Trump Backs 'Red Flag' Laws That Could Impact Veteran Gun Ownership

[roamer_1]

Your very words explain how the survivors of gun rampages and the family, friends and associates of the dead feel about you messing with the natural right to life  --- so maybe, just maybe you'll give some thought to turning down the sanctimony and rhetoric.  Both are over the top.

Precisely ass-backwards. Far, far more peoples lives are saved by guns than taken by them. And my right to self defense is equal to my right to life, as is everyone else's... They are one and the same thing by natural law. Natural rights are monolithic and inviolable.

How DARE you prefer theirs over mine? Taking my right to defend is also taking theirs, and as history attests, over and over and over again, that is exactly where you are going. So save me your piety - COME AND GET EM.

[Jazzhead]

The rolls are directed at your words, not the language of the 2nd.  This is the fifth or so turn around your circular argument.

You describe my argument as circular.  Please explain. 

[EdJames]

You describe my argument as circular.  Please explain.

Obviously not @Cyber Liberty, and I am unsure of what he means by "circular."  But I will tell you that seeing the same crap posted over and over is beyond boring.

A simple site specific google search with the terms "jazzhead" and "Heller" yields pages and pages of results...  if we could search the database for those terms and count the results, it would yield the several hundreds of posts that you spam these threads with.

Any reasonable person of good intentions would realize that you are not getting any traction with your ideas (and haven't for the years that you keep spamming them) that summarize to:
- Our natural law-based RKBA is 'granted' to us by the US government via the Second Amendment (rejected and untrue)
- within the Second Amendment you believe a predicate clause intended to limit the Rights to some version of a militia (rejected and untrue)
- only with the Heller opinion did the RKBA get graciously extended by the SC, to individuals...  (rejected and untrue)

Posting the same rejected arguments another several hundred times is not going to convince anyone of your beliefs.

You were invited kindly by several people to join the relevant discussion of our RKBA and the so-called Red Flag Laws being proposed, within the terms that most members of this forum adhere to, and the Principles that undergird them.  You balked at not being able to watch a video, now the entire presentation has been transcribed.

Rather than persist in being a spamming troll, why don't you engage in the discussion on the terms of the vast majority of the interested and engaged forum members, rather than constantly trying to shift the debate and language to the terms and beliefs that have been clearly rejected here?

[thackney]

The Founders put that predicate clause there.   Direct your roll-eyes at them, not me.

The predicate clause is why the people should not be deprived of the right to own military weapons.  The people had just overthrow a totalitarian government.  They were not about to prevent the people from doing that again.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks, @EdJames for that.  That is exactly what I am talking about, and I greatly appreciate the research you did for your post.

[Cyber Liberty]

The predicate clause is why the people should not be deprived of the right to own military weapons.  The people had just overthrow a totalitarian government.  They were not about to prevent the people from doing that again.

The hazard of applying a 21st Century block written interpretation to 18th Century cursive words.  A lawyer's delight.

[Cyber Liberty]

Precisely ass-backwards. Far, far more peoples lives are saved by guns than taken by them. And my right to self defense is equal to my right to life, as is everyone else's... They are one and the same thing by natural law. Natural rights are monolithic and inviolable.

How DARE you prefer theirs over mine? Taking my right to defend is also taking theirs, and as history attests, over and over and over again, that is exactly where you are going. So save me your piety - COME AND GET EM.

And don't send mercenaries in uniforms to get em.  Do it yourself if you want them so badly.

[Bigun]

I am unsure of what he means by "circular."

So am I @EdJames @Cyber Liberty but for me, the definition is having something slapped down repeatedly today and then returning again tomorrow with the exact same thing.

[roamer_1]

And don't send mercenaries in uniforms to get em.  Do it yourself if you want them so badly.

Yeah... Fat chance of that.

[Jazzhead]

Rather than persist in being a spamming troll, why don't you engage in the discussion on the terms of the vast majority of the interested and engaged forum members, rather than constantly trying to shift the debate and language to the terms and beliefs that have been clearly rejected here?

This is a public forum, sir.  Right now, there are more guests viewing this thread than members.   On this subject, I will post what I want, within the board's rules, in order to persuade those readers of a realistic, reasonable and Constitutional view of the RKBA in opposition to the prevailing gun extremism.   

And I ask again of CL:   Please explain why my argument is circular.   

[Jazzhead]

Yeah... Fat chance of that.

And fat chance that you'd choose to die rather than register a firearm.   

[roamer_1]

And fat chance that you'd choose to die rather than register a firearm.

