Second Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court Now!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
My dear Dan, you are missing the point. I agree the right is individual. I agree with Emerson and the DOJ [wait did I agree with the DOJ something must be wrong :)]. The SCOPE of the individual right you are advocating is what I have issue with. The scope of the 2nd Amendment does not contemplate unrestricted open carry. It does contemplate unrestricted ownership of arms. It does not mandate what you allege it mandates see infra.

Now, if you argument was something to the effect of, an officer rightfully carrys a sidearm ergo I should be allowed to do so, I could see it, but that is not what you are saying. You are saying it esentially requires an armed populace for national defense.

"Taking my interpretation of the Constitution mandating an openly armed citizen for the Common Defence. All laws that denigrate the Common Defence through the Second Amendment violates the protection clause of the Constitution. Personal Security Enhances National Security."


The unresolved argument of the Tenn case and Miller is what is not properly militia weaponry.

The adoption of weapons which seemly all violate NFA for the army seems like a good target. The M-16 is clearly of use for militia, yet is effectively banned under NFA. Handgun bans etc.
 
So what if this case is denied

How many alternatives are possible for the next one?
Anyone?
Something you can agree with Gray? Matt what would you sue over to track to SCOTUS?

How many different plausible arguments are possible for those of us who are not denied the legal system for costs and stature?

As stated before in this thread the US justice and legal system is corrupt.

In the news today a convicted pedophyle X12? finnaly killed a little girl.
Janet Renoe is not in a CLUB Fed and BATFE is still in buisness now under justice not revenue. A sitting president is calling volubteer observers vigilantes in support of our friend Fox.

I would spend a lottery win on good cases. How many independantly wealthy willing to consider something?
It has been well discussed how NRA will always look out for #1.
 
Wow,

Sorry Don. I guess you came to the wrong place. It sounds like you are wasting your time.

Then again history shows us too how all those other guys in Boston wasted their time dressing up like the natives and ILLEGALLY throwing someone else's stuff in the harbor.

Or history shows us how standing up for your rights worked for those seditious bastards at Fort McHenry propping up a tattered old flag. And dare I say how that pathetic loser Frank S. Key decided to steal some old bar tune and replace the words and call it our National Anthem. The ridiculousness, oh that would never work. Nevermind it's the most famous song in the world.

And now I'll get personal. My two grandfathers must have been some real idiots. One a firefighter based at midway, later aboard a mine detector, then serving his tour out in Okinawa. Or my other grandfather who served AFTER the war was over, but spent two years clearing islands. Yeah, that was a waste of time. Except the both of them taught me the value of believing in your countrymen. And standing up for your rights. Even if that means breaking the law. Yeah, I guess I'll just go silently into the night like so many others here.

Don, I think the best advice I can give you in regards to the court system is to get as many witnesses into that courtroom that you can. Obviously pro 2nd amendment. Where are you based? Where does the possible hearing occur? The courts only fear the People if they can no longer count noses.

I learned something about this when a friend had issues with the courts giving him a run around about a blood test for one of his newborns. You see he still has his kids at home. No doctor. Just a midwife. (Yeah, I can hear the murmuring already. "What? No doctor"? Hey buddy, that didn't stop your mother or grandmother did it? Well my friend is 10 for 10 now, so backoff with your medical BS) The "System" created a catch 22 where they wanted him to sign his rights away to take the test. He wouldn't do it, so they charged him with the equivalent of contempt of court. Well to make a long story short, we packed that district court so full of people they didn't know what to do. Needless to say they quit horsing around and after changing their drawers they straitened right up. Same thing happened to Pilate. He would have let Christ go, but he feared the people. Whatever you do, argue on the side of common sense, appeal to the common people. And bring a whole bunch of common people with you. That is the court system's worst fear. "Oh no. Our subjects are acting we work for them, what'll we do"? :D

P.S. Regardless of a court decision, I don't care. The second amendment says it's my right to bear arms. I'll do that even if my rights are suppressed. And I may show up as the bad guy in the press. I may get gunned down. But it's my right, and I'll go with a smile on my face...the rest of you critical namby-pambies are quitters. Now I know what it must have felt like to break off from the commonwealth and start a new country. Sheesh...
 
DIRECTED TO SUE ROVR:

YOU SAID: The SCOPE of the individual right you are advocating is what I have issue with. The scope of the 2nd Amendment does not contemplate unrestricted open carry.

MY REBUTTAL: Yes it does!

