- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 16,763
- Reaction score
- 4,344
- Location
- Melbourne Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
It matters not to me if you care or not. All I am doing is defending my claim when another disputed it.
What college?
It matters not to me if you care or not. All I am doing is defending my claim when another disputed it.
Chris - I am retiring for the evening. You think about this and give me your firm answer in the morning or anytime on Sunday.
Several people have posted on your side so perhaps you can get them to help with your end of the stake. Of course, they will not put their existence here on the line - that will be only you on your end of the bet and me on mine.
It serves the purpose of defending my claim when another refused to accept its validity.
Moderator's Warning: |
Oh, I'm putting a stop to this right now. There will be no betting in regards to one's membership here. You folks have mucked up this thread long enough with this crap. You want to talk about it, do it via PM. I hope that's clear. All this personal stuff stops now. |
Moderator's Warning: |
Oh, and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will DP be the arbiter of any kind of bet in any kind of official capacity. Take it elsewhere. |
Wrong forum!
It is simply the incremental approach to "gun control". With crime rates, including crime committed with guns, steadily dropping they will try to establish "reasonable restrictions" and then assert that those restrictions on guns made the crime rate drop, justifying even stricter "reasonable restrictions".
Note that placing any restrictions, including presenting a valid, state issued, photo ID are said to be a "discriminatory burden" when applied to the right to vote (only once and only as yourself in a given election). These same restrictions (plus many more) are said to be absolutely necessary to buy guns/ammo and are somehow no longer a "discriminatory burden".
Much like the NY laws limitting sode pop serving sizes, restrictions on the number of rounds in a single magazine are simply introducing a hassle factor. You may still purchase/carry all of the soda pop or ammo that you desire, it simply must be in several smaller containers to be considered legal in certain libtard controlled states.
If your name is haymarket, a "hassle factor" does not mean your 2nd Amendment right has been infringed. On the contrary, you still get your gun, AFTER YOU'VE BEEN HASSLED TO DEATH (that is if you can afford the hassles, women and the poor highest affected). The problem with this is that none of the "common sense" hassles have been shown to reduce crime at all.
...Do bullets count as hassles?
That would depend on how you use them.
or perhaps whether they are being used on you.
Well sure. I'm sure bullets can be a BIG hassle for most criminals.
That depends on whether they're in front of them, or behind them.
True. Let's say the bullets that don't belong to them are a hassle. :lol:
...Do bullets count as hassles?
...Do bullets count as hassles?
The SCOTUS has outlined the infringments on the right to bear arms that are acceptable. Some excerpts from District of Columbia v. Heller:
There you go. Now, define "dangerous and unusual."
Yet another reson Heller is such a poorly written opinion is dicta that contradict the holding. Since Heller made gun ownership a fundamental right, that certainly does cast doubt on whether gun prohibitions on the mentally ill or in sensitive places or what have you are permissible. This is all part of the problem with the bull**** reasoning of Scalia's opinion. It's going to be a long time before the results of Heller are hashed out, and since it is such a piss poor piece of writing it very well could be that a lot of it gets rolled back.
He did leave the opinion somewhat vague and open to interpretation, didn't he? What is "unusual and dangerous?" Under that definition, practically any arms limitation is acceptable.
I love the results of Heller, I just wish it had a firmer foundation. That way it would be harder to pivot away from the fundamental right to gun ownership. Scalia was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to balance all this conflicting stuff, he wanted to solidify popular opinion about what the second amendment did, and he wanted to craft an originalist historical account for it, yet he also wanted to maintain a status quo of gun restrictions that really cannot stand if gun ownership is a FUNDAMENTAL right.
So what we've got is sloppy and unsatisfactory precedent that will inevitably get walked back when the court tips more to the left.
The SCOTUS has outlined the infringments on the right to bear arms that are acceptable.
There you go. Now, define "dangerous and unusual."
Yet another reson Heller is such a poorly written opinion is dicta that contradict the holding.
Since Heller made gun ownership a fundamental right, that certainly does cast doubt on whether gun prohibitions on the mentally ill or in sensitive places or what have you are permissible.
This is all part of the problem with the bull**** reasoning of Scalia's opinion.
It's going to be a long time before the results of Heller are hashed out, and since it is such a piss poor piece of writing it very well could be that a lot of it gets rolled back.
I love the results of Heller, I just wish it had a firmer foundation. That way it would be harder to pivot away from the fundamental right to gun ownership. Scalia was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to balance all this conflicting stuff, he wanted to solidify popular opinion about what the second amendment did, and he wanted to craft an originalist historical account for it, yet he also wanted to maintain a status quo of gun restrictions that really cannot stand if gun ownership is a FUNDAMENTAL right.
So what we've got is sloppy and unsatisfactory precedent that will inevitably get walked back when the court tips more to the left.
Heller did not establish precedent, it rested on it to invalidate lower court inventions.
In actual action, Heller invalidated Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) upon which dozens of lower federal court and state court rulings rest, that affirmed hundreds if not thousands of gun control laws using the illegitimate "collective right" reasoning of Tot and Cases.
Heller works to call into question every case decided upon the "state's right" and/or "militia right" theories . . .