Say Anything Blog

What can be said, Rob? Typical tripe from the Democrats. You know, I thought that all of the things they are saying now were gong to happen if we had concealed carry laws. Apparently they have an index file and under guns it tells them to say the same thing over and over.

This must be part of AWOL George “Chimpy McBurton Hitlerstein” Bush’s plan for international imperialism.

I’ll be waiting for decades for something like this to be passed here in California…

Jadegold asserts, “Well, since FL has had concealed carry laws, it’s seen over 1000 CCW-holders commit serious crimes.”

Source?  You didn’t provide one despite assuring us that, “I don’t just pull things from thin air and hope nobody questions it.”

The problem is the vast majority of firearm owners have zero idea as to how to use, maintain, store a firearm.

So what you’re saying is, a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

In fact, my assertions are supported by several the NRA considers to be experts in the area of self-defense with a firearm.

Source?

Another fact is that anyone can buy a firearm.

This is incorrect.  “Anyone can buy a firearm” after one navigates through the thousands of gun laws.

And there is no requirement the purchaser of the firearm be mentally or physically capable of safely using or possessing a firearm.

This is incorrect.

Thus, your claim that you know firearm owners who claim such proficiency can be filed away with those claiming Elvis works in the appliance department at Sears.

This is just a dumb statement.

Jadegold,

Another thought:

Some state courts have found that dirks, pikes, etc. fall under their state arms’ right as well.

Well, since FL has had concealed carry laws, it’s seen over 1000 CCW-holders commit serious crimes.

The problem is the vast majority of firearm owners have zero idea as to how to use, maintain, store a firearm. In short, they become a greater danger to themselves and their families than any would-be criminal.

That’s a lot of accusations, JG… Do you have ANY evidence to back any of that up?  Cause I don’t know any firarm owner personally (and I know quite a few) who have “zero idea as to how to use, maintain, (sic)store a firearm”

Another thought:

Vermont has the most liberal gun laws as an individual in Vermont has the right to carry a concealed weapon without the need for a permit.  That’s been the since a VTSC decisions in the 1890s.

By logical inference the right to defend oneself thus includes a right to bear arms.

Depends what you mean by ‘arms.’

Do I have the ‘right’ to carry a hand grenade?  Nope.  Can I carry a canister of anthrax?

These are, by definition, arms.

Can I place anti-personnel mines in my front yard?  Can I have a 66mm LAW rocket to defend myself against vehicles which may threaten me?

Well, since FL has had concealed carry laws, it’s seen over 1000 CCW-holders commit serious crimes.

The problem is the vast majority of firearm owners have zero idea as to how to use, maintain, store a firearm.  In short, they become a greater danger to themselves and their families than any would-be criminal.

Another problem with this FL law is that it promises to escalate what were small scuffles into deadly deadly disputes.  I promise this is what will happen:  two FL rednecks will get into an argument after drinking about 20-25 beers.  A drunken shoving match will morph into one redneck breaking the other redneck’s nose.  At this point, broken nose redneck will pull out his 9mm and cap the other redneck.

Darwinism in action.

That’s a lot of accusations, JG… Do you have ANY evidence to back any of that up?

Of course I do, Aaron.  Unlike yourself and JFH. I don’t just pull things from thin air and hope nobody questions it.

In fact, my assertions are supported by several the NRA considers to be experts in the area of self-defense with a firearm.

Another fact is that anyone can buy a firearm.  There is no requirement for knowing which end of the weapon is which.  And there is no requirement the purchaser of the firearm be mentally or physically capable of safely using or possessing a firearm.

Thus, your claim that you know firearm owners who claim such proficiency can be filed away with those claiming Elvis works in the appliance department at Sears.

Well, arms refers to the sort of arms considered legal for the keeping and bearing of arms as of 1791 if the Second Amendment is at issue. For the states it is more complicated because so many have only formally adopted an arms right in the 20th century (some as late as a few years ago - see Wisconsin I recall). However, most states adopt a similar definition of arms; meaning amongst other things no artillery or like weapons of war.

Unfortunately, if you referring to the 2A and Militia Act--you are referring to a right accorded to state/federal militias which the courts have held to be comprised of the US military, National Guard and law enforcement agencies.

Of course, you are aware no court has held an individual right to a firearm.

