Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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?????

Yeah.

Quote:

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??????

Not necessarily.

Quote:

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

I would not have worded what you are getting at that way, David...but I agree with the sentiment.

Quote:

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

No.

Quote:

or do u favor the jewelers ??

I do not favor the jewelers.





Your point?

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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?????

Yeah.

Quote:

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??????

Not necessarily.

Quote:

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

I would not have worded what you are getting at that way, David...but I agree with the sentiment.

Quote:

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

No.

Quote:

or do u favor the jewelers ??

I do not favor the jewelers.





Your point?

My point is that if the Constitution's requirement
of "equal protection of the laws" does not allow government
to discriminate qua so brief, fleeting a triviality as seating on a bus
for a few minutes, then a fortiori (that means: "by stronger reason"),
government is disabled from discriminating qua defense of DECADES life itself
such that NO American can be put to suffer inferiority
from government discrimination; i.e., freedom supplants licensure, as it was.

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 ??

Since you have posed so many questions, David...and I have responded, allow me one...with a follow-up to come:

Do you think everyone should be allowed to possess a weapon to defend his or her life?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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 ??

Frank Apisa wrote:

Since you have posed so many questions, David...and I have responded, allow me one...with a follow-up to come:

Do you think everyone should be allowed to possess a weapon to defend his or her life?

I woud not have worded what you are getting at that way,
Frank...but I agree with the sentiment.

The way that I 'd have worded it is:
shud government acknowledge
that the Instrument of its Creation
explicitly denied it jurisdiction
concerning civilian possession of defensive guns ?

Rather than disarming violent criminals,
I 'd let them have all the guns thay want (their own)
but NOT on the North American Continent. After conviction,
violently recidivistic criminals shud lose citizenship and be BANISHED.
The penalty for violating the banishment and sneaking back in woud be death.

The only other excepted category is mental defectives
who are confined within hospitals. If thay are released into the streets
then thay have as much right to fight off dogs in the streets,
or criminals as anyone else.


David

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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?????

Yeah.

Quote:

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??????

Not necessarily.

Quote:

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

I would not have worded what you are getting at that way, David...but I agree with the sentiment.

Quote:

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

No.

Quote:

or do u favor the jewelers ??

I do not favor the jewelers.





Your point?

My point is that if the Constitution's requirement
of "equal protection of the laws" does not allow government
to discriminate qua so brief, fleeting a triviality as seating on a bus
for a few minutes, then a fortiori (that means: "by stronger reason"),
government is disabled from discriminating qua defense of DECADES life itself
such that NO American can be put to suffer inferiority
from government discrimination; i.e., freedom supplants licensure, as it was.

My point is that I answered all your questions.
That is how I feel about things...and I acknowledge that you feel differently.

Ummm...about that follow-up question, David, I think I will ask it now...
and give you a chance to answer both the original and it at the same time.

Since you seem so unwilling to acknowledge that it is reasonable
to draw a line somewhere on who can possess weapons to protect self…
I am wondering how you feel about prisoners on death rows
in states where capital punishment is still allowed.

Now mind you, I am not asking about people who are in prison for murder, kidnapping, mayhem, treason, terrorism…in prison in any state where capital punishment is not allowed…or any of the general population of prisons outside of death row in states that do.

I understand that you would advocate that those kinds of prisoners be allowed to possess weapons to protect themselves. So I am not asking about a line drawn there.

But what about prisoners on death rows in states like Texas or Florida, for instance.

Can a line be drawn that they not be allowed to possess guns…

…to protect their lives?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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?????

Yeah.

Quote:

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??????

Not necessarily.

Quote:

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

I would not have worded what you are getting at that way, David...but I agree with the sentiment.

Quote:

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

No.

Quote:

or do u favor the jewelers ??

I do not favor the jewelers.





Your point?

