DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cuckoo Dems - Part 7

Yea, regulated. You missed that entire part of the discussion, Eve. Frank is arguing that there shouldn’t be any regulations on those weapons.

If something requires a license to purchase, it is regulated. Example:

Eve, you can absolutely own a tank, provided that:

https://lundestudio.com/can-you-legally-own-a-tank/

You need a federal destructive device permit in order to purchase/operate one.


We also need special plates In order to even operate on the roads, which depending on which one you get, is a no go.

AKA REGULATIONS, which is what I advocate for in this discussion, while Frank wants them removed.

It has nothing to do with sovereign citizen type stuff, it has to do with the natural right to self preservation, bro.

Why shouldn't we be able to own whatever kind of firearm we want? Do you think I am more dangerous if I own an M16 instead of an AR15?

Regulations = Stripping of Rights. You don't get to do that.

You sir, and your ilk, are a threat to Democracy.

Taking away the rights of Americans.

I will forever vote R because of deluded lemming libtards.

He's scared of militias. He doesn't want armed citizens because he's for an evil overlord government managing ever aspect of human life. He doesn't want anyone who can stand up for themselves.

For the same reason you can’t yell fire or bomb in a movie theater or an airport. Every right has some limitations on it.

Well those regulations are in place already.

And you’ve done nothing about it, so apparently they do get to do that lol. What is this convo

Says the woman voting for the party that will tell her what she can do with her own body lmao. Republicans want you barefoot and preggo, eve. Better find you a man quick before they do.

Remember eve, republicans said childless cat ladies like you have no business voting cause you’re not invested in the future of this country.

Governor sanders in Arkansas said women like you don’t have anything to keep you humble lmfao

But keep it up

Touched a sore spot did I? You take the L because you whatabouted. You are absolutely a thread to democracy. You support the stripping of Americans 2A rights.

and strip more of it down

Compared to what? A jobless drug addicted lazy black man living on the goverments dime? Your white wife earns the money and wears the pants. When you start contributing to society, let me know. Pffft Beta males.

Firstly the perfunctory clause of the 2A is a cited example of why we need the operative clause. It is not a limitation on the right, nor does it define the right. This is settled by SCOTUS in Heller, and reaffirmed since. But when you say regulated you have to look to the founding for what that meant:

"When the Founding Fathers used the term "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment, they meant that the militia was[ well-organized, well-armed, and well-disciplined. It didn't mean that the government would regulate the militia in the way it does today. Instead, it meant that the militia was prepared to fulfill its duty. "

This is important as, at the time, people who served in the Militia were required to bring their own arms with them. There were laws on the books that could fine people for NOT keeping proper arms and ammunition.

The operative clause uses the phrase"the People" for a reason. To limit the right to militias would be saying, in essence, "The government cannot limit the right of the government" which is a ridiculous statement.

Now, I do think there should be regulations on all weapons. You keeping and bearing them should not harm others. There's a a good limit and regulation for you. SCOTUS as even given a fine example in Bruen. Using your arms to cause an affray would be a nonprotected activity.

Strip those rights!! Strip those rights!! Lmao

That's right, take the L.

You've misquoted Brandenburg, but that is not surprising. It happens a lot.

You can, in fact yell fire or bomb in a movie theatre or airport. You can not do so with the "intent to incite or produce imminent lawless action" such as a riot, or stampede that is likely to harm people If there is a fire in a theatre you most certainly can yell fire.

Based on what you decided to highlight, are you part of a well regulated militia?

You can’t be sitting here making a strict constitutional argument and not meet the strict constitutional requirement that the 2nd amendment states out.

And I want to be clear; nobody has read the entire thing or memorized it verbatim. But have you even skimmed through the entire 2nd amendment? Regulations are absolutely a thing.

Gun control laws do not violate the 2nd amendment, as it doesn’t keep you from owning or purchasing firearms whatsoever.

But I didn’t misinterpret it based on what’s called spirit of law. Intentions matter, which is exactly why you can’t yell out those things because there aren’t other intentions around it.

You’re not really arguing any points here.

What L? You literally helped my argument by pointing out things that require regulations in order to own them, like a tank lmao

Thanks, btw.

Destroying conservatives in a 2v1 fight on a glorious sunny day while dogs run outside as I smoke on legal ohio marijuana is what this country is all about.

it does not matter if I am part of any militia. The Heller decision specifically says you do not need to be part of a militia to be part of "the People" who's right it is.

You've has incorrectly understood infringement means. It does not mean a complete abolition, which your point seems to indicate.

