Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,780
Likes: 920
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,780
Likes: 920
Originally Posted by Damanshot
Originally Posted by jfanent
Originally Posted by Damanshot
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
When you believe rational basis is a reason for removing a right, no it isn't difficult. Allowing people to be free and understanding that freedom does not mean a guarantee of safety is difficult for people who need governmental control of their lives.

Quote
What "right" did anything I proposed "remove"? None.
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.

What "Regulated Militia" did the Buffalo shooter belong too? How about any of the 198 Mass Shootings from this year. Did any of the shooters actually belong to a "regulated Militia"?

Read it again. A well regulated militia is the reason we shall not infringe on the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It is not the reason for granting the right.

OK,,, so what regulated Militia did he belong too?

Read it again. But this time all the words...and slower.

Last edited by jfanent; 05/23/22 11:28 AM. Reason: added "and slower" to assist w/comprehension

And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir

#GMSTRONG
3 members like this: 40YEARSWAITING, archbolddawg, MemphisBrownie
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
Well we all know someone today trying to figure out what the forefathers meant in the constitution mean more than Alexander Hamilton's own words in the federalist papers.

So let's go with your theory that we should only concentrate on the words you think we should while ignoring the other part about an organized militia. Which is clearly stated and one of the actual authors of the constitution wrote about himself......... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is nothing in there about convicted felons. The forefathers never made an exception to a convicted murderer buying a firearm. Therefore anyone preventing a convicted murderer from legally purchasing a firearm is violating his or her second amendment rights.

There is nothing in the constitution about fully automatic weapons either. They mention no limits of the types of firearms any citizen, even a convicted felon can purchase. So if we ignore everything else as you suggest and only concentrate on the words you desire to concentrate on, the day a convicted murderer is released form prison he should be able to go out and legally purchase a fully automatic weapon. No background check, no permit. Everyone has to apply for a special permit to own a fully automatic weapon. there is a reason for that. But hey, that's violating their second amendment rights!

I mean the forefathers knew we would have fully automatic weapons back in 1776, right? They knew we have have pistols that's would hold 19 cartridges and could be reloaded simply by changing magazines in a matter of a couple of seconds, right? They had crystal balls to address everything we face almost 250 years later.

But to trust what you are trying to say here we would have to concentrate on only one part of the second amendment and ignore the rest of it. We would also have to believe they could see into the future and understand the weapons we have today. We would also have to believe if they saw the weapons and conditions we live in today they would have written it the same way. The constitution has been amended 26 times because people are smart enough to figure out they lacked the ability to do that.

I mean some of them owned slaves too. There was nothing about that being wrong or illegal in the constitution either.

So you stick with relying only on the words you want to while ignoring the rest to keep it in context in its entirety. You ignore what one of the very writers of the constitution said about it. You ignore that laws have been put in place to prevent dangerous convicted felons from legally purchasing firearms. You ignore that anyone can't just go out and buy a fully automatic weapon. Just ignore that at some point common sense needs to be used while still giving every American who is not a convicted felon the right to purchase a firearm. Because there are no laws on the books nor should there be to prevent you from that.

A little common sense doesn't prevent you from buying or carrying a firearm. It just shows the rest of society that you take that responsibility seriously instead of putting guns in the hands of convicted felons and making sure people walking down the street know how to handle a gun. I know for some just those sensible, responsible steps are too much to ask for because "MAH Rights!"


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Well we all know someone today trying to figure out what the forefathers meant in the constitution mean more than Alexander Hamilton's own words in the federalist papers.

So let's go with your theory that we should only concentrate on the words you think we should while ignoring the other part about an organized militia. Which is clearly stated and one of the actual authors of the constitution wrote about himself......... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is nothing in there about convicted felons. The forefathers never made an exception to a convicted murderer buying a firearm. Therefore anyone preventing a convicted murderer from legally purchasing a firearm is violating his or her second amendment rights.

