The Briefing Room
General Category => Sports/Entertainment/MSM/Social Media => Shooting Sports => Topic started by: txradioguy on January 17, 2018, 03:46:06 pm
-
Banning guns in state Senate, House galleries is common sense the headline at seattletimes.com proclaims. Hello Seattle? How is stopping Washingtonians from exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in their grandiose (not to say bellicose) legislative chambers “common sense� For that “logic†the Times turns to an “expert†. . .
Christopher Hurst is a retired veteran law enforcement detective and commander of a 15-city homicide/violent crimes task force. He also served seven terms in the state House of Representatives between 1999 and 2017.
Turns out that when it comes to the Constitution, Mr. Hurst is a shifter . . .
The most conservative Supreme Court Justices have affirmed that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable regulation. And even if it were not, how does the Second Amendment supersede or surpass the Constitutional protection for anyone’s own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Don’t senators and House members have a Constitutional right not to be killed by high-power military assault weapons? Are their rights somehow less than those of the Las Vegas shooter who legally bought and transported his high-powered military assault weapons, with which he shot 546 people?
So “common sense†means making sh*t up and pretending like it’s as plain as the nose on your face. In this case, a police pensioner turned politician fabricated not one but two Constitutional rights: the right to life and the right to mass murder.
Am I right? What does “common sense†on guns mean to the antis? What does it mean to you?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/01/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-what-do-gun-control-advocates-mean-by-common-sense/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/01/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-what-do-gun-control-advocates-mean-by-common-sense/)
-
"Common sense" as used by liberals merely means gun regulation that makes us feel good, that makes us feel as if we're trying to "solve a problem". But what it should mean is something more specific - gun regulation that is efficacious; that will actually achieve a measurable result in reducing the cost or frequency of gun violence in exchange for the restriction of Second Amendment rights.
-
"Common sense" as used by liberals merely means gun regulation that makes us feel good, that makes us feel as if we're trying to "solve a problem". But what it should mean is something more specific - gun regulation that is efficacious; that will actually achieve a measurable result in reducing the cost or frequency of gun violence in exchange for the restriction of Second Amendment rights.
Even what you're advocating for won't work. It's not the law abiding citizens using guns to commit crimes. It's gang bangers...drug dealers and your average street criminal who give less than a rats ass about whether their gun is "legal" or not that's the problem.
Chicago is a perfect example of how utterly useless "common sense" gun laws are.
The only gun laws we need are national reciprocity and what is clearly defined in the 2nd Amendment.
-
Even what you're advocating for won't work. It's not the law abiding citizens using guns to commit crimes. It's gang bangers...drug dealers and your average street criminal who give less than a rats ass about whether their gun is "legal" or not that's the problem.
Chicago is a perfect example of how utterly useless "common sense" gun laws are.
The only gun laws we need are national reciprocity and what is clearly defined in the 2nd Amendment.
Not so - there are a number of good, efficacious ideas out there, but the "common sense" proposals we typically hear - such as an assault weapon ban - are prime examples of rules that burden lawful gun owners but don't do much of anything to reduce the cost or incidence of gun violence.
I have no philosophical aversion to burdening lawful gun owners - but only for changes that will make a real impact on the cost or incidence of gun violence.
And national reciprocity is a stunningly stupid and un-Constitutional idea. Leave restrictions on the public carrying of firearms up to local communities.
-
"Common sense" as used by liberals merely means gun regulation that makes us feel good, that makes us feel as if we're trying to "solve a problem". But what it should mean is something more specific - gun regulation that is efficacious; that will actually achieve a measurable result in reducing the cost or frequency of gun violence in exchange for the restriction of Second Amendment rights.
@Jazzhead
Everytime guns have been banned the rate of violent crime goes up. It was true in the 1500s when europe first introduced gun control laws and its true today in Chicago, UK, or Australia.
Anti-gun zealots aren't against guns. They are against free men having the right of self-defense. Because what else is taken from people when guns are banned is the right of self-defense.
They are quite ok with the government having guns and using them to force their leftist ideals on the population.
-
Not so - there are a number of good, efficacious ideas out there, but the "common sense" proposals we typically hear - such as an assault weapon ban - are prime examples of rules that burden lawful gun owners but don't do much of anything to reduce the cost or incidence of gun violence.
I have no philosophical aversion to burdening lawful gun owners - but only for changes that will make a real impact on the cost or incidence of gun violence.
And national reciprocity is a stunningly stupid and un-Constitutional idea. Leave restrictions on the public carrying of firearms up to local communities.
@Jazzhead
So Federal protection of a Constitutional right is "stunningly stupid and un-Constitutional idea." but Federal protection of a non-existent Constitutional right is acceptable?
-
@Jazzhead
Everytime guns have been banned the rate of violent crime goes up. It was true in the 1500s when europe first introduced gun control laws and its true today in Chicago, UK, or Australia.
I don't advocate banning guns. I am an advocate of efficacious and reasonable gun regulation.
-
@Jazzhead
So Federal protection of a Constitutional right is "stunningly stupid and un-Constitutional idea." but Federal protection of a non-existent Constitutional right is acceptable?