"The word "infringement" means to violate a law or right, or to encroach upon another's rights or privileges. " Gun control laws do infringe on the right. One of the arguments of the state (which Harris cosigned) was no one needed a handgun for protection because they had rifles available to them. The Heller decision disagrees with this notion. Just because an alternative is available does not mean you can deny what arms people want or need. Ironically now it has become "you don't need rifles because you have handguns" a 15ish years after Heller.

I haven’t highlighted infringement. You did. Right now you’re making arguments to points I’m not making, and that’s leading to a clear divid in this discussion.

Btw, you mentioned preexisting the constitution, yet every time you post, your argument is based on the constitution, nothing predating it. The 2nd amendment itself is a regulation, as it’s written. That’s why you need to be of certain age to purchase and own a firearm. That’s why if you’re convicted of certain crimes, you lose your right to own a firearm.

So back to my original point, yes there should be regulations. Those regulations ALREADY exist Frank, and yet you have your rifle, yes? I have my firearm, yes? So apparently those regulations that already exist in the books have infringed on your right to own your weapon whatsoever.

So what are you arguing about?

You did not say the word infringement but your arguments lead in that direction, and it is an important concept in a 2A discussion. If I read more into your statement than you intended I apologize.


My rights preexist the constitution, the constitution is there to protect those preexisting rights from the government. The constitution does not grant the rights. And yes, it is regulation, but it is regulation on how the government is allowed to act. Just because the government has decided to pass laws that do not meet the muster of "shall not be infringed" does not mean they are constitutional, it just means that people in government think they can do what they will when they will. When they passed the latest round of regulations here in MD they were told they would be sued because it wasn't constitutional. Their response was if they throw enough against the wall maybe something would stick, then they could just do it again. There are parts already enjoined and more lawsuits are on going. It is a slow tedious process.

but your rights really don't preexist the constitution, as our rights are assigned by the specific society we choose to live in, at that particular moment. come on man

From DC vs Heller: (emphasis added)

The Founders most certain wrote the 2A with the idea that the right exists outside of any specific societal construct. You have a pre-existing right to keep and bear ams for your own self preservation, in an individual case and for the greater case of resisting a tyrannical government. I do not derive my right to life based on a piece of paper, no matter how well crafted the writing on that paper is.

I wanted to circle back to this really quickly. First I could care less about what you are smoking, and how often. But one of the "common sense" regulations in current force is if you can be considered a habitual user of illegal drugs, and pot is considered illegal in the federal system, it is illegal for you to own firearms.

I do not agree with this, even in the slightest. But it is to highlight how "regulation" works. Do you think "waking and baking" makes you such a dangerous person you should be disarmed? This is idea is in the judicial system now, and Garland has argued you are too dangerous to own firearms, even if pot smokers aren't dangerous in any other way.

It’s been legal in the state or Ohio for a while now. Medical and now rec. and I bought the firearm recently, after it was legalized. So I can’t be charged with a crime (at least one that won’t get thrown out), and I don’t smoke and drive (that’s been illegal regardless of weed status).

And also waking and baking doesn’t make me a danger with firearms. You know what does? Drinking and having firearms. And that’s ALWAYS been legal. Yikes.

And yet we both exist in a country where the rights we have today are not the rights we had yesterday. And you have t acknowledge how certain rights seem to apply to certain people based on the criteria of that law when it was written.

Not making this a race thing, just an example bro.

That 1776 2nd amendment didn’t apply to my ancestors. My ancestors had no such rights to speech or firearms or anything. I certainly couldn’t go back in time and argue natural rights to the Supreme Court, could I Frank? My pre existing argument would be laughed at all the way to the plantation. Hell, preexisting rights states that only land owners could vote, so even if you’re white, some freedoms don’t even apply to you. What you’re stating is only valid if those rights have been applicable to everyone. But since it hasn’t, arguing preexisting rights is meaningless.

And I want to be clear, Frank. Meaningless to me. The Supreme Court certainly doesn’t think it’s meaningless. But I hope you understand that you’re going back to an era where the Supreme Court also ruled that black people aren’t human, and thus had no constitutional rights. You posted the ruling from 1876. In 1857 Scott vs Sanford ruled that African Americans could not be citizens. Taney, the chief SC judge, ruled that the words ‘all men are created equal’ where not intended for blacks, as they could not vote, travel, or do much of anything on their own free will.

So based on the Supreme Court that you keep highlighting, black people had no preexisting rights that you keep arguing in favor of. If we can pick and choose who the rights belong to, then they aren’t actually rights, are they….

Also, let me be clear here. I stated regulations. I have not called for a ban on specific firearm. And yet you keep implying that I’m calling for rights to be taken away, which isn’t true.

