Or so long as they don't negate rights from the Bill of Rights.....small things like thatAmendments and updating are fine, so long as they reflect my opinion.
Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales
- Thread starter 3855WIN
- Start date
Of course he would need to be dressed as a woman or wear a sign saying " I am a woman" . If he is dressed as a man and spoke as a man, how did I know I was committing a crime ?
At least this would be my defense in court ?
Excluding the firearm part of this discussion--which we can not or should not do ----I would like to answer someones post a few pages back. I have been fortunate enough to have traveled the world and one could live very comfortable with many of the same rights and privilege's that we have in the States. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, any of the Scandinavian countries, Iceland, Costa Rica, some Caribbean countries, in fact, most of the European countries--for sure Switzerland, England, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Scotland, Ireland, ------------
I am an American, a proud American and personally believe America is the most wonderful country in the world, but I did want to respond to the question asked a few pages back when someone ask a different poster if he had traveled to any of the other countries. I have and although the laws may vary from place to place, I did not feel restricted in the above mentioned countries.
So are the firearm laws in our country important ---they are to me and I am not down playing their importance to this discussion or even the freedom of speech part of the discussion, certainly not our Bill if Rights or Declaration of Independence part of the discussion, in fact I started a thread that involved those documents and Big Fin had to shut it down.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ::: this is my concern and I have mentioned it before.
Those wanting to take away our firearms will do it "piece-meal" one step at a time until all each of us have is one rifle and one shotgun and one box of ammo for each. AND they will say they have NOT taken away your right to keep and bear arms. I will be gone soon but you younger ladies and gentlemen must fight every single attempt to change the gun laws. IMHO they are doing it to reduce ownership and to know who has what--and they will do it one step at a time.
I did find the whale penis thread a more relaxing thread to read than this one. That female biologist in that video, on that thread, seem to be enjoying her work. I had a joke about that I was going to share but dont want to lose my password
If 1A-9A pertained to states rights then she "might" have an argument. But since they don't....You can still read the 2A to cover a "regulated state militia" that is not the US Armed Forces coopted National Guard. But such things no longer exist - hence Ginsburg's view that 2A has no present practical effect. It's an interestingly literalist, time-locked view of the amendment from her - maybe Ginsburg learned something from her years of friendship with Scalia
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
In the face of objectively unclear language of the 2A it is fair for someone to take your read (which is also my read and Heller's read), but to say in it's entirety that the 2A "could not be clearer" is simply ridiculous. Any first year law student that wrote that sentence and pretended it was clear would get an F for horrible use of the English language. It is not clear, and given some of the twisting and turning and back room nuance by Adams around the Bill of Rights it is possible it was purposely unclear to gain support of opposing side who both read in their own meaning.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
There is no intentional structure to the order of the Bill of Rights. Of all the personal 2A rationales, this is one of the weakest.
I just wanted to bold this so some of you younger folks might not miss what an experienced, educated, well traveled lady knows to be true. She is very wise and we should pay attention.
Tiredofthebickering
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,813
I was somewhat familiar with the law you're discussing from listening to Jordan Peterson discuss it, but figure it was worth a further reading. I know nothing about this company/link but it seems to explain the law well (https://rb.gy/staxq3) Best as I can tell, you're not at any risk if you aren't in process of committing another crime (hate crime, harassment, discrimination, etc.). From the link:
Pronoun usage
Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?
In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.
“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”
The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.
“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
Now, I happen to agree with Peterson's opinion that it crosses the line by forcing federally regulated employees to use specific words. Also from the link:
Where does this apply?
The Canadian Human Rights Act is a federal act — its scope includes the federal government itself, First Nations governments, as well as federally regulated employers, such as banks and telecommunications companies.