Of course I do, Aaron. Unlike yourself and JFH. I don’t just pull things from thin air and hope nobody questions it.

HAHA! You’re too funny, JG…

You tell me you have all sorts of evidence to back up your ridiculous claims and then proceed to produce..... nothing? No links, no specific citations or names or organizations (other than a generic reference to NRA experts).  And, btw, not needing to pass a gov’t test to get a firearm does in no way point to the ‘fact’ that firearms owners are therefore uneducated relating to that firearm…

Let’s try this again, do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

Aaron,

While California is one of the seven states where one doesn’t have an explicit right to keep and bear arms, you do have a right to self-defense.  By logical inference the right to defend oneself thus includes a right to bear arms. 

The only state which recognizes a communitarian arms right in Massachusetts.

Jadegold,

Well, arms refers to the sort of arms considered legal for the keeping and bearing of arms as of 1791 if the Second Amendment is at issue.  For the states it is more complicated because so many have only formally adopted an arms right in the 20th century (some as late as a few years ago - see Wisconsin I recall).  However, most states adopt a similar definition of arms; meaning amongst other things no artillery or like weapons of war.

Jadegold,

Of course that’s just one way of looking at it and not all originalist philosophies are of course the same.

Anyway, the federal court decisions on the Second Amendment are so few and far between its easy to miss one decision.  Indeed, the Supreme Court’s statements on the amendment have in 99% of the cases been quite oblique.

Still waiting for evidence, JG…

Jadegold,

Actually, lots and lots of courts have held as such regarding state rights (remember, we live in a federalist system of government), and one U.S. Circuit Court has now held such.  See U.S. v. Emerson (this on appeal after a District Court found similarly). 

The case can be found here: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html

Well, since FL has had concealed carry laws, it’s seen over 1000 CCW-holders commit serious crimes.

Still waiting for the source. I also want to know how many crimes were comitted with a weapon excluding those above.

The problem is the vast majority of firearm owners have zero idea as to how to use, maintain, store a firearm.

That, unfortunately, is true in a lot of cases. Missouri has a concealed carry law now, and you are required to take a course to get the permit. I would have no problem requiring a course of several weeks to a few months for people wanting to get a permit. Paid for by the individual, of course.

JG seems to have issues with Rednecks, he should seek professional help.

I think this highlights one of the basic differences between “conservatives” and “liberals,” or the right and the left.

People on the right tend to, in most cases, trust the people themselves with managing themselves.  They believe that people, not the government, know what best to do with their money in most cases.  They also believe that people are capable of being trusted with their own personal security.

People on the left are, mostly, just the opposite.  And Jadegold is putting on a clinic in leftist thought for this issue.  Don’t trust the people with their own protection.  They’re morons, for the most part, and will shoot themselves in the foot.

I hope that I die before I am ever convinced to adhere to such a cynical outlook on society.

there’s been no court decision affirming an individual right to a firearm. None.

Is there a need for a court to affirm what has already been laid out in the constitution?  The second amendment clearly references both the right of the state to keep a militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Jadegold, you seem to be advocating for a complete removal of firearms from society.  Do you really want the government to have all the guns?  Looking back into history I’d say that a personal right to firearms is one of the few protections any free people have from tyranny.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If anyone is interested, Eugene Volokh has a page deveoted to USSC states on the Second Amendment. You’ll marvel and how thin the material is.

Of course, the converse is much thinner--IOW, there’s been no court decision affirming an individual right to a firearm.  None.

When you refer to the Emerson case--you’re referring to dicta which has as much precedential weight as a judge declaring he really likes egg salad sandwiches.  IOW, none.

Jadegold insults in place of a real argument, “Look, Likwud, comment on things you have exxperience with: huffing inhalants and hitting on 14 year olds. Leave the real conversation to adults.”

Why do you, Jadegold from IP address 138.88.234.36, insult like this?  “Leave the real conversation to adults” indeed.  You need to take your own advice and drop the petty name calling.

Jadegold,

Don’t take my correction as an attempt to personally attack you.

Also, I should have clarified that the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) was applying the Second Amendment in that case.

This is incorrect.

Look, Likwud, comment on things you have exxperience with: huffing inhalants and hitting on 14 year olds.  Leave the real conversation to adults.

There is no requirement a purchaser of a fiream be mentally or physically competent.  So long as one can point and hand over a fistful of cash--anyone can buy a firearm.

