The Political Party

[guido61]

---

normh wrote:

 

Already have shown where you are wrong.  It is not my job to give you a legal education.

---

Uh...no you didn't.  You simply told me I need to study up on Constitutional law.  You didn't show me ANYTHING.   So now you're just being deliberately obtuse.   Which seems to be your standard MO when you know you've got no REAL reply.

C'mon.  Just admit you messed up.  Heck, even chastise Eisenhower for over-reaching his authority by sending in troops without congressional approval.   But don't keep pretending you somehow proved me wrong by showing me the 14th amendment and then saying my 2nd amendment example would be somehow different.

If it's different, then point out how.  Otherwise, you've been offcially pwned.

[trainset]

Guntards are dumb as **bleep**

[normh]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

normh wrote:

 

Already have shown where you are wrong.  It is not my job to give you a legal education.

---

Uh...no you didn't.  You simply told me I need to study up on Constitutional law.  You didn't show me ANYTHING.   So now you're just being deliberately obtuse.   Which seems to be your standard MO when you know you've got no REAL reply.

C'mon.  Just admit you messed up.  Heck, even chastise Eisenhower for over-reaching his authority by sending in troops without congressional approval.   But don't keep pretending you somehow proved me wrong by showing me the 14th amendment and then saying my 2nd amendment example would be somehow different.

If it's different, then point out how.  Otherwise, you've been offcially pwned.

---

Re-read the ENTIRE body of the fourteenth amendment.  Contrast it with the Presidential power and duty to put down insurrection.  The issue was completely answered.

If you do not like that, tough shit.

[UCN]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Telecruiser wrote:

---

All guns can be used to kill human beings regardless of their original design intent. I get it. If the AR rifle platform, with literally millions in circulation, was really the problem wouldn't it seem to reason that these mass shootings with an AR rifle would be happening on a daily basis? I mean they are killing machines aren't they?

---

You're running out of argument, Tele.  This is absurd. 

---

You didn't have an argument to begin with.  Rifles killed 323 people in 2011, and that also includes bolt actions, so the number for AR-15's only is going to be much lower.  

Fact is, within the context of annual deaths per year, AR-15's are not very dangerous.  Perhaps you should focus on other types of guns if you want people to take you seriously.

[guido61]

---

normh wrote:

---

Re-read the ENTIRE body of the fourteenth amendment.  Contrast it with the Presidential power and duty to put down insurrection.  The issue was completely answered.

If you do not like that, tough shit.

---

Actually, only Section 1 is applicable, so telling me to read the ENTIRE body of the amendment is irrelevant.

But isn't saying that Eisenhower had congressional approval to go into Little Rock.  He didn't ask them.  They didn't sign a resolution saying he should.  He simply took it upon himself to do so and it was all predicated by the Brown decision.  

Again, any president could decide to use troops to back up any SC decision and declare the Congress gave him similar authoriity because they wrote the original amendment that whatever law the SC was looking at violated that amendment. 

If a state comes up with a law banning strip clubs and the SC says that law violates the first amendment then, by your logic, the President would have the Congressional Approval to send in troops making sure the state didn't prevent those strippers from going to work.

[guido61]

---

UCN wrote:

You didn't have an argument to begin with.  Rifles killed 323 people in 2011, and that also includes bolt actions, so the number for AR-15's only is going to be much lower.  

Fact is, within the context of annual deaths per year, AR-15's are not very dangerous.  Perhaps you should focus on other types of guns if you want people to take you seriously.

---

Straw man.  Nobody has suggested banning AR-15s because they kill more people every year than any other type of gun.

[UCN]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

UCN wrote:

You didn't have an argument to begin with.  Rifles killed 323 people in 2011, and that also includes bolt actions, so the number for AR-15's only is going to be much lower.  

Fact is, within the context of annual deaths per year, AR-15's are not very dangerous.  Perhaps you should focus on other types of guns if you want people to take you seriously.

---

Straw man.  Nobody has suggested banning AR-15s because they kill more people every year than any other type of gun.

---

It isn't a strawman because plenty of people have suggested that.  Just because they don't exist on this forum (they probably do anyways) doesn't mean that they aren't pushing their agenda to politicians.

 Hell, even Feinstein wants a de-facto ban on them.

 And besides, the only reason to be against AR-15's is because they look scary.  The "but they are dangerous!" and "they are more efficient at killing people!" arguments are not valid because facts show that they are statistically irrelevant to being a danger to society.  The only arguments against AR-15's are from emotions, or based upon emotions - both of which are fallacies.

[WynnD]

I'd like to correct the definition of guns. They are designed to put holes in things. Very expensive hole punches. They put holes in paper, people, rats and birds. (Cars, houses.....)

[guido61]

---

UCN wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

UCN wrote:

You didn't have an argument to begin with.  Rifles killed 323 people in 2011, and that also includes bolt actions, so the number for AR-15's only is going to be much lower.  

Fact is, within the context of annual deaths per year, AR-15's are not very dangerous.  Perhaps you should focus on other types of guns if you want people to take you seriously.

---

Straw man.  Nobody has suggested banning AR-15s because they kill more people every year than any other type of gun.

---

It isn't a strawman because plenty of people have suggested that.  Just because they don't exist on this forum (they probably do anyways) doesn't mean that they aren't pushing their agenda to politicians.

 Hell, even Feinstein wants a de-facto ban on them.

 And besides, the only reason to be against AR-15's is because they look scary.  The "but they are dangerous!" and "they are more efficient at killing people!" arguments are not valid because facts show that they are statistically irrelevant to being a danger to society.  The only arguments against AR-15's are from emotions, or based upon emotions - both of which are fallacies.

---

I didn't say people don't want to ban the AR-15. I said they don't want to do it because it kills more people than any other gun every year.

They want to ban it because when it IS used, it often kills more people in a single incident than many other types of guns. 

Nobody is under any illusion that banning these guns will stop all gun violence.  Or even all mass shootings.  It's simply one part of the solution.

And regarding the gun "looking scary"--let me ask you?  Do you think depictions of violence in movies and video games are part of the problem?

[yanktar]

I think both Guiodo and Norm are wrong. The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Congress makes the laws, the Courts interpret what they mean and do not mean, and if they are Constitutional, and the Executive Branch enforces them. Ike moved because the state officials violated their oath to enforce, among other things, the US Constitution. In theory, yes, if the SCOTUS ruled strippers could not be barred from their trade by a state,and that state used its forces to defy that ruling, then, yes, the President would have the authority to enforce the SC's decision.
Enact, Interpret, Enforce: the jobs of the three branches of our government.

[UCN]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

UCN wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

UCN wrote:

You didn't have an argument to begin with.  Rifles killed 323 people in 2011, and that also includes bolt actions, so the number for AR-15's only is going to be much lower.  

Fact is, within the context of annual deaths per year, AR-15's are not very dangerous.  Perhaps you should focus on other types of guns if you want people to take you seriously.

---

Straw man.  Nobody has suggested banning AR-15s because they kill more people every year than any other type of gun.

---

It isn't a strawman because plenty of people have suggested that.  Just because they don't exist on this forum (they probably do anyways) doesn't mean that they aren't pushing their agenda to politicians.

 Hell, even Feinstein wants a de-facto ban on them.

 And besides, the only reason to be against AR-15's is because they look scary.  The "but they are dangerous!" and "they are more efficient at killing people!" arguments are not valid because facts show that they are statistically irrelevant to being a danger to society.  The only arguments against AR-15's are from emotions, or based upon emotions - both of which are fallacies.

---

I didn't say people don't want to ban the AR-15. I said they don't want to do it because it kills more people than any other gun every year.

They want to ban it because when it IS used, it often kills more people in a single incident than many other types of guns. 

Nobody is under any illusion that banning these guns will stop all gun violence.  Or even all mass shootings.  It's simply one part of the solution.

And regarding the gun "looking scary"--let me ask you?  Do you think depictions of violence in movies and video games are part of the problem?

---

AR-15's don't kill more people than any other gun.  I just said that they didn't.  If you don't believe me, I can post the non-biased FBI statistics proving you wrong.  Handguns, by far, kill more people every year.

And the single incident thing isn't necessarily true.  The Virginia Tech shooter killed more with handguns.  The Aurora shooter's AR-15 jammed because he was using an aftermarket drum magazine, which hardly ever feed properly.  You said "often", implying that AR-15's mostly kill more people per single incident than other types of guns, but this is not true either.

Also, mass shootings argument is from emotion, and thus a logical fallacy.  This is because mass shootings are statistically irrelevant.  How many mass shootings (like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc) have we had in the past 20 years?  And how many people are killed every year due to guns?  Yeah, it's a non-issue.

[guido61]

---

yanktar wrote:
I think both Guiodo and Norm are wrong. The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Congress makes the laws, the Courts interpret what they mean and do not mean, and if they are Constitutional, and the Executive Branch enforces them. Ike moved because the state officials violated their oath to enforce, among other things, the US Constitution. In theory, yes, if the SCOTUS ruled strippers could not be barred from their trade by a state,and that state used its forces to defy that ruling, then, yes, the President would have the authority to enforce the SC's decision.
Enact, Interpret, Enforce: the jobs of the three branches of our government.

---

Technically, yes.   I said it only took two branches of government but, as I was trying to point out to Norm, if you consider that every SC ruling is based on a the Constitution which was written by Congress, then obviously you can claim that Congress "approved" the executive action.

Norm isn't quite willing to go that far.  He wants to have it both ways: to say the 14th amendment would be the congressional approval in the Little Rock case but not say the constitution was the authority in others.

You can't have it both ways.  Either you believe the Constitution itself is the authority for the Executive to act, or you do not.

I think the President COULD send in the troops to allow the strippers to work if he wanted to.

[guido61]

---

UCN wrote:

 

AR-15's don't kill more people than any other gun.  I just said that they didn't.  If you don't believe me, I can post the non-biased FBI statistics proving you wrong.  Handguns, by far, kill more people every year.

I know they don't. I already agreed with you that they don't.  No one claims they do.  Thats my point. You're acting as if people are saying we should ban it because it kills more people every year than every other gun.  No one says that.   It's a strawman.

[UCN]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

UCN wrote:

 

AR-15's don't kill more people than any other gun.  I just said that they didn't.  If you don't believe me, I can post the non-biased FBI statistics proving you wrong.  Handguns, by far, kill more people every year.

I know they don't. I already agreed with you that they don't.  No one claims they do.  Thats my point. You're acting as if people are saying we should ban it because it kills more people every year than every other gun.  No one says that.   It's a strawman.

---

Except that it isn't a strawman.  Feinstein herself has specifically stated in her proposed bill that she is looking for a de-facto ban on AR-15's and other similar guns.  The reason why she wants it is not the point, the point is that she is pushing for it to begin with.

[guido61]

---

UCN wrote:

 

Also, mass shootings argument is from emotion, and thus a logical fallacy.  This is because mass shootings are statistically irrelevant.  How many mass shootings (like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc) have we had in the past 20 years?  And how many people are killed every year due to guns?  Yeah, it's a non-issue.

---

It's not a non-issue.  Simply because more people die in other sorts of shootings over all doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to lessen their frequency or severity.   More people die in small engine airplane crashes every year than big jetliner crashes.  Should we not bother trying to reduce jetliner accidents?

Simply because "statistically" something ELSE is worse is NOT a reason to do the first thing. 

[guido61]

---

UCN wrote:

---

Except that it isn't a strawman.  Feinstein herself has specifically stated in her proposed bill that she is looking for a de-facto ban on AR-15's and other similar guns.  The reason why she wants it is not the point, the point is that she is pushing for it to begin with.

---

If "why" is not the point, then trying to tell us about which "whys" are invalid isn't relevant either.

But "why" IS the point. 

[normh]

---

guido61 wrote:

Actually, only Section 1 is applicable, so telling me to read the ENTIRE body of the amendment is irrelevant.

But isn't saying that Eisenhower had congressional approval to go into Little Rock.  He didn't ask them.  They didn't sign a resolution saying he should.  He simply took it upon himself to do so and it was all predicated by the Brown decision.  

Again, any president could decide to use troops to back up any SC decision and declare the Congress gave him similar authoriity because they wrote the original amendment that whatever law the SC was looking at violated that amendment. 

If a state comes up with a law banning strip clubs and the SC says that law violates the first amendment then, by your logic, the President would have the Congressional Approval to send in troops making sure the state didn't prevent those strippers from going to work.

---

I had informed you of how to examine the issue, but you refuse to, so I will have to say this about you:

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

You are an admitted Carry Concealed Permit holder who is arguing anti firearm; a person who has admitted that his intent is to impose such regulations on all firearms that owning them is impossible until such a time as the American society accepts his view on firearms; an admitted real estate salesman that claims to be a paralegal, and who does not understand fundamental Constitutional Law; who argues minutia of the Heller decision, a holding that is contrary to the position he holds, and of which he appears not to understand at all; a person that is now attempting to argue that he there was no body of law or Constitutional law to put down an insurrection that occurred in the after math of Brown v. Board of Education; that does not want to understand that authority historically exists not just in the amendments, but also in the body of the US Constitution; and of whom is attempting to split infinitives of that which he does not understand.

Every time I read a post by you on the topic of gun control, I smell a distinct fecal aroma.

Do something useful with your life like take a Constitutional Law course at an accredited paralegal school.

[UCN]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

UCN wrote:

---

Except that it isn't a strawman.  Feinstein herself has specifically stated in her proposed bill that she is looking for a de-facto ban on AR-15's and other similar guns.  The reason why she wants it is not the point, the point is that she is pushing for it to begin with.

---

If "why" is not the point, then trying to tell us about which "whys" are invalid isn't relevant either.

But "why" IS the point. 

---

In the big picture, the "why" really doesn't matter.  I was responding to you in my initial post because I thought you didn't understand how truly small the death count for rifles was.

[guido61]

---

normh wrote:

---

You are an admitted Carry Concealed Permit holder who is arguing anti firearm; a person who has admitted that his intent is to impose such regulations on all firearms that owning them is impossible until such a time as the American society accepts his view on firearms; an admitted real estate salesman that claims to be a paralegal, and who does not understand fundamental Constitutional Law; who argues minutia of the Heller decision, a holding that is contrary to the position he holds, and of which he appears not to understand at all; a person that is now attempting to argue that he there was no body of law or Constitutional law to put down an insurrection that occurred in the after math of Brown v. Board of Education; that does not want to understand that authority historically exists not just in the amendments, but the body of the US Constitution; and of whom is attempting to split infinitives of that which he does not understand.

Every time I read a post by you on the topic of gun control, I smell a distinct fecal aroma.

Do something useful with your life like take a Constitutional Law course at an accredited paralegal school.

---

I've told you before I am NOT a CCP holder.  You have me confused with someone else.  All I've ever said about CCPs is I don't oppose them.  I'm not a real estate salesman.  I've never claimed to be a paralegal.  I've said many times that I agree with the Heller decision. 

I didn't claim there was no constitutional authority for Eisenhower to go into Little Rock.  I simply said that if you're going to use original constitutional writings supported by the SC as the basis for "congressional approval" of any Executive action backing up an SC ruling, then you could do that with ANY similar ruling.

You either have me greatly confused with somebody else, (or a few other people) and/or have deplorable reading comprehension skills.

[nedezero1]

---

UCN wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

UCN wrote:

---

Except that it isn't a strawman.  Feinstein herself has specifically stated in her proposed bill that she is looking for a de-facto ban on AR-15's and other similar guns.  The reason why she wants it is not the point, the point is that she is pushing for it to begin with.

---

If "why" is not the point, then trying to tell us about which "whys" are invalid isn't relevant either.

But "why" IS the point. 

---

In the big picture, the "why" really doesn't matter.  I was responding to you in my initial post because I thought you didn't understand how truly small the death count for rifles was.

---

It doesn't matter that the use of "assault weapons" in crime is statistically insignificant compared to other weapons. What matters is we ban ugly guns they COULD be used to kill more and stuff.....