not happened in the past 50 years.

Mostly he doubles down on NRA slogans and soundbites.

[mingus]

I sort of implied this question (or at least I intended to) several pages back. I'll ask it again, I'm genuinely curious. & I think it stems from the fact that all this gun registration/statistics talk, to me anyway, just seems to be an unnecessary obstacle in the way of new policies that reduce gun crime/violence. Would these statistics help further clarify/validate the reasons/need for new gun control policies? How? Cuz I'm just not seeing it.

Seems to me, regardless of what we know about how many guns are where, who has how many guns etc., we know (or at least I hope we do) mental illness (& which ones exactly, whether remission would lift restrictions, psychiatrist approval, how much control is left up to states etc. are all valid issues that need more fleshing out), mental retardation, criminal history, gun safety (I think for example, at least in a house w/ kids or in a house w/ really any of the occupants that fits into one of the previously mentioned categories, a gun safe should be required), gun safety negligence laws (eg. when a kid grabs his mommy's/daddy's gun that they left sitting next to the kitchen sink & shoots someone, there needs to be a hefty punitive consequence), & neighborhood/street focused policing (based purely on crime numbers--NOT race, NOT culture, NOT nationality--but the number of crimes...so if it just so happens that a great majority of those neighborhoods/streets house Black people, then they can just tell them "Black Lives Matter"--& I'm not being facetious), to name a few, are the pressing issues.

All this statistics talk just sounds like it might make for a mildly interesting Sociology thesis. That's about it.

Where am I wrong?

[Th'Pusher]

Too bad its a state issue.

You're an idiot.

[DMC]

You're an idiot.
Thats your best? Pussy.

[Th'Pusher]

Thats your best? Pussy.

You said CLH infringed on 2nd amendment rights. I quoted a SCOTUS opinion, from an originalist justice no less, refuting your claim outright. You say it's a state issue. Do you know what happens when a state passes a law that's unconstitutional?

sorry, but you're kind of an idiot.

[z0sa]

Gun ownership should require joining a local militia chapter. This would satisfy the "well regulated militia" requirement. It would be compulsive but non binding - no citizen could be forced into actual combat on the field.

[DMC]

You said CLH infringed on 2nd amendment rights. I quoted a SCOTUS opinion, from an originalist justice no less, refuting your claim outright. You say it's a state issue. Do you know what happens when a state passes a law that's unconstitutional?

sorry, but you're kind of an idiot.
What happens? Same as what's happening now, where states are moving toward no permit required to open carry. 30 years ago you couldn't get concealed carry anywhere as a citizen. Now you can get it almost everywhere and many states are open carry, some without permit (Missouri in 2017 for example).

I'd say the 2nd Amendment intent is being corrected, but it doesn't happen overnight.

When a law is unconstitutional, it has to be challenged. It doesn't go *POOF* into magic fairy dust, idiot.

[DMC]

Gun ownership should require joining a local militia chapter. This would satisfy the "well regulated militia" requirement. It would be compulsive but non binding - no citizen could be forced into actual combat on the field.

Sure, if 2A said "if they are in a militia".

Should you have a press pass for freedom of the press?

[TheSanityAnnex]

"well regulated" at the time it was written meant in proper working order.

[boutons_deux]

"well regulated" at the time it was written meant in proper working order.

It was also in the context of no standing army, and it was not meant for such militia to attack the US govt, nor does it forbid public-health-protecting gun regulations

Sicko gun fellators, G F Y

[Th'Pusher]

What happens? Same as what's happening now, where states are moving toward no permit required to open carry. 30 years ago you couldn't get concealed carry anywhere as a citizen. Now you can get it almost everywhere and many states are open carry, some without permit (Missouri in 2017 for example).

I'd say the 2nd Amendment intent is being corrected, but it doesn't happen overnight.

When a law is unconstitutional, it has to be challenged. It doesn't go *POOF* into magic fairy dust, idiot.

So it's your opinion, not a fact, that CHL infringes on 2nd amendment rights. Great, glad we established that. And as I said, it's my opinion that would not hold up in court.


For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).[I][I][I]

Feel free to try and make a case for CHL laws being unconstitutional. At this point, all you've given is an unsubstantiated opinion.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It was also in the context of no standing army, and it was not meant for such militia to attack the US govt, nor does it forbid public-health-protecting gun regulations

Sicko gun fellators, G F YFederalist #46

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.


Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.



To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.



Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.


But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

[z0sa]

Sure, if 2A said "if they are in a militia".

Should you have a press pass for freedom of the press?

I think the intent was to arm the citizenry against threats both within and without the nation. My opinion. Local militias would ideally be self contained units outside of the military 'schain of command.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How does one achieve proper working order? What does order imply in and of itself. Hmm regulation maybe?

Regardless, TSA's word is not worth it's weight in shit. I have seen other definitions and none from the Federalist or similar source material.

[DMC]

I think the intent was to arm the citizenry against threats both within and without the nation. My opinion. Local militias would ideally be self contained units outside of the military 'schain of command.

Militias are fine, but the wording doesn't indicate it as a caveat to possessing a firearm. Possession was well understood and accepted by all of the framers. The argument was between folks who wanted a standing army (federalists) and those who were against it (anti-federalists). The 2A was there to ensure that the people would always pose a greater force than the standing army. Whether that's been defeated is another question altogether. The 2A mentions the concerns of the anti-federalists and then goes on to set a condition where the general population cannot be coerced through force to surrender their weapons.

[TheSanityAnnex]

How does one achieve proper working order? What does order imply in and of itself. Hmm regulation maybe?

Regardless, TSA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7640)'s word is not worth it's weight in shit. I have seen other definitions and none from the Federalist or similar source material.The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulatedAppetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm


Follow Us!

(http://www.facebook.com/TheLectricLawLibrary)
(http://twitter.com/LLawLibrary/)
(https://plus.google.com/107087971565424066348)



(http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm#)




(http://m.addthis.com/live/redirect/?url=mailto%3A%3Fbody%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.lec tlaw.com%252Ffiles%252Fgun01.htm%2523.WGQnwXYQEJo. mailto%26subject%3DThe%20Second%20Amendment%3A%20T he%20Framers'%20Intentions&uid=586427c1cf040ebb&pub=ra-51158598687ef553&rev=v7.8.6-wp&per=undefined&pco=tbx-300)
(http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm#)218 (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm#)


Our Most Popular Article:
Power of Attorney (http://www.lectlaw.com/filesh/qfl04.htm)
Our Most Popular Page:
Free Legal Forms (http://www.lectlaw.com/formb.htm)
Our Newest Article:Personal Finance Guide (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inv19.htm)
http://www.lectlaw.com/art/scaline.gif
http://www.lectlaw.com/art/scaline.gif
by Daniel J. Schultz
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.
The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.
It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.
In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.
By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).
The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

[DMC]

So it's your opinion, not a fact, that CHL infringes on 2nd amendment rights. Great, glad we established that. And as I said, it's my opinion that would not hold up in court.


Even the court offers an opinion. Are you that fucking stupid?


Feel free to try and make a case for CHL laws being unconstitutional. At this point, all you've given is an unsubstantiated opinion.
You asked for my opinion. In order to give it you have to interpret the 2A. That's how I interpret it. Most states agree with me since very few have laws against open carry.

[Th'Pusher]

Even the court offers an opinion. Are you that fucking stupid?

and they're stated as such. You have a problem with stating your opinion as if it were fact. It's not.


Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.


You asked for my opinion. In order to give it you have to interpret the 2A. That's how I interpret it. Most states agree with me since very few have laws against open carry.

unfortunately for you, the opinion I cited actually matters as it establishes precedent. Your's doesn't.

Finally, states choosing not to implement CHL have absolutely no bearing on the constitutionality of said laws. The fact is, multiple courts have upheld the constitutionality of concealed carry laws as Justice Scalia cited in his majority opinion.

[DMC]

and they're stated as such. You have a problem with stating your opinion as if it were fact. It's not.


My opinion is in fact my opinion. That's how I stated it.


unfortunately for you, the opinion I cited actually matters as it establishes precedent. Your's doesn't.

Then why did you ask?

How is it unfortunate for me? I suffer none.


Finally, states choosing not to implement CHL have absolutely no bearing on the constitutionality of said laws. The fact is, multiple courts have upheld the constitutionality of concealed carry laws as Justice Scalia cited in his majority opinion.
I don't find the CHL to violate the 2A with all other things being equal, however the fact that a CHL permit, or any permit is required to open carry does. The 2A is supposedly the permit. It's the "concealed" portion of the law that allows it to sneak in under the constitutional radar. If Texas allowed non-permitted open carry I wouldn't consider needing a permit to conceal to be an infringement. Since they don't, then it is. DC vs Heller wasn't about open carry vs concealment.

But then you didn't ask about open carry. You asked about CHL, and at the moment that's how CHL is being used, as a permit for open carry.

[Th'Pusher]

My opinion is in fact my opinion. That's how I stated it.

Then why did you ask?

How is it unfortunate for me? I suffer none.

I don't find the CHL to violate the 2A with all other things being equal, however the fact that a CHL permit, or any permit is required to open carry does. The 2A is supposedly the permit. It's the "concealed" portion of the law that allows it to sneak in under the constitutional radar. If Texas allowed non-permitted open carry I wouldn't consider needing a permit to conceal to be an infringement. Since they don't, then it is. DC vs Heller wasn't about open carry vs concealment.

But then you didn't ask about open carry. You asked about CHL, and at the moment that's how CHL is being used, as a permit for open carry.

The cases cited said nothing of permits.

Basically you're saying you disagree with established law, which is fine, but they're not unconstitutional.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

They even outline the specific regulations required.

Here is Article I of the Constitution:


To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Like I said, original documents from the founders not NRA shill blogs.

This notion that well regulated didn't mean regulation and only a narrow interpretation is laughable frankly.

[TheSanityAnnex]

They even outline the specific regulations required.

Here is Article I of the Constitution:



Like I said, original documents from the founders not NRA shill blogs.

This notion that well regulated didn't mean regulation and only a narrow interpretation is laughable frankly.

In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

[z0sa]

Militias are fine, but the wording doesn't indicate it as a caveat to possessing a firearm. Possession was well understood and accepted by all of the framers. The argument was between folks who wanted a standing army (federalists) and those who were against it (anti-federalists). The 2A was there to ensure that the people would always pose a greater force than the standing army. Whether that's been defeated is another question altogether. The 2A mentions the concerns of the anti-federalists and then goes on to set a condition where the general population cannot be coerced through force to surrender their weapons.

The old arguments dont have any merit anymore. Instead Im attempting to preserve the intent that one may bear arms freely and openly as long as one is in good standing wirh his or her local chapter. Most liberals are happy because gun owners now are publicly registered and trained. Gun nuts are happy because gun regulation occurs at the local or at most, state level.

[DMC]

The old arguments dont have any merit anymore. Instead Im attempting to preserve the intent that one may bear arms freely and openly as long as one is in good standing wirh his or her local chapter. Most liberals are happy because gun owners now are publicly registered and trained. Gun nuts are happy because gun regulation occurs at the local or at most, state level.

The old arguments don't have merit? Try telling that to the SCOTUS. It was never the intent you mentioned. Most gun owners aren't publicly registered or trained. Not sure what you're talking about.

[DMC]

The cases cited said nothing of permits.

Of course not. Why should they? You asked about CHL.


Basically you're saying you disagree with established law, which is fine, but they're not unconstitutional.
That's your opinion. The established law in DC was found to be unconstitutional. Why do you take the stance that "established law" has any bearing on constitutionality?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Stay off the lists

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/28/obama-admin-yanks-2a-rights-from-ssi-recipients//?singlepage=true

2nd amendment rights stripped from SSI recipients.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are instance from the 18th century in politics of well regulated meaning regulated.

Here is one from Federalist 29 which takes a shit on your exclusionary take.


THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

[TheSanityAnnex]

There are instance from the 18th century in politics of well regulated meaning regulated.

Here is one from Federalist 29 which takes a shit on your exclusionary take.
The "militia" was a check against a tyrannical government, and you want me to believe the founding fathers wanted said tyrannical government to regulate the only check against them? :lol

:lol You want to play the Federalist paper game?

James Madison (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html) in Federalist No. 46 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp) wrote:


To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.



Hamilton's Federalist No. 28 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp).If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

[TheSanityAnnex]

There are instance from the 18th century in politics of well regulated meaning regulated.

Here is one from Federalist 29 which takes a shit on your exclusionary take.
:lol nice cherry picking of 29 to try and support your claim. Read in its entirety it the intentions are obvious. The militia is a state's check against a tyrannical federal government.

Federalist No. 29, by Alexander Hamilton (some paragraph breaks added):
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. . . .
By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[Th'Pusher]

Of course not. Why should they? You asked about CHL.

That's your opinion. The established law in DC was found to be unconstitutional. Why do you take the stance that "established law" has any bearing on constitutionality?

Cute. I've have you pigeonholed into a claim that can only be established by a court.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Have fun. I'm sure you have standing.

In the meantime observers can weigh your argument with mine. :lol

[DMC]

Cute. I've have you pigeonholed into a claim that can only be established by a court.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Have fun. I'm sure you have standing.

In the meantime observers can weigh your argument with mine. :lol

The case you mentioned didn't address CHL being used as a permit for open carry. You even stated so yourself.

:lol lost in the abstract
:lol idiot
:lol not understanding the term "pigeonhole"

Pigeonholing is any process that attempts to classify disparate entities into a small number of categories (usually, mutually exclusive ones).

The term usually carries connotations of criticism, implying that the classification scheme referred to inadequately reflects the entities being sorted, or that it is based on stereotypes.[1]

Common failings of pigeonholing schemes include:

Categories are poorly defined (often because they are subjective).
Entities may be suited to more than one category. Example: rhubarb is both 'poisonous' and 'edible'.
Entities may not fit into any available category. Example: asking somebody from Washington, DC which state they live in.
Entities may change over time, so they no longer fit the category in which they have been placed. Example: certain species of fish may change from male to female during their life.
Attempting to discretize properties that would be better viewed as a continuum. Example: attempting to sort people into 'introverted' and 'extraverted'.
Criteria used to categorize entities do not accurately predict the properties ascribed to those categories. Example: relying on astrological sign as a guide to someone's personality.

:lmao

[UNT Eagles 2016]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/353/419/c83.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That a militia was intended to prevent tyranny is not mutually exclusive with it being regulated, dimwit. Please point me to the part that contradicts Hamilton saying that a well regulated militia was certain to be regulated by the government.

Still do not know what mutual exclusive means I see. Your ability to deduct remains nil because you are dumb as shit.

[boutons_deux]

the sense of "regulated" 200+ years ago was "organized, managed, directed, lead"

2nd Amendment doesn't preclude (severe) regulation of gun ownership.

NRA/GOA/BigGun has conned, suckered you gullible gun fellators as badly, as hilariously as Trash has conned, bait-n-switched his supporters.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ the wannabe Supreme Court judges.

Fuzzy's quoting Hamilton like it's law is hilarious.

Someone should start quoting Jefferson and pretend his quotes are law too...

[TheSanityAnnex]

That a militia was intended to prevent tyranny is not mutually exclusive with it being regulated, dimwit. Please point me to the part that contradicts Hamilton saying that a well regulated militia was certain to be regulated by the government.

Still do not know what mutual exclusive means I see. Your ability to deduct remains nil because you are dumb as shit.

If it wasn't written to mean well regulated by the federal government than what do you think meaning of well regulated is in the 2nd amendment?

[Th'Pusher]

Even the court offers an opinion. Are you that fucking stupid?

You asked for my opinion. In order to give it you have to interpret the 2A. That's how I interpret it. Most states agree with me since very few have laws against open carry.


The case you mentioned didn't address CHL being used as a permit for open carry. You even stated so yourself.

:lol lost in the abstract
:lol idiot
:lol not understanding the term "pigeonhole"

Pigeonholing is any process that attempts to classify disparate entities into a small number of categories (usually, mutually exclusive ones).

The term usually carries connotations of criticism, implying that the classification scheme referred to inadequately reflects the entities being sorted, or that it is based on stereotypes.[1]

Common failings of pigeonholing schemes include:

Categories are poorly defined (often because they are subjective).
Entities may be suited to more than one category. Example: rhubarb is both 'poisonous' and 'edible'.
Entities may not fit into any available category. Example: asking somebody from Washington, DC which state they live in.
Entities may change over time, so they no longer fit the category in which they have been placed. Example: certain species of fish may change from male to female during their life.
Attempting to discretize properties that would be better viewed as a continuum. Example: attempting to sort people into 'introverted' and 'extraverted'.
Criteria used to categorize entities do not accurately predict the properties ascribed to those categories. Example: relying on astrological sign as a guide to someone's personality.

:lmao

You got me on an incorrect use of the phrase pigeon hole :tu

too bad states implementing concealed carry laws aren't unconstitutional.

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao @ the wannabe Supreme Court judges.

Fuzzy's quoting Hamilton like it's law is hilarious.

Someone should start quoting Jefferson and pretend his quotes are law too...

go rub DMC's balls. You weren't even stupid enough to back his ridiculous claim that chl is unconstitutional.

[DMC]

You got me on an incorrect use of the phrase pigeon hole :tu

too bad states implementing concealed carry laws aren't unconstitutional.

1. Never said they were (that's not what you asked). CHL is a license, CC is a law. Concealed Handgun License vs Concealed Carry.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about as made evident by your poor vocabulary and sloppy understanding of context.
3. :lol triggered
4. :lol fuck toy for the board conservatives

[Th'Pusher]

1. Never said they were (that's not what you asked). CHL is a license, CC is a law. Concealed Handgun License vs Concealed Carry.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about as made evident by your poor vocabulary and sloppy understanding of context.
3. :lol triggered
4. :lol fuck toy for the board conservatives

:lol you're always reduced to parsing
:lol CHL is unconstitutional
:lol I used justice scalia to fuck you

[DMC]

:lol you're always reduced to parsing
:lol CHL is unconstitutional
:lol I used justice scalia to fuck you

:lol equivocating CHL with CC
:lol equivocating DC vs Heller with either
:lol looking up to Fuzzy
:lol using words you don't understand
:lol pigeonholed

[Th'Pusher]

:lol equivocating CHL with CC
:lol equivocating DC vs Heller with either
:lol looking up to Fuzzy
:lol using words you don't understand
:lol pigeonholed

:lol didn't equivocate heller with CHL
:lol used a citation in DC v Heller to fuck you
:lol You're still wrong
:lol CHL is not unconstitutional
:lol do you want me to cite it again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If it wasn't written to mean well regulated by the federal government than what do you think meaning of well regulated is in the 2nd amendment?

It takes a shit on the the absolute no infringement take at the minimum. Quit looking at the tree and hoping and instead look around you, dim.

Remember this started with you said it meant "like clockwork" exclusively. You were parroting NRA blogs of course and still do which is likely why you lose sight of the argument.

[CosmicCowboy]

The courts have already decided that reasonable regulations are constitutional. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

That doesn't mean that any regulations anti-gun advocates want to put in place are constitutional.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The courts have already decided that reasonable regulations are constitutional. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

That doesn't mean that any regulations anti-gun advocates want to put in place are constitutional.

If you think that no one is arguing that the 2nd amendment prohibits any regulation then you are blind. TSA started out with the argument he pulled off of blogs that are arguing it and they are legion.

[Th'Pusher]

The courts have already decided that reasonable regulations are constitutional. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

That doesn't mean that any regulations anti-gun advocates want to put in place are constitutional.

Actually DMC is arguing that CHL is unconstitutional. Do you agree with him?

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually DMC is arguing that CHL is unconstitutional. Do you agree with him?

No. I think it's a good tool for arresting scumbags and bangers that are carrying without a permit. Of course you would think my reasoning is discriminatory because like iD's for voting some minorities would be inconvenienced by having to get a CHL.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao @ the wannabe Supreme Court judges.

Fuzzy's quoting Hamilton like it's law is hilarious.

Someone should start quoting Jefferson and pretend his quotes are law too...

I quoted The Federalist whose purpose was to explain the Constitution; there are few better sources for explaining the framer's intent. Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS cites it repeatedly throughout making case law. If someone would quote Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence it would have a similar gravitas, dimwit.

Don't you have a sibling to go kill or steal from or something?

[Th'Pusher]

No.

:tu

[Spurminator]

No. I think it's a good tool for arresting scumbags and bangers that are carrying without a permit.

Then why oppose those scumbags and bangers having to register any firearm they own?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then why oppose those scumbags and bangers having to register any firearm they own?

Because it would impede gun sales.

[CosmicCowboy]

Then why oppose those scumbags and bangers having to register any firearm they own?

Because registration is going too far. The government doesn't need to know what is locked up in law abiding citizens gun safes.

There is ZERO reason to have blanket registration of law abiding citizens guns and criminals won't register theirs anyway.

