Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Prepared to be boggled...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586

    Prepared to be boggled...

    Another message board, discussing the recent Idaho incident after Christmas... one guy is adamant on his position, despite numerous corrections.

    Quote Originally Posted by IdiotFromNY
    1. It is the plain text of 2A. "Arms" in its plural form is not a reference to "all arms". It is a reference to "more than one arm."
    2. The right is not to keep and bear your arms. The right is to keep and bear arms. If you move, visit, or travel through California, then as long as you can keep and bear arms, then there is no infringement. If the arms you currently keep and bear are not permitted within CA, then you will need to keep and bear arms that are permitted. Infringement is not contingent on whether or not your personal preferences for what arms you keep and bear are met.


    Idiots gonna idiot.

  2. #2
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    Another message board, discussing the recent Idaho incident after Christmas... one guy is adamant on his position, despite numerous corrections.





    Idiots gonna idiot.
    Sounds like a blatant troll has succeeded in doing what trolls do: trolling otherwise reasonably intelligent folks into oblivion.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Easy to argue the meaning of the word "arms" when you ignore the meaning of the word "infringed."
    Last edited by MAC702; 01-12-2015 at 02:37 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Originally Posted by IdiotFromNY
    --snipped--
    Some would say that this screen/user nom de plume is very telling
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Some would say that this screen/user nom de plume is very telling
    I thought maybe the op changed the NY guy's name for entertainment value.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 01-12-2015 at 07:43 PM.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I thought maybe the op changed the NY guy's name for entertainment value.
    True, but we won't know until we find out whether the slipper fits.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    So all of you are saying, among other things, that California's Approved Firearm List in unconstitutional? Please cite the sucessful court challenge that established that interpretation.

    My CLEO will sign off on pretty much any machinegun short of an electric-fired gatling gun. Is his rejection of my application to buy/possess a M-134 unconstitutional? Please cite the court case that established that.

    Heller established that, in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia, there is a right to possess a handgun in the home and to possess any firearm in a condition ready to use as opposed to being secured by a mechanical lock and the ammunition secured somewhere removed from the firearm. McDonald made that ruling applicable to the states. Neither of them open up possession of any firearm of one's choosing.

    IdiotFromNY may be an idiot but he does seem to have a basic understanding of how things are in non-Bizzaro World. Well, except for his interpretation of the plurality of the word "arms". That needs some refinement.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    So all of you are saying, among other things, that California's Approved Firearm List in unconstitutional? Please cite the sucessful court challenge that established that interpretation.

    My CLEO will sign off on pretty much any machinegun short of an electric-fired gatling gun. Is his rejection of my application to buy/possess a M-134 unconstitutional? Please cite the court case that established that.

    Heller established that, in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia, there is a right to possess a handgun in the home and to possess any firearm in a condition ready to use as opposed to being secured by a mechanical lock and the ammunition secured somewhere removed from the firearm. McDonald made that ruling applicable to the states. Neither of them open up possession of any firearm of one's choosing.

    IdiotFromNY may be an idiot but he does seem to have a basic understanding of how things are in non-Bizzaro World. Well, except for his interpretation of the plurality of the word "arms". That needs some refinement.

    stay safe.
    It may be idealistic but hardly bizzaro. The current infringements are not unconstitutional because the government says so? Not the kind of talk I would expect from you.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    It may be idealistic but hardly bizzaro. The current infringements are not unconstitutional because the government says so? Not the kind of talk I would expect from you.
    Why is that?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Why is that?
    Because there was some quite famous Virginians who disagreed the courts were to be the final arbiter of whats constitutional.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    It may be idealistic but hardly bizzaro. The current infringements are not unconstitutional because the government says so? Not the kind of talk I would expect from you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Why is that?
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Because there was some quite famous Virginians who disagreed the courts were to be the final arbiter of whats constitutional.
    Skid would be proud that you include him when talking about famous Virginians

    Because there is a pecking order does not mean that the courts are not triers of fact....facts/laws can change.

    Indeed, the legislature is deemed to be omnipotent to either the executive or judicial branch - that is consistent both in our Constitution and OCDO rules. If you don't like a law, change it.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    [ ... ]....facts/[ ] can change. [ ... ]
    Boggled!

    Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    I wear this shirt from time to time. People are always like "huh" bears have arms???

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	California-Flag-RKBA-Infringed-TriBlack-Shirt-Detail-1.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	101.0 KB 
ID:	12328

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    ...nooo, bears do not have a right to arms...
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    It may be idealistic but hardly bizzaro. The current infringements are not unconstitutional because the government says so? Not the kind of talk I would expect from you.
    Right now we have a rather clearly defined way of declaring what is and is not constitutional.

    I often do not agree with the decision reached regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a certain law, but I am bound to follow the dictates of of our existing system on how to change the law to conform with my view of it's constitutionality, or how to change our existing system of deciding what is or is not constitutional. I work my butt of on the former. As bad as representative republicanism is, it's a whole lot better than whatever is in second place. I'm open to listening to descriptions of alternatives so long as they are not rehashes of what has repeatedly failed already.

    According to some geaneology research my cousin did, I am 4,734th in line to the throne of England. On the day that I wake up and find a note pinned to my pillow telling me I am now the ruler I am going to reinstitute the Empire (as bad as it was) and become Supreme Ruler of the World. At that time I will be able to say that in spite of what the courts say something is or is not constitutional without having to get the legislature to rewrite the law. I'll probably attend to that right after I check my list of people that do not deserve to be killed outright (a whole lot shorter than the list of those that do) and send my minions to deal with everybody not on the list.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I thought maybe the op changed the NY guy's name for entertainment value.
    This.

    His screen name on the forum is KoiDragon1980. I really don't know which is worse.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    So all of you are saying, among other things, that California's Approved Firearm List in unconstitutional? Please cite the sucessful court challenge that established that interpretation.

    My CLEO will sign off on pretty much any machinegun short of an electric-fired gatling gun. Is his rejection of my application to buy/possess a M-134 unconstitutional? Please cite the court case that established that.
    Alas, since I just posted a snippet of the ineptitude, the posted argument has repeatedly been stated within the confines of the powers of the federal government, not state. IMO, CA's list should be unconstitutional if the BOR is incorporated to the states.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    IdiotFromNY may be an idiot but he does seem to have a basic understanding of how things are in non-Bizzaro World. Well, except for his interpretation of the plurality of the word "arms". That needs some refinement.
    Yes, I'm sure we all know that there are laws that aren't what we would consider constitutional. But the argument is stuck on the false interpretation of "arms."

  19. #19
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Right now we have a rather clearly defined way of declaring what is and is not constitutional.

    I often do not agree with the decision reached regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a certain law, but I am bound to follow the dictates of of our existing system on how to change the law to conform with my view of it's constitutionality, or how to change our existing system of deciding what is or is not constitutional. I work my butt of on the former. As bad as representative republicanism is, it's a whole lot better than whatever is in second place. I'm open to listening to descriptions of alternatives so long as they are not rehashes of what has repeatedly failed already.

    According to some geaneology research my cousin did, I am 4,734th in line to the throne of England. On the day that I wake up and find a note pinned to my pillow telling me I am now the ruler I am going to reinstitute the Empire (as bad as it was) and become Supreme Ruler of the World. At that time I will be able to say that in spite of what the courts say something is or is not constitutional without having to get the legislature to rewrite the law. I'll probably attend to that right after I check my list of people that do not deserve to be killed outright (a whole lot shorter than the list of those that do) and send my minions to deal with everybody not on the list.

    stay safe.
    I understand what you're saying I just don't agree. I don't need to have a court ruling to judge for myself a law/action to be unconstitutional. Nor would I consider a law/action to be constitutionally compliant just because a corrupt judicial system has said it is so, when I judge it to be unconstitutional.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I understand what you're saying I just don't agree. I don't need to have a court ruling to judge for myself a law/action to be unconstitutional. Nor would I consider a law/action to be constitutionally compliant just because a corrupt judicial system has said it is so, when I judge it to be unconstitutional.
    Which one of the myriad of unconstitutional laws are you going to be the test case for? (You are going to set yourself up to be a test case, aren't you?) If not, your considerations and personal judgements are worth squat and as meaningless as a continuation of this line of discussion.

    Yes, I will contribute to your legal defense fund - and it will be more than a token contribution. If the trial is close enough I will come and personally demonstrate support for you.

    But since we will only be allowed to bring in $10 in change for the vending machines, choose carefully what you would like us to buy you on visiting day.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  21. #21
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    If not, your considerations and personal judgements are worth squat and as meaningless as a continuation of this line of discussion.
    you wound me.

    stay safe
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It doesn't have to boil down to an argument of "are you going to be the test case". That isn't what the point is. The point is the founders including guys like Jefferson never intended the SCOTUS to be the final word on whats constitutional.

    States and even individuals were supposed to be a check on that.

    How things change isn't only by following the law. Ask Rosa Parks. Ask all those during prohibition periods. Education, discussion, people learning how it ought to be not just how it is, when enough people realize this than maybe they would be courageous enough to change the law or to out right nullify it.

    It is fairly insulting to say the opinion of someone is worth squat, especially when it was shared by many of the creators of the law being discussed.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 01-14-2015 at 10:09 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    So all of you are saying, among other things, that California's Approved Firearm List in unconstitutional? Please cite the sucessful court challenge that established that interpretation.
    Not only that, but last time I moved to CA you were allowed to grandfather handguns you already owned prior to moving to CA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •