Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to ‘start killing people’ over Obama’s gun control


  • Please log in to reply
130 replies to this topic

#31 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

You're right, the 2nd Amendment should be limited to obsolete weaponry just as the 1st Amendment should protect only those using obsolete forms of communication!


No, you're right, the 2nd should permit all types of firearms without any regulation. Otherwise it's tyranny.
  • 0

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#32 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,225 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

When was the last time a tyrannical government was in control of the united states?


Haven't you heard? There is one in power right now! :frantic:

Edited by Jägermeister, 11 January 2013 - 09:44 AM.

  • 0

Jagermeister.jpg


#33 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,105 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:45 AM

You're right, the 2nd Amendment should be limited to obsolete weaponry just as the 1st Amendment should protect only those using obsolete forms of communication!


I'm pretty sure we still use paper and pen.
  • 0

#34 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:47 AM

The most amazing thing about all these American gun nuts is just how little noise they make for their rights that have been infringed over the last decade, starting with Dubya and continuing under Obama. Americans wouldn't know tyranny if it hit them in the face, imprisoned their brother, and sent their children to war for the rulers' benefit. Waaaaaaaait a minute! TO ARMS! F'king morons.
  • 1

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#35 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:49 AM

No, you're right, the 2nd should permit all types of firearms without any regulation. Otherwise it's tyranny.


The elite attacking the United States Constitution and furthering their own ends at the expense of the citizenry, is tyranny...

Guns are only part of the picture here, in light of the ongoing attempts to control rights in other areas such as the Patriot Act.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#36 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:52 AM

If the US Constitution stated one must only crap in an outhouse or the woods, and keep away from their main dwelling, I have a feeling any attempts at sanitation would also be met with cries of tyranny. "It's a god-given right to not have a toilet!" they would say.
  • 0

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#37 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:57 AM

The elite attacking the United States Constitution and furthering their own ends at the expense of the citizenry, is tyranny...

Guns are only part of the picture here, in light of the ongoing attempts to control rights in other areas such as the Patriot Act.


So you agree, Billy Bob should be able to go to Wal-Mart and buy an M249? And if not, it is tyranny? What if I wanted something a little more... firepowery? Say... a flamethrower. Should those be in isle 7? With rocket propelled grenades lining the corners of the isles? Don't want to be outmatched and outclassed by the US Military machine. I guess tanks and heavy artillery should be just out back.
  • 1

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#38 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:00 AM

So you agree, Billy Bob should be able to go to Wal-Mart and buy an M249? And if not, it is tyranny? What if I wanted something a little more... firepowery? Say... a flamethrower. Should those be in isle 7? With rocket propelled grenades lining the corners of the isles? Don't want to be outmatched and outclassed by the US Military machine. I guess tanks and heavy artillery should be just out back.


Where oh where does the madness/lunacy end? .. why at Wally World, where we do it all for you .. "we won't abort your unwanted child, but we'll arm yer neighbor and he'll shoot the kid for free" ..
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#39 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:03 AM

The most amazing thing about all these American gun nuts is just how little noise they make for their rights that have been infringed over the last decade, starting with Dubya and continuing under Obama. Americans wouldn't know tyranny if it hit them in the face, imprisoned their brother, and sent their children to war for the rulers' benefit. Waaaaaaaait a minute! TO ARMS! F'king morons.


Actually, anyone who was paying attention will know that this has all been a concern since the first Clinton administration at the least.


  • 1
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#40 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:05 AM

If the US Constitution stated one must only crap in an outhouse or the woods, and keep away from their main dwelling, I have a feeling any attempts at sanitation would also be met with cries of tyranny. "It's a god-given right to not have a toilet!" they would say.


The Constitution doesn't say so, strawman.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#41 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:05 AM

Actually, anyone who was paying attention will know that this has all been a concern since the first Clinton administration at the least.


It's been a concern for 20 years, and Americans are still free to shoot each other en masse. I guess you have your way, bud. :sadno:
  • 0

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#42 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:07 AM

The Constitution doesn't say so, strawman.


It's not a strawman, it's ridicule. I'm done, this is ridiculous.
  • 0

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#43 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,924 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:06 AM

Wow. The paranoia has reached uber-stupid proportions on CDC.

It's an absolute wonder that some people around here are able to tie their own shoes....
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#44 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,924 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:09 AM

Real assault rifles are heavily restricted, if you mean semiautomatic variants, then those are actually ideal for both hunting and self defence.


