Florida State Seminoles

[hedge]

"And when a family objected , eventually they sent multiple armed representatives to them in order to force them to stop , meaning they were willing to shoot this man over cattle grazing."

Well, they're not only willing but obviously eager to shoot people for using drugs, but nobody seems to have a problem with that. And of course when the drug dealers/users shoot back, they're condemned even more. Certainly the sentences for even having a firearm, much less using it, while also being in possession of drugs are far greater than not being in possession of a gun. Would you say that's in "infringement" on 2A? Somehow I kinda doubt it...

[eCat]

yes, and I've said that in the past. Its wrong to penalize someone more harshly for having a gun in their possession because they broke a law unrelated to abuse of a gun. I bet if you searched thru the archives here you could find where I've said it. That was the Reagan era just say no and mandatory sentencing for drug crimes bullshit.

Now I do believe that if they were convicted of a crime related to drugs, they aren't allowed to own a gun as a felon. You probably don't agree with that because drug shouldn't be tied to gun ownership rights, but I'd feel the same about a rapist, thief or even fraud. Its a judgement issue on the person.

[eCat]

the reality is a background check isn't going to stop a person who wants to sell a gun to a person who shouldn't own one. We have laws now.

if you've ever gone to a gun show you'd see that gun sellers are so paranoid about being setup by the BATF that no one is selling guns to anyone that appears sketchy or doesn't have proper documentation. Matter of fact guns shows are crap now full of knives, deer jerky, flags and camo clothing sales.

Ghost guns are an issue, but if the this guy has time to stake out gun shows, then he has time to track known felons selling guns and arrest them, and they have time to create laws that say known felons can't purchase ghost guns. I wish ghost guns didn't exist, but they do exist for a reason and its not to cater to the felon demand for unregistered guns. Its because there is a huge level of distrust in the gun consumer world regarding government confiscation of guns and them closing the "loophole" for gun show sales.

[hedge]

I like deer jerky...

[DooKSucks]

Do you think that just b/c cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written that you don't have a Constitutional right to drive a car?

that's the basic argument isn't it? we register for drivers license, car license before we can drive a car, so why not guns?

but yea, its not a constitutional guarantee - and the basic difference is the forefathers weren't concerned about whether you were guaranteed to ride a horse and buggy, car or whatever - they didn't see the regulation or obstacles created by that as a threat to independence, self defense or tyranny.

You guys see background checks as a very basic no duh, we should do this kind of thing, but its the definition of infringement. The government, the whole reason the 2A was basically created to prevent abuse from, is deciding who can and cannot have a gun. And they have made it very clear they aren't willing to stop with felons. They have already pushed and continue to push for red flag laws that allows a persons rights to be taken away prior to due process if they consider them a threat.

I bet some of you would be in favor of taking guns away from anyone associated with a group you don't agree with - Proud boys or Antifa, or even people that go to Parlor and talk about secession of their state.

That's the threat here. The whole reason the forefathers wanted an armed citizenry was the ability to band them together to form an adhoc militia - they didn't even want a standing army, so the argument about - how can a guy with a hunting rifle stop our military is really moot. The forefathers felt the guy with the hunting rifle *was* our military and the fact he was armed to the teeth was going to prevent tyranny from rising against the citizenry.

Take the Clive Bundy example. This was a family who generationally had been grazing their cattle on these lands for decades, the government Bureau of Land Management steps and says this land is protected for whatever reason and you have to stop. As I recall they wiped out multiple ranchers over the years and the Bundy's were one of the last to continue. Now whether you agree with Bundy or not, his fight brought to light that the federal government owned something like 80% of all public lands in that area and was arbitrarily changing its use laws based on the political landscape in Washington. And when a family objected , eventually they sent multiple armed representatives to them in order to force them to stop , meaning they were willing to shoot this man over cattle grazing. What they didn't expect to see was multiple armed resistors willing to shoot them back. Ultimately he lost and went to jail, and when you get into the details of it, he probably deserved going to jail for some of the decisions he made, but he didn't deserve to be shot for grazing cattle, and when an armed citizenry stood up and showed the government they were willing to shoot back, suddenly the idea of shooting a man over grazing cattle wasn't so important to our government. They faced an ad-hoc militia that prevented them from harming a citizen when they were overstepping their boundaries.

I don't like the idea of a felon intending to use a ghost gun to harm citizens as much as the next person, but every solution that comes out of the mouths of politicians isn't about stopping the crime its about stopping the law abiding citizen to having access. Focus on the people that are causing harm and quit focusing on removing rights of people that are doing nothing wrong. Its a basic concept that is just lost on people because its the easiest solution, not the right one.

You are wrong. The ability to travel freely is a right protected by the Constitution. The ability to come and go as one pleases falls under the penumbra of liberty as set forth in the constitution. However, the ability to exercise ones rights can be regulated.

I am not trying to demean you when I say this, but part of the political problem we have is that we have leaders who are either ignorant -- or willfully leading the ignorant -- of 230 years of constitutional jurisprudence from the SCOTUS. Even those who often held/hold narrow views of the constitution's coverage -- notably originalists / textualists like Scalia -- rely on jurisprudence and historical reference.

Also, your statements regarding a standing army and an ad hoc militia are catchy lines used by the far right, but there is a lot of historical information showing those statements / claims to be far from the blanket truths your brethren claim.

Some -- notably the anit-federalist factions -- opposed having a standing army, whereas the Federalists generally supported having a standing army. See Federalist 24 (Alexander Hamilton defending standing armed forces): https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed24.asp

Many notable historical scholars state that the second amendment was not about the right to bear arms but jurisdictional control over militias. Here are two brief pieces by the late Don Higginbotham (a preeminent scholar on the American Revolution, the early days of the nation and George Washington):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2674322?re ... b_contents (you need to register with your gmail account but it is free)

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/vie ... xt=concomm

[DooKSucks]

Do you think that just b/c cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written that you don't have a Constitutional right to drive a car?

that's the basic argument isn't it? we register for drivers license, car license before we can drive a car, so why not guns?

but yea, its not a constitutional guarantee - and the basic difference is the forefathers weren't concerned about whether you were guaranteed to ride a horse and buggy, car or whatever - they didn't see the regulation or obstacles created by that as a threat to independence, self defense or tyranny.

You guys see background checks as a very basic no duh, we should do this kind of thing, but its the definition of infringement. The government, the whole reason the 2A was basically created to prevent abuse from, is deciding who can and cannot have a gun. And they have made it very clear they aren't willing to stop with felons. They have already pushed and continue to push for red flag laws that allows a persons rights to be taken away prior to due process if they consider them a threat.

I bet some of you would be in favor of taking guns away from anyone associated with a group you don't agree with - Proud boys or Antifa, or even people that go to Parlor and talk about secession of their state.

That's the threat here. The whole reason the forefathers wanted an armed citizenry was the ability to band them together to form an adhoc militia - they didn't even want a standing army, so the argument about - how can a guy with a hunting rifle stop our military is really moot. The forefathers felt the guy with the hunting rifle *was* our military and the fact he was armed to the teeth was going to prevent tyranny from rising against the citizenry.

Take the Clive Bundy example. This was a family who generationally had been grazing their cattle on these lands for decades, the government Bureau of Land Management steps and says this land is protected for whatever reason and you have to stop. As I recall they wiped out multiple ranchers over the years and the Bundy's were one of the last to continue. Now whether you agree with Bundy or not, his fight brought to light that the federal government owned something like 80% of all public lands in that area and was arbitrarily changing its use laws based on the political landscape in Washington. And when a family objected , eventually they sent multiple armed representatives to them in order to force them to stop , meaning they were willing to shoot this man over cattle grazing. What they didn't expect to see was multiple armed resistors willing to shoot them back. Ultimately he lost and went to jail, and when you get into the details of it, he probably deserved going to jail for some of the decisions he made, but he didn't deserve to be shot for grazing cattle, and when an armed citizenry stood up and showed the government they were willing to shoot back, suddenly the idea of shooting a man over grazing cattle wasn't so important to our government. They faced an ad-hoc militia that prevented them from harming a citizen when they were overstepping their boundaries.

I don't like the idea of a felon intending to use a ghost gun to harm citizens as much as the next person, but every solution that comes out of the mouths of politicians isn't about stopping the crime its about stopping the law abiding citizen to having access. Focus on the people that are causing harm and quit focusing on removing rights of people that are doing nothing wrong. Its a basic concept that is just lost on people because its the easiest solution, not the right one.

You are wrong. The ability to travel freely is a right protected by the Constitution. The ability to come and go as one pleases falls under the penumbra of liberty as set forth in the constitution. However, the ability to exercise ones rights can be regulated within certain parameters.

I am not trying to demean you when I say this, but part of the political problem we have is that we have leaders who are either ignorant -- or willfully leading the ignorant -- of (1) 230 years of constitutional jurisprudence from the SCOTUS and (2) actual history. Even those who often held/hold strict views of the constitution's breadth and government's permitted actions -- notably originalists / textualists like Scalia -- rely on jurisprudence and historical reference.

Also, your statements regarding a standing army and an ad hoc militia are catchy lines used by the far right, but there is a lot of historical information showing those statements / claims to be far from the blanket truths your brethren claim.

