Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your answer is discrimination (from government)
as to WHO can defend his own life. (Screw "equal protection of the laws" says U.)

Not my answer at all, David. You are usually more observant and intelligent than this.

Have I ever said anything about refusing people the right to protect themselves...or to own a gun? (HINT: Never!)

QUESTION (actually, a few): Do I own a gun, David? If you guess "yes" is it an automatic or a revolver? If you guess "revolver"...what caliber?

Quote:

The USSC has held that government cannot Constitutionally
discriminate even concerning who has to sit WHERE on a bus for a few minutes.

And that has to do with me or my posts how????

Do u favor BACKGROUND CHECKS????

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY...with no doubt whatsoever.

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your answer is discrimination (from government)
as to WHO can defend his own life. (Screw "equal protection of the laws" says U.)

Not my answer at all, David. You are usually more observant and intelligent than this.

Have I ever said anything about refusing people the right to protect themselves...or to own a gun? (HINT: Never!)

QUESTION (actually, a few): Do I own a gun, David? If you guess "yes" is it an automatic or a revolver? If you guess "revolver"...what caliber?

Quote:

The USSC has held that government cannot Constitutionally
discriminate even concerning who has to sit WHERE on a bus for a few minutes.

And that has to do with me or my posts how????

Do u favor BACKGROUND CHECKS????

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY...with no doubt whatsoever.

HOW do u reconcile that with "equal protection of the laws"
in the right to defend their lives??????????? Please advise.

David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your answer is discrimination (from government)
as to WHO can defend his own life. (Screw "equal protection of the laws" says U.)

Not my answer at all, David. You are usually more observant and intelligent than this.

Have I ever said anything about refusing people the right to protect themselves...or to own a gun? (HINT: Never!)

QUESTION (actually, a few): Do I own a gun, David? If you guess "yes" is it an automatic or a revolver? If you guess "revolver"...what caliber?

Quote:

The USSC has held that government cannot Constitutionally
discriminate even concerning who has to sit WHERE on a bus for a few minutes.

And that has to do with me or my posts how????

Do u favor BACKGROUND CHECKS????

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY...with no doubt whatsoever.

HOW do u reconcile that with "equal protection of the laws"
in the right to defend their lives??????????? Please advise.

David

I try reconciling it with reason and sanity first...and if it passes...I do not bother to go on to "equal protection of the laws."

In this case "favoring background checks" stacks up so well
when viewed from the perspective of being reasonable and sane...
why bother with the rest?

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your answer is discrimination (from government)
as to WHO can defend his own life. (Screw "equal protection of the laws" says U.)

Not my answer at all, David. You are usually more observant and intelligent than this.

Have I ever said anything about refusing people the right to protect themselves...or to own a gun? (HINT: Never!)

QUESTION (actually, a few): Do I own a gun, David? If you guess "yes" is it an automatic or a revolver? If you guess "revolver"...what caliber?

Quote:

The USSC has held that government cannot Constitutionally
discriminate even concerning who has to sit WHERE on a bus for a few minutes.

And that has to do with me or my posts how????

Do u favor BACKGROUND CHECKS????

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY...with no doubt whatsoever.

HOW do u reconcile that with "equal protection of the laws"
in the right to defend their lives??????????? Please advise.

David

I try reconciling it with reason and sanity first...and if it passes...I do not bother to go on to "equal protection of the laws."

In this case "favoring background checks" stacks up so well
when viewed from the perspective of being reasonable and sane...
why bother with the rest?

BECAUSE "the rest" negates your original conclusion;
and because "the rest" was the original question ITSELF.
I see in your response; a naked admission, confession of refusal to consider
the requirements of the Supreme Law of the Land.
I accept that as an admission that "equal protection of the laws"
does not countenance licensure, does not countenance discrimination
by government concerning the right to defend your life.

Thank u; u made me feel good. IF u r not a judge in a court of law,
then u can freely so refuse to consider.

A few days ago, someone most passionately posted a thread of his abhorrence of racism.
( I dunno if u saw his thread. ) That was the big thing in his life;
he said that he was going to fight, fight, fight (like Winston Churchill in 1940).

The fierce loathing that he directs toward racism,
I have always applied against victim disarmament laws.


