This is why we need more Scalias on the Supreme Court

[justabubba]

If my right to bear arms includes firearms specifically protected by US v Miller, no, my right has been infringed. At what point of bans would you consider my right to actually have been infringed?

like pornography, i would know it when i saw it
and in this instance there is nothing which infringes your right to bear arms. but humor me and document how it does

 

[TurtleDude]

There were 33,000 gun deaths, so what's your point?

that's irrelevant. the vast majority are suicides and killings by those who cannot legally own guns. In other words, those deaths are irrelevant to support bannerrhoid laws

 

[TurtleDude]

like pornography, i would know it when i saw it
and in this instance there is nothing which infringes your right to bear arms. but humor me and document how it does

that stupid argument fails because there is no law that cops are issued pornography that is paid for by our tax dollars but we members of the supreme sovereign cannot even see the stuff

FAIL

 

[TurtleDude]

He won't, he can't; he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Jet's too afraid to even directly address me so he engages in this stupidity. Does anyone believe Jet's arguments evince an astute understanding of constitutional law? Does anyone think that Jet has any legal background in this issue?

 

[jet57]

How many classes of weapons ban be banned before the people's right to bear arms is infringed? Are you capable of being honest enough to answer this?

Well, right now we're just talking about one. You can however be knocked just about all the way back to flint locks and still have an active "II Amendment".

pistol, rifle, your choice. don't forget the hat, flag and fife

 

[Rucker61]

There were 33,000 gun deaths, so what's your point?

How many were from assault weapons used in mass shootings in Maryland? How many were from all rifles used in all homicides in Maryland?

Assault weapons are less lethal, based on annual average, than water, according to Mother Jones and CDC data. An average of 12 people were killed each year since the end of the AWB by a mass murderer using an assault weapon; over 40 people are murdered each year by water.

 

[Rucker61]

Well, right now we're just talking about one. You can however be knocked just about all the way back to flint locks and still have an active "II Amendment".

pistol, rifle, your choice. don't forget the hat, flag and fife

Well, multishot firearms were well known prior to ratification. It's the First and Fourth Amendment rights for electronic communication and data storage you've just given up.

Oh, see Caetano v Massachusetts. Do you ever provide any legal backing for your claims?

 

[TurtleDude]

How many were from assault weapons used in mass shootings in Maryland? How many were from all rifles used in all homicides in Maryland?

Assault weapons are less lethal, based on annual average, than water, according to Mother Jones and CDC data. An average of 12 people were killed each year since the end of the AWB by a mass murderer using an assault weapon; over 40 people are murdered each year by water.

the bannerrhoid judges obviously ignored facts in their desire to do their masters' bidding

 

[jet57]

How many were from assault weapons used in mass shootings in Maryland? How many were from all rifles used in all homicides in Maryland?

Assault weapons are less lethal, based on annual average, than water, according to Mother Jones and CDC data. An average of 12 people were killed each year since the end of the AWB by a mass murderer using an assault weapon; over 40 people are murdered each year by water.

The 4th district appellate court of the united states disagrees with you: at least - that's the rumor; so you'll have to ask them won't you.

"Assault weapons" are used in combat because - they're more lethal: that's why they're called "Assault Weapons" - isn't it.

 

[jet57]

Well, multishot firearms were well known prior to ratification. It's the First and Fourth Amendment rights for electronic communication and data storage you've just given up.

Oh, see Caetano v Massachusetts. Do you ever provide any legal backing for your claims?

"Claims"

Ask Scalia dude! Not me.

And - we're not talking about stun guns are we.

 

[TurtleDude]

He won't, he can't; he doesn't know what he's talking about.

well there is Jet who claims that its perfectly constitutional to ban all sorts of guns-mainly anything that his masters in California don't trust Jet to own.

 

[TurtleDude]

The 4th district appellate court of the united states disagrees with you: at least - that's the rumor; so you'll have to ask them won't you.

"Assault weapons" are used in combat because - they're more lethal: that's why they're called "Assault Weapons" - isn't it.

so how is a 20 Shot AR 15 more "lethal"than a 20 shot Glock. Edify us with your vast reservoir of firearms knowledge

 

[TurtleDude]

The 4th district appellate court of the united states disagrees with you: at least - that's the rumor; so you'll have to ask them won't you.

"Assault weapons" are used in combat because - they're more lethal: that's why they're called "Assault Weapons" - isn't it.

so why is Maryland issuing COMBAT weapons to CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS

I bet Jet cannot answer this either

 

[Goshin]

and what we find and that which is under discussion is that the court has established a well considered basis of restriction
one which does not infringe on the peoples' right to bear arms

Yeah, that's debatable. It IS an infringement on a particular class of arms. Whether it is a permissible infringement under the 2A or Heller remains highly subject to question.

 

[justabubba]

Yeah, that's debatable. It IS an infringement on a particular class of arms. Whether it is a permissible infringement under the 2A or Heller remains highly subject to question.

there is no amendment which tells us the government cannot infringe upon a particular class of arms
as is demonstrated by a long standing restriction regarding machine guns and sawed off shotguns

 

[TurtleDude]

there is no amendment which tells us the government cannot infringe upon a particular class of arms
as is demonstrated by a long standing restriction regarding machine guns and sawed off shotguns

what part of the constitution properly allows the federal government to ban any type of firearm? guess what-none exists

 

[TurtleDude]

there is no amendment which tells us the government cannot infringe upon a particular class of arms
as is demonstrated by a long standing restriction regarding machine guns and sawed off shotguns

that merely shows how dishonest the federal government under FDR was and how cowardly some conservative justices were in terms of bowing to bad precedent

tell us Justabubba what part of Article One Section 8 actually delegates such power to the federal government

 

[Goshin]

there is no amendment which tells us the government cannot infringe upon a particular class of arms
as is demonstrated by a long standing restriction regarding machine guns and sawed off shotguns

Lots of "longstanding" things were eventually judged to be wrong.


The fundamental problem here is you're approaching this from the perspective that "unless something specifically says Gov can't restrict X, then it can."


That's a very authoritarian viewpoint and one I doubt you apply to any other fundamental right.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lots of "longstanding" things were eventually judged to be wrong.


The fundamental problem here is you're approaching this from the perspective that "unless something specifically says Gov can't restrict X, then it can."


That's a very authoritarian viewpoint and one I doubt you apply to any other fundamental right.

it shows that Justabubba either knows the constitutional foundation and rejects it or is such a statist that he cannot understand how completely wrong his argument is

 

[Rucker61]

The 4th district appellate court of the united states disagrees with you: at least - that's the rumor; so you'll have to ask them won't you.

"Assault weapons" are used in combat because - they're more lethal: that's why they're called "Assault Weapons" - isn't it.

They're called "assault weapons" because someone thought the name was scary. They aren't actually used in combat. However, handguns, repeating shotguns and bolt action rifles are used in combat. Are those "assault hunting rifles"?

They certainly aren't more lethal than WWII firearms. The service rifle has gotten less lethal over time, because it's not the primary way to kill the enemy. It's the last choice of the infantryman. Artillery, now there's the king of battle.

If 3 million "assault weapon" owners have 10 million "assault weapons", then an average of twelve deaths per year due to "assault weapons" used in mass shootings doesn't scream dangerous to anyone that is numerate. That's 12 deaths divided by 3,650,000,000 "assault weapon days". That's a pretty small number. It's 0.000000003. More people are killed each year falling out of wheelchairs.

 

[justabubba]

it shows that Justabubba either knows the constitutional foundation and rejects it or is such a statist that he cannot understand how completely wrong his argument is

what it demonstrates is that you without the ability to undermine my position in this debate

 

[Goshin]

it shows that Justabubba either knows the constitutional foundation and rejects it or is such a statist that he cannot understand how completely wrong his argument is

More of a double standard. Most of the gun-control supporters would scream bloody murder if you applied the same standards to free speech, freedom of religion, gay marriage or etc that they apply to restrictions on the RKBA.

 

[TurtleDude]

what it demonstrates is that you without the ability to undermine my position in this debate

your position is both specious and based on blatant dishonesty

 

[justabubba]

your position is both specious and based on blatant dishonesty

nice opinion counsel
not a fact within that post

 

[TurtleDude]

More of a double standard. Most of the gun-control supporters would scream bloody murder if you applied the same standards to free speech, freedom of religion, gay marriage or etc that they apply to restrictions on the RKBA.

as I have noted, without rebuttal, the gun control movement in the United States is the most dishonest political movement in the USA