[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bottom line is TB, his friends at the park, and other statists in sheep’s clothing have – and I mean HAVE – to go with the emotive argument: it just “feelz” like more guns would equal more crime. The scientific/statistical evidence simply is not there.[/quote]
Statistics as well as history have shown that the more people who are armed the less gun violence exists.
That’s why these rats usually travel to gun free zones like schools to do their killing.
Someday the left and those who have a deep affection for more gun laws will wake up.
I said “Prior to 1868, states had varying and burgeoning versions of ‘common sense’ legislation.” You said “And they did it in violation of their state constitutions.” I didn’t catch where you said “some” of the laws were in violation of their state constitutions, or even “most”. Yep, looks like you didn’t qualify your statement at all - - thus, “all” laws. If you didn’t mean that, ok, but I’m not being dishonest at taking you at the words you actually used. Nice try, though. I do, however, get the Bonus Points for you doing your silly imitation of something I have already said/claimed and changing the name (“I know you are, but what am I?”).
Thanks for providing the link to Professor Volokh’s list of state constitutional right to bear arms, I’ve read it many times. You’ll see this list clearly notes the states that have no such constitutional right. Hilariously, you provide the link and then brag that you “do you know [about every state’s constitution] (in regards to keep bear)” but, if you did know, and you had actually read this site, you wouldn’t have tried to convince everyone “48 or 49 states have ever firmer restrictions than the Second Amendment” a post ago. Laugh out loud funny, Push. You didn’t know, but now you do thanks to me pointing it out, but congratulations on Googling for this site after the fact and then trying to pretend you knew.
Also, how funny and telling is it that you simply skip over owning up to the error (which wasn’t simply a miscount - you had no idea), and then start arrogantly babbling about how much you know?
Sure Georgia and Kentucky struck down laws (Georgia was mixed - it upheld the prohibition of concealed weapons, but struck down other aspects as violating the right to self-defense). I didn’t claim otherwise. Other states didn’t when certain laws were challenged, like Louisiana, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee. My argument couldn’t have been “turned on its ear” because I said state laws were generally compliant, and this is especially true when you consider along with the above mentioned states where such laws were challenged but upheld that the (then) seven states with no constitutional right to bear arms wouldn’t have had any constitutional issues with gun regulations.
Sure, there are examples of early Republic gun control. Not pervasive, nothing like we see today, but there were plenty of examples of them - see the prohibitions on concealed weapons. Prior to that, there were other examples, like storage of ammunition and the like. The issue isn’t volume or scope - the issue is mere existence. The mere fact that they existed and were lawful exercises of a state’s police power undermines all of your fatuous claims.
No, there were no real divisions on the thinking of Barron v. Baltimore. There was no great debate. It was well-settled that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states. There might have been someone here or there who thought that wasn’t the case, but there’s no support that this was a matter of serious debate (particularly among the Framers) that could have gone either way. Just because you wished it were so doesn’t mean it was. As for the Georgia court, Nunn v State was overturned in Hill by that same court on the grounds that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to the states. Most important, though, was that you had no idea about any of this until I brought it up in the thread.
Re: Western cow towns that had gun control measures: Hilarious. You concede that some frontier towns had gun control (which was my only point, after you tried to claim that I had learned such a thing from Hollywood movies), but then try to say there is some distinction to be made because Arizona was a territory, not a state (and therefore had no state constitution). Yeah, there is one distinction to be made - because Arizona was a federal territory, its cities would have had less autonomy over its gun laws because it would be subject to federal law. See Article IV of the Constitution. Territories weren’t free to pass any law they wanted, Einstein.
But tell me, though - these frontier towns that you concede outlawed carrying weapons in town: were they left-wing statists?
Yes, there were laws prohibiting blacks from owning them. Also, there were laws saying you couldnâ??t give arms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and people who wouldn’t swear an oath of loyalty to revolutionary forces. There were laws (long ago) forbidding the giving of arms to Indians. There were laws restricting the amounts of ammunition you could have and where you stored it. There were laws requiring that you stored your arms in a central place. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, states and the federal government conducted arms censuses. There were laws saying you couldn’t carry small, concealable weapons most often used in ambush or murder. Whether you find these laws objectionable or not is irrelevant - the point is, they existed. And no, no one - least of all me - is claiming gun laws were as pervasive as they are today (that would be true of any set of laws, of course). But, they existed. I know - this hurts because it undermines your scam that you are a True Gun Enthusiast and You Had It All Figured Out, but that isn’t my problem to fix.
Now, what you’ll never, ever, ever understand is that simply understanding and appreciating this background - that our history is not one of libertarian arms utopia and that the Second Amendment is not and has never been an unvarnished universal right from the beginning - isn’t the same thing as believing we need Australia style gun control. And recognizing this history (instead of foisting your pretend world on people and exposing your ignorance and dishonesty in the process) would actually make you better at achieving your endgame of convincing people we don’t need heavy-handed gun regulation.
But you won’t do it, and you choose to beclown yourself instead. Oh well.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For the fourth or fifth time now, TB, what are some your examples of necessary “reasonable gun restrictions?”
Why do you cow from answering this question?[/quote]
I haven’t cowed, I have just been ignoring you. Increasingly, you’re not a good use of PWI time. I’ve identified a number - no automatic weapons, restrictions on ownership by felons and the mentally ill, no constitutional carry (a misnomer, if I’ve ever heard one), etc.
You kept flapping your gums that I was Hell-bent on pushing for more legislation - because though I never said such a thing, you apparently know better what I think than I do (“but, but, he implied it! I am sure of it!”) - but were I a legislator, I’d have no such interest.
Totally OT, but Push, do you have some sort of bizarre delay on your posts? I just now found several posts that I swear were not there when I read the thread yesterday morning looking for a response.
And, as memory served, the fine state of Montana enacted a law in 1887 forbidding the carrying of pistols and revolvers in city limits (along with other weapons). Yep, see the link - was still on the books in 1921.
Must be those America-hating, left-wing statists I hear about so much, up there in Big Sky country.
Thought I would add this, since this thread has taken several turns from the OP’s original question. My apologies OP.
Better to grab a gun than your dick in this situation:)) This reminds of an earlier conversation where the poster was relying on an alarm to provide total protection. Score one for the armed citizen.
And, as memory served, the fine state of Montana enacted a law in 1887 forbidding the carrying of pistols and revolvers in city limits (along with other weapons). Yep, see the link - was still on the books in 1921.
Must be those America-hating, left-wing statists I hear about so much, up there in Big Sky country.[/quote]
Your memory ails. The fine state of Montana did not become a state until 1889.
So the fine state of Montana could not enact a state law in 1887.
One of these days, TB, you’re going to learn not to fuck with me on this subject.[/quote]
Sure, it was a territory - which is precisely why I remarked that the law was still on the books in 1921. And, importantly, it’s still on the books today:
Why do the left-wing statists that control Montana hate the Second Amendment? Why are you restricted from having these weapons without first having to get a permit?