What is with guns and paranoia? - Page 5

JihadJane · 10th July 2012, 05:20 AM

Mummy, give me back my gun!

Resume · 10th July 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Mummy, give me back my gun!

I don't think she should.

ETA: She didn't take mine away because I was responsible with it.

crimresearch · 10th July 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

<SNIP>
In my Intro to American Govt. course, I spend a day and a half lecturing on the 14th Amendment, noting it's involved in more Supreme Court cases than any other Amendment, and regarded by some as "the most important" (if such a statement makes any sense). It's perfectly fine to argue against racist laws, but your tireless haranguing is wildly off base. Wildly.

<SNIP

Appeal to authority fallacy noted and rejected. What you've posted here stands on its own merits, or lack thereof.

What you posted about the law is factually incorrect, as proven by my links. You calling those links 'vomiting irrelevant nonsense' along with the rest of the obfuscation, is neither correct nor useful.

You don't get to present your unsupported opinions as facts here without being called on it, and your denier tactics are unpersuasive.

Cain · 10th July 2012, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

First you didn't want a blind person to buy a car, then you didn't want him to drive it. If he buys it so someone else can drive him around, it is for his personal use.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...d069a2e919.jpg

This is a rather nice example of the equivocation fallacy. While that's certainly one interpretation of "personal use" it's completely at adds with intentions of my example, which were rather unmistakable after an (unnecessary) clarification). Crash and burn, indeed.

Quote:

Appeal to authority fallacy noted and rejected.

Here's yet another fallacy you do not understand. I am an authority on what I believe. I am the author of my posts, and I was arguing your contention that I am anti-Fourteenth Amendment is at odds with recorded statements, as evidenced (for example) by how I teach. The topic does not come up on these forums very often, but if it had (and I remembered), I could have just as easily cited one of my earlier posts.

And here's one...

Quote:

Many conservatives ignore our second founding in the Civil War era, which is not surprising given that Republicans were relatively decent at the time. Notions of federalism begin to change in the 20s, starting with the incorporation of the bill of rights, and then dramatically with technology and economic depression....

It's also worth noting that we did not calmly amend the 3/5ths accounting. More blood was spilled for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments than 10 Revolutionary Wars.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...on#post5862765

But please, feel free to continue to tell me what I believe.

BStrong · 10th July 2012, 05:53 PM

Cain:

And even in the case of Heller, a half-dozen (or so) other people were recruited to challenge the the D.C. ban, but I don't think you're drawing the right conclusion. As you go on to say, you've had "no shortage of willing plantiffs." The gun rights lobby could not get a win because courts have been hostile to their views over the years. There's been a significant and organized decades long push back, which has influenced scholarship, judges and the courts. Like I said, even famed Constitutional expert Laurence Tribe flipped to the individual rights view.

In Heller, the plantiff list was shortened by lack of standing - individuals who wished to possess a firearm but had not in fact gone through the application process and had been rejected.

This is a whole new environment for firearms rights challenges, especially in California.

The Calguns Foundation

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/

Was formed because of the consistent failure of California LEA's to follow actual state law. The foundation has documented, and has successfully defended individuals charged with firearms possession related violations where no such violation has taken place. I can't empasize that enough - in certain jurisdictions, individuals transporting legal firearms in complete compliance with California law have been arrested and charged with crimes where no violation existed. Individuals have been deprived of their legal property, arrested and prosecuted when they had in fact - and in some cases, have later been found by a court to be factualy innocent - of committing any crime.

Before the foundation was formed, there was this case:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Har...y_of_Kings.pdf

In the wake of this decision, individuals later involved with the formation of the foundation took the fight against backdoor law making by the bureau of firearms to the state Office of Administrative Law, and in almost every case won injunctions against enforcement of "laws" concocted by BoF staff and administrators where state law allows no such "lawmaking" at all - only the State Legislature can create statutory law in California.

All of this and Heller and Mcdonald, and next at bat Staples has brought California gun owners to the point that we are winning at just about every turn - several LE agencies have ackowledged substandard training wrt firearms identification and related statutes, and other LEA's have led the way in officer education in identifying legal firearms and legal activites related to firearms possession.

The foundation has attempted to engage two seperate counties wrt confiscation of legal firearms and the refusual by those two agencies to release legal firearms to the legal owner, even in cases where the state BoF issues a LEGR (Law Enforcement Gun Release) order, and as a result those two agencies are now in litagation (they will lose, no question, but it's only taxpayer money...)

Many counties, starting with Sacramento county, have been forced to revamp their concealed carry permit policy as a result of CGF litigation, going to a shall-issue model in every sense but the name.

The point I really want to make here wrt plantiffs and standing and clean hands - in the Sac. CCL suit, we had two plantiffs - one a retired LEO that wouldn't qualify for a carry permit (under the old scheme) because of length of residency, the other being a Lesbian that happened to be a victim of a gay bashing assault, who also happens to be a certified firearms instructor and combat pistol shooter- she wasn't issued a permit because...well, she must have been asking for it ...

This is the future in California, and it's the future in any jurisdiction that generally restricts individuals from possessing firearms.

It won't be too long before there's a good challenge to the Sullivan law in NYC, and somebody is going to have to explain why a decorated disabled combat veteran can't be issued a home permit for a handgun, but Howard Stern can.

Darth Rotor · 10th July 2012, 06:45 PM

Gee, I thought I was at Comic-Con, with all of the caricatures I've seen in this thread.

Good thing I wasn't, might have been hit by a car.

The Dark Lord · 10th July 2012, 06:57 PM

Why I am not a member of the NRA.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th.../wayne-s-world

crimresearch · 10th July 2012, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

<SNIP>
Here's yet another fallacy you do not understand. I am an authority on what I believe. I am the author of my posts, and I was arguing your contention that I am anti-Fourteenth Amendment is at odds with recorded statements, as evidenced (for example) by how I teach. The topic does not come up on these forums very often, but if it had (and I remembered), I could have just as easily cited one of my earlier posts.

And here's one...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...on#post5862765

But please, feel free to continue to tell me what I believe.

What you seem to believe, is that you can't be held accountable for your actual words...

Quote:

You and maybe five members of the current supreme court, ignoring, what, almost a hundred of years of precedence?

...

But that you can fabricate endless things other people never said.

And of course, you are right.. on the internet, you can ignore anything.

BStrong · 11th July 2012, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

Why I am not a member of the NRA.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th.../wayne-s-world

If I could get the thing to run, I might agree with you - the ad ran fine, wayne's world, not so much.

The Dark Lord · 11th July 2012, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

If I could get the thing to run, I might agree with you - the ad ran fine, wayne's world, not so much.

It was Wayne LaPierre going off about a vast Obama conspiracy that has him not taking guns his first term as to lull us into a false sense of security so he can take them his second term. And John Stewart making fun of him.

BStrong · 11th July 2012, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

It was Wayne LaPierre going off about a vast Obama conspiracy that has him not taking guns his first term as to lull us into a false sense of security so he can take them his second term. And John Stewart making fun of him.

He begs for money like the most craven of xtian preachers.

PN - the foundation I'm involved with isn't associated with the N.R.A.

Other than supporting the Second, we have entirely different approaches due to the legislative environment in California - lobbying is almost useless - and the N.R.A. doesn't really pay much attention to California.

10th July 2012, 05:20 AM	#161
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,721	Mummy, give me back my gun!
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

10th July 2012, 05:36 AM	#162
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Originally Posted by JihadJane Mummy, give me back my gun! I don't think she should. ETA: She didn't take mine away because I was responsible with it.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Last edited by Resume; 10th July 2012 at 05:37 AM.

10th July 2012, 09:40 AM	#163
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Cain <SNIP> In my Intro to American Govt. course, I spend a day and a half lecturing on the 14th Amendment, noting it's involved in more Supreme Court cases than any other Amendment, and regarded by some as "the most important" (if such a statement makes any sense). It's perfectly fine to argue against racist laws, but your tireless haranguing is wildly off base. Wildly. <SNIP Appeal to authority fallacy noted and rejected. What you've posted here stands on its own merits, or lack thereof. What you posted about the law is factually incorrect, as proven by my links. You calling those links 'vomiting irrelevant nonsense' along with the rest of the obfuscation, is neither correct nor useful. You don't get to present your unsupported opinions as facts here without being called on it, and your denier tactics are unpersuasive.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 10th July 2012 at 09:41 AM.

10th July 2012, 12:40 PM	#164
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,936	Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker First you didn't want a blind person to buy a car, then you didn't want him to drive it. If he buys it so someone else can drive him around, it is for his personal use. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...d069a2e919.jpg This is a rather nice example of the equivocation fallacy. While that's certainly one interpretation of "personal use" it's completely at adds with intentions of my example, which were rather unmistakable after an (unnecessary) clarification). Crash and burn, indeed. Quote: Appeal to authority fallacy noted and rejected. Here's yet another fallacy you do not understand. I am an authority on what I believe. I am the author of my posts, and I was arguing your contention that I am anti-Fourteenth Amendment is at odds with recorded statements, as evidenced (for example) by how I teach. The topic does not come up on these forums very often, but if it had (and I remembered), I could have just as easily cited one of my earlier posts. And here's one... Quote: Many conservatives ignore our second founding in the Civil War era, which is not surprising given that Republicans were relatively decent at the time. Notions of federalism begin to change in the 20s, starting with the incorporation of the bill of rights, and then dramatically with technology and economic depression.... It's also worth noting that we did not calmly amend the 3/5ths accounting. More blood was spilled for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments than 10 Revolutionary Wars. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...on#post5862765 But please, feel free to continue to tell me what I believe.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

10th July 2012, 05:53 PM	#165
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,804	Cain: And even in the case of Heller, a half-dozen (or so) other people were recruited to challenge the the D.C. ban, but I don't think you're drawing the right conclusion. As you go on to say, you've had "no shortage of willing plantiffs." The gun rights lobby could not get a win because courts have been hostile to their views over the years. There's been a significant and organized decades long push back, which has influenced scholarship, judges and the courts. Like I said, even famed Constitutional expert Laurence Tribe flipped to the individual rights view. In Heller, the plantiff list was shortened by lack of standing - individuals who wished to possess a firearm but had not in fact gone through the application process and had been rejected. This is a whole new environment for firearms rights challenges, especially in California. The Calguns Foundation http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ Was formed because of the consistent failure of California LEA's to follow actual state law. The foundation has documented, and has successfully defended individuals charged with firearms possession related violations where no such violation has taken place. I can't empasize that enough - in certain jurisdictions, individuals transporting legal firearms in complete compliance with California law have been arrested and charged with crimes where no violation existed. Individuals have been deprived of their legal property, arrested and prosecuted when they had in fact - and in some cases, have later been found by a court to be factualy innocent - of committing any crime. Before the foundation was formed, there was this case: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Har...y_of_Kings.pdf In the wake of this decision, individuals later involved with the formation of the foundation took the fight against backdoor law making by the bureau of firearms to the state Office of Administrative Law, and in almost every case won injunctions against enforcement of "laws" concocted by BoF staff and administrators where state law allows no such "lawmaking" at all - only the State Legislature can create statutory law in California. All of this and Heller and Mcdonald, and next at bat Staples has brought California gun owners to the point that we are winning at just about every turn - several LE agencies have ackowledged substandard training wrt firearms identification and related statutes, and other LEA's have led the way in officer education in identifying legal firearms and legal activites related to firearms possession. The foundation has attempted to engage two seperate counties wrt confiscation of legal firearms and the refusual by those two agencies to release legal firearms to the legal owner, even in cases where the state BoF issues a LEGR (Law Enforcement Gun Release) order, and as a result those two agencies are now in litagation (they will lose, no question, but it's only taxpayer money...) Many counties, starting with Sacramento county, have been forced to revamp their concealed carry permit policy as a result of CGF litigation, going to a shall-issue model in every sense but the name. The point I really want to make here wrt plantiffs and standing and clean hands - in the Sac. CCL suit, we had two plantiffs - one a retired LEO that wouldn't qualify for a carry permit (under the old scheme) because of length of residency, the other being a Lesbian that happened to be a victim of a gay bashing assault, who also happens to be a certified firearms instructor and combat pistol shooter- she wasn't issued a permit because...well, she must have been asking for it ... This is the future in California, and it's the future in any jurisdiction that generally restricts individuals from possessing firearms. It won't be too long before there's a good challenge to the Sullivan law in NYC, and somebody is going to have to explain why a decorated disabled combat veteran can't be issued a home permit for a handgun, but Howard Stern can.
	Last edited by BStrong; 10th July 2012 at 05:55 PM.

10th July 2012, 06:45 PM	#166
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Gee, I thought I was at Comic-Con, with all of the caricatures I've seen in this thread. Good thing I wasn't, might have been hit by a car.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

10th July 2012, 06:57 PM	#167
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Why I am not a member of the NRA. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th.../wayne-s-world
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

10th July 2012, 07:04 PM	#168
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Cain <SNIP> Here's yet another fallacy you do not understand. I am an authority on what I believe. I am the author of my posts, and I was arguing your contention that I am anti-Fourteenth Amendment is at odds with recorded statements, as evidenced (for example) by how I teach. The topic does not come up on these forums very often, but if it had (and I remembered), I could have just as easily cited one of my earlier posts. And here's one... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...on#post5862765 But please, feel free to continue to tell me what I believe. What you seem to believe, is that you can't be held accountable for your actual words... Quote: You and maybe five members of the current supreme court, ignoring, what, almost a hundred of years of precedence? ... But that you can fabricate endless things other people never said. And of course, you are right.. on the internet, you can ignore anything.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 10th July 2012 at 07:06 PM.

11th July 2012, 06:15 PM	#169
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,804	Originally Posted by The Dark Lord Why I am not a member of the NRA. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th.../wayne-s-world If I could get the thing to run, I might agree with you - the ad ran fine, wayne's world, not so much.

11th July 2012, 06:25 PM	#170
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by BStrong If I could get the thing to run, I might agree with you - the ad ran fine, wayne's world, not so much. It was Wayne LaPierre going off about a vast Obama conspiracy that has him not taking guns his first term as to lull us into a false sense of security so he can take them his second term. And John Stewart making fun of him.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

11th July 2012, 06:34 PM	#171
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,804	Originally Posted by The Dark Lord It was Wayne LaPierre going off about a vast Obama conspiracy that has him not taking guns his first term as to lull us into a false sense of security so he can take them his second term. And John Stewart making fun of him. He begs for money like the most craven of xtian preachers. PN - the foundation I'm involved with isn't associated with the N.R.A. Other than supporting the Second, we have entirely different approaches due to the legislative environment in California - lobbying is almost useless - and the N.R.A. doesn't really pay much attention to California.