Are firearms the problem? [W:874]

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Nobody is secondary to anyone else. That is a false premise and the tools officers have to do their job are completely independent from the Second Amendment.

No. They are not. Thats exactly what Heller says. Weapons in common use. If police commonly use a weapon it should not be banned from the populace. YOU want police to have access to weaponry that citizens do not, so when the time comes to defend themselves, a citizen will not be able to do it as effectively as the police.

You cannot depend on someone else to protect you at all times. If you cannot then you should use the best available tools for the job. Police use those same tools.

The false premise is you believing that police should have rights that citizens do not, when police are just citizens.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

*chuckle* If you go back, I linked to both cases. Maybe you should have actually followed the links and READ them.

Miller outlined the esotoric and military only use weapons that should be limited. Heller outlined the common use principle applied to which weapons would be eligible for gun control.

If you think I am going to read those two cases to appease you and do your work for you - it is not going to happen. Just reproduce the relevant sections and quote from them where it talks about citizens having the right to equal weaponry with the police and I will be glad to comment on it.

I DO NOT trust you to tell me what either case said. Show me what either case said.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

No. They are not. Thats exactly what Heller says. Weapons in common use. If police commonly use a weapon it should not be banned from the populace. YOU want police to have access to weaponry that citizens do not, so when the time comes to defend themselves, a citizen will not be able to do it as effectively as the police.

You cannot depend on someone else to protect you at all times. If you cannot then you should use the best available tools for the job. Police use those same tools.

The false premise is you believing that police should have rights that citizens do not, when police are just citizens.

Then you should have no trouble quoting from that decisions which says what you think it says. Lets see it.

Police DO NOT carry weapons as part of their rights as American citizens. To keep repeating that blatant lie is the height of intellectual fraud.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Then you should have no trouble quoting from that decisions which says what you think it says. Lets see it.

See here. You always demand others go back and look at post history. Follow your own demands. Do some legwork. I already quoted it some to stop you from using that bs infringed defintion you were falsely applying to gun control, now go back and look it up yourself.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

If you think I am going to read those two cases to appease you and do your work for you - it is not going to happen. Just reproduce the relevant sections and quote from them where it talks about citizens having the right to equal weaponry with the police and I will be glad to comment on it.

I DO NOT trust you to tell me what either case said. Show me what either case said.

No. Go find it yourself. Its already quoted in this thread and on the links section attached to the thread. Follow your own demands when asked to verify something.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

See here. You always demand others go back and look at post history. Follow your own demands. Do some legwork. I already quoted it some to stop you from using that bs infringed defintion you were falsely applying to gun control, now go back and look it up yourself.

I have no trouble looking at your post history. The problem is I did that and can find NOTHING quoting from any of those decisions which says what you claim it says.

So lets see it.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

No. Go find it yourself. Its already quoted in this thread and on the links section attached to the thread. Follow your own demands when asked to verify something.

Not it is not. I looked and there was nothing from any decisions which says what you claim it says.

But prove me wrong by reproducing it again.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

I have no trouble looking at your post history. The problem is I did that and can find NOTHING quoting from any of those decisions which says what you claim it says.

So lets see it.

Not it is not. I looked and there was nothing from any decisions which says what you claim it says.

But prove me wrong by reproducing it again.

Nope. Not budging. I linked to the actual SCOTUS opinions and in another spot linked to the case summaries. You can go find them and produce the same legwork I did in your refutation.

 

[Federalist]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Nice fiction existing only on paper.

Are you claiming that we are not, by law, all members of the unorganized militia?

 

[American]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

I am willing to wager a significant amount of money as well as my existence here versus yours that I can prove my argument that the Second Amendment does not contain the word INFRINGEMENT(S).

Ready to take me up on it.

Or is that just plain "idiotic" or "nonsense" since you can show us the word INFRINGEMENT(S) in the Second Amendment? Right? :roll:

I want to know right now, with a link, who put forth a statement saying the word 'infringements" is in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[American]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Please do quote either or both cases where it talks about citizens having equal weapons with the police department and tell me what I am suppose to reply to.

Show us where it talks about how the police must be better armed than citizens? Show where this principle originates starting with the US Constitution.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Nope. Not budging. I linked to the actual SCOTUS opinions and in another spot linked to the case summaries. You can go find them and produce the same legwork I did in your refutation.

Yeah - you cant provide what you don't have and every post you makes puts that in larger and larger letters chiseled into the side of a mountain.

You got zip.... nothing .... nada.

If you did you would be willing to put it forth.

All you do is tell us what you think it means. You refuse to present the actual opinion with the highlighted parts where they define the role of a police officer.

And that is sad.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Are you claiming that we are not, by law, all members of the unorganized militia?

A fiction which exists only on paper.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Show us where it talks about how the police must be better armed than citizens? Show where this principle originates starting with the US Constitution.

It has NOTHING to do with the Consitution.

Why is that point escaping you?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

I want to know right now, with a link, who put forth a statement saying the word 'infringements" is in the 2nd Amendment.

Why would you post this from me

I am willing to wager a significant amount of money as well as my existence here versus yours that I can prove my argument that the Second Amendment does not contain the word INFRINGEMENT(S).

Ready to take me up on it.

Or is that just plain "idiotic" or "nonsense" since you can show us the word INFRINGEMENT(S) in the Second Amendment? Right?

Your reply makes no sense to that. I am 100% right - the word INFRINGEMENT does not appear in the Second Amendment. Or do you disagree with that?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

So lets see my posts and my words advocating for MOB RULE.

Yeah - I know - silly request . :doh:roll:

I used to use it as my signature. The bit where the rich should grovel at the feet of the masses in order to keep what wealth they had

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Its not about killing officers, its about having access to the best self defense tools available. Why do you want to make citizens secondary to police officers? Shouldnt people be allowed to defend themselves as fully as possible?

and he fails to understand that we citizens who are not cops DO NOT CHOOSE when we have to deal with criminals nor do we have backup or two way radios or normally body armor. Indeed we ought to HAVE WEAPONS superior to the cops since we have so many things working against us when we are forced to engage in a lethal confrontation with criminals.

It appears that some think that us civilians not only are not TASKED with fighting criminals, we should not be able to do that but should merely call the cops

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Then you should have no trouble quoting from that decisions which says what you think it says. Lets see it.

Police DO NOT carry weapons as part of their rights as American citizens. To keep repeating that blatant lie is the height of intellectual fraud.

why do you continue to evade the obvious. IF POLICE DEPARTMENTS use a certain type of weapon, that ALONE means that the weapons meet the COMMONLY USED TEST IN HELLER.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

why do you continue to evade the obvious. IF POLICE DEPARTMENTS use a certain type of weapon, that ALONE means that the weapons meet the COMMONLY USED TEST IN HELLER.

If we use the term "Common" the same way Haymarket uses "infringed" then; as long as one person carries a certain type of weapon it is common.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Yeah - you cant provide what you don't have and every post you makes puts that in larger and larger letters chiseled into the side of a mountain.

You got zip.... nothing .... nada.

If you did you would be willing to put it forth.

All you do is tell us what you think it means. You refuse to present the actual opinion with the highlighted parts where they define the role of a police officer.

And that is sad.

I already did several times.

The opinion on Heller was that the justices devised a test for which weapons were eligible for gun control and which were not---weapons that were in "common use" were not eligible for gun control because by their nature it would cause restrictions 2nd ammendment rights. There was also mention that defense against government, self defense, hunting and sport were all relevant exercising of 2nd rights and restricting handguns while leaving long guns intact is infringing when handguns are the most used weapon for self defense, particularly in the home.

I offered this several times. In fact its the same information I shot down your stone stupid infringed argument with.

Ill help you a little bit. Ill give you a PDF of the opinion, start reading, its long overdue for you, since you voice so much that is contrary to Heller. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[Federalist]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

A fiction which exists only on paper.

Are you denying that the US code states that we are members of the unorganized militia?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

I used to use it as my signature. The bit where the rich should grovel at the feet of the masses in order to keep what wealth they had

By all means - lets see it...... and by that I mean MY EXACT WORDS.

Not you paraphrasing.
Not you telling me what you think I said.
Not you telling me what you think I meant.
Not some frankensteins monster version of what I said.

Give us my exact words.

Lets see them.

Fat chance that is going to happen. :roll:

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

why do you continue to evade the obvious. IF POLICE DEPARTMENTS use a certain type of weapon, that ALONE means that the weapons meet the COMMONLY USED TEST IN HELLER.

It has nothing to do with it as police are NOT using those weapons under their Second Amendment rights.

But by all means Turtle, feel free to do what some of your allies could not do and quote from the decision where it applies to police weaponry and sets up an equal standard for the the citizen.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

I already did several times.

The opinion on Heller was that the justices devised a test for which weapons were eligible for gun control and which were not---weapons that were in "common use" were not eligible for gun control because by their nature it would cause restrictions 2nd ammendment rights. There was also mention that defense against government, self defense, hunting and sport were all relevant exercising of 2nd rights and restricting handguns while leaving long guns intact is infringing when handguns are the most used weapon for self defense, particularly in the home.

I offered this several times. In fact its the same information I shot down your stone stupid infringed argument with.

Ill help you a little bit. Ill give you a PDF of the opinion, start reading, its long overdue for you, since you voice so much that is contrary to Heller. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Yeah. I read the decision. Which part of it exactly do you believe proves your point because I see NOTHING in there that speaks to the idea that you have a right to the same weapons police officers use as part of their job.

Do quote that for me.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Are you denying that the US code states that we are members of the unorganized militia?

Nope. Its right there on a piece of paper. I used some other paper this morning that had some stuff left on it also. But that was more real and more useful that that century old law which no longer has any real world meaning attached to it in real Americans lives.