First let me point out the passage I posted was from the 2008 Heller decision. As with other rights there has been a long struggle to correct the sins of the past. Brown vs Board of Education was such a correction, as was Loving v Virginia. None of these created a right, they rectified the denial of those rights.

There was a case recently in CA that dealt with the ability to buy 1 firearm every 30 days. At the district level the law was found to be unconstitutional, enforcement was barred and then the decision was stayed pending appeal. This is not an unusual step. I listened to the orals for the appeal. It struck me as interesting that the state of CA argued they could restrict purchases like due to a historical tradition of regulating purchases of firearms to indians and black people. One of the judges on the panel asked the attorney for CA if their entire argument hinged on using racist laws and if they wanted to continue to use that line of argument. He indicated he would. The next day the stay was lifted and enforcement of the law was banned. This is huge considering this was in 9CA which has a history of agreeing with the state on any anti gun decision.

States have continued to try to show a history or regulation, and as such a allowable tradition of regulation, though racist and discriminatory laws. New York argued they had laws that kept "dangerous people" for owning guns. Those people were black people and catholics specifically. It is time for that kind of stuff to stop. Today's court isn't looking for a "we did it and we can do it" Historical tradition is about the "how and why". A why that denies rights based on factors like these will not hold muster, as the why is pretty obviously wrong.

I understand where you are coming from, but pot is still illegal federally. That is the caution. I don't agree with it, but federally using illegal drugs, especially if there is proof that you are habitual user (like having a pot card) does make it a federal felony. There are some cases percolating through the courts now that should help reduce this, especially in light of Rahimi.

Right, so we have rights and freedoms, as well as laws, based on our society as it exist today.

Our regulations are supposed to reflect said society as it exist in time.

You have to remember bro that the constitution as it originally existed was not meant for everyone. And the rights and laws that existed prior to the constitution was also not meant for everyone. Which means preexisting rights has always meant different things to whoever was in power at that time. You also inevitably end up down the rabbit hole where you question who defines what preexisting rights are? And what time period do we go back to to define said preexisting right?

Never mind the 1700’s when the 2nd amendment was written. Frank, if we time traveled back to 1966, you’d watch me get arrested because I’m married to a white woman. Do you think I’ll get out of jail with a preexisting right argument to the judge? Do you think imma walk into the gun shop and purchase a firearm afterwards?

Rights are only as good as society is willing to enforce. If society is no longer willing to except the broad freedoms of the 2nd amendment, and decide to to enact more gun control, the same Supreme Court you cite ruled in US vs Rahimi that firearm regulation is constitutional.

Which means the people (government) have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit.

By the way, in that heller case:

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

So clearly this ruling goes against what you’ve been arguing against me this entire time: regulations.

Not a ban, regulations, or at least to maintain the ones we have.

And Bruen helps clarify that.

You cannot, for instance, carry a firearm for unconstitutional reasons. The specific example is to cause an affray. This would be a limitation as you are acting outside of rights as it harms others. You can't carry with the intention of murder, you don't have a right to murder.

There have been some allowable regulations, but SCOTUS was clear they had to be a founding era example that is informed by 1868 time frame (14A). The how and why are important and courts should reject discriminatory depravation of rights as a why. There are courts that will accept it, sadly. I do not think in the end those will survive SCOTUS scrutiny. All of this takes time, too much time. It took over 10 years for the inferior courts to fully accept Brown.

I think it will survive. Because whether you like it or not, the reality is that gun control has and always will be constitutional. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own a firearm. It does NOT say we can own any firearm we want for any reason. Unless I’m mistaken, there’s never been a Supreme Court case that has stated otherwise.

So you’re the one who has to adapt out of this all or nothing attitude on this topic, not the rest of the country. I am pro gun ownership. I own a firearm. And I ALSO support regulations on firearms and accessories. Both can and are true at the same time. It’s not, nor has it ever been, one or the other.

And we circle back around to what the constitution grants us. This is the fundamental issue in this.

"Our ilk" didn't try to overthrow an election.

You missed the big question, do I care? No I don’t. I want better gun laws.

I can say I am not surprised you don't care about the constitution.

There's a difference in caring about the constitution and using it as a tool pretending our forefathers could see the progression of firearms over 200 years in advance to further your own wishes. Those aren't the same thing. You know as well as I do if they could have seen into the future to where firearms have advanced to today and the results we are seeing now on our streets and in our schools they would have written it differently. I don't expect you to admit that but it's only obvious.

No, I don't know your made up reality. But yet again you think telling me what you think I should think makes you right.

I'd give you an actual response on why you are wrong but you will, again, ignore it and argue with made up ideas.