Lets do some serious talking about gun laws.

[Yssup Rider]

That's bullshit. IB-O-L-A, IBola...

If you did, then it should be real easy for you to repost it.

Meanwhile, congratulations on hijacking yet another thread with your stupid fucking meta discussion.

Lookee Mommy! Mommy! Mommy! Lookeeeeee!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Already posted and cited, speedy. Your denials don't change the facts previously noted, speedy.

I must have missed it. Please re-post. And not a post about my views on Constitutional Carry. I've already shot you down on that one.

Time to put up or shut up. By continuing to say you've already posted something when the fact is you haven't, is BS.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That's bullshit. IB-O-L-A, IBola...

If you did, then it should be real easy for you to repost it.

Exactly!!

[LexusLover]

I just looked through this thread at the quotes provided by IBH of Speedo!

It does appear Speedo is interested in expanding "gun control" beyond the Heller opinion, which is an "exhaustive" analysis of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that reaches the following conclusion when faced with the DC attempt at EXTENSIVE "gun control"...

In Heller, the Court opined in two distinct places so as there to be no misunderstanding:

“We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 58,

“…we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 64

The Heller opinion actually goes beyond that in dicta (which was incidental to the DC statute of sorts) when the interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the Court extended the protection of the 2nd amendment to "bearing" firearms, which was interpreted to mean for self-protection outside of the "home" .... ala ...."Constitutional Carry" (a phrase I do not recall seeing in the Court's opinion).

Speedo restricts his position to 2nd amendment protection in the "home" ... but would require "training" .... and sort of morphs it into the phrase of "Constitutional Carry" ... which is legally a conflict ..... based on the analysis of the SCOTUS in Heller.

Requiring "training" is "gun control" .... the "training" and "licensing" of operators of motor vehicles is .... "control" of the operators of motor vehicles. It merely shifts the responsibility of "screening" potential applications to the provider of the training and QUALIFICATION, which at this point is private (as opposed to the State qualifying the drivers), but the firearm training facilities and instructors are "licensed" by the State, report training to the State, and the State approves the "application" for the training with a background check. That's GUN CONTROL!

Once the government gets its "foot in the door" of mandatory, universal training to possess a firearm, it's over as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned. That's not a requirement, never was, and should not ever be. Example:

For years the Republic of Mexico had a stronger First Amendment Right to publish by a newspaper than the U.S. BUT ..... the newspaper WAS REQUIRED to purchase the news print for publishing the paper from the only source: The Government.

That would have offended Benjamin Franklin, and it would today.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I just looked through this thread at the quotes provided by IBH of Speedo!

It does appear Speedo is interested in expanding "gun control" beyond the Heller opinion, which is an "exhaustive" analysis of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that reaches the following conclusion when faced with the DC attempt at EXTENSIVE "gun control"...

In Heller, the Court opined in two distinct places so as there to be no misunderstanding:

“We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 58,

“…we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 64

The Heller opinion actually goes beyond that in dicta (which was incidental to the DC statute of sorts) when the interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the Court extended the protection of the 2nd amendment to "bearing" firearms, which was interpreted to mean for self-protection outside of the "home" .... ala ...."Constitutional Carry" (a phrase I do not recall seeing in the Court's opinion).

Speedo restricts his position to 2nd amendment protection in the "home" ... but would require "training" .... and sort of morphs it into the phrase of "Constitutional Carry" ... which is legally a conflict ..... based on the analysis of the SCOTUS in Heller.

Requiring "training" is "gun control" .... the "training" and "licensing" of operators of motor vehicles is .... "control" of the operators of motor vehicles. It merely shifts the responsibility of "screening" potential applications to the provider of the training and QUALIFICATION, which at this point is private (as opposed to the State qualifying the drivers), but the firearm training facilities and instructors are "licensed" by the State, report training to the State, and the State approves the "application" for the training with a background check. That's GUN CONTROL!


Once the government gets its "foot in the door" of mandatory, universal training to possess a firearm, it's over as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned. That's not a requirement, never was, and should not ever be. Example:

For years the Republic of Mexico had a stronger First Amendment Right to publish by a newspaper than the U.S. BUT ..... the newspaper WAS REQUIRED to purchase the news print for publishing the paper from the only source: The Government.

That would have offended Benjamin Franklin, and it would today.

I thought I was on "Ignore" by LexusLoser. But I digress.

Unfortunately, LexusLoser does not mention that the Heller decision also stated the following:

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

States can impose gun control laws as they see fit based on this SCOTUS ruling. LexusLoser believes that requiring training in order to obtain a CHL is in conflict with the Heller ruling. I do not and a subsequent SCOTUS ruling in case brought against the state of New York stated that the NY requirements for obtaining a CHL, which are very restrictive, did NOT violate the Constitution. Yes, requiring people to go through a training course is gun control. So is not allowing people under a certain age to purchase a gun gun control. As is not allowing average citizens to own an M-16. As is banning guns from certain establishments. So is not allowing guns on planes. Background checks are gun control. I can go on and on.

Again, LexusLoser's argument, like so many other gun control arguments, are based on the belief that "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile." Once you start allowing such gun control, the "liberals" will want more and more.

I never said that training should be mandatory to possess a firearm. The odds of a gun in someone's home, someone who is totally untrained with the gun, will probably never affect someone outside the home. However, once that person leaves the home with a gun, he/she is a potential threat to others if they are untrained. Very small threat but still a threat. My opinion. So yes, I support the law in Texas that requires a minimum number of hours in order to obtain a CHL. If LexusLoser does not like that law, he can carry illegally, can fight the law in court, or try to remove the law.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Lookee Mommy! Mommy! Mommy! Lookeeeeee!

That's right, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. Whine like the little bitch you are, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I must have missed it. Please re-post. And not a post about my views on Constitutional Carry. I've already shot you down on that one.

Time to put up or shut up. By continuing to say you've already posted something when the fact is you haven't, is BS.

You're missing a lot these days, speedy. You can play that little denial game all you want, but you've already conceded in another thread that you read it, and then you tried to deflect from the fact that you have made it clear that new laws are necessary if they don't fit your stipulated list of minimum requirements and that you would disarm anyone who hadn't jumped through the hoops you imagine are necessary beyond citizenship with the appertaining rights of citizen's guaranteed by the Constitution, speedy. The only thing you've shot down is your credibility, speedy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I thought I was on "Ignore" by LexusLoser. But I digress.

Unfortunately, LexusLoser does not mention that the Heller decision also stated the following:

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

States can impose gun control laws as they see fit based on this SCOTUS ruling. LexusLoser believes that requiring training in order to obtain a CHL is in conflict with the Heller ruling. I do not and a subsequent SCOTUS ruling in case brought against the state of New York stated that the NY requirements for obtaining a CHL, which are very restrictive, did NOT violate the Constitution. Yes, requiring people to go through a training course is gun control. So is not allowing people under a certain age to purchase a gun gun control. As is not allowing average citizens to own an M-16. As is banning guns from certain establishments. So is not allowing guns on planes. Background checks are gun control. I can go on and on.

Again, LexusLoser's argument, like so many other gun control arguments, are based on the belief that "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile." Once you start allowing such gun control, the "liberals" will want more and more.

I never said that training should be mandatory to possess a firearm. The odds of a gun in someone's home, someone who is totally untrained with the gun, will probably never affect someone outside the home. However, once that person leaves the home with a gun, he/she is a potential threat to others if they are untrained. Very small threat but still a threat. My opinion. So yes, I support the law in Texas that requires a minimum number of hours in order to obtain a CHL. If LexusLoser does not like that law, he can carry illegally, can fight the law in court, or try to remove the law.

Blah, blah, blah. The Heller decision says a lot .... but the rest is dicta.

The only "window" left open by the opinion based on the then existing majority (Scalia is dead remember) .... the 2nd amendment provides that one may "bear" arms outside of the home.

...as for being on "ignore" ..... you are! When someone else quotes you it shows .....

... so you believe that if I carry my weapon outside the home it is "illegal"?

The state of Texas cannot "constitutionally" tell me I cannot have a firearm outside of my home, and the State of Texas has not said that in my adult life time ... Before you start discussing the law, you should probably know about it.

When you want everyone to be "trained" before they can go outside with a weapon then you are engaging in "gun control" .... then when you start dictating how much training, etc, you are furthering that "gun control" ....

Speedo:"States can impose gun control laws as they see fit based on this SCOTUS ruling." .... That statement alone is incorrect. D.C. couldn't! There's not one standard for the Feds and another for the States. The 2nd amendment applies to both.

You are being sufficiently "vague enough" to give you the wiggle room you need to appear knowledgeable and correct ..... the Heller case was about what KIND OF "GUN"? In Texas one must have a CHL for WHAT KIND OF GUN?

You and yours discuss "gun control" like you do "climate change" .....

... you get it confused with "global warming" and try to use the words interchangeably.

[Boudin3112]

Most of the Bill of rights has been chipped away to include the second amendment. When I have a right, I don't need permission to exercise it, it is by definition my Right!! The Supreme Court has ruled that all individuals have a right to procreate. I don't have to apply for a license to fuck, I don't have to be trained to fuck, I don't need permission from local government to fuck. It is a fundamental right. If I had the right to bear arms I could buy a gun like I buy a loaf of bread.
We have allowed the government to chip away at our rights little by little until one day we have no rights and revolution is our only option. Thomas Jefferson knew this of governments.
We have no right to drive, it is a so called privilege. As such we must ask permission through license process to be allowed to do so. I do not even have the right to be a plumber without asking permission or be a fucking hairdresser without license. The government seeks to control our lives in the name of maintaining order and peace. That is their business and task and we allow it little by little.
I just want freedom and let me take of me and my family, you take care of yours. I don't need nor want Uncle Sam taking care of me.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

SCOTUS is the ultimate determiner of how the Second Amendment is interpreted. It does not matter one iota how you, Vivienne or I interpret the amendment. And SCOTUS, which is more Conservative than Liberal, has consistently ruled that the Second Amendment is limited in the freedoms it gives citizens regarding the right to bear arms. And how do the justices on the Supreme Court get there? We vote for the President who nominates them and we vote for our representatives in Congress who approve the nominations. So we, the people, do have a significant say in how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted.

We've discussed this before. With several of the SCOTUS justices getting up there in years, the next POTUS will probably have a great say in determining the future interpretation of the Second Amendment.

well put, you have a clear understanding of how the SCOTUS, the Constitution and the POTUS works. Don't expect those who simply rant while blinded by hate to understand.[/QUOTE]

Actually it is the people who are final arbiters. The Supreme Court decided that slavery was legal, that separate but equal was okay, the the mental and morally deficient could be sterlized, that it was okay to spy on Americans, and it was okay to imprison political opponents. You have to love democrats as they supported all of this things.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Once again you did not answer my specific question as to what you think I am for or against on gun control. Let me spell it out for you. Maybe it will sink into your thick skull like my statements on SCOTUS did.

As I did with JD when he accused me of asking for more gun regulation (an accusation he backed down from), I challenge you to find any post I've made "ranting" for more gun regulation. If more strict gun control laws are passed, they won't affect me since I am not planning to purchase a gun. Yes, there are certain gun laws that I am against (No CHL requirement in order to conceal carry (Constitutional carry). Allowing college students in public colleges in Texas with a CHL to carry their guns in classrooms and dormitories.) I see little upside to those laws and more of a downside. But that is opinion. I'm sure your opinion is the opposite and I accept that. But at no time have I made a major deal out of it. The law is the law and I accept the law. No ranting.

I may be mistaken but I don't recall ever excusing you from wanting more gun control. I may have back away from you posting it but I still think you want it. If I thought you wanted it (and I still do) then I don't think I would have posted otherwise.

[IIFFOFRDB]

It's real easy, 0zombies...

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're missing a lot these days, speedy. You can play that little denial game all you want, but you've already conceded in another thread that you read it, and then you tried to deflect from the fact that you have made it clear that new laws are necessary if they don't fit your stipulated list of minimum requirements and that you would disarm anyone who hadn't jumped through the hoops you imagine are necessary beyond citizenship with the appertaining rights of citizen's guaranteed by the Constitution, speedy. The only thing you've shot down is your credibility, speedy.

Again, my head is actually hurting due to your stupidity. Please cite something I've actually said rather than what you think I've said. Every accusation you've made in this rant is incorrect. I could explain once again but you are simply too dense to understand.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, my head is actually hurting due to your stupidity. Please cite something I've actually said rather than what you think I've said. Every accusation you've made in this rant is incorrect. I could explain once again but you are simply too dense to understand.

You were quoted and cited, speedy. You admitted you read it, and tried to disingenuously deflect, speedy. You've admitted you know your side of the gun regulation argument differs from that of gun owners, speedy, and it differs because your lying ass is for more regulation contrary to the wants and desires of gun owners, speedy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I may be mistaken but I don't recall ever excusing you from wanting more gun control. I may have back away from you posting it but I still think you want it. If I thought you wanted it (and I still do) then I don't think I would have posted otherwise.

I'm guessing that maybe a year or so ago you accused me, as you just did. of pushing for more gun control. At that time I asked you to cite any statement I had made on this forum where I've done so. A short while later you came back, ACTUALLY STARTING A NEW THREAD, in which you said you could not find ANYTHING to back up your accusation. And you actually apologized, if I remember correctly.

I'll ask you the a similar question to ones I've asked others. Since you truly believe I want more gun control, what specific gun control do you think I want? Since my knowledge of specific guns is virtually non-existent, I obviously haven't pushed for any specific gun to be banned. I have probably stated that I don't care if more guns are banned, but that is much different than saying I want more guns banned. I have defended someone like Diane Feinstein when you have said she wants to ban all handguns, only because she has never said anything like that.

I have tried to be very specific with my statements because there are certain individuals who will take an unspecific statement and run in the opposite direction of its intent. I think you know to whom I am primarily referring. I try to make it very clear that when I say I favor something like mandatory training in order to get a CHL, I am not saying "Wyoming, you must re-establish mandatory training to get a CHL".

So please, tell me what additional gun control measures I'm looking for.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You were quoted and cited, speedy. You admitted you read it, and tried to disingenuously deflect, speedy. You've admitted you know your side of the gun regulation argument differs from that of gun owners, speedy, and it differs because your lying ass is for more regulation contrary to the wants and desires of gun owners, speedy.

Please tell me -- who appointed you as spokesperson for all gun owners. Your opinions, like those of the NRA, represent a very small segment of gun owners. In your case, no one even on this forum has come to your defense. Idiot.

Don't bother responding. I'm through responding to your inane posts.