The RTKBA is a Constitutional right, but so is the sovereignty of the states as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. Rules addressing open or concealed carry in the public square do not implicate the Second Amendment, but rather are rules that are properly within the purview and sovereignty of the several States.
-
I don't advocate banning guns. I am an advocate of efficacious and reasonable gun regulation.
@Jazzhead
We have about 20,000 current gun laws. Which ones are not efficacious or reasonable enough?
No, 'reasonable' is code for increased regulations on law abiding citizens.
-
The RTKBA is a Constitutional right, but so is the sovereignty of the states as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. Rules addressing open or concealed carry in the public square do not implicate the Second Amendment, but rather are rules that are properly within the purview and sovereignty of the several States.
@Jazzhead
You didn't answer the real question.
When the states use the 10th to infringe on the 2nd then the Feds have a duty to step in. The second amendment is the only protected right in which the Feds are reluctant to do so. Frequently the Feds step in to protect 'rights' which aren't even in the Constitution but which are politically popular.
-
@Jazzhead
We have about 20,000 current gun laws. Which ones are not efficacious or reasonable enough?
No, 'reasonable' is code for increased regulations on law abiding citizens.
To earn my support, a law must be both efficacious and reasonable. As for "regulations on law abiding citizens", so what? Any regulation fits that definition. A highway speed limit, for example, is an efficacious and reasonable regulation intended to improve safety for all drivers, even as it restricts liberty.
-
@Jazzhead
You didn't answer the real question.
When the states use the 10th to infringe on the 2nd then the Feds have a duty to step in. The second amendment is the only protected right in which the Feds are reluctant to do so. Frequently the Feds step in to protect 'rights' which aren't even in the Constitution but which are politically popular.
The RTKBA is not infringed by local rules concerning open or concealed carry in the public square. These are rules that address safety and, much like a local speed limit, are perfectly Constitutional under the 10th amendment.
-
The RTKBA is a Constitutional right, but so is the sovereignty of the states as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. Rules addressing open or concealed carry in the public square do not implicate the Second Amendment, but rather are rules that are properly within the purview and sovereignty of the several States.
2nd Amendment:
"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."
10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The power to regulate guns and to allow people to own them is clearly in the wheelhouse of the "United States" i.e. Federal Government no matter how you try to interpret or misinterpret the Amendments.
The right allowing people to keep and bear arms is a right granted by and protected by the Federal Government. They didn't delegate that authority down to the states.
Your interpretation of the 10th on this issue is flawed.
-
The RTKBA is not infringed by local rules concerning open or concealed carry in the public square.
It is. There are several states in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment with the restrictions they place on ownership...unfair taxation of ammunition and legislative hoops and red tape they throw up in the way of law abiding citizens to own a firearm for whatever reason they want it.
Your blindness on this is willful.
-
2nd Amendment:
"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."
10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The power to regulate guns and to allow people to own them is clearly in the wheelhouse of the "United States" i.e. Federal Government no matter how you try to interpret or misinterpret the Amendments.
The right allowing people to keep and bear arms is a right granted by and protected by the Federal Government. They didn't delegate that authority down to the states.
Your interpretation of the 10th on this issue is flawed.
No it's not. 200 years of jurisprudence prove that regulation of the gun right is permissible, so long as the regulation doesn't infringe on the right itself. Time, place and manner restrictions on public speech and assembly, for example, are perfectly consistent with the First Amendment. Why do you think you need to get a permit in order to hold a rally in the public square?
-
"Common sense" is just a subjective way of saying "anything I want". Both Pro-life and Pro-Abortion groups could say "We need common sense abortion laws" and it would mean completely different things.
If your goal is to lessen "gun crime", you would have to go after pistols which are the most common gun used in crimes. Instead, Gun Control groups tend to go after weapons rarely used in crimes. These are the types of guns used for protection and collection. A friend calls them "government guns". When the government comes after you to take your guns, these are the guns they will use. That's why the gun-grabbers don't want you to have them.
-
It is. There are several states in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment with the restrictions they place on ownership...unfair taxation of ammunition and legislative hoops and red tape they throw up in the way of law abiding citizens to own a firearm for whatever reason they want it.
Your blindness on this is willful.
I'm very mainstream on this subject. I support the right, as well as the community's right to regulate the use of firearms, especially in the public square. I also believe that gun owners should have the same obligation as car owners to register and insure their useful but dangerous implements. If you want me to address whether I think specific rules are Constitutional, go right ahead. What the hell is "unfair" taxation of ammunition?
-
No it's not. 200 years of jurisprudence prove that regulation of the gun right is permissible, so long as the regulation doesn't infringe on the right itself.
Really which case laws supports your theory on this?
And the laws in place in states like D.C....California...New York...Illinois...and most of New England make gun ownership almost impossible and overly expensive to the person wanting to purchase a weapon.
They laws are put in place to purposely discourage people from buying any kind of weapon and that is very much an infringement on an American's 2nd Amendment right.
And in all of those places I mentioned...violent crime is out of control.
