Knowledge test [W:93]

[Bob N]

No, you are trying to tie meaning behind a dependent clause. The full sentence has a justification(not requirement) and a direct command, you are trying to use the justification to place a limitation on the direct command to government "shall not be infringed". You are misreading the sentence in full.

I'm sorry. I disagree. Go back and read post#109.

 

[Moot]

Settled law.
You're wrong.

Nope, you're wrong.

"The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).


There are currently three SCOTUS justices over the age of 76 increasing the odds that they will either retire or expire while Obama is president.

 

[Harshaw]

Nope, you're wrong.

"The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).


There are currently three SCOTUS justices over the age of 76 increasing the odds that they will either retire or expire while Obama is president.

Right, and Roe v. Wade was going to be overturned every time a Republican took the White House. :roll:

You insist on proving with every post that you live in a fantasy world.

 

[H. Lee White]

Nope, you're wrong.

It is every bit as settled as Roe v Wade.

"The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

Neither you nor the person from whom you stole this quote realizes that it contradicts itself.

 

[Harshaw]

Yeah, neither Moot nor the original author knows what "stare decisis" is, obviously. But that's what happens when you Google and post whatever you find without understanding it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'm sorry. I disagree. Go back and read post#109.

Okay, disagree all you like, doesn't change the facts.

 

[Lutherf]

You have obviously never read it then because that is exactly what it says. " To establish a well regulated militia for the security of a free state the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You are the first gunnie I have met who didn't know the correct wording. Astonishing.

Wow!

Just.....wow.:doh

 

[Harshaw]

You have obviously never read it then because that is exactly what it says. " To establish a well regulated militia for the security of a free state the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You are the first gunnie I have met who didn't know the correct wording. Astonishing.

Where did you get this? A copy of the Bill of Rights translated to French, then from French to Italian, then from Italian to Japanese, and then back into English, all translations done by the Brady Campaign?

If you think this is the "correct wording," and you don't bother to do a simple Google search, why should you be taken seriously on anything?

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Second Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the Second Amendment

2nd Amendment - Text of the 2nd Amendment

The Embarrassing Second Amendment

THE TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Second Amendment

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikiquote

Reading the Second Amendment : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Care to link to where you got your bizarre version?

 

[Moot]

It is every bit as settled as Roe v Wade.


Neither you nor the person from whom you stole this quote realizes that it contradicts itself.

There is nothing absolute about SCOTUS decisions or stare decisis or your right to bear arms...especially considering that "we the people" ordained the constitution to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense". The rights of "we the people" more than amply trump the rights of the few to bastardize the second amendment and militarize our society and turn our communities into war zones. As any so called "originalist" can tell you, that was not the framer's intent.

 

[Harshaw]

There is nothing absolute about SCOTUS decisions or stare decisis or your right to bear arms...especially considering that "we the people" ordained the constitution to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense". The rights of "we the people" more than amply trump the rights of the few to bastardize the second amendment and militarize our society and turn our communities into war zones. As any so called "originalist" can tell you, that was not the framer's intent.

1) You've proved over and over and over that you have no idea what "the framer's intent" [sic] is, even though others, most compendiously Goshin, have spelled it out exactly for you.

2) Stare decisis is indeed a very powerful doctrine, and the Court reversing itself is very rare.

3) The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the precise tyranny of the majority that you imply when you say "he rights of 'we the people' more than amply trump the rights of the few . . . " That you do not understand this about the Bill of Rights is not surprising.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope, you're wrong.

"The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).


There are currently three SCOTUS justices over the age of 76 increasing the odds that they will either retire or expire while Obama is president.

so you expect Kagan to have lied-she said Heller is settled now

so if she were to overrule Heller if she had the chance she should be impeached

I noted that if the Heller decision would have been the idiotic result that stevens argued for that would have helped the GOP the Heller decision was a major boon to the dems in 08

 

[TurtleDude]

There is nothing absolute about SCOTUS decisions or stare decisis or your right to bear arms...especially considering that "we the people" ordained the constitution to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense". The rights of "we the people" more than amply trump the rights of the few to bastardize the second amendment and militarize our society and turn our communities into war zones. As any so called "originalist" can tell you, that was not the framer's intent.

our police are MILITARIZING SOCIETY

you seem to think we own military stuff that the cops don't use

 

[Moot]

No, all it proves is that greedy rich pricks begain usurping the people's government for thier own wealth and power, stepping on the state's and our own personal constitutional rights as far back as 1787.

