New GOP gun law.

[UtahPete]

I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them. Particularly Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! :bowdown: I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you? :dontknow:

Ah, now I understand. If I had demeaned his expertise in 'the field', that would not only be insulting, it would be ignorant. But, I didn't do that; what I said was that he does not constitute a legal authority (regardless of his expert opinions).

No, I've not met Mr. LaPierre. What does that have to do with anything? Actually, that's an interesting proposition; how about if we required that anyone expressing an opinion of a person or event have first-hand knowledge of them / it? Sure would make for fewer opinions.

 

[Fatcycledaddy]

I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them.
Particularly Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! :bowdown:
I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you? :dontknow:

Bob I think you missed Pete's point.
If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.

By the way, I don't quote Rush, Sean, or Wayne ever so it wasn't an insult to me when he said that, if he thinks I sound like them I will take it as a compliment.

We have a little gem here in Michigan that you should check out. I had the privilege of meeting some of these people during a construction project for faculty housing. You should check out their free courses on the constitution.

https://online.hillsdale.edu/dashboard/courses

 

[Bob Denman]

I actually did catch that... I was trying to cut him some slack about it.

 

[UtahPete]

Bob I think you missed Pete's point. If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.

Nope, never said that either. I guess it's easier to argue with my imputed statements rather than my actual ones. That's a favorite tactic of our politicians these days, so you're in good company I guess.

 

[UtahPete]

I actually did catch that... I was trying to cut him some slack about it.

:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack: No need to Bob. I can stand up for myself thanks.

 

[UtahPete]

Bob I think you missed Pete's point. If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.

By the way, what 'field' are we talking about here? Constitutional law?

 

[Bob Denman]

:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack: No need to Bob. I can stand up for myself thanks.

Just trying to keep things light and friendly... :thumbup:

I never told you the story of my local Yamaha snowmobile dealership...
I insured the owner's weekend place up on Tug Hill: it was right on the snowmobile trail system! :yes:
He invited us up there to ride with him... :bowdown:
I asked him what his friends would think: I rode Polaris sleds.
He said, "No problem: I'll just tell them that you're ignorant, and don't know any better!"
By the way: the riding was GREAT!

 

[UtahPete]

I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them. I will say that I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh very much: no time for radios...But if he were wrong on this topic: the anti-gunners would have already crucified him. :shocked: I do watch Sean Hannity, and I respect his level of informed opinions. But when it comes to Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! :bowdown: I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you? :dontknow:

Bob, we all tend to 'like' those who help reinforce our opinions. No surprise there. And, that's fine as long as we recognize them as opinions or points of view and don't confuse them with facts. The fact is, the Supreme Court has never ruled on what the authors of the Constitution meant by such terms as 'well-regulated militia' 'the people' or their right to 'keep and bear arms'.

So, unless their 'expertise' is in constitutional law (and that I would feel compelled to dispute), their opinions are irrelevant to the discussion, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bob Denman]

The HELL they didn't! :gaah:
Their ruling in 2008 clearly says that they did. nojoke

 

[UtahPete]

Just trying to keep things light and friendly... :thumbup: I never told you the story of my local Yamaha snowmobile dealership...I insured the owner's weekend place up on Tug Hill: it was right on the snowmobile trail system! :yes: He invited us up there to ride with him... :bowdown: I asked him what his friends would think: I rode Polaris sleds. He said, "No problem: I'll just tell them that you're ignorant, and don't know any better!"

In the interest of keeping it light and friendly, I won't take offense at that!

 

[Bob Denman]

He was talking about me, and my choice of ride... :roflblack:
I would never suggest, that any other meaning needs to be attached to the conversation.

 

[UtahPete]

The HELL they didn't! :gaah: Their ruling in 2008 clearly says that they did. nojoke

No, as explained in the second paragraph, the decision was a narrow one, in which they decided a state did not have the right to deny individuals their right to keep and bear arms. The author made it quite clear that the court has never ruled on an interpretation of the language of the second amendment. :gaah: Thus, the debate continues.

 

[UtahPete]

He was talking about me, and my choice of ride... :roflblack: I would never suggest, that any other meaning needs to be attached to the conversation.

I realize that. But, if I was inclined to be reactionary I could take it a different way (which I don't).

