Justice Breyer, you are a damned liar.

CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
So nuclear weapons should be perfectly legal?

If so, then it is a time to draft a constitutional amendment repealing the ultimate deprivation of freedom that is the second amendment.
Click to expand...
Well they would be, except for the part in the Constitution (Article 6, Section 1) that says we also must abide by all treaties we sign. Since we signed several nuclear non proliferation treaties, the argument you are presenting is not valid.

I understand you are trolling to get a rise out of STY and other people, but since this is a frequently encountered argument but other serious people, I thought I should shed some light on to why it is, like every other argument for gun control, deeply flawed at every level.
 
Toki Wartooth said:
And of course, Desh has no comment after being shown to be flat out wrong.
Click to expand...
Such is her MO. The fact is that the entire Bill of Rights is superfluous. They exist merely to reiterate what the Constitution itself says, that the People have inherent Rights and they created the federal government with extremely limited powers to ensure those Rights.
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
Stephen Breye betrayed America in not promoting this stance when he was on the bench. Freedom and guns are diametric opposites. There can be no freedom in a world with guns.

The justices who did not argue strongly enough in favor of banning the indisputable and final evil that is handguns should all be executed, for depriving us from the freedom from the ultimate evil that is guns. I cannot wait to kill as many gun owners as possible in the final revolution. Everyone who owns guns is deserv-ed of death. I will enjoy watching them beg me for mercy as I end their undeserved life. :)
Click to expand...

Hopefully you are an only child and that you're sterile.
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
Stephen Breye betrayed America in not promoting this stance when he was on the bench. Freedom and guns are diametric opposites. There can be no freedom in a world with guns.

The justices who did not argue strongly enough in favor of banning the indisputable and final evil that is handguns should all be executed, for depriving us from the freedom from the ultimate evil that is guns. I cannot wait to kill as many gun owners as possible in the final revolution. Everyone who owns guns is deserv-ed of death. I will enjoy watching them beg me for mercy as I end their undeserved life. :)
Click to expand...

"...I cannot wait to kill as many gun owners as possible in the final revolution."

Okay, if you're totally serious with this line, then you've just given everyone just cause to own a weapon whether they need it or not!

But seriously; I have NO problem with law abiding citizens owning a firearm so long as it's in accordance with State and Federal laws. Reality is that as long as you live in a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, coupled with congenital social, religious, racial and sexual prejudices....you're going to have crime. And the police can't be every where at once.

My only problem with gun advocates are the ones who want to return to the Wild West days and walk around strapped 24/7...and/or own every new military issue weapon that comes out. Given the daily stats throughout the country of domestic violence, alcohol fueled fights, road rage, etc., in addition to crime stats I can't see arming anyone who can afford it with state of the art firepower as a solution.

And then there's all the nonsense about the Constitution backing every claim by every gun nut and the weapons manufacturers. Sorry, but there is that word "militia" that just won't go away. And since not everyone who wants a gun wants to belong to a militia....well, back to square one.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Sorry, but there is that word "militia" that just won't go away. And since not everyone who wants a gun wants to belong to a militia....well, back to square one.
Click to expand...
Really? Not in a militia you say? The United States Code says otherwise...
TITLE 10, CHAPTER 13:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Click to expand...
So there's that. And then there is that pesky little word, ya know

PEOPLE

Ya know, the ones that in every other instance of the usage meaning individuals?
 
Taichiliberal said:
"...I cannot wait to kill as many gun owners as possible in the final revolution."

Okay, if you're totally serious with this line, then you've just given everyone just cause to own a weapon whether they need it or not!

But seriously; I have NO problem with law abiding citizens owning a firearm so long as it's in accordance with State and Federal laws. Reality is that as long as you live in a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, coupled with congenital social, religious, racial and sexual prejudices....you're going to have crime. And the police can't be every where at once.

My only problem with gun advocates are the ones who want to return to the Wild West days and walk around strapped 24/7...and/or own every new military issue weapon that comes out. Given the daily stats throughout the country of domestic violence, alcohol fueled fights, road rage, etc., in addition to crime stats I can't see arming anyone who can afford it with state of the art firepower as a solution.

And then there's all the nonsense about the Constitution backing every claim by every gun nut and the weapons manufacturers. Sorry, but there is that word "militia" that just won't go away. And since not everyone who wants a gun wants to belong to a militia....well, back to square one.
Click to expand...

Although I'm Liberal I do believe in gun ownership. Assault, theft, home invasion...if more people realized others had a firearm I believe those crimes would dramatically decrease.

Sure, the thief would possibly have a firearm but the thief would know their life was on the line any time they tried to commit a crime.

Break into a home and you could die. Mug someone and you could die. I would think it would give pause to evildoers. (LOL! I just love that word, evildoers. Makes them sound sooooo naughty!)
 
Taichiliberal said:
And then there's all the nonsense about the Constitution backing every claim by every gun nut and the weapons manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Also, since this is your stance, perhaps you'll be able to shed some light on this little passage of the Constitution...
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8:
The Congress shall have Power To...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and
Reprisal , and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...
Click to expand...

Now I'm going to assume you know what a LOMR is. So how exactly is Congress going to grant such a letter, with expectation of captures no less, if there aren't supposed to be private citizens (the only ones eligible for such letters) armed in such a way?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
"...I cannot wait to kill as many gun owners as possible in the final revolution."
Okay, if you're totally serious with this line, then you've just given everyone just cause to own a weapon whether they need it or not!

But seriously; I have NO problem with law abiding citizens owning a firearm so long as it's in accordance with State and Federal laws. Reality is that as long as you live in a competitive society with limited resources and opportunities, coupled with congenital social, religious, racial and sexual prejudices....you're going to have crime. And the police can't be every where at once.

My only problem with gun advocates are the ones who want to return to the Wild West days and walk around strapped 24/7...and/or own every new military issue weapon that comes out. Given the daily stats throughout the country of domestic violence, alcohol fueled fights, road rage, etc., in addition to crime stats I can't see arming anyone who can afford it with state of the art firepower as a solution.

And then there's all the nonsense about the Constitution backing every claim by every gun nut and the weapons manufacturers. Sorry, but there is that word "militia" that just won't go away. And since not everyone who wants a gun wants to belong to a militia....well, back to square one.
Click to expand...


apple0154 said:
Although I'm Liberal I do believe in gun ownership. Assault, theft, home invasion...if more people realized others had a firearm I believe those crimes would dramatically decrease.

Sure, the thief would possibly have a firearm but the thief would know their life was on the line any time they tried to commit a crime.

Break into a home and you could die. Mug someone and you could die. I would think it would give pause to evildoers. (LOL! I just love that word, evildoers. Makes them sound sooooo naughty!)
Click to expand...

Yep, like I said, I have NO problem with law abiding citizens owning a firearm so long as it's in accordance with State and Federal laws.

That being said, the majority of burglaries happen when the owners/occupants are NOT at home. Gun nuts will tell you that CWP lower crime rates....that's a crock, an exaggeration of some local incidences. Bottom line: NYhas the largest police force in the country to handle a dense, diverse population. The majority of NYPD DO NOT want the majority of the citizenry walking around strapped 24/7.....makes it hard to tell who's who when responding to a reported crime in progress involving armed assailants.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Yep, like I said, I have NO problem with law abiding citizens owning a firearm so long as it's in accordance with State and Federal laws.

That being said, the majority of burglaries happen when the owners/occupants are NOT at home. Gun nuts will tell you that CWP lower crime rates....that's a crock, an exaggeration of some local incidences. Bottom line: NYhas the largest police force in the country to handle a dense, diverse population. The majority of NYPD DO NOT want the majority of the citizenry walking around strapped 24/7.....makes it hard to tell who's who when responding to a reported crime in progress involving armed assailants.
Click to expand...
Then perhaps you'd be able to explain why areas with the strictest gun possession laws typically also have the highest crime rates (Chicago, Baltimore, D.C., Detroit. L.A.)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry, but there is that word "militia" that just won't go away. And since not everyone who wants a gun wants to belong to a militia....well, back to square one.
Click to expand...

Toki Wartooth said:
Really? Not in a militia you say? No genius, I DID NOT say that. I said that not everyone wants to be in a militia. The United States Code says otherwise...

Quote:
TITLE 10, CHAPTER 13:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So there's that. And then there is that pesky little word, ya know

PEOPLE

Ya know, the ones that in every other instance of the usage meaning individuals?
Click to expand...

See, this is the main problem with gunners....they have a selective view of the law. For those interested in the whole truth, here's the rest of the information that Tokik left out:

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia. So if you're NOT inclined to join the official militia (National Guard, Naval Militia (i.e., Coast Guard) then you'll have to meet the criteria to join the various STATE RECOGNIZED militias...so just because some yahoo wants to stock up on guns and then claim "I'm a member of the militia", won't cut it unless he's in accordance with state law.

Someone clue in Toki regarding his research honesty and comprehensive reading skills.
 
Last edited:
Toki Wartooth said:
Then perhaps you'd be able to explain why areas with the strictest gun possession laws typically also have the highest crime rates (Chicago, Baltimore, D.C., Detroit. L.A.)
Click to expand...

high population density or urban areas coupled with generational poverty.....the bigger the city, the bigger the state, the denser the population, the increase in unemployment...you have a high crime rate as compared to smaller cities.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
See, this is the main problem with gunners....they have a selective view of the law. For those interested in the whole truth, here's the rest of the information that Tokik left out:

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia. So if you're NOT inclined to join the official militia (National Guard, Naval Militia (i.e., Coast Guard) then you'll have to meet the criteria to join the various STATE RECOGNIZED militias...
Click to expand...
Ummm, yeah where is that part again? It mentions two classes of militia to be sure, but somehow it still fails to mention anything about the state militias? And I have a selective view of the law? It clearly states that every male, criminal history or otherwise, from ages 17-45 is a militia member, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And then there's all the nonsense about the Constitution backing every claim by every gun nut and the weapons manufacturers.
Click to expand...



Toki Wartooth said:
Also, since this is your stance, perhaps you'll be able to shed some light on this little passage of the Constitution...



ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8:
The Congress shall have Power To...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and
Reprisal , and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...

Now I'm going to assume you know what a LOMR is. So how exactly is Congress going to grant such a letter, with expectation of captures no less, if there aren't supposed to be private citizens (the only ones eligible for such letters) armed in such a way?
Click to expand...

Obviously, YOU don't know what a letter of marque was. Here, FYI: A letter of marque was issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for some wrong, such as a border incursion or seizure.

Reprisal: An act taken by a nation, short of war, to gain redress for an action taken against that nation. For example, seizing a ship in retaliation for a seized ship.



Now, since this discussion was about guns and the Constitution, let's stay on topic and see what Article 1, Section 8 had to say about that:




The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


So again, we see an OFFICIAL organization is needed by State and/or Federal gov't to enact a militia. So again, we see that one has to BELONG to a militia organized by State and/or Federal gov't, and that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to FORM MILITIAS, AND THUS BEAR ARMS. So if you're NOT a member of a militia, then you don't automatically have the right to a weapon....THAT is DETERMINED by State and Federal laws.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
See, this is the main problem with gunners....they have a selective view of the law. For those interested in the whole truth, here's the rest of the information that Tokik left out:

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia. So if you're NOT inclined to join the official militia (National Guard, Naval Militia (i.e., Coast Guard) then you'll have to meet the criteria to join the various STATE RECOGNIZED militias...
Click to expand...


Toki Wartooth said:
Ummm, yeah where is that part again? It mentions two classes of militia to be sure, but somehow it still fails to mention anything about the state militias? And I have a selective view of the law? It clearly states that every male, criminal history or otherwise, from ages 17-45 is a militia member, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Click to expand...


Well Toki, I assumed that you comprehensively read ALL the information provided regarding militias. You see, when you combine this WITH Article 1, Section 8, PLUS the Second Amendment, you see that a militia has to be recognized/organized by EITHER the state or federal gov't. Just because you are a citizen doesn't mean you automatically carry a gun until called up....we have a standing army, which can be supplemented via a draft, and a National Guard, which has replaced State militias. In any event, above describes the criteria needed to belong to militia...it does NOT mean that you are automatically a part of one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top