What if 100 NRA members were killed?[W:1249]

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

I made no such argument here. I am merely asking for statistics here in our nation to support the fear earlier expressed.

Nope, you are attempting to exclude examples where such occurred. The fact they occurred outside the US doesn't preclude them as evidence it could happen.

Why do you keep presenting false arguments?

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Nope. You gave your interpretation of it. I gave you mine, prove your point with a case that agrees with you. The onus is upon you, not me and a simple your say so is not even evidence.

No, I cited the US Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 16 which clearly gives the Congress the power to regulate the militia. And the Founders tell us the militia is all the people.

here it is again

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[akyron]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits any of those things.

Just because one can do something does not mean one should. Not infringing is a thing in there.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Nope, you are attempting to exclude examples where such occurred. The fact they occurred outside the US doesn't preclude them as evidence it could happen.

Why do you keep presenting false arguments?

I excluded nothing , In fact I said such incidents occurred and did not dispute it. What I did then do was try to determine if this is a serious or insignificant matter by asking the person who invoked these fears to provide data on the rate of confiscations here in the USA since we are in the USA and the laws I propose would be for here in the USA for people here in the USA passed by the COngress of the USA.

Not Australia or any other nation or their government or their people.

here it is from my 814

So regarding your start that I reproduced here..... you talk about government confiscation of firearms and apparently you fear this being done here if we have a system of registration.

Can you tell me what the facts are on this claim? I realize there are situations of confiscation - sure that happens - but is this any sort of real problem in the USA? There are places in the USA that have registration. Do you know how often this then results in confiscation?

I ask this in all sincerity since I am trying to find out if this is a real problem we have to worry about or if this is just something that rarely happens.

So you stand corrected.

And that has not been provided by him....... or by who has has opted to join in the discussion ....... or by nobody else for that matter.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Just because one can do something does not mean one should. Not infringing is a thing in there.

Yes, not doing anything is always an option. Sadly, it is always the NRA option.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

No, I cited the US Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 16 which clearly gives the Congress the power to regulate the militia. And the Founders tell us the militia is all the people.

1792 Militia Acts are enforced upon people in service to the militia and not all free citizens even though it states the law as covering "the militia". No judge has ever agreed that individual rights are curtailed because people belong to the subset of those outlined in the militia in the Constitution. The opposite has been held true, that the information in Article I, Section 8 is enforced while people are mustered and called up in the militia. Quit making up pretense to cover your gun banning tyrant leanings.

Statists look for pretense to rationalize their power grabs, you aren't any different.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

I excluded nothing , In fact I said such incidents occurred and did not dispute it. What I did then do was try to determine if this is a serious or insignificant matter by asking the person who invoked these fears to provide data on the rate of confiscations here in the USA.

And that has not been provided by him....... or by who has has opted to join in the discussion ....... or by nobody else for that matter.

Once the right has been violated, its more difficult to make it whole again. Waiting until the confiscation stage is already too late. You are asking for data to justify prevention when confiscation is proof of violation. There is no reason not to act before confiscation rather than after it.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

1792 Militia Acts are enforced upon people in service to the militia and not all free citizens even though it states the law as covering "the militia". No judge has ever agreed that individual rights are curtailed because people belong to the subset of those outlined in the militia in the Constitution. The opposite has been held true, that the information in Article I, Section 8 is enforced while people are mustered and called up in the militia. Quit making up pretense to cover your gun banning tyrant leanings.

Statists look for pretense to rationalize their power grabs, you aren't any different.

Nobody has said your rights are curtailed because you belong to the militia.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Once the right has been violated, its more difficult to make it whole again. Waiting until the confiscation stage is already too late. You are asking for data to justify prevention when confiscation is proof of violation. There is no reason not to act before confiscation rather than after it.

So you have no idea if the raised fear of confiscation is significant or minor.

There are states in the USA have registration. What is the rate of confiscation in those sates here in the USA which have registration?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Nobody has said your rights are curtailed because you belong to the militia.

And this is why you are accused of lying. You just argued for regulation past the point of current SCOTUS rulings based upon Article I and the justification of all belonging to the militia. Never mind that the court has already thrown out this line of reasoning in 3 separate cases.

You don't want to defend your argument so now you are arguing that regulation is not a curtailing or infringing of rights because you, and no one else, despite it being rejected already, says it can.

You do understand what a false pretense don't you?

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

And this is why you are accused of lying. You just argued for regulation past the point of current SCOTUS rulings based upon Article I and the justification of all belonging to the militia. Never mind that the court has already thrown out this line of reasoning in 3 separate cases.

You don't want to defend your argument so now you are arguing that regulation is not a curtailing or infringing of rights because you, and no one else, despite it being rejected already, says it can.

You do understand what a false pretense don't you?

What did I LIE about? What we have is a difference of opinion. Why must you try to defame and smear me with the false accusation of LYING when what we have is a difference of opinion? Are you that desperate that you have to resort to such tactics?

My argument is not based on Court rulings. My argument is based on the US Constitution and the very specific language I have provided.

You have invoked the Court - okay - Where did the Court say that Article I Section 8 clause 16 is not language to regulate the militia and their arms? Provide that and quote from that.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

So you have no idea if the raised fear of confiscation is significant or minor.

There are states in the USA have registration. What is the rate of confiscation in those sates here in the USA which have registration?

1 case would be too many as the right would already be infringed. You are actually arguing to wait until its infringed at an acceptable rate to be measured to call a law unacceptable.

Again, 1 case is 1 too many.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

My argument is not based on Court rulings. My argument is based on the US Constitution.

Where did the Court say that Article I Section 8 clause 16 is not language to regulate the militia and their arms? Provide that and quote from that.

False barring of evidence, your argument is forfeited.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

My argument is not based on Court rulings. My argument is based on the US Constitution and the very specific language I have provided.

You have invoked the Court - okay - Where did the Court say that Article I Section 8 clause 16 is not language to regulate the militia and their arms? Provide that and quote from that.

I already did. You should read more and dismiss less. Fail.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

False barring of evidence, your argument is forfeited.

that makes no sense on any level as a rational reply to my post you were pretending to be replying to.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

I already did. You should read more and dismiss less. Fail.

And in which post do you claim ot have done this.

Prediction: it never happened and you cannot show it when challenged.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

that makes no sense on any level as a rational reply to my post you were pretending to be replying to.

Not to you, to anyone that can think rationally it means you are barring any evidence except the ones you wish to use, this is a false condition and a sign of weak argument.

You don't want to see evidence to the contrary that's why you are setting fake barriers so you don't have to debate like a rational human being but as a rationalizing one.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

And in which post do you claim ot have done this.

Prediction: it never happened and you cannot show it when challenged.

Heller in which is stated flatly the 2nd is an individual right, not one contingent on service in the militia. Which was, of course, the case you so desperately want to exclude because it kicks your argument into the trash can.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Not to you, to anyone that can think rationally it means you are barring any evidence except the ones you wish to use, this is a false condition and a sign of weak argument.

You don't want to see evidence to the contrary that's why you are setting fake barriers so you don't have to debate like a rational human being but as a rationalizing one.

We are talking about the gun situation in the USA.

We are talking about registration in the USA.

We are talking about possible confiscation in the USA following registration.

We are talking about if this violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA.

We are talking about the rights of the American people as it pertains to firearms in the USA.

Why can't you talk about that?

You want to rant and rave about Australia or England or any other foreign place that is NOT the USA - be my guest. Give us all those statistics. Go for it. And I will examine them and bring up their relevance and if they apply to the USA.

I exclude nothing but reserve the right to examine anything you opt to include that is not relevant.

And that is as it should be.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Heller in which is stated flatly the 2nd is an individual right, not one contingent on service in the militia. Which was, of course, the case you so desperately want to exclude because it kicks your argument into the trash can.

And I have no problem with Scalia inventing the individual right language in Heller. It in no way erases the language in the Constitution giving Congress the power to regulate firearms for the militia. The problem I have with Scalia in Heller is that if he could rightly see that the right had evolved into an individual right, why was he blind to understanding that when it was primarily a militia right, Congress had the power to regulate it and that was the intent of the Founders that Congress regulate firearms? The right had changed and evolved but the other half of the equation - the rights of Congress in the area of firearms, had not changed and evolved as the right did ?

