Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )  (Read 888524 times)


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Rhode v. Bonta Quote
« Reply #2501 on: February 06, 2024, 04:56:24 AM »
The constitutional contortions embraced by the anti-gun side not only speak for themselves, but demonstrate the willing embrace of tin ears. Citing 18th and 19th century statutes discriminating against blacks and Native Americans to demonstrate early American embrace of “gun control” laws ought to cause the heads of anyone believing in our Constitution to explode but no, it’s all they got so it’s what they use. Damn the irony: full speed ahead.

“What are the 50 historical laws dating from 1789 to 1868 that the Attorney General has compiled as potential historical analogues? One would expect to find laws or ordinances that required a gunsmith to check with the local sheriff before selling a firearm. Or one might expect to find laws that restricted gunsmiths from selling to any customer who was a stranger in his community. Or perhaps there would be historical laws uncovered requiring a customer’s proof of citizenship before a merchant was allowed to sell him gunpowder. These could be apt analogues to demonstrate a related historical tradition of constitutional regulation.

Nothing like this appears in the State’s compilation of laws. The State’s compilation lists 48 laws which made it a crime to possess a gun and ammunition by Negros, Mulattos, slaves, or persons of color, and two laws that prohibited sales to Indians. For example, the Attorney General lists a 1798 Kentucky law which prohibited any “Negro, mulatto, or Indian” from possessing any gun or ammunition. An 1846 North Carolina law offers another example wherein it was prohibited to sell or deliver firearms to “any slave.” This is the third time the Attorney General has cited these laws in support for its laws and restrictions implicating the Second Amendment. These fifty laws identified by the Attorney General constitute a long, embarrassing, disgusting, insidious, reprehensible list of examples of government tyranny towards our own people.”

and,

“In the end, the State has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the ammunition background check laws “are consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” as required by Bruen. Bruen cautions, “courts should not ‘uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue,’ because doing so ‘risks endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted.’” 597 U.S. at 30. A sweeping background check requirement imposed every time a citizen needs to buy ammunition is an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted for a citizen. Therefore, California’s ammunition background check system laws are unconstitutional and shall not be enforced.” –  U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez, from his 32-page ruling in Rhode v. Bonta, January 30, 2024

https://survivalblog.com/2024/02/05/editors-quote-day-2370/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Re: Rhode v. Bonta Quote
« Reply #2502 on: February 06, 2024, 06:10:10 AM »
Very interesting post on background of gun regulation.

BEFORE I understand the meaning today of the 2nd amendment, I saw it as a test of process.  IF the gun control people had a valid point, 'it was written for a different time', they needed to take it through the process of amending the amendment, and they didn't (and they won't).  Otherwise they were (are still are) just stomping on the constitution, and weakening the significance of all of it.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is kind of clear.

Even Republicans were selling it as a feature for "sportsmen", apparently meaning hunters.  We had bumper stickers that said 'Sportsmen for Bush', I guess meaning we wanted hunters to jump over to the Republican side (right when we needed suburban women's votes who could care less about hunting.  The northern Minnesota 'Sportsmen' did eventually jump Republican, for other reasons, Democrats were trying to take their jobs and economy away.

Meanwhile now I get the real meaning of it and it is more needed now than ever.  The sum total of the firearms in the hands of the citizens should be greater than those held by the government, just in case...


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Re: Rhode v. Bonta Quote
« Reply #2503 on: February 06, 2024, 08:34:52 AM »
Very interesting post on background of gun regulation.

BEFORE I understand the meaning today of the 2nd amendment, I saw it as a test of process.  IF the gun control people had a valid point, 'it was written for a different time', they needed to take it through the process of amending the amendment, and they didn't (and they won't).  Otherwise they were (are still are) just stomping on the constitution, and weakening the significance of all of it.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is kind of clear.

Even Republicans were selling it as a feature for "sportsmen", apparently meaning hunters.  We had bumper stickers that said 'Sportsmen for Bush', I guess meaning we wanted hunters to jump over to the Republican side (right when we needed suburban women's votes who could care less about hunting.  The northern Minnesota 'Sportsmen' did eventually jump Republican, for other reasons, Democrats were trying to take their jobs and economy away.

Meanwhile now I get the real meaning of it and it is more needed now than ever.  The sum total of the firearms in the hands of the citizens should be greater than those held by the government, just in case...

Well said Doug! You can tell a lot about the quality of an argument by its accuracy, the smoke and mirrors embraced, the falsehoods it purveys. One bit of misdirection, as you note, that constantly annoys involves attempts to associate the 2nd amendment with hunting. “No hunter needs X number of rounds in his gun to kill a deer,” they proclaim, as Doonesberry shows hunters in duck blinds blasting away with ARs (uh, Gary, no one hunts ducks with “modern sporting arms”).

Their omissions speak volumes too, such as their relentless examination of the societal costs of guns (turn on a news program that doesn’t recite the “gun violence” mantra. I’ll wait) but utter omission of benefits such as how much better armed victims fare than unarmed ones. Hell, “armed victim” is a contradiction in terms better described as “victors.” And note how rarely “gun control” advocates debate those well versed in 2nd amendment issues, mostly because it’s easy to make hash of their arguments. Instead they rely on the MSM to carry their water and slosh it around inside of the media echo chamber.

If you have an actual effective argument none of this is needed. And if they were willing to press their goal by means other than deceit they’d start the constitutional amendment lift.

If you ever seek a quick read placing the 2nd amendment in historical context, one written by a constitutional scholar, i can’t recommend this highly enough:

https://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed-Constitutional/dp/0826307647/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1EMTEB724RI2R&keywords=that+every+man+be+armed&qid=1707235929&sprefix=That+every%2Caps%2C107&sr=8-3

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Partial correction of Bill Maher
« Reply #2505 on: Today at 12:11:40 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bill-maher-gets-basic-gun-fact-wrong-after-kansas-city-shooting/ar-BB1iCpdE?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=9757712b3131410d911999673d41f502&ei=17

Clarification : all "licensed" dealers in the US require background checks.
Not clear what it means to buy gun from someone not licensed in MO and why that might be ok.