Republicans in Panic?

[jillian]

Neither grenadiers nor sappers were 'artillery'. So we can put that 'artillery' argument to bed.

And while grenades might not have been standard issue for a soldier in the Founder's era, neither were cartridge ammunition, semi automatic fire arms, or full metal jackets.

They're standard issue today.

So do we use the founder's standards, with no grenades, black powder weapons and muskets? Or do we use today's standards of automatic weapons, grenades, anti-personnel mines, tracers and rocket launchers?

Likewise, US law recognizes tanks, artillery, war planes, laser guided bombs, and the like as 'arms'. So why would you exclude them from your definition? Again, if we're going to go with the founder's 'vision', then we'd have black powder weapons.

I'm asking you to apply your standards consistently. Your lack of consistency isn't my problem. Its yours. As the lines you draw are arbitrary, contradicted by US law, the dictionary, or just make no sense.

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

 

[jillian]

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

you understand that's absurd and not at all reflected in our caselaw.

just so you know.

Then why can the 2nd amendment be ignored because of "general welfare?

Again, fucking hack.

even according to scalia the activist extremist regulation of guns is not prohibited by the 2nd amendment. if you look at the body of caselaw, the law always leaves room for governmental interest. and the welfare of society and protection of our citizens from mass shootings would certainly fall within that scope. i'd refer you to the cases on the 4th amendment and 1st amendment.... there are no absolute rights. and the 2nd is certainly not worthy of a deference that isn't extended to our freedom of speech (which does get limited based on certain necessities and has certain exceptions).

the 1st gets limited when someone actually does something, like yell "fire" in a theater, or threatens someone verbally and directly. You want to restrict my 2nd amendment rights with no reason for it other than "I don't think you should have a gun".

It would be like requiring muzzles on every patron in a theater "just in case" one of them could yell "Fire".

No right is absolute, but there is zero reason why I should not be able to carry a handgun concealed in public, same as any police officer or agent of the government. You want to return to feudal rules, where only the upper class and rulers have the right to be armed.

An armed deputy, officer or agent has been fully vetted before s/he is given the badge and gun. The background check is extensive and includes criminal and civil court records, arrest records, civil detentions, credit reports, stability (in terms of prior employment, places of residence, Marriage and SO relationships) military records, school records, personal references, and both oral and written psychological evaluations, plus at least two and sometimes three interviews by panels of experienced LE managers or supervisors one usually conducted by a supervisor from sister agencies) and once on the job a year on probation under the eyes of a Field Training Officer.

 

[kaz]

If Republicans allow George Soros to choose their candidate as well as The Democrat Party candidate then, yeah, America loses.

Again.

I was really kind of hoping for some actual responses... you know, where people think.

You wanted actual responses? Then why didn't you post an actual OP?

 

[kaz]

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

you understand that's absurd and not at all reflected in our caselaw.

just so you know.

Then why can the 2nd amendment be ignored because of "general welfare?

Again, fucking hack.

even according to scalia the activist extremist regulation of guns is not prohibited by the 2nd amendment. if you look at the body of caselaw, the law always leaves room for governmental interest. and the welfare of society and protection of our citizens from mass shootings would certainly fall within that scope. i'd refer you to the cases on the 4th amendment and 1st amendment.... there are no absolute rights. and the 2nd is certainly not worthy of a deference that isn't extended to our freedom of speech (which does get limited based on certain necessities and has certain exceptions).

the 1st gets limited when someone actually does something, like yell "fire" in a theater, or threatens someone verbally and directly. You want to restrict my 2nd amendment rights with no reason for it other than "I don't think you should have a gun".

It would be like requiring muzzles on every patron in a theater "just in case" one of them could yell "Fire".

No right is absolute, but there is zero reason why I should not be able to carry a handgun concealed in public, same as any police officer or agent of the government. You want to return to feudal rules, where only the upper class and rulers have the right to be armed.

An armed deputy, officer or agent has been fully vetted before s/he is given the badge and gun. The background check is extensive and includes criminal and civil court records, arrest records, civil detentions, credit reports, stability (in terms of prior employment, places of residence, Marriage and SO relationships) military records, school records, personal references, and both oral and written psychological evaluations, plus at least two and sometimes three interviews by panels of experienced LE managers or supervisors one usually conducted by a supervisor from sister agencies) and once on the job a year on probation under the eyes of a Field Training Officer.

