Blueshell
Banned
You're just an idiot. That's all there is to it. Public education strikes again.
Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
- Status
Blueshell
Banned
Correct, my personal opinion doesn't determine if a given limit is an infringement. Strict Scrutiny does.
Blueshell
Banned
Shall not be infringed does not mean unlimited.
That's just not what the word "infringed" means.
AND the second amendment only limits the Federal government, meaning states can impose any infringement they like unless that state has it's own version of the second amendment in it's state constitution.
Blueshell
Banned
It's about time you put your money where your mouth is.
You believe any and all limits are infringements. This makes the current government tyrannical. So, please link to the YouTube video of you carrying arms into legally prohibited places and blasting away any government official who tries to stop you.
It's time to stop talking. Put your big-boy pants on and prove that you care about the right to keep and bear arms. You see all these infringements everywhere, show us all the people you've killed over it.
Or admit you're just a little ***** afraid to stand up for what you believe in.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Apparently you do not understand what property rights are either. I am not surprised.
It is interesting to see you ass u me that public education is at fault for my not agreeing with you when the reason I don't agree with the idea that limiting (infringing) upon rights is Ok as long as the limits (infringements) are reasonable limits, appropriate limits, and acceptable limits, is that I understand that any limit is an infringement. Doesn't matter who agrees with those limits/infringements, who benefits from those limits/infringements, or why those limits/infringements are instituted.... limits are still infringements and to play word games (despite actual definitions to the contrary) in order to justify imposing limits is nothing other than attempting to .... justify imposing limits/infringements.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Any limits are infringements. How I fight against those infringements is not up to you to decide. Rest assured I do my part... just not in ways you would consider.... acceptable.
But then... there you go again.. wanting to tell me what to do.. just as you want to tell everyone what is "acceptable" when it comes to keeping (storing) their arms. One thing for sure... you haven't disappointed.
B
Bikenut
Guest
B
Bikenut
Guest
You keep repeating that as if the more it is said the truer it becomes.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant any rights nor do any State Constitutions grant any rights. People don't need Constitutions or Amendments in order to have rights. But Constitutions and Amendments can restrict/limit the government's power to limit/infringe upon those rights.
But the important part is still that any limits put upon the right whether by Federal or State or even local government are still an ................... infringement.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Uh...yeah...you don't get it. The video was put out by a company that is no different than "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America." Males who use such insipid imagery to promulgate their pro-gun-control memes are tagged as "Honorary Mommies" so that everyone will know from then on that they are indeed pro-gun-control.
And just to be clear, not only do you support gun-control laws for people like at least four in this thread alone who have no kids and never have kids visiting, you also don't mind a pro-gun-control production company pimping out little boys to play with sex toys on camera in a national campaign ad just so you can get your anti-liberty memes spread farther and wider. Is that how you raised your own kids, Mommy BlueShell?
So I said "Congratulations. You're now an Honorary Mommy" because you've earned it, 'Panky, you've earned it in spades.
Revised List of Honorary Mommies:
1) Mommy alternety
2) Mommy nosreme
3) Mommy jdcTX
4) Mommy Warbirds
5) Mommy bootsdeal
6) Mommy Olinb
7) Mommy Rocketgeezer
8) Mommy bowserb
9) Mommy BlueShell*
These are folks who have taken the side of the Moms Demand Action propaganda campaign concerning the OC demonstrations that have been going on in Texas without incident for around a year before the Moms inserted themselves and manufactured a controversy where none existed before.
The Mommies appreciate your support. The rest of us decidedly, don't.
And storage practices are no different an issue than the successful OC campaign that OCT waged in TX that the Mommies used (and are still using) as propaganda to get gun-control laws passed and corporations to switch from a position of no gun policy whatsoever, to no guns allowed period.
Uh...yeah again....you don't get it. The post was in reply to DGeorge. I quoted a post of yours to explain to him why I was posting the way he was critical of.
Like I've said before, you're rather dense.
Link Removed
You really should watch the first clip, 'Panky. Your head will explode as your namesake allows his dog to hide his gun in an unlocked drawer. Comedy gold man, comedy freakin' gold.
Blues
*Newest addition to the list.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Interesting that you would call for harming people while arguing against keeping a gun in a tissue box because someone might be harmed.
All that is necessary to expose an anti gunner or anti gunner lite is to engage them in a discussion and let them out themselves.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Wow. I've already posted about that case at least three times in this thread alone, but I damn sure didn't use a link from "The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence" (your link) like you just did. If you're surfing sites like this for your information, you're so far down the gun-control rabbit hole that even a freakin' volcano right under it couldn't dislodge you. From your link:
Even this "idiot" can see where you're coming from. And for the record, what those gun-grabbers were arguing for (because the above argument has already lost) was for the Fourth Circuit to continue using intermediate or rational basis levels of review, and not strict scrutiny, because as I've said a thousand times already, and you have failed miserably to challenge the accuracy of (because you can't challenge the truth), STRICT SCRUTINY has NEVER been applied to a Second Amendment case at the federal appeals court level before February 4, 2016 in Kolbe v. O'Malley, and it still holds the potential to be reverted to intermediate or rational basis levels of review if/when it hits the Supreme Court. And if the Supremes don't accept the case, only those jurisdictions that fall within the purview of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will ever have precedent to use strict scrutiny applied to 2A cases in lower courts.
And you call me an idiot, 'Panky?
Blues
Blueshell
Banned
I see, you're a M.D.A. admin to then grant such a title.