It has always been well understood that people convicted of crimes, especially felonies have GIVEN up their rights. This also satisfies the idea of prison (freedom of movement), death penalty (right to life), and fines and financial penalties (right to the pursuit of happiness). Restoration of rights can be an arduous task, especially the restoration of your 2A protected rights. It is possible though, there are forms you need to fill out and interviews and all that. But your freedom of movement being curtailed in the case of prison usually requires you do to do something to have it restored as well, whether that is just behave while incarcerated or more formally go before a parole hearing.


Originally Posted by PitDAWG
There is nothing in the constitution about fully automatic weapons either. They mention no limits of the types of firearms any citizen, even a convicted felon can purchase. So if we ignore everything else as you suggest and only concentrate on the words you desire to concentrate on, the day a convicted murderer is released form prison he should be able to go out and legally purchase a fully automatic weapon. No background check, no permit. Everyone has to apply for a special permit to own a fully automatic weapon. there is a reason for that. But hey, that's violating their second amendment rights!

No there is no mention of limits on types of arms in the constitution and as such you should understand that there were no limits placed on the types of arms allowed. The forefathers actually did understand there were more than musket and cannon (cannon being ordinance that private people used to be able to own). Keep in mind the Puckle gun was invented in 1718, roughly 73 years before the Bill of Rights. It was crude but it did serve notice that single shot muskets were not the only technology.

The NFA disallowed private citizens from buying machine guns without getting a license. It is interesting that the government didn't outlaw them completely at the time, they made you pay a tax stamp to acquire one. It seems they were more interested in making money than they were about "solving a problem". I do think the NFA, and later laws that amended and added to such, are unconstitutional on their face. They are infringements and as such should be struck down.

Again, convicted felons have GIVEN up their rights and as such are not allowed their 2A protected rights without restoration.

Originally Posted by PitDAWG
I mean the forefathers knew we would have fully automatic weapons back in 1776, right? They knew we have have pistols that's would hold 19 cartridges and could be reloaded simply by changing magazines in a matter of a couple of seconds, right? They had crystal balls to address everything we face almost 250 years later.

Not withstanding the Puckle gun, do you think the forefather's foresaw the little brick of a data access device most people carry today? What about the massive amount of electronic computing power that is the Internet. Do you think these should not be covered by 4A protections? Is HIPPA unconstitutional just because no one thought your papers could be digital? The lack of a crystal ball is merely a straw man arguemnt.


Originally Posted by PitDAWG
But to trust what you are trying to say here we would have to concentrate on only one part of the second amendment and ignore the rest of it. We would also have to believe they could see into the future and understand the weapons we have today. We would also have to believe if they saw the weapons and conditions we live in today they would have written it the same way. The constitution has been amended 26 times because people are smart enough to figure out they lacked the ability to do that.

Essentially yes, we have to trust it meant what it meant and it still means that today. I am not ignoring any part of the amendment. I have covered the initial part since you were so fixated on that with the Heller decision. SCOTUS gave us a ruling which clarifies the first part quite nicely. If you have not read it I suggest you do. I do understand that Heller is about "keep" and not "bear" but to be fair that was the question asked, and that was the question answered. This is usually how SCOTUS works, rarely do they rule outside of the asked question. Petitioners need to be careful they ask the right questions.

Originally Posted by PitDAWG
I mean some of them owned slaves too. There was nothing about that being wrong or illegal in the constitution either.

Yes, some did. This was addressed and rectified (rightly so) in 13A. There is a process for changing the constitution. It was included with the document. It has been amended with 27 ratified amendments. The process is not easy and was never meant to be. The process does not involve simply ignoring the process and trying to pass laws that inhibit rights in such a way that they are denied.


Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So you stick with relying only on the words you want to while ignoring the rest to keep it in context in its entirety. You ignore what one of the very writers of the constitution said about it. You ignore that laws have been put in place to prevent dangerous convicted felons from legally purchasing firearms. You ignore that anyone can't just go out and buy a fully automatic weapon. Just ignore that at some point common sense needs to be used while still giving every American who is not a convicted felon the right to purchase a firearm. Because there are no laws on the books nor should there be to prevent you from that.

