Really, really dumb

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".

--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/10/2020 11:43 PM, pH wrote:
snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos


What draft? Milton Friedman killed it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/


Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster than a
revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact. It's not a
'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or just the ones
fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or what?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/


Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to
school in hunting season, picked up by their fathers in the
remains of daylight. Nothing notable ever happened.

Oh by the way every boy carried a pocket knife and I never
saw one pulled out in a fight. Ever.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/



Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to school in hunting
season, picked up by their fathers in the remains of daylight. Nothing
notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to spray a dozen
rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few seconds. I'd be embarrassed
to say I needed that capability for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 3:46:11 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:17:21 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 6:33:05 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 1:34:27 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 9:17:17 PM UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 10:25:00 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/9/2020 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:34:54 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 15:08:40 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Well, I would have agreed with you before I read an entire series of
postings about how Trump would make a terrible President started in
2015.

Well, they got something right then even if it wasn't bike tech.

Tim, passing off your bull**** when the facts speak otherwise makes you look like a first class idiot.


Tim is not a first class idiot.

Here's a first class idiot:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/dosometh.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Ocasio-Cortez actually said, "You don't have any right to own a gun. If you did it would be in the Constitution."

There's no response to that except a shrug and a defeated, "No ****?" And she's a lawmaker! -- AJ

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

In a 2008 case called District of Columbia v. Heller, and again in a 2010 case called McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment.

That amendment was written, the court ruled in both cases, to mandate the obligation of the federal government, as well as cities and states, to recognize, respect and permit the exercise of the right to self-defense, using the same level of technology as might be used against someone in the home.

Yes, and in Roe v. Wade, the court ruled that the First Amendment protected a woman's right to chose abortion, and yet the right continues to deny there is such a right in the Constitution. Same goes with guns and the Second Amendment. Different court, different outcome. Go read the history of the Second Amendment and corresponding provisions in colonial constitutions. The NRA "everybody gets a gun" is not what the founders intended, particularly since people like you -- Catholics -- were prohibited from owning guns in certain colonies, as were slaves, indentured servants and others who were prohibited from serving in state militias.

Moreover, the state's rights to limit handguns stand on different footing -- the Fourteenth Amendment -- and the questionable conclusion that gun ownership is a fundamental right. Note that a civil jury trial guaranteed under the Seventh Amendment is not a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment -- so states don't have to allow civil jury trials. Every right in the Bill of Rights is not necessarily "fundamental." And even if it is "fundamental," that does not mean it is immune from regulation.

-- Jay Beattie.

If you prefer to compare apples and oranges that is up to you. You are making NO argument about abortion when it was based upon rape and sexual abuse. Murder is still murder and you are saying that you don't care about murder with a set of tongs but murder with a gun is something else.

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 3:31:48 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.

Let me guess, you haven't even LISTENED to the Democrat Debates. Every single one of them are for highly restrictive gun control. It is their position that only criminals should have guns.

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 3:37:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The Supreme Court is not infallible. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rt_deci sions

Frank, will you shut up if you don't know anything about the Constitution and the three branches of government? The Supreme Court only rules on a case before them. They do not rule on something that might come up in the future.