crickets...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

It demonstrates that Progressives / Liberals are so invested in their agenda they can not allow themselves to engage in reasoned discussion.

They have their demands flowing from positions grounded only in emotional constructs. That's why they react with either anger or hateful derision when simply challenged on a legal / constitutional basis. Such a challenge is processed as an attack of their feelings and as such can not be rebutted with reason and facts.

Heartstrings and virtue signalling are completely immune to Supreme Court citation.

As the old debate maxim says, you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

Talk about living in a bubble ...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Talk about living in a bubble ...

some great stuff in there....you should read it twice

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

some great stuff in there....you should read it twice

I did .... just changed it


ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Did you notice the qualifiers "still" and "at this time" in the passage by me that you quoted. The 2A is a preventative, so that the people might have some recourse when the "if"s in the unquoted previous passage above your quoted one might happen: "If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that the Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified."

If enough citizens and military personnel remain who have not become part of those ifs, the 2A can provide some recourse if there is the will and desire to "fight the power."

And if there is not enough will and desire, then, as I said, "your trust in the federal government better be justified." History does not justify such a trust. But we are conditioned to be blind to history, especially if we are not conscious of the signs or trends which should cause us to be wary.

Those signs and trends are so in our face, it is amazing that so many of us don't see them. You call that view a tin foil hat. I call it head in the sand.

It would still be easy to make a course direction by political rather than military means. That is my desire. And no, in spite of the 2A recourse the Constitution gives us, I also see the signs and trends that the Progressive model has been so implanted in the American psyche that recourse to the 2A would probably be a futile bloody mess if there were even enough of those who would rebel.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

So many if's and and's in your immaginary government/military coo to happen, that foil hat is really messing with you.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So many if's and and's in your immaginary government/military coo to happen, that foil hat is really messing with you.

The 2A is contingency driven. If's are contingencies. Most laws suppose an "if." Everything you do involves an "if." Life depends on "so many" ifs.

"And" merely connects a few "ifs."

If you think there are too many "ifs," regardless of what material your hat is made of, it is a dunce.

[wdmso]

People dont have a right to an AR or an AK they just want one .. its the rambo effect .. just look how their marketed buy the gun lobby and the makers .. look at some picks of the open carry states .. walking around looking like I did in Iraq but they are in Mc Donalds ...

Have as many guns as you what register all of them have them on a searchable data base.. and admit that theirs a gun problem in America .. But they wont they'll just run and hide behind the 2a and the NRA ..

[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 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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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 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.

[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

[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 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

[wdmso]

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.

So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no.. 2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no.. 2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see

neither were written to confuse....but to clarify....those "seeking answers" regarding "intent" are usually seeking ways around the "intent" ...but, hey...here in the "modern world" where we see what we want to see....of what matter is "intent"