Again, I have not ignored anything. I have addressed prefatory clause and the operative clause, both in great detail. I have addressed the common law idea that felons have GIVEN away their rights and may have the restored, or they may not. I have not ignored that "anyone can't just go out and buy a fully automatic weapon" I have lamented that. I do believe the NFA does not pass constitutional muster and I do hope for correction of that. You do know, of course, that you can apply for a tax stamp and buy a machine gun right? It is possible, it is just a very slow, burdened process. So it is not forbidden, just very difficult. I have friends that have happy switches on certain firearms and I do admit to being a tad jealous of that.

Originally Posted by PitDAWG
A little common sense doesn't prevent you from buying or carrying a firearm. It just shows the rest of society that you take that responsibility seriously instead of putting guns in the hands of convicted felons and making sure people walking down the street know how to handle a gun. I know for some just those sensible, responsible steps are too much to ask for because "MAH Rights!"

"Common sense" is not quantifiable. You've been asked more than once by me, and always fail to answer:

How much training do you think someone needs? What form of training? How much should it cost? How much should the application to prove to the government cost to be allowed to exercise your rights? You will likely just describe "common sense" without actually answering the question, yet again. You will mock people who believe fundamental rights should not be infringed, because you are scared of other people excursing said rights. You will ignore the idea that burdens and fees to exercise a right disenfranchise those same poor people you were so worried couldn't get an abortion if laws were stricter.

So I have
1) Addressed the entirety of 2A for you.
2) Addressed common law and the expectation of felony conviction
3) Addressed "common sense" and the burdening of a right.
4) ASKED a question that you will likely ignore, since you have repeatedly.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
Hmmmm... Suddenly you have decided that a stand alone statement in a group of larger words no longer stands alone? So even though the constitution says nothing about taking away the rights of convicted felons, you say it's "long been understood"? I guess that means there have been changes that created further restrictions to owning a firearm than a single statement in the constitution. As long as they're ones you agree with?

So you're trying to use the Puckle gun which citizens never actually owned to make an excuse that we have so many weapons today that are widely available to citizens? You brought up a lot of things our forefathers couldn't foresee. Which was exactly my point. They were men like the rest of us. They couldn't see into the future. They couldn't foresee the situation, murder rate and just how easily people could acquire guns that can kill so many, so quickly. That's why there have been modifications to our laws such as preventing convicted felons for purchasing firearms. Once again you use the constitution as a reaon not to accept the things you disagree with and accept changes you do agree with which were no part of the constitution.

I do realize and fully understand the process of how to legally purchase fully automatic weapons. I also know that fits the "description" of a license that you are so against.

Basic training of how to handle and properly fire a firearm is not burdensome. It is not complicated nor expensive. It does not prevent you from anything. On one hand you claim that common sense isn't quantifiable, then you've spent much of the time trying to make the argument that we should ignore any basic training for people to handle objects that clearly have the ability to kill a mass number of people in a matter of seconds.

I hope you can at least understand that people such as yourself with such extremist notions are actually doing more to undermine gun ownership and carrying forearms than they are helping. The anti gun lobby uses people such as yourself as the poster child for their cause. And it's working.

Maybe we should all be able to go out and buy rocket launchers and tanks at the local gun store too?


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,601
Likes: 584
M
Legend
Offline
Legend
M
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,601
Likes: 584
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Hmmmm... Suddenly you have decided that a stand alone statement in a group of larger words no longer stands alone? So even though the constitution says nothing about taking away the rights of convicted felons, you say it's "long been understood"? I guess that means there have been changes that created further restrictions to owning a firearm than a single statement in the constitution. As long as they're ones you agree with?

I am no expert and I am responding only to this comment on the assumption it is accurate - but the draft opinion on removing the right to abortion recently leaked, used the lack of abortion specifically being mentioned in the constitution as grounds for removing the right at a federal level. Surely if that holds water - then if the constitution grants gun ownership rights, does not specifically exclude or remove that right for felons ... then sure felons should have a right to bear arms? Maybe I have grasped something backwards here?


The more things change the more they stay the same.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
Yes and that's why there are two points of view on that.

IMO if you're going to stand on one singular part of the 2nd amendment to prove your point while ignoring the rest of it..... If you're going to use that same phrase in the bill as concrete reasoning for your opinion, then you must also use it for everything in connection with firearms. The "yeah well people figured out later that felons shouldn't own firearms" means the very wording you are using in your argument in the constitution was and has been modified by laws after it was written in regards to firearm ownership. Trying to use that as an excuse means that's not the only thing people can "figure out later".

There's no, "Well it's okay that they changed that part but they can't change anything else because I don't like it". It's either all inclusive or it isn't. It's not a pick and choose situation based on what you agree with and what you do not.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
1 member likes this: mgh888
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,601
Likes: 584
M
Legend
Offline
Legend
M
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,601
Likes: 584
Got it 100%. A hard following of the constitution or an originalist ... except when it's inconvenient.


The more things change the more they stay the same.
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Hmmmm... Suddenly you have decided that a stand alone statement in a group of larger words no longer stands alone? So even though the constitution says nothing about taking away the rights of convicted felons, you say it's "long been understood"? I guess that means there have been changes that created further restrictions to owning a firearm than a single statement in the constitution. As long as they're ones you agree with?

And there's the spin. Not what I said. I have explained how the amendment was written. There are two clauses, the first of which you kept pointing to while ignoring the second. I have addressed both clauses, their meaning and their context using, amongst other things, words from SCOTUS itself.

Now here is the subtle part you must have missed, even though I tried very hard to be blunt.






When you commit a felony it has long been understood in common law that YOU forfeit your rights. This is congruent with the second amendment as the Federal government is NOT infringing your rights, you GAVE them up..





What the above noticed and clear now? You might have missed it with be just using capitals on the word GIVEN in my previous post.


Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So you're trying to use the Puckle gun which citizens never actually owned to make an excuse that we have so many weapons today that are widely available to citizens? You brought up a lot of things our forefathers couldn't foresee. Which was exactly my point. They were men like the rest of us. They couldn't see into the future. They couldn't foresee the situation, murder rate and just how easily people could acquire guns that can kill so many, so quickly. That's why there have been modifications to our laws such as preventing convicted felons for purchasing firearms. Once again you use the constitution as a reaon not to accept the things you disagree with and accept changes you do agree with which were no part of the constitution.

No, I am using the puckle gun to show that there were machine guns at the time. Crude yes, but they existed nonetheless. The founders certain understood technology would progress. and that multi-shot weapons were possible.

Murder rate, rates of fire and every other rhetorical argument you made is immaterial. The second amendment is there to protect citizens rights to own arms, not restrict that right. It does not grant the right, it only protects it. Rational basis is no way to examine a fundamental right, one really should use strict scrutiny. You continue to use rational basis. This is incorrect.


Originally Posted by PitDAWG
I do realize and fully understand the process of how to legally purchase fully automatic weapons. I also know that fits the "description" of a license that you are so against.


It is a license and it is infringement. I have said that before.


Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Basic training of how to handle and properly fire a firearm is not burdensome. It is not complicated nor expensive. It does not prevent you from anything. On one hand you claim that common sense isn't quantifiable, then you've spent much of the time trying to make the argument that we should ignore any basic training for people to handle objects that clearly have the ability to kill a mass number of people in a matter of seconds.

MD requires a 16 hour class. This can run $300, $75 for the carry license and then $50 so you can buy a hand gun. Just for the HQL you must fire a round, this is not law, other than the state police seem to think it was meant to be so they require it. There are NO ranges inside the city of Baltimore, so anyone that wishes to legally carry must leave the city. But it isn't your money so making someone in the city leave doesn't concern you.

You would be incensed to require someone to pay $400+ to vote. (please don't use the tired old straw man on this one, voting and arms ownership are both fundamental rights)



Originally Posted by PitDAWG
I hope you can at least understand that people such as yourself with such extremist notions are actually doing more to undermine gun ownership and carrying forearms than they are helping. The anti gun lobby uses people such as yourself as the poster child for their cause. And it's working.

Maybe we should all be able to go out and buy rocket launchers and tanks at the local gun store too?


Let me translate this:

"stop caring about your fundamental rights so the people who don't want you to have those rights stop trying to take the rights away from you". I hope you can understand that is about the worst argument you have made in a long list of bad arguments. If I stop fighting for my rights then I don't have them. To be honest they will continue regardless.

And I have never seen myself on a poster.

To be fair I don't know why you would care so much about rocket launchers and tanks. If I have evil in my heart I can do a lot of damage without those, owning them doesn't change that. Did I mention that during the writing of the BOR people owned CANON? Even private warships with LOTS of canon.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
The constitution does not say or even imply that felons were excluded from owing firearms. It was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owing a firearm. Is that what you mean by "long understood"? So it wasn't until 1968 that a law was created at the federal level at which time addressed something not in the constitution involving the right to own a gun.

Can you explain to me "what right" is being taken away from you? If you're not a convicted felon you can own a firearm. If you take a basic safety course you can carry a firearm. With exception of those states that feels it's perfectly safe for someone who may have never touched a firearm to just buy one, load it and stick it in their belt. notallthere

So there is nothing there that "infringe on your right" to own a firearm. The last hand gun I bought was a 19 shot 9mm. It cost $650. Now I understand how you would like to point to the extreme example of how much it would cost you to et a CCW permit in a certain state. That certainly gives it a dramatic effect. But let me show you the counterpoint. In TN. they passed that crazy law that let's anyone, even those with zero experience in the handling of firearm to carry a weapon without a permit.

But let me show what it cost before it was passed. $37.97.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/us...LE4AUCsmgX3oqE0UcHwRWfD51dsaArb_EALw_wcB

So I mean if you wish to show an extreme example I can give you the counter extreme. If I can afford to spend $650 on a hand gun, I can afford $37.97 for a CCW permit. You can't seem to grasp the concept that nobody is preventing you of purchasing or carrying a gun. Nobody.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
Quote
To be fair I don't know why you would care so much about rocket launchers and tanks. If I have evil in my heart I can do a lot of damage without those, owning them doesn't change that. Did I mention that during the writing of the BOR people owned CANON? Even private warships with LOTS of canon.

And that's why those laws have been changed. Because the constitution is a living document and not something etched in stone.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Quote
To be fair I don't know why you would care so much about rocket launchers and tanks. If I have evil in my heart I can do a lot of damage without those, owning them doesn't change that. Did I mention that during the writing of the BOR people owned CANON? Even private warships with LOTS of canon.

And that's why those laws have been changed. Because the constitution is a living document and not something etched in stone.

Yes and no. It can be changed/unchanged (see prohibition), but that was made intentionally difficult. A lot of people like "original" interpretation. I had a post about interpretation a while ago.

I will use the second amendment as an example. In reality it should be clarified because we have a standing military. But there are people that would rather spend their lives trying to figure out what it means or does not mean that it is impractical to change now.


There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
In this case it has been defined by laws outside of the constitution. Such as the constitution says nothing that would prevent convicted felons from legally owing a firearm. A federal law was passed that did. We not only have a standing Army. Each state has a National Guard force designated as protection for that state which is at the discretion of the governor.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
MD is not the extreme example, it is but one example of using training and fees to regulate (ban) a right.

Try to get enough training in Hawaii to get a carry permit. They haven't issued one in over 20 years, but they have it on the books if you meet the requirements you can get one. States use fees and training as barriers. Should we require fees and training to vote? Maybe a "may issue" style permitting scheme. (Yes, this is where you talk about evil black baby killing clipazines of death and mayhem).

The constitution was never meant to be a living document. It was meant to be difficult to change. It was done, ON PURPOSE, so fads would come and go and not influence the foundation of the countries legal system.

When you commit crimes you give up rights. This has been a common law idea for a very long time (think before the constitution). I explained it before, you skimmed it.

