ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 38 of 43
« First < 283435363738 39404142 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Gun owners: ready to surrender them yet?
Discuss Thrower 06:26 PM 01-19-2021
It's very simple. There will be a mass shooting event sooner than later.

It will be followed by a massive leak wherein everyone who can be traced to have owned a firearm in any capacity will be made public.

This mass shooting event will be blamed on the "alt right."

Thus the connotation will be made between gun ownership and "white nationalism / supremacy" where it is assumed if you're in one category you are, by definition, in the other. If you don't give up your guns then logically you are just like the terrorists who invaded the Capitol.




Do not say




you were


not warned.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 05:48 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
They are just running rush shod over it. He thinks he can amend it on a whim. And you know when a Demo-Bolshevik claims what they're doing isn't what it is, it usually is what they're doing.
[INDENT]Joe Biden Declares ‘No Amendment to the Constitution Is Absolute’ in Gun Control Speech

President Joe Biden declared Thursday that “no amendment is absolute” while unveiling a series of executive actions targeting American citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

--Antonin Scalia in DC v. Heller
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06:00 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

--Antonin Scalia in DC v. Heller
That doesn't mean what you or Biden think though. It does not mean using that to endlessly expand it as in the word "infringe." You're pretending to thread the needle here, but like Biden we know you and him aren't.

Scalia wasn't always an originalist per some scholars; and as I recall he himself clarified. Still he wasn't like your fellow commies on the bench who stretch the meaning in leaps in bounds with far reaching penumbras like you are here.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:06 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
That doesn't mean what you or Biden think though. It does not mean using that to endlessly expand it as in the word "infringe." You're pretending to thread the needle here, but like Biden we know you and him aren't.

Scalia wasn't always an originalist per some scholars; and as I recall he himself clarified. Still he wasn't like your fellow commies on the bench who stretch the meaning in leaps in bounds with far reaching penumbras like you are here.
^The dangers of posting drunk^
[Reply]
Over Yonder 06:07 PM 04-08-2021
When I heard this Biden blabber on the radio today, the FIRST THING I thought about was which thread was it on CP that Cosmo was using to show is arse on "Is he coming to take them yet?"

I thought it was this one, but I wasn't sure. Cosmo didn't start this thread, so it's not quite as epic as a Lex Luthor epic fail. But it deserves recognition as a CP epic faceplant, nonetheless.

You have done well, Cosmo :-)
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06:08 PM 04-08-2021
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Second Amendment bars many gun restrictions being proposed after mass shootings

The Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality.

That means that the court has recognized that the framers of the Constitution did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its preexistence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government – state and federal – from infringing upon it.

It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks – "surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally" – to be impaired in the name of public safety.

It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.

With all of this as background, and the country anguishing over the mass deaths of innocents, the feds and the states face a choice between a knee-jerk but popular restriction of some form of gun ownership and the rational and sound realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safety.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judg...rsonal-liberty
They make it akin to speech not being absolute, but that's a matter of other rights coming into play and which one precedes another. Still, these are few and defined...it's not a blanket right for ever expanding "infringements" on such rights.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06:10 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by Over Yonder:
When I heard this Biden blabber on the radio today, the FIRST THING I thought about was which thread was it on CP that Cosmo was using to show is arse on "Is he coming to take them yet?"

I thought it was this one, but I wasn't sure. Cosmo didn't start this thread, so it's not quite as epic as a Lex Luthor epic fail. But it deserves recognition as a CP epic faceplant, nonetheless.

You have done well, Cosmo :-)
He may not take them literally, but Biden and the Demo-Bolshevik left, will effectively take them by neutering the right with various infringements—making it like you really won't have a right to use them. Inch by inch. We've seen this play before. Rinse. Repeat.
[Reply]
petegz28 07:10 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
I think the focus should generally be on keeping guns out of the hands of people who are unfit to possess them.
You mean criminals????
[Reply]
petegz28 07:10 PM 04-08-2021
Fact is Biden's own son lied on his ATF application so I guess that's okay??
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 07:13 PM 04-08-2021
The current admin is talking about allow people who think you're bad, unfit, unstable etc to report you to authorities which allows them come in without a warrant and take your gun or guns. This is where this is headed under Red Flag laws.

I don't Scalia saw that as allowed under the Constitution using the no right is absolute bullshit excuse. Any judge that does, is trashing the document. I don't care if it's Kavanaugh or Roberts. Kavanaugh is weak on the 4th as it is already.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 07:15 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
The current admin is talking about allow people who think you're bad, unfit, unstable etc to report you to authorities which allows them come in without a warrant and take your gun or guns. This is where this is headed under Red Flag laws.

I don't Scalia saw that as allowed under the Constitution using the no right is absolute bullshit excuse. Any judge that does, is trashing the document. I don't care if it's Kavanaugh or Roberts. Kavanaugh is weak on the 4th as it is already.

[Reply]
frozenchief 07:20 PM 04-08-2021
It's really hard to take people at face value when they do not understand what they are talking about. Most people in favor of gun control measures: 1) have no idea how guns work; 2) refuse to learn how guns work; and 3) hide behind ambiguous language. The best demonstration I ever saw of that came from Ken White at Popehat (Ken is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney so he does know a few things about gun crime):

"It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't. So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually "air quotes" hounds "air quotes". Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?

Because I'm just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can't articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?"

Whole article is here:

https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/t...ly-about-guns/

I do not believe, though, that we will be able to reach a common decision about firearms. The country is too polarized and guns, along with abortion, carry so much baggage that at this point, I do not believe we will resolve the issue politically.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 07:23 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
That doesn't mean what you or Biden think though. It does not mean using that to endlessly expand it as in the word "infringe." You're pretending to thread the needle here, but like Biden we know you and him aren't.

Scalia wasn't always an originalist per some scholars; and as I recall he himself clarified. Still he wasn't like your fellow commies on the bench who stretch the meaning in leaps in bounds with far reaching penumbras like you are here.
Scalia went on further regarding the issue. He's the guy RWers always point to as the model conservative on constitutional issues.


Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 07:25 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by Over Yonder:
When I heard this Biden blabber on the radio today, the FIRST THING I thought about was which thread was it on CP that Cosmo was using to show is arse on "Is he coming to take them yet?"

I thought it was this one, but I wasn't sure. Cosmo didn't start this thread, so it's not quite as epic as a Lex Luthor epic fail. But it deserves recognition as a CP epic faceplant, nonetheless.

You have done well, Cosmo :-)
So did he take them yet?
[Reply]
frozenchief 07:26 PM 04-08-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
The current admin is talking about allow people who think you're bad, unfit, unstable etc to report you to authorities which allows them come in without a warrant and take your gun or guns. This is where this is headed under Red Flag laws.

I don't Scalia saw that as allowed under the Constitution using the no right is absolute bullshit excuse. Any judge that does, is trashing the document. I don't care if it's Kavanaugh or Roberts. Kavanaugh is weak on the 4th as it is already.
Kavanaugh is weak on the 4th.

Try this as an experiment: going along with the 'dog analogy' above, if you are in favor of red flag laws, how would you respond if anyone could anonymously make a report to animal control so animal control could just come and take your dog because they think the dog is aggressive/disruptive/unsafe/whatever? You would have no notice. Instead, because the dog is purportedly aggressive, numerous animal control personnel would arrive at your house, come into your house, push you to one corner of your kitchen while they grab your dog. They drop off paperwork with a date and time of a hearing about 3-4 weeks out. During that time, your dog is kept in some kennel somewhere. At the subsequent hearing, you bear the burden of proving that your dog is NOT dangerous/disruptive/whatever.

Does that procedure comply with due process? Or is the person guilty until proven innocent? What about an individuals' right to face an accuser or to keep their rights until they have actually been convicted? How likely is it that someone, somewhere will make a fake complaint just because they are pissed off at their neighbor?
[Reply]
mlyonsd 07:30 PM 04-08-2021
The telling thing with retard joe and gun control is who he nominated to the ATF. Chipman is a fucking retard that pretended the cultists at Waco shot down government helicopters.
[Reply]
Page 38 of 43
« First < 283435363738 39404142 > Last »
Up