That is the problem I have with Scalia in Heller. It was highly selective and ignored the intent of the Founders to regulate the right.

However, even with that error, there is still other constitutional language which gives Congress the right to regulate firearms and do the things I and others suggest.

So you have no point which stands or negates my gun control ideas.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

And I have no problem with Scalia inventing the individual right language in Heller. It in no way erases the language in the Constitution giving Congress the power to regulate firearms for the militia. The problem I have with Scalia in Heller is that if he could rightly see that the right had evolved into an individual right, why was he blind to understanding that when it was primarily a militia right, Congress had the power to regulate it and that was the intent of the Founders that Congress regulate firearms? The right had changed and evolved but the other half of the equation - the rights of Congress in the area of firearms, had not changed and evolved as the right did ?

He didn't invent it. Its intended as an individual right. You are wrong.

That is the problem I have with Scalia in Heller. It was highly selective and ignored the intent of the Founders to regulate the right.

Claiming everyone is in the militia and they can regulate the right would also mean they would be subject to military justice as they are part of an organized arm of the US military. Because they aren't, your retarded, stupid argument falls apart with only a single logic test and fails in many others as through that one piece of sophistry they could regulate ALL rights.

However, even with that error, there is still other constitutional language which gives Congress the right to regulate firearms and do the things I and others suggest.

No one wants to regulate them to the extent you wish to, because you are a gun grabbing statist with delusions of a power. You are not in charge, and if you were and tried to do some of the nonsense you are suggesting you wouldn't be in power long.

So you have no point which stands or negates my gun control ideas.

Besides, you know, actual facts.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

We are talking about the gun situation in the USA.

We are talking about registration in the USA.

We are talking about possible confiscation in the USA following registration.

We are talking about if this violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA.

We are talking about the rights of the American people as it pertains to firearms in the USA.

Why can't you talk about that?

You want to rant and rave about Australia or England or any other foreign place that is NOT the USA - be my guest. Give us all those statistics. Go for it. And I will examine them and bring up their relevance and if they apply to the USA.

I exclude nothing but reserve the right to examine anything you opt to include that is not relevant.

And that is as it should be.

You are flat lying, you are excluded information already regarding SCOTUS cases, writings of the founders, and actual instances of gun confiscation in other countries to demonstrate it can happen.

Why don't you learn how to effectively debate, apply logic, and avoid fallacies, it would be a welcome change.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

He didn't invent it. Its intended as an individual right. You are wrong.

So present any previous statement from the Court that this is an individual right unconnected with the militia provision.

Claiming everyone is in the militia and they can regulate the right would also mean they would be subject to military justice as they are part of an organized arm of the US military. Because they aren't, your retarded, stupid argument falls apart with only a single logic test and fails in many others as through that one piece of sophistry they could regulate ALL rights.

Clause 16 covers that when it talks about GOVERNING those who are employed in the service of the USA. EMPLOYED as in getting paid - or called up. This is different from the first part of the clause which includes all of the militia regardless if employed or not.

No one wants to regulate them to the extent you wish to, because you are a gun grabbing statist with delusions of a power. You are not in charge, and if you were and tried to do some of the nonsense you are suggesting you wouldn't be in power long.

The Founders did. And they gave us clause 16 and the Second.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

You are flat lying, you are excluded information already regarding SCOTUS cases, writings of the founders, and actual instances of gun confiscation in other countries to demonstrate it can happen.

Why don't you learn how to effectively debate, apply logic, and avoid fallacies, it would be a welcome change.

You clearly do not know what a LIE is. You simply use that false accusation as a weapon or club to try and hurt my credibility when we are actually talking about is a difference of opinion .You really should refrain from such downright horrible and disgusting tactics as it says far far more about you than anybody you are trying to attack with such gutter level falsehoods.

I keep asking for the figures and data about confiscation and I get nothing - from you or anybody else.

Nobody can apply debate principles or logic on the question being discussed if the information demanded from you is something you are impotent to provide.

So why are you impotent to present what was demanded of your side?

 

[Rucker61]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

So present any previous statement from the Court that this is an individual right unconnected with the militia provision.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

US v Cruikshank, 1875.