And you continue to fail to answer the question, how much training do you think one should have? <=-- QUESTION ALERT!!!


Since you indicated in other threads you never fail to answer questions, and this one has been asked of you several times by now.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,374
Likes: 437
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,374
Likes: 437
I AM curious as to what level of "training" would be needed in his mind.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
I'm not an expert on "how much training someone should have". But as I've already said which doesn't seem good enough for you, enough to know how to safely handle and discharge a firearm.

There have been 27 changes to the constitution. That's the very definition of a living document.

People can claim anything as a "Barrier". But it's really just an excuse to let anyone who buys a gun, many not even knowing how to handle it, to walk out of a gun store, tuck it in their belt and walk among all of us. It's an excuse to purposely endanger the life of us all.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
I'm not an expert on "how much training someone should have". But as I've already said which doesn't seem good enough for you, enough to know how to safely handle and discharge a firearm.

There have been 27 changes to the constitution. That's the very definition of a living document.

People can claim anything as a "Barrier". But it's really just an excuse to let anyone who buys a gun, many not even knowing how to handle it, to walk out of a gun store, tuck it in their belt and walk among all of us. It's an excuse to purposely endanger the life of us all.

Read the NRA safe handling instructions. Done. Of course you would also, in your world, need to show that you've done so. I mean, unless you expect the state to take your word for it. Of course that basic of a requirement is really like no requirement at all, so why bother having it?

No, a living document means it changes quickly. When people claim it is a living document what they really mean is "I don't like this, we should just make a law that supersedes it" understanding that changing the constitution is difficult for a reason (which is why it has been changed 27 times, if you count the BOR as 10 of course) and we have 10's of thousands of laws.

The constitution resists change, that is the opposite of living document.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
It has changed 27 times. That in and of itself means it's a living document. If a document can be amended it's a living document. Resisting change doesn't mean it can't be changed. History has proven this. And no, reading something does not show you know how to safely fire, load, unload and handle a firearm.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
It has changed 27 times. That in and of itself means it's a living document. If a document can be amended it's a living document. Resisting change doesn't mean it can't be changed. History has proven this. And no, reading something does not show you know how to safely fire, load, unload and handle a firearm.

Not quite. The constitution has 27 amendments. It really only changed 17 times. The BOR was added as a single change, which was agreed upon in principle before the constitution was ratified completely. Of the other 16 changes 2 of them offset each other. This does not make a living document. Source code is a living document. It may have very ridgid change control but that would be a living document. The consitution is a foundational document. It is not readily changeable like a living document. Those that say it is a living document usually follow up with "so we can make it work with the times, no one needs guns anymore" or similar tripe.

"enough to know how to safely handle and discharge a firearm."

That is pamphlet material. The NRA has several. Unless you think people need to attend a class, spending money to do so. Maybe buy a license to purchase a gun, ya know after they spent money attending the class. Maybe submit finger prints to purchase said gun, after they submitted them for the class.

Requiring training and fees to exercise a right is denying that right. And frankly, I don't care if you don't like it. Let's require training and fees to vote. That would cause all manner of gnashing of teeth and vitriol about disenfranchising people. You cannot delay a fundamental right and rationalize* it away.


*There's that mention of rational basis again. in case you missed it.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
It has changed 27 times. That in and of itself means it's a living document. If a document can be amended it's a living document. Resisting change doesn't mean it can't be changed. History has proven this. And no, reading something does not show you know how to safely fire, load, unload and handle a firearm.

Not totally correct. The first 10 amendments were required to obtain passage by the States.


There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
So you claim you can learn how to handle a firearm by reading a pamphlet. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've eve seen posted on here.

If something is not a living document it can't be amended. You seem to have a problem understanding that.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,203
Likes: 586
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,203
Likes: 586
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Requiring training and fees to exercise a right is denying that right. And frankly, I don't care if you don't like it. Let's require training and fees to vote. That would cause all manner of gnashing of teeth and vitriol about disenfranchising people. You cannot delay a fundamental right and rationalize* it away.

This is patently absurd.

Driving a car
Driving a motorcycle
Driving a semi as a job
Operating certain heavy machinery
Perform CPR
Become a lifeguard
Get hired as an engineer/doctor/nurse/teacher/etc

All are rights or attached to rights that require (both legally and according to common sense and for the public good) training and/or fees.


There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.

-PrplPplEater
1 member likes this: FATE
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,780
Likes: 920
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,780
Likes: 920
Originally Posted by oobernoober
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Requiring training and fees to exercise a right is denying that right. And frankly, I don't care if you don't like it. Let's require training and fees to vote. That would cause all manner of gnashing of teeth and vitriol about disenfranchising people. You cannot delay a fundamental right and rationalize* it away.

This is patently absurd.

Driving a car
Driving a motorcycle
Driving a semi as a job
Operating certain heavy machinery
Perform CPR
Become a lifeguard
Get hired as an engineer/doctor/nurse/teacher/etc

All are rights or attached to rights that require (both legally and according to common sense and for the public good) training and/or fees.

What you have listed there are privileges, not rights IMO. Those who created and passed 2A recognized the right to keep and bear arms as pre-existing and inalienable.


And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir

#GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Those are privileges, and subject to routine laws.

Everyone has constitutional rights. Voting is a right, peaceful assembly is a right, freedom of speech is a right.

That said even voting has registration requirements.

There are 5 amendments involving voting alone 14th 15th, 19th 24th, 26th, There is nothing in the constitution that would prevent amending the second amendment, but that would be difficult because of those who would rather argue about its meaning than to clarify its intent.

Last edited by WooferDawg; 05/25/22 03:42 PM. Reason: 5 amendments.

There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by WooferDawg
Those are privileges, and subject to routine laws.

Everyone has constitutional rights. Voting is a right, peaceful assembly is a right, freedom of speech is a right.

That said even voting has registration requirements.

There are 5 amendments involving voting alone 14th 15th, 19th 24th, 26th, There is nothing in the constitution that would prevent amending the second amendment, but that would be difficult because of those who would rather argue about its meaning than to clarify its intent.

And I think it would be because there are people would wish to neuter it rather than clarify the intent, because they do not like the right.

I would also argue that people have the freedom of movement as an inalienable right, and as such the idea we force people to license and register cars is overbearing. This is done for the convenience of the government, and to show in, especially in the early years, they were doing things to make people safe now please give them your vote.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,239
Likes: 167
The freedom of movement is addressed in passive by the 9th amendment.

I agree that any clarification would likely neuter the 2nd amendment. That is one of its problems. It is too broad for interpretation.


There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
And the violence begins: 2 major mass shootings in two weeks that can be easily traced back to GOPerism as the underlying enabler.


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Armed man who sought to kill Brett Kavanaugh arrested near Supreme Court justice’s home

A California man armed with a handgun, a knife, pepper spray and burglary tools was arrested early Wednesday morning near the Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, law-enforcement authorities said.

The unidentified man, who is in his mid-20s, told police he was there to kill Kavanaugh, according to authorities.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/arm...r-threatening-supreme-court-justice.html

1 member likes this: SuperBrown
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
It's a good thing the Biden administration has taken the steps necessary to protect the SCOTUS in these violent times. Hopefully that will also prevent the next January 6th from happening.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Likes: 8
Obviously Kavanaugh needs a better door.

2 members like this: SuperBrown, Jester
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
So much for good guys with guns stopping bad actors, huh? smh. I'm glad nobody killed him, but his lying ass put that target on his back. It's nothing like those innocent babies in Uvalde. I don't think we'll ever stop all killings in this country, especially with Trumpian thugs on the streets.

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 06/08/22 07:12 PM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Extremist Gun Group Says To Prepare For ‘Battle’ At U.S. Capitol Amid Gun Control Talks

https://www.yahoo.com/news/extremist-gun-group-says-prepare-160556194.html

too bad they won't battle street gangs, the mafia, or protect children. but yea, apparently this is what motivates them to action.

pathetic.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Originally Posted by 40YEARSWAITING
Armed man who sought to kill Brett Kavanaugh arrested near Supreme Court justice’s home

A California man armed with a handgun, a knife, pepper spray and burglary tools was arrested early Wednesday morning near the Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, law-enforcement authorities said.

The unidentified man, who is in his mid-20s, told police he was there to kill Kavanaugh, according to authorities.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/arm...r-threatening-supreme-court-justice.html


“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."
- Democrat leader Chuck Schumer

1 member likes this: SuperBrown
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 117
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 117
These DC criminals: Schumer and Pelosi get away with everything while they go after the innocent.

No justice for Ashley Babbitt!

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
Originally Posted by 40YEARSWAITING
“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."
- Democrat leader Chuck Schumer


Probably the truest words Schumer has ever spoken. But unlike the dolt right, we know he never meant somebody hunting them down and killing them. Shameless politics. The cops caught a kid with a gun and some tools, in custody, he told them he had it out for Kavanaugh. Glad they protected him, but big damn deal. Just like anybody else, if you play a stupid game, you get stupid prizes. What Kavanaugh has or is about to do to millions of women? He can rot for all I care. All of those lying-ass Trumpian justices can rot.

And yet, I see no tears out of the cult-right for those kids gunned down, or the lives that will be ruined over their obsession with controlling women. Don't expect any pity from me when Karma comes calling.


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
Oh, she got her justice.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 56
N
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
N
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 56
I was on Tik tok about an hour ago and three different videos came up of about 30-35 guys in camo that were arrested in Idaho today.
Somebody called the police on them as they were spotted getting in the back of a U-Haul truck.
They were all in camo pants, blue shirts and had what one called a "kkk" masks on.

The police pulled them over, got them all out of the truck and unmasked and arrested every single one of them.

They were members of a group called "Patriot Front" and were on their way to a pride event called Pride in the Park.

They were arrested on conspiracy to riot charges and there could be other charges pending.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5543473/patriot-front-members-arrested-pride-event-jumping-into-uhaul/

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 56
N
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
N
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 56
She was trying to break into the speakers lobby that would have given them access to the house members as they were still trying to get the members out. That's why the door was barricaded and had security to make sure the door wasn't breached.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,343
Likes: 483
E
Legend
Offline
Legend
E
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,343
Likes: 483
Originally Posted by northlima dawg
I was on Tik tok about an hour ago and three different videos came up of about 30-35 guys in camo that were arrested in Idaho today.
Somebody called the police on them as they were spotted getting in the back of a U-Haul truck.
They were all in camo pants, blue shirts and had what one called a "kkk" masks on.

The police pulled them over, got them all out of the truck and unmasked and arrested every single one of them.

They were members of a group called "Patriot Front" and were on their way to a pride event called Pride in the Park.

They were arrested on conspiracy to riot charges and there could be other charges pending.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5543473/patriot-front-members-arrested-pride-event-jumping-into-uhaul/

Did you even look at that article. They seem to be up to no good, but they were not wearing camo pants or "kkk masks" Thats a libtard crybaby wet dream.


No Craps Given
1 member likes this: jfanent
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
They were poop monkeys.

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 06/12/22 02:44 AM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,454
Likes: 1269
M
Legend
Offline
Legend
M
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,454
Likes: 1269
Originally Posted by northlima dawg
I was on Tik tok about an hour ago and three different videos came up of about 30-35 guys in camo that were arrested in Idaho today.
Somebody called the police on them as they were spotted getting in the back of a U-Haul truck.
They were all in camo pants, blue shirts and had what one called a "kkk" masks on.

The police pulled them over, got them all out of the truck and unmasked and arrested every single one of them.

They were members of a group called "Patriot Front" and were on their way to a pride event called Pride in the Park.

They were arrested on conspiracy to riot charges and there could be other charges pending.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5543473/patriot-front-members-arrested-pride-event-jumping-into-uhaul/






Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus And The Violence Begins...

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5