Hus: No offense is taken.  But you aren’t correcting me; instead, you’re misinterpreting what the courts have held.

In the Emerson case, Emerson lost.  Some of the dicta supported an indivual right to arms view but that had nothing to do with what the court ultimately decided.

Jadegold asserts, “Of course, you are aware no court has held an individual right to a firearm.”

Source?  That makes five claims in this thread alone that you haven’t sourced.

Besides, who needs the court when you have the Second Amendment?

If anyone is interested, Eugene Volokh has a page deveoted to USSC states on the Second Amendment.  You’ll marvel and how thin the material is.

* Ok emperical and florida were mispelled.

Well, since FL has had concealed carry laws, it’s seen over 1000 CCW-holders commit serious crimes.-Jadetroll

Whoa there, little lady, not so fast. 1000 people who, by federal law, are required to take a firearms safety class and subject themselves to an F.B.I. background check SUDDENLY decided to go out and commit violent crimes? Not even the DU could have given you this idea. I am going to come right out and say it: Jadetroll, you are a liar. Until you give me a LEGITIMATE source that backs up this claim, you are nothing more than a pathetic liar. Capiche? Okay.

Ohh...and don’t go and say you dont pull shit out of thin air and hope we dont notice, we all know where you pull your “facts” from. I am calling you out, jadetroll. Provide a link to a source that gives imperical proof that at least 1000 people in floridia that have CCW permits have committed violent crimes, (not traffic tickets, you said violent),
Or face the fact that what little respect you have will be gone. Or, be content with being a damn liar. Your choice.

Son of America

...Were all waiting

Rob,

People on the right tend to, in most cases, trust the people themselves with managing themselves.

I think that is a highly questionable claim.  I see as many on the “right” as on the “left” proposing limits to individual liberty.  Its just the subject matters which shift. 

Jadagul,

Also, I must state it doesn’t matter whether he lost or not, it does matter what the Fifth Circuit recognized despite his loss.  They adopted an entirely different position on the issue of gun rights than the Justice Department at the time, yet still found for the government.

I’m proud of you, Son of America

Jadagul,

Given that most of the seventy-six page opinion was devoted to the subject its a little strange to start calling it dicta.  The Federal district courts in the 5th District don’t recognized it as dicta after all.  But please, read the opinion.

You know, this is typical of Jadegold. He’s called me out a time or two on something I said that was incorrect, but I face up to my mistakes and that the ridicule of having to say I was wrong and I made a mistake.  Jadegold, on the other hand, shows the coward he is by not even repsonding to what everyone wants to hear.  He’s commented several times since I called for proof, yet none was offered.

So you gonna face up to your mistake JG, or are you gonna just cowardly hide?

JADEGOLD LIED!!!!!

Son of America: maybe they were very violent traffic offenses?

In case nobody noticed, JG pulls facts out of thin air all of the time.  Then when called to justify his links, he gives a lame URL that has nothing to do with the substance of his claims.  Apparently, JG reads a few liberal newspapers and magazines and mistakes this for a liberal education.  If you go back through the last month’s posts by JG, you find him claiming to be a grand logician, an expert on constitutional law, a neurologist, and who knows what else.  Item by item he has had his head handed to him, but he still keeps on coming.

So this begs the question… exactly what is JG actually knowledgable at?  I mean he really isn’t even much of a troll.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Rob:

People on the right tend to, in most cases, trust the people themselves with managing themselves.

Hus responds:

I think that is a highly questionable claim. I see as many on the “right� as on the “left� proposing limits to individual liberty. Its just the subject matters which shift.

To have a functioning society, you have to place some limits on individual liberty.  For example, cannibalism is generally not an individual right permitted by either liberals or conservative.  Both the left and right place limits on legal forms of marriage, etc. (I can’t marry a tree for example.)

However, Rob’s point is that liberals often don’t trust individuals to take care of themselves, witness JGs comments wrt gun owners.  So, do you have an example of conservatives placing limits on individual’s freedom because they don’t trust the individual to take care of them self?

Carrick,

Both the left and right place limits on legal forms of marriage, etc. (I can’t marry a tree for example.)

Indeed, I’d have to ask, how would the state stop you from marrying a tree?  By throwing you in jail?  Forcing you to pay fines? 

