gun owners

[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.

*boom*

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

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]

*boom*

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

I just shoved that argument up your ass.

I bet you got a boner saying that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you said it EXPLAINED the Cons ution. Hamiltons part of the papers explained HAMILTON'S position on the cons ution.

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 Cons ution 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 sexual.

[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 . Hamilton undeniably opposed the concept of amendments to the cons ution 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 . Hamilton undeniably opposed the concept of amendments to the cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 cons ution CLEARLY promised the states there would be amendments to the cons ution 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]

you don't know what equivocate means
your claim
your burden of proof
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment 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 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 , 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

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.
fact
burden of proof falls on the one making the claim
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 cons ution CLEARLY promised the states there would be amendments to the cons ution 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 Cons ution 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]

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.
fact
burden of proof falls on the one making the claim
Nothing about Concealed Handun License in that paragraph

you claimed CHL is uncons utional
you've yet to make a case for your argument

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who is this "They?"

Madison, the principal architect of the cons ution CLEARLY promised the states there would be amendments to the cons ution 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]

you claimed CHL is uncons utional
you've yet to make a case for your argument

In my opinion CHL in Texas is currently uncons utional 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 uncons utional 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.