Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UNLV2001

The Lunatic Fringe is active

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Would that be the same DC vs Heller where Scalia wrote gun rights aren’t absolute? 
 

from Heller....

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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 fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 
 

Seems to me you and your sidekick are vastly overstating the rights granted by Heller.  
 

Just to be clear... I am an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment but all of it.  I think we need more and better guns but those need to be under the auspicies, training and regulation of local militias.   We need more people, across a wider range of political views, better trained, and better armed.   

 

No you are not, you are for the forced confiscation of personal property at...gunpoint.  

DC Vs. Heller put the "militia"argument to bed, once and for all.  What Scallia is saying is that the Heller decision was not repealing current federal legislation.  Get a grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

No you are not, you are for the forced confiscation of personal property at...gunpoint.  

DC Vs. Heller put the "militia"argument to bed, once and for all.  What Scallia is saying is that the Heller decision was not repealing current federal legislation.  Get a grip.

Scalia said exactly what I posted.  It was copied and pasted directly from his opinion.  We don’t need you to incorrectly paraphrase him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

Scalia said exactly what I posted.  It was copied and pasted directly from his opinion.  We don’t need you to incorrectly paraphrase him.  

You paraphrased him.  Also, the opinion was rather long.  To get a full grasp on the intent you need to read the entire thing, not just copy a snippet and pretend it supports your extrapolated opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You paraphrased him.  Also, the opinion was rather long.  To get a full grasp on the intent you need to read the entire thing, not just copy a snippet and pretend it supports your extrapolated opinion.

I posted word for word and did not paraphrase it at all.  Perhaps you might want to actually read it.   It’s a key bullet up front in the summary.  Not a snippet. 
 

Read point 2 in held....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
 

the entire point 2 is as follows: 

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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 fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I posted word for word and did not paraphrase it at all.  Perhaps you might want to actually read it.   It’s a key bullet up front in the summary.  Not a snippet. 
 

Read point 2 in held....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
 

the entire point 2 is as follows: 

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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 fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
 

You posted word for word then extrapolated into your retarded militia stance.  Point two is exactly what I said.  This ruling, which put a nail in the coffin for the militia argument, was not to set precedent on the peel back of current law.  Dangerous and unusual weapons, if you read further, and in full context, was regarding weapons currently not authorized to own.  Nothing about an AR-15 is "unusual" in this context.  Read the +++++ing opinion.

Jesus you are dense sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You posted word for word then extrapolated into your retarded militia stance.  Point two is exactly what I said.  This ruling, which put a nail in the coffin for the militia argument, was not to set precedent on the peel back of current law.

Jesus you are dense sometimes.

My point on militia was my own and unrelated to Heller.  Heller clearly doesn’t give you the right to carry guns into government buildings as was done by the militia members.  If fact, it does the opposite and affirms you don’t have that right.   
 

As it unequivocally states;  the Second Amendment right is not unlimited 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

My point on militia was my own and unrelated to Heller.  Heller clearly doesn’t give you the right to carry guns into government buildings as was done by the militia members.  If fact, it does the opposite and affirms you don’t have that right.   
 

As it unequivocally states;  the Second Amendment right is not unlimited 

And I was responding directly to quote about "what militia are you apart of".  Context, friend.  

Of course the 2A has not been found to be unlimited but the Heller ruling weighing, finally, on the militia aspect of the second amendment.  An unlimited 2A would mean the average citizen could buy weapons grade plutonium.  Of course it is limited, do you think that is news?

The problem is you see "not unlimited" and think you can apply that to your violent authoritarianism dreams of the big bad military going home to home and removing personal property for weapons that kill under 300 a year., at the point of force.  You are insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

You’re putting the cart before the horse because nowhere in there does it say a person MUST belong to a militia. Just that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state. But let’s be honest, you don’t care about that so no use arguing with you. 

That's your god damned right :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

That's your god damned right :cheers:

Only difference is you are ignoring every SCOTUS ruling, ever. 

Your view on guns is no better than the right's view on abortions.  The SCOTUS ruled, but you do not like it so throw a fit.  Biggest difference?  The SCOTUS has ruled on this over and over and over and over and always came to the same conclusion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Only difference is you are ignoring every SCOTUS ruling, every. 

Your view on guns is no better than the right's view on abortions.  The SCOTUS ruled, but you do not like it so throw a fit.  Biggest difference?  The SCOTUS has ruled on this over and over and over and over and always came to the same conclusion.

 

Yet local gun laws have been put in place since the mid 1800's 

Personally I really don't give a crap if laws stay the same or get more restrictive - the gun fetishists can worry about those things !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

Yet local gun laws have been put in place since the mid 1800's 

Personally I really don't give a crap if laws stay the same or get more restrictive - the gun fetishists can worry about those things !

Suuuuuuuuuure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Suuuuuuuuuure.  

