Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[waitforufo]

Ok, let's try baby steps.

Do you accept that it would have been a problem if they had said "US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to using unicorns to pull the ploughs on the music tree farms"?

 

Its a BS example. They never said that and never would. Try harder.

BTW, what is a "forelock puller"?

One pulls or tugs his forelock to those born better then they are. You know, like the Queen.

 

And it's not (for example) an "opinion" that a gun is not available for defence if it stuck in a safe; it's a statement of the bloody obvious.

That is why I don't keep mine in a safe.

[overtone]

 

 

Thus far I have yet to see any evidence of that relationship.

That's because you refuse to learn what a militia is.

 

[John Cuthber]

 

Its a BS example. They never said that and never would. Try harder.

 

 

Nobody said they did, or that they would. It's called an analogy.

So, try actually answering the question (sheesh! I know I said "baby steps" but...)

Do you accept that it would have been a problem if they had said "US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to using unicorns to pull the ploughs on the music tree farms"?

That's because you refuse to learn what a militia is.

 

Broadly, this

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia

 

One pulls or tugs his forelock to those born better then they are. You know, like the Queen.

 

So, it's not of any relevance- it's just a random ad hom. OK

 

That is why I don't keep mine in a safe.

 

So, you are the sort who leaves it around to be snatched up in a hurry, or perhaps by kids. You are that sort of "responsible" gun owner. OK.

 

I wonder if that sort of behaviour is in any way related to the appalling mess that the thread is on about.

Edited September 10, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

That's because you refuse to learn what a militia is.

 

Broadly, this

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/militia

I didn't say you couldn't find the word in an online dictionary. I said you refused to learn what it meant.

You keep saying militias don't exist. I'm surrounded by people ready and willing to be called up at need - an Anoka/Sherburne/Wright County Militia could be raised in about 48 hours, restricted to men with military experience to cut training time. You could probably even have the T-shirts and gimme caps printed within ten days.

 

So, you are the sort who leaves it around to be snatched up in a hurry, or perhaps by kids. You are that sort of "responsible" gun owner. OK.

Some of my relatives kept a shotgun on nails over the kitchen door (overlooked the garden and chicken coop). Yes, guns are kept handy to be "snatched up" at need, in many American homes. There are reasons for that. Edited September 10, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Nobody said they did, or that they would. It's called an analogy.

So, try actually answering the question (sheesh! I know I said "baby steps" but...)

Do you accept that it would have been a problem if they had said "US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to using unicorns to pull the ploughs on the music tree farms"?

Still a BS question, but if the Supreme Court would have ruled in that way it would be the law of the land regardless of my opinion. There is no requirement for the law to be based on logic or reason. It is what it is. Perhaps instead of living in fairy land you should focus on what they did say.

Broadly, this

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia

Great definitions, so why are you having a problem?

So, it's not of any relevance- it's just a random ad hom. OK

The relevance is that it is a simple historical fact. Watch your vid again. I liked the part where he said something like "The government said no more guns and we said OK." You see here in the US we tell the government what to do. Just a cultural difference I guess.

So, you are the sort who leaves it around to be snatched up in a hurry, or perhaps by kids. You are that sort of "responsible" gun owner. OK.

I wonder if that sort of behaviour is in any way related to the appalling mess that the thread is on about.

Yeah, I'm just like those people that leave swimming pools lying around there property.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

Life is full of risks.

Edited September 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

The relevance is that it is a simple historical fact. Watch your vid again. I liked the part where he said something like "The government said no more guns and we said OK." You see here in the US we tell the government what to do. Just a cultural difference I guess.

FWIW, this is, perhaps, the weakest part of your position, especially given the role money currently plays in our politics and the way our system has been shifting leaps and bounds toward oligarchy, but that's another topic entirely.

 

Yeah, I'm just like those people that leave swimming pools lying around there property.

Pools also have regulations to minimize harm to children, so maybe we could borrow some of those ideas and do the same for guns.

 

http://nspf.org/en/resources/news_statecodes.aspx

[MigL]

I second iNow's sentiments.

 

Can we please steer this thread back towards sanity, and discuss gun rules and regulations that all can live with ?

[waitforufo]

FWIW, this is, perhaps, the weakest part of your position, especially given the role money currently plays in our politics and the way our system has been shifting leaps and bounds toward oligarchy, but that's another topic entirely.

 

Pools also have regulations to minimize harm to children, so maybe we could borrow some of those ideas and do the same for guns.

 

http://nspf.org/en/resources/news_statecodes.aspx

 

 

I second iNow's sentiments.

 

Can we please steer this thread back towards sanity, and discuss gun rules and regulations that all can live with ?

 

Guys, go ahead. So are you going to go big and try to amend the constitution, or are you going to try to nibble a way at it with a series of regulations. Good luck with either approach. You will never get the States to repeal or modify the second amendment. If you try to nibble away at it every regulation will find it's way to the Supreme Court where you will likely lose. My guess is the words 'shall not be infringed' will be your biggest obstacle.

