The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[Abatis]

You are a lot closer to tighter gun laws than you think.

Actually, YOU are a lot closer to witnessing a vast swath of gun control being swept off the books and suffering a long period of complete and utter impotence of the left in getting any meaningful restrictions enacted.

Keep telling yourself that.

Your prediction is based on your constitutional ignorance and profoundly unrealistic, emotionally based wishful thinking.
My prediction is based on actual legal determinations and the understanding how those determinations force irreparable infirmities in the support for many, many gun laws. Entire trees of judicial decisions upholding gun control laws are now infirm and ready to fall . . . primarily those which base their rulings on the invalid 1940's lower federal court "interpretations" that the 2nd is not an individual right and many state court holdings that the 2nd is not enforceable upon the states.

I'm guessing by now you have learned the answers to my questions about the quote 9thIDdoc posted. So, how does yesterday's development pertaining to a federal court declaring another Chicago gun law is unconstitutional fit into your theory?

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Only the most twisted mind would conjure such a comment.
Is a child porn disseminator a First Amendment Hero?

 

[Abatis]

You sound like lawmakers in 1866 Mississippi enacting the Black Codes . . . Yeah, now you can't call out "Negros and Mulattoes" for disarmament but you can be geographically specific, (wink, wink).

Thanks for outing your racism. That didn't take long at all. Hey, Stormfront, you are missing one of your idiots...

Referring to and quoting from a law is racist?

Section 1. Be it enacted, ... [t]hat no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie-knife,. . ."

1865 Miss. Laws 165 (Nov. 29, 1865).​

 

[JoeB131]

[

Nice try. Sky pixie. You're a hoot.

What you're talking about are rights people "think" they have for which they have no basis for claiming. I think even you can differentiate between the ability to smoke in a public building and something in the Bill of Rights such as due process or freedom of the press.

Smoking. Are you pulling my leg?

yeah, Sky Pixie is a hoot. It shows just how silly notions of a "God" are.

Of course rights are limited. Try calling a gay co-worker some of the terms Warrior uses whenever he's losing an argument. (which is all the time) or calling a black worker the N-word. Watch how fast your "freedom of speech" turns out to be bullshit.

So it is conceivable that people could interpret the Second Amendment to mean, "Oh, yeah, WELL REGULATED militia. That meand don't sell guns to crazy people. That makes sense, actually!"

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, YOU are a lot closer to witnessing a vast swath of gun control being swept off the books and suffering a long period of complete and utter impotence of the left in getting any meaningful restrictions enacted.

Keep telling yourself that.

Your prediction is based on your constitutional ignorance and profoundly unrealistic, emotionally based wishful thinking.
My prediction is based on actual legal determinations and the understanding how those determinations force irreparable infirmities in the support for many, many gun laws. Entire trees of judicial decisions upholding gun control laws are now infirm and ready to fall . . . primarily those which base their rulings on the invalid 1940's lower federal court "interpretations" that the 2nd is not an individual right and many state court holdings that the 2nd is not enforceable upon the states.

I'm guessing by now you have learned the answers to my questions about the quote 9thIDdoc posted. So, how does yesterday's development pertaining to a federal court declaring another Chicago gun law is unconstitutional fit into your theory?

And no one sane is talking about a Arizona style law. A new law wil be crafted that meets the court ruling. But it's only a matter of time before people get fed up with being on a shooting range.

[

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Only the most twisted mind would conjure such a comment.
Is a child porn disseminator a First Amendment Hero?

Um, no, that's illegal for him to have the child porn.

It wasn't illegal for this guy to have a gun, that was the point. In fact, as I said, we are going to find out this week, he was batshit crazy, everyone in his life knew it, and big surprise, he was able to get a gun, really easily.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I'm extremely pro second-amendment and would go as far to say that no firearms should be banned. I can listen to and maybe agree with an argument on why automatic weapons should be illegal for citizens but other than that I think every type of firearm should be legal.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Keep telling yourself that.

Your prediction is based on your constitutional ignorance and profoundly unrealistic, emotionally based wishful thinking.
My prediction is based on actual legal determinations and the understanding how those determinations force irreparable infirmities in the support for many, many gun laws. Entire trees of judicial decisions upholding gun control laws are now infirm and ready to fall . . . primarily those which base their rulings on the invalid 1940's lower federal court "interpretations" that the 2nd is not an individual right and many state court holdings that the 2nd is not enforceable upon the states.

I'm guessing by now you have learned the answers to my questions about the quote 9thIDdoc posted. So, how does yesterday's development pertaining to a federal court declaring another Chicago gun law is unconstitutional fit into your theory?

And no one sane is talking about a Arizona style law. A new law wil be crafted that meets the court ruling. But it's only a matter of time before people get fed up with being on a shooting range.

[

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Only the most twisted mind would conjure such a comment.
Is a child porn disseminator a First Amendment Hero?

Um, no, that's illegal for him to have the child porn.

It wasn't illegal for this guy to have a gun, that was the point. In fact, as I said, we are going to find out this week, he was batshit crazy, everyone in his life knew it, and big surprise, he was able to get a gun, really easily.

Joe, pay attention.

This guy STOLE the gun...

 

[Abatis]

And no one sane is talking about a Arizona style law.

Why not try it?

Criminals have been practicing it for years. Why shouldn't the law-abiding be afforded the same consideration?

A new law wil be crafted that meets the court ruling.

I doubt it, if the city's response to McDonald is any indication.

But it's only a matter of time before people get fed up with being on a shooting range.

From who, law-abiding citizens who are willing to go through the permit process?

Seems like a complete free-for-all exists now in Chicago and criminals carry and use guns with virtual impunity. Yes, people are sick of the shooting galleries that Democrat managed cities have become and are demanding their right to self-defense be recognized and accommodated under law.

