Gun Control & RKBA

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)

196. "Unlike *gun-nuts*, gun control folks want the carnage to end..."

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 07:22 PM

Feb 2016

Utterly false. If gun restriction supporters were truly interested in saving lives, they'd dial back their self-defeating insults. You're not getting anywhere with your name-calling. You know, we know it -- and the public at large knows it. You're not fooling anyone.

I am a Democrat & liberal....

So you like to tell yourself. Liberal philosophy dictates that the burden of proof is on the person/people who wish to restrict a right. Not the other way around. Yet your team constantly shifts this burden of proof. There are countless other examples I could cite -- but I've got better things to do.

Google: 'Why liberals should love the 2nd amendment + Daily Koz' The author utterly demolishes your thesis re. liberal thought on gun violence.

Edited to add link to article:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

196 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Now that Scalia has died, are gun-lovers feeling... [View all] Herman4747 Feb 2016 OP

I love a mystery discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #1

The way this thread is written by you is nothing more than flame bait. eom. GGJohn Feb 2016 #2

Wonder why we rejoice in thinking we're going to get a banner seated, when we say ileus Feb 2016 #3

Laws passed on the basis of lies scare me. JonathanRackham Feb 2016 #4

the President supports Heller I think CommonSenseDemocrat Feb 2016 #195

I reject the binary presention of your argument. krispos42 Feb 2016 #5

Any other USSC precedents up for grabs? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #6

Actually, several are. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #18

Is this the game we should / want to be playing? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #21

Setting precedent then overturning it later is a long standing SCOTUS tradition. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #23

Such as? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #26

Plessy, then Brown MohRokTah Feb 2016 #27

But that's my point. You gave a fair spread on "Those we hate and those we love" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #30

That's our system, which is the worst system,... MohRokTah Feb 2016 #31

Um...Lawrence v Texas overturned the ruling precident, Bowers v Hardwick. stone space Feb 2016 #155

My point remains -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #156

Should we have just allowed Bowers v Hardwick without a fight? stone space Feb 2016 #159

I'm happy the precedent was overturned but -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #160

Civil Disobedience was a part of the struggle against Bowers v Hardwick. stone space Feb 2016 #161

Because rights trump the law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #163

I don't even know what that means. stone space Feb 2016 #170

The only ones in this forum claiming that are Controllers. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #175

I agree TeddyR Feb 2016 #178

I disagree. (nt) stone space Feb 2016 #179

You disagree that Bowers TeddyR Feb 2016 #180

Oh, good grief! stone space Feb 2016 #181

I made a number of points TeddyR Feb 2016 #182

I disagree with Scalia on both. (nt) stone space Feb 2016 #184

re: "...they would do what they can so that a Republican president can appoint Scalia's replacement? discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #7

Kind of reminds me of pottery 2naSalit Feb 2016 #12

OTOH any lurking Republicans here... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #14

BTW, have you seen Man of the Year? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #15

Can't say I have 2naSalit Feb 2016 #16

Man of the Year... It's excellent! discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #20

Thanks, I'll check it out/watch it.....nt 2naSalit Feb 2016 #24

Talk about wishful thinking by the control minded! DonP Feb 2016 #8

wet blanket discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #9

LoL!! From their posts, pretty much yup. DonP Feb 2016 #11

Now if I was a ban minded control happy Chicago or DC politician... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #13

It takes 4 to grant certiorari, not a majority. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #19

Thank you for the correction DonP Feb 2016 #22

Many times they know 4 would look at a case, but when it is obvious nothing would be changed,... MohRokTah Feb 2016 #25

McDonald had the support of liberals, gejohnston Feb 2016 #10

The legal interpretation of the 2nd amendment is going to be altered. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #17

yeah, only 3/4 of Americans believe it protects an individual right. beevul Feb 2016 #44

There are no electoral consequences. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #45

You are naive. beevul Feb 2016 #46

I think you're the one that is naive. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #48

I don't claim to know what justice will pass the senate... beevul Feb 2016 #49

The absolute worst it could get is Elena Kagan's take MohRokTah Feb 2016 #50

I don't actually know what the forthcoming changes will be. beevul Feb 2016 #51

I told you the worst case scenario. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #53

Did someone say you didn't? N/t beevul Feb 2016 #57

majority of Americans want the next president to PUSH gun control Jackie Wilson Said Feb 2016 #103

I doubt it. beevul Feb 2016 #104

then I challenge you to get the data...I make you a bet, for fun, that polls of young people Jackie Wilson Said Feb 2016 #107

