Gun Control & RKBA

SQUEE

(1,320 posts)

4. look more bigotry.

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:28 AM

Mar 2014

He dont believe like me, he is crazy.
lock him up? or should we re-educate him?

I think you really need to rethink your premise that force of arms is the deciding factor, your ridiculous psuedomeme of Appomattox is quite telling in how you want this country to run though.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

1st Amendment protects speech involving 2nd Amendment [View all] Token Republican Mar 2014 OP

Let's hope the nice man doesn't become a not upaloopa Mar 2014 #1

... Boom Sound 416 Mar 2014 #3

Did you pull in a mudfish or an old shoe? One-A was violated... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #7

I read quickly through that opinion, and couldn't see where the gun nut was quoted directly. Loudly Mar 2014 #2

look more bigotry. SQUEE Mar 2014 #4

In the flesh... beevul Mar 2014 #35

Reading is fundamental Token Republican Mar 2014 #5

The ruling didn't strike down the clear and present danger provision in the FOID law. Loudly Mar 2014 #6

which there wasn't any evidence of that gejohnston Mar 2014 #8

Laws against the possession of child pornography are a limit on speech. Loudly Mar 2014 #10

that's not really speech gejohnston Mar 2014 #11

The jurisprudence describes it as unprotected speech. Loudly Mar 2014 #12

show me the case law gejohnston Mar 2014 #13

The leading case is also useful to argue potential harm from mere possession of guns and ammunition. Loudly Mar 2014 #28

But that's not what happened Token Republican Mar 2014 #15

They apparently skipped due process on grounds of exigent threat to public safety. Loudly Mar 2014 #19

Who's definition of exigent threat to public safety? uncommonlink Mar 2014 #20

here, let me help you out SQUEE Mar 2014 #21

There was no exigent circumstances, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #22

Free speech is not a pretend right Token Republican Mar 2014 #25

There can be no such thing as a "right" of access to the means of Loudly Mar 2014 #26

Sorry. SQUEE Mar 2014 #27

Loudly-getting it wrong as usual. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #29

58 years from Plessy to Brown v. Board of Ed. Loudly Mar 2014 #31

200+ years of the 2A trumps your Dred Scott and Plessy to Brown v. Board of Ed. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #33

Kicking and screaming huh... beevul Mar 2014 #36

o.O Token Republican Mar 2014 #30

Its Constitutional purpose, now moot, was armed rebellion against the government. Loudly Mar 2014 #32

Yes, I agree you are 100% right Token Republican Mar 2014 #34

"Settled to the contrary for all time at Appomattox Courthouse Virginia in 1865." Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #37

Your reasoning seems circular to me. Or at best an excercise in perpetuating a faulty premise. Loudly Mar 2014 #38

"You want to argue the 2A in terms of its being successfully or unsuccessfully exercised" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #39

You will never initiate armed rebellion against the government. Loudly Mar 2014 #40

Mayhap with a faithful guarding of the 2A the need will never arise. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #41

In an earlier thread, I pointed out that only (roughly) 1 in 4000 rounds of ammunition are used for Jgarrick Mar 2014 #42

Fishing eh? beevul Apr 2014 #43

Correct me if I am wrong but those laws still require evidence. clffrdjk Mar 2014 #14

The opinion does not quote the gun nut directly, so how do you know? Loudly Mar 2014 #17

Either the cops wouldn't tell the judge what he said, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #18

I do believe you've got it! Token Republican Mar 2014 #23

Correct Token Republican Mar 2014 #24

This malarky again, huh? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #9

Shh Token Republican Mar 2014 #16