If, for the rest of my life, there were only ONE change that I coud effect
to government in America, my scheme woud be the following:
1. RESTORATION of the status quo ante
as of the early 1900s qua defensive freedom, in full equality before the law.
Each American citizen is fully IMMUNE from any interference
with his or her right to possess & carry defensive guns & ammunition,
un-questioned, the same as his right to stay home from Church.

2. BANISHMENT
I 'd have government remove convicted, recidivistic violent criminals
from contact with the decent people (preferably away from the North American Continent).



( Incidentally, u have committed the fallacy
of answering a question with another question,
which amounts to a refusal to participate in reasoning. )





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your answer is discrimination (from government)
as to WHO can defend his own life. (Screw "equal protection of the laws" says U.)

Not my answer at all, David. You are usually more observant and intelligent than this.

Have I ever said anything about refusing people the right to protect themselves...or to own a gun? (HINT: Never!)

QUESTION (actually, a few): Do I own a gun, David? If you guess "yes" is it an automatic or a revolver? If you guess "revolver"...what caliber?

Quote:

The USSC has held that government cannot Constitutionally
discriminate even concerning who has to sit WHERE on a bus for a few minutes.

And that has to do with me or my posts how????

Do u favor BACKGROUND CHECKS????

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY...with no doubt whatsoever.

HOW do u reconcile that with "equal protection of the laws"
in the right to defend their lives??????????? Please advise.

David

I try reconciling it with reason and sanity first...and if it passes...I do not bother to go on to "equal protection of the laws."

In this case "favoring background checks" stacks up so well
when viewed from the perspective of being reasonable and sane...
why bother with the rest?

BECAUSE "the rest" negates your original conclusion;
and because "the rest" was the original question ITSELF.
I see in your response; a naked admission, confession of refusal to consider
the requirements of the Supreme Law of the Land.
I accept that as an admission that "equal protection of the laws"
does not countenance licensure, does not countenance discrimination
by government concerning the right to defend your life.

Thank u; u made me feel good. IF u r not a judge in a court of law,
then u can freely so refuse to consider.

A few days ago, someone most passionately posted a thread of his abhorrence of racism.
( I dunno if u saw his thread. ) That was the big thing in his life;
he said that he was going to fight, fight, fight (like Winston Churchill in 1940).

The fierce loathing that he directs toward racism,
I have always applied against victim disarmament laws.


If, for the rest of my life, there were only ONE change that I coud effect
to government in America, my scheme woud be the following:
1. RESTORATION of the status quo ante
as of the early 1900s qua defensive freedom, in full equality before the law.
Each American citizen is fully IMMUNE from any interference
with his or her right to possess & carry defensive guns & ammunition,
un-questioned, the same as his right to stay home from Church.

2. BANISHMENT
I 'd have government remove convicted, recidivistic violent criminals
from contact with the decent people (preferably away from the North American Continent).



( Incidentally, u have committed the fallacy
of answering a question with another question,
which amounts to a refusal to participate in reasoning. )





David

Suggesting that I have refused to participate...
considering all I have written here...amounts to absurdity.

The bottom line is I more consider the 2nd Amendment to be absolute...than I do the 1st...which is to say, I see the need for restrictions on all items covered in the first...AND I MOST ASSUREDLY see the need for restrictions on the items covered in the second.

You seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute.

Wow this is one big logical fallacy. It hold no basis of fact or reason. Just like all the other anti-gunner speeches. No fact all false emotion.

When may I shoot a student? How about at the same time you stop beating your wife!

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your answer is discrimination (from government)
as to WHO can defend his own life. (Screw "equal protection of the laws" says U.)

Not my answer at all, David. You are usually more observant and intelligent than this.

Have I ever said anything about refusing people the right to protect themselves...or to own a gun? (HINT: Never!)

QUESTION (actually, a few): Do I own a gun, David? If you guess "yes" is it an automatic or a revolver? If you guess "revolver"...what caliber?

Quote:

The USSC has held that government cannot Constitutionally
discriminate even concerning who has to sit WHERE on a bus for a few minutes.

And that has to do with me or my posts how????

Do u favor BACKGROUND CHECKS????

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY...with no doubt whatsoever.

HOW do u reconcile that with "equal protection of the laws"
in the right to defend their lives??????????? Please advise.

David

I try reconciling it with reason and sanity first...and if it passes...I do not bother to go on to "equal protection of the laws."