 

[UtahPete]

I guess the last post wins the argument. Hah!

 

[Grandpot]

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Nonetheless: you're still wrong.
Firearms ownership IS an individual right, and insulting conservative speakers and the Executive Vice-President of the NRA is absolutely rude.

Have we said anything about your Gun-Control advocates; that would be considered to be an insult? :dontknow:

the first amendment is a constitutional right whether you like it or not, agree with it or not. now i agree the insults
should not be at a speaking engagement but unfortunately it might just be legal.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

No, as explained in the second paragraph, the decision was a narrow one, in which they decided a state did not have the right to deny individuals their right to keep and bear arms. The author made it quite clear that the court has never ruled on an interpretation of the language of the second amendment. :gaah: Thus, the debate continues.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you! I just read the entire majority opinion of the 2008 SC ruling cited above, and that is exactly what it does. The militia is a subset of the population, specifically back in the founding day, men who could carry weapons. The SC opinion states that the right to bear arms is not limited to the organized militia, but that the militia is made up from all citizen men. What the SC opinion also says is the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal Government specifically. States are free to pass laws controlling the bearing of arms. They are not free to prohibit carrying arms, nor to restrict their readiness within the owner's home, i.e., trigger locks cannot be required to be installed when the gun is in a home. They kind of tiptoed around what kinds of guns can be restricted or outlawed, but it is clear that the ownership of ordinary type guns used for hunting and self defense cannot be prohibited. They left in place the law outlawing machine guns that was established in the '30s. Licensing requirements and restrictions, by the states, on mentally ill and felons was left in place. In other words, 'all citizens' is not an absolute 100% inclusive phrase. Concealed carry laws are left in place.

Read the entire SC opinion. It's good bedtime reading, i.e., it'll put you to sleep.

Don't take my comment above as endorsing all the arguments of the pro gun groups. I don't, and I don't agree totally with the SC opinion, but it is what it is.

 

[UtahPete]

The militia is a subset of the population, specifically back in the founding day, men who could carry weapons. The SC opinion states that the right to bear arms is not limited to the organized militia, but that the militia is made up from all citizen men. What the SC opinion also says is the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal Government specifically. States are free to pass laws controlling the bearing of arms. They are not free to prohibit carrying arms, nor to restrict their readiness within the owner's home, i.e., trigger locks cannot be required to be installed when the gun is in a home. They kind of tiptoed around what kinds of guns can be restricted or outlawed, but it is clear that the ownership of ordinary type guns used for hunting and self defense cannot be prohibited. They left in place the law outlawing machine guns that was established in the '30s. Licensing requirements and restrictions, by the states, on mentally ill and felons was left in place. In other words, 'all citizens' is not an absolute 100% inclusive phrase. Concealed carry laws are left in place.

That's good to know, thanks. I was just going with what the author of the citation seemed to be saying, but I should have read further, as you did.

 

[Bob Denman]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you! I just read the entire majority opinion of the 2008 SC ruling cited above, and that is exactly what it does. The militia is a subset of the population, specifically back in the founding day, men who could carry weapons. The SC opinion states that the right to bear arms is not limited to the organized militia, but that the militia is made up from all citizen men. What the SC opinion also says is the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal Government specifically. States are free to pass laws controlling the bearing of arms. They are not free to prohibit carrying arms, nor to restrict their readiness within the owner's home, i.e., trigger locks cannot be required to be installed when the gun is in a home. They kind of tiptoed around what kinds of guns can be restricted or outlawed, but it is clear that the ownership of ordinary type guns used for hunting and self defense cannot be prohibited. They left in place the law outlawing machine guns that was established in the '30s. Licensing requirements and restrictions, by the states, on mentally ill and felons was left in place. In other words, 'all citizens' is not an absolute 100% inclusive phrase. Concealed carry laws are left in place.

Read the entire SC opinion. It's good bedtime reading, i.e., it'll put you to sleep.

Don't take my comment above as endorsing all the arguments of the pro gun groups. I don't, and I don't agree totally with the SC opinion, but it is what it is.

Have we reached the:



moment yet?? :roflblack:

 

[UtahPete]

Have we reached the:

View attachment 154892

moment yet?? :roflblack:

I don't know. Did the fat lady sing?