9th Circus Makes Ground Breaking Ruling On Guns

[Leo123]

There are no “abolute rights” . All rights have limits .

Why because you say so?

 

[mudwhistle]

So you want Hawaii to have lots of shootings like other states? Weak gun laws working real well for FL...

Hawaii does have lots of shootings, just fewer people.

 

[Brain357]

That is for the state. Not for Chicago.

No matter how you look at it. 97% of gun crime is with illegal weapons. Not legal weapons.

Over all it has
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html

And 97% of murders were from illegally purchased guns. All other crime is down. The threat of a gun helps reduce crime.

No.
Crime Rates in Chicago Plummet After IL Implements Concealed Carry

Concealed Carry Soars 214%, Violent Crime Drops 21%

And more guns has never helped. Crime has increased every year since WI and IL got concealed carry. How does their crime rates compare to gun full Fl?

You think crime went down in Chicago? Too funny!

Violent crime and murder up in IL.
Illinois Crime Rates 1960 - 2016

And it had increased since IL got concealed
carry. Same in WI.

 

[jc456]

At the time the Constitution was written, it meant that a persons property should ready to roll. Properly maintained.
Not well regulated like the statists like to imagine.
Try again

Ok how about “militia “?

Geez . I agree we have a right to guns but don’t act as if the 2nd says “guns for everybody ! The government can’t do nothing about it !”

As long as it isnt impeding on someone else, what should they do about it?
Does the Constitution mean things it doesnt actually say?
Do you think its a metaphor or something?

Is this where u are a strict constitutionalist except when you don’t want to?

Strictly reading the 2nd it means we need an armed people for the army . Of course we have a standing army now . You could easily say only guard/military members have a right to own guns .

You could easily say anything you damn well please, but the US Constitution says otherwise.

Yeah we all know what the 2nd says . It’s really short as far as amendments go . Yet it’s still debated centuries after it was written.

Con says I have a right to free speech. Doesn’t mean I have a right to scream “I’ll kill you” outside your window at 2:00am .

and there are many restrictions on the 2nd amendment like walking down the street waving a gun and you don't have a permit to carry it. kind of like that eh?

 

[TNHarley]

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, my dick does that.
Do badass things make you feel like a man? Are you projecting? I just like to have fun.

I don’t need things to be a man. And I would rather fewer died than I have fun. You might feel the same when you grow up.

Individuality and freedom is about as grown as you can get.

Choosing fun over peoples lives is childish.

Its a lot more than fun. Maybe you arent grown enough to actually understand?

 

[Brain357]

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, my dick does that.
Do badass things make you feel like a man? Are you projecting? I just like to have fun.

I don’t need things to be a man. And I would rather fewer died than I have fun. You might feel the same when you grow up.

Individuality and freedom is about as grown as you can get.

Choosing fun over peoples lives is childish.

Its a lot more than fun. Maybe you arent grown enough to actually understand?

You said you like to have fun. I’d rather lives be saved. Sad you put playing with your guns over lives.

 

[TNHarley]

No, my dick does that.
Do badass things make you feel like a man? Are you projecting? I just like to have fun.

I don’t need things to be a man. And I would rather fewer died than I have fun. You might feel the same when you grow up.

Individuality and freedom is about as grown as you can get.

Choosing fun over peoples lives is childish.

Its a lot more than fun. Maybe you arent grown enough to actually understand?

You said you like to have fun. I’d rather lives be saved. Sad you put playing with your guns over lives.

I also listed other reasons. More important reasons.
I do understand why you do this though. You have nothing else to lean on.. You certainly cant sit there and be like "i cant wipe my own ass so i need the govt to do everything for me"
Some people just dont have the capacity to understand how important freedom, individual liberty and a small government is, to progress and human rights.

 

[blackhawk]

Read more here (I need to credit where I read it)

Ace of Spades HQ

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court: If Hawaii Restricts Citizens' Ability to Carry Concealed, Then There Must Be An Absolute Right to OpenCarry
—Ace of Spades
Huge ruling.

Hawaii sharply limits who can carry concealed -- basically, only people who have jobs in security and law enforcement can carry concealed.

The Ninth Circuit -- not the whole Ninth Circuit, which is a leftwing clownshow, but two of the three judges selected randomly to review the lower court's ruling here -- rules that people have the right to carry firearms (quoting the Supreme Court's MacDonald decision), and if the right to carry concealed is restricted by a state, that must mean that the other method of carrying, open carry, is absolute.

The court rules that the "right to keep and bear arms" is actually two rights: to "keep" arms is about storing arms on physical property, but to bear arms is to carry arms on one's person.

And it rules that Hawaii may not leave citizens with no way of exercising this latter right.

 

[Brain357]

I don’t need things to be a man. And I would rather fewer died than I have fun. You might feel the same when you grow up.

Individuality and freedom is about as grown as you can get.

Choosing fun over peoples lives is childish.

Its a lot more than fun. Maybe you arent grown enough to actually understand?

You said you like to have fun. I’d rather lives be saved. Sad you put playing with your guns over lives.

I also listed other reasons. More important reasons.
I do understand why you do this though. You have nothing else to lean on.. You certainly cant sit there and be like "i cant wipe my own ass so i need the govt to do everything for me"
Some people just dont have the capacity to understand how important freedom, individual liberty and a small government is, to progress and human rights.

Yeah and that’s not worth much if you are dead. Right to life comes first. Our homicide rate is 4-5x countries with strong gun control.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

WINNER!!!

People being able to defend themselves... bad news for criminals/leftists.

Funny. With all our guns our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control.

Freedom isnt free.
If it was, it would always be available.

Lots of free countries have fewer guns and lower homicide rates.

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, people need weapons to defend themselves from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Talking down to someone and mischaracterizing them is not an argument.

To believe the only reason one wants to have a weapon is to feel masculine is to believe that criminals will never threaten one, something that's clearly wrong, or that the state is an omnipotent entity capable of protecting everyone at all times

 

[Brain357]

Funny. With all our guns our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control.

Freedom isnt free.
If it was, it would always be available.

Lots of free countries have fewer guns and lower homicide rates.

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, people need weapons to defend themselves from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Talking down to someone and mischaracterizing them is not an argument.

To believe the only reason one wants to have a weapon is to feel masculine is to believe that criminals will never threaten one, something that's clearly wrong, or that the state is an omnipotent entity capable of protecting everyone at all times

No, many countries with far fewer guns have much lower crime rates. The need is made up by the gun lobby. Hawaii has low crime rates and few guns btw.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

At the time the Constitution was written, it meant that a persons property should ready to roll. Properly maintained.
Not well regulated like the statists like to imagine.
Try again

Ok how about “militia “?

Geez . I agree we have a right to guns but don’t act as if the 2nd says “guns for everybody ! The government can’t do nothing about it !”

As long as it isnt impeding on someone else, what should they do about it?
Does the Constitution mean things it doesnt actually say?
Do you think its a metaphor or something?

Is this where u are a strict constitutionalist except when you don’t want to?

Strictly reading the 2nd it means we need an armed people for the army . Of course we have a standing army now . You could easily say only guard/military members have a right to own guns .

Terminology has changed
The documents intent hasnt
You have to do better than this if you want to argue with me, timmy

Technology has changed also. The “arms” today are much more powerful.

So, what you're saying is that the founding fathers weren't intelligent enough to believe that we'd ever have anything other than muskets.

Well, that or you're saying that they didn't think people would need weapons after weapons had advanced.

OR you're saying that because weapons advanced, the government is suddenly capable of keeping all weapons out of the hands of all criminals, because you're part of the church of the omnipotent state.

Take your pick, all three are demonstably false.

 

[TNHarley]

Individuality and freedom is about as grown as you can get.

Choosing fun over peoples lives is childish.

Its a lot more than fun. Maybe you arent grown enough to actually understand?

You said you like to have fun. I’d rather lives be saved. Sad you put playing with your guns over lives.

I also listed other reasons. More important reasons.
I do understand why you do this though. You have nothing else to lean on.. You certainly cant sit there and be like "i cant wipe my own ass so i need the govt to do everything for me"
Some people just dont have the capacity to understand how important freedom, individual liberty and a small government is, to progress and human rights.

Yeah and that’s not worth much if you are dead. Right to life comes first. Our homicide rate is 4-5x countries with strong gun control.

You dont losr a right to life by people having guns.
You are giving inanimate objects too much credit

 

[Timmy]

There are no “abolute rights” . All rights have limits .

Why because you say so?

Because the Supreme Court says so.

Or should I be able to scream threats outside your window at 2:00am?

 

[miketx]

There are no “abolute rights” . All rights have limits .

Congress shall make no law....
Shall not be infringed....

 

[whitehall]

Or....only people who protect the lives and property of elitist (mostly liberal) politicians and celebrities are authorized to carry concealed weapons in the Aloha State. Isn't that what it works out to be?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Read more here (I need to credit where I read it)

Ace of Spades HQ

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court: If Hawaii Restricts Citizens' Ability to Carry Concealed, Then There Must Be An Absolute Right to OpenCarry
—Ace of Spades
Huge ruling.

Hawaii sharply limits who can carry concealed -- basically, only people who have jobs in security and law enforcement can carry concealed.

The Ninth Circuit -- not the whole Ninth Circuit, which is a leftwing clownshow, but two of the three judges selected randomly to review the lower court's ruling here -- rules that people have the right to carry firearms (quoting the Supreme Court's MacDonald decision), and if the right to carry concealed is restricted by a state, that must mean that the other method of carrying, open carry, is absolute.

The court rules that the "right to keep and bear arms" is actually two rights: to "keep" arms is about storing arms on physical property, but to bear arms is to carry arms on one's person.

And it rules that Hawaii may not leave citizens with no way of exercising this latter right.

watch the state at oral

no wonder they lost

How to Lose a Lawsuit in 10 Minutes or Less

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Freedom isnt free.
If it was, it would always be available.

Lots of free countries have fewer guns and lower homicide rates.

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, people need weapons to defend themselves from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Talking down to someone and mischaracterizing them is not an argument.

To believe the only reason one wants to have a weapon is to feel masculine is to believe that criminals will never threaten one, something that's clearly wrong, or that the state is an omnipotent entity capable of protecting everyone at all times

No, many countries with far fewer guns have much lower crime rates. The need is made up by the gun lobby. Hawaii has low crime rates and few guns btw.

Many countries with fewer guns have smaller populations and define shootings differently. Unlike America, for example, the EU doesn't define suicides and self defense as murders.

You also didn't address mystatement at all, you only stated a talking point. ARE you saying that the government is Omnipotent, and therefor capable of stopping all crimes at all times, that there is no crime and nobody needs to defend themselves, OR that the government is capable of confiscating all guns and keeping them out of the hands of EVERYONE.

You can, of course, make another argument, but really, I need to know the logistics behind your mental gymnastics.

 

[Timmy]

Ok how about “militia “?

Geez . I agree we have a right to guns but don’t act as if the 2nd says “guns for everybody ! The government can’t do nothing about it !”

As long as it isnt impeding on someone else, what should they do about it?
Does the Constitution mean things it doesnt actually say?
Do you think its a metaphor or something?

Is this where u are a strict constitutionalist except when you don’t want to?

Strictly reading the 2nd it means we need an armed people for the army . Of course we have a standing army now . You could easily say only guard/military members have a right to own guns .

Terminology has changed
The documents intent hasnt
You have to do better than this if you want to argue with me, timmy

Technology has changed also. The “arms” today are much more powerful.

So, what you're saying is that the founding fathers weren't intelligent enough to believe that we'd ever have anything other than muskets.

Well, that or you're saying that they didn't think people would need weapons after weapons had advanced.

OR you're saying that because weapons advanced, the government is suddenly capable of keeping all weapons out of the hands of all criminals, because you're part of the church of the omnipotent state.

Take your pick, all three are demonstably false.

1. I don’t think they looked to the future. That’s why they made a adaptive form of government.

2. Who said anything about “all weapons “.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If I was in one of these wonderful no gun utopias I would still arm myself somehow.

Look at the news in Europe.