Liberal Forum

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 10:57 am

He will probably focus on you now because not only did I smash to pieces his argument I destroyed his arguments about Heller.

Dig deeper......

 

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 10:40 am

That’s the relevance.  That is not what heller did. No new right was created by heller.  It separated the military from the right bear arms.

Because, you see......there's "The Military" and then there's "The Right to Bear Arms".....and ne'er the twain shall meet....Kumbaya!

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:03 am

That's proof you can't REACH Level 1.

Coming from the idiot that can't comprehend the difference between answering notifications vs stalking through member's profiles for hours on in. 


 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:07 am

This is so brutal in its honesty and thorough in its evisceration of the absolute sham at the heart of Bruen, and Heller, that I'm gonna have make the Hysterians eat the whole thing...

Hawaii Rightly Rejects Supreme Court’s Gun Nonsense 

In a scathing takedown, the state's highest court declared “there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

HIT IT TOM!

https://youtu.be/iYuldgIOelY?si=wpZ3MP6iCVkJwq6_

One small problem with a state prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in public;

Article VI, Paragraph 2

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The above is commonly referred to as The Supremacy Clause...no state law can contradict the US Constitution.  So...

Amendment II

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.

The above stops states from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:01 am

You need to learn to read.

Heller had nothing to do with the "military"....SCOTUS can't "separate" the Military from anything.

Scalia created an individual constitutional right to "bear" irrespective of the MILITIA language in the 2nd Amendment.....on entirely specious historical AND grammatical grounds.

You should have led with that:

Now you see what is going on.  

And Heller did not give us the right to carry without regulation by a state.  Nod.  No new right was created.

Your words:

R.Suave » Today, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 9:59 am
Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.

That is a lie based on your ignorance. 




 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:07 am

Because, you see......there's "The Military" and then there's "The Right to Bear Arms".....and ne'er the twain shall meet....Kumbaya!

 

I said military instead of militia.  Big deal.  You were wrong.  

Heller did not do this:

R.Suave » Today, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 9:59 am
Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.

Acknowledge. 

ConsRule » 15 Feb 2024, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:09 am

One small problem with a state prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in public;

Article VI, Paragraph 2

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The above is commonly referred to as The Supremacy Clause...no state law can contradict the US Constitution.  So...

Amendment II

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.

The above stops states from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Just run away mad now.....'k

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:07 am

Because, you see......there's "The Military" and then there's "The Right to Bear Arms".....and ne'er the twain shall meet....Kumbaya!

 

Last I checked, the National Guard is part of the MILITARY:

“the Second Amendment does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized Militia, such as today's National Guard.”7 

So yes, they seperated the military provision, which is a militia.

Same link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %E2%80%9D7

It's over.  

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:10 am

I said military instead of militia.  Big deal.  You were wrong.  

Heller did not do this:

R.Suave » Today, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 9:59 am
Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.

Acknowledge.

You said something stupid, and doubled up on it.

YOU are wrong.......again......you CLEARLY don't understand the consequences of Heller.

You don't even understand the language of the amendment.

But you declare "victory"...

You're a mess.....

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:11 am

Just run away mad now.....'k

No need.  If the idiots in HI do something else stupid, they will just get bitch slapped by SCOTUS (if it even takes that long).
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:13 am

Last I checked, the National Guard is part of the MILITARY:

“the Second Amendment does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized Militia, such as today's National Guard.”7 

So yes, they seperated the military provision, which is a militia.

Same link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %E2%80%9D7

It's over.

I said military instead of militia.  Big deal.

Taking it out for a second spin?

ConsRule » 15 Feb 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:14 am

No need.  If the idiots in HI do something else stupid, they will just get bitch slapped by SCOTUS (if it even takes that long).

Why are you wasting my time, hysterical coward?

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:09 am

You should have led with that:

Now you see what is going on.  

And Heller did not give us the right to carry without regulation by a state.  Nod.  No new right was created.

Your words:

R.Suave » Today, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 9:59 am
Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.

That is a lie based on your ignorance.

**** unreal.

 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:14 am

You said something stupid, and doubled up on it.

YOU are wrong.......again......you CLEARLY don't understand the consequences of Heller.

You don't even understand the language of the amendment.

But you declare "victory"...

You're a mess.....

 

I didn't say anything stupid.

1.  I showed you Heller did not create an individual right to carry.  Remember your words.  Which I have reposted at least twice.

2.  I showed Heller allows own a gun seperate from the Militia/Military clause.

Now, you want to talk about saying stupid things?  

There are no consequences of Heller.  If Heller allowed you to carry without a state regulating it (the topic of the thread) there would have been no case from NY.  Because Heller allowed that they would not have had to apply for a permit.  

Use some common sense.  
 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:20 am

**** unreal.

 

 

I have proven you wrong.  SHow where heller Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.  All Bruen did was tell NY a person did not have to show a special need to carry.  I already posted that.

You should have led with that:

Now you see what is going on.  

And Heller did not give us the right to carry without regulation by a state.  Nod.  No new right was created.

Your words:

R.Suave » Today, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 9:59 am
Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.

That is a lie based on your ignorance.

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:13 am

Last I checked, the National Guard is part of the MILITARY:

“the Second Amendment does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized Militia, such as today's National Guard.”7 

So yes, they seperated the military provision, which is a militia.

Same link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %E2%80%9D7

It's over.

The spin is dizzying...

Words, meaning.....they're like a kaleidoscope..

In 2003, six D.C. residents challenged these measures as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, arguing that the Constitution provides an individual right to keep and bear arms.5


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... o-firearms

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:23 am

I didn't say anything stupid.

1.  I showed you Heller did not create an individual right to carry.  Remember your words.  Which I have reposted at least twice.

2.  I showed Heller allows own a gun seperate from the Militia/Military clause.

Now, you want to talk about saying stupid things?  

There are no consequences of Heller.  If Heller allowed you to carry without a state regulating it (the topic of the thread) there would have been no case from NY.  Because Heller allowed that they would not have had to apply for a permit.  

Use some common sense.

Please stop.


 

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:25 am

I have proven you wrong.  SHow where heller Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.  All Bruen did was tell NY a person did not have to show a special need to carry.  I already posted that.

You should have led with that:

Now you see what is going on.  

And Heller did not give us the right to carry without regulation by a state.  Nod.  No new right was created.

Your words:

R.Suave » Today, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 9:59 am
Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.

That is a lie based on your ignorance.

Only in the universe where words may, or may not, mean what they say.

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 11:26 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:26 am

Please stop.


 

 

No, idiot.  Heller did not do what you claim.

And here is what Breun did:

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ). An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257. Petitioners Brandon Koch and


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf

It removed the requirement to demonstrate a special need for self protection.

 

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 11:28 am

No, idiot.  Heller did not do what you claim.

And here is what Breun did:

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ). An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257. Petitioners Brandon Koch and

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf

It removed the requirement to demonstrate a special need for self protection.

Would you please melt down out of earshot?

Much obliged..