Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[BluesStringer]

Congratulations. You're now an Honorary Mommy.

 

[Blueshell]

Congratulations. You're now an Honorary Mommy.

I'm an actual daddy so you're just making another stupid comment.

 

[Blueshell]

Mine aren't even hidden. Well, they're sort of inside things you have to reach into, but they aren't really hidden. You can see them if you're in the right place and looking in the right direction. Most of them anyway. There's nobody for me to endanger though. Nobody ever comes over here. Certainly not children. Don't know any. Don't know anyone who has them. There was the HVAC guy that had to come once right after a day of shooting in the back yard. Saw my AK sitting on the ping pong table awaiting cleaning. His response was, "Whoa! Cool!" He didn't seem endangered. He certainly didn't act endangered. And since it wasn't loaded, I wasn't too concerned that he would be endangered.
.
So let me think. Hmmmmm....... Nope. Not worried about endangering anyone. Carry on.

Carrying on...

I FIND “SAFETY” SO TIRESOME. I DRIVE MY CAR BLINDFOLDED CAUSE IT’S MORE EXCITING THAT WAY. I’D RATHER FALL OFF A CLIFF THAN HAVE A GUARDRAIL RUIN MY VIEW. WHEN I’M BORED, I PUT A CAR BATTERY IN THE MICROWAVE. LAST WEEK MY 3-YEAR-OLD ACCIDENTALLY SHOT MY DOG BUT THAT’S OK. DOES EVOLVE SUPPORT ME?
Nope. We think you’re a dumbass.


Evolve USA | There's no debating the need for Gun Safety.

 

[Blueshell]

You, 'Panky, you.

If you were quoting someone else and used 'he', then you might be referring to me, but you were quoting me and using the pronoun 'he', meaning you were talking about someone else.

And wtf is "panky" anyway? You're such an idiot.

 

[Hatchetman]

Funny how a self described gun rights person uses anti gun rights propaganda to bolster his argument while it in fact proves how antigun he is, all the while being totally unaware of it, He also keeps using buzzwords while having no idea what the actual meaning of them are, thinking they prove his case while they do nothing but prove further ignorance.. Fudds really are a stupid bunch.

 

[Blueshell]

Funny how a self described gun rights person uses anti gun rights propaganda to bolster his argument while it in fact proves how antigun he is, all the while being totally unaware of it, He also keeps using buzzwords while having no idea what the actual meaning of them are, thinking they prove his case while they do nothing but prove further ignorance.. Fudds really are a stupid bunch.

I've used no propaganda or buzzwords of any kind. Go **** yourself.

 

[Hatchetman]

I've used no propaganda or buzzwords of any kind. Go **** yourself.

I mentioned no names, how did you know I was talking about you?

 

[Blueshell]

I mentioned no names, how did you know I was talking about you?

I didn't, until just now

 

[Bikenut]

Any limit is an infringement.

infringement: definition of infringement in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

infringement
-snip-
2The action of limiting or undermining something:-snip-

bold and underline added by me for emphasis...

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Any limit is an infringement.

Wrong.

So.... you are ignoring the plain definition of words that do not support your contention that rights can be limited (infringed)?

Originally posted by Blueshell
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER

"Shale not be infringed" means any desired limitations must meet Strict Scrutiny. There can be limitations, such as the requirement to be of the Age Of Majority(18 years old) to buy, for example, but every limit must either pass the Strict Scrutiny test or be struck down.

The interstate handgun ban is being struck down for this very reason. The ban doesn't satisfy Strict Scrutiny; a key point being that you can transfer more powerfull rifles across state lines and that isn't a public safety issue.

Your Columbia v Heller link doesn't work...

Here is the important thing....
You, and sadly many others, have fallen for the idea that it is Ok to limit (infringe) as long as an authority of some kind hides behind some kind of explanation or standard that justifies the limit/restriction/infringement as "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable". The part you, and many others, are missing is it is not Ok (shall not be infringed) right from the start no matter who says it is and no matter what rationale (standard) is used to justify the desire to limit (control through infringements). You do know the goal of imposing limits is to exert control over whatever is being limited.. right?

And "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. There is no mention of "shall not be infringed except when the infringement meets the Strict Scrutiny Standard or the Supreme Court says it is Ok" or any other standard including your personal opinions/beliefs/desire to force other people to adhere to what you consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

But then you agree with limiting (infringing) the right to keep arms as long as those limits (infringements) meet your standards as you make perfectly clear in the following post.

