Page 30 of 99 FirstFirst ... 202627282930313233344080 ... LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 1471

Thread: Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

  1. #436 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    That’s what they call it, dumbfuck. The majority opinion in Heller.

    He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “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.”


    Why is English such a challenge for you?
    Inversion fallacy. English seems to be a problem for YOU.

    There are no limits to the right to bear arms. The Constitution of the United States never authorized anyone in the federal government to limit arm by type, brand, type of action, how it looks, whether they are practical, etc. There are no limits.
    If you want to own a nuke, you can. It's not a practical weapon, and it requires unusual storage methods, but it's LEGAL. Nukes are too expensive to own and store to be of any practical use, except as a national defense system.
    If you want to own a tank, you can. It's not a practical weapon, and it requires a large place to store it, but it's LEGAL. Some people do own tanks.
    If you want to own a cannon, you can. Quite a few people do. Most often they are used for celebration or entertainment purposes now.
    If you want to own a machine gun, you can. Quite a few people do. The requirement that you have to registers the thing and follow BATF restrictions with them is itself illegal. They use a LOT of ammunition, which people generally don't want to pay for and cart around to shoot the thing, but it's LEGAL.

    Laws are not needed to forbid carrying a weapon into a government building. That building is owned and operated by the government. They can set whatever limits they want.
    The government does NOT own aircraft. If an airline has no problem with guns on board, people should be allowed to carry them. The government cannot stop the use of right of way if you have a gun. That includes airport terminals. TSA is illegal.They are also ineffective. It is quite possible to BUILD a gun or bomb using nothing but materials you can find on the secure side of any major airport. Most terrorists already know how.

    TSA does not stop terrorists. The reason they are not hijacking airlines anymore is because they know any fool that stands up to hijack and airline today will be rolled over by an angry mob in seconds, before they can do anything. People know a hijacking isn't just a trip to Cuba anymore.

    Schools? Children in K-12 are already not able to legally carry a gun. Age restrictions are sensible, since they are not full citizens of age yet. College campuses can and do make their own decision on whether to allow guns on their campus. So do various businesses. This sometimes conflicts with State law.

    Scalia's opinion is wrong. His opinion is NOT the ruling.

  2. #437 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Heller does, dumbfuck.
    Heller cannot change the Constitution of the United States. Nor does the case try to.

  3. #438 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Inversion fallacy. English seems to be a problem for YOU.

    There are no limits to the right to bear arms. The Constitution of the United States never authorized anyone in the federal government to limit arm by type, brand, type of action, how it looks, whether they are practical, etc. There are no limits.
    If you want to own a nuke, you can. It's not a practical weapon, and it requires unusual storage methods, but it's LEGAL. Nukes are too expensive to own and store to be of any practical use, except as a national defense system.
    If you want to own a tank, you can. It's not a practical weapon, and it requires a large place to store it, but it's LEGAL. Some people do own tanks.
    If you want to own a cannon, you can. Quite a few people do. Most often they are used for celebration or entertainment purposes now.
    If you want to own a machine gun, you can. Quite a few people do. The requirement that you have to registers the thing and follow BATF restrictions with them is itself illegal. They use a LOT of ammunition, which people generally don't want to pay for and cart around to shoot the thing, but it's LEGAL.

    Laws are not needed to forbid carrying a weapon into a government building. That building is owned and operated by the government. They can set whatever limits they want.
    The government does NOT own aircraft. If an airline has no problem with guns on board, people should be allowed to carry them. The government cannot stop the use of right of way if you have a gun. That includes airport terminals. TSA is illegal.They are also ineffective. It is quite possible to BUILD a gun or bomb using nothing but materials you can find on the secure side of any major airport. Most terrorists already know how.

    TSA does not stop terrorists. The reason they are not hijacking airlines anymore is because they know any fool that stands up to hijack and airline today will be rolled over by an angry mob in seconds, before they can do anything. People know a hijacking isn't just a trip to Cuba anymore.

    Schools? Children in K-12 are already not able to legally carry a gun. Age restrictions are sensible, since they are not full citizens of age yet. College campuses can and do make their own decision on whether to allow guns on their campus. So do various businesses. This sometimes conflicts with State law.

    Scalia's opinion is wrong. His opinion is NOT the ruling.
    He wrote the majority OPINION, stupid fuck. It’s the opinion of 5 SCOTUS judges. It IS the ruling. How many times does that have to be explained to you.

    One simply cannot possess any type of gun, in any manner, in any place, and for whatever purpose. Try this dumbfuck. Go down to the local courthouse and try carry in your popgun. Let us know how that goes.

  4. #439 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Not my law, you fucking idiot. It’s the law of the land. And here you are, thinking that guns in schools is an answer.

    What a fucking fool.
    Guns in school IS an answer. Another answer is to allow teachers to lock the doors from the inside of their classrooms without requiring a key, and to use steel doors. Another answer is to install isolation steel drop slats that can be triggered on command from the school office.