Yes, people who haven't been cleared by government to defend themselves need to just die for the good of society. Well, except for criminals. Yep. Government vetted people and criminals, the only ones who should be armed

 

[JimH52]

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because the NRA yells "THEY ARE GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNS!" every time someone wants to try to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

 

[JimH52]

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Jillian, you know if the GOP had its way, we would still have separate bathrooms and separate schools. They yearn for the Jim Crow days.

 

[Ravi]

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

How do you suppose these issue can be resolved without the SC ruling them unconstitutional? You can't legislate or vote away someone's rights.

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

 

[Ravi]

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[jillian]

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Jillian, you know if the GOP had its way, we would still have separate bathrooms and separate schools. They yearn for the Jim Crow days.

certainly the base does.

 

[martybegan]

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

you understand that's absurd and not at all reflected in our caselaw.

just so you know.

Then why can the 2nd amendment be ignored because of "general welfare?

Again, fucking hack.

even according to scalia the activist extremist regulation of guns is not prohibited by the 2nd amendment. if you look at the body of caselaw, the law always leaves room for governmental interest. and the welfare of society and protection of our citizens from mass shootings would certainly fall within that scope. i'd refer you to the cases on the 4th amendment and 1st amendment.... there are no absolute rights. and the 2nd is certainly not worthy of a deference that isn't extended to our freedom of speech (which does get limited based on certain necessities and has certain exceptions).

the 1st gets limited when someone actually does something, like yell "fire" in a theater, or threatens someone verbally and directly. You want to restrict my 2nd amendment rights with no reason for it other than "I don't think you should have a gun".

It would be like requiring muzzles on every patron in a theater "just in case" one of them could yell "Fire".

No right is absolute, but there is zero reason why I should not be able to carry a handgun concealed in public, same as any police officer or agent of the government. You want to return to feudal rules, where only the upper class and rulers have the right to be armed.

An armed deputy, officer or agent has been fully vetted before s/he is given the badge and gun. The background check is extensive and includes criminal and civil court records, arrest records, civil detentions, credit reports, stability (in terms of prior employment, places of residence, Marriage and SO relationships) military records, school records, personal references, and both oral and written psychological evaluations, plus at least two and sometimes three interviews by panels of experienced LE managers or supervisors one usually conducted by a supervisor from sister agencies) and once on the job a year on probation under the eyes of a Field Training Officer.

It's not because he or she has be given a gun, its because they are given the power to make an arrest without fear of repercussions (as long as protocol is followed). They would need the same training even if unarmed.

and of course, training ALWAYS results in guns being used properly....

2012 Empire State Building shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nine bystanders were wounded by stray bullets fired by the officers and ricocheting debris, but none suffered life-threatening injuries.[4]

 

[martybegan]

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Confirmation of what? That I'm tired of your side lying all the time?

 

[martybegan]

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

How do you suppose these issue can be resolved without the SC ruling them unconstitutional? You can't legislate or vote away someone's rights.

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

 

[martybegan]

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Jillian, you know if the GOP had its way, we would still have separate bathrooms and separate schools. They yearn for the Jim Crow days.

Bullshit. Although it is ironic that you have college students of color on the left demanding separate dorms now.

 

[martybegan]

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because the NRA yells "THEY ARE GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNS!" every time someone wants to try to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

No, your end result is keeping the guns away from law abiding citizens, if not by ban, then by making it near impossible to get one.

 

[JimH52]

How do you suppose these issue can be resolved without the SC ruling them unconstitutional? You can't legislate or vote away someone's rights.

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

I think due to the size of the crime, that would be a misdemeanor.

 

[martybegan]

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

Yes I have, and you continue to deny it because it doesn't fit your worldview.

I have the right to keep and BEAR arms, and NYC won't let me do it.

 

[martybegan]

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

I think due to the size of the crime, that would be a misdemeanor.

Grower, not a show-er.

 

[martybegan]

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Systemic, government mandated discrimination was unconstitutional, and the courts acted rightly to end it. Considering they were the ones to fuck it up in the first place with plessey, they owed us the fix.

Systemic, government mandated forcing of people to participate in things they don't want to is just as bad as government mandated discrimination. that's the concept you refuse to grasp.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.