Time, place and manner restrictions on public speech and assembly, for example, are perfectly consistent with the First Amendment.
No not really.
Why do you think you need to get a permit in order to hold a rally in the public square?
So the local government can get money from it. Plain and simple.
-
I'm very mainstream on this subject. I support the right, as well as the community's right to regulate the use of firearms, especially in the public square. I also believe that gun owners should have the same obligation as car owners to register and insure their useful but dangerous implements. If you want me to address whether I think specific rules are Constitutional, go right ahead. What the hell is "unfair" taxation of ammunition?
Cars that never leave your property don't need to be registered or insured. They only need that if they operate on the roads.
I'm OK with registering and insuring guns that are going to be shooting into traffic.
-
"Common sense" is just a subjective way of saying "anything I want". Both Pro-life and Pro-Abortion groups could say "We need common sense abortion laws" and it would mean completely different things.
If your goal is to lessen "gun crime", you would have to go after pistols which are the most common gun used in crimes. Instead, Gun Control groups tend to go after weapons rarely used in crimes. These are the types of guns used for protection and collection. A friend calls them "government guns". When the government comes after you to take your guns, these are the guns they will use. That's why the gun-grabbers don't want you to have them.
Exactly. If nothing else ... the left does tend to plan ahead for reaching their moist-dream goals.
-
To earn my support, a law must be both efficacious and reasonable. As for "regulations on law abiding citizens", so what? Any regulation fits that definition. A highway speed limit, for example, is an efficacious and reasonable regulation intended to improve safety for all drivers, even as it restricts liberty.
The places in the US with the highest rates of gun violence, have the most restrictive gun laws. Is that efficacious? Is that reasonable?
My wife and I were in Cheyenne Wyoming a few years ago. I asked "do you think they have Starbucks, here?" After we had checked out the Capitol building.
Sure enough we found one. Full of yuppie types associated with government. And a couple of symbols of olde school Wyoming.
A guy dressed in black from hat to boots. A revolver on one side, and a 45 on the other.
I would feel more safe with that guy (and his guns) beside me, or as a next door neighbor, than some feel-good public school teacher (moderate Republican INO).
I like open carry, or concealed carry. The people that do so are acting in a manner, that increases my safety.
The cops are always minutes away, when you need them in seconds.
-
Cars that never leave your property don't need to be registered or insured. They only need that if they operate on the roads.
Cars that are used for their intended purpose must be licensed or insured. So should a gun. (If you want to render a firearm inoperable and mount it on a wall, then, yes I agree, you shouldn't need to register or insure it.) But guns and cars are both (i) useful and (ii) dangerous. It is not an infringement of the right to own a car or a gun to require it be registered and insured when it is to be used for its intended purpose.
-
I'm very mainstream on this subject. I support the right, as well as the community's right to regulate the use of firearms, especially in the public square.
No you're not mainstream on this. Unless you consider the "mainstream" to be hard left.
I also believe that gun owners should have the same obligation as car owners to register and insure their useful but dangerous implements.
The only type of registration ANY American should have to do IMO...is carry a card showing they have completed a state approved concealed carry class. That demonstrates they understand the basics of gun use...safety and operation and they aren't a criminal.
Other than that...any type of "registration" smacks of tyranny and is the tool of leftist regimes in third world sh*thole countries.
If you want me to address whether I think specific rules are Constitutional, go right ahead.
Already tried that. Because you don't truly believe in the 2nd Amendment you side with states like new York and Massachusetts and California who do everything they can just short of outright banning of all privately owned firearms to discourage and make it impossible to obtain a weapon.
You've already made that painfully clear.
What the hell is "unfair" taxation of ammunition?
When the tax on a box of .22 LR ammunition is more than the box of ammo itself...THAT is unfair. It's the definition of taxation without representation.
And to get back to a question you have ducked so far...there are over 20K gun laws on the books from the Federal down to the municipal level in this country...what exactly is one more piece of legislation or one more restriction going to fix?
-
What the hell is "unfair" taxation of ammunition?
There's nothing unfair about a sales tax to retail sales of ammunition, many states have sales taxes.
A specific targeted tax on ammunition (as with tobacco), however, has only one practical purpose - to discourage its purchase. And that is the definition of infringement.
-
:2popcorn:
-
The places in the US with the highest rates of gun violence, have the most restrictive gun laws. Is that efficacious? Is that reasonable?
I don't know - it depends on the law. Some are efficacious and reasonable, others not. Places with higher rates of gun violence tend to be urban areas - I don't think the kinds of gun laws really affect the statistics. Other factors have more weight. New York City has, for example, less than half the gun violence per capita that Chicago does, yet each are considered to have copious gun regulations.
-
There's nothing unfair about a sales tax to retail sales of ammunition, many states have sales taxes.
A specific targeted tax on ammunition (as with tobacco), however, has only one practical purpose - to discourage its purchase. And that is the definition of infringement.
I think you'd get further with that argument if the special tax were applied to the gun itself. Ammo? Have you seen a case where the 2nd Amendment was seen as prohibiting the infringement of a right to buy bullets?
