Obama losing his gun control campaign

[ecofarm]

Re: Are you people insane?

The USSC reasoned the second amendment is not absolute. Do you reject the courts reasoning? Hows that working out for ya?

So first you want to interpret "well regulated militia" as military, and now you want to argue that nothing is absolute? Very nice. hahaha

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are you people insane?

The USSC reasoned the second amendment is not absolute. Do you reject the courts reasoning? Hows that working out for ya?

That doesn't mean anything until they actually uphold some regulation. They did not in Heller

and based on Heller and Miller, bans on weapons that are commonly owned by millions of civilians and widely issued to hundreds of thousands of CIVILIAN law enforcement officers, will be ruled unconstitutional

tell me how Miller and Heller would allow a ban on say the MI carbine which was widely distributed to hundreds of thousands of Citizens (including me and my wife) by a governmental agency known as the DEPARTMENT OF CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP

 

[jamesrage]

Thats where your bayonet might come in handy.

Isn't that one of the features anti-2nd amendment loons want banned? And how would that help me if the thugs are armed ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Isn't that one of the features anti-2nd amendment loons want banned?

yeah, the anti gun whiners don't understand that the makers of real assault rifles (like COLT and their subcontractors) use common components to save costs meaning civilian legal rifles often have stuff that has little use such as bayonet lugs

 

[Morality Games]

Oh sorry, I forgot about all of the Americans that hop across the pond and shoot you guys. Oh wait, yeah that doesn't happen and you need to get your nose out of our business.

Challenging a person's right to speak on an issue based on their national affiliation doesn't pass as an argument, especially on a internationally inclusive forum.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is an internationally inclusive political forum. Challenging a person's right to speak on an issue based on their regional identification doesn't pass as an argument.

that might be true but listening to europeans whine about american gun rights is just plain stupid

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are you people insane?

quantity never tops quality when it comes to arguments

police officers are not members of the military and are not considered military by federal statutes: rather they are civilians. FBI, DEA and USMS are civilian employees of the US government. The only difference between them and their bosses (ie US attorneys) is that the US attorney (a presidentially appointed, senate confirmed position which is the CHIEF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT FOR A JUDICIAL DISTRICT) is subject to removal by the president for any reason but he or she can serve past the age of 57.

try again

We hear YOUR words. And they are but YOUR opinion. Are you going to take me up on my $100.00 wager that you and Eco are dead wrong and I can prove it with one dictionary definition of CIVILIAN after another?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are you people insane?

We hear YOUR words. And they are but YOUR opinion. Are you going to take me up on my $100.00 wager that you and Eco are dead wrong and I can prove it with one dictionary definition of CIVILIAN after another?

why should I care-your silly dictionary means nothing when it comes to the LAW

which I am well versed in

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are you people insane?

I want you to tell me why Assistant United States attorneys who are under the same chain of command as FBI and other DoJ employees are considered civilian employees of the US Government but you claim FBI and USMS and DEA are not

I honesty do not give a rats fat behind what the FBI does because THEY DO NOT WRITE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. And your attempt to pretend that their opinion is any better than yours is ludicrous and irrelevant. We went through this weeks ago and you lost that time also. You falsely and dishonestly pretend that some source which differentiates between the military and civilians is somehow saying that police officers are civilians. In that very narrow context being defined as NON MILITARY but that does not apply to this argument.


Are you going to take my wager and put up $100 per dictionary definition or not?

 

[Moot]

Re: Are you people insane?

that is stupid, unsupported by applicable constitutional law and evasive.

what do you think the second amendment holds?

Hey, I'm just going by what the SCOTUS said in Heller vs DoC. The second amendment is not an unlimited or absolute right and firearms can be regulated. You should read it sometime....


"...Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:....read...."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are you people insane?

why should I care-your silly dictionary means nothing when it comes to the LAW

which I am well versed in

The point is IT IS NOT MY SILLY DICTIONARY DEFINITION. Nor is it your SILLY MADE UP DEFINITION to try and weasel out of a tight spot you continually put yourself in on this issue.

A standard dictionary is the recognized authority and it is NOT mine nor is it yours. It is impartial, That is the point.

And of course, that is why you are rejecting it since you cannot control it and you know it shows you to be wrong. But you can prove me wrong for just $100.00. Are you up for the challenge?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are you people insane?

I honesty do not give a rats fat behind what the FBI does because THEY DO NOT WRITE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. And your attempt to pretend that their opinion is any better than yours is ludicrous and irrelevant. We went through this weeks ago and you lost that time also. You falsely and dishonestly pretend that some source which differentiates between the military and civilians is somehow saying that police officers are civilians. In that very narrow context being defined as NON MILITARY but that does not apply to this argument.


Are you going to take my wager and put up $100 per dictionary definition or not?

I can see you in court

Haymarket-Your honor my DICTIONARY says that this FBI agent sitting before you is NOT A CIVILIAN and thus CIVILIAN law does not apply to him

Judge-Barrister Turtle?

