Stand up against the Government!

[SmarterthanYou]

Nobody want to take away your rights. What needs to be done is amend the laws to ban certain weapons to prevent further massacres of children. I believe that is a compelling government (and social) interest.

NARROWLY TAILORED!! or did you forget that part. banning certain weapons to prevent further massacres infringes on my right to obtain said weapon when I desire no such massacre to occur. so yes, you ARE taking away my rights.

Quite honestly, I'd much rather your rights be infringed than the rights of children.

so 'equal protection under the laws' really doesn't mean anything to you either. tell us, is there any part of the constitution you'd actually like to keep intact?

And so does a great majority of Americans, including members of the NRA.

which is why i'm not an NRA member. they should actually change their name to Negotiate Rights Away.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

so earlier this week when I brought up home invasions and magazine capacities to you and you countered with the odds, you were stumped for a better answer?

why? are people not allowed to defend themselves against police abuses?

On that 1st part, I think you may be confusing me w/ someone else. I don't recall bringing up odds on those things. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that was me.

As far as defending against police abuses - sometimes that's possible, and sometimes that isn't. To me, and I will bring up odds here, it's much more likely that someone gets shot & killed if a significant # of people start simply carrying guns everywhere than it is for someone to be so accosted by police that a firearm would be justified or make a difference. Road rage alone would lead to more fatalities than I think you could imagine.

It's weighing one negative against another. The idea of most of my fellow citizens carrying guns everywhere isn't one that makes me feel all fuzzy & safe, as it does some.

 

[/MSG/]

Yes and yes.

Prior to the shooting what did this kid do that should have given his mom the power to commit him? If she thought he was a danger then why didn't she limit his access to her guns?

Ok. Before I continue I agree that we should limit crazy people from getting guns. It's currently against the law already.

 

[Howey]

Ok. Before I continue I agree that we should limit crazy people from getting guns. It's currently against the law already.

Incorrect. Exhibit#1:

blah blah blah blah

at this time, yes. but with the increasing expansion of government in to medical care as well as the pervasive influence among medical board doctors, it probably won't be long until gov can define at least what mental illnesses afford people rights and deny people rights.

 

[Timshel]

Ok. Before I continue I agree that we should limit crazy people from getting guns. It's currently against the law already.

Well, then you and I are likely in agreement on gun control. I support the second amendment but unlike the gun nuts I am not opposed to any and all limits. I would also support or tolerate reasonable limits on the kinds of weapons available.

I am not too supportive of civil commitments unless there is proof that the target is dangerous. I don't see any just standard that would have been likely to allow this boy to be committed.

 

[/MSG/]

Well, then you and I are likely in agreement on gun control.

On parts.

I support the second amendment but unlike the gun nuts I am not opposed to any and all limits. I would also support or tolerate reasonable limits on the kinds of weapons available.

That's contradictory. Especially with 2 USSC cases that prohibit such limitations.

I am not too supportive of civil commitments unless there is proof that the target is dangerous. I don't see any just standard that would have been likely to allow this boy to be committed.

The system needs renovation. It's not the only problem there is, but it's still a problem.

 

[Timshel]

On parts.
That's contradictory. Especially with 2 USSC cases that prohibit such limitations.

Which cases?

Should citizens be able to own a nuclear weapon? What is the bright red line limiting what is an is not acceptable?

The system needs renovation. It's not the only problem there is, but it's still a problem.

I don't see how it is the least bit relevant to this case. Unless you can articulate a standard that would have applied to the boy it seems to be a red herring.

 

[apple0154]

maybe I should get more specific.

what weaponry do you believe that would be used against us, by the military.

feel free to list all that you can think of...

Whatever is necessary. The people voted for the government meaning the government represents the majority of the people. The people opposed to the government are the minority. What kind of perverted logic would cause someone to think the government would not do everything in it's power to remain in power when it was voted in by the majority of the people?

As for fighting the government the rebels would be in small groups. Everyone in that group would have to accept a complete life change contrary to the people in the US Armed Services. They work in "shifts", for lack of a better definition. After so much fighting they go to their home and a regular family. Such is not the case for the rebels because they are not organized the same way as the military.

As another poster noted look what happened during the Civil War. The military stops by a house and Mr. Jones isn't weeding his garden or tending the animals. That means he must be with the rebels so they loot his house and then burn it down. Now what has Mr. Jones gained? A similar approach could be used today. Where is the owner of the house? Is he at work? It wouldn't be too difficult to find out if he is a rebel and take his things, cancel his CC, etc. Now Mr. Jones gets to live the true life. Although they may not burn down his home they confiscate it. No home. No bank account. Nothing but the clothes on his back.

