Why do you NEED your gun there?

[haymarket]

This is why no one can really meet your demands for "honest debate" Haymarket because you insist everyone else adopts your improper definitions that you have crafted to guarantee your extreme position is more tenable.

You seem to have a rather unrealistic view of what and who police officers are.

Improper definitions according to Turtle equal Merriam-Webster, the Oxford Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, MacMillan, Online Free, and many others.

Of course the difference between those and the far right is that those expert authoritative resources do NOT have an extreme cause that they are pursuing and need to redefine already accepted terms according to the twistings and perversions of their own extremist agenda.

Yeah - improper and unrealistic to the core. :roll::doh

 

[blackjack50]

My guess is you can't carry any weapon larger than a 5-6" pocket knife into work.

I can't carry any knife into work.

 

[d0gbreath]

I can't carry any knife into work.

You might get by with a monkey fist. Most people don't know what it is. You could say that a friend suggested getting one. Say it helps relieve arthritis pain in the knuckles. It won't pass the metal detector, so be ready to explain.

Our employee manual states that no employee, at any time, will be allowed to bring a weapon into the building.

When I park my pickup in the lot I leave my .45 stuck between the 40-60 seat with the doors locked. I feel pretty good about that being safe against theft of my weapon.

Riding the bike is different. None of my bags lock. I'd hate to give up a good gun to the bad guys, so I worked out a compromise with my employer. There are small lockers located just inside of the employee entrance. I eject my clip into the bag on the bike. Then I bring the gun inside and put it in a locker that I padlock with a lock I brought from home. I simply do the reverse when I leave. When co-workers ask about the lock (none of the other lockers are locked), I tell them the truth. No one seems to mind.

 

[blackjack50]

You might get by with a monkey fist. Most people don't know what it is. You could say that a friend suggested getting one. Say it helps relieve arthritis pain in the knuckles. It won't pass the metal detector, so be ready to explain.

Our employee manual states that no employee, at any time, will be allowed to bring a weapon into the building.

When I park my pickup in the lot I leave my .45 stuck between the 40-60 seat with the doors locked. I feel pretty good about that being safe against theft of my weapon.

Riding the bike is different. None of my bags lock. I'd hate to give up a good gun to the bad guys, so I worked out a compromise with my employer. There are small lockers located just inside of the employee entrance. I eject my clip into the bag on the bike. Then I bring the gun inside and put it in a locker that I padlock with a lock I brought from home. I simply do the reverse when I leave. When co-workers ask about the lock (none of the other lockers are locked), I tell them the truth. No one seems to mind.

The monkey fist might actually work. I am a certified CCH instructor. I could tie it and have a reason to carry it lol.

 

[d0gbreath]

The monkey fist might actually work. I am a certified CCH instructor. I could tie it and have a reason to carry it lol.

May it serve you well.

 

[Crimefree]

Improper definitions according to Turtle equal Merriam-Webster, the Oxford Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, MacMillan, Online Free, and many others.

Of course the difference between those and the far right is that those expert authoritative resources do NOT have an extreme cause that they are pursuing and need to redefine already accepted terms according to the twistings and perversions of their own extremist agenda.

Yeah - improper and unrealistic to the core. :roll::doh

And it is. Shall not infringe makes no allowance for any infringement

Do give an example of any restriction, law, control, reduction, taxation, withholding, limiting that does not infringe this right.

Sigh this must be the third or fourth time now. Why on earth is that necessary? No don't answer I already know.

merriam-webster
Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

in·fringe
verb \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

in·fringed in·fring·ing

Full Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb : encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·er noun
See infringe defined for English-language learners »
See infringe defined for kids »
Examples of INFRINGE

They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.

Origin of INFRINGE
Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
First Known Use: 1513

Oxford
in·fringe
verb \in-ˈfrinj\

: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)
in·fringed in·fring·ing

Cambridge
infringe on/upon sth
verb [T] uk — phrasal verb with infringe /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ formal us
If something infringes on/upon someone's rights or freedom, it takes away some of their rights or limits their freedom: These restrictions infringe upon basic human rights.

Macmillan
infringe - definition of infringe with pronunciation by Macmillan Dictionary

1 [transitive] to break a law, rule, or agreement

Making an unauthorized copy of the article infringes copyright.
Thesaurus entry for this meaning of infringe

2 [intransitive/transitive] to limit or reduce someone's legal rights or freedom
court decisions that infringe civil liberties
infringe on/upon:
The inquiry infringes on people's privacy.

derived word
infringement

court decisions that infringe civil liberties
infringe on/upon:

 

[haymarket]

And it is. Shall not infringe makes no allowance for any infringement.

the Second does NOT prohibit an action that can be called an INFRINGEMENT. It prohibits the right itself from being INFRINGED. Please deal with that reality rather than try to substitute something different.

 

[TurtleDude]

the Second does NOT prohibit an action that can be called an INFRINGEMENT. It prohibits the right itself from being INFRINGED. Please deal with that reality rather than try to substitute something different.

this is the sort of silly evasive attempts to finesse language that is beyond dishonest

infringements on a right cause the right to be INFRINGED and given there was no power ever given to the federal government to engage in any infringements, your argument is doubly pathetic

 

[haymarket]

this is the sort of silly evasive attempts to finesse language that is beyond dishonest

infringements on a right cause the right to be INFRINGED and given there was no power ever given to the federal government to engage in any infringements, your argument is doubly pathetic

No. And all your desire to substitute one word for another does not make it so.

 

[TurtleDude]

No. And all your desire to substitute one word for another does not make it so.

and to claim shall not be infringed was not intended to prevent infringements is as stupid saying that "thou shall not kill" was not designed to prohibit Murder or homicide

 

[haymarket]

and to claim shall not be infringed was not intended to prevent infringements is as stupid saying that "thou shall not kill" was not designed to prohibit Murder or homicide

Actually the "stupid" thing ( to use your own adjective) is inserting the word INFRINGEMENTS into an Amendment which does not include that incrementalist concept.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually the "stupid" thing ( to use your own adjective) is inserting the word INFRINGEMENTS into an Amendment which does not include that incrementalist concept.

as I noted, the commandment Thou shall not kill doesn't mention homicide nor murder

 

[GBFAN]

Actually the "stupid" thing ( to use your own adjective) is inserting the word INFRINGEMENTS into an Amendment which does not include that incrementalist concept.

Attention!! Can I have you attention over here???

We have a new candidate for dumbest post of the week! Just move along ... there's nothing to see here!

 

[TurtleDude]

Attention!! Can I have you attention over here???

We have a new candidate for dumbest post of the week! Just move along ... there's nothing to see here!

he has made that statement several times and it has been called stupid by many a poster. It was taken apart piece by piece by one of the mods several months ago. it was massively brutal

 

[haymarket]

as I noted, the commandment Thou shall not kill doesn't mention homicide nor murder

Which is irrelevant since we are discussing the Second Amendment and not some religions rules.

 

[TurtleDude]

Which is irrelevant since we are discussing the Second Amendment and not some religions rules.

ah more evasion. its an analogy that destroys your silly "shall not be infringed" does not prevent infringements nonsense

 

[haymarket]

Attention!! Can I have you attention over here???

We have a new candidate for dumbest post of the week! Just move along ... there's nothing to see here!

Attacking me and calling names is a rather poor substitute for an argument.

 

[haymarket]

ah more evasion. its an analogy that .....

does not apply.

 

[TurtleDude]

does not apply.

Opinion noted-rejected as contrary to common sense

 

[haymarket]

Opinion noted-rejected as contrary to common sense

Which is your normal way of saying you simply cannot refute what was said with any argument or evidence.

 

[TurtleDude]

Which is your normal way of saying you simply cannot refute what was said with any argument or evidence.

no what it means is that your opinion again is contrary to common sense.

 

[haymarket]

no what it means is that your opinion again is contrary to common sense.

Which is what you say when you have no real argument. But since you keep bringing it up lets talk about which is clearly contrary to common sense.

What runs contrary to common sense is if we accept the idea that the personal opinions of Founders who lived at a time when the USA was a tiny backwater nation of 4 million farmers isolated from the world with an agrarian economy tucked away on the Atlantic Coast means more and is more important that living in the USA of 2014 with over 315 million people, a world power with the worlds most powerful economy and stretching from sea to shining sea with weapon technology that dwarfs any firearm any founder had in their day.

When you insist we are suppose mind read dead people who have not been here for over 200 years and would not even recognize many weapons we have today - let alone give their blessing to them - that is what you are asking us to do - willingly suspend our disbelief and pretend that the opinion of somebody in 1789 was more important than the American people today.

Now that belief turns common sense on its head although I suspect it would make a great deal of sense in Wonderland with its Mad Hatter.

 

[TurtleDude]

Which is what you say when you have no real argument. But since you keep bringing it up lets talk about which is clearly contrary to common sense.

What runs contrary to common sense is if we accept the idea that the personal opinions of Founders who lived at a time when the USA was a tiny backwater nation of 4 million farmers isolated from the world with an agrarian economy tucked away on the Atlantic Coast means more and is more important that living in the USA of 2014 with over 315 million people, a world power with the worlds most powerful economy and stretching from sea to shining sea with weapon technology that dwarfs any firearm any founder had in their day.

When you insist we are suppose mind read dead people who have not been here for over 200 years and would not even recognize many weapons we have today - let alone give their blessing to them - that is what you are asking us to do - willingly suspend our disbelief and pretend that the opinion of somebody in 1789 was more important than the American people today.

Now that belief turns common sense on its head although I suspect it would make a great deal of sense in Wonderland with its Mad Hatter.

that is not relevant to the topic on this thread

we get it that you don't like guns but the issue is whether the 2A needs to be amended to prevent scummy politicians from changing its protections

 

[TeleKat]

Which is what you say when you have no real argument. But since you keep bringing it up lets talk about which is clearly contrary to common sense.

What runs contrary to common sense is if we accept the idea that the personal opinions of Founders who lived at a time when the USA was a tiny backwater nation of 4 million farmers isolated from the world with an agrarian economy tucked away on the Atlantic Coast means more and is more important that living in the USA of 2014 with over 315 million people, a world power with the worlds most powerful economy and stretching from sea to shining sea with weapon technology that dwarfs any firearm any founder had in their day.

When you insist we are suppose mind read dead people who have not been here for over 200 years and would not even recognize many weapons we have today - let alone give their blessing to them - that is what you are asking us to do - willingly suspend our disbelief and pretend that the opinion of somebody in 1789 was more important than the American people today.

Now that belief turns common sense on its head although I suspect it would make a great deal of sense in Wonderland with its Mad Hatter.

It all comes down to proportion. You are worried about citizens having weapons equal to that of the government. The founders were not. They realized that a sort of balance needed to be created between the government and it's people in order to ensure lasting freedom. That's why the people of that time were armed in equal proportion to the government they lived under. It doesn't matter what kind of weapons people own today, because proportionally speaking there's no difference. If anything, with the hyper-militarization of police forces, we are vastly outgunned despite the fact we own scary black rifles.

 

[TurtleDude]

It all comes down to proportion. You are worried about citizens having weapons equal to that of the government. The founders were not. They realized that a sort of balance needed to be created between the government and it's people in order to ensure lasting freedom. That's why the people of that time were armed in equal proportion to the government they lived under. It doesn't matter what kind of weapons people own today, because proportionally speaking there's no difference. If anything, with the hyper-militarization of police forces, we are vastly outgunned despite the fact we own scary black rifles.

which is why the self creating limitations on police militarization is achieved by guaranteeing private citizens the right to own all of the firearms owned by civilian police agencies

people afraid about citizens being too well armed will rein in the police. people worried about the police being too well armed will too