High court to look at ban on handguns

McClatchy-Tribune ^ | Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM | MICHAEL DOYLE

[MrB]

Yeah, don’t ya know that you’re “allowed” to keep long guns in DC - as long as they are rendered inoperable to the point of uselessness in an emergency.

[ctdonath2]

Congress cannot regulate all guns out of existence because that would infringe on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Except that to you, "the people" is only whoever is allowed to vote (remember, voting is not a right), "keep" does not include personal ownership but instead mere custody of gov't property, "bear" is only in active service under the direction of state-appointed officers organized by the feds, and "arms" is whatever the state deems appropriate for combat.

Ergo, that "right" can be limited to gov't-owned flintlocks handed out to conscripts entering active combat. No?

[ctdonath2]

Will you do that?

No. Done it before, and you just ignore it. If you didn't understand/accept it the first time, repetition obviously won't work because repetition obviously hasn't worked.

[ctdonath2]

His own words: if they don't/can't vote, then there's no way they are "part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country". Ergo, citizens are not necessarily "part of the national community" - an absurdity revealing his flawed axioms. Until he changes his axioms, he can't understand who constitutes "the people".

[Dead Corpse]

I know. Actually, if he admits he's wrong any on number of points, it destroys his entire premise. Could be why he just continues to ignore reality, facts, history, ect...

Some people just can't let go of their delusions. Who knows, maybe he really is a Brady Shill and is being PAID to obfuscate things on forums like this.

[ctdonath2]

What I don’t understand is how he spends SO MUCH TIME at this.

[robertpaulsen]

"Ergo, that "right" can be limited to gov't-owned flintlocks handed out to conscripts entering active combat. No?"

I've answered that before and you just ignore it. If you didn't understand/accept it the first time, repetition obviously won't work because repetition obviously hasn't worked.

[Dead Corpse]

Same way we do. It would amaze me how much time I'd have to get work done if it wasn't for FR... ;-)

Then again, I have gotten the feeling over the years that Bobby is a government worker/clock puncher. "Work" for him is probably a paper shuffle as part of our Nations bureaucratic nightmare...

[robertpaulsen]

"Ergo, citizens are not necessarily "part of the national community"

Your list contained non-citizens. Why are you twisting my words?

[tacticalogic]

Then again, I have gotten the feeling over the years that Bobby is a government worker/clock puncher. "Work" for him is probably a paper shuffle as part of our Nations bureaucratic nightmare...

He's got the bureaucrat's attitude about government power down pat. They'll always argue in favor of the most sweeping and absolute reading of government authority, because that authority is, by proxy, their authority. That's why you should always be skeptical of any bureaucratic opinion on government power - they have an inherent personal interest in twisting it to their advantage.

[robertpaulsen]

"is how he spends SO MUCH TIME at this."

I'm responding to YOUR posts. I should ask you the same question!

Plus, I went away for 4 days and you continued to post! What a flaming hypocrite.

[ctdonath2]

Your words included or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country. Someone who is a permanent resident, works for the US government, pays taxes, etc. has pretty clearly developed a very intimate connection with this country.

My list contained one non-citizen. What of the others?

[ctdonath2]

I've answered that before and you just ignore it.

No, you haven't answered: I keep asking about 922(o) vs. M4s, and you keep ducking. There are none in private hands, and you can't demonstrate otherwise legally or practically.

[ctdonath2]

It took us that long to catch up with your blatherings. Things were settling down until you returned and made up for those 4 days.

Each of us is just responding mostly to you.
You’re responding to each of us, an order of magnitude more posts than anyone else.

[ctdonath2]

Yup. Only bureaucrats demonstrate that “government first” axiom, not realizing that it’s really “people first”.

[robertpaulsen]

"What of the others?"

If they are incapable of voting or if they are not allowed to vote, how can you say they have a "sufficient connection" with this country? They're not connected. They're bystanders.

When someone complains about the government but says they don't vote, what's your reaction?

Anyways, that's who the Founders were talking about. If you want to include others, be my guest.

[robertpaulsen]

"I keep asking about 922(o)"

And this now makes the third time I've told you that 922(o) doesn't apply.

"There are none in private hands"

Private? You said militia member. Make up your mind.

922(o)(A)(2) allows a member of a well regulated state militia to keep and bear an M4.

[tacticalogic]

allows a member of a well regulated state militia

It's amazing the things you're able to "see" in the text when you want to.

[robertpaulsen]

"It's amazing the things you're able to "see" in the text when you want to."

As opposed to what? Your way of simply refusing to see the first clause?

[tacticalogic]

As opposed to what? Your way of simply refusing to see the first clause?

As opposed to the dogmatic assertion that whatever is not explicitly declared in one place must not exist anywhere when it suits you.