Originally posted by Blueshell

Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
You want laws mandating locks and other storage practices that fit your ideas of "good safety practices."

Of course. A below-ground pool should have a cover. Above-ground fuel storage should consist of a rated tank and gravel-filled land clear of other machinery or flammable hazards to 3' on all sides. Article 1 Section 8 USC requires Congress to provide every able bodied citizen with an assault-rifle capable of militia duty and the proper training to use it; this training necessarily includes proper storage of unused firearms. All electrical outlets should be GFI sockets. House paint should be lead free and older homes should receive a subsidy to remove old lead-based paint and repaint the house. Your staircase should have a handrail capable of supporting 300lbs+, the grip of which to rise approximately 36" from the step. Your headlights should illuminate at least a 100ft in front of your car. Etc. I support all kinds of safety related laws.

The more you post the more you prove you do not understand what supporting a right is but you will pick and choose what you will not support according to your own personal anti gunner lite FUDD beliefs.

 

[Blueshell]

So.... you are ignoring the plain definition of words that do not support your contention that rights can be limited (infringed)?

Not at all. The definition of infringed includes 'limit' because a limit can be an infringement. The definition doesn't state or imply that all limits are infringements, just that infringements include limits. Some limits are not infringements.

Your Columbia v Heller link doesn't work...

Fixed.

Here is the important thing....
You, and sadly many others, have fallen for the idea that it is Ok to limit (infringe) as long as an authority of some kind hides behind some kind of explanation or standard that justifies the limit/restriction/infringement as "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

I've never argued that it's ok to infringe on the 2A, though it is ok to limit the 2A. Not all limits are infringements.

The part you, and many others, are missing is it is not Ok (shall not be infringed) right from the start no matter who says it is and no matter what rationale (standard) is used to justify the desire to limit (control through infringements).

I agree it's not ok to infringe on the 2A, and the limit I support here does not infringe.

You do know the goal of imposing limits is to exert control over whatever is being limited.. right?

That would be the entire point of enacting the limit I support, yes.

And "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says.

I agree, any limit must obey the rules, in this case Strict Scrutiny.

There is no mention of "shall not be infringed except when the infringement meets the Strict Scrutiny Standard or the Supreme Court says it is Ok" or any other standard including your personal opinions/beliefs/desire to force other people to adhere to what you consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

Well, yes there is. It's contained within the definition of "infringed" The amendment doesn't read "shall not be limited".

But then you agree with limiting (infringing) the right to keep arms as long as those limits (infringements) meet your standards as you make perfectly clear in the following post.

I don't agree with any infringements, but I do support a few limits.

The more you post the more you prove you do not understand what supporting a right is but you will pick and choose what you will not support according to your own personal anti gunner lite FUDD beliefs.

The more I post the more I demonstrate your complete incompetence on this topic. I'm sorry public education has failed you.

 

[Bikenut]

The more I post the more I demonstrate your complete incompetence on this topic. I'm sorry public education has failed you.

As evidenced by your post #150 the more you post the more you show that you support limiting (infringing) the right to keep arms and that you are willing to play word games in order to justify your desire to limit (infringe) upon that right.

You say you don't agree with any infringements but you also say you support limits and the Oxford dictionary tells us that limits are infringements.

And you say I am ignorant while disparaging my level of education? Please keep posting so everyone will see the degree of mental masturbation you are willing to engage in to justify your belief that it is Ok to limit (infringe) on the right to keep arms as long as you agree with that limit (infringement).

 

[Hatchetman]

I didn't, until just now

Then WHY did you come back and cuss at me? WHY did YOU answer me at all? The dog always returns to his vomit..... Someone is feeling quite guilty arent they?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You do know the goal of imposing limits is to exert control over whatever is being limited.. right?

That would be the entire point of enacting the limit I support, yes.

From your own words in many posts past... you support limits (infringements) on the right to keep arms. You can play all the word games you wish but limits are still infringements and, as you just admitted.. the goal... of imposing limits is .....................

...................control.

And what is the goal of any full on anti gunner or anti gunner lite? Gun control according to their own personal beliefs of what limits (infringements) are "reasonable", "appropriate", and most importantly to them.... "acceptable". And the only thing your posts have shown is that you support infringing (limiting) the right to keep arms to the ways you personally consider "acceptable". And that you are willing to play word games to validate that support.

Thing is... all that is necessary is to engage in discussion and allow anti gunner lites to out themselves.

 

[Blueshell]

As evidenced by your post #150 the more you post the more you show that you support limiting (infringing) the right to keep arms and that you are willing to play word games in order to justify your desire to limit (infringe) upon that right.

You say you don't agree with any infringements but you also say you support limits and the Oxford dictionary tells us that limits are infringements.

And you say I am ignorant while disparaging my level of education? Please keep posting so everyone will see the degree of mental masturbation you are willing to engage in to justify your belief that it is Ok to limit (infringe) on the right to keep arms as long as you agree with that limit (infringement).

An example of a limit which is not an infringement is the The Classroom Use Exemption 17 U.S. Code § 110 regarding copyrighted material. It is a limit on your right to intellectual property; that you cannot deny the use of it in a non-profit academic setting. This is not an infringement because it does not undermine or encroach upon your ability to profit from your own work; the material being used by people who weren't potential customers in the first place.

Another example of a limitation which is not an infringement is copyright expiration equal to the life of the author plus 70 years. After this expiration your intellectual property enters the Public Domain where anyone can use it for free. This is not an infringement because it does not undermine or encroach upon your ability to profit from your own work.

Another example of a limitation which is not an infringement is speech which can cause harm. Yelling 'fire' in a theater or inciting a riot, for example. This limit is not an infringement because it does not undermine your ability to speak your opinion and press for policy change.

Another limitation which is not an infringement is a ban on animal sacrifice. This is not an infringement of your right to free religious practice because it's not necessary to harm animals in service to a deity you can't even prove exists in the first place.

A limit on your right to 'keep' arms, that you would be required to lock firearms not in your immediate possession, does not undermine your right to 'keep' arms because you can still 'keep' any arms you own.

 

[Blueshell]

Then WHY did you come back and cuss at me? WHY did YOU answer me at all? The dog always returns to his vomit..... Someone is feeling quite guilty arent they?

Stop being a whiny little *****.

 

[Blueshell]

From your own words in many posts past... you support limits (infringements) on the right to keep arms. You can play all the word games you wish but limits are still infringements and, as you just admitted.. the goal... of imposing limits is .....................

...................control.

Right. The whole point of securing your arms is to prevent unauthorized use. That's the whole reason anyone ever buys any kind of locking device for anything. You seem to think you have some kind of point here.

And what is the goal of any full on anti gunner or anti gunner lite? Gun control according to their own personal beliefs of what limits (infringements) are "reasonable", "appropriate", and most importantly to them.... "acceptable". And the only thing your posts have shown is that you support infringing (limiting) the right to keep arms to the ways you personally consider "acceptable". And that you are willing to play word games to validate that support.

Thing is... all that is necessary is to engage in discussion and allow anti gunner lites to out themselves.

Christ on a cracker you're an idiot.

I say 'keep your guns under your control' and you stomp your foot and stick out your lip like a retarded toddler.

 

[Blueshell]

Just last week Kolbe vs Omalley the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court and ordered the District Court to apply Strict Scrutiny as the standard of review.

Strict Scrutiny is the test to determine if a given limit is an infringement or not.

 

[Bikenut]

An example of a limit which is not an infringement is the The Classroom Use Exemption 17 U.S. Code § 110 regarding copyrighted material. It is a limit on your right to intellectual property that you cannot deny the use of it in a non-profit academic setting. This is not an infringement because it does not undermine or encroach upon your ability to profit from your own work; the material being used by people who weren't potential customers in the first place.

Another example of a limitation which is not an infringement is copyright expiration equal to the life of the author plus 70 years. After this expiration your intellectual property enters the Public Domain where anyone can use it for free. This is not an infringement because it does not undermine or encroach upon your ability to profit from your own work.

Another example of a limitation which is not an infringement is speech which can cause harm. Yelling 'fire' in a theater or inciting a riot, for example. This limit is not an infringement because it does not undermine your ability to speak your opinion and press for policy change.

A limit on your right to 'keep' arms, that you would be required to lock firearms not in your immediate possession, does not undermine your right to 'keep' arms because you can still 'keep' any arms you own.

If it is mine, whether physical or intellectual property, then I have the right to decide who uses it, how it is used, when it is used, and why it is used. Any laws that remove or limit my ability to do that is an infringement. Doesn't matter if you, or the government, agrees that particular limitation (infringement) is a good thing because other people benefit from it... it still limits my right to control my property.

Copyrights (intellectual property) ending with the end of the author's life is just the same as the ownership of any other property ending with the ending of the owner's life. And no it does not undermine/encroach/infringe/limit any rights simply because once dead my right to that property and my ability to profit from it becomes moot (although it would be an interesting discussion in another time and place of whether a person's heirs should inherit intellectual property as long as the intellectual property exists the same as they inherit physical property). And that example fails as an argument in favor of limiting.

So many people misunderstand the right to free speech. I, you, and everyone in the world, has the right to yell "fire" in a theater or to use speech to incite a riot. Do not confuse the right with suffering legal consequences for causing harm from the use of free speech. But to pass a law that prohibits yelling "fire" in a theater (what if there is a fire? What do you yell then? Or would folks be arrested for saving lives?) or to pass a law that prohibits speaking in a way that incites a riot is to limit/restrict/infringe upon the right to free speech.

Any and all limits on how, when, where, why, with whom, I .... keep... my arms are infringements on my right to .... keep... my arms. What you think is the right to ...keep.. arms is only the methods of keeping you consider----- acceptable. Which means you want is to infringe upon the rights of by limiting their right to keeping their arms to only the methods you agree with. Sadly that is the same attitude of anti gunner individuals/groups... and the government. But the right to ... keep... arms is unlimited by these four words:

----shall not be infringed-----

And whether you wish to not accept it or to dance around the plain meaning of words... the definition of infringe is to ............................... limit.

The flaw in your entire post is that you have accepted that limits are acceptable. Right from the start you believe limits are Ok as long as those limits fit some kind of standard/criteria you, or some authority figure/government agency, agree with.

All of your examples contain the false logic that... because the limits appear reasonable, appropriate, and/or acceptable then those limits are not infringements ... a false logic that completely ignores that any limit of any kind is, by it's very nature of limiting, is an infringement.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
From your own words in many posts past... you support limits (infringements) on the right to keep arms. You can play all the word games you wish but limits are still infringements and, as you just admitted.. the goal... of imposing limits is .....................

...................control.

Right. The whole point of securing your arms is to prevent unauthorized use. That's the whole reason anyone ever buys any kind of locking device for anything. You seem to think you have some kind of point here.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And what is the goal of any full on anti gunner or anti gunner lite? Gun control according to their own personal beliefs of what limits (infringements) are "reasonable", "appropriate", and most importantly to them.... "acceptable". And the only thing your posts have shown is that you support infringing (limiting) the right to keep arms to the ways you personally consider "acceptable". And that you are willing to play word games to validate that support.

Thing is... all that is necessary is to engage in discussion and allow anti gunner lites to out themselves.

Christ on a cracker you're an idiot.

I say 'keep your guns under your control' and you stomp your foot and stick out your lip like a retarded toddler.

Wow... you still do not get it. Limiting the right just because you think there is merit to limiting that right doesn't excuse/validate/justify limiting (infringing) upon that right.

Just because you think some law about how everyone should keep their arms is some kind of safety measure that folks would benefit from doesn't change the fact that the law would limit how people keep their arms and therefor that law is an infringement.

Originally posted by Blueshell
Christ on a cracker you're an idiot.

And exactly who is stomping their foot and sticking out their lip? Perhaps a few moments in front of a mirror would be of assistance?

And I stand by my comment.. along with your postings proving it...

Originally posted by Bikenut

Thing is... all that is necessary is to engage in discussion and allow anti gunner lites to out themselves.

 

[Bikenut]

Just last week Kolbe vs Omalley the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court and ordered the District Court to apply Strict Scrutiny as the standard of review.

Strict Scrutiny is the test to determine if a given limit is an infringement or not.

Strict Scrutiny is not a standard of whether a limit is an infringement or not. Strict Scrutiny is a method, a standard, a set of criteria, to determine if the government can get away with infringing upon a right by imposing a limit. Which doesn't change the fact that a limit is still an infringement... all Strict Scrutiny does is falsely validate the infringement.