Also, because I'm not in one of those positions, I can't think of any scenario where I would be forced to use words with which I disagree. Furthermore, I don't see myself ever feeling the need to correct a stranger regarding such a thing. I read your comment as you wanting to be able to say all of those things but also be free from the repercussions of someone thinking that you're a bigot, which as you stated, is a form of "thought police". My mistake on that.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
You can still read the 2A to cover a "regulated state militia" that is not the US Armed Forces coopted National Guard. But such things no longer exist - hence Ginsburg's view that 2A has no present practical effect. It's an interestingly literalist, time-locked view of the amendment from her - maybe Ginsburg learned something from her years of friendship with Scalia
To get back on track of the post. I've been thinking quit a bit on one of your ( @VikingsGuy ) earlier comments regarding the interpretation of the 2A. It's way to far back to link it now but, I can see where interpretation can lean toward different understandings. That fact is evident today with all the he said she said and misquoting going on.
Most counties, if not all have a plan to call up the militia if needed. Probably by state law. But it occurs to me that a called on militia is not much good if they don't have firearms or supplies to shoot the firearm. And most states don't have a surplus laying around of weapons and ammo to support this type of event. So, either way you interpret it, shouldn't it include the right to keep and maintain firearms for citizens? It occurs to me, as I have stated before, there is a sytematic approach to removing firearms indirectly through restrictions. IMO...
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Let's also make sure the younger folks don't miss the fact that you are highlighting her text not at all because she is experience, educated, well-travelled and wise (all of which she undoubtably is), but simply because she agreed with you. There are others on this forum and in other walks of life with similar attributes but would take the opposite position - some how I don't expect you to trumpet their view just on their personal merits.
#confirmationbias
3855WIN
Well-known member
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Another reasonable reading. Countries such as Switzerland actually require able bodies male citizens to maintain possession of a working firearm under just such a rationale. Some states required that pre-constitution. One delegation tried to insert it but couldn't get the votes.
But to the point, their is not one magic simple reading of this horribly drafted amendment, so our constiution and 200+ years of social contract require us to defer to SCOTUS for the final answer. And today Heller is the final answer. And frankly Heller will be gone much sooner than our public lands will be.
The personal right to bear arms - a right I totally support - is only a decade old and is already on life support. Focusing on "it's clear", "the Founders meant it", and "out of my cold dead hands" are not going to preserve it. We need to update our thinking, our communications and our willingness to find shared wins or it will be gone before my son can inherit my guns.
Last edited:
Tiredofthebickering
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,813
I kind of think the gun control argument is over for a generation or so.
We have a large voting block that believed only the police should have guns. Now they heavily distrust the police. Some even want to get rid of the police.
Everyday the news has a new video of someone that would be better off if they had carried a gun to defend themselves where the police failed to do so.
There are probably less anti gun people on the left than there has been in decades.
On the other side of the equation, nothing about imagining my wife sitting in her car helplessly, surrounded by a mob of masked thugs that are trying to smash her windows and drag her out of the car gets me any closer to supporting anything that would limit my ability to carry a loaded handgun on my body on most places.
I’ve pretty much gone from usually carrying a gun to always carrying a gun.
We have a large voting block that believed only the police should have guns. Now they heavily distrust the police. Some even want to get rid of the police.
Everyday the news has a new video of someone that would be better off if they had carried a gun to defend themselves where the police failed to do so.
There are probably less anti gun people on the left than there has been in decades.
On the other side of the equation, nothing about imagining my wife sitting in her car helplessly, surrounded by a mob of masked thugs that are trying to smash her windows and drag her out of the car gets me any closer to supporting anything that would limit my ability to carry a loaded handgun on my body on most places.
I’ve pretty much gone from usually carrying a gun to always carrying a gun.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
And in all honesty, that 600 round
azelkhntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 456
Gawd! What’s July going to bring us?
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
If your following the Daybell case, the end on the 22nd except for the chosen 144,000.
The Saharan dust storm will bring with it a new species of Africanized giant lizard that views humans as crickets
azelkhntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 456
Haven’t heard of the Daybell case. Too soon for the big escape by my reckoning. I’m thinking June of ‘23; the beginning of the 1st half; but who knows?
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
Sooo... #438 post:
We are collectively opposed to <HT Censored Political Party> Candidate for President, Joe "McGaff" Biden's declared intent to ban online ammunition sales.
Have we solved world peace yet?
No, but I'm preparing for those lizards...
Similar threads
