• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Prepared to be boggled...

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
Another message board, discussing the recent Idaho incident after Christmas... one guy is adamant on his position, despite numerous corrections.

IdiotFromNY said:
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

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
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

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Easy to argue the meaning of the word "arms" when you ignore the meaning of the word "infringed."
 
Last edited:

Griz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
315
Location
, ,
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by IdiotFromNY
--snipped--
Some would say that this screen/user nom de plume is very telling :)
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
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

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
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

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
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

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 
Top