Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Blueshell]

It is painfully obvious you cannot comprehend the plain wordings of my posts and, as a man with very little integrity would do, you would try to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about using violence against anyone. A plain reading of YOUR posts is all that is necessary to see who constantly refers to the use of violence.

I said limits on the right to keep and bear arms are infringements and that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute.

Why should you experience a negative consequence for doing something you have a right to do?

I even gave cites and links to the plain definition of the word infringe that says a limit is infringe.

Yes you defined the word, but you don't define the second amendment. The dictionary doesn't define the second amendment, either. The Supreme Court defines the amendment and the Supreme Court has interpreted "infringement" so as to include various limits.

I have also said that those who use the right to keep and bear arms should be held responsible for that harm.

If you use a right within the scope you're allowed then why should you experience a negative consequence?

Again it is you who who is talking about violence. I wonder why that is? Could it have anything to do with your having professed to have the mental disorder of OCD?

You do realize you're harassing me over a disability, right?

My bringing it up in a humorous context doesn't give you license to use it disparagingly.

 

[Blueshell]

Only brain dead idiots would think and argue that the right to bear arms includes the right to misuse that right to infringe on someone elses rights....

/agree

 

[Firefighterchen]

Team freedom: We have the right to keep and bear arms, all arms, without limits as recognized, not authorized, by the constitution as natural rights. We do not have the right to unjustly kill someone, but do have the right to self defense.

Team bluehelmet: We will use violence and unjustly hurt or kill team freedom to oppress them, based on our own set of limits.

Team freedom: To win, we will respond with more just violence to defend our freedom.

Fair assessment?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Again it is you who who is talking about violence. I wonder why that is? Could it have anything to do with your having professed to have the mental disorder of OCD?

You do realize you're harassing me over a disability, right?

My bringing it up in a humorous context doesn't give you license to use it disparagingly.

Bikenut's argument is that there are no limits, not even a limit against killing. He and boot both argue that the right is unlimited and mean "unlimited" in the most literal and universal sense.

I didn't disparage you. I asked a question.

You do realize you are using your self admitted disability, the mental disorder called OCD, as an excuse to say that I advocate violence?

And I find your attempt to engender sympathy yet another indication of your lack of integrity.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
It is painfully obvious you cannot comprehend the plain wordings of my posts and, as a man with very little integrity would do, you would try to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about using violence against anyone. A plain reading of YOUR posts is all that is necessary to see who constantly refers to the use of violence.

I said limits on the right to keep and bear arms are infringements and that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute.

Why should you experience a negative consequence for doing something you have a right to do?-snip-

You truly do not understand what a right is and what the responsibility to not do harm while using a right is. People have the right to keep and bear arms but they do not have the right to do harm while keeping and bearing arms.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I even gave cites and links to the plain definition of the word infringe that says a limit is infringe.

Yes you defined the word, but you don't define the second amendment. The dictionary doesn't define the second amendment, either. The Supreme Court defines the amendment and the Supreme Court has interpreted "infringement" so as to include various limits.-snip-

Incorrect. The Supreme Court INTERPRETS what the words within the 2nd Amendment mean according to the government's agenda.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I have also said that those who use the right to keep and bear arms should be held responsible for that harm.

If you use a right within the scope you're allowed then why should you experience a negative consequence?

Right from the beginning you put in the qualifier of being within the scope of what people are allowed never understanding that when the government defines what is allowed then the government is defining what is not allowed by imposing limits (infringements).

One should not experience any negative consequences for using their rights unless and until they cause harm by using their rights. It isn't the use of the right but is using it to do harm that should result in a negative consequence. But you would impose limits and infringements upon the right itself instead of assessing consequences upon the individual person who caused harm.

 

[Leader]

Bikenut's argument is that there are no limits, not even a limit against killing. He and boot both argue that the right is unlimited and mean "unlimited" in the most literal and universal sense.

Please point to the post where Bikenut or anyone has said anyone can use the un-infringed right to keep and bear arms to hurt or KILL anyone without justification.

Yes, we advocate being able to own any weapon but the USE of that weapon is an entirely different thing.

 

[Hatchetman]

Only the brain dead like blueshill would think and argue that the right to bear arms includes the right to misuse that right to infringe on someone elses rights....

 

[Hatchetman]

EVERYONE has the 1st Amendment RIGHT to yell fire in a crowded theater when there isnt any fire..... However (and this is where blueshill brainfarts) when someone does that, then ANY HARM that comes from doing it is squarely on the shoulders of the "yeller" of fire...... In other words, If, when you exercise your first amendment rights, someone is injured because of it, then YOU are responsible for that injury, and YOU can be held accountable for it... The exercise of a RIGHT does NOT forgive/negate the consequences of doing so. The prior restraint (infringement) by govt is unconstitutional... the govt is restricted by the constitution to have anything whatsoever to do with infringing or hindering someone from exercising their rights.

 

[Bikenut]

EVERYONE has the 1st Amendment RIGHT to yell fire in a crowded theater when there isnt any fire..... However (and this is where blueshill brainfarts) when someone does that, then ANY HARM that comes from doing it is squarely on the shoulders of the "yeller" of fire...... In other words, If, when you exercise your first amendment rights, someone is injured because of it, then YOU are responsible for that injury, and YOU can be held accountable for it... The exercise of a RIGHT does NOT forgive/negate the consequences of doing so. The prior restraint (infringement) by govt is unconstitutional... the govt is restricted by the constitution to have anything whatsoever to do with infringing or hindering someone from exercising their rights.

Well said.

There are times when I miss the old like feature.

 

[BluesStringer]

Likewise "shall not be infringed" does not mean unlimited. It means the right cannot be undermined. The Supreme Court has set up a lemon test for any proposed limit, and the degree of that test which applies is Strict Scrutiny. A minimalist safe-storage law would pass Strict Scrutiny and thus would not be an infringement.

I have never met someone so willing to prove themselves so ignorant on one easily-researched subject as this. Strict scrutiny has never been applied to the Second Amendment at the SCOTUS level, and has only been thusly applied at any federal appeals court level just 15 days ago in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Kolbe vs. Hogan. Now that Scalia is dead, it is less likely that strict scrutiny will ever be used to decide a 2A case at SCOTUS.

 

[Blueshell]

Team freedom: We have the right to keep and bear arms, all arms, without limits as recognized, not authorized, by the constitution as natural rights. We do not have the right to unjustly kill someone, but do have the right to self defense.

Team bluehelmet: We will use violence and unjustly hurt or kill team freedom to oppress them, based on our own set of limits.

Team freedom: To win, we will respond with more just violence to defend our freedom.

Fair assessment?

No, more like...

Team freedom: We have the right to keep and bear arms, all arms, without limits as recognized, not authorized, by the constitution as natural rights. We do not have the right to unjustly kill someone, but do have the right to self defense.

Team bluehelmet: If that's what you believe then why do you allow the Gun Control Act and the Hughes Amendment to exist?

Team freedom: Well, um, because reasons.

Team bluehelmet: The ATF sure is carrying out a whole lot of real-world armed violence against your like-minded brothers, where is your "more just violence to defend our freedom"?

Team freedom horsemanure: ...uuuhhh...*drools on shirt*

 

[Blueshell]

I didn't disparage you. I asked a question.

You do realize you are using your self admitted disability, the mental disorder called OCD, as an excuse to say that I advocate violence?

When did you stop beating your wife?

And I find your attempt to engender sympathy yet another indication of your lack of integrity.

Hold on, I need to google "what is gender sympathy", I really don't know what that is...

Ok, Google didn't help ( Link Removed ) I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Blueshell]

You truly do not understand what a right is and what the responsibility to not do harm while using a right is. People have the right to keep and bear arms but they do not have the right to do harm while keeping and bearing arms.

On the contrary, I have perfect clarity. If your right is unlimited then why should a negative consequence be imposed upon you?

If the RKBA is unlimited, then murder isn't a thing, because a law against murder would be a limit.

You're backpedaling because you see the error of your argument.

 

[Blueshell]

Incorrect. The Supreme Court INTERPRETS what the words within the 2nd Amendment mean according to the government's agenda.

You are allowing the tree of liberty to die of thirst.

 

[Blueshell]

Strict scrutiny has never been applied to the Second Amendment at the SCOTUS level...

I never said it was.

I said SCOTUS set up the test. SCOTUS is by far not the only court to use that test. You yourself posted a thread on a lower federal court using it.

 

[Leader]

On the contrary, I have perfect clarity. If your right is unlimited then why should a negative consequence be imposed upon you?

If the RKBA is unlimited, then murder isn't a thing, because a law against murder would be a limit.

You're backpedaling because you see the error of your argument.

So.... In your mind it is legal to beat someone to death with a hammer because there are no limits on who may own one?
You can burn down buildings because there are no limits (infringements) on who may own matches?

Somehow your logic(?) doesn't compute in my reality.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I didn't disparage you. I asked a question.

You do realize you are using your self admitted disability, the mental disorder called OCD, as an excuse to say that I advocate violence?

When did you stop beating your wife?


-snip-

Yet another post that indicates your lack of integrity.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You truly do not understand what a right is and what the responsibility to not do harm while using a right is. People have the right to keep and bear arms but they do not have the right to do harm while keeping and bearing arms.

On the contrary, I have perfect clarity. If your right is unlimited then why should a negative consequence be imposed upon you?

If the RKBA is unlimited, then murder isn't a thing, because a law against murder would be a limit.

You're backpedaling because you see the error of your argument.

There should not be any negative consequences for keeping and bearing arms in an unlimited manner. But there most definitely should be consequences to causing harm while using the right of keeping and/or bearing arms to do harm. You are confusing the right of keeping and bearing with the action of using the keeping and bearing to do harm. The difference between the two has been explained many times.