My point is that if the Constitution's requirement
of "equal protection of the laws" does not allow government
to discriminate qua so brief, fleeting a triviality as seating on a bus
for a few minutes, then a fortiori (that means: "by stronger reason"),
government is disabled from discriminating qua defense of DECADES life itself
such that NO American can be put to suffer inferiority
from government discrimination; i.e., freedom supplants licensure, as it was.

Frank Apisa wrote:

My point is that I answered all your questions.
That is how I feel about things...and I acknowledge that you feel differently.

I acknowledge your acknowledgement
and I am aware that that is how u FEEL, but u have evaded
my beloved argument qua applying the equal protection clause to the 2nd Amendment.

What good comes of evasion, Frank?? Can we have a NON-subjective reply??

Its only a conversation. At some point, these issues will be adjudicated;
it does no harm to talk about them before that happens.

U can t lose money nor freedom nor whatever it is that u seek
simply by discussing the issue. IF u have no cogent response
on the point that I made qua applying one to the other,
then GOOD SPORTSMANSHIP in debate requires that u admit it, YES?????

The answer that u have given amounted to a refusal
to consider the equal protection clause because your idea of sanity
made u feel good, right????
Are u a psychiatrist, Frank??

I invite u to consider the 2nd Amendment in light of the equal protection clause
and then throw in the right to travel and tell us what the end result is ?

That shud be fun.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ummm...about that follow-up question, David, I think I will ask it now...
and give you a chance to answer both the original and it at the same time.

Since you seem so unwilling to acknowledge that it is reasonable
to draw a line somewhere on who can possess weapons to protect self…
I am wondering how you feel about prisoners on death rows
in states where capital punishment is still allowed.

Those on death rows have been adjudicated to have forfeited their rights to live
by perpetration of the crimes whereof thay have been convicted.
The death penalty is to vindicate the rights of their victims,
to GET EVEN, on their behalves. That 's what thay paid their taxes for.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now mind you, I am not asking about people who are in prison for murder, kidnapping, mayhem, treason, terrorism…in prison in any state where capital punishment is not allowed…or any of the general population of prisons outside of death row in states that do.

I understand that you would advocate that those kinds of prisoners be allowed to possess weapons to protect themselves. So I am not asking about a line drawn there.

But what about prisoners on death rows in states like Texas or Florida, for instance.

Can a line be drawn that they not be allowed to possess guns…

…to protect their lives?

No. Thay r going to be KILLED.
Being KILLED is fundamentally inconsistent with being PROTECTED.
Their right to be equally protected was forfeited
when thay were convicted and sentenced.

I have considered the equal protection clause...and have said several times how I feel about it.
If you are not satisfied with my answers...don't ask me questions.

Do you think persons on death row in Texas and Florida
have a right to own firearms...for their personal protection, David?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have considered the equal protection clause...and have said several times how I feel about it.
If you are not satisfied with my answers...don't ask me questions.

I thought that we were discussing the issues ON THEIR MERITS,
NOT exploring one another's FEELINGS.
I am arguing with u the same way that I used to argue with other lawyers.
We discussed the facts and the law, not our feelings.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you think persons on death row in Texas and Florida
have a right to own firearms...for their personal protection, David?

NO, because thay r going to be KILLED.
I think that their rights were lost in the acts of murder
whereof thay were convicted. The States act in furtherance
of the rights of decedents, to avenge them.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ummm...about that follow-up question, David,
I think I will ask it now...
and give you a chance to answer both the original and it at the same time.

Since you seem so unwilling to acknowledge that it is reasonable
to draw a line somewhere on who can possess weapons to protect self…
I am wondering how you feel about prisoners on death rows
in states where capital punishment is still allowed.

Those on death rows have been adjudicated to have forfeited their rights to live
by perpetration of the crimes whereof thay have been convicted.
The death penalty is to vindicate the rights of their victims,
to GET EVEN, on their behalves. That 's what thay paid their taxes for.

So you accept the fact that a line can be drawn
regarding the equal protection clause, David.

Now all we have to do is to argue about where it should be drawn...
and I assure you that I want it drawn in a way that would allow for background checks.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now mind you, I am not asking about people who are in prison for murder, kidnapping, mayhem, treason, terrorism…in prison in any state where capital punishment is not allowed…or any of the general population of prisons outside of death row in states that do.

I understand that you would advocate that those kinds of prisoners be allowed to possess weapons to protect themselves. So I am not asking about a line drawn there.

But what about prisoners on death rows in states like Texas or Florida, for instance.

Can a line be drawn that they not be allowed to possess guns…

…to protect their lives?

No. Thay r going to be KILLED.
Being KILLED is fundamentally inconsistent with being PROTECTED.
Their right to be equally protected was forfeited
when thay were convicted and sentenced.

Fine.

So...you accept the fact that a line can be drawn regarding the equal protection clause, David.

Terrific...we are in total agreement on that.

Now all we have to do is to argue about where it should be drawn...
and I assure you that I want it drawn in a way that would allow for background checks.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ummm...about that follow-up question, David,
I think I will ask it now...
and give you a chance to answer both the original and it at the same time.

Since you seem so unwilling to acknowledge that it is reasonable
to draw a line somewhere on who can possess weapons to protect self…
I am wondering how you feel about prisoners on death rows
in states where capital punishment is still allowed.

Those on death rows have been adjudicated to have forfeited their rights to live
by perpetration of the crimes whereof thay have been convicted.
The death penalty is to vindicate the rights of their victims,
to GET EVEN, on their behalves. That 's what thay paid their taxes for.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you accept the fact that a line can be drawn
regarding the equal protection clause, David.

So I DON T, Frank.
I do not accept un-equal levels of protection.
The State applies the defensive rights of decedent, to avenge him upon the felon,
who relinquished those rights of protection by attacking.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now all we have to do is to argue about where it should be drawn...
and I assure you that I want it drawn in a way that would allow for background checks.

It is 1OO% for everyone
until a citizen forfeits his right down to O.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now mind you, I am not asking about people who are in prison for murder, kidnapping, mayhem, treason, terrorism…in prison in any state where capital punishment is not allowed…or any of the general population of prisons outside of death row in states that do.

I understand that you would advocate that those kinds of prisoners be allowed to possess weapons to protect themselves. So I am not asking about a line drawn there.

But what about prisoners on death rows in states like Texas or Florida, for instance.

Can a line be drawn that they not be allowed to possess guns…

…to protect their lives?

No. Thay r going to be KILLED.
Being KILLED is fundamentally inconsistent with being PROTECTED.
Their right to be equally protected was forfeited
when thay were convicted and sentenced.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fine.

So...you accept the fact that a line can be drawn regarding the equal protection clause, David.

Terrific...we are in total agreement on that.

Now all we have to do is to argue about where it should be drawn...
and I assure you that I want it drawn in a way that would allow for background checks.

BULLoney! I reject that out-of-hand.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have considered the equal protection clause...and have said several times how I feel about it.
If you are not satisfied with my answers...don't ask me questions.

I thought that we were discussing the issues ON THEIR MERITS,
NOT exploring one another's FEELINGS.
I am arguing with u the same way that I used to argue with other lawyers.
We discussed the facts and the law, not our feelings.

Okay...the FACTS ARE that I feel
there are no provisions in the Constitution that are unconditional.

You have already acknowledged that not all citizens are entitled to
the equal protection case in the case of ownership of guns.

We are in agreement...NOT ALL INDIVIDUALS CAN OWN GUNS.

We are in some minor disagreement on where the line should be drawn.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you think persons on death row in Texas and Florida
have a right to own firearms...for their personal protection, David?

NO, because thay r going to be KILLED.
I think that their rights were lost in the acts of murder
whereof thay were convicted. The States act in furtherance
of the rights of decedents, to avenge them.

I thank you for sharing what you think about it...

and I appreciate the FACT that you realize the equal protection clause should not be so
cemented that even killers in prisons (and all other prisoners)...would have a right to own a gun.