[z0sa]

The old arguments don't have merit? Try telling that to the SCOTUS. It was never the intent you mentioned. Most gun owners aren't publicly registered or trained. Not sure what you're talking about.

We have nukes now. We have tanks. We have heavy artillery and machine guns. Theres no need for guns against outside threats. The govt and each other are all that guns need to be regulated for. We dont, and camt, compete with the military proper. My opinion, not the SCOTUS established precedence, again.

[CosmicCowboy]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

[CosmicCowboy]

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

[SpursforSix]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

meh

[DMC]

We have nukes now. We have tanks. We have heavy artillery and machine guns. Theres no need for guns against outside threats. The govt and each other are all that guns need to be regulated for. We dont, and camt, compete with the military proper. My opinion, not the SCOTUS established precedence, again.

So because we would be underdogs, it's better to be disarmed? That seems to make us even more in need of self defense, not less. So by your assessment the population should be allowed to possess tanks and nukes.

[DMC]

:lol didn't equivocate heller with CHL
:lol used a citation in DC v Heller to fuck you
:lol You're still wrong
:lol CHL is not unconstitutional
:lol do you want me to cite it again?

:lol yes you did
:lol no you didn't
:lol no I'm not
:lol still equivocating CHL with concealed carry
:lol yes please do

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao @ the wannabe Supreme Court judges.

Fuzzy's quoting Hamilton like it's law is hilarious.

Someone should start quoting Jefferson and pretend his quotes are law too...


"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

That didn't take long. Way to own your self, dimwit.

[CosmicCowboy]

That didn't take long. Way to own your self, dimwit.

Didn't say it was law just like Hamiltons wasn't law...Dimwit.

[DMC]

That didn't take long. Way to own your self, dimwit.

You're not very bright, or just dishonest and queer. It's obvious CC was just showing you how easy it is to drop authoritative names as if they are laws.

:lol Funny Bumpkins

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Didn't say it was law just like Hamiltons wasn't law...Dimwit.

You're reading comprehension is on display. Please point me to where I claimed that the Federalist was law. I stated that it was the Founders explanation of the Constitution. It has been used extensively in the making of law like in SCOTUS rulings but the distinction is there. Try and keep up.

Compare and contrast with what you are doing here. If it is not law then who gives a shit? What's next? Bible quotes?

[CosmicCowboy]

You're reading comprehension is on display. Please point me to where I claimed that the Federalist was law. I stated that it was the Founders explanation of the Constitution. It has been used extensively in the making of law like in SCOTUS rulings but the distinction is there. Try and keep up.

Compare and contrast with what you are doing here. If it is not law then who gives a shit? What's next? Bible quotes?

you said it EXPLAINED the Constitution. Hamiltons part of the papers explained HAMILTON'S position on the constitution.

Most educated people know there is a difference.

Hamilton was an unabashed Federalist advocating a strong central government..

Jefferson and Madison (Who principally WROTE the Constitution BTW) weren't as extreme as Hamilton, and in fact eventually formed The Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to Hamilton's Federalist Party.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol yes you did
:lol no you didn't
:lol no I'm not
:lol still equivocating CHL with concealed carry
:lol yes please do

:lol you don't know what equivocate means
:lol your claim
:lol your burden of proof
:lol Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#26)

[CosmicCowboy]

Fuzzy, if you are going to go all in on Hamilton do you agree with Federalist 84?

[CosmicCowboy]

Whats up Fuzzy? Madly searching Wikipedia for Federalist 84?

Let me give you the Cliff Notes version...

Hamilton said we didn't need any damn Bill of Rights! He said you just needed to trust us (the federal government) to always do the right thing.

Fortunately Jefferson and Madison prevailed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whats up Fuzzy? Madly searching Wikipedia for Federalist 84?

Let me give you the Cliff Notes version...

Hamilton said we didn't need any damn Bill of Rights! He said you just needed to trust us (the federal government) to always do the right thing.

Fortunately Jefferson and Madison prevailed.

Make an argument. I am not here to answer your questions. Some of us just cannot sit around all day, fattie.

[CosmicCowboy]

Make an argument. I am not here to answer your questions. Some of us just cannot sit around all day, fattie.

:lmao

*boom*

You were selectively quoting Hamilton and his anti-democratic all powerful central government position claiming it was "an explanation" of the constitution.

I just shoved that argument up your ass.

[Spurminator]

Because registration is going too far. The government doesn't need to know what is locked up in law abiding citizens gun safes.

There is ZERO reason to have blanket registration of law abiding citizens guns and criminals won't register theirs anyway.

Kind of like saying criminals won't get a CCL anyway.

"Too far" is arbitrary.

[SpursforSix]

:lmao

*boom*

You were selectively quoting Hamilton and his anti-democratic all powerful central government position claiming it was "an explanation" of the constitution.

I just shoved that argument up your ass.

I bet you got a boner saying that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you said it EXPLAINED the Constitution. Hamiltons part of the papers explained HAMILTON'S position on the constitution.

Most educated people know there is a difference.

Hamilton was an unabashed Federalist advocating a strong central government..

Jefferson and Madison (Who principally WROTE the Constitution BTW) weren't as extreme as Hamilton, and in fact eventually formed The Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to Hamilton's Federalist Party.

Hamilton was a delegate at the convention. If you have something from Madison or Jefferson discussing the 2nd Amendment directly then have at it. Nevermind that Hamilton worked with Madison and Jay to write the Federalist. What posted was a framer explicitly talking about what the text in the amendment means and implies.

Fact of that matter is that Jefferson never wrote about the second amendment much less the context we are discussing here. You can wishcast that he disputed it but to this point you have nothing.

As for Hamilton and the BoR he felt that listing the rights would undermine human rights by restricting them and giving the idea that anything not listed was automatically not a right. That is not the same as what you would have us think. You even get that take on your own or you having someone else do your thinking like your collections of quotes?

[CosmicCowboy]

I bet you got a boner saying that.

No but I bet Fuzzy's ass was winking.

[SpursforSix]

No but I bet Fuzzy's ass was winking.

ok weirdo

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No but I bet Fuzzy's ass was winking.

You sure like to discuss gay men and their sex.

That you think of gay sex when you think you have won or accomplished something is extremely homosexual.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hamilton was a delegate at the convention. If you have something from Madison or Jefferson discussing the 2nd Amendment directly then have at it. Nevermind that Hamilton worked with Madison and Jay to write the Federalist. What posted was a framer explicitly talking about what the text in the amendment means and implies.

Fact of that matter is that Jefferson never wrote about the second amendment much less the context we are discussing here. You can wishcast that he disputed it but to this point you have nothing.

As for Hamilton and the BoR he felt that listing the rights would undermine human rights by restricting them and giving the idea that anything not listed was automatically not a right. That is not the same as what you would have us think. You even get that take on your own or you having someone else do your thinking like your collections of quotes?

rewriting History :lol. Hamilton undeniably opposed the concept of amendments to the constitution specifying rights. As we have seen, the amendment process has worked remarkably well as additional rights have been defined by popular opinion and the courts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

rewriting History :lol. Hamilton undeniably opposed the concept of amendments to the constitution specifying rights. As we have seen, the amendment process has worked remarkably well as additional rights have been defined by popular opinion and the courts.

But not because he didn't think people had no rights. He believed that they were self evident. You don't even address this point leading me to believe you do not understand it.

It's neither here not there. Fact of the matter is that once he lost that argument he didn't throw his hands up and leave he participated in drafting them.

I'm not sure what point you think that you are making. Hamilton was a framer. He was explaining what they framed. You still have nothing.

[DMC]

Kind of like saying criminals won't get a CCL anyway.

Wrong.

The repercussions to not getting a CHL in some states is that the law abiding citizen will be unarmed.

The repercussions to not enacting gun registration doesn't leave citizens at the mercy of criminals or the partisan whims of the party in power.

The first is exclusive, the 2nd has absolutely nothing to do with criminals and would do nothing to remove guns from felons or anyone else not currently legally allowed to possess one. It would only serve to create criminals out of people who refuse to register a firearm.


"Too far" is arbitrary.
Only to those interested in infringing rights to the limits.

[spurraider21]

They thought the bill of rights was implied, as nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government granted the power to restrict speech, arms, etc

They thought it would be redundant and further that enumerating some would be a limiting factor which is why they had to throw in the 9th

That said, none of the rights are completely absolute, which is why scotus has allowed for reasonable regulations and restrictions on things like speech and arms

[DMC]

They thought the bill of rights was implied, as nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government granted the power to restrict speech, arms, etc

They thought it would be redundant and further that enumerating some would be a limiting factor which is why they had to throw in the 9th

That said, none of the rights are completely absolute, which is why scotus has allowed for reasonable regulations and restrictions on things like speech and arms

History here and abroad has shown that no rights are implied, everything must be written else groups simply deny the rights ever existed. Even rights that are written like the BoR get challenged, imagine they were never written in the 1st place.

[CosmicCowboy]

They thought the bill of rights was implied, as nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government granted the power to restrict speech, arms, etc

They thought it would be redundant and further that enumerating some would be a limiting factor which is why they had to throw in the 9th

That said, none of the rights are completely absolute, which is why scotus has allowed for reasonable regulations and restrictions on things like speech and arms

Who is this "They?"

Madison, the principal architect of the constitution CLEARLY promised the states there would be amendments to the constitution specifically enumerating individual rights.

I can't believe that you guys really support the concept of no Bill of Rights and Hamilton's position of "just trust us, we won't infringe your rights".

[DMC]

Many of the folks who support fewer rights or compromised rights are from countries that have almost no rights. They flee there, come here, then they try to make this place like that one. Makes a lot of sense.

[DMC]

:lol you don't know what equivocate means
:lol your claim
:lol your burden of proof
:lol Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#26)


:lol yes I do. You use CHL as if conceal carry laws and a concealed handgun licenses are the same things, and you do this to obfuscate the discussion. Originally you had no idea, once I explained it to you the obfuscating set in.
:lol fact
:lol burden of proof falls on the one making the claim
:lol Nothing about Concealed Handun License in that paragraph

[spurraider21]

History here and abroad has shown that no rights are implied, everything must be written else groups simply deny the rights ever existed. Even rights that are written like the BoR get challenged, imagine they were never written in the 1st place.
I agree. I'm glad they wrote a bill of rights. Just describing the historical explanation.

[spurraider21]

Who is this "They?"

Madison, the principal architect of the constitution CLEARLY promised the states there would be amendments to the constitution specifically enumerating individual rights.

I can't believe that you guys really support the concept of no Bill of Rights and Hamilton's position of "just trust us, we won't infringe your rights".
I don't support Hamiltons position. I'm putting it in proper context. Madison promised the bill of rights because the people wanted one and only ratified the Constitution because they made the promise. But if it was considered as crucial as you claim, they wouldn't have walked out of the convention needing to make 10 amendments

[Th'Pusher]

:lol yes I do. You use CHL as if conceal carry laws and a concealed handgun licenses are the same things, and you do this to obfuscate the discussion. Originally you had no idea, once I explained it to you the obfuscating set in.
:lol fact
:lol burden of proof falls on the one making the claim
:lol Nothing about Concealed Handun License in that paragraph

:lol you claimed CHL is unconstitutional
:lol you've yet to make a case for your argument

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who is this "They?"

Madison, the principal architect of the constitution CLEARLY promised the states there would be amendments to the constitution specifically enumerating individual rights.

I can't believe that you guys really support the concept of no Bill of Rights and Hamilton's position of "just trust us, we won't infringe your rights".

Please point to where he said "just trust us." You characterize as opposed to pointing to facts. Likely because you don't know what was actually written.

Hamilton got to his conclusion through logic and not an expectation of trust. You can argue the logic as wishful thinking and I won't disagree but he thought he was preserving rights not expecting to take them away.

Further, Hamilton help write the bill of rights once he lost his argument. No one is supporting no Bill of Rights and Hamilton's early disagreement does not mean he did not write them too.

[DMC]

:lol you claimed CHL is unconstitutional
:lol you've yet to make a case for your argument

In my opinion CHL in Texas is currently unconstitutional as it is being used as a permit for open carry, which should be allowed sans permit like many other states do. Texas won't miss a chance to make money. Since you didn't specify, and since you showed a Washington DC case, not Texas, all I can comment on is Texas CHL.

You said the paragraph proves something about CHL. Show me.

[Spurminator]

The repercussions to not getting a CHL in some states is that the law abiding citizen will be unarmed.

The repercussions to not enacting gun registration doesn't leave citizens at the mercy of criminals or the partisan whims of the party in power.

The first is exclusive, the 2nd has absolutely nothing to do with criminals and would do nothing to remove guns from felons or anyone else not currently legally allowed to possess one. It would only serve to create criminals out of people who refuse to register a firearm.

Everything you've said about the former can be applied to the latter. "Making criminals out of those who refuse to abide the hypothetical law we're discussing" is a lazy argument that can be applied to any law. You could make the same argument if we were discussing CHL's in a universe that didn't require them. It's a fallacy. Your assertion that registration of firearms would not deter criminals from possessing firearms illegally is speculation which would be proven false at any deterrence rate greater than zero percent.

[DMC]

Please point to where he said "just trust us." You characterize as opposed to pointing to facts. Likely because you don't know what was actually written.

Hamilton got to his conclusion through logic and not an expectation of trust. You can argue the logic as wishful thinking and I won't disagree but he thought he was preserving rights not expecting to take them away.

Further, Hamilton help write the bill of rights once he lost his argument. No one is supporting no Bill of Rights and Hamilton's early disagreement does not mean he did not write them too.

The default position should be to always clarify what's expected, not to presume it. Presuming historically has led to tyranny. Hamilton knew this as well.

[DMC]

Everything you've said about the former can be applied to the latter. "Making criminals out of those who refuse to abide the hypothetical law we're discussing" is a lazy argument that can be applied to any law. You could make the same argument if we were discussing CHL's in a universe that didn't require them. It's a fallacy. Your assertion that registration of firearms would not deter criminals from possessing firearms illegally is speculation which would be proven false at any deterrence rate greater than zero percent.

1. We aren't in a universe where CC was allowed pre-CHL. In this universe where CC was illegal, CHL is an exception. With gun registration, nothing is currently illegal, the law would make legal guns illegal unless registered, ergo not the same.

2. I didn't say anything about deterrence. I said it has nothing to do with criminals. Are you saying a felon who knows it's a felony to possess a firearm would be deterred not by that long existing fact, but rather by the lower punishment legal requirement to register it? And you want me to take you seriously?

3. Disproof by prognostication "would be proven false by..." is not even worthy of discussion. God would be proven true if God showed up and proved himself. That doesn't do anything for the god argument.

[Th'Pusher]

In my opinion CHL in Texas is currently unconstitutional as it is being used as a permit for open carry, which should be allowed sans permit like many other states do. Texas won't miss a chance to make money. Since you didn't specify, and since you showed a Washington DC case, not Texas, all I can comment on is Texas CHL.

You said the paragraph proves something about CHL. Show me.

You have standing. Sue.

I've already expressed my opinion that you would lose that lawsuit, as courts have ruled that prohibitions on carrying a concealed weapon are lawful under the second amendment.

[DMC]

You have standing. Sue.

I've already expressed my opinion that you would lose that lawsuit, as courts have ruled that prohibitions on carrying a concealed weapon are lawful under the second amendment.

Show me the paragraph in case law that says CHL is constitutional. I'm waiting.

Of course prohibitions are lawful. Lawful and constitutional aren't the same things. You're using terms interchangeably that aren't interchangeable. Either way, CHL isn't about prohibition, it's about exclusion. Concealed carry was always prohibited, CC laws set exclusions based on submission of personal information, training and a regular fee. I didn't have an issue with that either. The issue I have is with how Texas considers open carry to be something that requires some form of permit. Since a permit is required, then other caveats can also be attached, like insurance. The Texas legislature could easily just pass a bill saying that handgun insurance has to be carried by anyone who wishes to get a permit to open carry. Permits indicate the 2nd Amendment isn't being considered as the driving force behind open carry, since no permit should be required if it's your constitutional right to do so.

[Th'Pusher]

Show me the paragraph in case law that says CHL is constitutional. I'm waiting.

To my knowledge, the legality of Texas' CHL has not been challenged, which is why I recommend you sue the state of Texas. I think you'll lose that case.


Of course prohibitions are lawful. Lawful and constitutional aren't the same things. You're using terms interchangeably that aren't interchangeable.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) or state analogues.

Scalia's words, not mine. I'd suggest you take it up with him, but he's dead.


Either way, CHL isn't about prohibition, it's about exclusion. Concealed carry was always prohibited, CC laws set exclusions based on submission of personal information, training and a regular fee. I didn't have an issue with that either. The issue I have is with how Texas considers open carry to be something that requires some form of permit. Since a permit is required, then other caveats can also be attached, like insurance. The Texas legislature could easily just pass a bill saying that handgun insurance has to be carried by anyone who wishes to get a permit to open carry. Permits indicate the 2nd Amendment isn't being considered as the driving force behind open carry, since no permit should be required if it's your constitutional right to do so.

Sue and stop whining about it.

you'll lose.

btw - the Second Amendment Foundation doesn't even agree with you :lol

Here is a suit they filed in MD and won based on a requirement that residents show a "good and substantial reason" to get a handgun permit.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/md-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/


We're not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there is a right to bear arms

:lol

[DMC]

Still waiting for a paragraph from case law that addresses CHL and the constitution. For pages you claimed Scalia's opinion was about CHL but it's clearly not. It even goes on to mention examples of prohibited persons like felons and such, but the state extends that to people who owe child support and taxes, and to folks with less than felony level records who are otherwise legally allowed to purchase a handgun. The state controls open carry just like concealed carry, and I feel that will be challenged. Like CHL -> Open carry, these things move in steps. DC vs Heller reversed a prior USSC opinion, thats how it goes.

You have moved the goalpost to winning a case now, no longer arguing your original stance.

It does not matter what other groups have accepted. Submission has never indicated right or wrong, which is why compromise is how most cases are settled.

[Th'Pusher]

Still waiting for a paragraph from case law that addresses CHL and the constitution. For pages you claimed Scalia's opinion was about CHL but it's clearly not. It even goes on to mention examples of prohibited persons like felons and such, but the state extends that to people who owe child support and taxes, and to folks with less than felony level records who are otherwise legally allowed to purchase a handgun. The state controls open carry just like concealed carry, and I feel that will be challenged. Like CHL -> Open carry, these things move in steps. DC vs Heller reversed a prior USSC opinion, thats how it goes.

You have moved the goalpost to winning a case now, no longer arguing your original stance.

It does not matter what other groups have accepted. Submission has never indicated right or wrong, which is why compromise is how most cases are settled.

No goalpost move on this one either buddy. It seems you throw that out when you're stuck. My initial reply to your claim that CHL is unconstitutional was to say I did not believe your claim would hold up in court (i.e. winning a case and absolutely my initial stance) as it's well established the 2nd amendment is not limitless.


That wouldn't stand up in court imo as SCOTUS has already established the 2nd amendment is not limitless. Otherwise, you'd have gun nuts suing states with CHL laws. The NRA won't have that. They know they'd lose and they don't want that precedent established.

I then went on to quote the limitations from Heller.

Once I had established your boundaries, you then expounded on your argument (read shifted) to the permitting process specific to Texas. I acknowledged that it was cute that your new fully expounded upon argument :lol could only be resolved by a court and suggested you stop being a whiny pussy and sue the state.

You then flop around repeating shit you've already said with more low-value shitposting.

That's the tldr version anyway...

[CosmicCowboy]

I gotta go with Pusher on this one. The historical acceptance of regulations on firearms in public goes back almost all the way to the era when the originators of the constitution and bill of rights were still alive and well.

[Th'Pusher]

I gotta go with Pusher on this one. The historical acceptance of regulations on firearms in public goes back almost all the way to the era when the originators of the constitution and bill of rights were still alive and well.

:tu

[TheSanityAnnex]

It takes a shit on the the absolute no infringement take at the minimum. Quit looking at the tree and hoping and instead look around you, dim.

Remember this started with you said it meant "like clockwork" exclusively. You were parroting NRA blogs of course and still do which is likely why you lose sight of the argument.

You didn't answer my question. What do you think the meaning of well regulated is in the 2nd amendment? Why didn't the framers specify who would do the regulating like they did every other time in the Constitution?

I never said it meant "like clockwork", you are making shit up. I said how it was being used meant "in proper working order".

[TheSanityAnnex]

I quoted The Federalist whose purpose was to explain the Constitution; there are few better sources for explaining the framer's intent. Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS cites it repeatedly throughout making case law. If someone would quote Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence it would have a similar gravitas, dimwit.

Don't you have a sibling to go kill or steal from or something?

Why did you leave out the part of Federalist 29 where he says attempting to regulate the militia would be futile?

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured."

[DMC]

I gotta go with Pusher on this one. The historical acceptance of regulations on firearms in public goes back almost all the way to the era when the originators of the constitution and bill of rights were still alive and well.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think you're agreeing with? What do you think my argument is?

[DMC]

No goalpost move on this one either buddy. It seems you throw that out when you're stuck. My initial reply to your claim that CHL is unconstitutional was to say I did not believe your claim would hold up in court (i.e. winning a case and absolutely my initial stance) as it's well established the 2nd amendment is not limitless.



I then went on to quote the limitations from Heller.

Once I had established your boundaries, you then expounded on your argument (read shifted) to the permitting process specific to Texas. I acknowledged that it was cute that your new fully expounded upon argument :lol could only be resolved by a court and suggested you stop being a whiny pussy and sue the state.

You then flop around repeating shit you've already said with more low-value shitposting.

That's the tldr version anyway...

You asked if me CHL is unconstitutional. Since CHL is a Concealed Handgun License and each state has its own gun laws and carry laws, I have to address Texas CHL, that's where I live and where I hold the CHL. I addressed the current situation with CHL/open carry and you quoted a decision from a case in DC where a guy wanted to buy and store a gun in his home, because the verbiage had "concealed" in it. You claimed it applied to CHL when DC didn't even have a concealed carry permit available.

Then you moved the goalpost to whether or not I could win a case against the state of Texas (you didn't establish my boundaries, you just relinquished your prior argument with the wave of a virtual hand). I explained CC is an exclusive law, while open carry is inclusive (everyone is allowed to open carry per the 2nd Amendment unless they lose that right). I explained that CC was never legal in the past, and it became allowed through conditions. Then along came open carry where Texas decides to use the same conditions as concealed carry, and they allow a CHL holder to open carry without any extra conditions. I explained that the problem is that concealed carry is the special condition, while open carry is not. So Texas has effectively created a condition where only CHL holders can open carry, meaning you cannot be trusted with your 2nd Amendment rights unless you meet conditions that are set for concealed carry.

Meanwhile in many other states you still need a permit to carry concealed but not to carry open. That's how it should be. Open carry is the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". DC vs Heller merely decided that a handgun qualifies as "arms", contrary to what a prior USSC case decided. So if the argument is that a handgun isn't necessarily to be considered "arms" then a person with a handgun cannot be considered to be armed. We know that's not how it is though.

So unless you wanted to know how all states that issue CHL align with the constitution, you must, of necessity, have been referring to the state in which I live.

The problem is you know nothing about gun laws, don't know the difference between concealed carry and a license, you just make it up as you go.

[CosmicCowboy]

You asked if me CHL is unconstitutional. Since CHL is a Concealed Handgun License and each state has its own gun laws and carry laws, I have to address Texas CHL, that's where I live and where I hold the CHL. I addressed the current situation with CHL/open carry and you quoted a decision from a case in DC where a guy wanted to buy and store a gun in his home, because the verbiage had "concealed" in it. You claimed it applied to CHL when DC didn't even have a concealed carry permit available.

Then you moved the goalpost to whether or not I could win a case against the state of Texas (you didn't establish my boundaries, you just relinquished your prior argument with the wave of a virtual hand). I explained CC is an exclusive law, while open carry is inclusive (everyone is allowed to open carry per the 2nd Amendment unless they lose that right). I explained that CC was never legal in the past, and it became allowed through conditions. Then along came open carry where Texas decides to use the same conditions as concealed carry, and they allow a CHL holder to open carry without any extra conditions. I explained that the problem is that concealed carry is the special condition, while open carry is not. So Texas has effectively created a condition where only CHL holders can open carry, meaning you cannot be trusted with your 2nd Amendment rights unless you meet conditions that are set for concealed carry.

Meanwhile in many other states you still need a permit to carry concealed but not to carry open. That's how it should be. Open carry is the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". DC vs Heller merely decided that a handgun qualifies as "arms", contrary to what a prior USSC case decided. So if the argument is that a handgun isn't necessarily to be considered "arms" then a person with a handgun cannot be considered to be armed. We know that's not how it is though.

So unless you wanted to know how all states that issue CHL align with the constitution, you must, of necessity, have been referring to the state in which I live.

The problem is you know nothing about gun laws, don't know the difference between concealed carry and a license, you just make it up as you go.

The problem with your argument is that open carry has historically been regulated on a case by case basis as well and is not an automatic second amendment right. A good example would have been the gun check stations in towns during the "old west".

[Th'Pusher]

You asked if me CHL is unconstitutional. Since CHL is a Concealed Handgun License and each state has its own gun laws and carry laws, I have to address Texas CHL, that's where I live and where I hold the CHL. I addressed the current situation with CHL/open carry and you quoted a decision from a case in DC where a guy wanted to buy and store a gun in his home, because the verbiage had "concealed" in it. You claimed it applied to CHL when DC didn't even have a concealed carry permit available.

Incorrect. I cited the limitations in Heller as it is the most recent SCOTUS ruling on firearm possession and supported my argument that the 2nd amendment was not limitless. Your initial response "This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms." read as if you believed there were no limits on the 2nd amendment. Forgive me for stating the obvious.


Then you moved the goalpost to whether or not I could win a case against the state of Texas (you didn't establish my boundaries, you just relinquished your prior argument with the wave of a virtual hand).

Also incorrect. My argument that CHL was not unconstitutional was intact and that your (very vague at the time) position would not stand up in court had been established.


I explained CC is an exclusive law, while open carry is inclusive (everyone is allowed to open carry per the 2nd Amendment unless they lose that right). I explained that CC was never legal in the past, and it became allowed through conditions. Then along came open carry where Texas decides to use the same conditions as concealed carry, and they allow a CHL holder to open carry without any extra conditions. I explained that the problem is that concealed carry is the special condition, while open carry is not. So Texas has effectively created a condition where only CHL holders can open carry, meaning you cannot be trusted with your 2nd Amendment rights unless you meet conditions that are set for concealed carry.

All completely irrelevant to the fact that states have limited the right to carry a concealed weapon and these limitations have been held up in court.


Meanwhile in many other states you still need a permit to carry concealed but not to carry open. That's how it should be. Open carry is the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". DC vs Heller merely decided that a handgun qualifies as "arms", contrary to what a prior USSC case decided. So if the argument is that a handgun isn't necessarily to be considered "arms" then a person with a handgun cannot be considered to be armed. We know that's not how it is though.

None of this is pertinent to my argument.


So unless you wanted to know how all states that issue CHL align with the constitution, you must, of necessity, have been referring to the state in which I live.

Sue.


The problem is you know nothing about gun laws, don't know the difference between concealed carry and a license, you just make it up as you go.

And you just say a lot of stuff. :blah

[DMC]

The problem with your argument is that open carry has historically been regulated on a case by case basis as well and is not an automatic second amendment right. A good example would have been the gun check stations in towns during the "old west".

There's a difference between "regulated" and "prohibited". Under current law, open carry is prohibited in Texas unless you have a permit, and the permit will not be issued to people who can otherwise lawfully purchase a firearm, such as people who owe taxes or child support, or who have received deferred adjudication. In other states, open carry is allowed, concealed carry is prohibited without permit. Texas is considering open carry the same way other states including Texas considers concealed carry.

30.06 signs still apply, which is fine (I don't consider old west traditions to be standard for adherence to the BoR), as do trespassing laws. It's different to say "you cannot bear arms" than to say "you cannot bear arms here". Where private ownership is concerned, the owner should reserve the right to set certain conditions. One could restrict free speech in an establishment that shows movies (quietness, no texting, etc...) for example. You can easily leave there if you feel the need to exercise your rights. You can't say the same for entire state however. Sure you could leave the state, but that doesn't mean the state of Texas is privately owned (though about 95% of it is).

It's just an opinion, I can lawfully open carry and never have. I rarely carry concealed either. But if discussing constitutionality, I think eventually if someone challenges it the open carry provision will lose the requirement for permit, if nothing more than to maintain reciprocity with other states.

[DMC]

Incorrect. I cited the limitations in Heller as it is the most recent SCOTUS ruling on firearm possession and supported my argument that the 2nd amendment was not limitless. Your initial response "This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms." read as if you believed there were no limits on the 2nd amendment. Forgive me for stating the obvious.
I never even indicated there were no limits. You seem dead set on using strawman arguments though so have at it. Heller vs DC did not address CHL, though you said it did (a claim you later abandoned).


Also incorrect. My argument that CHL was not unconstitutional was intact and that your (very vague at the time) position would not stand up in court had been established.

You used Heller vs DC which doesn't address Texas CHL or CHL in general so your rebuttal was moot. Saying "there are limitations" is too vague an argument to serve any useful purpose in this discussion. What limitations does Heller vs DC put on concealed or open carry? If I were to just take your comment at face value, a slippery slope fallacy become apparent.


All completely irrelevant to the fact that states have limited the right to carry a concealed weapon and these limitations have been held up in court.
This is merely a problem of you oversimplifying and falsely equivocating the terms "CHL" and "concealed carry".

A: Drivers License

is different than

B: Driving

A: Concealed Handgun License

is different than

B: Concealed carry

You asked about A but you're rebutting as if you asked about B instead.


None of this is pertinent to my argument.

You don't have a legitimate argument.


Sue.

You asked the question. Be more specific. I have no desire to file suit.


And you just say a lot of stuff. :blah
Because you're a dumb fuck with zero ability to stay on topic, low intellectual honesty and no integrity. I slap you around on the regular, forum whore.

[Th'Pusher]

I never even indicated there were no limits. You seem dead set on using strawman arguments though so have at it.

No strawman. Your initial response read as if the 2nd amendment was limitless. I felt the need to rebut that assertion. You've since elaborated and I am fully aware that you accept that fact.


Heller vs DC did not address CHL, though you said it did (a claim you later abandoned).

I did not say that it addressed CHL.


You used Heller vs DC which doesn't address Texas CHL or CHL in general so your rebuttal was moot.

I used Heller to establish limits on the 2nd amendment and later noted the three laws that were upheld specific to concealed carry. Not CHL.


Saying "there are limitations" is too vague an argument to serve any useful purpose in this discussion. What limitations does Heller vs DC put on concealed or open carry? If I were to just take your comment at face value, a slippery slope fallacy become apparent.

I was obviously referring to the limitations you claimed were unconstitutional.


This is merely a problem of you oversimplifying and falsely equivocating the terms "CHL" and "concealed carry".
A: Drivers License

is different than

B: Driving

A: Concealed Handgun License

is different than

B: Concealed carry

You asked about A but you're rebutting as if you asked about B instead.

You don't have a legitimate argument.