In this case "favoring background checks" stacks up so well
when viewed from the perspective of being reasonable and sane...
why bother with the rest?

BECAUSE "the rest" negates your original conclusion;
and because "the rest" was the original question ITSELF.
I see in your response; a naked admission, confession of refusal to consider
the requirements of the Supreme Law of the Land.
I accept that as an admission that "equal protection of the laws"
does not countenance licensure, does not countenance discrimination
by government concerning the right to defend your life.

Thank u; u made me feel good. IF u r not a judge in a court of law,
then u can freely so refuse to consider.

A few days ago, someone most passionately posted a thread of his abhorrence of racism.
( I dunno if u saw his thread. ) That was the big thing in his life;
he said that he was going to fight, fight, fight (like Winston Churchill in 1940).

The fierce loathing that he directs toward racism,
I have always applied against victim disarmament laws.


If, for the rest of my life, there were only ONE change that I coud effect
to government in America, my scheme woud be the following:
1. RESTORATION of the status quo ante
as of the early 1900s qua defensive freedom, in full equality before the law.
Each American citizen is fully IMMUNE from any interference
with his or her right to possess & carry defensive guns & ammunition,
un-questioned, the same as his right to stay home from Church.

2. BANISHMENT
I 'd have government remove convicted, recidivistic violent criminals
from contact with the decent people (preferably away from the North American Continent).



( Incidentally, u have committed the fallacy
of answering a question with another question,
which amounts to a refusal to participate in reasoning. )





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Suggesting that I have refused to participate...
considering all I have written here...amounts to absurdity.

No. That is false. I suspect that u know better.

Your answer to HOW to reconcile the Constitutional requirements
of "equal protection of the laws" with background checks was, in essence:
if I don t like the answer that is coming out of the calculator,
then I pull the plug to stop it. U want us to subject our rights
to your anti-freedom gut feeling ("reasonable and sane" as u call it).
There is not much chance of that. I was PLEASED! to see
that u have no answer at all to my challenge. Ultimately, those
arguments must be asserted in the USSC.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The bottom line is I more consider the 2nd Amendment to be absolute...than I do the 1st...which is to say, I see the need for restrictions on all items covered in the first...AND I MOST ASSUREDLY see the need for restrictions on the items covered in the second.

Its a Bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of "NEEDS".

That freedom is beyond the reach
of any government jurisdiction.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute.

Yes; it says what it means and it means what it says; yes.

Coming from Rex, and being posted in the opinions column, I don't see the point.

This coming from a college professor.

This is why there is no honest debate on guns.

Those that are against them can't have an honest discussion.

Point of Information, if I may, Frank:
By what reasoning did u decide to acquire a gun,
referring to your first gun ?





David

Point of Information, if I may, Frank:
By what reasoning did u decide to acquire a gun,
referring to your first gun ?





David

Who says I have a gun?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Point of Information, if I may, Frank:
By what reasoning did u decide to acquire a gun,
referring to your first gun ?





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Who says I have a gun?

Going by my very recent memory,
Frank Apisa posted that u had acquired
a few (was it maybe around 3???) of them,
not necessarily that u have one now.

Do u challenge that ?
Need I search for that posting?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Point of Information, if I may, Frank:
By what reasoning did u decide to acquire a gun,
referring to your first gun ?





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Who says I have a gun?

Going by my very recent memory,
Frank Apisa posted that u had acquired
a few (was it maybe around 3???) of them,
not necessarily that u have one now.

Do u challenge that ?
Need I search for that posting?

I challenge it. Search!

While I 'm in the process of searching,
I 'll really enjoy challenging u with this:

1. I infer that u support the USSC holding that "equal protection of the laws"
prohibits government discrimination concerning who can sit where, on a public bus. Do u?????

2. Do u agree that the right of a passenger (e.g., Rosa Parks)
to defend her life is MORE IMPORTANT than her right to choice
of seating for a few moments on a bus??????

3. I say that every shoeshine boy
has an EQUAL RIGHT to defend his life as any police officer,
any banker or any jeweler.

Do u disagree with that, Frank ???????

or do u favor the jewelers ??

3. I say that every shoeshine boy
has an EQUAL RIGHT to defend his life as any police officer,
any banker or any jeweler. Do u disagree with that, Frank ???????

or do u favor the jewelers ??