Using that same reasoning could get some of us to a point
where we want others to be included in that excluded group.

Why do you not recognize and acknowledge that it is not unreasonable to be of that mind?

Frank Apisa wrote:

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!

OK, I 'll search.
I hope that I don t have u confused with someone else,
but anything is possible. If I erred, then I will apologize.
If not, then I 'll cite the post.





David

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?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have considered the equal protection clause...and have said several times how I feel about it.
If you are not satisfied with my answers...don't ask me questions.

I thought that we were discussing the issues ON THEIR MERITS,
NOT exploring one another's FEELINGS.
I am arguing with u the same way that I used to argue with other lawyers.
We discussed the facts and the law, not our feelings.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Okay...the FACTS ARE that I feel
there are no provisions in the Constitution that are unconditional.

I understand your FEELINGS,
the same as someone who likes different music than I do.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You have already acknowledged that not all citizens are entitled to
the equal protection case in the case of ownership of guns.

I disagree with that,
but I ratify what I actually said.

Frank Apisa wrote:

We are in agreement...NOT ALL INDIVIDUALS CAN OWN GUNS.

For SURE, I never said THAT!!!

Frank Apisa wrote:

We are in some minor disagreement on where the line should be drawn.

I dont see it that way.
I demand the heritage of all Americans, the same as it was before 1910;
i.e., the citizen's personal defensive armament is none of government 's business.
I wanna be surrounded by American citizens all bristling with guns, armed to the teeth.
I want to read in the newspapers on a daily basis of their killing robbers or burglars.
I like that. It makes me happy when that happens.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you think persons on death row in Texas and Florida
have a right to own firearms...for their personal protection, David?

NO, because thay r going to be KILLED.
I think that their rights were lost in the acts of murder
whereof thay were convicted. The States act in furtherance
of the rights of decedents, to avenge them.

I thank you for sharing what you think about it...

Frank Apisa wrote:

and I appreciate the FACT that you realize the equal protection clause should not be so
cemented that even killers in prisons (and all other prisoners)...would have a right to own a gun.

U r putting your own words in my mouth.
That is not what I said.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Using that same reasoning could get some of us to a point
where we want others to be included in that excluded group.

Why do you not recognize and acknowledge that it is not unreasonable to be of that mind?

It does not MATTER what is "reasonable". That is not a criterion.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

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!

OK, I 'll search.
I hope that I don t have u confused with someone else,
but anything is possible. If I erred, then I will apologize.
If not, then I 'll cite the post.





David

OK, Frank. My search is complete.
The following post is what I found
(post 5,593,945 of 4:03PM 2/27/14):

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?

My best guess
is that u are implying that u have (or had) a .44 caliber revolver,
IF I am reading your tacit implications accurately; I dunno.

How did I do ?
(Please note that, according to Spendius,
at this point, u r supposed to accuse me of stalking u; don t forget.)

David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

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!

OK, I 'll search.
I hope that I don t have u confused with someone else,
but anything is possible. If I erred, then I will apologize.
If not, then I 'll cite the post.





David

OK, Frank. My search is complete.
The following post is what I found
(post 5,593,945 of 4:03PM 2/27/14):

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?

My best guess
is that u are implying that u have (or had) a .44 caliber revolver,
IF I am reading your tacit implications accurately; I dunno.

How did I do ?
(Please note that, according to Spendius,
at this point, u r supposed to accuse me of stalking u; don t forget.)

David

Spendius' comments are not worth a response.

I do not suppose you are stalking me, David...
we are having a very heated discussion[????]
about something we both feel strongly about.

I would gladly join you again for a bit of lunch...
and I do not for one second suppose you would mean me any harm.

In any case, at no point have I said that I own a gun...
nor would I ever say yes or no on the matter.

There are pluses and minuses for that kind
of disclosure on both sides...and I prefer to not disclose.