I do. My argument is that Texas CHL is not unconstitutional. Courts have consistently upheld state laws that regulate possession of a concealed weapon and CHL is the mechanism by which Texas chooses to regulate.


You asked the question. Be more specific. I have no desire to file suit.

Fine. Let Texas trample on your perceived right. :lol


Because you're a dumb fuck with zero ability to stay on topic,

I've stayed on topic while you've been figuring out your argument.


low intellectual honesty and no integrity.

I disagree with your assessment of me.


I slap you around on the regular, forum whore.

This is a demonstrably false statement.

[DMC]

No strawman. Your initial response read as if the 2nd amendment was limitless. I felt the need to rebut that assertion. You've since elaborated and I am fully aware that you accept that fact.


:lol

A bit of quote history...


Is CHL an infringement on the second amendment?


Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.

End quote history...

:lol again



I did not say that it addressed CHL.

:lol

more quote history...emphasis mine


You said CLH infringed on 2nd amendment rights. I quoted a SCOTUS opinion, from an originalist justice no less, refuting your claim outright. You say it's a state issue. Do you know what happens when a state passes a law that's unconstitutional?

sorry, but you're kind of an idiot.

End quote history...

So yeah, you did :lol



I used Heller to establish limits on the 2nd amendment and later noted the three laws that were upheld specific to concealed carry. Not CHL.


lol Heller wasn't about concealed carry. Limits were never in question. I showed above that you tried to refute my CHL opinion based on Heller vs DC.


I was obviously referring to the limitations you claimed were unconstitutional.

lol no... you had no idea what I was claiming to be unconstitutional. It had nothing to do with concealed carry, as I keep trying to drill into that thick skull of yours.


I do. My argument is that Texas CHL is not unconstitutional. Courts have consistently upheld state laws that regulate possession of a concealed weapon and CHL is the mechanism by which Texas chooses to regulate.

:lol still not catching on I see..

Quote history..


Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.
End quote history..

You're talking about concealed carry, not the license to carry concealed. It's the license that's being used as a permit for open carry as well, which you probably have no idea about. I believe this is the 1st time you even mentioned the license. You probably thought CHL was concealed handgun law.

:lol


Fine. Let Texas trample on your perceived right. :lol

Not just mine.


I've stayed on topic while you've been figuring out your argument.

Sure you have. You just stayed on a different topic than the original. I've never swayed.


I disagree with your assessment of me.

Doesn't surprise me. I get that all the time from subordinates.


This is a demonstrably false statement.
We both know it's true. :nope

[Th'Pusher]

:lol You hadn't even formulated your argument when I said I refuted your claim outright. That came later in the thread with this little nugget where you start backpedaling and shifting your argument.




I don't find the CHL to violate the 2A with all other things being equal, however the fact that a CHL permit, or any permit is required to open carry does. The 2A is supposedly the permit. It's the "concealed" portion of the law that allows it to sneak in under the constitutional radar. If Texas allowed non-permitted open carry I wouldn't consider needing a permit to conceal to be an infringement. Since they don't, then it is. DC vs Heller wasn't about open carry vs concealment.



We've already been down this road.

I understand your ever evolving argument. I'm glad I was able to help you get there.

And still, I disagree with you. Texas CHL is not unconstitutional and your argument would not hold up in court imo.

The only way you can prove me wrong is to sue the state of Texas. But you have no desire to do so :lol

[DMC]

:lol You hadn't even formulated your argument when I said I refuted your claim outright. That came later in the thread with this little nugget where you start backpedaling and shifting your argument.



We've already been down this road.

I understand your ever evolving argument. I'm glad I was able to help you get there.

And still, I disagree with you. Texas CHL is not unconstitutional and your argument would not hold up in court imo.

The only way you can prove me wrong is to sue the state of Texas. But you have no desire to do so :lol

More lies.

You weren't catching on. That was my original and only opinion. I was clarifying because of the relative density of your cranium.

You still have no idea how case law works or that the constitution is interpreted and precedence only guides opinions, it doesn't set in stone any specific interpretation. Ergo even a successful suit wouldn't change anything where our interpretations differ. Some states agree with me already, but you're holding out for Texas. You're not very sharp if you think cases daisy chain BoR interpretation instead of each going back to the original document and only using case law as something to agree or disagree with where that interpretation is concerned.

[Th'Pusher]

More lies.

You weren't catching on. That was my original and only opinion. I was clarifying because of the relative density of your cranium.

Nope. You were talking about relinquishing private information and paying a tax.

I am not going to apologize for your lazy laziness.

[DMC]

Nope. You were talking about relinquishing private information and paying a tax.

I am not going to apologize for your lazy laziness.

You're fucking stupid.

[Th'Pusher]

You're fucking stupid.

Is that all you got, pussy :lol

[DMC]

Is that all you got, pussy :lol

I've laid out my case clearly. You're just too dense to latch on or too dishonest. You're not a good troll because you respond too often.

[Th'Pusher]

I've laid out my case clearly. You're just too dense to latch on or too dishonest. You're not a good troll because you respond too often.

Not trolling. I understand your argument and I disagree with it. As does the 2nd amendment foundation.

[DMC]

Not trolling. I understand your argument and I disagree with it. As does the 2nd amendment foundation.

You don't understand it, as illustrated in my lengthy post above with historical posting notations. You're just doubling down on stupid. Since you don't understand it, your rebuttal and sources are moot. Have fun flogging that strawman.

[Th'Pusher]

You don't understand it, as illustrated in my lengthy post above with historical posting notations. You're just doubling down on stupid. Since you don't understand it, your rebuttal and sources are moot. Have fun flogging that strawman.

I understand your argument. It boils down to - Texas is using CHL as a permit for open carry.

Strawman? Do you just throw out logical fallacies hoping one applies?

[DMC]

I understand your argument. It boils down to - Texas is using CHL as a permit for open carry.

Strawman? Do you just throw out logical fallacies hoping one applies?

It's not the license, but the requirements to attain the license/permit. CHL I understand, but open carry should not have the same restrictions as CHL and doesn't in most states that allow open carry.

You built the strawmen by going after concealed carry laws that I never mentioned.

[z0sa]

So because we would be underdogs, it's better to be disarmed? That seems to make us even more in need of self defense, not less. So by your assessment the population should be allowed to possess tanks and nukes.

Nope. I think every American should own a gun.

[Th'Pusher]

You built the strawmen by going after concealed carry laws that I never mentioned.

That's a byproduct of your inability to articulate your convoluted argument which is concealed handgun licenses are unconstitutional, we'll actually they're not, unless they're implemented the way Texas has chosen to implement them which is effectively as a permit to open carry.

[DMC]

That's a byproduct of your inability to articulate your convoluted argument which is concealed handgun licenses are unconstitutional, we'll actually they're not, unless they're implemented the way Texas has chosen to implement them which is effectively as a permit to open carry.

You asked about CHL then talked about concealed carry when my first response clearly states "open carry".

You deteriorated from there, running like a retard to the wrong basket and acting like you just won the game.

[Th'Pusher]

You asked about CHL then talked about concealed carry when my first response clearly states "open carry".


So? Have any states implemented CHL constitutionally iyo? Yes or no please.

[DMC]

So? Have any states implemented CHL constitutionally iyo? Yes or no please.

Where's the "I don't know" option?

[Th'Pusher]

Where's the "I don't know" option?

It doesn't exist.

[DMC]

It doesn't exist.

Then neither does a response to your question.

[Th'Pusher]

Then neither does a response to your question.

It's ok. Since you've shared your opinion on CHL, I know the answer. The answer is yes. Florida is an example.

Your lack of knowledge is not an excuse for blanket statements without any qualifier, like "actually it is" when asked if CHL is unconstitutional.

[DMC]

It's ok. Since you've shared your opinion on CHL, I know the answer. The answer is yes. Florida is an example.

Your lack of knowledge is not an excuse for blanket statements without any qualifier, like "actually it is" when asked if CHL is unconstitutional.

:lol if you say so, sparky.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol if you say so, sparky.

Your lack of knowledge and sloppy argument were actually pretty detrimental to the conversation. If you would have done even the slightest bit of research you would have known that what you think is unconstitutional is quite unique to Texas. We could have saved a lot of time.

And hardly an appropriate answer to - "does CHL infringe on 2nd amendment rights."

[DMC]

Your lack of knowledge and sloppy argument were actually pretty detrimental to the conversation. If you would have done even the slightest bit of research you would have known that what you think is unconstitutional is quite unique to Texas. We could have saved a lot of time.

And hardly an appropriate answer to - "does CHL infringe on 2nd amendment rights."

:lol dance forum monkey

[Th'Pusher]

:lol dance forum monkey

Aaaaand. He's done. :cry

[DMC]

:lol 3rd consecutive edited post...

dance Ubu!

[Th'Pusher]

:lol 3rd consecutive edited post...

dance Ubu!

Gotta make sure everything is proper for the pedant.

But the dance monkey shtick is :td btw.

[DMC]

Gotta make sure everything is proper for the pedant.

But the dance monkey shtick is :td btw.

Then you've at least become more cognizant of your sloppiness which means you got something out of this discussion. I feel like I've been babysitting an autistic child.

[Th'Pusher]

Then you've at least become more cognizant of your sloppiness which means you got something out of this discussion. I feel like I've been babysitting an autistic child.

Unfortunately, We established you as the the sloppy one.

[spurraider21]

[person i agree with] destroying [person i disagree with] itt

[SquawkinHawkBigCock]

Small dicked open carry warriors though....the most pathetic IMO....:lol:lol

[Fat Hands]

concealing a gun in your hand could be both open and concealled carry if you have hands like this fwiw

[Gummi Clutch]

concealing a gun in your hand could be both open and concealled carry if you have hands like this fwiw
Was he born with a genetic syndrome? Smaller tighter hands are good for masturbating though

[Adam Lambert]

by decree of our new supreme leader, the inauguration will be a gun-free safe zone

i'm canceling my plans to attend, sounds completely unsafe to be surrounded by so many people with no guns.

criminals don't obey laws, so trump is basically inviting someone to go murder everyone there

[DMC]

by decree of our new supreme leader, the inauguration will be a gun-free safe zone

i'm canceling my plans to attend, sounds completely unsafe to be surrounded by so many people with no guns.

criminals don't obey laws, so trump is basically inviting someone to go murder everyone there

Secret Service will be exempt, doughboy.

[DMC]

Was he born with a genetic syndrome? Smaller tighter hands are good for masturbating though

Sounds like something the legendary Rogue would say.