YOU SAID: It does contemplate unrestricted ownership of arms. It does not mandate what you allege it mandates see infra.

MY REBUTTAL: Yes it does!

YOU SAID; Now, if your argument was something to the effect of, an officer rightfully carrys a sidearm ergo I should be allowed to do so, I could see it, . . .

MY REBUTTAL: That is not my argument.

YOU SAID: . . . but that is not what you are saying. You are saying it esentially requires an armed populace for national defense.

MY REBUTTAL: That is my argument. YES!

YOU SAID: "Taking my interpretation of the Constitution mandating an openly armed citizen for the Common Defence. All laws that denigrate the Common Defence through the Second Amendment violates the protection clause of the Constitution. Personal Security Enhances National Security."

MY REBUTTAL: True.

YOU SAID: The unresolved argument of the Tenn case and Miller is what is not properly militia weaponry.

MY REBUTTAL: I made no mention of the Tenn case. Only Miller. Second Amendment is not dependent upon militia service, (Emerson & DoJ).

YOU SAID: The adoption of weapons which seemly all violate NFA for the army seems like a good target. The M-16 is clearly of use for militia, yet is effectively banned under NFA. Handgun bans etc.

MY REBUTTAL: The Swiss model: Every home a machine gun, every person a handgun (such is my general understanding of Swiss law and tradition). An armed populace is the best defense against a militaristic invasion, an illegal alien immigration invasion with a terrorist element, and the common criminal.
 
DIRECTED TO RISASI:

I have come to the perfect place! This has been the best debate I have ever had! I am thrilled at the participation FOR and AGAINST!

DEBATE!!

That is what I have been trying to agitate, to stir up for 3 years now.
 
Good luck Don. Mark me down in favor of getting your case heard. Thanks for trying.

For the ones crying "wolf" you people are late,,, the wolf is already INSIDE the door. In case you have not looked around lately, we no longer have a right to keep and bear arms. We have a right to apply for a permit to buy (with explicit permission for each purchase from NICs.), or a permit to carry in some places. In Kansas I can not apply for a permit to carry, because Kansas does not have them. And in some places ownership is prohibited completely.
 
Tyrants as Moderators?

DIRECTED TO PAX THE MODERATOR:

:cuss: PAX has closed off the other 2 threads asking me to combine the all 3 threads into one. I object to this request because the posting limit FORCED me to segment my posting to 3 threads.

:confused: I presume the limit use employed in order keep the postings to a reasonable length.

:confused: Now PAX comes along to arbitrarily SUSPEND the rules and ask that I do something that I do not know how to do nor want to do.

If Pax Moderator does not unlock my other 2 threads and does not keep the 3 threads separate I will be more than happy to go elsewhere.
 
Don ~

Hit "post reply."

Post your information here.

Problem solved.

pax
 
Something you can agree with Gray?
Click to expand...
No, nothing. I've already stated my views many times before. The only way we to win is to abandon the Second Amendment argument. I disagree with any case that is based on the Second Amendment because I know it is DOA. Not because there is a bias, but because the courts are right...such cases are misinterpreting the 2nd.

The correct approach is to ask the court to recognize a fundamental right to possess firearms for personal preservation. THIS is the right that we really want protected. There are several district court rulings that support this, and even the house bill HR47 gets it right. All we need is to realize that the Second Amendment is not really what we think it is.

Unforrtunately, that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. :(
 
DIRECTED TO PAX:

HELL NO!

I posted according to the imposed length limit.

Now you come along imposing your own set of rules!

That is bullsit.

Either UNLOCK My other two threads or I'm outta here. I have better things to do with my time than to cowtow to such a tyrant.
 
NEW THREAD! LENGTH LIMITS and Tyrants as Moderators?

DIRECTED TO PAX THE MODERATOR:

:cuss: PAX has closed off the other 2 threads asking me to combine the all 3 threads into one. I object to this request because the posting limit FORCED me to segment my posting to 3 threads.

:confused: I presume the limit use employed in order keep the postings to a reasonable length.

:confused: Now PAX comes along to arbitrarily SUSPEND the rules and ask that I do something that I do not know how to do nor want to do.

If Pax Moderator does not unlock my other 2 threads and does not keep the 3 threads separate I will be more than happy to go elsewhere.
 
Don,

Let me try it again.

The post length limit is just that, a limit on the length of an individual post. It is based on a limitation within the software.

