Gun Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1061

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I bet the petit jury didn’t know that they could find him ‘not guilty’ by reason of jury nullification.

…

The system does not want you to know that We the People are in charge. They fight like hell to hide those situations where you have direct power and then make empty threats when you flex that power.[/quote]

This is how we fight if they take our means of defense. No you don’t have to stand in your doorway shooting ATF agents. You find people not guilty… End of story.[/quote]
Are you saying that we should surrender our means of forceful resistance, and expect that our peaceful method will be allowed to continue?[/quote]

If people are charging your house, you do what you feel you need to do.

But if all we are talking about is loser jackwagon politicians passing shit laws from behind a desk, We The People find the subsequent “felons” not guilty.[/quote]

That would be interesting…to get a consensus among most people nation-wide, where anything we deem unreasonable, regardless of existing laws, was just said “not guilty” by the jury, end of story. I wonder what the gov’t would do to work around that. Keep changing juries until they find one to convict them? Pay the jury off? Say a jury is no longer a constitutional necessity/right? They’d try something. [/quote]

The government (judicial branch) has been suppressing the jury’s right to nullification since Adams (if not Jefferson, I’m too lazy to look up the example at this point.) Judges don’t bring it up and say all that “judged on the facts of the case” bullshit so you stop thinking about it.

Pretty sure they don’t even teach it in school anymore, although based on facebook conversations with history and civics teachers I know, students are being taught complete and utter bullshit, at least in southern NH, lol.

This country was founded on, by and for smugglers and tax evaders who fancied being free once they tasted it. Then they did as all men do, and acted like assholes. Jefferson, brilliant man, we quote him often, penned “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”… Well in some ways he was a two faced douche. Fights Hamilton and the Federalists about big government, well then starts a war without congress’s approval, buys Louisiana (lol thank god for the slave rebellion in Haiti and don’t you worry he was going to try and pass an amendment to make it legal, but, nah… F That) and oh yeah, neglects to set his slaves free.

I suppose his head told him people have the natural right to freedom, but his heart, and “southern” aristocrat past/heart just couldn’t let them go…

Washington and Adams… after that starts the double talking, do as I say not as I do, never ending train of politicians that suck at one thing or another.

Sorry I’m rambling.[/quote]

I’m well aware that our founding fathers were, in many cases, hypocrites. Doesn’t mean they were wrong though. A lot of that has to do with culture differences as well, such as the matter of slavery.

I guess you could say it’s comparable to how in the Biblical record, David was listed as having many wives (something acceptable to that culture), and was said to be a man after God’s own heart. Today, most Christians would find those two statements hard to reconcile, more likely impossible.

1062

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I can’t believe I have to explain this, but here:

Free speech is to the First Amendment as gun OWNERSHIP is to the Second Amendment.

Now–just like the distributive property in algebra–we add and disseminate an abridgment to the equation.

An abridgment of free speech does to the First Amendment what an abridgment of gun OWNERSHIP does to the Second Amendment.

Brandenburg is an abridgment of free speech.

The rest follows from there.[/quote]

To continue where I left off on this post–

So, either you believe that a citizen should not face criminal charges after he, for example, shouts “fire” in a crowded room with the intention of inciting violence, thereby setting off a chain of events which killed an elderly woman

or

you believe that Constitutionally-protected rights can, in the name of public safety, be abridged in some of their manifestations.

Which, for the knives that might want to play dull, is not to say that you think it’s a good idea to further restrict arms ownership. Only that it could theoretically be Constitutional in exactly the same way that Brandenburg is.[/quote]

Push, as I understand it you’re traveling, but I’m interested in your response to this when you get the time.

1063

The Second Amendment in 2013 (David B. Kopel) - YouTube!

I consider this an excellent look at what’s likely to happen, what’s feasible, and what is beyond the pale.

1064

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Piers Morgan is the quintessential English shemale.

“My country”. Ha! His country aborted him. That is how vile he is.

He almost controlled his estrogenic fueled aggression.

He is worthless and a coward.

And that is just from my knowledge of him in England.[/quote]

just curious what sparked this tirade ?
What did he do where he showed cowardice ?
the rest seems to be subjective

1067

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally do not think parts of the standing army is good today DEA specifically [/quote]
I agree. I think the technological advances of today’s age necessitate a small standing army, just because of the amount of training involved in operating and maintaining equipment.

Well, weren’t they technically the victors of a successful military coup? I know they didn’t overthrow the British Monarchy, but they threw them out of the country.

And that a militia should be well versed and practiced in the operation of the instruments of war. They were fairly unanimous in their opinion that We the People should, ourselves, be a fighting force so terrible that the thought of messing with us would be dismissed as suicide.

