Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 1:11 pm

You mean "my thoughts"?

You KNOW you one dumb sawn off ****, don't you...

Yeah....like "cheese." 1/1000s         

Such an impressive stat. Please help me pick my jaw off the floor. 

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!

You seem to think that the Military and Militia are referring to 2 different things.

Heller said that MILITIA was NOT A REQUIREMENT to keep and bear arms. Sucks for you and your FAILED ARGUMENT!!

And the CONSTITUTION kicks Hawaii's **** into the scum pond. PERIOD!!

 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 12:55 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 12:55 pm

Because the debate in Heller was whether the 2nd Amendment referred to an individual or collective right.

Heller, in spite of the plain language, conferred a Constitutionally protected INDIVIDUAL right to "bear arms".

That's the new right.

Never presume you know better than a state's highest court...

That is your pivot. 

This was your argument:

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.

Neither did that.

I didn't presume to know better than a state's highest court.  I presumed to know more than you on this topic.  Which I showed.  You can spin, line out, huff and puff all you want.  Until you accept your words are wrong I will keep posting them. 

 

Vegas » 15 Feb 2024, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 1:19 pm

Yeah....like "cheese." 1/1000s         

Such an impressive stat. Please help me pick my jaw off the floor.

That would make 2/1,000...

Now we must adjust for the times

A) You fail to read the words

B) You fail to understand what the words in front of your face mean

C) Your abysmal Level 0 ignorance precludes you from understanding the nuanced brilliance of my allusions.

D) You can't see the words for the tears in your eyes.


2/1


Debunked.

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 1:55 pm

That is your pivot. 

This was your argument:

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.

Neither did that.

I didn't presume to know better than a state's highest court.  I presumed to know more than you on this topic.  Which I showed.  You can spin, line out, huff and puff all you want.  Until you accept your words are wrong I will keep posting them.

Heller "established" an individual right to carry..


Nothing about "concealed" or "open"...

About the "individual right to carry".

Wherever you're going, you're going alone.

But remember the ******* with which you began.

Beekeeper » 15 Feb 2024, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 1:50 pm

You seem to think that the Military and Militia are referring to 2 different things.

Heller said that MILITIA was NOT A REQUIREMENT to keep and bear arms. Sucks for you and your FAILED ARGUMENT!!

And the CONSTITUTION kicks Hawaii's **** into the scum pond. PERIOD!!

No...I think you're an idiot.

Explain it to @Huey  ....he's the one confused about it.
 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 1:56 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 1:56 pm

That would make 2/1,000...

Now we must adjust for the times

A) You fail to read the words

B) You fail to understand what the words in front of your face mean

C) Your abysmal Level 0 ignorance precludes you from understanding the nuanced brilliance of my allusions.

D) You can't see the words for the tears in your eyes.

2/1

Debunked.

2/1000s...please tell me that you aren't bragging about that stat.     

A) Already debunked your pic. You admitted to lying about it, per the deal. 
B) See above
C) Projecting. You don't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend level 2+
D). You just repeated B. You love repeating **** over and over, so I can't say I am surprised.

I have debunked both pics, and exposed every lie of yours. 

Watch this:
1. Strikethoughs
2. More lies
3. Pics that I debunked 1000 times already.

Let's watch @R. Suave  prove my point. He will post at least one of my predictions.   

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 2:01 pm

Heller "established" an individual right to carry..

Nothing about "concealed" or "open"...

About the "individual right to carry".

Wherever you're going, you're going alone.

But remember the ******* with which you began.

I didn't distinguish between open and concealed.

If Heller established an individual right to carry explain why in DC I need a permit to conceal carry and I am not allowed to open carry.  

IV. Carrying FirearmsIn general, you must be licensed to carry a firearm in the District concealed, while open carry is prohibited. However, there are exceptions for legally registered firearms.
https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/general-requir ... 20purposes.

You statement is incorrect.  
 
 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm

No...I think you're an idiot.

Explain it to @Huey  ....he's the one confused about it.
 

 

I am not confused at all.  I am the one providing a rational, citation backed argument. 

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.

This is a correct statement:

Both ideas there are incorrect.  IF that was true you could open carry in any state you wanted.  Heller said you could own one independent of the militia clause, and Bruen said NY can't ask you to provide a special need for protection.  Nothing else changed in the NYC permit application. 


 

Beekeeper » 15 Feb 2024, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 1:50 pm

You seem to think that the Military and Militia are referring to 2 different things.

Heller said that MILITIA was NOT A REQUIREMENT to keep and bear arms. Sucks for you and your FAILED ARGUMENT!!

And the CONSTITUTION kicks Hawaii's **** into the scum pond. PERIOD!!

 

 

His problem is he never admits he is wrong.  So what he does is keep the conversation going and he will introduce different points to reframe trying to get you to make a mistake so he can focus on that and change the topic.

The key is to continue reposting your facts and avoid getting in a question war with him.  
 

Vegas » 15 Feb 2024, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 2:08 pm

2/1000s...please tell me that you aren't bragging about that stat.     

A) Already debunked your pic. You admitted to lying about it, per the deal. 
B) See above
C) Projecting. You don't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend level 2+
D). You just repeated B. You love repeating **** over and over, so I can't say I am surprised.

I have debunked both pics, and exposed every lie of yours. 

Watch this:
1. Strikethoughs
2. More lies
3. Pics that I debunked 1000 times already.

A) not only do you not read your words, now you insist you debunk them.
B) the only way to debunk the fact that you're a moron is to demonstrate you aren't a moron.
C) See above
D) see B
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 2:29 pm

I am not confused at all.  I am the one providing a rational, citation backed argument. 

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.

This is a correct statement:

Both ideas there are incorrect.  IF that was true you could open carry in any state you wanted.  Heller said you could own one independent of the militia clause, and Bruen said NY can't ask you to provide a special need for protection.  Nothing else changed in the NYC permit application.

This "rational, citation backed argument"?

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.

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 2:40 pm

A) not only do you not read your words, now you insist you debunk them.
B) the only way to debunk the fact that you're a moron is to demonstrate you aren't a moron.
C) See above
D) see B

Enough of your lies and excuses. You pics have been debunked. Your lies have been exposed.

Now go away.

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 2:47 pm

This "rational, citation backed argument"?

Yes, the citation I used, used the National Guard as the modern day Militia.  Last I checked, the National Guard is part of the military.

Carry on.  

Your comments are incorrect.  As I said, if your comment was correct, I would be able to carry in DC.  But I can't because I need a permit.  

More facts:

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

And:

2. 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. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

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

As you can see it DOES NOT create a right to carry as you claim here:

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.

When you admit you are wrong let me know.

 
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 3:03 pm

More facts:

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

And:

2. 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. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

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

As you can see it DOES NOT create a right to carry as you claim here:

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.

When you admit you are wrong let me know.

@R. Suave  

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 12:55 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 12:55 pm

Because the debate in Heller was whether the 2nd Amendment referred to an individual or collective right.

Heller, in spite of the plain language, conferred a Constitutionally protected INDIVIDUAL right to "bear arms".

That's the new right.

Never presume you know better than a state's highest court...

You're clearly too dumb to understand what it is that the US Supreme Court does, which is not surprising considering you get your *** kicked here virtually every day when you post your usual stupidity.

NO ONE PERSON on the US Supreme Court NOR THE ENTIRE COURT can create a "new right" as you claim.
The US Supreme Court INTERPRETS THE MEANING OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, and dickheads like you can't stand the fact that a state CANNOT take away the rights given us by the US Constitution!  You and every other ignorant liberal instead want to mold the Constitution into something that lessens it's authority so that any portion of it can be revoked or minimized by those liberal Democrat politicians you love so!

And it ain't gonna happen, so get used to it!
 

Zeets2 » 15 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm

You're clearly too dumb to understand what it is that the US Supreme Court does, which is not surprising considering you get your *** kicked here virtually every day when you post your usual stupidity.

NO ONE PERSON on the US Supreme Court NOR THE ENTIRE COURT can create a "new right" as you claim.
The US Supreme Court INTERPRETS THE MEANING OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, and dickheads like you can't stand the fact that a state CANNOT take away the rights given us by the US Constitution!  You and every other ignorant liberal instead want to mold the Constitution into something that lessens it's authority so that any portion of it can be revoked or minimized by those liberal Democrat politicians you love so!

And it ain't gonna happen, so get used to it!

I have told him many times that he does not need to delve into these type of topics.  He has been so good avoiding Firearms/2nd Amendment issues but today he just couldn't help himself.

 

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 3:04 pm

@R. Suave

More words seeking a point...