You tell me how many people are going to choose that life because they don't like ObamaCare or aren't willing to pay a few dollars in increased taxes? Oh, they won't be on their knees, as you like to phrase it. They'll be standing on their feet because they won't even have a chair to sit on! Gone. Everything gone. And as you folks like to say nobody owes anybody anything so Mr. Jones ends up with nothing. And he won't have to worry about paying taxes because he won't have a job. And you nutters believe all those loud mouth, week-end warriors are going to join you in a rebellion? HA! They'll be at home watching TV, having a nice dinner, laughing at the utter stupidity of people like yourself.

For your own sake get out of that sick cult you're in. As your Mamma probably told you at one time you're hanging with the wrong crowd. And just like innocent people are blacklisted (no fly, etc) you just may end up being associated with something you had nothing to do with.

Save yourself, son. Dissociate yourself from the nutters.

 

[/MSG/]

Which cases?

US v. Miller which said weapons of military utility are protected, and DC v. Heller which said weapons in common use are also protected.

Should citizens be able to own a nuclear weapon? What is the bright red line limiting what is an is not acceptable?

Either of military utility or in common use. Nuclear weapons do not apply to either (additionally we have signed international treaties against such things).

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Incorrect. Exhibit#1:

actually, as usual, you are wrong. he was talking about the difference between professional psychiatrists vs. the government saying who is crazy.

maybe you aren't a liar, you're just really, really dumb.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

On that 1st part, I think you may be confusing me w/ someone else. I don't recall bringing up odds on those things. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that was me.

that might have been Dung, if so I apologize.

As far as defending against police abuses - sometimes that's possible, and sometimes that isn't. To me, and I will bring up odds here, it's much more likely that someone gets shot & killed if a significant # of people start simply carrying guns everywhere than it is for someone to be so accosted by police that a firearm would be justified or make a difference. Road rage alone would lead to more fatalities than I think you could imagine.

I have read 6 stories in the last two weeks of cops or corrections officers raping women. I've not read but two road rage cases in that time and one of those involved an off duty cop......

It's weighing one negative against another. The idea of most of my fellow citizens carrying guns everywhere isn't one that makes me feel all fuzzy & safe, as it does some.

so like apple, you trust the government more than citizens?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Incorrect. Exhibit#1:

you are one of the last 3 people that should be diagnosing anyone. right behind desh and darla

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Whatever is necessary. The people voted for the government meaning the government represents the majority of the people. The people opposed to the government are the minority. What kind of perverted logic would cause someone to think the government would not do everything in it's power to remain in power when it was voted in by the majority of the people?

so you would approve of the government nuking nashville, if a rebel group large enough existed there?

As for fighting the government the rebels would be in small groups. Everyone in that group would have to accept a complete life change contrary to the people in the US Armed Services. They work in "shifts", for lack of a better definition. After so much fighting they go to their home and a regular family. Such is not the case for the rebels because they are not organized the same way as the military.

you do not have a full grasp of how military combat works, therefore i'm loathe to give much more of this post any credibility

As another poster noted look what happened during the Civil War. The military stops by a house and Mr. Jones isn't weeding his garden or tending the animals. That means he must be with the rebels so they loot his house and then burn it down. Now what has Mr. Jones gained? A similar approach could be used today. Where is the owner of the house? Is he at work? It wouldn't be too difficult to find out if he is a rebel and take his things, cancel his CC, etc. Now Mr. Jones gets to live the true life. Although they may not burn down his home they confiscate it. No home. No bank account. Nothing but the clothes on his back.

how long do you think the slash and burn tactic would keep the rest of the citizenry endeared to the federal government? you burn one mans home and the rest of his family is going to take offense. you take the property of one man, you add 6 more to the rebel army. is that sound tactics?

You tell me how many people are going to choose that life because they don't like ObamaCare or aren't willing to pay a few dollars in increased taxes? Oh, they won't be on their knees, as you like to phrase it. They'll be standing on their feet because they won't even have a chair to sit on! Gone. Everything gone. And as you folks like to say nobody owes anybody anything so Mr. Jones ends up with nothing. And he won't have to worry about paying taxes because he won't have a job. And you nutters believe all those loud mouth, week-end warriors are going to join you in a rebellion? HA! They'll be at home watching TV, having a nice dinner, laughing at the utter stupidity of people like yourself.

the military people have families that would then be in danger. so do the politicians. don't think for even one second that people left with nowhere to go would not resort to the same rules of warfare. that would include you. people would know that you collaborated and it would mark you as a target.

For your own sake get out of that sick cult you're in. As your Mamma probably told you at one time you're hanging with the wrong crowd. And just like innocent people are blacklisted (no fly, etc) you just may end up being associated with something you had nothing to do with.

should I join your cult of state worshipping then??

 

[Timshel]

US v. Miller which said weapons of military utility are protected, and DC v. Heller which said weapons in common use are also protected.

Either of military utility or in common use. Nuclear weapons do not apply to either (additionally we have signed international treaties against such things).

"we therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amednemnt does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barerled shotguns." ... "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M - 16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefactory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty" Scalia's Opinion for the Majority in Heller.

You have misunderstood. It is military utility AND in common use.

 

[apple0154]

so you would approve of the government nuking nashville, if a rebel group large enough existed there?

I’m sure there would be alternatives, however, if the survival of the democratic US was at stake then all options are on the table. As absurd as a nuclear option is it’s just as absurd to believe the US government would surrender to a bunch of rebels. That’s my point.

you do not have a full grasp of how military combat works, therefore i'm loathe to give much more of this post any credibility

HA! Talk about credibility. I have been humoring you and your absurd posts/logic. Once a rebel becomes known his/her life is over. The US government will not fall and every nutter will be caught and locked up like the animals they are.

how long do you think the slash and burn tactic would keep the rest of the citizenry endeared to the federal government? you burn one mans home and the rest of his family is going to take offense. you take the property of one man, you add 6 more to the rebel army. is that sound tactics?

Not necessarily burn the home. Confiscate it and lock up the rebel. And, yes, the people would support that. The rebels would be disrupting people’s lives and people don’t like their life disrupted and they sure as hell wouldn’t want it disrupted because a few nutters (sorry for repeating that word but I love it!) are against ObamaCare or extended UI benefits or helping the needy or have some insane idea socialism is invading the government.

the military people have families that would then be in danger. so do the politicians. don't think for even one second that people left with nowhere to go would not resort to the same rules of warfare. that would include you. people would know that you collaborated and it would mark you as a target.

Can’t you understand it would be the rebels who would hide like rats in a sewer. The people would not side with you. Try to understand you wouldn’t get the numbers necessary. People are not going to give up their life and live like a fugitive because they have to pay a few cents more in taxes knowing the government will help them in a time of illness and unemployment.

The election gave then a clear choice. Toilet brushes for the poor kids, let the unemployed starve, to hell with the 47% of takers verses medical care and UI extensions and other social benefits. The choice was made and the ideas your side believe in were soundly rejected.

As for targeting people, yea, that’s a good way to get conscripts. Join us to fight against a democratically elected government, allow us to free you from democracy, or we’ll kill you. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

should I join your cult of state worshipping then??

No, the first thing you should do is get deprogrammed. Then educated on what a civil society is all about and have someone explain to you that your interpretation of what the Founding Fathers desired is so far off base its absurd. What was written over 200 years ago was appropriate for that time to fulfill their desires. Their desires do not change over time, however, the method to achieve them will and does. That’s why they arranged for a way to change the Constitution. They knew it would have to be changed as society progressed. The problem, today, is some people have not progressed along with the majority of society, the majority who voted for Obama. The majority who want medical care and other social programs suitable for the times.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

that might have been Dung, if so I apologize.

I have read 6 stories in the last two weeks of cops or corrections officers raping women. I've not read but two road rage cases in that time and one of those involved an off duty cop......

so like apple, you trust the government more than citizens?

That's an interesting way to put it, and wouldn't be my characterization. By sheer #'s, I think there are more nutters in the general populace than in the police. There may be a higher % in the police - but there are simply many more in the general populace.

And no, I don't want to see those nutters walking around w/ guns all of the time.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

"we therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amednemnt does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barerled shotguns." ... "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M - 16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefactory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty" Scalia's Opinion for the Majority in Heller.

You have misunderstood. It is military utility AND in common use.

you gave no link and it looks like it is from a left wing site. if you read the actual language, you will see you don't really understand what was said.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

assault rifles seem to be typically possessed. now, a court could disagree with me, but given the ar-15 is one of the most popular guns sold, i think the argument against typical possession would be hard pressed to win.

as we can also see, there is precedent that arms are for self defense of person and home.

 

[Timshel]

you gave no link and it looks like it is from a left wing site. if you read the actual language, you will see you don't really understand what was said.

assault rifles seem to be typically possessed. now, a court could disagree with me, but given the ar-15 is one of the most popular guns sold, i think the argument against typical possession would be hard pressed to win.

as we can also see, there is precedent that arms are for self defense of person and home.

I quoted directly from Scalia's opinion.

 

[Phantasmal]

Well then there is no point because the government can shut down free speech whenever it wants. It controls communication satellites, the internet, can block radio transmissions and phone calls, and obviously controls what does and doesn't go on TV. No point in free speech since the government can shut it down.

See, it s just an allusion, like personal freedom.

 

[Howey]

you gave no link and it looks like it is from a left wing site.

I quoted directly from Scalia's opinion.

Ouch!

That hurt!