Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Blueshell]

The definition of infringe that I gave from the Oxford dictionary did not mention any time frame. It merely stated "act as to limit".

No one's talking about time frames, idiot.

Any limit is still an infringement simply because it is a limit regardless of when it existed or when the actions to limit were taken. (see the much posted definition of infringe scattered throughout this discussion)

You'll have to take that up with the authors of the Constitution. Our 2A only protects weapons suitable for militia use, which is another limit.

And the right to keep and bear arms is without limits because of these 4 words in the 2nd Amendment... "shall not be infringed"... IS the default attribute.

No right is unlimited. Not all limits are infringements.

"Shall not be infringed" is a law, not an atribute.

God you're so ******* stupid.

 

[Blueshell]

Did you just move the goal posts from talking about infringing upon the right to keep arms to regulating the use of force? Interesting.....

Nope.

Idiot.

 

[Bikenut]

No one's talking about time frames, idiot.

Really? Didn't you say:

Exactly.

If the act only codifies a pre-existing limit, then the act is not limiting; the right was already limited and the act occurs beyond the right's boundaries.

Doesn't preexisting mean before now?

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

preexist
-snip-
Exist at or from an earlier time:

From an earlier time to now or to before it was codified would be a time frame.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Any limit is still an infringement simply because it is a limit regardless of when it existed or when the actions to limit were taken. (see the much posted definition of infringe scattered throughout this discussion)

You'll have to take that up with the authors of the Constitution. Our 2A only protects weapons suitable for militia use, which is another limit.

Kindly show me where the wording of the 2nd Amendment limits the people to only those weapons suitable for militia use. And please define what "weapons suitable for militia use" are.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And the right to keep and bear arms is without limits because of these 4 words in the 2nd Amendment... "shall not be infringed"... IS the default attribute.

No right is unlimited. Not all limits are infringements.

"Shall not be infringed" is a law, not an atribute.

Not being limited, which would be unlimited, IS an attribute.

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

attribute
-snip-
Regard a quality or feature as characteristic of or possessed by-snip-

God you're so ******* stupid.

Resorting to insults and ridicule in the hope of diminishing and demeaning your opponent is an indication of desperation due to not having anything to back up your argument.

 

[Leader]

The cave man belonged to a tribe so there was a social contract in which his use of force was regulated.

Try again.

Or just give up, because I'm obviously far more educated on this topic than you are. Not all limits are infringements. I'm sorry you're to stupid to read the definition.

No right, not a single one, has ever, does, or will ever exist in an unlimited state. You know this because it's why you can't provide a proof of your argument.

Are you absolutely sure the FIRST living person to defend himself in any way was a member of a tribe that had already established rules or limits as you prefer as to how he could defend himself and what he could use?

Perhaps you would like to think about that for a while.

 

[Blueshell]

Kindly show me where the wording of the 2nd Amendment limits the people to only those weapons suitable for militia use. And please define what "weapons suitable for militia use" are.

Here's the deal: The second amendment being part of the Constitution, when you cite the second amendment as an authority, you acknowledge the authority of the whole Constitution....including the part of the Constitution which gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret what things mean. You don't get to cherry-pick the parts you like from the parts you don't, it's all or nothing. To disavow the Supreme Court's authority is to disavow the Constitution's authority and with it, you disavow the second amendment.

You have repeatedly cited the second amendment as an authority, which means you acknowledge the authority of the Constitution, including the part which gives the Supreme Court the right to decide these matters.

According to the Supreme Court:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."

So we start with a list of everything and then remove those items which are either not 'in common use', and/or are 'dangerous and unusual. Feel free to add your own and let's test it.

So, let's go down the list:

• Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
• Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
• Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
• Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
• Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
• ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Accessories are not 'arms' but given all the hoopla over 'assault weapons' we can apply the same standard to them and see what we get:

• Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
• Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Sound Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

All you have to do is apply a little bit of logic and this becomes very easy to figure out.

Getting back to topic, even the first amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't literally mean "no law". There's a metric ****-ton of laws pertaining to religion from prohibiting animal sacrifice to allowing clergy to solemnize municipally binding marriage licence applications. It means the law can't undermine the right.

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.

 

[Blueshell]

Are you absolutely sure the FIRST living person to defend himself in any way was a member of a tribe that had already established rules or limits as you prefer as to how he could defend himself and what he could use?

I guess whoever brought that up is going to have to document that cave-man's fact-dependent situation before we can use it as a rational example.

 

[Bikenut]

Here's the deal: The second amendment being part of the Constitution, when you cite the second amendment as an authority, you acknowledge the authority of the whole Constitution....including the part of the Constitution which gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret what things mean. You don't get to cherry-pick the parts you like from the parts you don't, it's all or nothing. To disavow the Supreme Court's authority is to disavow the Constitution's authority and with it, you disavow the second amendment.

You have repeatedly cited the second amendment as an authority, which means you acknowledge the authority of the Constitution, including the part which gives the Supreme Court the right to decide these matters.

-snip-

Getting back to topic, even the first amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't literally mean "no law". There's a metric ****-ton of laws pertaining to religion from prohibiting animal sacrifice to allowing clergy to solemnize municipally binding marriage licence applications. It means the law can't undermine the right.

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.

Are you really saying the the Supreme Court can decide that "shall not infringe" means "can infringe as long as the Supreme Court says so"? Are you saying that "shall make no law" actually means it is Ok to make law?

You forget that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the right but is a declaration that recognizes that the right exists and has the express language of "shall not be infringed" directed at the government... of which the Supreme Court is a part of...contained therein.

Any and all limits regardless of what government/government agency imposes them are still infringements. Using criteria or standards that courts/governments/or even some people consider to be "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable" to justify imposing those limits is still imposing limits. And imposing limits on the right to keep arms with laws that impact any and all methods of keeping arms are infringements on the right to keep arms.

Just because some folks agree with the government and courts that some limits (infringements) are Ok doesn't change the fact that, according to the plain definitions of the words "limit" and "infringe", limits are still infringements.

Oh... and you keep saying the word "undermine" ....

infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary

infringe
-snip-
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold and underline added by me for emphasis...

 

[Blueshell]

Really? Didn't you say:

That post was not about time frames. Christ on a cracker you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

 

[Blueshell]

Are you really saying the the Supreme Court can decide that "shall not infringe" means "can infringe as long as the Supreme Court says so"?

That seems to be the way the Constitution is written, yeah.

You forget that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the right but is a declaration that recognizes that the right exists and has the express language of "shall not be infringed" contained therein.

SCOTUS isn't deciding what the right means, it's deciding what the second amendment means.

Any and all limits regardless of what government/government agency imposes them are still infringements.

Calling back to our exchange on natural rights, how they don't exist and only violence can get you what you want: If you begin practicing the RKBA in an unlimited fashion, the government will apply violence against you probably in the form of a SWAT team. The only path for you to have the unlimited right you claim is to apply more violence against the government and force them to comply.

Your RKBA is limited until you apply violence to remove the limits, that's why I keep asking where all your 'cold, dead hands' are.

Using criteria or standards that courts/governments/or even some people consider to be "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable"....

You folks keep putting those same three words in quotations...in which post of mine did I use them?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
According to the Supreme Court:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."

So we start with a list of everything and then remove those items which are either not 'in common use', and/or are 'dangerous and unusual. Feel free to add your own and let's test it.

So, let's go down the list:

• Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
• Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
• Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
• Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
• Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
• Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
• ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Accessories are not 'arms' but given all the hoopla over 'assault weapons' we can apply the same standard to them and see what we get:

• Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
• Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
• Sound Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

All you have to do is apply a little bit of logic and this becomes very easy to figure out.-snip-

So you would cite the Supreme Court deciding it can infringe in one case as justification for infringing in another case and that justifies the examples of infringing in your list? Logic indeed.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Are you really saying the the Supreme Court can decide that "shall not infringe" means "can infringe as long as the Supreme Court says so"?

That seems to be the way the Constitution is written, yeah.

That is how you and the court might think it is written but a plain understanding of the words "shall not be infringed" cannot be interpreted as to mean "can be infringed" no matter who wants to think so.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You forget that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the right but is a declaration that recognizes that the right exists and has the express language of "shall not be infringed" contained therein.

SCOTUS isn't deciding what the right means, it's deciding what the second amendment means.

And "shall not be infringe" means "can infringe as long as the government says so"?

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Any and all limits regardless of what government/government agency imposes them are still infringements.

Calling back to our exchange on natural rights, how they don't exist and only violence can get you what you want: If you begin practicing the RKBA in an unlimited fashion, the government will apply violence against you probably in the form of a SWAT team. The only path for you to have the unlimited right you claim is to apply more violence against the government and force them to comply.

Your RKBA is limited until you apply violence to remove the limits, that's why I keep asking where all your 'cold, dead hands' are.

You can believe that natural rights do not exist if you wish but your disbelief doesn't mean natural rights do not exist.

By the way.... I haven't advocated using any violence against anyone including the government or government agencies but talking about using violence seems to be a recurring theme in your posts.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Using criteria or standards that courts/governments/or even some people consider to be "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable"....

You folks keep putting those same three words in quotations...in which post of mine did I use them?

Have I posted any cites and/or links that credit you with using those 3 words? But then.. you think the use of ellipsis and brackets are Ok to completely change the wording of other people's posts in order to imply an entirely different meaning to their posts.

 

[Blueshell]

That is how you and the court might think it is written but a plain understanding of the words "shall not be infringed" cannot be interpreted as to mean "can be infringed" no matter who wants to think so.

Well see that's the power of the Supreme Court: they can make anything mean whatever they want it to mean. The law is divorced from reality, no question.

And "shall not be infringe" means "can infringe as long as the government says so"?

Just like they call sound suppressors a 'firearm' but they don't call an unborn child a 'person'.

You can believe that natural rights do not exist if you wish but your disbelief doesn't mean natural rights do not exist.

Right, the fact that it's as testable as gravity means natural rights don't exist.

By the way.... I haven't advocated using any violence against anyone including the government or government agencies but talking about using violence seems to be a recurring theme in your posts.

The side that wins is always the side that is able and willing to use more violence than the other.

Have I posted any cites and/or links that credit you with using those 3 words?

That's the source of my confusion...you haven't. Who are you quoting?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Using criteria or standards that courts/governments/or even some people consider to be "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable"....

Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
You folks keep putting those same three words in quotations...in which post of mine did I use them?

That's the source of my confusion...you haven't. Who are you quoting?

Obviously you didn't use them. And you denigrate my reading comprehension?

Originally posted by Blueshell

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Really? Didn't you say:

That post was not about time frames. Christ on a cracker you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

 

[Leader]

The Constitution doesn't ok setting "limits" on or infringing on the 2nd amendment.
That affirms our "RIGHT" to "keep & bear arms". (whatever arms those happen to be)

The Constitution ALSO allows government to make & enforce laws or rules.
Some of those laws determine what we can do with those arms, as in we can't kill other people.

Our government has seen fit to go WAY beyond what the Constitution intended and, in the case of the 2nd amendment, INFRINGED on our right because they thought they are better qualified (read smarter) then us to determine "proper" use.

That doesn't make it right.

And our right to self defense came long before any "limits".

 

[Blueshell]

Obviously you didn't use them.

That would be why I'm asking you whom you're quoting.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
That is how you and the court might think it is written but a plain understanding of the words "shall not be infringed" cannot be interpreted as to mean "can be infringed" no matter who wants to think so.

Well see that's the power of the Supreme Court: they can make anything mean whatever they want it to mean. The law is divorced from reality, no question.-snip-

So limits are not infringements regardless of the reality of the plain definition of the word limits as being infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms as long as the government says so. And I gather from your posts you consider that to be Ok as long as you agree with those limits. Is that a fair estimation of your postings?

 

[Blueshell]

The Constitution doesn't ok setting "limits" on or infringing on the 2nd amendment.
That affirms our "RIGHT" to "keep & bear arms". (whatever arms those happen to be)

The Constitution ALSO allows government to make & enforce laws or rules.
Some of those laws determine what we can do with those arms, as in we can't kill other people.

Our government has seen fit to go WAY beyond what the Constitution intended and, in the case of the 2nd amendment, INFRINGED on our right because they thought they are better qualified (read smarter) then us to determine "proper" use.

That doesn't make it right.

And our right to self defense came long before any "limits".

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.

 

[Blueshell]

So limits are not infringements regardless of the reality of the plain definition of the word limits as being infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms as long as the government says so. And I gather from your posts you consider that to be Ok as long as you agree with those limits. Is that a fair estimation of your postings?

Regardless of reality the law can say something different because the government is able and willing to use more violence than an individual is to get it's way.

That's how nature works, and is a proof of how natural rights don't exist.

A recent example of 'might makes right' is the first Bundey Ranch situation where a SWAT team showed up to confiscate cattle and possibly make arrests. The protesters at the ranch were willing and able to use more violence than the SWAT team, and that's why they won that engagement. If the SWAT team were more willing and able to use violence, the Bundeys would have lost that engagement.

The Bundey situation in Oregon was lost because those protesters weren't willing to use violence at all.

 

[Bikenut]

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.

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

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

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?

Edited to add:

Mr. Yeager banned me from his Facebook page for calling him out over his "I'm gona kill people" video.

Granted I did it 32+ times over a year but he never responded so I regard it as valid.

I also go to these "militias" that take part in ******** like the Bundey Ranch and challenge them on their use of children, ask who is their commanding officer (they don't have one, which means they aren't a militia no matter how many times they print t-shirts with that word in their name).

I have clinically diagnosed OCD and I know how to use it

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So limits are not infringements regardless of the reality of the plain definition of the word limits as being infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms as long as the government says so. And I gather from your posts you consider that to be Ok as long as you agree with those limits. Is that a fair estimation of your postings?

Regardless of reality the law can say something different because the government is able and willing to use more violence than an individual is to get it's way.

That's how nature works, and is a proof of how natural rights don't exist.

A recent example of 'might makes right' is the first Bundey Ranch situation where a SWAT team showed up to confiscate cattle and possibly make arrests. The protesters at the ranch were willing and able to use more violence than the SWAT team, and that's why they won that engagement. If the SWAT team were more willing and able to use violence, the Bundeys would have lost that engagement.

The Bundey situation in Oregon was lost because those protesters weren't willing to use violence at all.

The fact that governments are willing to use violence in order to force limits (infringements) upon the rights of it's citizens doesn't justify those infringements (limits) nor does it mean those limits (infringements) are not infringements.

Nor is it proof that natural rights do not exist but it is proof that governments will use violence to force limits (infringements) upon the natural rights of it's citizens.