Some -- notably the anit-federalist factions -- opposed having a standing army, but the Federalists generally supported having / having the ability to have a standing army. See Federalist 24 (Alexander Hamilton defending standing armed forces): https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed24.asp

Many notable historical scholars state that the second amendment was not about the right to bear arms but jurisdictional control over militias. Here are two brief pieces by the late Don Higginbotham (a preeminent scholar on the American Revolution, the early days of the nation and George Washington):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2674322?re ... b_contents (you need to register with your gmail account but it is free)

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/vie ... xt=concomm

[eCat]

the ability to raise and temporarily fund a standing army, yes,

comprised of the citizen solider, not a professional soldier.

I've been down the road of notable scholars and militias. At its essence is arguing against the idea of the citizen soldier and his ability to bear arms. That weapons should be kept in storage to be distributed during time of need to form the militias The supreme court, not liberal notable scholars disagrees. Does anyone truly believe that our founding fathers, coming fresh off a guerilla war with an invading army believed that citizens of this nation didn't have a right to own guns for self defense? This is also during an era where Spanish, French and native Americans posed a threat to the daily security and sovereignty of this fledgling nation. I think it beyond comprehension to believe that they did not consider owning a gun, not just a right but a necessity as much as a rake or a hoe.


The real bullshit arguments are those that equate the 2A to hunting and argue that a person has no need beyond a deer rifle.

also, quit with the far right bullshit. The far right as you call it is hard core pro military, pro military spending. they want not just a standing army but an army without question that is the most powerful in the world. get your head out of your ass college boy.

[Jungle Rat]

Looks like fat boy struck a nerve

[BigRedMan]

I don't need a piece of paper telling me I have the right to bear arms to protect myself and family.

[Jungle Rat]

Just stand in front of them

[GBJs]

see if you can pick out what is wrong with this story ....

No background check?? I’m a believer in our 2A right, but a background check should be accomplished. Not too many new gun laws are needed, many of the ones on the books aren’t enforced. Close the loophole and enforce a background check for kits also.

doesn't sound like you are.

why do I need a background check to be approved to own something that the constitution says shall not be infringed?

how about focusing on felons buying gun kits instead of making blanket laws that make it harder on law abiding citizens to own or sell them?

Perhaps I should have said “limited”??? I don’t consider a background check having involvement with a psychologist. A convicted felon though? We already have gun laws that aren’t being enforced. I don’t need more, and I don’t trust Joe / HoHo’s admin to create fair or common sense gun laws.

[eCat]

sounds like someone knows they've stepped in and doesn't want the public to know whats going on
---------------------------------

The Biden administration is restricting the information Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs can share with the media as a surge of migrants tests the agency's capacity at the southern border, two current and two former Customs and Border Protection officials told NBC News.

The officials say the restrictions are seen as an unofficial "gag order" and are often referred to that way among colleagues. The officials requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media about the topic.

Border Patrol officials have been told to deny all media requests for "ride-alongs" with agents along the southern border; local press officers are instructed to send all information queries, even from local media, to the press office in Washington for approval; and those responsible for cultivating data about the number of migrants in custody have been reminded not to share the information with anyone to prevent leaks, the officials said.

-----------------------------------

certainly there was no shortage of people speaking their mind with the last administration. Doesn't look like this one cares for any dissent.

[10ac]

Transparency!

[GBJs]

Or lack of...

[sardis]

Even liberal 60 minutes think the Chinese and WHO are full of shit.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-w ... 021-03-28/

[hedge]

"Even liberal 60 minutes think the Chinese and WHO are full of shit."

0:36 mark:

[BigRedMan]

The virus was released by the Chinese gubment to get rid of the protesters in Hong Kong. It was gaining worldwide attention and support and what better way to get people off the streets and scared then with a pandemic.

Say what you want, tell me to take off the tinfoil hat, but do you really think that is not plausible cause you hear NOTHING about the protests now.

Oh and where are the Muslim people fighting back over what is happening in India, China, and Myanmar. Don't you think that the Bin Laden's of the world would have something to say or do about it???

[Jungle Rat]

You're weird

[eCat]

I have no idea whether the virus was created in a lab.

There are very credible sources within our government that say it has

The problem is our government will lie to us in order to protect their interests - not our interest, their interest, so you can't trust anything coming from them.

Then throw in countries out there flooding the internet with bad information and networks like MSNBC, CNN and FOX that just fill the airwaves with unsolicited editorials about whatever agenda they have.

I personally believe the best approach is to not trust any government or media entity and create regulations/laws that limit both of them heavily.

[hedge]

So you trust the government to create regulations/laws to limit themselves? Good luck with that. Anyway, republican state legislatures are too busy creating regulations and law to limit voting (and making it illegal to pass out food and water to voters who have to stand in line for hours) to be worried about laws to limit their own power...