[Adam Lambert]

Secret Service will be exempt, doughboy.

secret service is there to protect the president, not me
besides cops are armed everywhere, doesn't mean i feel safe without ol blue by my side

[DMC]

secret service is there to protect the president, not me
besides cops are armed everywhere, doesn't mean i feel safe without ol blue by my side

Don't worry, I'm sure your boyfriend will stand up for you.

[boutons_deux]

South Texas Lawmaker Shot in the Head During "Celebratory" NYE Gunfire

A state lawmaker is recovering from what officials are calling a "stray bullet" to the back of his head after "celebratory" New Year's Eve gunfire broke out in his Rio Grande Valley neighborhood this weekend.

The McAllen Monitor reports (http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/state-rep-martinez-shot-in-head-by-stray-bullet-while/article_3835f250-d064-11e6-ba22-c33642edda65.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share) that Texas Rep. Armando “Mando” Martinez

http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/01/02/south-texas-lawmaker-shot-in-the-head-following-celebratory-nye-gunfire

Guns for funs! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Toddler being loaded into car seat shot on New Year’s Eve

https://twitter.com/LEX18News/status/815923922663247872/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

A toddler who was being loaded into his car seat in Kentucky was shot on New Year’s Eve, in an incident that his father connected to holiday revelers in a Facebook post, according to local media reports (http://www.wave3.com/story/34160255/toddler-shot-on-new-years-eve-night).

Dwight Mitchell, a public information officer for the Louisville Metro Police Department, told The Washington Post on Monday that the shooting occurred about 10:45 p.m. Saturday as a woman was putting her son into a car seat.

That’s when the toddler was “struck by a projectile,” :lol

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/01/02/toddler-being-loaded-into-car-seat-shot-on-new-years-eve-authorities-in-kentucky-say/?utm_term=.acc82ab7d4bd

Hilarious, ridiculous how the police and military inflate their vocabulary to extreme bombast, and silly euphemisms :lol

projectile? It was a FUCKING BULLET! :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Uhh...Boutons...shooting off guns like that is illegal.

Stupid people doing stupid things.

Kind of like your posts in here.

[boutons_deux]

Uhh...Boutons...shooting off guns like that is illegal.

Stupid people doing stupid things.

Kind of like your posts in here.

more guns means more gun violence. always has, always does. and you duped, conned gun fellators have blood on your hands.

[DMC]

more guns means more gun violence. always has, always does. and you duped, conned gun fellators have blood on your hands.

lol bullshit. Prove the correlation you just drew.

[CosmicCowboy]

more guns means more gun violence. always has, always does. and you duped, conned gun fellators have blood on your hands.

And you, Boutons, have cum on your breath.

[Chucho]

And you, Boutons, have cum on your breath.
:lol


And his chin. And in his collapsed anus.

[TheSanityAnnex]

more guns means more gun violence. always has, always does. and you duped, conned gun fellators have blood on your hands.

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/percent_changes_since_1993_-_number_of_firearms_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993-2013.png?itok=2k90gxfi

[boutons_deux]

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/percent_changes_since_1993_-_number_of_firearms_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993-2013.png?itok=2k90gxfi

homicide isn't the only form of gun violence. many more are injured with guns than killed

AEI? A BigCorp whoring stink tank.

[DMC]

homicide isn't the only form of gun violence. many more are injured with guns than killed

AEI? A BigCorp whoring stink tank.

:lol pistol whipped = gun violence

[boutons_deux]

:lol pistol whipped = gun violence

your imagination sucks

[DMC]

your imagination sucks

You're saying though the homicide rate dropped, gun related violence is directly proportional to gun ownership numbers. That then means something happened to either make guns less lethal (fewer gun related homicides) or that people suddenly began to shoot only to wound.

Which is it?

When you make a baseless claim like "more guns = more gun related violence" you fail to take into account things like multiple gun ownership. A person isn't more likely to be involved with gun related violence just because he owns more guns than one, at least it's not cause and effect. If anything it could be correlation vs causation. However it's likely that more people owning guns = more gun related violence. A person who is violent by nature will be gun related violent if they have a gun.

So then the common denominator that liberals like you choose to ignore is the person, not the gun. More people = more violence. More people with guns = more gun related violence. More people with cars = more car related violence.

People, not guns, kill people.

[boutons_deux]

You're saying though the homicide rate dropped, gun related violence is directly proportional to gun ownership numbers. That then means something happened to either make guns less lethal (fewer gun related homicides) or that people suddenly began to shoot only to wound.

Which is it?

Homicides are down, but comparing gun-saturated USA to other industrial countries shows gun violence and homicides far exceed those other countries that don't have the sicko perversion and obsession about gun ownership.

[DMC]

Homicides are down, but comparing gun-saturated USA to other industrial countries shows gun violence and homicides far exceed those other countries that don't have the sicko perversion and obsession about gun ownership.

Only true if you consider high income countries. Why would you narrow down to high income countries as a comparison yet take most of your gun related info in the US from low income areas? According to you, the NRA members should be at the top of this list for gun related violence convictions, not just basic street thugs who don't know anything about the 2nd Amendment.

[boutons_deux]

"Only true if you consider high income countries."

duh, of course.

BigGun and its marketing/propaganda division NRA are responsible for the gun industry LYING to you assholes about, perverting the 2nd Amendment. All this shit started when the NRA was taken over by BigGun puppets in the 1970s.

[Spurminator]

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/percent_changes_since_1993_-_number_of_firearms_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993-2013.png?itok=2k90gxfi

One of those lines is a raw number, the other is a rate.

I'm not arguing the implication but that is a misleading graph. A better comparison would be comparisons between the rate of gun ownership vs. rate of gun homicide.

[DMC]

One of those lines is a raw number, the other is a rate.

I'm not arguing the implication but that is a misleading graph. A better comparison would be comparisons between the rate of gun ownership vs. rate of gun homicide.

But that wasn't the argument Boo made. He said more guns = more gun related violence. He didn't say anything about rate of ownership. Besides, someone owns the guns in the chart so wouldn't it be the same unless you mean new ownership, as in they didn't own a gun before?

[DMC]

"Only true if you consider high income countries."

duh, of course.

BigGun and its marketing/propaganda division NRA are responsible for the gun industry LYING to you assholes about, perverting the 2nd Amendment. All this shit started when the NRA was taken over by BigGun puppets in the 1970s.




So why are you then focused on low income states and Alaska? Also, what is the non-gun related violence rate in these same states? Are you saying these states have a higher gun population than states like Texas and California? Or do you mean to say they have a higher per capita gun ownership rate? Or isn't it really just about income/education level and the gun is just a convenient way to kill yourself/others?

[Spurminator]

But that wasn't the argument Boo made. He said more guns = more gun related violence. He didn't say anything about rate of ownership. Besides, someone owns the guns in the chart so wouldn't it be the same unless you mean new ownership, as in they didn't own a gun before?

Well for one thing I think you guys generally spend way too much time worrying about boutons daily unhinged hyperbolic rants, but besides that... "more guns" as it's generally argued would imply per capita. Otherwise you're not accounting for population growth or number of guns per owner.

[boutons_deux]

So why are you then focused on low income states and Alaska?

:lol What? focused?

eg, There is NO DOUBT that having a gun in the house INCREASES the risk of gun death or injury in that house. That's why slave state FL has blocked docs from asking (mentally ill) patients about gun ownership.

You assholes have got the "gun religion" and FACTS DON'T MATTER in the face your "gun beliefs".

Y'all are about as rational as Ken Ham and creationists.

Y'all been conned, propagandized by BigGun about the 2nd Amendment and suckered into "believing" a gun Makes You A Real Man.

And of course, more knitters with (illegal) guns means more dead knitters, so it's all good for you racists and BigGun profits.

[boutons_deux]

Gun violence is a ‘contagious’ social epidemic

Gun violence is often described as an epidemic or a public health concern, due to its alarmingly high levels in certain populations in the United States.

It most often occurs within socially and economically disadvantaged minority urban communities, where rates of gun violence far exceed the national average. A new Yale study has established a model to predict how “contagious” the epidemic really is.

In a study published online on Jan. 3 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the researchers studied the probability of an individual becoming the victim of gun violence using an epidemiological approach.

“We want to take this epidemic of gun violence out of the criminal justice paradigm and put it in a public health context that focuses on victims and the reduction of trauma,”

The study also determined that an individual within these social networks was at the greatest risk of being shot within a period of about 125 days after their “infector,” the person most responsible for exposing the subject to gun violence, was the subject of gun violence.

These results provide evidence that gun violence is not just an epidemic, but it has specific network patterns that might provide plausible opportunities for interventions, notes Papachristos.

“There is a real value in understanding the timing of these events as a way to identify victims, and where we can insert resources such as violence- and harm-reduction programs into these networks.”

https://scienceblog.com/491151/gun-violence-contagious-social-epidemic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28Science Blog.com%29

300M+ guns is a public health crisis, costing 10Ks of lives and $Bs in economic losses.

[DMC]

:lol What? focused?

eg, There is NO DOUBT that having a gun in the house INCREASES the risk of gun death or injury in that house. That's why slave state FL has blocked docs from asking (mentally ill) patients about gun ownership.

You assholes have got the "gun religion" and FACTS DON'T MATTER in the face your "gun beliefs".

Y'all are about as rational as Ken Ham and creationists.

Y'all been conned, propagandized by BigGun about the 2nd Amendment and suckered into "believing" a gun Makes You A Real Man.

And of course, more knitters with (illegal) guns means more dead knitters, so it's all good for you racists and BigGun profits.
So then does having more than one gun in the house increase the chances even more?

If you ever drop the faggy SJW schtick someone might have a convo with you.

The common factor is the person, not the gun.

[DMC]

Well for one thing I think you guys generally spend way too much time worrying about boutons daily unhinged hyperbolic rants, but besides that... "more guns" as it's generally argued would imply per capita. Otherwise you're not accounting for population growth or number of guns per owner.

It's what you're responding to, like it or not.

If you're going to say "more guns = more gun related violence" then you are the one who painted yourself into a corner. I don't have to assume you mean anything other than what you said.

Again, remove low income areas who likely have fewer guns per capita than higher income areas and see how the gun related violence drops.

Besides, if it's not a homicide, why does it matter if it's gun related? Is it naturally more evil or damaging if a gun is involved than a knife? No. If death is more likely, we can use homicide numbers, but those dropped so no one wants to discuss that.

[Spurminator]

It's what you're responding to, like it or not.

If you're going to say "more guns = more gun related violence" then you are the one who painted yourself into a corner. I don't have to assume you mean anything other than what you said.

