The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Hacker15e said:
Well, since you didn't actually say that in the thread you linked, can you point to another one? I'm still trying to see where you "called it months ago."

Can you cite one instance where you specifically mention an Executive Order?
Click to expand...

Post 2797

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/the-gun-thread.126819/page-140#post-2494177

Also, you can go over to @ATN_Pilot Facebook page where I mention it.

More importantly to your original point, can you link to where anyone said EOs would "never" be used?
Click to expand...

@ATN_Pilot in that thread above in post 2798

This is core to the superior dance in your OP...just interested to see evidence of either of the two claims you use to spike the ball here. You made the claims, I just wanna see 'em.
Click to expand...

Now that you see them, what next?
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
But yet less than they did 10 years ago.

Instead of a single poll, how about a collection of polls? I mean, we wouldn't want to base an argument off of information that only supports our point would we?

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

aa55987bec7b8c6a0458272664e1eefa.jpg


Which way is support trending here?
Click to expand...

Trends change. Perfect example of that is the viewpoint of Gay Marriage in this country.
 
Ahhh yes....I would love to hear from the Constitutional Scholars how this fit into the definition of 'well regulated militia'?
 
@Seggy how old are you? Are you actually a pilot or just a wanna be? Your ramblings come across like arguing with a 13 year old. Your posts make no sense other than to rile up people.

Does anyone here actually know this guy in the real world? Is he who/what he claims to be?
 
av8tr1 said:
@Seggy how old are you? Are you actually a pilot or just a wanna be? Your ramblings come across like arguing with a 13 year old. Your posts make no sense other than to rile up people.

Does anyone here actually know this guy in the real world? Is he who/what he claims to be?
Click to expand...

This is hysterical. Great post. Thank you for the laugh.
 
Seggy said:
Ahhh yes....I would love to hear from the Constitutional Scholars how this fit into the definition of 'well regulated militia'?
Click to expand...

"the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

District of Columbia v. Heller


You mean to ask how it does not fit into the definition. Imposition of proper discipline and training is highly subjective, thus a citizens militia. Constitutionally fine, with much dissent however. The modern day militia takes a frowned upon approach to preserving a persons constitutional rights, in my opinion.
 
BobDDuck said:
So what are they then?

Crazy people?
Patriots?
Terrorists?
(Personally I'm enjoying watching #YallQuada trending right now)
Click to expand...

I posted this above:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

District of Columbia v. Heller

Answer: a citizens' militia is what they are, objectively.
 
Seggy said:
Why can't you say 'radical right wing terrorists'?
Click to expand...

Because they aren't terrorists. Words have meanings. Terrorism has a specific definition according to US law.

From Wikipedia:

"U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

The folks in Oregon have attacked no one. They have made no attempt to frighten anyone in the course of furthering a political goal.

However, they have occupied federal property (which was empty at the time they took it over due to the holidays, so no individual people were hurt or threatened in the process) in the course of their protest. They have also called out part of the government and challenged some laws by an illegal means, so between the two acts they have probably crossed the line from a protest to sedition.
 
Beefy McGee said:
Because they aren't terrorists. Words have meanings. Terrorism has a specific definition according to US law.

From Wikipedia:

"U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

The folks in Oregon have attacked no one. They have made no attempt to frighten anyone in the course of furthering a political goal.

However, they have occupied federal property (which was empty at the time they took it over due to the holidays, so no individual people were hurt or threatened in the process) in the course of their protest. They have also called out part of the government and challenged some laws by an illegal means, so between the two acts they have probably crossed the line from a protest to sedition.
Click to expand...

They are taking arms up against the government. That is terrorism. They want to overthrow our government. That is terrorism.

One of the occupiers sent a message saying he doesn't expect to come home. Why would someone say that if they are making a peaceful protest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top