On that, you are entirely wrong. And I am many.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is a public forum, sir.  Right now, there are more guests viewing this thread than members.   On this subject, I will post what I want, within the board's rules, in order to persuade those readers of a realistic, reasonable and Constitutional view of the RKBA in opposition to the prevailing gun extremism.   

And I ask again of CL:   Please explain why my argument is circular.

I see what you are getting at:  It's the series of arguments that is circular, not a specific argument.  You will make an assertion and defend it until it's thoroughly shot down, so you introduce another argument, with the same results.  Repeat several times and you return to your first disproven assertion, as if it hadn't been debunked.  Then go on to the next, as if it wasn't disproven, either.

Repeat forever.  As @EdJames would say, it's worse than wrong, it's boring.

[verga]

I get this @txradioguy  … citizen army.  But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state". 

See, this is the problem.  [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary).  Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:

One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.

Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns.  Don't you dare -- you know they will.


Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020.  Very carefully.

@Right_in_Virginia 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

[thackney]

And fat chance that you'd choose to die rather than register a firearm.

Better chance of that then the nation rolling over and accepting it.

What happened with the Canadian Registration?

The vast majority refused to accept to the point the government withdrew it, rather than try to enforce it.

Why do you believe it would be more widely accepted here?

[Jazzhead]

On that, you are entirely wrong. And I am many.

Oh, I think I'm right.  Otherwise, how would be able to enjoy that moonless starry sky from your mountaintop?   

[roamer_1]

Oh, I think I'm right.  Otherwise, how would be able to enjoy that moonless starry sky from your mountaintop?   

You might be surprised what I can do from a mountaintop.

[Cyber Liberty]

You might be surprised what I can do from a mountaintop.

Steep embankments and a Citadel are nice, too.  Sorry, no room for a moat.  It would play hob with the septic leech field, anyway.

[roamer_1]

Steep embankments and a Citadel are nice, too.  Sorry, no room for a moat.  It would play hob with the septic leech field, anyway.

Doesn't matter.. @Jazzhead thinks I would forgo necessity to enjoy that starry sky... I'd rather that I deal with the necessity so that my grandchildren can do so.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Obviously not @Cyber Liberty, and I am unsure of what he means by "circular."  But I will tell you that seeing the same crap posted over and over is beyond boring.

Unnecessary and unwise @EdJames --- when the very same could be said of your posts. 

Perhaps as the Mod you could lock the Second Amendment forum for a Friday night cooling down period?  Encourage folks to step outside the fight and enjoy a Friday night in the waning summer.

Just a thought.

[Smokin Joe]

What is plainly written in the 2A is the predicate clause.

The predicate clause establishes the reason for the Right of the People, but not like commonly interpreted.

Not to be part of that well (controlled) regulated Militia (standing army), but to keep it well regulated by the force, if necessary, of the overwhelming force of arms of the entire populace. This was discussed in The Federalist Papers which were, in essence, the case made in the public forum for the Constitution and the Republic.
Federalist 46 James Madison:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.
This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.[2]

.

[Smokin Joe]

Yeah... Fat chance of that.

Yeah, half the people who want them couldn't huff and puff their way up the hill before dark.

[Smokin Joe]

And fat chance that you'd choose to die rather than register a firearm.

Why choose either? False dichotomy.
I'll die some day, that's inevitable, and I'm in no hurry.
My firearms will live on in the hands of relatives and friends, perhaps because some of them have no paperwork on them--but certainly not because they are registered.
That piece of paper (computer file, whatever, now) would only provide the means to confiscate them, could they be found, or imprison me for 'obstruction' or some such could they not be and had been outlawed.
 Why would any sane person take such risks?
I'm old enough to have seen the winds of change outlaw that which in my youth was commonplace, lawful, and moral.
Why subject possessions which have outlived governments to such whim?

I'm a firm believer in government governing best which governs least, and what the government doesn't know won't hurt me.

[Cyber Liberty]

Unnecessary and unwise @EdJames --- when the very same could be said of your posts. 

Ummm...I don't see it.

Perhaps as the Mod you could lock the Second Amendment forum for a Friday night cooling down period?  Encourage folks to step outside the fight and enjoy a Friday night in the waning summer.

Just a thought.

No.  We've been lucky so far, in that we haven't had to lock either of the "Red Flag" threads that have been running fevered the past week, and we don't want to start now, especially if the criteria (vague as they may be) have not been breached.  We're more likely to remove/edit posts that are meant to cause a thread to be locked.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah, half the people who want them couldn't huff and puff their way up the hill before dark.

They want to send physically fit officers to do the confiscation dirty work.  They're too chicken to face @roamer_1 themselves, so they'll send mercenaries.