The graph doesn't answer that either, though. It should show a line for total gun homicides if that's what you're arguing. Just because the rate went down doesn't mean total gun homicides went down.

You're accepting different definitions of "more" for the same graph to best suit your argument.

[DMC]

The graph doesn't answer that either, though. It should show a line for total gun homicides if that's what you're arguing. Just because the rate went down doesn't mean total gun homicides went down.

You're accepting different definitions of "more" for the same graph to best suit your argument.


What's your claim?

You're saying that more guns = lower gun related homicide rate. So if you want a lower gun related homicide rate, buy more guns. If you just want lower overall gun related homicide numbers, no matter the change in population, what do you do then?

You're inferring things Boutons didn't say. If what Boutons says is correct, If a town has 10K people, 8000 guns in town and has a gun related violence of 12 per year, if one person bought 4000 guns, the numbers the following year should rise by 50% to indicate the number of total guns in the town since more guns = more gun related violence.

Who had the highest number of gun related homicides in the US in 2010?

California!

Who had the lowest?

Vermont!

One state allows open carry sans permit, which would that be?

So then how do you explain this? Is California a more dangerous place than Vermont even though Vermont allow open carry?

What is the gun related violence rate for people with concealed carry or open carry permits? How do they jive with people who don't even legally own a firearm?

See anything interesting about number of guns and gun crime?

[Spurminator]

You're saying that more guns = lower gun related homicide rate.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the graph is misleading because it compares a % to a total.


You're inferring things Boutons didn't say. If what Boutons says is correct, If a town has 10K people, 8000 guns in town and has a gun related violence of 12 per year, if one person bought 4000 guns, the numbers the following year should rise by 50% to indicate the number of total guns in the town since more guns = more gun related violence.

Pick a lane, dude.

boutons said "more guns means more gun violence," as you quoted. When I pointed out that TSA's graph showed rate vs. raw numbers, you argued that "more guns" meant more total gun purchases. That's fine. But now you're telling me that "more gun violence" means a higher rate of gun violence, so you're the one doing the inferring.

There are two meaningful ways to present a chart in response to "more guns means more gun violence."

1. Total guns purchased vs. total acts of gun homicides over time
or
2. Gun ownership rate vs. gun homicide rate

[TheSanityAnnex]

The graph doesn't answer that either, though. It should show a line for total gun homicides if that's what you're arguing. Just because the rate went down doesn't mean total gun homicides went down.

You're accepting different definitions of "more" for the same graph to best suit your argument.
Total gun homicide graphin link. It follows the same line as the decline in rate.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

[TheSanityAnnex]

1993-2011
Total guns purchased +56%
Total gun homicides -39%

[DMC]

No, I'm not. I'm saying the graph is misleading because it compares a % to a total.



Pick a lane, dude.

boutons said "more guns means more gun violence," as you quoted. When I pointed out that TSA's graph showed rate vs. raw numbers, you argued that "more guns" meant more total gun purchases. That's fine. But now you're telling me that "more gun violence" means a higher rate of gun violence, so you're the one doing the inferring.

There are two meaningful ways to present a chart in response to "more guns means more gun violence."

1. Total guns purchased vs. total acts of gun homicides over time
or
2. Gun ownership rate vs. gun homicide rate

It's only misleading if it gives you the wrong impression. Did it give the wrong impression that more firearms /= more firearm related homicides and if so, is that wrong, or do you think the graph simply doesn't prove it?

[DMC]

No, I'm not. I'm saying the graph is misleading because it compares a % to a total.



Pick a lane, dude.

boutons said "more guns means more gun violence," as you quoted. When I pointed out that TSA's graph showed rate vs. raw numbers, you argued that "more guns" meant more total gun purchases. That's fine. But now you're telling me that "more gun violence" means a higher rate of gun violence, so you're the one doing the inferring.

There are two meaningful ways to present a chart in response to "more guns means more gun violence."

1. Total guns purchased vs. total acts of gun homicides over time
or
2. Gun ownership rate vs. gun homicide rate

Does more guns = more gun related violence? yes or no

More guns = raw number

More gun related violence = rate, else population skews the result.

Rate accounts for the fact that increase in population isn't accounted for.

[Spurminator]

1993-2011
Total guns purchased +56%
Total gun homicides -39%

Thanks.

[Spurminator]

Does more guns = more gun related violence? yes or no

Not necessarily.


More guns = raw number

More gun related violence = rate, else population skews the result.

Rate accounts for the fact that increase in population isn't accounted for.

"More guns" could also be skewed by population. That's my point. Population increase needs to be factored into either both or neither.

[Spurminator]

It's only misleading if it gives you the wrong impression. Did it give the wrong impression that more firearms /= more firearm related homicides and if so, is that wrong, or do you think the graph simply doesn't prove it?

That's totally false.

Graphs aren't about a yes or a no. Even if the conclusion you draw from that graph is the correct conclusion, it doesn't mean the graph is made the right way.

[Spurminator]

The graph on the right is interesting... Related to my earlier point that more guns purchased may not necessarily mean more people own guns.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2015/07/blogs/graphic-detail/20150808_woc357_1.png
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/graphics-americas-guns

[DMC]

Not necessarily.



"More guns" could also be skewed by population. That's my point. Population increase needs to be factored into either both or neither.

Boutons said it does, always and always has.

Also.... "more guns" isn't skewed by "more people". If there are 300 million guns, having 350 million guns is more guns. It doesn't matter if you have 2x as many people. The statement "more guns" is satisfied by a larger overall number of guns. The statement never mentioned more individuals with guns or people at all. It assumes people are victims of sheer numbers of guns.

If the gun numbers can increase yet gun related violence doesn't, that says Boutons comment is false.

If the population increases and gun numbers stay the same but gun violence increases, that doesn't support Bouton's claim.


So you, pick a lane.

[boutons_deux]

Even if US gun homicide number is declining (except if you're black murdered by cops), it's ridiculously higher than all other industrial countries, which is my irrefutable (by rational people) point.

[DMC]

Even if US gun homicide number is declining (except if you're black murdered by cops), it's ridiculously higher than all other industrial countries, which is my irrefutable (by rational people) point.
Why are you lumping the entire country into one pile when the numbers are available to show which states skew the totals? They are mostly poor, uneducated states, not much different than some 3rd world countries.


Basically you had your comment shoved up your liberal ass.

[DMC]

That's totally false.

Graphs aren't about a yes or a no. Even if the conclusion you draw from that graph is the correct conclusion, it doesn't mean the graph is made the right way.

mis·lead·ing
ˌmisˈlēdiNG/
adjective
giving the wrong idea or impression.


How is what I said totally false when the definition is exactly what I said?


It's only misleading if it gives you the wrong impression. Did it give the wrong impression that more firearms /= more firearm related homicides and if so, is that wrong, or do you think the graph simply doesn't prove it?

[CosmicCowboy]

The graph on the right is interesting... Related to my earlier point that more guns purchased may not necessarily mean more people own guns.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2015/07/blogs/graphic-detail/20150808_woc357_1.png
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/graphics-americas-guns

That is a hard statistic to tie down. People just won't admit it in a survey. Call my house and ask if I have any guns? Who are you and hell no I don't have guns in my house.

[DMC]

My personal experience (quite a lot with gun owners) is that more and more guns are owned by fewer and fewer people. I know people who buy a new gun almost every week. They talk about guns, shop for guns and have safes full of them. I know people who owned 3 or more and sold them all because you either are a gun person or you aren't. Hunters often keep their hunting equipment (guns are equipment after all) if they still hunt but don't care for collecting guns. Then you have people who have a row of AR-15s, and all the way up to people with transferable subguns and even the museum level collectors with tanks and AA guns. I know people who do all of that, and as I've grown older, more and more people either have several or have no guns.

[boutons_deux]

My personal experience (quite a lot with gun owners) is that more and more guns are owned by fewer and fewer people. I know people who buy a new gun almost every week. They talk about guns, shop for guns and have safes full of them. I know people who owned 3 or more and sold them all because you either are a gun person or you aren't. Hunters often keep their hunting equipment (guns are equipment after all) if they still hunt but don't care for collecting guns. Then you have people who have a row of AR-15s, and all the way up to people with transferable subguns and even the museum level collectors with tanks and AA guns. I know people who do all of that, and as I've grown older, more and more people either have several or have no guns.

The average gun owner, a few years ago, owned 9+ guns. fucking sicko perverts.

[Spurminator]

Boutons said it does, always and always has.

I don't care about boutons. I already said he's unhinged and hyperbolic. You asked for my take so I gave it to you.


Also.... "more guns" isn't skewed by "more people". If there are 300 million guns, having 350 million guns is more guns. It doesn't matter if you have 2x as many people. The statement "more guns" is satisfied by a larger overall number of guns. The statement never mentioned more individuals with guns or people at all. It assumes people are victims of sheer numbers of guns.

More consumers in the marketplace is objectively a relevant variable in more of any consumer good being added to the marketplace.

This isn't even worth arguing.

[CosmicCowboy]

I confess I am attracted to very accurate rifles. ARS don't do anything for me.

[Spurminator]

That is a hard statistic to tie down. People just won't admit it in a survey. Call my house and ask if I have any guns? Who are you and hell no I don't have guns in my house.

I highly doubt the steep decline on that graph is explained by an increase in paranoia over gun surveys.

But it would be nice if we knew for certain about gun ownership so studies could be done on the kinds of questions we are asking.

[DMC]

I don't care about boutons. I already said he's unhinged and hyperbolic. You asked for my take so I gave it to you.



More consumers in the marketplace is objectively a relevant variable in more of any consumer good being added to the marketplace.

This isn't even worth arguing.

Not for the comment I was debating. I have no idea what you're trying to debate.

[boutons_deux]

[QUOTE=Spurminator;8850729But it would be nice if we knew for certain about gun ownership so studies ...[/QUOTE]

BigGun/NRA owns enough Congress people to have blocked all kinds of gun violence research, and blocked even having a useful database on guns and gun violence so tracing ciminals' guns is futile. Pure madness for profit, a sign of a sick society under the heel of the corporatocracy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just kill yourself, boo. Winning is going to drive you mad.

[DMC]

I highly doubt the steep decline on that graph is explained by an increase in paranoia over gun surveys.

But it would be nice if we knew for certain about gun ownership so studies could be done on the kinds of questions we are asking.

We went down that road.

Why do you need the studies, just to have debates?

[Spurminator]

We went down that road.

Why do you need the studies, just to have debates?

Debates are more valuable when they're backed by data. Otherwise it's all hypothetical and philosophical bullshit.