As Jeff Snyder said:

__________________________

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."​

__________________________
​

That you embrace what he condemns is why you will never be successful in the arena of ideas. There can be no reasoned, logical defense of public policies that restrains citizen behavior with a benchmark set by criminal behavior, only emotional arguments that begin and end with "I just know guns are baaaaaad" . . . .

And here is an expression of that reprehensible mindset in black and white:

Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!

Only the most twisted mind would conjure such a comment.
Is a child porn disseminator a First Amendment Hero?

Um, no, that's illegal for him to have the child porn.

It wasn't illegal for this guy to have a gun, that was the point.

Bullshit. Your point was simply that "that guy who shot up the mall yesterday" was "another wonderful Second Amendment Hero" simply by shooting up the mall yesterday.

The action of shooting up a mall is not an exercise of the right to arms anymore than creating and disseminating child porn is an exercise of 1st Amendment rights . . . Your reasoning is hyperbolic and your speech is corrosive to reasoned dialogue to the point where the simplest of points evade your understanding. Sadly I presume this is all purposeful because as I said, your positions are morally and intellectually bankrupt. That black hole is an unavoidable outcome of emotion based political or policy positions; any challenge to them is perceived as a personal attack and is responded to with ersatz indignation, misrepresentations of opponent's beliefs, hyperbolic accusations about your opponent's motives and white-hot animosity for anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you.

In fact, as I said, we are going to find out this week, he was batshit crazy, everyone in his life knew it, and big surprise, he was able to get a gun, really easily.

And even after being told twice yesterday that the shooter stole the gun (and plenty of time to read the news) you persist with the same incorrect BS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Abatis and Joe, crazies from either side, babble on.

Their is a solution straight down the middle in common sense land if they would but seek it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I distinctly recall in 1968, a young, black, brand new PFC 11B (who had actually joined to become a bush beater) whose Dad, one of the first black Staff Officers in the Air Force, threatened to "kick the hell out of" both me and my Brother if we didn't "join and serve" arrived in Vietnam, scared to death and wondering why the hell I had done something as stupid as joining the damn Army!

Anyway, I was issued a M14 (damn fine weapon) and an M79 grenade launcher. Later, I "moved up" to the 16 and the 203....But I will never forget my Platoon Sergeant, an E7 on his second tour from Phoenix City Alabama. He saw me coming down the path to the hootches and he says to a E4 standing there, "Jesus Christ! They are giving guns to the monkeys now" My response? "Well Sergeant, the Armorer told me that since they were handing out guns to the toothless rednecks, they probably ought to give me one, also".

I went to that man's funeral 2 years ago. He and I saved each other's lives several times that year. One of the finest human beings I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.

The point to this? I have killed for my country. I did so willingly and (if able) would do again to protect her. The idea that ANY government entity would advocate taking guns from law-abiding citizens is reprehensible and repulsive to me and should be to any American citizen.

Incidently, to any of you Marines out there, there is an even bet that my Brother was your DI. He stayed in the Corps, served as a DI at the Island, retired as a Master Gunnery Sergeant and, unfortunately passed a year ago. RIP Jim!

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, pay attention.

This guy STOLE the gun...

and that makes it better, how, exactly?

Point is, a guy who never should have gotten guns was able to get a couple, and the only reason we are only talking about 2 deaths instead of 50 or so is because his gun jammed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The only way to prevent stolen guns is to ban guns completely.

But then again you already knew that, didn't you?

 

[JoeB131]

And no one sane is talking about a Arizona style law.

Why not try it?

Criminals have been practicing it for years. Why shouldn't the law-abiding be afforded the same consideration?

Because, honestly, putting more assholes with guns into that situation would just kind of make it worse.

In the Tuscon shooting, a "good samaritan" ran out of his store and nearly shot the guy who had subdued Loughner.

Now multiply that by a dozen idiots who don't know what is going on with guns...

Yeah, that would kind of be a terrible idea.

 

[JoeB131]

The only way to prevent stolen guns is to ban guns completely.

But then again you already knew that, didn't you?

Wonderful idea. No good reason for private citizens to own guns to start with.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only way to prevent stolen guns is to ban guns completely.

But then again you already knew that, didn't you?

Wonderful idea. No good reason for private citizens to own guns to start with.

How many more of the firearm threads will you keep getting your ass handed to you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB has the right to express his opinion. He is merely whining. No one is taking anyone's guns away any time soon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

JoeB has the right to express his opinion. He is merely whining. No one is taking anyone's guns away any time soon.

We're just making sure they understand that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one in DC or the state capitol listens to you guys, bigrebnc. You know that. Not much you can do about it, bigrebnc, except act criminally and die for that militia mutt idiocy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one in DC or the state capitol listens to you guys, bigrebnc. You know that. Not much you can do about it, bigrebnc, except act criminally and die for that militia mutt idiocy.

If your self worth was a check it would bounce because you write more than you are worth.
You don't know who I am nor how much influence and other like me have.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I sure wish people wouldn't quote FakeMalarkey, I'm enjoying the peace having him on 'ignore' provides...

 

[flacaltenn]

The only way to prevent stolen guns is to ban guns completely.

But then again you already knew that, didn't you?

Wonderful idea. No good reason for private citizens to own guns to start with.

Gee.. That must be EXACTLY what the founders were thinking when they hired PRIVATEERS (that's civilians with BATTLESHIPS) to go fight pirates.

A battleship with 1/2 a dozen cannon was an AWESOME weapon in those days.. Think I'll check EBay for a retired Navy Cruiser??? Maybe Greece is selling a couple Destroyers.