Edited September 11, 2015 by waitforufo

[Endy0816]

You can't amend an amendment?

[zapatos]

 

 

If you try to nibble away at it every regulation will find it's way to the Supreme Court where you will likely lose. My guess is the words 'shall not be infringed' will be your biggest obstacle.

Have all the current regulations found their way to the Supreme Court, or are they on the way?

Do you think regulations like background checks, limits on automatic weapons, limits on magazine sizes, etc. are likely to be overturned eventually?

[waitforufo]

Come on guys. I can't wait to hear them. Maybe you will have the same luck initiative 676 had in dark blue Washington State.

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Handgun_Trigger_Locks,_Initiative_676_(1997)

 

http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/washington-voters-have-choice-two-ways-to-conduct-gun-checks/

 

Will Hillary or Bernie make sure this is at the top of the Democratic platform? I can't wait.

Edited September 11, 2015 by waitforufo

[zapatos]

Any particular reason you chose not to answer my questions?

[John Cuthber]

 

Still a BS question, but if the Supreme Court would have ruled in that way it would be the law of the land regardless of my opinion. There is no requirement for the law to be based on logic or reason. It is what it is. Perhaps instead of living in fairy land you should focus on what they did say.

Great definitions, so why are you having a problem?

The relevance is that it is a simple historical fact. Watch your vid again. I liked the part where he said something like "The government said no more guns and we said OK." You see here in the US we tell the government what to do. Just a cultural difference I guess.

Yeah, I'm just like those people that leave swimming pools lying around there property.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

Life is full of risks.

 

Just because you don't understand he relevance doesn't make it a BS question, but it's interesting that you say both

" if the Supreme Court would have ruled in that way it would be the law of the land "

and

"You see here in the US we tell the government what to do"

And, re the pool- making things worse doesn't make them better.

[waitforufo]

Pools also have regulations to minimize harm to children, so maybe we could borrow some of those ideas and do the same for guns.

 

http://nspf.org/en/resources/news_statecodes.aspx

And yet pools are still 100 times more dangerous than guns.

 

Have all the current regulations found their way to the Supreme Court, or are they on the way?

Do you think regulations like background checks, limits on automatic weapons, limits on magazine sizes, etc. are likely to be overturned eventually?

For a regulation to make it to the Supreme Court, someone has to have standing and bring a case that takes time. Will they eventually be overturned? So far the track record is very good at overturning them. Only time will tell.

 

Any particular reason you chose not to answer my questions?

Because I have a life, but I have answered them now.

 

Just because you don't understand he relevance doesn't make it a BS question, but it's interesting that you say both

" if the Supreme Court would have ruled in that way it would be the law of the land "

and

"You see here in the US we tell the government what to do"

And, re the pool- making things worse doesn't make them better.

I understand the question completely. Unicorns don't exist. The militia does. That is why it is a BS question.

The Supreme Court's genesis is from the people.

You and the gun control crowd are trying to make things worse.

 

I look forward to hearing your proposed new firearms rules and regulations that will not only pass the second amendment but all the Supreme Court precedents I have mentioned.

 

Have fun.

[dimreepr]

And yet pools are still 100 times more dangerous than guns.

 

 

And yet both have a solution; your insistence that keeping your gun is sacrosanct and is worth the horrible wounding, or death of children, would be sorely tested, should one of your children lay before you, missing a limb or life, be it an unprotected pool or a firearm.

 

 

Unicorns don't exist. The militia does.

 

 

 

Damn it, who knew ‘waitforufo’ would wreck another irony meter?

 

I’d put my life savings on you being the 10% that’s trapped in a loop, I bet you loved that bit, if only to revel in the anger and vent properly.

[waitforufo]

 

And yet both have a solution; your insistence that keeping your gun is sacrosanct and is worth the horrible wounding, or death of children, would be sorely tested, should one of your children lay before you, missing a limb or life, be it an unprotected pool or a firearm.

 

 

Damn it, who knew ‘waitforufo’ would wreck another irony meter?

 

I’d put my life savings on you being the 10% that’s trapped in a loop, I bet you loved that bit, if only to revel in the anger and vent properly.

Like I said, life is full of risks. Generations of my family have own, used, and kept firearms in there home. No problems yet. Loving my liberty.

 

Who is angry or venting? Blogs like these are simply sound and fury,signifying nothing. Sure we can learn a bit if we are open minded, but that is it.

[dimreepr]

Sure we can learn a bit if we are open minded, but that is it.

 

 

Really? You may want to give that a go.

Blogs like these are simply sound and fury,signifying nothing.

 

 

But still your best argument is "fuck off, I like guns".

[John Cuthber]

And yet pools are still 100 times more dangerous than guns.

 

For a regulation to make it to the Supreme Court, someone has to have standing and bring a case that takes time. Will they eventually be overturned? So far the track record is very good at overturning them. Only time will tell.

 

Because I have a life, but I have answered them now.

 

I understand the question completely. Unicorns don't exist. The militia does. That is why it is a BS question.

The Supreme Court's genesis is from the people.

You and the gun control crowd are trying to make things worse.

 

I look forward to hearing your proposed new firearms rules and regulations that will not only pass the second amendment but all the Supreme Court precedents I have mentioned.

 

Have fun.

But the right answer to the question was either "Yes", "No" or "I don't understand".

Well, you didn't manage the first two options so...

Perhaps you can simply list the US militia's recent victories?

Alternatively you can explain which militia in the UK (or France or Germany or Australia....)is responsible for "the security of a free State".

[waitforufo]

 

But still your best argument is "fuck off, I like guns".

I have never said this.

Really? You may want to give that a go.

Some claim that the militia does not exist. I and overtone have pointed out that it does.

Some claim that "well regulated" means controlled by government. I and overtone have demonstrated that it does not.

Some claim that the right to keep and bear arms was intended for military purposes only. I have provided Supreme Court precedent setting rulings that clearly state that the second amendment applies to an individuals right for self defense.

Some claim that the second amendment was not intended to include modern firearms. I have show that the Supreme Court has ruled that it covers ordinary military weapons. I have also pointed out that Heller and McDonald, where the court ruled that the second amendment covers the individual right to self defense, is likely to expand the definition of the arms covered.

 

Does your open mind except the above.

Edited September 11, 2015 by waitforufo

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Does your open mind except the above.

 

Your grasp of the Constitution is matched by your grasp of the English language.

[dimreepr]

I have never said this.

 

 

Yet it remains your only viable argument.

 

 

Some claim that the militia does not exist. I and overtone have pointed out that it does.

Some claim that "well regulated" means controlled by government. I and overtone have demonstrated that it does not.

Some claim that the right to keep and bear arms was intended for military purposes only. I have provided Supreme Court precedent setting rulings that clearly state that the second amendment applies to an individuals right for self defense.

Whatever, the courts choose to take; they may also choose to give back.

Edited September 11, 2015 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

 

Your grasp of the Constitution is matched by your grasp of the English language.

Maybe the grammar police can explain their understanding of the Constitution.

 

Yet it remains your only viable argument.

Yet you provide no argument based on law at all.

 

 

Whatever, the courts choose to take; they may also choose to give back.

While this is true, it is uncommon. Again, look up "stare decisis". You have Google don't you?

Edited September 11, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Yet you provide no argument based on law at all.

What makes you say this? There are existing regulations in place. There are laws currently enacted that in various ways prohibit the freedoms you claim to hold and which you seem to believe are absolute and uninfrangible.

.

Again, look up "stare decisis". You have Google don't you?

Stare decisis can't prevent a new challenge from being granted standing, or locus standi.

[waitforufo]

What makes you say this? There are existing regulations in place. There are laws currently enacted that in various ways prohibit the freedoms you claim to hold and which you seem to believe are absolute and uninfrangible.

.

Stare decisis can't prevent a new challenge from being granted standing, or locus standi.

The Supreme Court has a long history of expanding the rights of the people. Cases like Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Strickland v. Washington, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, etc. While I don't have the case at the tip of my fingers but, gay marriage is another example. A 5 to 4 example that I'm sure will stick. So are DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

 

What you are suggesting is that the Supreme Court will start diminishing the rights of the people. Good luck.

 

But the right answer to the question was either "Yes", "No" or "I don't understand".

Well, you didn't manage the first two options so...

Perhaps you can simply list the US militia's recent victories?

Alternatively you can explain which militia in the UK (or France or Germany or Australia....)is responsible for "the security of a free State".

Oh yeah I missed this one.

 

Militia victories? The militia has been in a constant state of victory since 1776. The UK, France, Germany and Australia have different systems then ours. Personally I don't care for them. Also, maybe that is why we have to bail them out of the bloodiest wars in history.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On further thought Red Leader, I have to disagree with you on locus standi. You cannot claim locus standi against laws that don't exist.

Edited September 11, 2015 by waitforufo

[overtone]

Perhaps you can simply list the US militia's recent victories?

Cliven Bundy's standoff of the US Federal Government would be one, anyway.

 

The defense of various stores and homes during the Rodney King riots probably counts as another.

 

One might also mention the occasional losses due to lack of militia or inadequate assembly - the Black Panther assassinations, Ruby Ridge, AIM, etc. The list there would be quite long if we track back into the early and mid 1900s when black and red and yellow people in the US were disarmed.

 

 

 

 

Alternatively you can explain which militia in the UK (or France or Germany or Australia....)is responsible for "the security of a free State".

A conversation about freedom and security with the Zionists from Germany and France, or the carefully disarmed Aborigines of Australia, might be interesting in that context.

 

But it would be simpler to just stipulate that the writers of the Constitution may have been simply wrong about the security needs of a modern industrial empire. So?

Edited September 11, 2015 by overtone