-
Cars that are used for their intended purpose must be licensed or insured. So should a gun. (If you want to render a firearm inoperable and mount it on a wall, then, yes I agree, you shouldn't need to register or insure it.) But guns and cars are both (i) useful and (ii) dangerous. It is not an infringement of the right to own a car or a gun to require it be registered and insured when it is to be used for its intended purpose.
But a truck you use solely on private land does not need to be insured or registered because it won't be operated in public. If you put it on a trailer and tow it on the roads, you don't need to license or insure it IOW you can carry it publicly with paying money. They only time you need to pay for it is when you operate it on the roads.
I'm OK with making people pay money to shoot their gun in the street.
-
I don't know - it depends on the law. Some are efficacious and reasonable, others not. Places with higher rates of gun violence tend to be urban areas - I don't think the kinds of gun laws really affect the statistics. Other factors have more weight. New York City has, for example, less than half the gun violence per capita that Chicago does, yet each are considered to have copious gun regulations.
@Jazzhead
Seems it would be more reasonable to ban cities if thats where the crime is.
I saw some stats not too long ago, that 99% of murders take place in less than 5% of the counties.
You still refuse to address the question I posed to you
-
I'm OK with making people pay money to shoot their gun in the street.
And what I'm talking about is the regulation of open or concealed carry in the public square.
-
I think you'd get further with that argument if the special tax were applied to the gun itself.
The states that are the most egregious violators of the 2nd amendment have also placed specific sales taxes per gun in addition to the normal sales tax on the purchase.
Ammo? Have you seen a case where the 2nd Amendment was seen as prohibiting the infringement of a right to buy bullets?
A gun without ammo is just a crappy club or a poor man's hammer. The gun is useless without the bullets.
But then you knew that.
-
And what I'm talking about is the regulation of open or concealed carry in the public square.
You're talking about infringement and the 2nd Amendment says that's not allowed...not even by the 10th Amendment.
-
Cars that are used for their intended purpose must be licensed or insured. So should a gun. (If you want to render a firearm inoperable and mount it on a wall, then, yes I agree, you shouldn't need to register or insure it.) But guns and cars are both (i) useful and (ii) dangerous. It is not an infringement of the right to own a car or a gun to require it be registered and insured when it is to be used for its intended purpose.
@Jazzhead
Do you argue that printing presses, pens and pencils should also be registered.
Maybe we should also register all black people, ya know just to prove they arent a slave any more.
-
But what it should mean is something more specific - gun regulation that is efficacious; that will actually achieve a measurable result in reducing the cost or frequency of gun violence in exchange for the restriction of Second Amendment rights.
Which makes you a domestic enemy of the Constitution and our liberties.
Good job once again outing yourself as a police-Statist who hates our liberties with as much passion as Communists do.
-
And what I'm talking about is the regulation of open or concealed carry in the public square.
@Jazzhead
So how is restricting a right to ones home not an infringement?
-
But a truck you use solely on private land does not need to be insured or registered because it won't be operated in public. If you put it on a trailer and tow it on the roads, you don't need to license or insure it IOW you can carry it publicly with paying money. They only time you need to pay for it is when you operate it on the roads.
I'm OK with making people pay money to shoot their gun in the street.
I have no problem with the insurance part...as long as it's voluntary.
I chose to insure my weapons as part of my renters insurance with USAA.
I chose to insure myself and my wife against a gun grabbing DA or a family member of the POS that breaks into my house or tries to rob me and I'm forced to shoot them.
But if I chose to stop paying the extra money for said insurance...that should be my right as well....it shouldn't be something that is required as part of your right to own a gun.
-
And what I'm talking about is the regulation of open or concealed carry in the public square.
To follow your car analogy, you would have to be operating the gun in the public square which means shooting it. You can transport a car without licensing or insuring.
Besides guns are not inherently dangerous. People are almost never killed by guns. They are killed by bullets. A car that never leaves your garage does not need to be licensed or insured because it's not going anywhere. I know because I have one of these. So you would only need license and insure guns that are loaded at all times and being carried in public. That's why I had to get a Conceal Carry permit.
-
I have no problem with the insurance part...as long as it's voluntary.
I chose to insure my weapons as part of my renters insurance with USAA.
I chose to insure myself and my wife against a gun grabbing DA or a family member of the POS that breaks into my house or tries to rob me and I'm forced to shoot them.
But if I chose to stop paying the extra money for said insurance...that should be my right as well....it shouldn't be something that is required as part of your right to own a gun.
Lets add a 10 day waiting period to buy a car.
-
@Jazzhead
Do you argue that printing presses, pens and pencils should also be registered.
Maybe we should also register all black people, ya know just to prove they arent a slave any more.
All Jazzy needs to do is watch a couple episodes of LivePD on any Friday or Saturday night to see just how many people in this country don't have a DL or insurance on their vehicles.
-
I have no problem with the insurance part...as long as it's voluntary.
So you support the Right to Choose.
-
To follow your car analogy, you would have to be operating the gun in the public square which means shooting it. You can transport a car without licensing or insuring.
Besides guns are not inherently dangerous. People are almost never killed by guns. They are killed by bullets. A car that never leaves your garage does not need to be licensed or insured because it's not going anywhere. I know because I have one of these. So you would only need license and insure guns that are loaded at all times and being carried in public. That's why I had to get a Conceal Carry permit.
@Restored
That line of reasoning will lead to the permit being a license to own a firearm.
-
Lets add a 10 day waiting period to buy a car.
May as well since it's going to be operated...in the public square.
-
So you support the Right to Choose.
Where guns are concerned...most definitely.
-
@Jazzhead
Do you argue that printing presses, pens and pencils should also be registered.
Maybe we should also register all black people, ya know just to prove they arent a slave any more.
Now you're just being stupid. Carry on, folks, I'm getting back to work. *****rollingeyes*****
-
@txradioguy @driftdiver @INVAR
Why are y’all bothering to argue with TBRs resident exceedingly confused or lying l*****d (because it’s either confused thinking it’s a conservative or lying to us about what it is)? The only thing @Jazzhead understands is this:
Screw you! If you want to INFRINGE on my God given right to self defense and resistance to tyranny, which is what you espouse in so much flowery language, then come and take themselves you ******* ****. And please save me the trouble of putting your silly ass on ignore: Don’t bother replying with more of your ludicrous BS.
-
@txradioguy @driftdiver @Restored
Why are y’all bothering to argue with TBRs resident exceedingly confused or lying libtard (because it’s either confused thinking it’s a conservative or lying to us about what it is)? The only thing @Jazzhead understands is this:
Screw you! If you want to INFRINGE on my God given right to self defense and resistance to tyranny, which is what you espouse in so much flowery language, then come and take themselves you gutless puke. And please save me the trouble of putting your silly ass on ignore: Don’t bother replying with more of your ludicrous BS.
Well...when you put it that way... :laugh:
-
@txradioguy @driftdiver @INVAR
Why are y’all bothering to argue with TBRs resident exceedingly confused or lying libtard (because it’s either confused thinking it’s a conservative or lying to us about what it is)? The only thing @Jazzhead understands is this:
Screw you! If you want to INFRINGE on my God given right to self defense and resistance to tyranny, which is what you espouse in so much flowery language, then come and take themselves you gutless puke. And please save me the trouble of putting your silly ass on ignore: Don’t bother replying with more of your ludicrous BS.
@Axeslinger
Cause I love pointing out his hypocrisy. Not to mention nobody has yet mentioned that other name that is so common and Im trying to keep it going. knock on wood
-
Well...when you put it that way... :laugh:
Oh BTW or my upcoming birthday I get to buy a new
(https://gastatic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/30-30-Rifle1-1024x284.png)
-
Entering Chicago with their gun laws is dangerous like destruction derby.
And entering unrestricted areas for gun owners is like a road system of well mannered law abiding drivers.
Clue: Bad people ignore gun laws and good people don't need tham.
-
And please save me the trouble of putting your silly ass on ignore: Don’t bother replying with more of your ludicrous BS.
Please don't deprive me of one of the greatest pleasures I derive from TBR: Watching @Jazzhead lecture us on what "conservative" means....
-
Oh BTW or my upcoming birthday I get to buy a new
(https://gastatic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/30-30-Rifle1-1024x284.png)
Very nice. I was looking at the new Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle last night. I'm gonna have to start playing the lottery to get that one though.
-
Entering Chicago with their gun laws is dangerous like destruction derby.
And entering unrestricted areas for gun owners is like a road system of well mannered law abiding drivers.
Clue: Bad people ignore gun laws and good people don't need tham.
That's probably one of the best descriptions I've ever read.
-
@txradioguy @driftdiver @Restored
Why are y’all bothering to argue with TBRs resident exceedingly confused or lying libtard (because it’s either confused thinking it’s a conservative or lying to us about what it is)?
Let us go with lying Libtard, because whether it's guns, abortion, homosexuality, taxation, income distribution, race, Islam, Christianity and just about every other issue garnering Conservative thought - Jazzy takes the absolutist position of your typical Leftist/Communist/Liberal and uses their talking points as base-level for his argumentation of the need to impose his political worldview of tyranny. The abject liar portion is justified because he continues to lie about what and whom he is ideologically - when his every view can be clearly seen to be that of a raving Leftist.
I would have more respect for him if he just came out and admitted he was a Leftist/Communist, but he won't - because deceit is what he engages in, rather than arguing honestly. And of course it does not matter what kind of reasoning one attempts to make with his positions - you are wasting your time trying to reason with the unreasonable.
Which leads to your most salient point to make here Axe:
The only thing @Jazzhead understands is this:
Screw you! If you want to INFRINGE on my God given right to self defense and resistance to tyranny, which is what you espouse in so much flowery language, then come and take themselves you gutless puke.
Like all Leftists, he is a coward that prefers to empower the government and the courts with the carte blanche power to INFRINGE on every liberty and right he thinks needs to be infringed, regulated and licensed, while imposing our acceptance of tyranny down our throats by force.