BT-Your honor, FBI agents work for a civilian agency known as the FBI, the FBI is under the Department of Justice-a CIVILIAN executive agency headed by the ATTORNEY GENERAL. FBI agents are subordinate to the US ATTORNEY for the district in which they are located. FBI AGENTS are under civilian employment standards that other DOJ civilian employees are subject to as well

Judge-Haymarket-you lose

 

[Moot]

Re: Are you people insane?

So first you want to interpret "well regulated militia" as military, and now you want to argue that nothing is absolute? Very nice. hahaha

How kewt, it's trying to twist my words into a strawman. So typical, so sad.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Are you people insane?

But even more important is that not all civilians are cops and they do not have the absolute right to use the same firearms that cops use unless they are regulated.

Actually they do have that right.

What you meant to say was "unless they aren't regulated." Which we have a right and access to as well, with a $200 tax stamp.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are you people insane?

How kewt, it's trying to twist my words into a strawman. So typical, so sad.

what is sad is how little you know of this issue and that you don't have the good sense to throw in the towel. Its becoming black knight scenario for you

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Are you people insane?

Hey, I'm just going by what the SCOTUS said in Heller vs DoC. The second amendment is not an unlimited or absolute right and firearms can be regulated. You should read it sometime....

"...Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:....read...."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

From you who makes so many statements in utter ignorance to what the supreme court has held, this is priceless. Tell me again how only infantry had a right to bear arms?

 

[dnsmith]

Well, since you can't speak for "we", then I'd say you are not among those who feel that banning the military style weapons is a good idea and magazines over 10 rounds is as well. Maybe you're one of those militia members who want to take down the government?

I certainly am not speaking for you. But I was one of those gun owners who accepts reasonable gun control someone was talking about earlier. I accept that the firearms the military carries into combat should remain banned. I will not accept lookalikes without the same firepower as those military weapons being banned without a fight.

By the way, I notice you use the name of a linguist who knows little to nothing about politics old or new in your signature line. Noam is an expert in linguistics. He is a fool about politics.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Re: Are you people insane?

I honesty do not give a rats fat behind what the FBI does because THEY DO NOT WRITE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. And your attempt to pretend that their opinion is any better than yours is ludicrous and irrelevant. We went through this weeks ago and you lost that time also. You falsely and dishonestly pretend that some source which differentiates between the military and civilians is somehow saying that police officers are civilians. In that very narrow context being defined as NON MILITARY but that does not apply to this argument.

Are you going to take my wager and put up $100 per dictionary definition or not?

Are you always this irrelevant where you'd rather debate semantics than issues?

 

[TurtleDude]

I certainly am not speaking for you. But I was one of those gun owners who accepts reasonable gun control someone was talking about earlier. I accept that the firearms the military carries into combat should remain banned. I will not accept lookalikes without the same firepower as those military weapons.

By the way, I notice you use the name of a linguist who knows little to nothing about politics old or new in your signature line. Noam is an expert in linguistics. He is a fool about politics.

I believe that the most constitutionally protected weapon is the current standard rifle of the US infantry

 

[Moot]

Isn't that one of the features anti-2nd amendment loons want banned? And how would that help me if the thugs are armed ?

Yes, and I am against it. People need bayonets for self defense like they need a hole in their head. It's just cosmetic.

 

[Morality Games]

that might be true but listening to europeans whine about american gun rights is just plain stupid

The basic argument about whether possession of a gun should be a protected right is itself not stupid. Considering the ways human beings have traditionally evaluated weaponry and its role in culture and society, it is a fair question - and one that every society has to answer for itself. Still, even people from different nations can take a normal human interest in our doings. If they think their way is better and ours' is stupid, they are free to argue that (to their best of their ability) and receive the right kind of correction.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, and I am against it. People need bayonets for self defense like they need a hole in their head. It's just cosmetic.

so why do you gun haters think that or a pistol grip or a flash hider or a collapsing (or in my words an ADJUSTABLE) stock justify banning a weapon?

 

[American]

But people in the UK want the government to watch everything you do and control everything you do to protect you from yourself. Many Americans don't agree with the being the government-godking over the little peasants that many of you in the UK do.

Maybe he forgets we had a war of independence because we had issue with UK thinking.

 

[American]

so why do you gun haters think that or a pistol grip or a flash hider or a collapsing (or in my words an ADJUSTABLE) stock justify banning a weapon?

Because it's assaultie, and it's scarwy.

 

[TurtleDude]

The basic argument about whether possession of a gun should be a protected right is itself not stupid. Considering the ways human beings have traditionally evaluated weaponry and its role in culture and society, it is a fair question - and one that every society has to answer for itself. Still, even people from different nations can take a normal human interest in our doings. If they think their way is better and ours' is stupid, they are free to argue that (to their best of their ability) and receive the right kind of correction.

I honestly couldn't care less what those who come from disarmed nations think. I pity them for allowing their governments to disarm them. Bulls do not need to hear from Steers how joyful they are of their "loss"