Armed homeowner who defended family in driveway shoot-out says he's been stripped of

Uncensored2008 said:
ROFL

Heller massively increased the civil rights of Americans. Did you actually think Heller was a big win for your Reich? Heller codified in the court the fact that "The People" in the second amendment are the same "People" in the first, fourth, and tenth. You of the anti-liberty left lost big with Heller.



You need a better hate blog to do your thinking for you, dumber. One that has actually read Heller.
Click to expand...

Yep Heller was a lose for the gun grabbers
 
domer76 said:
Heller said you are a fucking idiot about your claims.
Click to expand...

Sure sploogy.

Just as I have posted, and you disagreed, it said you cannot have every kind of gun, in every location, whenever you want. That there can be restrictions on manufacture, sale and transport.

But, you are to fucking ignorant to figure that out.
Click to expand...

Moron, Heller was ground breaking in that it confirmed the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep a firearm. The Bolshevik Rulers in DC were EVISCERATED by the gutting of their anti-liberty edicts.

{The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).

Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.}

You lost BIG on Heller. All of the losses you have suffered subsequent are founded on the Heller acknowledgment that individuals have civil rights.

It is HILLARIOUS that you Stalinist fucks are trying to recast Heller as some sort of "win" for your anti-liberty gun grabbing.

You again earn your name, dumber.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Sure sploogy.



Moron, Heller was ground breaking in that it confirmed the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep a firearm. The Bolshevik Rulers in DC were EVISCERATED by the gutting of their anti-liberty edicts.

{The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).

Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.}

You lost BIG on Heller. All of the losses you have suffered subsequent are founded on the Heller acknowledgment that individuals have civil rights.

It is HILLARIOUS that you Stalinist fucks are trying to recast Heller as some sort of "win" for your anti-liberty gun grabbing.

You again earn your name, dumber.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. :laugh:
 
what Dumber76, in her idiocy, refuses to acknowledge, is that the founders did not create a limited government and then hand over the power to define those limits to that very government. she seems to believe that this is exactly what the founders did, which is the absolute height of stupidity.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what Dumber76, in her idiocy, refuses to acknowledge, is that the founders did not create a limited government and then hand over the power to define those limits to that very government.

she seems to believe that this is exactly what the founders did, which is the absolute height of stupidity.
Click to expand...
He's a he, not a her.

Agreed on limiting powers of the Federal government which is why we have elections; We, the People decide upon what our governments should do.

He's an example of Poe's Law.
86q51w.jpg
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Sure sploogy.



Moron, Heller was ground breaking in that it confirmed the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep a firearm. The Bolshevik Rulers in DC were EVISCERATED by the gutting of their anti-liberty edicts.

{The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).

Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.}

You lost BIG on Heller. All of the losses you have suffered subsequent are founded on the Heller acknowledgment that individuals have civil rights.

It is HILLARIOUS that you Stalinist fucks are trying to recast Heller as some sort of "win" for your anti-liberty gun grabbing.

You again earn your name, dumber.
Click to expand...

I could give you a history lesson on the origin of the 2nd, what was actually intended and how the right to bear arms was viewed throughout our history until the NRA started their campaign to change judicial interpretations of it, but it would fall on deaf ears because you’re too fucking stupid to absorb it. Just as you’re too fucking stupid to absorb what Heller REALLY said.
 
domer76 said:
I could give you a history lesson on the origin of the 2nd, what was actually intended and how the right to bear arms was viewed throughout our history until the NRA started their campaign to change judicial interpretations of it, but it would fall on deaf ears because you’re too fucking stupid to absorb it. Just as you’re too fucking stupid to absorb what Heller REALLY said.
Click to expand...

no, you can't. you've tried and failed using a single REJECTED amendment. I've given this board the actual history, combined with over a dozen commentaries and quotes confirming individual rights theory, but in your ignorant disbelief, you idiots call them out of context.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it was intentional, because he acts like a pissed off little girl
Click to expand...

Sorry, I got lost in the names. I thought you were referencing Tigerred, not Domer.

You and I can agree all the political extremists on JPP act intentionally. Whether they act rationally or not is a different discussion. IMO, mostly not since they tend to react emotionally over rationality.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, you can't. you've tried and failed using a single REJECTED amendment. I've given this board the actual history, combined with over a dozen commentaries and quotes confirming individual rights theory, but in your ignorant disbelief, you idiots call them out of context.
Click to expand...

You’ve proven many times that you don’t know shit from Shinola, pal. Your posts are laughable.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Sorry, I got lost in the names. I thought you were referencing Tigerred, not Domer.

You and I can agree all the political extremists on JPP act intentionally. Whether they act rationally or not is a different discussion. IMO, mostly not since they tend to react emotionally over rationality.
Click to expand...

you're the one who admits to being a traumatized dumb ape.
 
Last edited:
I am already suspecting Foul Play! And I bet the Police are as well, and is the reason why they temporarily suspending his Carry License!

If you watch the video, some things do not make any sense. To me, the entire thing looked staged. Like something you would see in a Hollywood Hero Movie.

We do not know the history of this homeowner. But the police do, as he has been seen on Fox News several times now, after this incident.

And he has told Fox News this story about his home being recently robbed, and as he told it, everything in his house of any value was taken in the recent robbery.

Well, if that is true, then the L.A. Police were already investigating that crime, and they may have suspicions that he may have been scamming his insurance company by staging that crime scene, and falsely reporting that as a crime, as well.

I do not have enough information to know if he staged the incidents or not, or if this is even an issue, BUT THE POLICE MAY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO SUSPECT BOTH ALLEGED CRIMES WERE STAGED AND A PUBLICITY STUNT!

I'll wait to hear back from the L.A. Police Department after they have investigated these alleged crimes.
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
I could give you a history lesson on the origin of the 2nd, what was actually intended and how the right to bear arms was viewed throughout our history until the NRA started their campaign to change judicial interpretations of it, but it would fall on deaf ears because you’re too fucking stupid to absorb it. Just as you’re too fucking stupid to absorb what Heller REALLY said.
Click to expand...

You mean you could lie to me using gun grabbing fables?

The problem is that I'm vastly smarter, vastly better educated, and vastly more knowledgeable regarding the subject at hand. Ergo, the lies and distortions you offer will be countered, which will cause you to pout and have temper tantrums.

You made a fool of yourself over Heller. Again I urge you to find a different hate site to do your thinking for you. You clearly had no idea what the case involved. Somehow you thought it was a win for the anti-liberty left. It's amusing, but your embarrassment is well earned.
 
domer76 said:
You’ve proven many times that you don’t know shit from Shinola, pal. Your posts are laughable.
Click to expand...

I hardly need to point out the irony of your post given the embarrassing failure to grasp the Heller decision. You've well proven that you have no fucking idea what you are babbling about. You misread some HGI blog and started spouting off, with no clue about what a fool you were making of yourself.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
You mean you could lie to me using gun grabbing fables?

The problem is that I'm vastly smarter, vastly better educated, and vastly more knowledgeable regarding the subject at hand. Ergo, the lies and distortions you offer will be countered, which will cause you to pout and have temper tantrums.

You made a fool of yourself over Heller. Again I urge you to find a different hate site to do your thinking for you. You clearly had no idea what the case involved. Somehow you thought it was a win for the anti-liberty left. It's amusing, but your embarrassment is well earned.
Click to expand...

You have Heller so fucked up, but you’re too fucking stupid to realize it. Pretty fucking funny.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I hardly need to point out the irony of your post given the embarrassing failure to grasp the Heller decision. You've well proven that you have no fucking idea what you are babbling about. You misread some HGI blog and started spouting off, with no clue about what a fool you were making of yourself.
Click to expand...

I don’t do blogs, bitch. But, I know Heller inside and out. And that allows me to laugh at your ignorance of it.

Fucking clown.
 
domer76 said:
I don’t do blogs, bitch. But, I know Heller inside and out. And that allows me to laugh at your ignorance of it.

Fucking clown.
Click to expand...

You are an echo of the various anti-civil liberties blogs. HGI, Everytown, Gifford, et al.

The problem is that you have so little knowledge of the facts that you read some idiocy on these hate sites, then repeat it out of context never understanding that the source was disingenuous leaving what you post sheer idiocy.

The Americans have a problem. They are on the "wrong" side of abortion. It's a loser at the polls for them. Contrast that with your Reich, which has its own problem with civil rights. Opposing abortion hurts the GOP, opposing civil rights hurts the fascist democrats.

You are solidly on the wrong side of the right to defend one's life and property - you are opposed by the overwhelming majority of the public. Your Reich is solidly pro-criminal and at the same time trying to disarm the victims.

I urge you to continue to ignorantly push this agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top