So like all Leftists the ONLY thing people like him will understand, is the abilities and willpower that will be employed to resist what he wants to do in manners that frighten him and keep him awake at night. Which is why Leftists like him argue that we need 'reasonable' gun restrictions - which ultimately means ONLY the government and it's agents are permitted to have guns, while we little people may not.
Please don't deprive me of one of the greatest pleasures I derive from TBR: Watching @Jazzhead lecture us on what "conservative" means....
Yes! Isn't it delicious? I truly marvel at the depths and efforts of deceit he attempts in order to conceal what his own stated positions and lectures clearly reveal he is.
For this reason, he is a national treasure to the board - even when he demonstrates he is an enemy to everything a Conservative stands for.
-
Very nice. I was looking at the new Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle last night. I'm gonna have to start playing the lottery to get that one though.
I'm going black bear hunting this fall in Canada. This rifle in 45-70 seems appropriate. I have a 308 and 30-06 but I've wanted the Henry so that's my excuse.
-
I'm going black bear hunting this fall in Canada. This rifle in 45-70 seems appropriate. I have a 308 and 30-06 but I've wanted the Henry so that's my excuse.
Well where bears are concerned that's as goon an excuse as any I can think of. :)
-
@Restored
That line of reasoning will lead to the permit being a license to own a firearm.
You don't need a license to own a car.
-
I think you'd get further with that argument if the special tax were applied to the gun itself. Ammo? Have you seen a case where the 2nd Amendment was seen as prohibiting the infringement of a right to buy bullets?
That would be the best case of violating the spirit of the amendment I could think of. And I believe the SCOTUS would agree.
-
You don't need a license to own a car.
@Restored
I know. I'm just saying we're pushing for concealed carry permits but we shouldnt need a permit to carry. We should be able to carry regardless.
If people aren't safe to have a gun then perhaps they shouldnt be on the street.
-
You don't need a license to own a car.
You need one to operate one.
And the moment you regulate a Right to require a license - it ceases to be a Right, and becomes a Privilege at the Grant of Government that can and will be rescinded at any time, for any reason of government's choosing.
And the gun-control nut jobs understand that truth to perfection, which is why anyone who says "Constitutional Rights can be reasonably regulated and restricted" are actually saying that Constitutional Rights are not rights at all, but Grants from government.
-
All Constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulation so long as the right itself is not infringed. For example, time, place and manner restrictions can be imposed on the right of free speech. And so, too, it is with guns. If anything, the gun right is more susceptible to regulation than other enumerated rights because of the Second Amendment's predicate clause.
-
That's probably one of the best descriptions I've ever read.
The 3rd line is a good summary. My earliest memories, include men passing guns around, together with very stern safety warnings to kids gather in the group.
-
All Constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulation so long as the right itself is not infringed.
Only tyrants, tyranny-advocates and those who advocate that Rights they are afraid of and hate become nothing more than Privilege Grants of government, utter such nonsense.
-
The 3rd line is a good summary. My earliest memories, include men passing guns around, together with very stern safety warnings to kids gather in the group.
I spent summers at my grandparents farm in Southern Oklahoma when I was a kid...my dad...my uncle and my grandfather were all avid hunters. Shotguns all over the place...couple rifles...even my grandma had a .410 to shoot snakes. My grandpa had a couple pistols he carried in his company car when he was out on a drilling rig for long periods of time.
In short there were a LOT of guns in that farmhouse.
There were 8 of us grandkids that ran all through that house to include my cousin with Downs Syndrome...we were given one simple rule...some of these guns are loaded...some aren't...you don't know which ones are which...don't touch any of them.
There was never an incident. And all of the male cousins...except for my cousin with Downs got 20 gauge shotguns for our 8th birthday too.
Education and a stern warning about the danger of weapons...teaching people how to be responsible with the guns they own will do far more good than any piece of legislation handed down from a tyrannical government at any level.
-
Meanwhile in Louisville...6 people shot at a neighborhood barbershop about 20 minutes ago. One of the victims is a child.
-
Only tyrants, tyranny-advocates and those who advocate that Rights they are afraid of and hate become nothing more than Privilege Grants of government, utter such nonsense.
As well as every court that has ever looked at the matter. No Constitutional right is absolute. And state and local governments have been regulating the gun right for two centuries now.
If you think we're a tyranny, move to the shithole country of your choice.
-
As well as every court that has ever looked at the matter. No Constitutional right is absolute. And state and local governments have been regulating the gun right for two centuries now.
If you think we're a tyranny, move to the shithole country of your choice.
We have guns to prevent Tyrants and Tyranny-Advocates like you from actually attempting to impose what you want.
If Constitutional Rights are not absolute - then they are not 'Rights' at all - they are merely privileges given at the grant of government - which is what people like you want them to be.
As far as your courts go - they also said blacks were only 3/5ths a person. Disregarding tyranny and resisting it, is what we do here in this country.
-
We have guns to prevent Tyrants and Tyranny-Advocates like you from actually attempting to impose what you want.
If Constitutional Rights are not absolute - then they are not 'Rights' at all - they are merely privileges given at the grant of government - which is what people like you want them to be.
As far as your courts go - they also said blacks were only 3/5ths a person. Disregarding tyranny and resisting it, is what we do here in this country.
In short...the second amendment protects all the other amendments.
-
In short...the second amendment protects all the other amendments.
But it can be 'reasonably' infringed upon according to Jazzy. Because you know - your inalienable Rights are not really inalienable, they are subject to "reasonable" regulation, "reasonable" infringement and "reasonable" abolition when Jazzy and his courts and government thinks they should be.
Which means they are not inalienable Rights at all, but rather government-granted privileges that people like Jazzy can decide to regulate, infringe and abolish when they deem it necessary.
-
Not true - the right cannot be infringed, but it can be regulated. There's little doubt under the Constitution that guns can be required to be registered and insured, so long as that burden doesn't rise to a level that effectively denies the right.
What was in doubt for two centuries, and remains fragile pending the composition of the Supreme Court, is whether the gun right is an individual right, or is part and parcel of the "well regulated militia" addressed in the amendment's predicate clause. The Heller decision, therefore, is a true landmark, holding definitively that it is an individual right subject, as with other individual rights to reasonable regulation. That individual right derives, of course, from the natural right of self-defense of person, home and property. NOT the natural right to overthrow the government, as some of the whackos contend.
-
Not true - the right cannot be infringed, but it can be regulated. There's little doubt under the Constitution that guns can be required to be registered and insured, so long as that burden doesn't rise to a level that effectively denies the right.
What was in doubt for two centuries, and remains fragile pending the composition of the Supreme Court, is whether the gun right is an individual right, or is part and parcel of the "well regulated militia" addressed in the amendment's predicate clause. The Heller decision, therefore, is a true landmark, holding definitively that it is an individual right subject, as with other individual rights to reasonable regulation. That individual right derives, of course, from the natural right of self-defense of person, home and property. NOT the natural right to overthrow the government, as some of the whackos contend.
@Jazzhead
How bout this, apply the same level of 'regulated' that you lefties advocate for the 'rights' which aren't enumerated in the Constitution to the the 2nd. Then we'll all be happy.
-
Answer: the phrase "common sense" used as an adjective to modify the phrase "gun control" is real-world Newspeak. It means whatever it needs to mean to optimally serve the interests of the left at any given moment, and it's meaning can shift from the time it was spoken or written to the time it is being quoted or commented on if doing so serves the interests of the left.
-
Not true - the right cannot be infringed, but it can be regulated.
Same difference.
You call it 'regulated' - I call it 'infringed'. Advocates of tyranny such as yourself have even used this 'reasonably regulated' argument to suggest that all guns citizens own must be kept at a local police station locked up, because they deem that to be 'reasonable'.
Which is no different than gun registration (reasonable) and gun confiscation (reasonable - according to your fellow advocates of tyranny).
What is 'reasonable' changes with the wind with the likes of people like you and is often decided by your own perverted and twisted ideas of what is deemed 'reasonable'.
We're not going to suffer such bullshit.
There's little doubt under the Constitution that guns can be required to be registered and insured,
Also according to you there's little doubt that abortion and homosexual marriage magically exist somewhere there in the Constitution also. As always with Leftist tyrants like you - enumerated Rights can be 'reasonably regulated' out of existence and behaviors that are not even hinted at are magically found in the parchment as being untouchable Writs from Above. Telling us on your own authority that there's little doubt that guns and ammunition can be 'reasonably regulated' is a humongous and exceedingly vast amount of rotting bovine excrement.
so long as that burden doesn't rise to a level that effectively denies the right.
Who defines that - YOU????? Regulation upon an Inalienable Right by it's very nature dissolves said Right and consigns it to no more than a government privilege. Nothing you say or argue will negate that fact. 'Reasonable regulation' means the Inalienable Right no longer exists except by license, permission, definition and grant of government that can then decide what abolition and restriction and infringement is 'reasonable'. Which is EXACTLY what you advocate Mr. Tyranny.
What was in doubt for two centuries, and remains fragile pending the composition of the Supreme Court, is whether the gun right is an individual right, or is part and parcel of the "well regulated militia" addressed in the amendment's predicate clause.
It was NEVER in doubt until Leftists like yourself decided our inalienable rights are just grants of government. You could order a semi-automatic rifle from a Sears catalog back in the day. It was NEVER in doubt or fragile until people like you began telling us that our rights can be 'reasonably regulated'.
The Constitution means jack-shit to you as it is redefined and regulated into whatever it is you tyrants deem 'acceptable'.
Just be forwarned - what you advocates for tyranny define as acceptable regulation and restriction, people like me regard as overt tyranny deserving armed resistance with extreme prejudice. Now if you want to go ahead and get this cold war with gun owners go hot - keep pushing the kind of stupid tyrannical pap that you do. We went to war over much less than what you people have been pushing.
That individual right derives, of course, from the natural right of self-defense of person, home and property. NOT the natural right to overthrow the government, as some of the whackos contend.
The Founding Fathers and the States that ratified the Constitution after the Declaration and War of Independence from the legitimate lawful Authority of the Crown of England, disagree with you.
Vehemently in accords with their own writings.
We have inherent and inalienable right to defend our liberty against tyrants, criminals and anyone who seeks to deprive us of that liberty - ESPECIALLY agents of the state attempting to impose the tyranny you advocate under the color of "law".
-
I've been skimming this thread today, because I've been terribly taxed at my workplace today. They upgraded my work machine from Windows 7 to Windows 10, and it's been a bit of a nightmare. I saw @INVAR's post quoting you saying this, and I had to scroll back to see that you actually said this:
Not true - the right cannot be infringed, but it can be regulated. There's little doubt under the Constitution that guns can be required to be registered and insured, so long as that burden doesn't rise to a level that effectively denies the right.
"Little doubt?" There have been cases going to SCOTUS and declaring you FOS, @Jazzhead, and you say there's "little doubt?" You, yourself said there's been lots of doubt, so it's incredibly arrogant for you to say there's little doubt. I am sorry, but Invar has been most charitable in describing you on this thread.
There is a whole lot of doubt, and if you keep this insurance bullshit up I will fight you and your ilk to my dying breath. Insuring our weapons, and the registration of them that goes with it, is what totalitarians do prior to finding pretext to confiscate them. It's happened every time it's been tried. I stand with @INVAR.
-
I've been skimming this thread today, because I've been terribly taxed at my workplace today. They upgraded my work machine from Windows 7 to Windows 10, and it's been a bit of a nightmare. I saw @INVAR's post quoting you saying this, and I had to scroll back to see that you actually said this:
"Little doubt?" There have been cases going to SCOTUS and declaring you FOS, @Jazzhead, and you say there's "little doubt?" You, yourself said there's been lots of doubt, so it's incredibly arrogant for you to say there's little doubt. I am sorry, but Invar has been most charitable in describing you on this thread.
There is a whole lot of doubt, and if you keep this insurance bullshit up I will fight you and your ilk to my dying breath. Insuring our weapons, and the registration of them that goes with it, is what totalitarians do prior to finding pretext to confiscate them. It's happened every time it's been tried. I stand with @INVAR.
:amen:
-
@Cyber Liberty @driftdiver @txradioguy @INVAR
I tried to tell y’all. JH thinks this is just so much fun...the governmental usurpation of our God given rights. And I spose it is, right up until they force us to choose between pulling the trigger or giving those rights up.
-
@Cyber Liberty @driftdiver @txradioguy @INVAR
I tried to tell y’all. JH thinks this is just so much fun...the governmental usurpation of our God given rights. And I spose it is, right up until they force us to choose between pulling the trigger or giving those rights up.
It's just a toy to him. A cat toy in fact, to be batted about until he swats it under the couch. He admitted to it when he informed us he's a lawyer, and just as mindless.
-
I don't advocate banning guns. I am an advocate of efficacious and reasonable gun regulation.
You advocate nothing then. There is no efficacious and reasonable regulation. What might be considered reasonable (violent criminals, drug addicts, and the insane in possession of arms) is not efficacious, or the rate of arrest for such would be far less among those groups, who have a demonstrated disregard for the law.
It is not reasonable to impose restrictions on those who are not using, nor are likely to use their arms in a criminal manner.
-
2nd Amendment:
"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."
10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The power to regulate guns and to allow people to own them is clearly in the wheelhouse of the "United States" i.e. Federal Government no matter how you try to interpret or misinterpret the Amendments.
The right allowing people to keep and bear arms is a right granted by and protected by the Federal Government. They didn't delegate that authority down to the states.
Your interpretation of the 10th on this issue is flawed.
Actually, granted by God, and (supposedly) protected from the Federal Government.
-
@Cyber Liberty @driftdiver @txradioguy @INVAR
I tried to tell y’all. JH thinks this is just so much fun...the governmental usurpation of our God given rights. And I spose it is, right up until they force us to choose between pulling the trigger or giving those rights up.
People like him are licking their chops for that day and think they are going to sip tea while watching government soldiers on CNN and Youtube go in by force to lay waste anyone refusing to surrender our weapons that they will eventually advocate must be registered and turned in 'for the good of society', because they deemed confiscation 'reasonable regulation'.
Once advocates for tyranny manage to empower government to that kind of act - they would be mistaken to assume that only the agents of the state are at risk for what will become a war that will feature massive unintended consequences.
Our Right to keep and bear arms is INALIENABLE - and does not come by grant of the State, or subject to any legal 'reasonable regulation' they seek to impose on it, regardless of what advocates for government tyranny or their courts have to say or think. That they have gotten away with it thusfar is only because this people are willing to surrender their rights to clever argumentation of tyrant-advocates that claim the Courts are the Ultimate Authority of all things in America. All that has done is set the precedent that grants them authority to go even further and go beyond just putting the Second Amendment on the practicality chopping block. All it takes is tyrants asserting that 'Rights' only apply to government - and that all 'Rights' are Grants of Government that they can 'reasonably regulate' as they see fit to achieve the cordial despotism Jefferson penned regarding the evils that mankind grow accustomed.
-
Actually, granted by God, and (supposedly) protected from the Federal Government.
Good point.