I don't put much faith in most polls. beevul Feb 2016 #112

"I think you're the one that is naive." pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #75

I guess you do't know shit about me. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #76

Au contraire......your words speak VOLUMES about who you are. NT pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #77

Yep, you don't know shit about me. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #78

So you're written words are bullshit........ pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #80

The only written words about my beliefs in detail were written by you. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #82

Your beliefs are revealed in statements all over this thread. pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #83

Not unless the appointee is linguistically incompetent. Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #90

The collective right interpretation was the de facto interpretation prior to Heller. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #92

"Well-regulated" can get all the weight it wants. Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #93

Not under the collective right interpretation MohRokTah Feb 2016 #94

It really wasn't. beevul Feb 2016 #96

In washington state it is both. AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #99

Not sure this so called collective right theory is gonna ever fly again, if it really ever did... jmg257 Feb 2016 #108

It never flew sarisataka Feb 2016 #110

Perhaps you'll be more responsive in a month... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #186

I've noticed that sort tend to have problems playing well with others friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #187

The usual pattern DonP Feb 2016 #189

To be clear TeddyR Feb 2016 #138

Considering that the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v. Heller guillaumeb Feb 2016 #28

Please cite sarisataka Feb 2016 #29

For you. I hope this did not take too long. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #32

So by "all previous SCOTUS precedent" sarisataka Feb 2016 #42

All previous SCOTUS precedent pre-Heller was 3 cases. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #54

and all of them, other than Miller, gejohnston Feb 2016 #58

Your link makes reference to US v Miller, and that may not be a good thing for your argument -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #33

Reread number 3. I believe you have it backwards. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #34

Yes, and the purpose of the militia is to guarantee a free state, not "The State." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #38

And the militia, not an organized permanent army, is meant to be guillaumeb Feb 2016 #39

"Well-Regulated" doesn't mean "constrained to the point in inoperability" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #40

"Well regulated" also does not mean totally unregulated. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #56

"Well regulated" refers to the militia when under government authority... beevul Feb 2016 #59

"how you make the connection that this unorganized militia cannot be regulated by the states?" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #60

You ignore what you cannot refute. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #61

Laughable. beevul Feb 2016 #64

Laughable guillaumeb Feb 2016 #67

Too bad the right belongs to the people not the militia. beevul Feb 2016 #84

"You ignore what you cannot refute." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #66

Should people older than 45 be forbidden to bear arms? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #68

You should conclude that the militia is a sub-set of the people to whom the right belongs. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #70

The 2d does TeddyR Feb 2016 #157

Why would the 2nd be needed to give the states rights to form militias?? jmg257 Feb 2016 #71

UNorganized Militia is a JOKE jimmy the one Feb 2016 #101

Your subjective opinion is meaningless in matters of law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #114

I agree that the UNorganized militia is not the well-regulated militias secured by the 2nd. jmg257 Feb 2016 #134

unorganized mob militia jimmy the one Feb 2016 #149

"Thus obvious to some of us, the 2nd amendment is worthless and obsolete" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #152

The reserve militia is mentioned in the various militia acts. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #135

What's amazing is that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #136

What is amazing is that... guillaumeb Feb 2016 #141

It is amazing allright. beevul Feb 2016 #142

Those of an authoritarian mindset tend to do a lot of 'special pleading'... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #143

They do indeed. N/T beevul Feb 2016 #147

Many folks choose to carry concealed discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #144

militia ages still seem in effect (17-45) jimmy the one Feb 2016 #151

So what? beevul Feb 2016 #43

... militia, as defined by the Constitution sarisataka Feb 2016 #52

The issue is simple. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #55

Indeed it is. beevul Feb 2016 #62

"Remember also that the Amendment refers to 'the people' rather than 'any and every individual(s)'." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #63

Game set and match, right there. N/t beevul Feb 2016 #65

I always enjoy a good game of mixed doubles. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #139

Very simple sarisataka Feb 2016 #69

Miller spells out militia rights jimmy the one Feb 2016 #97

Perhaps you need to read it a few more times sarisataka Feb 2016 #109

adams family jimmy the one Feb 2016 #129

So we have a bit of an enigma sarisataka Feb 2016 #137

in brief jimmy the one Feb 2016 #150

A DOJ brief is not law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #158

Question TeddyR Feb 2016 #145

The Amendment has two clauses in one sentence. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #148

