crickets...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

1) present reasoned supported argument that proves me wrong

To think your argument is right from the start.. if only the world was as black and white as you seem to think it is.

So as a time machine Conservative what year do want to travel Back to? For your Utopia views on the Constitution in America when every American reads it the same way ?

because that statement below ex plains much. Is that your example of " your reasoned approach "?..


the citizens who do cherish and respect the Constitution will never give up our guns -- BECAUSE, liberals want that government that would take up arms against us . . . exactly the kind of government that you claim has been evolved out of existence.

So what is your point? Are you saying Reelin is wrong? Are you saying you're right? Are you saying there is no right or wrong? That everything depends on "interpretation"?

If everything depends on personal "interpretation," then where do you get off criticizing his point of view? Is your opinion "right from the start"?

[Sea Dangles]

That is the problem with this thread,very predictable reactions based on nothing except the party line. Simple minds that are working hard I guess.🤷🏽#^&♂️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

1) present reasoned supported argument that proves me wrong

To think your argument is right from the start.. if only the world was as black and white as you seem to think it is.

If I encounter a statement that I feel is wrong I precisely quote it and rebut it. I do not expect different treatment; if you believe what I say is wrong I would expect to be rebutted.

One thing I believe to the core of my being is that a position isn't worth anything if it isn't worth an ardent defense. Why should I take your opinion to be anything but hot air if you make no effort to present argument to support your position?

You can keep saying that things aren't black and white but you never explain the grey or explain why black is wrong and white is right . . . Just calling my position names ain't gonna cut it.

Originally Posted by wdmso

So as a time machine Conservative what year do want to travel Back to? For your Utopia views on the Constitution in America when every American reads it the same way ?

The Constitution hasn't changed meaning. If there are differing views on what the COTUS means or directs, usually only one side is correct. You saying I don't see the different meanings is just another useless statement that has no value in the discussion. I know there are different opinions, tearing them apart is what I enjoy.

Originally Posted by wdmso

because that statement below explains much. Is that your example of " your reasoned approach "?..


the citizens who do cherish and respect the Constitution will never give up our guns -- BECAUSE, liberals want that government that would take up arms against us . . . exactly the kind of government that you claim has been evolved out of existence.

In the context of Got Stripers statement that I was replying to? Sure.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

That is the problem with this thread,very predictable reactions based on nothing except the party line. Simple minds that are working hard I guess.����#^&♂️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yours is a very predictable comment from someone who hasn't said anything of value in this thread.

Here, you want outside the established boundaries discussion?

I would enjoy a discussion of how the general anti-RKBA / 2nd Amendment agenda meshes with the foundational theory for penumbral rights.

The "penumbral rights theory" is how generalized "privacy' rights were recognized and how abortion, reproductive / contraceptive and sexual orientation rights are secured.

For those that do not know, the origin of those rights has been found in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The theory was outlined (without being named) in a dissent written by Justice Harlan in Poe v Ullman. These unenumerated rights also rely on the principle embodied in the 9th Amendment. The case where penumbral rights became evident was Griswold v Connecticut:

"[The] specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion).

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

Justice O'Connor, quoted below, expressly elevated Harlan's dissent to the opinion of the Court:

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (ellipsis in original)

Some questions for discussion:

How does anti-gunner's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment fit into the right to keep and bear arms being a link in the "rational continuum" of individual liberty protected from federal (and state) injury by the Bill of Rights?

Can a right that is found to exist in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights be more respected, more vital and more secure than a right that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Can anti-gunner's hostility for the RKBA and their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment actually call into question the legitimacy of the penumbral rights theory, securing the rights to abortion and other reproductive choices or even the gains made in LGBT rights?

IOW, if the "rational continuum" does not exist -- since there is a "right" that doesn't belong to individuals in the series, how can the penumbral rights theory be valid?

.

Point of information, I support the penumbral rights theory. I believe it to be a usable work-around to Slaughterhouse, which gutted the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. I would prefer Slaughterhouse to be revisited by SCOTUS and overturned, it is universally considered a wrongly decided case.

[Sea Dangles]

Thank you for making my point.
But do you think that changes anybody's mind?
Will that discussion cause anyone here to rethink their personal view?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Thank you for making my point.
But do you think that changes anybody's mind?
Will that discussion cause anyone here to rethink their personal view?

If you think that makes your point it is obvious you do not understand what I wrote.

Only those pro-choice anti-gunner's that possess some degree of intellectual honesty will test their position.

That the theory that created the right to abortion can not be valid if the anti-gunner's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is true, might lead some to reevaluate their position on the right to keep and bear arms.

[Sea Dangles]

I am not here to change your position on any issue, I also ask no explanation from you. Obviously you are passionate,so let that be your cause. Enjoy your perspective and allow others the same courtesy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am not here to change your position on any issue, I also ask no explanation from you. Obviously you are passionate,so let that be your cause. Enjoy your perspective and allow others the same courtesy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Uhhhhh, No. This isn't a 'live and let live' situation.

Why should I just silently suffer those who are thieves?

The flaws in law and logic of those who support the theft of liberty should always be exposed. If your position is so bankrupt that you decide not to defend it, that's fine with me but when I read utter crap I will call it out.

Just look at posts 54 and 56 in this thread. In 54 spence quotes me and offers the rote 2nd Amendment lies. I correct him in 56 and the next time this whack-a-mole pokes his head up is 120 with a substanceless BS comment.

If you think I post to change the position of the person I quote, you are wrong. Sure, I pine for anti's to reply but it really doesn't matter.

Threads on guns are always the highest page view threads on any board. I posted 51 and 56 for the lurkers, people who are interested in the subject. I'm under no illusion the vocal anti's will ever change but if the anti's statements are ritually, religiously torn apart and the correct info is right there, someone who is on the fence might choose the right path. I'll predict that not one anti will take-up any aspect of 124 . . . they have absolutely no intellectual integrity and it is always enjoyable to point that out.

If exposing their lies and inconsistencies saves one mind and there's one less vote for a Constitution shredding liberal, it's worth it . . .

[Sea Dangles]

Alright, well keep up the good work. Way to make a difference. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Carry on soldier of justice. I have to go shoot eggs!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Last time I heard someone hissing so wretchedly about lies and thieves I think I was watching Lord of the Rings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Last time I heard someone hissing so wretchedly about lies and thieves I think I was watching Lord of the Rings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and post election Hillary

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Alright, well keep up the good work. Way to make a difference. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Carry on soldier of justice. I have to go shoot eggs!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I mention how fun it is too?

Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had.

Now it's this crap; snide on-liners, unwarranted arrogance and passive-aggressive posturing.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Last time I heard someone hissing so wretchedly about lies and thieves I think I was watching Lord of the Rings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh look, there he is again . . . saying nothing of value.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had.

I'm astounded that with your absolute conviction and fact based correctness you couldn't have found a similar level of joy.

Oh, that was the same Constitution by the way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Oh, that was the same Constitution by the way.

Absolutely correct. The Constitution chugged along unchanged while the law, as set-out in the lower federal courts beginning in 1942* went on a 66 year long acid trip. The Supreme Court slapped them back into the constitutional fold in 2008.

* U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) inserting the "state's right" and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) inserting the "militia right" in the federal courts.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm astounded that with your absolute conviction and fact based correctness you couldn't have found a similar level of joy.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He actually said his level of joy (fun) was greater then.

"Did I mention how fun it is too?"

It is fun now, as well as being constitutionally faithful (having the law on his [constitutional] side).

"Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had."

But not as much fun (joy, per you) now as it was when the left could provide good debates since it had the law (not the Constitution) on its side.

"Now it's this crap; snide on-liners, unwarranted arrogance and passive-aggressive posturing."

Now it's not as much fun because the anti- side has neither the law, nor the Constitution on its side. But still fun to point that out. And cannot be rebutted except with crappy, pointless, one liners, or longer emotional rather than legally correct responses.

[wdmso]

the constitution is successful because people can't agree on what it means... which promotes dialogue




Americas are losing patience with the Gun lobby they are tired of the mass loss of life .. I have said more than once you can help craft joint solutions to the Gun Problem in America , or get rolled over by the solution .. but the days of hiding behind the 2nd and the NRA are getting shorter and shorter

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Absolutely correct. The Constitution chugged along unchanged while the law, as set-out in the lower federal courts beginning in 1942* went on a 66 year long acid trip. The Supreme Court slapped them back into the constitutional fold in 2008.

* U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) inserting the "state's right" and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) inserting the "militia right" in the federal courts.

Ahhh, so Heller affirmed the right to own a fully automatic weapon? Of course it didn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the constitution is successful because people can't agree on what it means... which promotes dialogue

On its face, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever, ever, read.

But, like some of the cryptic things Trump says, maybe there is some rationale, even truth, in what you say. Can you please explain what you mean here, because your statement, as it is, makes no sense. It is totally divorced from sense. It verges, if it doesn't actually get there, on lunacy.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Did I mention how fun it is too?

Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had.

Now it's this crap; snide on-liners, unwarranted arrogance and passive-aggressive posturing.

You do seem smitten. It really comes out in your writing. You have more in common with Spence and Wayne than you realize. Very predictable regardless of topic and not the best with comprehension. That is what happens when you close your mind,the eyes and ears follow. Again, thank you for proving my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by detbuch

On its face, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever, ever, read.

But, like some of the cryptic things Trump says, maybe there is some rationale, even truth, in what you say. Can you please explain what you mean here, because your statement, as it is, makes no sense. It is totally divorced from sense. It verges, if it doesn't actually get there, on lunacy.

He means that it is like the Bible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

the constitution is successful because people can't agree on what it means... which promotes dialogue


Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

On its face, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever, ever, read.



"A"....for originality...and comedy

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He means that it is like the Bible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chris FTW.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[nightfighter]

I find it hard to believe that there has not been a single mention of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The original intent of the NFA was to outlaw the machine guns (full automatic weapons) that had been outgunning the lawmen throughout Prohibition era. It was an act of Congress, has some flaws, has been successfully challenged on some fronts, and is where this discussion must be held in this nation. Not the Second Amendment.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I find it hard to believe that there has not been a single mention of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The original intent of the NFA was to outlaw the machine guns (full automatic weapons) that had been outgunning the lawmen throughout Prohibition era. It was an act of Congress, has some flaws, has been successfully challenged on some fronts, and is where this discussion must be held in this nation. Not the Second Amendment.

wasn't the "original intent" of the NFA to tax all firearms and create a national gun registry?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahhh, so Heller affirmed the right to own a fully automatic weapon? Of course it didn't.

OK, so I want to acknowledge that I have read your post but I'm unsure how to reply.

Do I respond as if you are serious that fully automatic weapons were really at issue in the cases I mentioned or Heller?

Or do I just assume that this post is just a bag of crap you have left on fire on my doorstep?

I'm going with bag of flaming crap.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

You do seem smitten. It really comes out in your writing. You have more in common with Spence and Wayne than you realize. Very predictable regardless of topic and not the best with comprehension. That is what happens when you close your mind,the eyes and ears follow. Again, thank you for proving my point.

And another substanceless, ad hom post.

Gotta love it when superficial thinkers who haven't said anything of value in a thread get on their high horse and critique someone. Can you please link to a post where your unique and unpredictable knowledge is on display for rebuttal and /or criticism?

All I have seen you post are snide comments and insults.

PLONK

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by scottw

wasn't the "original intent" of the NFA to tax all firearms and create a national gun registry?

Yes and no. As with many bills being penned for congressional approval, other interests get represented in the drafting and negotiating process. It was at one point going to encompass all rifles, shotguns AND pistols and revolvers. Pistols and revolvers were dropped, and long guns were only included if under a minimum 16 inch barrel length. (obvious attempt to outlaw sawed off weapons) Silencers were included, and taxed, more so because it was a newer technology. Tax stamp on autos/machine guns was set at $200.00. (approx. $3500 in 2017 dollars) The registry was poorly written and continues to be less than effective, when looked at from a recording point of view, not a regulatory one. (The salt water fishing license is light years ahead of the gun registry.....)

[Sea Dangles]

I call it constructive criticism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[nightfighter]

And, the stamp for a single NFA weapon is still $200.00..... Getting the Form 4 processed is more of a challenge IMO. I believe there could be untold numbers of home built short barreled rifles out there. Like the bump stock, there are many work arounds......