The purpose of combining your multiple posts on the same topic into one thread is to make it easier for those of us who want to follow this story to follow the whole thing. All you have to do is post the original story, and if the software tells you it's too long, break it down into two or three posts in the same thread. It isn't hard, and it makes it easier to follow.

Please post the rest of your information here, or suit yourself and go elsewhere. I don't care either way, but I won't have you spamming the forum with multiple threads on the same freaking topic. It's annoying, and useless, and hard for other people to follow.

pax
 
Perhaps a dumb question, but one wonders as to why organizations that constantly beseech gun owners for financial support (contributions) are not supporting this case, or seem dumbstruck by it??

To the best of my recollection, this discussion is the first I've seen, read or heard of this matter, whatever it's merits might or might not be. Hace I been missing something interesting?
 
:rolleyes:

Well Don if you don't like the way pax or the other mods run this forum you are free to pick up your tinfoil hat and leave.

This is a privately owned forum, and therefore you should respect their rules.

Tyrants? Inappropriate, immature and irrational. Again this is privately owned and the mods are well within their rights to do as they please. Its rude to come into another person's house and disrespect their wishes.

They run a decent forum here, and run it well. I'm grateful for the resource and am offended by your post.
 
His suit may or may not be a good idea.
His strategy of going without a lawyer may or may not be a good idea.
I think everyone knows his chance to actually be heard in court, or even for a Supreme Court judge to actually listen to a single word he says, are slim to none.

Still, it's his right to plead his case. Best of luck, mano. You're going to need it.
 
DIRECTED TO PAX:

AGAIN: "HELL NO!"

If you can't allow the courtesy of a poster complying with the length limit and segmenting his message into 3 threads to have discussions based on the content of the thread then please delete my membership registration from this board.
 
*sigh*

Don, would you please care to explain why having your single topic segmented into multiple discussions is somehow more efficient than having one single thread for your one single topic?

Trust me on this, Pax is trying to be helpful, and you're truly making yourself look foolish with your attacks.
 
It isn't hard to simply walk away if you'd like. You don't need the histrionics and you certainly don't need me to do anything to your account. The 'log off' button is right there in the upper right hand corner of your screen...

All the threads you started were on the same topic and thus belong in the same thread. I'm sorry that the software annoyed you that much, or that it's so difficult for you to figure out how to keep all that information in one thread. It puzzles me that you want to make it harder, not easier, for people to understand what you are doing and why.

Good luck with your legal battles.

pax
 
Heavy handed tactics like yours disparage our First Amendment rights and is typical of of tyrants in government. I noticed you didn't come out in my defense when criticism was heaped up on me!
Click to expand...
I personally do not see a need for the threat of censorship just from your cited quote.
Click to expand...
This is my first occassion to post on this board. And already I see the heavy hand of censorship. Is this common here?
Click to expand...


You better hook your eyeballs on your monitor, because I'm not going to repeat myself:

You're new here. You are overwrought, and you are excited over your impending Supreme Court case. I understand this.

So. I am going to give you a chance to straighten up, and start acting like a civilized human being, instead of a rabid dog.

I don't care what you noticed.

I don't care that you missed the fact that my only other post on this thread was a defense of you.

I don't care what need you see, or don't see.

I don't care if you see censorship here, or if you see flying purple baboons.

Our board, our rules. You don't like it, nobody nailed your feet to the bloody floor, nobody dragged your butt in here.

This is not your board, and you don't get a say in how it's run.

If you don't like how this board is run, you get to vote with your feet. You go somewhere else.

Now. I suggest that you take a deep breath. You are welcome here, as long as you follow the rules posted above.

If those rules are too much for you, only let one of the Staff know, and we will assist you in finding a board more conducive to you.

You pull this crap again, and I will land on you like the sodding Hammer of God.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

This thread is done. Feel free to continue the discussion of the Supreme Court case in one of the other open threads on the subject.

LawDog
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Second Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court Now!!
Replies
1
Views
525
Beren
Beren
D
  • Locked
2nd Amendment Case at SCOTUS: STATEMENT OF THE CASE (PART 1)
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Don Gwinn
D
M
  • Locked
Department of Justice: Second Amendment Is Individual Right
Replies
1
Views
429
Michigander
M
D
  • Locked
American Common Defence Review blog!
Replies
2
Views
370
donhamrick
D
D
  • Locked
2nd Amendment At Scotus: Reasons For Granting Certiorari
Replies
9
Views
852
pax
P
Back
Top