SCOTUS Needs to Reaffirm RKBA Extends Outside of Home

[OC for ME]

RKBA.....should it not be AWRM, BNTTSOAFS, TROTPTKABA, SNBI.

 

[DaveT319]

Can't figure those out! lol

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Can't say I agree with ignoring laws, even if they are unconstitutional. That just wouldn't end well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then the laws will never change. Non support gives the illusion of support. I stand behind the Connecticut gun owners not registering and on the unlikely event I'd ever be a juror I would exercise my right to effectively nullify those brought up on charges against unconstitutional laws or those that don't fit in with natural law or the theories of justice or met the guidelines for a crime being committed under common law.

Move out and draw fire! People like Rosa Parks are my heroes and they will get my support.

 

[cirrusly]

Then the laws will never change. Non support gives the illusion of support. I stand behind the Connecticut gun owners not registering and on the unlikely event I'd ever be a juror I would exercise my right to effectively nullify those brought up on charges against unconstitutional laws or those that don't fit in with natural law or the theories of justice or met the guidelines for a crime being committed under common law.

Move out and draw fire! People like Rosa Parks are my heroes and they will get my support.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

You're in violation of forum rules. You are encouraging Connecticut gun owners to not register their firearms: "I stand behind the Connecticut gun owners not registering." That is advocating "illegal acts." Regardless of your personal opinion about the law.

Breaking the law is not the correct approach, and is not welcomed here.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

You're in violation of forum rules. You are encouraging Connecticut gun owners to not register their firearms: "I stand behind the Connecticut gun owners not registering." That is advocating "illegal acts." Regardless of your personal opinion about the law.

Breaking the law is not the correct approach, and is not welcomed here.

Bullsh!t. Personal agreement or support of their independent actions does not equate to active encouragement or advocation on this forum for others to do the same.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Bullsh!t. Personal agreement or support of their independent actions does not equate to active encouragement or advocation on this forum for others to do the same.

+1

Notice no logical refutation of what I said, which is based on the laws of these states.

Good to know he doesn't believe in jury nullification, or wouldn't have supported Rosa Parks.

 

[cirrusly]

+1

Notice no logical refutation of what I said, which is based on the laws of these states.

Good to know he doesn't believe in jury nullification, or wouldn't have supported Rosa Parks.

+1

Notice no logical refutation of what I said, which is based on the laws of these states.

Good to know he doesn't believe in jury nullification, or wouldn't have supported Rosa Parks.

You're making some wild false inferences if you think I don't believe in jury nullification or "wouldn't have supported rosa parks." You are
Making unfounded accusations there.

Point being- we're here in the spirit of fully abiding by the law. While you may not be directly stating "Connecticut gun owners should not register their guns" on this forum, you are directly implying it with "I stand behind Connecticut gun owners not registering." It is simply a minor difference in semantics.

Please keep your opinion about breaking the law to yourself.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You're making some wild false inferences if you think I don't believe in jury nullification or "wouldn't have supported rosa parks." You are
Making unfounded accusations there.

Point being- we're here in the spirit of fully abiding by the law. While you may not be directly stating "Connecticut gun owners should not register their guns" on this forum, you are directly implying it with "I stand behind Connecticut gun owners not registering." It is simply a minor difference in semantics.

Please keep your opinion about breaking the law to yourself.

So are you saying they must register their weapons?

No, I won't keep it to myself.

No those accusations are not unfounded, you haven 't countered them. If you don't take a stance like mine, you are not supporting jury nullification, or supporting heroes like Rosa Parks. You are supporting blind allegiance to government rules and not laws.

PPM countered your statement perfectly. Personal stance isn't "advocating". Yet I do advocate jury nullification I am not ashamed of it, it is a founding principle of our legal system and perfectly legal. Yet according to your rational that would be advocating for breaking the law, talk about trying to argue on semantics.


Your tag line....I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

"It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. ... Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things, which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. ... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" --Patrick Henry

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

You're making some wild false inferences if you think I don't believe in jury nullification or "wouldn't have supported rosa parks." You are
Making unfounded accusations there.

Point being- we're here in the spirit of fully abiding by the law. While you may not be directly stating "Connecticut gun owners should not register their guns" on this forum, you are directly implying it with "I stand behind Connecticut gun owners not registering." It is simply a minor difference in semantics.

Please keep your opinion about breaking the law to yourself.

WOULD you have supported Rosa Parks? She broke the law.

The Founding Fathers technically did too.

And again, one's OPINION on law/civil disobedience is not the same as advocating for others to do so; it's an opinion on a discussion forum, is not in violation of the rules, and you are out of line to try and control the expression of such.

 

[cirrusly]

So are you saying they must register their weapons?

No, I won't keep it to myself.

No those accusations are not unfounded, you haven 't countered them. If you don't take a stance like mine, you are not supporting jury nullification, or supporting heroes like Rosa Parks.

So I need to counter any unfounded accusation? Sounds like you're practicing Napoleonic Code and Mexican Law to me.

Under that same pretense, if I accuse you on here of being a troll you better refute it, else you are! See how silly that sounds?

Also, you're stating that if I don't share your exact view I therefore must not support jury nullification or Rosa Parks. Do I need to give another example of how puerile that statement is?

I'm done fueling your avocation for law breaking, vigilante acts, conversation here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So I need to counter any unfounded accusation? Sounds like you're practicing Napoleonic Code and Mexican Law to me.

Under that same pretense, if I accuse you on here of being a troll you better refute it, else you are! See how silly that sounds?

Also, you're stating that if I don't share your exact view I therefore must not support jury nullification or Rosa Parks. Do I need to give another example of how puerile that statement is?

I'm done fueling your avocation for law breaking, vigilante acts, conversation here.

Still no refutations? Do you not have the stones to publicly state what your position is? I have asked you direct questions you have avoided, wanna talk about trollish behavior?

Your last sentence has been thoroughly debunked don't go away mad just go away.

Seems we found the new Eye95.

 

[cirrusly]

Still no refutations? Do you not have the stones to publicly state what your position is? I have asked you direct questions you have avoided, wanna talk about trollish behavior?

Your last sentence has been thoroughly debunked don't go away mad just go away.

Seems we found the new Eye95.

So are you saying they must register their weapons?

My answer: Yes, they should register their weapons, as to remain within the law. Again, whether I agree with the law is a different matter.

I used to metaphor of you "being a troll" to illustrate how your "logic" is flawed, and how puerile your statements truly are.

 

[cirrusly]

WOULD you have supported Rosa Parks? She broke the law.

The Founding Fathers technically did too.

And again, one's OPINION on law/civil disobedience is not the same as advocating for others to do so; it's an opinion on a discussion forum, is not in violation of the rules, and you are out of line to try and control the expression of such.

The bounds for what constitutes civil disobedience is very broad. For instance, I could contend that "standing behind" or "advocating" for fishermen or hunters who fish and hunt without a license to make a political statement is valid civil disobedience. Then I could make the assertion that if you do not also advocate for hunting without a license you in turn would not have supported Rosa Parks.

You and the "Gunner of Sudden Valley" are making wild and thinly stretched inferences, demanding that if I do not support those beliefs then I would've surely not supported Rosa Parks and the founding fathers.

So yes, keep demanding that I adopt your beliefs regarding certain instances of civil disobedience. Demanding and coercing others to accept your beliefs is surely the essence of freedom

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

The bounds for what constitutes civil disobedience is very broad. For instance, I could contend that "standing behind" or "advocating" for fishermen or hunters who fish and hunt without a license to make a political statement is valid civil disobedience. Then I could make the assertion that if you do not also advocate for hunting without a license you in turn would not have supported Rosa Parks.

You and the "Gunner of Sudden Valley" are making wild and thinly stretched inferences, demanding that if I do not support those beliefs then I would've surely not supported Rosa Parks and the founding fathers.

So yes, keep demanding that I adopt your beliefs regarding certain instances of civil disobedience. Demanding and coercing others to accept your beliefs is surely the essence of freedom

Okay, #1? I did not infer your beliefs; I ASKED what your position was. You refuse to answer, only throw about obfuscation and accusation. You also try to determine what constitutes "valid" civil disobedience. Sorry, what authority qualifies you to determine that for anyone other than yourself?

#2, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has *demanded* you adopt a belief set of any sort. YOU are the one who tried to suppress SVG's opinion on the topic under the guise of rule violation, when it clearly was not. Who is forcing who again?

Vive le liberte?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

My answer: Yes, they should register their weapons, as to remain within the law. Again, whether I agree with the law is a different matter.

I used to metaphor of you "being a troll" to illustrate how your "logic" is flawed, and how puerile your statements truly are.

So you don't believe in your tag line and the founders vision?

Do you believe jurors should convict those who don't follow the states rules?

Do you think Rosa Parks should have just followed the law?


If my logic is flawed then you should have no problem countering them with logic and by the very constitution you claim to hold dear. Please do. Instead you don't like my viewpoint and attempt to have it censored.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Okay, #1? I did not infer your beliefs; I ASKED what your position was. You refuse to answer, only throw about obfuscation and accusation. You also try to determine what constitutes "valid" civil disobedience. Sorry, what authority qualifies you to determine that for anyone other than yourself?

#2, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has *demanded* you adopt a belief set of any sort. YOU are the one who tried to suppress SVG's opinion on the topic under the guise of rule violation, when it clearly was not. Who is forcing who again?

Vive le liberte?

+1 I see the purposeful conflation of standing behind and advocating in his own sentence.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The bounds for what constitutes civil disobedience is very broad. For instance, I could contend that "standing behind" or "advocating" for fishermen or hunters who fish and hunt without a license to make a political statement is valid civil disobedience. Then I could make the assertion that if you do not also advocate for hunting without a license you in turn would not have supported Rosa Parks.

You and the "Gunner of Sudden Valley" are making wild and thinly stretched inferences, demanding that if I do not support those beliefs then I would've surely not supported Rosa Parks and the founding fathers.

So yes, keep demanding that I adopt your beliefs regarding certain instances of civil disobedience. Demanding and coercing others to accept your beliefs is surely the essence of freedom

Please. Are you being purposefully obtuse? The example of bringing out Rosa Parks has to do with drawing out your specific beliefs on civil disobedience a question you refused to answer and still have (concerning Rosa Parks) it is an attempt at drawing out an argument from you to support your stance on why supporting one form of civil disobedience would be reasonable and supporting the other not.

The irony of your last statement isn't lost on me either.

I also don't hold your seeming faith in government position that if we just leave it up to them they will work out what is best for us. Government, as I stated in my speech I posted on OCDO, but was moved to WA sub forum for sum reason, would have been perfectly fine enforcing unnatural bigoted laws of the state, it was only because of the disobedience and insistence of the people that it changed, it was only because America supported Rosa Parks and other rule breakers (like the founding fathers) that things changed.

 

[cirrusly]

Okay, #1? I did not infer your beliefs; I ASKED what your position was. You refuse to answer, only throw about obfuscation and accusation. You also try to determine what constitutes "valid" civil disobedience. Sorry, what authority qualifies you to determine that for anyone other than yourself?

#2, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has *demanded* you adopt a belief set of any sort. YOU are the one who tried to suppress SVG's opinion on the topic under the guise of rule violation, when it clearly was not. Who is forcing who again?

Vive le liberte?

Thankfully this is a forum, so I can reference what you and the Gunner of Sudden Valley typed, and recall what you spew off...

To #1: This statement is false:

I did not infer your beliefs; I ASKED what your position was.

Good to know he doesn't believe in jury nullification, or wouldn't have supported Rosa Parks.

WOULD you have supported Rosa Parks? She broke the law.

So yes, he attempted to infer, or rather blindly concluded I did not support Rosa Parks or Jury Nullification. You push the question, further intertwining it to your and the Sudden Valley Gunman logic that must not support Rosa Parks because I don't agree with you.


To #1: This statement is also false:

You refuse to answer, only throw about obfuscation and accusation.

My answer: Yes, they should register their weapons, as to remain within the law. Again, whether I agree with the law is a different matter.

That's direct answer. My answer was "yes."


To #1: Again, you're making another false accusation...

You also try to determine what constitutes "valid" civil disobedience. Sorry, what authority qualifies you to determine that for anyone other than yourself?

The bounds for what constitutes civil disobedience is very broad.

Rather than attempting to define "valid" civil disobedience I conversely admitted the definition of civil disobedience could be very broad.

Is there a maximum number of false statements you can make until you can't comment anymore? :lol:

 

[cirrusly]

So you don't believe in your tag line and the founders vision?

Of course I agree with my tag line. It is the means to achieving that vision that you and I disagree with.

Do you believe jurors should convict those who don't follow the states rules?

Depends on the circumstance.

Do you think Rosa Parks should have just followed the law?

She ultimately exercised civil disobedience that led to correct legislative changes. I agree with her actions. Now lets relate it to OCDO and this forum....

IF OCDO did exist and IF her actions (which at the time were considered illegal) were related to the open carry of firearms THEN I would not condone advocating for her behavior on these forums as is would have been in violation of the forum rules.

If my logic is flawed then you should have no problem countering them with logic and by the very constitution you claim to hold dear. Please do. Instead you don't like my viewpoint and attempt to have it censored.

This is not a constitutional issue but respect for the spirit and rules of OCDO forums.

Should we all beginning exercising unlicensed constitutional carry throughout Washington DC, NYC, and Connecticut, taking pictures, and encouraging each other to do the same on this forum? The correct answer given the forum rules is "NO."

You are using civil disobedience as a guise for when you can break forum rule of "WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Of course I agree with my tag line. It is the means to achieving that vision that you and I disagree with.

No the founders envisioned people who would ignore laws that are not constitutional. You do realize that the 2A is an enumeration of the right to resist right? That enumerating the 2A and recognizing the right to bear arms to keep government in check is also the recognition of the right to use those arms.

Depends on the circumstance.

So you only agree with it when it suits you and your opinion?

She ultimately exercised civil disobedience that led to correct legislative changes. I agree with her actions. Now lets relate it to OCDO and this forum....

IF OCDO did exist and IF her actions (which at the time were considered illegal) were related to the open carry of firearms THEN I would not condone advocating for her behavior on these forums as is would have been in violation of the forum rules.

Again, you are conflating my personal opinion of support of advocating illegal activity. Look at how I explained it above. I don't see in the OCDO rules where it only makes it apply to gun issues. Nice try though.

This is not a constitutional issue but respect for the spirit and rules of OCDO forums.

Should we all beginning exercising unlicensed constitutional carry throughout Washington DC, NYC, and Connecticut, taking pictures, and encouraging each other to do the same on this forum? The correct answer given the forum rules is "NO."

You are using civil disobedience as a guise for when you can break forum rule of "WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY."

You are using OCDO as an excuse to avoid a discussion of the constitutional issues at hand that is blatantly obvious.