But the facts betray you yet again; from their main page:
Your generous donation helps us work to save lives by:
- Pressuring lawmakers to improve our gun laws
- Raising awareness about gun violence
- Educating the public about common-sense gun laws and responsible gun ownership
- Mobilizing grassroots supporters
- Connecting and amplifying the voices of survivors of gun violence
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the issue.
You should be able to legally own any modern machine-gun you desire, and you should lock it up when on your person.
You should be able to carry any firearm you own nearly anywhere you can legally be, and you should lock it up when on your person.
If you're a teacher you should be able to carry onto school grounds, and you should lock your gun when not on your person.
FYI you should quote the list in such a way as to use the Notification addon and let those on the list know when they've been quoted. Quoting the 'offending' statement of each person with the quote box, with intact track-back code, should do the trick. This way I can come expose your ignorance every-time you express it
Blueshell
Banned
If you aren't ready to take up arms, then there must not be tyranny, which means this must not be an infringement.
Blueshell
Banned
Yes, I call you an idiot, because you think that support for a trigger-lock equals support for all this other gun control. You commit the Slippery Slop Fallacy.
The difference between the 'control' I support and what these other entities support, is that I support YOU being in control of your gun, not the government.
I support you at least putting a trigger lock on your gun, which you keep the key for, while I steadfastly OPPOSE 'smart guns' where the government has the control.
I told you at least twice before that this is what I do every day. I put the lock on my gun. I keep the key. Not the government. Me. I have the only key to unlock my gun. I retain "control" over my gun. I enact "gun control" over myself.
You should do as I do. You should keep control over your gun. You. Not the government. You.
B
Bikenut
Guest
And yet again you tell me what I should do according to your own personal standards formed though obviously tortured logic.
Everything you say always comes down to the same thing.... you want people to do it your way and you are willing to limit (infringe) rights in order to get your way. The very same attitude of every good anti gunner.
I repeat...........
All that is necessary to expose an anti gunner or anti gunner lite is to engage them in a discussion and let them out themselves.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Didn't you get upset because I used bold in one of my posts?
Hmmmm..... how very interesting
So other people should do as you do huh?
So you think your degree of gun control is "acceptable" because you consider it "reasonable" and "appropriate" but you consider some of the government's more strict degrees of gun control "unacceptable" because you think it is "unreasonable" and "inappropriate"?
What part of your degree of gun control is still gun control is so difficult to understand?
Hmmmm..... how very interesting
Interesting how much bold, underlining, and even (gasp!) color is in your post......
So other people should do as you do huh?
So you think your degree of gun control is "acceptable" because you consider it "reasonable" and "appropriate" but you consider some of the government's more strict degrees of gun control "unacceptable" because you think it is "unreasonable" and "inappropriate"?
What part of your degree of gun control is still gun control is so difficult to understand?
BluesStringer
Les Brers
All that is your opinion, and that's fine, but answer me this 'Panky, has strict scrutiny ever been applied at the federal appeals court level before 2/4/2016? Careful how you answer, because everyone will know if you're lying if you answer again in the affirmative.
And tell me how I'm wrong if I assert that even the phrases "strict scrutiny," "intermediate scrutiny," or "rational basis scrutiny" all flow from a Supreme Court ruling that itself would be seen as a blatant usurpation by the Court if analyzed under actual strict scrutiny. Do you even know which ruling the phrase flows from?
Blues
DavidWhite
Banned
The Second Amendment explained for dummies;
What don't you understand about the 2nd Amendment it's only 27 words?
Here I made it easy for you, I added the definitions.
The 2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Amendment has 2 parts.
Part 1: The Collective
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
Definitions:
Well Regulated = Heavily supervised & Trained
Militia = organized group of ordinary Citizens that are non military and controlled by the State
Necessary = Must have, Mandatory
Security = Safe, Secure, Protect
Free State = Sovereign State, Controlled by its own Government
Part 2: The Individual
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Definitions:
Right = Guarantee
People = Every Individual Citizen
Keep = Own
Bear = Carry
Arms = Any and all Weapons (such as firearm, sword or knife to name a few)
Shall not = can not
Infringe = Restrict, or Abolish
So the State has the Right to the Militia to protect it's on borders and sovereignty. The individual Citizen has the Right to Protect his/her own Property, Person, and Family anywhere and everywhere they might be at any time. And if needed by the State to serve in the Militia.
And No Government, Group, or another Citizen can Restrict, Deny, Abolish, or Change the Rights of the Collective and or the Individual.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What don't you understand about the 2nd Amendment it's only 27 words?
Here I made it easy for you, I added the definitions.
The 2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Amendment has 2 parts.
Part 1: The Collective
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
Definitions:
Well Regulated = Heavily supervised & Trained
Militia = organized group of ordinary Citizens that are non military and controlled by the State
Necessary = Must have, Mandatory
Security = Safe, Secure, Protect
Free State = Sovereign State, Controlled by its own Government
Part 2: The Individual
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Definitions:
Right = Guarantee
People = Every Individual Citizen
Keep = Own
Bear = Carry
Arms = Any and all Weapons (such as firearm, sword or knife to name a few)
Shall not = can not
Infringe = Restrict, or Abolish
So the State has the Right to the Militia to protect it's on borders and sovereignty. The individual Citizen has the Right to Protect his/her own Property, Person, and Family anywhere and everywhere they might be at any time. And if needed by the State to serve in the Militia.
And No Government, Group, or another Citizen can Restrict, Deny, Abolish, or Change the Rights of the Collective and or the Individual.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Blueshell
Banned
Since you favor historical precident I'm sure you're ready with a law or court ruling stating the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited.
Blueshell
Banned
No government can enact any limit which undermines the right to keep and bear arms.
I guess I have more experience explaining things to dummies
- Status
