Obama's Opening Salvo Against Guns

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Didn't you just post below about silly arguments? Maybe you should re-read the complaint in Heller - it was about a ban on ownership, not confiscation.

Try again.

Maybe you should read the decision authored by Scalia.

Try again.

I have it saved on my computer.

Prove your cite.

Maybe you should apply a little linguistic logic to your statement, and think about the meaning of ownership and the meaning of confiscation, and report back.

More weaseling when called on your bullshit, professor? I stated that Heller is about a ban and not confiscation - you assert it is not.

Prove your cite.

Quote

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
I The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7–2501.01(12), 7–2502.01(a), 7– 2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22–4504(a), 22–4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms,such as registered long guns, “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless theyare located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. See §7–2507.02.1

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right torender a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protectsan individual right to possess firearms and that the city’stotal ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even whennecessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the DistrictCourt to enter summary judgment for respondent.
We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).

Funny, nothing in there about confiscation, either - please note the bolding.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

If right of ownership is asserted, what do you conclude about confiscation?

Please think before you type/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If right of ownership is asserted, what do you conclude about confiscation?

Please think before you type/

More equivocation games, professor? Can't argue from an honest position, so you have to play semantics games to get a 'gotcha' on someone?

Petty.

VERY petty.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

If right of ownership is asserted, what do you conclude about confiscation?

Please think before you type/

More equivocation games, professor? Can't argue from an honest position, so you have to play semantics games to get a 'gotcha' on someone?

Petty.

VERY petty.

Translation: having failed to produce a logical rebuttal, mnealtx resorts to name calling.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skybill 22]

Hi Night,
Don't know about states with waiting periods like CA. So in Ca if you buy a gun at a gun show you can carry it out right then an there as opposed to a shop down the street where you have to "wait??" ????? Here in NC, you can buy a long gun in 15 minutes at any venue. You go to your local sherrif and apply for and purchase your pistol permits, takes 3 to 5 daze. Then take your permit to your dealer and buy your pistol. 'Got mine and the gun show is this Sat and Sun in Fayetteville!!
I like all this action about making guns "child proof" hell we can't even make them "adult proof" eg the get shot in the leg trick in NYC!! for starters. Guns, long, short, large or small ARE DANGEROUS!!!! Just like a Parachute, without adherance to proper training and use, they can kill you!! Remember, above all the gadgets and "safetys" available, "The best safety is the one between your ears!!"

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If right of ownership is asserted, what do you conclude about confiscation?

Please think before you type/

More equivocation games, professor? Can't argue from an honest position, so you have to play semantics games to get a 'gotcha' on someone?

Petty.

VERY petty.

Translation: having failed to produce a logical rebuttal, mnealtx kallend resorts to name calling petty bullshit to score a 'gotcha'.

Fixed that for you.

Prove your cite. Show me where Heller is about confiscation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Prove your cite. Show me where Heller is about confiscation.

Is there an echo in here?

I've already explained, and you have been unable to rebut.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

One example is "almost always"? I suppose 2 is almost more than 10 in Ronworld

One example is all I PROVIDED. You could look at Jolly Old England to see that after Blair's addition to the 1920 handgun ban people had to turn them in as well.

You could look at Australia.

But really...All I had to do is PROVE ONCE that it has happened already in the US to prove it is a risk.

Now, care to debate that? Or just resort to your normal BS?

Quote

LOTS of correlation found between gun ownership and gun fatalities though. I posted a list just this week.

And lots of data proves that pools are involved in pool deaths, knifes are involved in knife deaths, ect. But that only means exactly that and that alone. It does not mean that those deaths would not have happened without the gun...As rising knife crime in England has shown.

About people wanting to have them all turned in you claimed:

Quote

Strawman: no-one here has suggested that.

HERE? Maybe, maybe not. There have been plenty of people that think they should be turned in...Maybe not melted down...But people have said they should not be allowed in private hands.

And as for the Anti gun group as a whole...

Quote

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

So you lose there as well. Members of the anti gun group DO want them turned in....The only real defense you have is to attack "Melt them down".

But even you should realize that the disposition after confiscation is really just a red herring. (Of course, I think that's all you do anyway).

Quote

Sorry that just can't be true - JR informs us that criminals say they AVOID places where there are guns.

And they do...How many cops have been mugged for their side arms? How many holdups at gunshows? When was the last time you saw a robbery at a gunstore?

Criminals will go for easy targets. A shotgun sitting in an abandoned car is an easy target. A pistol sitting in the holster of a person is not.

But of course you knew that, you just grasped onto a bit of wording to make an inane comment that was nowhere close to the INTENT.

Quote

Translation: having failed to produce a logical rebuttal, mnealtx resorts to name calling.

From the same guy that wrote this:

"I suppose 2 is almost more than 10 in Ronworld."

You are losing ground every time you type.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

If right of ownership is asserted, what do you conclude about confiscation?

That, under Kelo, local authorities may confiscate your property with whatever compensation they deem sufficient (no matter how inadequate, or whether or not you agree), for almost any reason, including to give your property to their cronies?

Not really seeing how ownership precludes confiscation there.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hi Night,
Don't know about states with waiting periods like CA. So in Ca if you buy a gun at a gun show you can carry it out right then an there as opposed to a shop down the street where you have to "wait??" ?????

Nope. You fill out the DROS form, pay your money, and 10 days (to the minute) later, you can pick it up from the dealer, wherever that may be located after the show. If you do not pick it up within 30 days, you have to repeat the process.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Cars are stolen every few seconds in this country and we know firearms are typical targets of B&E of homes. Cop cars have weapons stolen as well.

Sorry that just can't be true - JR informs us that criminals say they AVOID places where there are guns.