...and shooting up schools and theaters...
  • 2
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#45 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,924 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:15 AM

But no-one is trying to take guns away .. they are trying to limit the fire power .. where do you draw the line? .. why can you not then have bazooka's and surface to surface missiles? .. there MUST be limit's!!! .. that is the point the ignorant keep missing, or intentionally avoiding .. :picard:



This is a point I've made in several previous threads, to which the stock gun-nut response is (ironically): "Where do you draw the line? Next thing you know, they'll be after our BB guns and sling-shots!"

Because we all know that there is a secret government agenda to eliminate all citizen-owned weapons and turn the United States into an autocracy.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#46 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

...and shooting up schools and theaters...


Not to mention smuggling to Mexican Cartels in hopes of undermining civilian gun ownership...

Anyway they've been readily available for a long time, why is all this happening recently along with all these anomalous events and ploys to restrict citizen rights.

I suppose its just a coincidence that this has mostly taken place in the time period where the corrupt Boomer generation attained high level political and institutional power.
  • 1
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#47 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:42 AM

Well assualt rifles are going to get banned. So you're just gonna have to get used to the idea of not being able to fire 100's of rounds into crowds of people.

The idea that it would ever come down to american civilians fighting their own government, is the kind of irrational thinking that makes me worried that these people have these weapons. From every one of these pro gun people I've listened to, they all seem to have the same unstable, irrational thought patterns that makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation.

Even if assault rifles get banned (again), there will be no stop to mass shootings, they will still be just as prevalent. During the federal assault weapons ban, there were plenty of school shootings, including the ever famous Columbine / Westside Middle School shootings in which assault weapons were used:


http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States [edit]2000s

Main articles: Virginia Tech massacre, Red Lake massacre, Amish school shooting, and Northern Illinois University Shooting
  • February 29, 2000: Flint, Michigan At Buell Elementary School, 6-year-old Dedrick Owens, the youngest-ever school shooter, shot and killed classmate Kayla Rolland.[85]
  • May 26, 2000: Lake Worth, Florida Lake Worth Middle School Florida teacher Barry Grunow was fatally shot by his student, 13-year-old Nathaniel Brazill, who had returned to school after being sent home at 1 p.m. by the assistant principal for throwing water balloons. Brazill returned to school on his bike with a 5 inch Raven and four bullets stolen from his grandfather the week before. Brazill was an honor student. Grunow was a popular teacher and Brazill's favorite.[85]
  • August 28, 2000: University of Arkansas shooting at Fayetteville, Arkansas At approximately 12:14 pm, Dr. John R. Locke, 67, Director of the Comparative Literature Program was shot and killed in his office by James E. Kelly, 36, a Comparative Literature PhD candidate who had recently been dismissed from the program for lack of progress towards his degree. Kelly shot Dr. Locke three times before taking his own life in Dr. Locke's office after it was cordoned off by campus police.[86][87][88]
  • September 26, 2000: Darrel Johnson, 13, offender in Louisiana school shooting with 1 student fatality.[85]
  • March 5, 2001: Charles Andrew William, age 15, offender in California school shooting at Santana High School, 15 wounded 2 of which died.[85]
  • March 30, 2001: Donald R. Burt Jr., age 18, offender in Indiana school shooting with 1 student fatality.[85]
  • September 24, 2003: John Jason McLaughlin, age 15, offender in Minnesota school shooting with 2 student fatalities.[85]
  • February 2, 2004: Unidentified offender in Washington, DC school shooting with 1 student fatality.[85][/quote]
After this inevitable assault weapon ban comes into place, and the utter failure of it becomes recognized yet again, will be interesting what the next demon du jour is.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 January 2013 - 11:43 AM.

  • 0

#48 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:50 AM

^ ^ ^ .. your numbers reflect less massive loss of death when "assault" weapons are limited .. this information supports controlling limits on semi-auto's and magazine size .. thanks for your inadvertent support of the "thinking" crowd .. :lol:
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#49 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:06 PM

Your the one who doesn't get it, stop beating people over the head with the second amendment and try actually READING IT.

As passed by the Congress:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Nowhere does it say anything about opposing a tyrannical government, or anything about the TYPE of arms allowed, funny how you pro-gun people seem to keep missing the words WELL REGULATED MILITIA. This was written when the country had no standing army, and was still in danger of attack by the British, Spanish, and Indian Nations, also at the time Rifles were still quite a rarity, all guns were muzzle loaded single shot, and not very accurate beyond about 40 yards, a professional soldier under ideal conditions MIGHT get off 4 shots in a minute. No way they writers of this could foresee the advances in weaponry that have taken place or the creation of the US military. They seemed to have had the model used by the Swiss in mind.

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland

You cannot just read it - you must read it against the backdrop of history and how the courts have interpreted the words.

Actually there are numerous court cases and commentary by judges and legal scholars in the US that one of the intents of the Second Amendment is to allow the populace to oppose the civil government. Not all that surprising considering US history and the American Revolution.

This is a theme that has run through US history from the time that the US Constitution was drafted and the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the US Constitution). This was made quite clear by the Founders.

The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.

The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive.

The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.



This was explained in the 2008 Heller decision by the US Supreme Court which 5-4 found that there was an individualized right to bear arms independent of the "well-regulated militia" provision noting the fear that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370 (2008).
http://www.law.corne.../07-290.ZO.html

UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, notes that since before the Amendment was proposed, many citizens have discussed the right to bear arms as a guarantee against tyranny as well as a feature of a federal system. His reading of the history finds more support for this anti-tyranny idea than for the Supreme Court's current doctrine from Heller that the Second Amendment supports a right of personal self-defense.

The central thesis of Winkler's book is that there is no black and white - he says Americans have possessed both a gun culture and a gun control culture. Americans' devotion to guns has been accompanied by extensive regulation of those guns. Today, he feels, should be no different.

However to say there is no history behind the idea that US citizens can take up arms against their own domestic government in certain instances is inaccurate.

You could argue that the time for such action is long since past given the march of history (my position BTW) but that is only an opinion.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#50 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:10 PM

The purpose of it is more derived from the Greeks, except as society has evolved, Americans have turned more into the French than Greeks in believing the righteousness of violent government upheaval.

The second amendment was intended to prevent a central (ie federal) government from becoming too prominent as it would undermine the citizens checks upon it. It was encouraged that as a federal government grew in power a private citizen militia should be formed to bring checks upon it as it was inferred that authoritarianism is an inherent trait of an excessively large central government. (If you find people quoting Jefferson, they should read more about his thoughts about federal government)

Those like Norman are in dire need of understanding exactly what the second amendment means, and preferably avoiding the type of anti-gun nut revisionist proselytising biblical cherry picking of words to make up that the US founding fathers intended government to own guns and not citizens. Both were intended.

Edited by hockeyville88, 11 January 2013 - 02:11 PM.

  • 0

#51 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:15 PM

You're right, the 2nd Amendment should be limited to obsolete weaponry just as the 1st Amendment should protect only those using obsolete forms of communication!

SCOTUS has already settled that argument as noted by the majority in the 2008 Heller case. Firearms in common use at the current time are covered.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Personally I think that is misinterpreting the MIller case and the other four dissenting SCOTUS justices in Heller agree but as it stands that is the law.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#52 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:18 PM

I must be dreaming, Wetcoaster actually made a well informed post about the second amendment.

My posts are always well-informed, the problem you have is comprehension and attributing to me things that I have not in fact said.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#53 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:28 PM

My posts are always well-informed, the problem you have is comprehension and attributing to me things that I have not in fact said.

Always informed? Why is it you only now cite the federalist papers (do a search on the forums for federalist papers and you'll find it was me who pointed them out in response to your naivety about second amendment intention) and form an opinion in complete contravention to prior ones?



The minority opinions (Stevens and Breyer) had a much different view of the Miller case and were baffled by the judicial sleight of hand inherent in the majority opinion. The majority's interpretation of Miller is tortured in the extreme.

Until Heller it was not recognized as an individual right bestowed upon citizens but rather a collective right that flowed from the concept of a well- regulated militia.

The concept of "militia" in the second amendment stems from citizens forming their own small militias, nonetheless, the right of gun ownership was inherent. The militia part is obviously obsolete now, even though I don't think it should be.



Again, why would the Constitution need to bestow the right of government to have a weapon-wielding military in the Bill of Rights when it was in the articles? The Federalist papers clearly showed the founders were afraid of an excessively strong federal government, they had just fought an extended national "militia" for their freedom and weren't too fond of central government which is why there was such a fight for a federal government to exist in the first place. (<- Kind of ironic now if you consider where the US federal government today stands in scope and size)

Understanding more than having your own interpretation of "a well regulated militia", which seems more like what biblical cherry picking religious people do, would serve you well henceforth.