Looks like you agree that the framers had no intention of protecting the individual right to own and bear arms.

However, the rebel armies of the Shay rebellion weren't trying to protect the state or it's rights, they were rebelling against it. Can't say I blame them considering the state of Massechussets was trying to take away their property because they didn't pay their taxes while they were sacrificing their lives to fight in the revolution. That must have seemed like quite a slap in the face.

 

[Harshaw]

Looks like you agree that the framers had no intention of protecting the individual right to own and bear arms.

However, the rebel armies of the Shay rebellion weren't trying to protect the state or it's rights, they were rebelling against it. Can't say I blame them considering the state of Massechussets was trying to take away their property because they didn't pay their taxes while they were sacrificing their lives to fight in the revolution. That must have seemed like quite a slap in the face.

Moot has ZERO interest in actually learning anything which might be contrary to what her hate demands she believe. She doesn't know a thing about the Framers, despite post after post explaining it to her, nor does she even understand what her own example implies.

 

[blaxshep]

Looks like you agree that the framers had no intention of protecting the individual right to own and bear arms.

However, the rebel armies of the Shay rebellion weren't trying to protect the state or it's rights, they were rebelling against it. Can't say I blame them considering the state of Massechussets was trying to take away their property because they didn't pay their taxes while they were sacrificing their lives to fight in the revolution. That must have seemed like quite a slap in the face.

How do you get the opposite of the meaning of my post?

 

[Arbo]

You'd have done better to just ask, "define an assault weapon", or differentiate between different types of guns like you did in questions 7&8. Just because one is not an expert or enthusiast on calibers and firing times does not mean that they cannot discuss the issue. It's like saying that only women can discuss abortion rights.

An utterly horrible analogy.

When the media and elected officials, including the president, continue to include 'automatic weapons' when they talk about what needs to be banned, they show their ignorance on the topic of firearms... and those that are ignorant of the differences are not capable of properly regulating them. Hence the proposed legislation that will do nothing but rob law abiding citizens of their rights, and put more federal government involvement into it, making more lists of people they do not like and can concentrate on watching.. and have for the future when they want to go house to house to confiscate things.

 

[Moot]

How do you get the opposite of the meaning of my post?

Who do you think the "rich, greedy, pricks, usurping the people's government for their own wealth and power" were?

Which side are you on, the peasants who had fought in the Revolution and took up arms to stop the state from taking their land for failing to pay the high taxes.....or....the state and the elite passing the government debt onto the peasants and taking their land for failing to pay the high taxes?

Shays' Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tech30528]

My suggestion is that you get there pretty fast. You're basically giving the impression that if you don't know the answers to those question... and I'd bet many PRO-gun rights folks wouldn't, you can't argue the issue. I have a BIG problem with that position.

I just found this thread and I am eagerly awaiting the other shoe. I am a gun enthusiast, and can answer most of these even though I am not very well versed in the AR platform or larger calibers. I'm a 22 target guy. The question about the difference between .223 and 22LR could be an essay for me. I do know the difference between .308 and 7.62 NATO. I know the difference between an M16 and an AR15. For me this distinction alone is a must know for anyone advocating an "assault weapons" ban. While they look very much alike (unless you know where and what a select fire switch is). Seeing how this will post on the 17th page or so I don't think I'm in any danger of ruining the surprise, so I'll just tell you. An AR15 is a semi auto rifle, meaning it sends one round each time the trigger is pulled. An M16 is selectable, meaning it can operate as a semi auto, 3 round burst or full auto.

Let me give you a perspective from a very knowledgeable 22 guy. I own several Ruger 10 22 rifles, possible the most prolific 22 semi auto available. I have seen magazines for these that hold as many as 100 rounds although they are pretty consistently unreliable and jam easily. A stock magazine is 10 rounds, the most common large capacity magazines are 25 rounds and there are some 50 rounders that have been reported to be pretty reliable. I don't personally know, I don't have a need for that much capacity all at once. If I am out hunting small game I will usually have either a 10 round or 25 round magazine with a pocket full of spares. But on to fire rate.

Now as I've said, I'm pretty proficient with these rifles. My most accurate one will put rounds in a 1 1/4 inch circle at 100 yards at a "relaxed" fire rate, approximately 30 rounds per minute. But it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. For those not practiced this is known as "spraying lead" or "spray and pray" as in pray you hit your target because there is much less control firing like this. But I can put 25 rounds on a 4 inch target at 100 yards in 8 seconds on a good day. That has taken years of practice and thousands of rounds.

Now let's consider a full auto 10 22. Yes, there are some out there. They were converted and registered before the first ban, and they are available for purchase if you can find someone who will sell one and are willing to pay for it. A semi auto 10 22 goes for about $225 new. A full auto can cost upwards of $2000 along with a $200 federal stamp that takes about 4 months to obtain. The fire rate of a full auto 10 22 is about 1400 rounds per minute. That means you can dump a 25 round magazine in about 1 second. Personally I have no interest in this, I just don't enjoy reloading that much.

OK, so we go from accurately firing 30 rounds per minute to spraying 1400 rounds per minute (assuming you can change out magazines that fast, which you can't). That's a huge difference.

Now for the AR15 vs M16 comparison. The AR15 has about the same fire rate as my 10 22. It is semi auto only. An M16 is selectable, so it can fire anywhere from 30 to (I would guess, I haven't fired a full auto) upwards of 1000 rounds per minute. One is an "assault rifle", the other is not.

 

[H. Lee White]

There is nothing absolute about SCOTUS decisions or stare decisis or your right to bear arms...especially considering that "we the people" ordained the constitution to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense". The rights of "we the people" more than amply trump the rights of the few to bastardize the second amendment and militarize our society and turn our communities into war zones. As any so called "originalist" can tell you, that was not the framer's intent.

I'm sorry -- I simply cannot take you seriously any longer.
You clearly have no clue of what you're talking about and have no desire to learn.

 

[Moot]

I'm sorry -- I simply cannot take you seriously any longer.
You clearly have no clue of what you're talking about and have no desire to learn.

pfffft, is that so? LOL Well, hmmph, if you had a clue you might have actually had something of value or substance to say.

 

[nota bene]

Who do you think the "rich, greedy, pricks, usurping the people's government for their own wealth and power" were?

Which side are you on, the peasants who had fought in the Revolution and took up arms to stop the state from taking their land for failing to pay the high taxes.....or....the state and the elite passing the government debt onto the peasants and taking their land for failing to pay the high taxes?

Shays' Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "peasants"?!

If you can use this term to describe ordinary colonials who fought in the American Revolution, then your understanding of the United States and its history is virtually nill.

From Victor Davis Hanson:

Traditional peasant societies believe in only a limited amount of good. The more your neighbor earns, the less someone else gets. Profits are seen as a sort of theft; they must be either hidden or redistributed. Envy, rather than admiration of success, reigns.

In contrast, Western civilization began with a very different, ancient Greek idea of an autonomous citizen, not an indentured serf or subsistence peasant. The small, independent landowner — if he was left to his own talents, and if his success was protected by, and from, government — would create new sources of wealth for everyone. The resulting greater bounty for the poor soon trumped their old jealousy of the better-off.

Citizens of ancient Greece and Italy soon proved more prosperous and free than either the tribal folk to the north and west or the imperial subjects to the south and east. The success of later Western civilization in general, and America in particular, is a testament to this legacy of the freedom of the individual in the widest political and economic sense.

A Nation of Peasants? - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online

 

[American]

You'd have done better to just ask, "define an assault weapon", or differentiate between different types of guns like you did in questions 7&8. Just because one is not an expert or enthusiast on calibers and firing times does not mean that they cannot discuss the issue. It's like saying that only women can discuss abortion rights.

I already defined it. It's anything that looks "assaultie".

 

[lizzie]

I already defined it. It's anything that looks "assaultie".

Post "liked" for element of humor. :lol:

 

[LaMidRighter]

An utterly horrible analogy.

When the media and elected officials, including the president, continue to include 'automatic weapons' when they talk about what needs to be banned, they show their ignorance on the topic of firearms... and those that are ignorant of the differences are not capable of properly regulating them. Hence the proposed legislation that will do nothing but rob law abiding citizens of their rights, and put more federal government involvement into it, making more lists of people they do not like and can concentrate on watching.. and have for the future when they want to go house to house to confiscate things.

On face it would seem that I want everyone to be an enthusiast to speak of gun control. Honestly every question was based upon some myth about guns issued from the pro-control side, many of them with no actual knowledge of what they were speakin.

 

[Arbo]

On face it would seem that I want everyone to be an enthusiast to speak of gun control. Honestly every question was based upon some myth about guns issued from the pro-control side, many of them with no actual knowledge of what they were speakin.

I have yet to find one proponent of more gun control that seems to have a clue what they are talking about.

I still would like to see them define 'assault weapon', just once, in specific terms. But we know there is no set definition, sort of like the whole 'fair share' nonsense they blurt about taxes.