    Isolate the shooter, deprive him of targets in this way, and he will most likely kill himself, ending the situation. If he doesn't, he is rendered powerless until the police arrive.

    It would also help to provide first training for type type of wounds a gunshot victim might suffer. The equipment required is slightly unusual, but is not expensive and can be applied by anyone with proper training. You could save a lot of lives that way as well.

    In Utah, there ARE guns in the K-12 schools. Any teacher may carry a gun. The school system is not even allowed to ask if they carry or not. Utah is not alone, either. It works.

  5. #440 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Heller cannot change the Constitution of the United States. Nor does the case try to.

    It didn’t. It clarified portions of it.

  6. #441 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    He wrote the majority opinion, dumbfuck. It’s law.

    Where did you obtain your law degree?
    WRONG. An opinion is NOT a ruling. A ruling is NOT a law. Courts do not have the authority to write law. Courts do not have the authority to change the Constitution either. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

  7. #442 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    I provided the quote and cited Heller. Do you know what they call a SCOTUS decision, dumbfuck? They call it an OPINION.

    Two illiterate fools.
    An opinion is NOT a ruling.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (05-20-2019)

  9. #443 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    The majority OPINION of Heller is clear.

    How long have been a judge?
    No. He was writing an opinion. Scalia's reasoning behind the ruling (which is the opinion you keep harping on) is wrong. He does not have the authority to change the Constitution of the United States. The ruling itself did not try to. An opinion is NOT a ruling.

  10. #444 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    He wrote the majority OPINION, stupid fuck.
    An opinion is not a ruling.
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    It’s the opinion of 5 SCOTUS judges.
    No, it is his opinion only. 5 judges are not holding the pen.
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    It IS the ruling.
    No. It is an opinion. The ruling is nothing more than deciding who wins the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    How many times does that have to be explained to you.
    Try English. It works better.
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    One simply cannot possess any type of gun,
    Yes they can.
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    in any manner,
    Yes they can.
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    in any place,
    Yes they can, subject to property rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    and for whatever purpose.
    Yes they can.
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Try this dumbfuck. Go down to the local courthouse and try carry in your popgun. Let us know how that goes.
    The courthouse is owned and operated by the government. It's their property. Like anyone else, they have the right to bar guns on their property.

  11. #445 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    It didn’t. It clarified portions of it.
    'Clarifying' it means changing it. The court does not have that authority. It doesn't even have authority to interpret the Constitution. I only has authority to interpret laws to see if they are in conflict with the Constitution. In those cases, they MUST rule according to the Constitution.

  12. #446 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Guns in school IS an answer. Another answer is to allow teachers to lock the doors from the inside of their classrooms without requiring a key, and to use steel doors. Another answer is to install isolation steel drop slats that can be triggered on command from the school office.

    Isolate the shooter, deprive him of targets in this way, and he will most likely kill himself, ending the situation. If he doesn't, he is rendered powerless until the police arrive.

    It would also help to provide first training for type type of wounds a gunshot victim might suffer. The equipment required is slightly unusual, but is not expensive and can be applied by anyone with proper training. You could save a lot of lives that way as well.

    In Utah, there ARE guns in the K-12 schools. Any teacher may carry a gun. The school system is not even allowed to ask if they carry or not. Utah is not alone, either. It works.
    Yeah, Utah, the land of funny underwear. How many school districts do you think have the funds to do those retrofits?

    There are too many bullshit “if/woulds” in your post to even begin to address them.

    Try dealing with reality for once.

  13. #447 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    WRONG. An opinion is NOT a ruling. A ruling is NOT a law. Courts do not have the authority to write law. Courts do not have the authority to change the Constitution either. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
    A SCOTUS decision IS an opinion. You can try to play words games but it doesn’t change the ruling/deision/opinion of Heller.

    Guns have always been regulated and, for the most part, the courts have upheld those regulations.

    Your ignorance of law is astounding

  14. #448 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    An opinion is NOT a ruling.

    Here is the “ruling”, dumbfuck . Scroll down to page 54. Read it and weep, fool.

    It says:

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.



    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
    Last edited by domer76; 05-20-2019 at 02:19 PM.

  15. #449 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    'Clarifying' it means changing it. The court does not have that authority. It doesn't even have authority to interpret the Constitution. I only has authority to interpret laws to see if they are in conflict with the Constitution. In those cases, they MUST rule according to the Constitution.
    You were homeschooled, weren’t you?

  16. #450 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    You are really one stupid shitstain. What did you think I meant when I cited Heller?

    Fucking illiterate idiot.
    You are really one stupid shitstain; because you haven't give a link to Heller?

    Fucking illiterate idiot.

    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


Similar Threads

  1. Midterm question for our friends on the left
    By canceled.2021.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-13-2018, 04:20 PM
  2. White nationalist gun enthusiast assaulted
    By Legion Troll in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2016, 11:04 AM
  3. APP - Question for our left wing friends
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 10:01 AM
  4. Friends Question
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 06-27-2012, 10:10 PM
  5. Question for my investor friends here
    By Chapdog in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 01:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •