"Country Guitarist Who Whitnessed Las Vegas Shooting

Corazón said:
I can't help thinking that you'd piss yourself in that situation and cry like a little girl.
Click to expand...

I'm not responsible for what you "can't help thinking".

I can't help thinking that it's unlikely that someone could misspell "jail" as "juvie", myself.

Stick to regaling the forum with the fascinating adventures of your globe-trotting spawn and "amusing" references to old episodes of Top Gear.

That's my advice.
 
anchovies said:
Quite apparent a whole lot more than you
Click to expand...

How is it apparent, anchovies?

You misquoted the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case TWICE in this thread and dismissed the decision as unimportant. I quote: "which basically decided that people living in DC could own a gun in their home, that's it".

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

anchovies said:
Scalia acknowledge the FACT in the Hueller case
Click to expand...

anchovies said:
the only decision, and it was a inane decision which will some day be overturned, was the Hueller case, which basically decided that people living in DC could own a gun in their home, that's it, cases using it as a precedent haven't gotten anywhere to date
Click to expand...


Can you explain how that indicates that you know "a whole more than me", anchovies?

I will understand if you can't, anchovies.
 
Godless America said:
How is it apparent, anchovies?

You misquoted the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case TWICE in this thread and dismissed the decision as unimportant. I quote: "which basically decided that people living in DC could own a gun in their home, that's it".

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller






Can you explain how that indicates that you know "a whole more than me", anchovies?

I will understand if you can't, anchovies.
Click to expand...

Ah, perhaps because I didn't need to go to Wikipedia to discuss the case, which by the way proved everything I referenced, and to add, I'll even document Scalia thinking that gun rights can be limited, meaning, not absoule


"The opinion also held that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. Justice Scalia went out of his way to declare longstanding laws that prohibit possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; that forbid guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms; and that restrict the right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, are still valid and enforceable."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Antonin_Scalia_Gun_Control.htm

And by the way, the banned post you just included is also bogus, the guy wasn't at the scene, as he said, he was in a bar away from the scene, not really what one would call a witness.

Must be why you ban people
 
anchovies said:
Ah, perhaps because I didn't need to go to Wikipedia to discuss the case, which by the way proved everything I referenced
Click to expand...

You are telling me that you can't even spell the name of the case correctly, dismissed it as trivial, and think the Court's opinion "proved everything" you "referenced", anchovies?

:rofl2:

anchovies said:
and to add, I'll even document Scalia thinking that gun rights can be limited, meaning, not absoule
Click to expand...

Since I never said that gun rights are absolute, knock yourself out with strawmen, anchovies, if it makes you happy. It'll keep you off the streets, I suppose.

anchovies said:
And by the way, the banned post you just included is also bogus, the guy wasn't at the scene, as he said, he was in a bar away from the scene, not really what one would call a witness. Must be why you ban people
Click to expand...

Who said he was "at the scene", anchovies? I said he witnessed it. I witnessed it, too, anchovies.

You fail again, anchovies. Keep thrashing.
 
Corazón said:
I imagine that's what the lunatic in Las Vegas said as well, guess what though? They did come and take them.
Click to expand...

You imagine? Unless you heard him say it, you have nothing.

I didn't do nor would I do what he did. Nor are you going to come and take mine either.
 
Godless America said:
You are telling me that you can't even spell the name of the case correctly, dismissed it as trivial, and think the Court's opinion "proved everything" you "referenced", anchovies?

:rofl2:



Since I never said that gun rights are absolute, knock yourself out with strawmen, anchovies, if it makes you happy. It'll keep you off the streets, I suppose.



Who said he was "at the scene", anchovies? I said he witnessed it. I witnessed it, too, anchovies.

You fail again, anchovies. Keep thrashing.
Click to expand...

Ah, you did, "Country singer who witnessed Las Vegas shooting," yeah, he witnessed it, from his bar away from the scene

And on a number of occasions you regurgitated the lame Second Amendment "argument," I believe one was something like "Second Amendment stance," as if it made gun regulation unconstitutional, which of course if does not

Finally, I did add a "u" to Heller, and I did employ it to show why your thinking was faulty, but you didn't even have a clue of what I was referring to until you looked it up on Wikipedia, as I said, the knowledge showed

Give it up, as many times as you attempt to alter the goal posts your never going to score
 
anchovies said:
Ah, you did, "Country singer who witnessed Las Vegas shooting," yeah, he witnessed it, from his bar away from the scene
Click to expand...

How far from the scene is his bar, anchovies?

You don't know, do you, anchovies?

Was it within eyesight, or are there other ways in the 21st century to witness events without being at the epicenter, anchovies?

Think hard about your answer, anchovies.

:tardthoughts:


:rofl2:


anchovies said:
And on a number of occasions you regurgitated the lame Second Amendment "argument," I believe one was something like "Second Amendment stance," as if it made gun regulation unconstitutional, which of course if does not
Click to expand...

More erroneous suppositions and inferences, anchovies. I see that you concede that your earlier claim was factually deficient. Good.

anchovies said:
Finally, I did add a "u" to Heller, and I did employ it to show why your thinking was faulty, but you didn't even have a clue of what I was referring to until you looked it up on Wikipedia, as I said, the knowledge showed
Click to expand...

Am I to understand that you are now claiming that you purposefully misquoted the case - twice - and trivialized its impact - to show that my thinking is faulty?

:rofl2:

anchovies said:
Give it up, as many times as you attempt to alter the goal posts your never going to score
Click to expand...

No, anchovies, I intend to continue to mock your infantile assertions and poor grammar, as often as I see fit.

 
Godless America said:
I'm not responsible for what you "can't help thinking".

I can't help thinking that it's unlikely that someone could misspell "jail" as "juvie", myself.

Stick to regaling the forum with the fascinating adventures of your globe-trotting spawn and "amusing" references to old episodes of Top Gear.

That's my advice.
Click to expand...
Well seeing as you're a troll and not a mod, I can't help thinking that your opinion is of little consequence.
 
archives said:
Thick, that is the only way one can describe it, thick, for the umpteenth time, the FACT is that NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE, none, even your icon Scalia acknowledge the FACT in the Hueller case
Click to expand...

that's true......you have the right to talk the entire country into changing the constitution......
 
archives said:
Changes His Opinion on Gun Control: 'Enough Is Enough"

"A country guitarist who performed at the Las Vegas music festival where a gunman killed 58 people on Sunday said he has changed his mind about gun control in the wake of the massacre."

"I've been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night," Caleb Keeter, a guitarist for the Josh Abbott Band, wrote in a message on Twitter on Monday. "I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [concealed handgun licenses], and legal firearms on the bus. They were useless."

"Enough is enough," Keeter wrote, criticizing the shooter's "access to an insane amount of fire power." "Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn't going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand."
"We need gun control RIGHT. NOW," he said. "My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn't realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it."

http://time.com/4966157/las-vegas-s...utm_content=2017100317pm&xid=newsletter-brief

Common sense

Got to wonder though, if this musician keeps speaking his own experience how long will it be until the NRA and right wing media make him chose between speaking out or having a career in music
Click to expand...
Gun control itself is not an answer. We can certainly make it more difficult and limit the loss of live from use of fire arms but I could kill far more people without a gun or a bomb which obviously I have no desire to do. We have a societal problem we need to ask hard questions about and find solutions too. Why do we produce people who commit mass killings?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why do we produce people who commit mass killings?
Click to expand...


Because of the march of technology, Mr. Science. The means of inflicting mass casualties are more lethal and portable than ever before.

Where there is a will to kill, there is a way. As Gunnery Sergeant Hartman said. "It is a hard heart that kills".

You noted correctly that prohibition is an uncertain means of stopping the slaughter at best - besides being legally problematic.

Wait until ISIS or Antifa get their hands on a suitcase dirty bomb.
 
evince said:
gun laws are constitutional idiot
Click to expand...

Some are, some aren't, skank. Try reading District of Columbia v Heller.

One thing all gun laws have in common is ineffectiveness.

If Chicago's gun laws have stopped the slaughter on DEMOCRAT Rahm's bloody streets, how can you think more laws that criminals won't obey will work?

I will not be stripped of my rights because a suspected Antifa terrorist used guns to kill what some liberals called "likely Trump supporters". Not without a fight.
 
Godless America said:
Scalia is my icon, anchovies? Who told you that, anchovies? :dunno:

What you, I , or a musician "think" is not case law, anchovies.

The Second stands, anchovies.

Will you try to impose limits on my ownership of property because you don't like my property, anchovies?

What's your legal basis for such an argument, anchovies?

Answer, anchovies,
Click to expand...

The legal basis is Heller, ignoramus. Try to educate yourself, cretin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top