Prepared to be boggled...

[mikeyb]

Another message board, discussing the recent Idaho incident after Christmas... one guy is adamant on his position, despite numerous corrections.

1. It is the plain text of 2A. "Arms" in its plural form is not a reference to "all arms". It is a reference to "more than one arm."
2. The right is not to keep and bear your arms. The right is to keep and bear arms. If you move, visit, or travel through California, then as long as you can keep and bear arms, then there is no infringement. If the arms you currently keep and bear are not permitted within CA, then you will need to keep and bear arms that are permitted. Infringement is not contingent on whether or not your personal preferences for what arms you keep and bear are met.

:banghead:

Idiots gonna idiot.

 

[The Truth]

Another message board, discussing the recent Idaho incident after Christmas... one guy is adamant on his position, despite numerous corrections.



:banghead:

Idiots gonna idiot.

Sounds like a blatant troll has succeeded in doing what trolls do: trolling otherwise reasonably intelligent folks into oblivion.

 

[MAC702]

Easy to argue the meaning of the word "arms" when you ignore the meaning of the word "infringed."

 

[Griz]

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by IdiotFromNY
--snipped--

Some would say that this screen/user nom de plume is very telling

 

[georg jetson]

Some would say that this screen/user nom de plume is very telling

I thought maybe the op changed the NY guy's name for entertainment value.

 

[Grapeshot]

I thought maybe the op changed the NY guy's name for entertainment value.

True, but we won't know until we find out whether the slipper fits.

 

[skidmark]

So all of you are saying, among other things, that California's Approved Firearm List in unconstitutional? Please cite the sucessful court challenge that established that interpretation.

My CLEO will sign off on pretty much any machinegun short of an electric-fired gatling gun. Is his rejection of my application to buy/possess a M-134 unconstitutional? Please cite the court case that established that.

Heller established that, in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia, there is a right to possess a handgun in the home and to possess any firearm in a condition ready to use as opposed to being secured by a mechanical lock and the ammunition secured somewhere removed from the firearm. McDonald made that ruling applicable to the states. Neither of them open up possession of any firearm of one's choosing.

IdiotFromNY may be an idiot but he does seem to have a basic understanding of how things are in non-Bizzaro World. Well, except for his interpretation of the plurality of the word "arms". That needs some refinement.

stay safe.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

So all of you are saying, among other things, that California's Approved Firearm List in unconstitutional? Please cite the sucessful court challenge that established that interpretation.

My CLEO will sign off on pretty much any machinegun short of an electric-fired gatling gun. Is his rejection of my application to buy/possess a M-134 unconstitutional? Please cite the court case that established that.

Heller established that, in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia, there is a right to possess a handgun in the home and to possess any firearm in a condition ready to use as opposed to being secured by a mechanical lock and the ammunition secured somewhere removed from the firearm. McDonald made that ruling applicable to the states. Neither of them open up possession of any firearm of one's choosing.

IdiotFromNY may be an idiot but he does seem to have a basic understanding of how things are in non-Bizzaro World. Well, except for his interpretation of the plurality of the word "arms". That needs some refinement.

stay safe.

It may be idealistic but hardly bizzaro. The current infringements are not unconstitutional because the government says so? Not the kind of talk I would expect from you.

 

[Grapeshot]

It may be idealistic but hardly bizzaro. The current infringements are not unconstitutional because the government says so? Not the kind of talk I would expect from you.

Why is that?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Why is that?

Because there was some quite famous Virginians who disagreed the courts were to be the final arbiter of whats constitutional.

 

[Grapeshot]

It may be idealistic but hardly bizzaro. The current infringements are not unconstitutional because the government says so? Not the kind of talk I would expect from you.

Why is that?

Because there was some quite famous Virginians who disagreed the courts were to be the final arbiter of whats constitutional.

Skid would be proud that you include him when talking about famous Virginians

Because there is a pecking order does not mean that the courts are not triers of fact....facts/laws can change.

Indeed, the legislature is deemed to be omnipotent to either the executive or judicial branch - that is consistent both in our Constitution and OCDO rules. If you don't like a law, change it.

 

[Kopis]

I wear this shirt from time to time. People are always like "huh" bears have arms???

 

[OC for ME]

...nooo, bears do not have a right to arms...

 

[skidmark]

It may be idealistic but hardly bizzaro. The current infringements are not unconstitutional because the government says so? Not the kind of talk I would expect from you.

Right now we have a rather clearly defined way of declaring what is and is not constitutional.

I often do not agree with the decision reached regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a certain law, but I am bound to follow the dictates of of our existing system on how to change the law to conform with my view of it's constitutionality, or how to change our existing system of deciding what is or is not constitutional. I work my butt of on the former. As bad as representative republicanism is, it's a whole lot better than whatever is in second place. I'm open to listening to descriptions of alternatives so long as they are not rehashes of what has repeatedly failed already.

According to some geaneology research my cousin did, I am 4,734th in line to the throne of England. On the day that I wake up and find a note pinned to my pillow telling me I am now the ruler I am going to reinstitute the Empire (as bad as it was) and become Supreme Ruler of the World. At that time I will be able to say that in spite of what the courts say something is or is not constitutional without having to get the legislature to rewrite the law. I'll probably attend to that right after I check my list of people that do not deserve to be killed outright (a whole lot shorter than the list of those that do) and send my minions to deal with everybody not on the list.

stay safe.

 

[mikeyb]

I thought maybe the op changed the NY guy's name for entertainment value.

This.

His screen name on the forum is KoiDragon1980. I really don't know which is worse.

 

[mikeyb]

So all of you are saying, among other things, that California's Approved Firearm List in unconstitutional? Please cite the sucessful court challenge that established that interpretation.

My CLEO will sign off on pretty much any machinegun short of an electric-fired gatling gun. Is his rejection of my application to buy/possess a M-134 unconstitutional? Please cite the court case that established that.

Alas, since I just posted a snippet of the ineptitude, the posted argument has repeatedly been stated within the confines of the powers of the federal government, not state. IMO, CA's list should be unconstitutional if the BOR is incorporated to the states.

IdiotFromNY may be an idiot but he does seem to have a basic understanding of how things are in non-Bizzaro World. Well, except for his interpretation of the plurality of the word "arms". That needs some refinement.

Yes, I'm sure we all know that there are laws that aren't what we would consider constitutional. But the argument is stuck on the false interpretation of "arms."

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Right now we have a rather clearly defined way of declaring what is and is not constitutional.

I often do not agree with the decision reached regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a certain law, but I am bound to follow the dictates of of our existing system on how to change the law to conform with my view of it's constitutionality, or how to change our existing system of deciding what is or is not constitutional. I work my butt of on the former. As bad as representative republicanism is, it's a whole lot better than whatever is in second place. I'm open to listening to descriptions of alternatives so long as they are not rehashes of what has repeatedly failed already.

According to some geaneology research my cousin did, I am 4,734th in line to the throne of England. On the day that I wake up and find a note pinned to my pillow telling me I am now the ruler I am going to reinstitute the Empire (as bad as it was) and become Supreme Ruler of the World. At that time I will be able to say that in spite of what the courts say something is or is not constitutional without having to get the legislature to rewrite the law. I'll probably attend to that right after I check my list of people that do not deserve to be killed outright (a whole lot shorter than the list of those that do) and send my minions to deal with everybody not on the list.

stay safe.

I understand what you're saying I just don't agree. I don't need to have a court ruling to judge for myself a law/action to be unconstitutional. Nor would I consider a law/action to be constitutionally compliant just because a corrupt judicial system has said it is so, when I judge it to be unconstitutional.

 

[skidmark]

I understand what you're saying I just don't agree. I don't need to have a court ruling to judge for myself a law/action to be unconstitutional. Nor would I consider a law/action to be constitutionally compliant just because a corrupt judicial system has said it is so, when I judge it to be unconstitutional.

Which one of the myriad of unconstitutional laws are you going to be the test case for? (You are going to set yourself up to be a test case, aren't you?) If not, your considerations and personal judgements are worth squat and as meaningless as a continuation of this line of discussion.

Yes, I will contribute to your legal defense fund - and it will be more than a token contribution. If the trial is close enough I will come and personally demonstrate support for you.

But since we will only be allowed to bring in $10 in change for the vending machines, choose carefully what you would like us to buy you on visiting day.

stay safe.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

If not, your considerations and personal judgements are worth squat and as meaningless as a continuation of this line of discussion.

you wound me.

stay safe