You didn't answer my question about TeddyR Feb 2016 #154

"We the people" refers to a class of people. Not any one individual. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #162

When your "the people != individuals" argument was tested with the 1A, 4A, 9A and 10A you Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #164

I stand by what I just wrote. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #165

How does your interpretation only apply to the 2A but not the other amendments? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #166

We are discussing this Amendment. Start another post if you wish. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #167

Yes, we are discussing the 2A, which is why your departure from every other instance of Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #168

We agree on something! guillaumeb Feb 2016 #169

Does that status continue to this day? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #173

Original intent is key, at least according to Scalia. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #183

Stop hiding behind a dead man. Does the exclusion of women and non-whites still apply? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #185

Do you agree with Scalia on "original intent", or disagree? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #188

The militia is a subset of the people. The right belongs to the people. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #190

Some are for expanding that original intent... beevul Feb 2016 #191

There are two arguments here: guillaumeb Feb 2016 #192

Which has nothing to do with reality. beevul Feb 2016 #193

On what grounds TeddyR Feb 2016 #174

Only if you ignore constitutional jurisprudence does that argument hold water. beevul Feb 2016 #171

US Constitution... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #172

How do you reach the conclusion that the Militias in the 2nd jmg257 Feb 2016 #73

"Talk about ignoring the original intent that he claimed to revere!" beevul Feb 2016 #47

Why do we want a strict Militia interpretation?? Is everyone gassing for M16s, M4s and M9s? jmg257 Feb 2016 #35

How about a catapult? shenmue Feb 2016 #79

That would be pretty sweet! Lay siege to...something somewhere! nt jmg257 Feb 2016 #85

Stare Decisis, baby. appal_jack Feb 2016 #36

Aw, a mind which has lost its flexibility... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #72

So you think TeddyR Feb 2016 #176

Worried? No. Gun laws were massively liberalized before Heller. nt Eleanors38 Feb 2016 #37

How many states, do you think shadowrider Feb 2016 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #74

I think it's really cute how excited the gun control fans are DonP Feb 2016 #86

Unlike gun-nuts, gun control folks want the carnage to end... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #87

Too bad you don't actually do anything but whine onlne about it though DonP Feb 2016 #88

You refused to answer all my questions... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #89

No, actually gun controllers are generally just not worth bothering with anymore DonP Feb 2016 #95

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #194

I don't know a single person, "gun nut" or otherwise, who feels that way. Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #91

Wow. Just wow. Thats a startling admission. beevul Feb 2016 #98

"Breyer is demonstrably wrong" huh???? Herman4747 Feb 2016 #100

Whats the matter... beevul Feb 2016 #105

You're the one buddy, giving the Rush Limbaugh crap... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #106

What nonsense. beevul Feb 2016 #111

Guy, you have no law degree, right?? Herman4747 Feb 2016 #113

You know who does have a law degree? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #115

All the justices in Bush v. Gore had law degrees... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #119

Yes. And you selected that as the delineation for whether or not a person has credibility. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #120

Well, if I can see the sham of Bush v. Gore... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #124

So law degrees only count when you want them to based on which of your qualifications? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #127

You don't know what I have. beevul Feb 2016 #117

Let's consider what you write: Herman4747 Feb 2016 #118

And lets consider what YOU write. beevul Feb 2016 #123

So majority opinions are always right in your mind... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #126

Funny that you should mention Plessy v Ferguson Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #130

How long have *you* had a law degree, and what area of law is your specialty? friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #131

Not at all. beevul Feb 2016 #133

Not to mention that legally, the Breyer "Dissent" is "not worth a bucket of warm spit" ... DonP Feb 2016 #121

How about the Texas v. Johnson case. beevul Feb 2016 #125

Control fans are very big on "situational ethics" we've noticed DonP Feb 2016 #128

I've asked the OP another question downthread that will probably also be dodged friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #132

That's an easy question to answer TeddyR Feb 2016 #146

"Unlike *gun-nuts*, gun control folks want the carnage to end..." pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #196

Quick! Run out and buy more guns. They're coming to take you away, ah hah eom mikehiggins Feb 2016 #102

Usually when someone writes that they actually want guns to be taken away. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #116

They just don't quite have the courage to be honest about it. DonP Feb 2016 #122

There has been an outbreak of factose intolerance amongst the gun-averse in this thread... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #140

Ima so skeared my chewin tobacca don't taste right discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #153

Back to the basic question in this post TeddyR Feb 2016 #177