[quote]I will post a link where our Gov. is launching a war on it’s own people . And I am curious where is the righteous indignation I see with infringing on gun rights

http://blog.mpp.org/medical-marijuana/another-victim-of-the-governments-war-on-marijuana/01142013/
[/quote]
2A infringement is cut-and-dried. It is strictly forbidden.

Most people don’t know that federal interference in state drug laws is unconstitutional. I bet that the grand jury on that case had no idea that they had the power to ‘no-bill’ that case whether he did anything illegal or not. I bet the petit jury didn’t know that they could find him ‘not guilty’ by reason of jury nullification.

I know my DA got pissed at me for bringing up the subject of jury nullification when I was on the GJ last year. Threatened to have me held in contempt. He backed off when I called his bluff, and we successfully had a case thrown out.

The system does not want you to know that We the People are in charge. They fight like hell to hide those situations where you have direct power and then make empty threats when you flex that power.[/quote]

We the people are no longer in charge , things are not done in fashion with the Constitution

1068

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally do not think parts of the standing army is good today DEA specifically [/quote]
I agree. I think the technological advances of today’s age necessitate a small standing army, just because of the amount of training involved in operating and maintaining equipment.

Well, weren’t they technically the victors of a successful military coup? I know they didn’t overthrow the British Monarchy, but they threw them out of the country.

And that a militia should be well versed and practiced in the operation of the instruments of war. They were fairly unanimous in their opinion that We the People should, ourselves, be a fighting force so terrible that the thought of messing with us would be dismissed as suicide.

[quote]I will post a link where our Gov. is launching a war on it’s own people . And I am curious where is the righteous indignation I see with infringing on gun rights

http://blog.mpp.org/medical-marijuana/another-victim-of-the-governments-war-on-marijuana/01142013/
[/quote]
2A infringement is cut-and-dried. It is strictly forbidden.

Most people don’t know that federal interference in state drug laws is unconstitutional. I bet that the grand jury on that case had no idea that they had the power to ‘no-bill’ that case whether he did anything illegal or not. I bet the petit jury didn’t know that they could find him ‘not guilty’ by reason of jury nullification.

I know my DA got pissed at me for bringing up the subject of jury nullification when I was on the GJ last year. Threatened to have me held in contempt. He backed off when I called his bluff, and we successfully had a case thrown out.

The system does not want you to know that We the People are in charge. They fight like hell to hide those situations where you have direct power and then make empty threats when you flex that power.[/quote]

it is almost as bad as we should scrap our present constitution and write one that is more realistic. IMO the federalists won along time ago . The Supreme Court says Federal law Trumps State Law , that is just the opposite of what I understand is written in the Constitution

1069

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[center]NEWS FLASH![/center]

Doc Skeptix and I are going gun shopping this weekend together! I kid ye not![/quote]

Right…and pigs will be serving donuts on Air Pakistan.[/quote]

I would like to encourage you to at least go to the gun shop/show to see the instrument and handle it for yourself.

As you know, my Brazilian British background, taught me guns were for criminals and the police only.
And whilst I never had anything against guns, I had a huge resistance to even touching one once I came to America.

When my husband told me he wanted me to have a gun for self-defense I said: No, you have one. I don’t want it.

I then convinced myself I wanted to go hunting and looked at it from that perspective.

Then when the mass killing happened in December, I cried every time I read the news that day.
I entered this subject of gun ownership with an open mind but 42 years of “brainwashing” that guns were dangerous and only the state was allowed, should have and can have possession of guns.

I changed my mind for the American- Swiss model where guns are a symbol of power, equality, self-reliance and a right of the free people.

I can further tell you that the first time I had the shotgun in my hands I felt and even deeper respect for life; my life and that of others.
That, no, having a gun in your possession in no way makes you prone to violence - to the contrary, for me.
In no way is a gun an object with magic powers that brings out the assassin in you ( and sometimes I hate people ), or that will make people want to act in violent mob like ways.

None of the violent, killing, irresponsible impulses were triggered in me since acquiring my shotgun.

It is precisely people like you and me, people who love and respect life and who want to preserve it ( I helped save 3 lives this summer ) that can and should have an undeniable absolute right to such power.

I have been thinking of a gun with a white grip for you, because you are a doctor.

:slight_smile:

1070

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

just curious what sparked this tirade ?
What did he do where he showed cowardice
[/quote]

Ask Jeremy Clarkson.

/hijack.

1071

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

The government (judicial branch) has been suppressing the jury’s right to nullification since Adams (if not Jefferson, I’m too lazy to look up the example at this point.) Judges don’t bring it up and say all that “judged on the facts of the case” bullshit so you stop thinking about it.
[/quote]

That was what my husband told me.

This is what made me think of that Texas case I posted on the previous page.

1072

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

just curious what sparked this tirade ?
What did he do where he showed cowardice
[/quote]

Ask Jeremy Clarkson.

/hijack.
[/quote]

Sorry but they had a fight ?

1073

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
I know it’s a yahoo link but it looks like New York is going to be the first state to increase gun control.

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtown-074653716.html

Didn’t think a new thread needed to be done.[/quote]

[i]The measure also calls for restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns. It is expected to pass Tuesday.

“This is not about taking anyone’s rights away,” said Sen. Jeffrey Klein, a Bronx Democrat. “It’s about a safe society … today we are setting the mark for the rest of the county to do what’s right.”[/i]

Mr. Klein is a liar and another “safe society” pussy.[/quote]

I sincerely wish all the law abiding self-reliant responsible citizens left New York en masse, leaving behind the liberals and the criminals.

1074

I see there is further threat from the Obama Administation to use Executive Order to push forward some level of gun control.

Does anyone else see massive backlash should he try this without Congress ?

I would not fuck with the NRA, WAY too much money and influence, even Dems in gun-happy states are owned by the NRA.

1075

There is already a Texas Congressman threatening Obama with impeachment.
I posted a link a couple of pages ago.

1076

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Does anyone else see massive backlash should he try this without Congress ?

I would not fuck with the NRA, WAY too much money and influence, even Dems in gun-happy states are owned by the NRA.
[/quote]

I guess we are going to find out who really runs the show.

1077

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

it is almost as bad as we should scrap our present constitution and write one that is more realistic. IMO the federalists won along time ago . The Supreme Court says Federal law Trumps State Law , that is just the opposite of what I understand is written in the Constitution
[/quote]
If you want to know the truth, the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America do not apply to you. Legally, you are a slave. You are property, and have been since your birth.

-Look at the deed to your house. It says ‘Tenant’. It does not belong to you, even after you pay it off. Slaves cannot own property.

-The form that is submitted to obtain a SS number is Form SS5. It was published by the Department of the Treasury. It is your serial number registration.

-If you look at 22USC 285 2887, you will see that the Treasury Department is, in fact, the IMF.

-The IRS is a division of the International Monetary Fund, which is an agency of the U.N. Look up Senate Report 94-1148.

-Loss of civilian lives and property is called “collateral damage” for a reason.

-To the point: The national debt is a loan. We are the collateral. What happens when you don’t pay a secured loan? The bank comes and seizes the collateral!

-The only thing keeping them from seizing the collateral is that the collateral is armed.

[center]This is not about gun violence prevention![/center]

~J. Edgar Hoover~

1078

Liberals think about this. If Obama uses executive order to get rid of guns, it would be like Bush using executive order to get rid of Abortion. I have a feeling that 66% of the House and Senate would pass a bill that would over turn any executive order that Obama does on Gun Control, and if Reid wont allow it to be voted on then the Supreme Court will over turn it.

1079

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I can’t believe I have to explain this, but here:

Free speech is to the First Amendment as gun OWNERSHIP is to the Second Amendment.

Now–just like the distributive property in algebra–we add and disseminate an abridgment to the equation.

An abridgment of free speech does to the First Amendment what an abridgment of gun OWNERSHIP does to the Second Amendment.

Brandenburg is an abridgment of free speech.

The rest follows from there.[/quote]

To continue where I left off on this post–

So, either you believe that a citizen should not face criminal charges after he, for example, shouts “fire” in a crowded room with the intention of inciting violence, thereby setting off a chain of events which killed an elderly woman

or

you believe that Constitutionally-protected rights can, in the name of public safety, be abridged in some of their manifestations.

Which, for the knives that might want to play dull, is not to say that you think it’s a good idea to further restrict arms ownership. Only that it could theoretically be Constitutional in exactly the same way that Brandenburg is.[/quote]

Push, as I understand it you’re traveling, but I’m interested in your response to this when you get the time.[/quote]

I’ve addressed it several times. I don’t know what more you want.

Move on to other court decisions that actually DO directly address gun control like Heller and Chicago.[/quote]

You have not addressed its substance.

The argument I make here–that the First Amendment’s prohibition of the criminalization of speech is directly analogous to the Second Amendment’s prohibition of infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms (in that each is what the Amendment explicitly prescribes); or, in other words, that freedom from persecution for speech is to the First Amendment as [b]gun ownership[/b] is to the Second Amendment–has been met with silence by you.

Two questions, your answers to which I’m honestly curious to see:

Should a hypothetical man face criminal charges for shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater where there was no fire, setting off a stampede during which one or more people were trampled to death?

And, if yes:

Do you or do you not agree, in light of the fact that the First Amendment prohibits the abridgment of speech without elaboration and you’ve just advocated the criminalization of a particular act of speech, that Constitutionally-protected rights can, in the name of public safety, be abridged in certain of their manifestations?

1080

I think this President is handing the Senate over to Republicans in 2014. He tried this strong-arm bullshit with healthcare, to get served up a huge loss in 2010.