True story - Don't own guns, but have family that are big gun fans, mainly hunters ...........good with me 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this is a bit over the top - and this is a Texas County :shrug:

Bar remained open, sheriff's office shows up with SWAT & takes down gun fetishists all geared up - Getting to the point the Small Penis Club's can't meet without harassment :facepalm:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

And I was responding directly to quote about "what militia are you apart of".  Context, friend.  

Fair enough and I was responding to saying it was a right to carry your assault weapons into a govt building

Of course the 2A has not been found to be unlimited but the Heller ruling weighing, finally, on the militia aspect of the second amendment.  An unlimited 2A would mean the average citizen could buy weapons grade plutonium.  Of course it is limited, do you think that is news?

I don’t want to go round and round on this topic.  But for clarity, I never said all arms should be required to be owned in the context of a militia.   I would agree some are required for self defense.  Heller talks about Miller and Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The problem is you see "not unlimited" and think you can apply that to your violent authoritarianism dreams of the big bad military going home to home and removing personal property for weapons that kill under 300 a year., at the point of force.  You are insane.

its simply a matter of adding a context and drawing a line.  We have lost the militia context, in my mind, to the danger of the country.   Where weapons fit within the context of a milita and what fits in the common use is a manner of drawing lines. Thinking outside the box.... guilty.  Insane.... hardly.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2020 at 8:56 PM, UNLV2001 said:

Protesting is fine......it's showing up with guns that's the weird shit 

Guess they can't make an intelligent argument so bring out the guns to show how tough you are & intimidate with a show of force 



Images Of The 1960s Protest Signs That Changed The World - Art-Sheep

The spark that lit the 1960s campus revolt | Red Flag 1960s Feminists and the Women's Movement

The Reagan Years: 1980s | Picture ThisWhy I set my Young Adult novel about abortion in the 1990s | Salon.com

Protesters against the stay-at-home order in Lansing, Michigan ...

Q:

 

If the Civil Rights and Anti-War movents were happening today, would these self annointed Patriots be marching with and protecting these American Citizens who were peacefully addressing their grievances towards their government ?

Or, would they like their parents  and grandparents before them, be exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights to be on the business end of the oppression. ?

i.e. Manning the fire hoses, firing the tear gas cannisters, and busting the heads of these Niggas, Commies, Jews, hippies, liberals, gays and anti-Americans ?

 

Asking for a friend who is trying to grasp the context of this so called Patriot Movement.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Spaztecs said:

Q:

 

If the Civil Rights and Anti-War movents were happening today, would these self annointed Patriots be marching with and protecting these American Citizens who were peacefully addressing their grievances towards their government ?

Or, would they like their parents  and grandparents before them, be exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights to be on the business end of the oppression. ?

i.e. Manning the fire hoses, firing the tear gas cannisters, and busting the heads of these Niggas, Commies, Jews, hippies, liberals, gays and anti-Americans ?

 

Asking for a friend who is trying to grasp the context of this so called Patriot Movement.

That’s a ridiculous assertion/correlation. But you’ve never been interested in intellectual conversation anyway so what does it matter ... 

+++++ing moron.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

That’s a ridiculous assertion/correlation. But you’ve never been interested in intellectual conversation anyway so what does it matter ... 

+++++ing moron.

Please explain why this is a horrible correlation. I am willing to bet I am correct.

Seriously,  where were these so called Patriots and protectors from tyranny when Civil Rights Marchers we're being fire hosed on tv ? Where were they when Mayor Daley loosed the Chicago PD on the anti war protestors during the Chicago DNC in '68 ? Where were they when the National Guard gunned down unarmed and peaceful protestors at Kent St ? 

My guess is they were home cheering on the oppressors of Civil Liberties and complaining about how these people weren't real Americans. Rosa Parks had far more guts, courage and moral fortitude then these red necked hillbillies have put together.

I thought after some time off from this thinly veiled void of intelligent thought, I might find a smattering of intelligent discussion. I was obviously wrong.

So, to BSU and those who refuse dialogue and adult conversation. Whose only contribution is idiot memes and name calling, why don't you do something useful and go suck Chris Peterson's cock. Maybe you can convince him to replace the under achieving ball coach you guys are always complaining about.

 

 

 

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Spaztecs said:

Please explain why this is a horrible correlation. I am willing to bet I am correct.

I thought after some time off from this thinly veiled void of intelligent thought, I might find a smattering of intelligent discussion. I was obviously wrong.

So, to BSU and those who refuse dialogue and adult conversation. Whose only contribution is idiot memes and name calling, why don't you do something useful and go suck Chris Peterson's cock. Maybe you can convince him to replace the under achieving ball coach you guys are always complaining about.

 

 

 

+++++ you bitch. Go back to your safe space and assume the fetal position, you’re nothing but garbage.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all the rest of you radical lefties, there will be a lack of civility and respectful dialog as long as you +++++s continue to broadly paint all those you disagree with as ignorant, racist, and greedy. You’re only going to receive in return what you spew out.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...