How ironic is this..
  • 0

#54 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:35 PM

Always informed? Why is it you only now cite the federalist papers (do a search on the forums for federalist papers and you'll find it was me who pointed them out in response to your naivety about second amendment intention) and form an opinion in complete contravention to prior ones?





How ironic is this..

And once again you prove my point that you are unable to comprehend what is written.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#55 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:44 PM

And once again you prove my point that you are unable to comprehend what is written.

LOL

And yet it's you who out of the blue decides to agree with me and cite the federalist papers, oh so conveniently following me citing them to you in response to your odd agreement with decisions prior to Heller.

If I'm incorrect, quote for me a post of you using the federalist papers prior to my pointing them out to you.

If anything it looks like I've educated you here.

If there's one thing you are good at, lawyer or not, is side-stepping eating your humble pie.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 January 2013 - 12:45 PM.

  • 1

#56 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:09 PM

LOL

And yet it's you who out of the blue decides to agree with me and cite the federalist papers, oh so conveniently following me citing them to you in response to your odd agreement with decisions prior to Heller.

If I'm incorrect, quote for me a post of you using the federalist papers prior to my pointing them out to you.

If anything it looks like I've educated you here.

If there's one thing you are good at, lawyer or not, is side-stepping eating your humble pie.

You educating me???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You are the one claiming that I am posting something that I have never said. Your standard MO aka Strawman Argument.

The Federalist Papers support one interpretation of the Second Amendment - and not even one that the courts universally accept as you can see from the minority opinions in Heller.

Why would I cite them unless I am responding to a claim that there is NO evidence that the Second Amendment could relate to the ability of a citizen to oppose a civil government? That was the context of my post.

I can recognize that there is historical evidence for the opinion but still take the position that majority opinion in Heller is wrong. In fact the majority opinion in Heller is somewhat bizarre and internally inconsistent. The majority in half the ruling applies an approach of strict constructionism (called "frozen concepts" in Canadian jurisprudence that our Supreme Court has rejected) but then apply a much more judicially activist approach (called "the living tree doctrine" in Canadian jurisprudence that our Supreme Court has adopted) to find that the definition of firearms has evolved into those "in common use at the time". That is just one of the issues I have with the majority opinion in Heller.

You most definitely have reading comprehension issues.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#57 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,105 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:13 PM

one wonders how either of you ever learn anything given you're holier than thou egomaniacs.
  • 1

#58 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:17 PM

You educating me???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You are the one claiming that I am posting something that I have never said. Your standard MO aka Strawman Argument.

The Federalist Papers support one interpretation of the Second Amendment - and not even one that the courts universally accept as you can see from the minority opinions in Heller.

Why would I cite them unless I am responding to a claim that there is NO evidence that the Second Amendment could relate to the ability of a citizen to oppose a civil government? That was the context of my post.

I can recognize that there is historical evidence for the opinion but still take the position that majority opinion in Heller is wrong. In fact the majority opinion in Heller is somewhat bizarre and internally inconsistent. The majority in half the ruling applies an approach of strict constructionism (called "frozen concepts" in Canadian jurisprudence that our Supreme Court has rejected) but then apply a much more judicially activist approach (called "the living tree doctrine" in Canadian jurisprudence that our Supreme Court has adopted) to find that the definition of firearms has evolved into those "in common use at the time". That is just one of the issues I have with the majority opinion in Heller.

You most definitely have reading comprehension issues.

Since firearms have always (in US history) been commonly used, it would appear historically what you describe as "judicially activist" is more like "judicially correct".

The federalist papers were not merely one opinion like one or two judges from SCOTUS, these were people involved in the making of the Constitution. They also were much more willing to compromise than today's judges of politically contrived motivations disguised as objective judging, otherwise there would be either no Federal government, or a castrated form of central government.

I also know your ego won't allow you to be educated, but I'll take that as a concession to being educated the fact that you weren't able to show me your use of the federalist papers prior to my mentioning them to you. I do like the red herring attempts though.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 January 2013 - 01:18 PM.

  • 0

#59 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,562 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:22 PM

hai gais, i wuz thikin of pikin up a cupel Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons... you know, cause 2nd amdementment...
  • 0

#60 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:48 PM

hai gais, i wuz thikin of pikin up a cupel Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons... you know, cause 2nd amdementment...


You .. over there!! .. back on yer meds .. NOW!!! .. :shock:
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.