How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

[Abatis]

Apparently you have a problem with comprehension.

Not at all. I see through the diversionary chaff that gets thrown up when anti's are directly challenged.

My reason for posting this thread was in #115. Your positions and those of everyone else who answered the true/false questions were not all
identical. Those who answered are all strong supporters of gun rights so how can it be that their interpretations varied?

So you ask for rebuttals to the article you linked to and extrapolated a series of true-false from that piece but until the rebuttals / comments consolidate into a singularity of opinion you refuse to defend your statements or address any of the challenges?

Wow, that must be nice.

That is my point, that reasonable people can disagree about a document and its provisions that was written over 225 years ago.

Sure, disagreements can happen but when outright provable deception has been presented as "fantastic" then it will be called out.

You immediately defaulted to insult over Burger's comments and called him a sell-out.

And you have yet to offer any opinion on his Parade statements and offer any meaningful commentary on the apparent contradiction with his PBS "quote" (which neither Politico or you ever provide).

Apparently you can't comprehend that views evolve and that people aren't locked into an opinion throughout their lives. If you have evidence that his views tainted any SC decisions, post it.

I already said that Burger never uttered a word about the right to arms or the 2nd Amendment in any opinion or concurrence or dissent that he wrote. I only pointed out that what he is purported to be saying on PBS (the invented quote that Politico published) and his editorial in Parade a year earlier are inconsistent. If you want to chalk that up to evolution of opinion then there isn't much for us discuss. Please find the original video or transcript of the PBS show, then maybe we can debate if the Politico's invented phraseology represents what he actually said.

It doesn't help your argument to slam Burger because his personal views changed over time. I'm certain you wouldn't have called him a schizophrenic clod if his view had changed from anti- to pro-.

It doesn't help your argument to cite a made-up quote simply because it confirms your bias, defend Burgers credentials as a lawyer and jurist without ever actually quoting his opinion on the bench (or even providing the actual quote you are relying on) or being aware of his earlier comments.

No guns are being grabbed in this country. That is just another fear mongering meme used to stir up those who are too dumb to know better and it's worked ever since La Pierre took over the NRA. You doubtless have no problem with his hyperbole about "jack-booted government thugs" yet you insult Burger because he suggested four very reasonable remedies to try and curb the gun violence in America:

Please confine your replies to me to what I have said. I reject being told what my opinions are and what I believe.

It's funny that you accuse me of attacking Burger "because he suggested four very reasonable remedies to try and curb the gun violence in America" yet someone else called me out for omitting exactly that. Really, isn't there enough in my posts to challenge me on without needing to invnt positions for me? Besides, I would think that since continuity and uniformity of argument is so important to you, you would pay much closer attention to what the other gun control supporters are saying

.

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1) to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?

BATFE 4473

2)to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?

A 5 day waiting period was in effect during the Brady interim period (February 28, 1994 - November 30, 1998). The actual impact of that on gun crime was inconclusive; the only discernible benefit was a decline in suicide among people over 55 y.o. CDC.

3) that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?

I would support opening the NICS to private individuals.

4) to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?

Proven to be ineffectual and a complete waste of law enforcement resources and money.

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years

These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquility" promised in the Constitution.

As you can see Burger's wish list either already happens (1), it has been tried and proven useless (2 & 4) or it is within the powers of government to do but TPTB refuse (3).

Perhaps you can take a stab at answering what I, Burger and millions of Americans want to know: how can gun violence in this country be reduced? Perhaps you can do it without resorting to insults, but I doubt it.

No problem.

1) Decriminalize recreational drug use, reallocate interdiction / enforcement / prosecution budget lines to wherever needed among the following:
2) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
3) Limit the use of weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.
4) Eliminate the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors.
5) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
6) Enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession with reduced appeal opportunities.
7) Mandate states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including a red flag for mental issues - HIPPA be damned). and this be shared with the federal system and all other states.
8) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.
9) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
10) Enact a nationwide concealed weapon permit system for law-abiding citizens that no state or municipality can opt out of.​

If these steps were taken criminal firearm homicide would fall 50%+ in 3 years.