I know you're smart enough to understand the difference between a burglar breaking into unoccupied homes and looking for guns, and breaking into occupied homes where a homeowner might shoot the intruder with a gun.

It's these kind of bullshit arguments that you continuously make which has led me to just skip over the large majority of what you say these days. Your posts just aren't worth my time.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Cars are stolen every few seconds in this country and we know firearms are typical targets of B&E of homes. Cop cars have weapons stolen as well.

Sorry that just can't be true - JR informs us that criminals say they AVOID places where there are guns.

I know you're smart enough to understand the difference between a burglar breaking into unoccupied homes and looking for guns, and breaking into occupied homes where a homeowner might shoot the intruder with a gun.

It's these kind of bullshit arguments that you continuously make which has led me to just skip over the large majority of what you say these days. Your posts just aren't worth my time.

I know you're smart enough to know that what criminals say is not the same as what criminals do. Most criminals deny their guilt, for example.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

One example is "almost always"? I suppose 2 is almost more than 10 in Ronworld

One example is all I PROVIDED. You could look at Jolly Old England to see that after Blair's addition to the 1920 handgun ban people had to turn them in as well.

You could look at Australia.

But really...All I had to do is PROVE ONCE that it has happened already in the US to prove it is a risk.

Now, care to debate that? Or just resort to your normal BS?

Quote

LOTS of correlation found between gun ownership and gun fatalities though. I posted a list just this week.

And lots of data proves that pools are involved in pool deaths, knifes are involved in knife deaths, ect. But that only means exactly that and that alone. It does not mean that those deaths would not have happened without the gun...As rising knife crime in England has shown.

About people wanting to have them all turned in you claimed:

Quote

Strawman: no-one here has suggested that.

HERE? Maybe, maybe not. There have been plenty of people that think they should be turned in...Maybe not melted down...

OK, so I WAS correct. Thank you.
And of you want to debate Diane Feinstein, I suggest you write to her because I don't believe she posts or reads here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Not really seeing how ownership precludes confiscation there.

How about Constitutional RIGHT of ownership that has now been established by the SC?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 26]

I realize I'm going way out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Suzette Kelo thought she had a constitutional right to own her home, too, before she learned otherwise.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I realize I'm going way out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Suzette Kelo thought she had a constitutional right to own her home, too, before she learned otherwise.

Which amendment would that be?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

I realize I'm going way out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Suzette Kelo thought she had a constitutional right to own her home, too, before she learned otherwise.

Which amendment would that be?

The Ninth.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[skybill 22]

Hi Kelp,
Well, if you have to "wait" 10 daze if you buy the gun at a "gun show" or "down the street at a shop" then where's this "Loop Hole" everyone's talking about?? I used to live in Ca. and did the wait manuver for a couple of pieces I got but that was a few years ago. Anyway, I'm still searching for this "Gun Show Loophole??" but it eludes me!! If some dealers at some shows are not folowing regs then that's not a "loop hole" that's a "violation of the regs!!"

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[TomAiello 26]

The "loophole" is that the federal law has an exception for face to face transfer that is not present in the (more restrictive) law of California (and perhaps some other states?).

If I purchase a firearm from some other private part in most states (at a gun show or not), I am not required to file any paperwork with the government.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The "loophole" is that the federal law has an exception for face to face transfer that is not present in the (more restrictive) law of California (and perhaps some other states?).

If I purchase a firearm from some other private part in most states (at a gun show or not), I am not required to file any paperwork with the government.

Correct. CA does not allow private sales. All [legal] transfers are via an FFL, and the usual DROS fees apply, plus the dealer handling fee. And it does not participate in the instant check, though the 10 day wait is a slight improvement on the 15 days it used to be.

[skybill 22]

Hi Tom,
Here in NC the state law on guns states as follows;
"No state permit is required to purchase a rifle or shotgun.
A license or permit must be obtained to purchase, sell, give away, transfer, inherit, or receive a handgun by applying to the county sheriff in which the purchase is to be made or where the receiver resides." Long guns are no problem, you can transact one in 15 minutes at Wally-world and walk out with it. Handguns are another story according to the above info. "Purchase, sell, give away, transfer, inherit or receive," pretty much covers any "loop holes" at least for pistols around here. Did they leave anything out????

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[Ron 10]

Quote

OK, so I WAS correct. Thank you.

Oh, look you did exactly what I said you would do.

Once again, you show your lack of intellectual honesty.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The "loophole" is that the federal law has an exception for face to face transfer that is not present in the (more restrictive) law of California (and perhaps some other states?). If I purchase a firearm from some other private part in most states (at a gun show or not), I am not required to file any paperwork with the government.

So why do they call it a "gun show loophole" when it would be more correct to call it a "private sale loophole"?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

The "loophole" is that the federal law has an exception for face to face transfer that is not present in the (more restrictive) law of California (and perhaps some other states?). If I purchase a firearm from some other private part in most states (at a gun show or not), I am not required to file any paperwork with the government.

So why do they call it a "gun show loophole" when it would be more correct to call it a "private sale loophole"?

Because "gun show loophole for unlicensed dealers" is easier to sell to the masses, just like "assault weapon ban" sounds better than "sport utility gun ban".

[1969912 0]

Quote

So why do they call it a "gun show loophole" when it would be more correct to call it a "private sale loophole"?

Quote

Because "gun show loophole for unlicensed dealers" is easier to sell to the masses, just like "assault weapon ban" sounds better than "sport utility gun ban".

Now we're getting somewhere. Any closure of the "gun show loophole" will be immediately followed by whining and screaming about the "private sales loophole", and closing that "loophole" will be used as justification for retroactive registration of all firearms.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG