Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

reply to post by jsipprell

this, is the most backwards/retarded explanation i've heard yet.

One possesses liberty if one is not imposed on by restrictions from some authority. If the state imposes restriction one has "lost possession" of liberty.

one 'possesses' Liberty at birth.
one expands their Liberty each day thereafter.
even under the most extreme restrictions, Liberty does prevail, is exercised and can be shared with others.

Liberty in its purest/rawest form cannot be 'restricted'.

restrictions merely impede the exercise of Liberty, they do not 'remove' it by any stretch of your imagination.

if this is not clear for you ... consider the accused who have broken out of their shackles, cuffs or cells ... which 'restriction' of their Liberty prevented them from exercising their Liberty ??

yes, i'm positive that you are the one who is confused.

[oh and btw, the only ppl who use the word intransigent are from the Old World English culture who stole it from the Spanish ... so, i guess that kinda exposes your intent here, doesn't it ? ]

reply to post by Honor93


This. Is. Semantic. Nonsense. Balderdash. Garbage. Pointless.

I'm not going to repeat myself again, I have no desire to argue with you about the nuances of a negation statement I made in a totally unrelated context which you felt you just had to jump head first into in order to "correct" me on the simplest of constitutional principles, all the while using absolutely atrocious english.

You are being obtuse beyond the pale. Disingenuous or otherwise, I'll not play.

Good day, sir.

reply to post by jsipprell

so you'll pardon me for not being as informed about your position as you would like

i can extend such gratutites to those who demonstrate them ... in this case, that wouldn't be you.

it is customary when engaging someone in conversation BY NAME, that you have some understanding of their position before asking such an unapplicable question.

funny thing is, i read all of your posts in this thread BEFORE responding to such nonsense.
class isn't something that can be legislated either

if this is true ...

My interest is in exploring the boundaries (or lack-there-of) on limitations of the 2nd rather than extremes in armaments.

it might help your assertion if you understood the basic difference between the armaments, eh ??

nothing in or about the 2nd infers, codifies, states or implies that any restricitions are acceptable.
that decision is left to the people as is their choice to which arms they'd prefer.
however, equal force is absolute.

now, if you'd care to discuss removing all the nukes from the world, i'd be happy to oblige but i don't see that happening either.

in the meantime, whatever arms the oppressor has access to, shall be available to the public at large, as it has always been until 1934.

nukes are never defensive arms ... they weren't designed to be.
if you need more explanation than that, the search function can be your friend.

no, all arms cannot be 'defensive', who taught you that ?

a nuclear deterrent is not the same as utilizing defensive arms.
that is living under the threat of offensive action, hence, the action of a despot/dictator/totalitarian.

during the days of the cold war, it was said tooooo many times that the acts of a despot must be met with similar force ... hence, the nuclear arms race to be the bigger, badder despot

unfortunately, we've evoled to a point where the same analogy applies on the homefront .... the best defense against a despot is an equal offense ... hence, equal force.

now, as i've stated in many threads, i am not against total disarmament ... i think it would be a fantastic evolutionary advance ... however, the despots MUST put theirs down FIRST.
see, a compromise is easy

reply to post by jsipprell

and this is where we disagree.

If something does end up happening at the federal legislative level (which I rather doubt in the current political climate), it's going to be solely for the purpose of comforting families with dead kids, not for crime rate reduction.

this, inclusive of SH, is the smoke and mirrors specifically placed to distract the acts of the Feds as Obama re-starts negotiations on SAT.

which is something even the staunchest Anti folk don't support.
and thread after thread of commentary like yours is meant to distract from the obvious that is happening right under our noses.

most 'private' gun owners are better trained than most members of the 'professional' forces.
talk to some of them, we have.

citizen owners exercise, professionals qualify.
citizens compete, professionals hope they never have to use it.
citizens teach, professionals dismiss citizen abilities.
professionals who use arms spend most of their time doing other things ... citizens who use arms, actually use them, regularly.

reply to post by jsipprell


i guess it sucks to be you then, huh ?
so then, a real discussion isn't your intent here, is it ?

wahhh, waaaaah, blah, blah, blah ... haven anything of value to contribute or would you like some cheese to accompany your whine?

and ya know what's funny, this works both ways ...

You are being obtuse beyond the pale. Disingenuous or otherwise,

yes, you are and what's more disheartening is this ...

I'll not play

ah yes, once the rules are firmly established, take your ball and run home ... typical.

and, for the record, that'd be ma'am to you.

Originally posted by jsipprell
There is relatively little precedent at the SCOTUS level on the 2nd, it's only recently started examining some issues in a bit of depth. That means that from a jurisprudence perspective, it's a swamp.

The 2nd has been litigated since the early 1800 starting with Marbury V. Madison (implicitly regarding the Rights of the individual/supremacy of the Constitution and onto McDonald/Heller in recent opinions.)

Legislation that is clearly out of touch with Columbia v. Heller will slowly get sorted out, but CvH did pretty clearly state that certain forms of restriction are acceptable. And that's just the way it is going to be for a good long while. I'm not making a positive or negative statement about the ultimate constitutionality of the court's action, I'm just acknowledging that our system is such that they are the ultimate arbiters (sans a new amendment).

Heller is unique because it related to the District of Columbia. McDonald would be a better example in my opinion. Now if we are talking about the application of the Amendment to the People, then yes, that is a more recent history as applied by the 14th Amendment. Which I see as a redundant opinion given the 10th Amendment.

If something does end up happening at the federal legislative level (which I rather doubt in the current political climate), it's going to be solely for the purpose of comforting families with dead kids, not for crime rate reduction.

Agreed, see former Rep. Giffords remarks of "do something". That is all that will happen. Feel good measure that have no meaningful impact either direction.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

thanks, i never looked at it from that perspective ... Giffords, Feinstein & Brady ...
the 3 witches of ??? (Shakespeare & Macbeth come to mind)
for some reason, i'm just realizing the parallels and holycow ...

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kashai

 

military police actions abroad have been 'added', via the UN, they have never been properly authorized, not by Congress or the ppl paying for it.

Reagan and altimeters ????
what are you going on about ?
(altimeters ???

long before Reagan friend)

this topic isn't about military actions overseas dude, stay on topic or address someone else.

12yrs ago ??? you headed up the operation ?? yeah right.
share your fantasies elsewhere please.

As always you are wrong as Commander and Chief the president is well withing his rights to engage in a “police action”.

A good example being Osama in Pakistan and Vietnam.

As far as the rest grow up and as far as fantasies that is all you seem to be able to describe....

Your fantasies about reality