 

[kaz]

1) Decriminalize recreational drug use, reallocate interdiction / enforcement / prosecution budget lines to wherever needed among the following:
2) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
3) Limit the use of weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.
4) Eliminate the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors.
5) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
6) Enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession with reduced appeal opportunities.
7) Mandate states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including a red flag for mental issues - HIPPA be damned). and this be shared with the federal system and all other states.
8) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.
9) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
10) Enact a nationwide concealed weapon permit system for law-abiding citizens that no state or municipality can opt out of.​

If these steps were taken criminal firearm homicide would fall 50%+ in 3 years.

Great proposals!

 

[christiefan915]

Socialists are the worst. At least you can go away from a racist. Socialists use guns to force you to comply with your tyranny. No one is free

See SmilinJack posts. He claims that martial law is coming and he's a racist, not a socialist.

 

[kaz]

See SmilinJack posts. He claims that martial law is coming and he's a racist, not a socialist.

Thanks for trying to point me, but since I have no idea who that is or what their positions are, your post doesn't really clarify much for me. But I'll try to remember if I come across them

 

[evince]

Libertarianism founded The United States of America. What do you have?

see your right wing talking points are crap

 

[kaz]

see your right wing talking points are crap

So again, I'm "right wing?" My positions of being for example pro-life and against the Iraq war are irrelevant to you? All that matters is anyone who is a threat to your welfare check?

 

[evince]

you are right wing you fucking idiot,

go ahead and try to lie fucktard.


when you carry right wing water expect to be called right wing you fucking racist

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So again, I'm "right wing?" My positions of being for example pro-life and against the Iraq war are irrelevant to you? All that matters is anyone who is a threat to your welfare check?

You are new here. You see Deshtard aka Evince is our resident crackhead. For real. She has admitted to it. As such her brain is only capable of simplistic binary thinking.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

you are right wing you fucking idiot,

go ahead and try to lie fucktard.


when you carry right wing water expect to be called right wing you fucking racist

Fuck off crack head.

I hope you die in a house fire

 

[kaz]

You are new here. You see Deshtard aka Evince is our resident crackhead. For real. She has admitted to it. As such her brain is only capable of simplistic binary thinking.

that explains a lot

 

[Taichiliberal]

That rings hollow since nobody here can muster a rebuttal to my screeds that consists of anything more intelligent than calling me a poopyhead.

It's pretty pathetic; it's either vulgar name-calling or the withering OP who begins with Wizard of Oz bluster and brass balls swinging and then slinks away like a kicked puppy when he gets exactly what he demanded be provided. And now you come along and want to talk about logical flaws???

The side with the flaws in logic is your side; both the OP and the article linked to in the OP begin with egregious examples of logical flaws. The OP makes a statement that is actually true and in reality destroys his position but proceeds to pervert it to make an anti-constitutional argument:



It is absolutely correct that the founders [framers] never intended to create any right to arms (absolute or otherwise). The framers embraced the concept of conferred powers and retained rights and founded the Constitution on those intermingled principles. That means we don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution . . . We possess the right to arms because "We the People" never parted with it -- no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. The right to arms doesn't exist in the words of the 2nd Amendment; it exists in the silence in the body of the Constitution.

I tried to challenge the OP directly on this point regarding his comment on Cruikshank; that because the Court said the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution that means there is no individual right to arms. He/she refuses to explain their logic for that statement, instead chooses to tell me I missed the context. What bullshit.

So, why would your side engage in such logical flaws? This assignment of a constitutionally erroneous position to their opposition allows the anti to begin his argument from what he perceives as common ground -- that the right flows from the 2nd Amendment and is dependent upon the 2nd -- and allows him to constrain the debate on what the words allow the people to do.

This is the logical flaw upon which the entire "state's right" / "militia right" / "collective right" anti-gun argument is grounded; that the 2nd Amendment grants / gives / creates / establishes the right it mentions (whatever it may be).

If one wants to bemoan a fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud' perpetrated upon the nation, that millions of constitutional imbeciles believe, there you go.



Again, I quoted the Parade comments to demonstrate that Burger was a senile clod. I was not citing him as an authority, I was exposing his constitutional schizophrenia.



And there goes another assignment of a position (absolute right) that only exists in the arguments of anti-gunners. I've enjoyed debating gun rights / gun control since 1993 and if there has been one constant point of idiocy, it is that . . . For once I would like to see an anti actually debate what a gun rights supporter has said instead of the strawman they have convinced themselves gun rights people believe.



That's nonsensical. You (and Wandering Warren) want us to recognize that the object of the 2nd Amendment was to perpetuate the militia and assign a militia focused conditioning on the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to arms . . . But then exclude the types of arms that would be useful in the common defense, substituting "sporting [hunting] guns.

Which side is arguing logical flaws again?

If you want to adhere strictly to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, the only firearms that enjoy near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment are modern semi-auto, hi-cap civilian versions of a military rifle, i.e., AK-47, AR-15 in .223/5.56mm or .308/7.62mm caliber and semi-auto pistols in 9mm, .40 or .45 caliber.

Why?

The criteria established by the Supreme Court in 1939 to decide the question of whether the government possesses the power to restrict possession and use of a type of arm is three pronged . . . If the gun is of a type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment, and/or of a type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizenry, and/or of a type in common use by the citizens at that time, then a claim by the government that it possesses a power to restrain the possession and use of that arm is either repelled or invalidated if already in effect.

What's nonsensical is your apparent belief that your opinion, supposition and conjecture are substitutes for FACTS. You can't get around or pass how the parade quote by Burger neutralizes your screeds, so you just dismiss him as senile...an opinion of yours that holds no water.

And spare us all this BS about the "intent" of the 2nd amendment...because when all is said and done folk of your mindset CANNOT separate and dismiss parts of it that you don't like....it's a comprehensive and conclusive paragraph/sentence.

And your revisionism to include ASSAULT WEAPONS as part of HUNTING rifles is pathetic. The classifications (names) says it all. So if you want to be part of a militia, you get assault weapons. You want to own guns in general (shot guns, hunting rifles, hand guns for house protection), you got that right of purchase and STATE REGULATION in accordance with FEDERAL law. As it stands, the adaptability of the AR-15 keeps it just shy of the former fate of the AK-47....now the dummies in gov't are going to let the latter back onto the open market....more goodies easily accessible for right wing nut jobs, criminals and crazies.

Now you'll just inundate this thread with various regurgitation of your previous screeds, but as I said, your supposition, conjecture and opinion coupled with bits and parts of law and historical reference are not cutting it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
omission of what doesn't fit into their revisionism and beliefs seems to be the cornerstone of many of the gunners arguments.

Well, given all I've written in this thread you should have no problem finding something to challenge me directly on and back up this bald claim.

All you've written is just your personal interpretations of historical fact and law....in other words, what part of historical fact you don't like you try to substitute your opinion, supposition and conjecture as factual analysis or dismiss out of hand...and as Christiefan has demonstrated time and again, that dog of yours won't fly. I don't rehash things for your parroting and denial. the chronology of the thread is your undoing, whether you concede a point or remain insipidly stubborn.

 

[The Dude]

The NRA jihad is not new

 

[Abatis]

What's nonsensical is your apparent belief that your opinion, supposition and conjecture are substitutes for FACTS.

My arguments are grounded solidly in the foundational principles and actual action of the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Please quote specifically what you believe to be untrue or mere conjecture.

You can't get around or pass how the parade quote by Burger neutralizes your screeds, so you just dismiss him as senile...an opinion of yours that holds no water.

Burger's quotes are of zero consequence. Those are not the words of a sitting justice writing for the majority. He's John Q Citizen writing an opinion piece in a magazine. Just like Justice Stevens' "five words", it has no weight, it serves no legal purpose except to expose the vapidness of leftist wishful thinking, pining for how they want things to be.

And spare us all this BS about the "intent" of the 2nd amendment...because when all is said and done folk of your mindset CANNOT separate and dismiss parts of it that you don't like....it's a comprehensive and conclusive paragraph/sentence.

Anyone who reads the 2nd Amendment and interprets conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the right is acting in direct opposition to 140 years of Supreme Court direction on what the 2nd means. Since the right to arms is a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT and is not granted / given / created / established by the words of the 2nd Amendment, that means the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. THAT also means that a citizen's right to arms can not be said to be contingent upon his attachment to a structure that is itself entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (that being the organized state militias). You are arguing constitutional gibberish and nonsense.

And your revisionism to include ASSAULT WEAPONS as part of HUNTING rifles is pathetic.

Huh? Where did I do that. I clearly state that if one wants to apply the militia purpose to the protection sphere of the 2nd Amendment, ONLY MILITARY TYPE ARMS can be said to be protected. Hunting [sporting] arms are protected only as far as they can be demonstrated to be useful in warfare and/or in common use by the citizenry.

I realize you would rather eat fire ants than understand that the primary protection criteria that the Supreme Court uses to determine if the possession and use of a gun by a private citizen is protected by the 2nd is its effectiveness in killing people, not animals. Close the ThinkProgress window and read US v Miller will ya!

The classifications (names) says it all. So if you want to be part of a militia, you get assault weapons. You want to own guns in general (shot guns, hunting rifles, hand guns for house protection), you got that right of purchase and STATE REGULATION in accordance with FEDERAL law. As it stands, the adaptability of the AR-15 keeps it just shy of the former fate of the AK-47....now the dummies in gov't are going to let the latter back onto the open market....more goodies easily accessible for right wing nut jobs, criminals and crazies.

Ya got anything to back that foolishness up besides some Thom Hartmann or Bloomberg propaganda?

Now you'll just inundate this thread with various regurgitation of your previous screeds, but as I said, your supposition, conjecture and opinion coupled with bits and parts of law and historical reference are not cutting it.

Sez the guy who can't quote any specific point to challenge, can't offer a single verifiable citation to support his arguments but instead just dismisses everything.

 

[Abatis]

All you've written is just your personal interpretations of historical fact and law....in other words, what part of historical fact you don't like you try to substitute your opinion, supposition and conjecture as factual analysis or dismiss out of hand...and as Christiefan has demonstrated time and again, that dog of yours won't fly. I don't rehash things for your parroting and denial. the chronology of the thread is your undoing, whether you concede a point or remain insipidly stubborn.

Please cite the historical facts and/or law that contradicts me or explain my misinterpretation, just one specific instance should be easy . . . .

Remind me, wasn't christiefan the person who asked for rebuttals and then begged off addressing them?

Where the hell did he score a single point in his non-debate with me?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

omission of what doesn't fit into their revisionism and beliefs seems to be the cornerstone of many of the gunners arguments.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

they like gun violence

we like rights, liberty, and freedom you dumbass. unlike you, traitor

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
omission of what doesn't fit into their revisionism and beliefs seems to be the cornerstone of many of the gunners arguments.

Sorry to inform you, STY, but some joker on TV regurgitating NRA talking points, PARTIAL historical reviews mixed with opinion isn't proving a damned thing nor disproving what Christie put forth in her OP. Like I always say, gunners just LOVE to try to substitute their opinion, supposition and conjecture as FACT. You leave out what you don't like. This dance has been done, and you can stubbornly step on your own feet to insipidness.

 

[christiefan915]

Sorry to inform you, STY, but some joker on TV regurgitating NRA talking points, PARTIAL historical reviews mixed with opinion isn't proving a damned thing nor disproving what Christie put forth in her OP. Like I always say, gunners just LOVE to try to substitute their opinion, supposition and conjecture as FACT. You leave out what you don't like. This dance has been done, and you can stubbornly step on your own feet to insipidness.

Ben Swann's an anti-vaxxer conspiracy nut so I'm taking anything he says about anything with a grain of salt.

 

[J Craft]

Can we please ask all anti gun ownership folks to kindly invite ISiS members to your home for the holiday season....and don't forget to invite your gay relations to join you, your kooky poll dancing cousin, and that feminist zealot aunt. Should make for a booming success.