Anyway, in this instance the state is not prohibiting marriage (obviously marriage means something more than merely a state marriage license, and as the term is culturally constructed, we are free to create it as we wish) so much as it is priviliging and recognizing one concievable (if traditional) type of marriage over other concievable types.  In practical terms, that means that states have enacted hundreds of special benefits to a certain class of couples that it has not done so for other classes of couples.

Carrick,

“To have a functioning society, you have to place some limits on individual liberty.”

Well, certainly a neo-Hobbesian would argue so.  However, even if we accept this premise, I would sitll argue that my point stands.  Conservatives and liberals have spheres of subject matter where they do not trust individuals to make decisions for themselves. 

Both the left and right place limits on legal forms of marriage, etc. (I can’t marry a tree for example.)

Actually, you could.  It just wouldn’t be state sanctioned. 

However, Rob’s point is that liberals often don’t trust individuals to take care of themselves...

Neither do their opposite, of course.  The difference is subject matter. 

So, do you have an example of conservatives placing limits on individual’s freedom because they don’t trust the individual to take care of them self?

That’s easy of course.  Drug prohibition. 

Teacher led prayer in schools is popular amongst many conservatives.  Apparently we can’t come to a decision about our religious beliefs without the state being involved in the process.

Prohibiting “naughty words.” There was a great episode about this on Bullshit this season where a religious conservative that belongs to a fairly powerful D.C. think-tank argued that naughty words have no constitutional protection.

Outlawing the sale of dildos is another interesting one. 

Conservatives also argue (along with other groups admittedly) that doctor-assisted suicide is wrong and should be illegal.  They don’t trust individual decision-making there. 

Basically if it concerns sex, certain types of language, religious belief, etc., conservatives tend to be all over it. 

Now, I could make an equally strong list of the these things liberals advocate where they clearly do not trust individual decision-making (guns is a primary example).  Smoking is another area of course, as it appears that the anti-smoking groups tend to be largely made up of liberals.

Of course, you may actually think that say anti-sodomy laws should be enforced, or that state-led prayer in public schools is ok, or what have you.  However, debating the merits of those stances isn’t at issue, what is at issue is whether conservatives and liberals both have prohibitionist, anti-individual autonomy views in their respective balliwicks, and I would say yes.

JG also states that there is no control in place to stop the mentally incompetent from obtaining firearms. He, obviously, has never gone through the process of purchasing a gun legally. In all 3 states where I have bought firearms you must attest and affirm that you are mentally fit, not a felon, addicted to or taking mind altering drugs, or under a restraining order. Under penalty of law. Of course, you can just lie. Plenty of people on both sides of the aisle have no problem with that. And therein lies the rub. Once you begin to believe that everyone is incompetent and a criminal who has just not been caught yet, it is easier to convince yourself that their rights should be stripped from them in order to “protect” them from harm. And yes, JG, the DoJ does recognize the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as put forth by the Constitution. You have a nice day now.

In all 3 states where I have bought firearms you must attest and affirm that you are mentally fit, not a felon, addicted to or taking mind altering drugs, or under a restraining order. Under penalty of law.

This is only (sometimes) true if you purchase from an FFL dealer.  And as you correctly note, you can lie without any oversight or penalty.

Of course, you’re ignoring the fact one can purchase a firearm at most any gun show without going through an FFL dealer.  Additionally, you can purcahse a firearm from a neighbor, relative, friend or perfect stranger without going through an FFL process.

And yes, JG, the DoJ does recognize the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as put forth by the Constitution.

The current DoJ does; but they also seem to believe torture, the indefinite detention of American citizens, and the 4A doesn’t exist, either.

But, of course, the DoJ only has an opinion and doesn’t get to make or interpret the law.

Jadegold, I’m still waiting for actual proof that 1000 CCW holders in Florida committed violent crimes.

Don’t you type one more word until you back that one up, you lying little fuckstain.

Carrick,

I am curious.  Why didn’t you respond to the bulk of my commentary?

As to the posited definition, it is only one such definition.  Or are you an Aristotelian?

If you’re going to start nit-picking whether there is any point to government restricting any individual rights and contemplation on the issue of what is marriage and the legality of tree-human unions, then there really is nothing to be gained by further discussion.

Run away!  Run away!

Hus:  Thanks for the comments. Couple of quick comments:

I’d have to ask, how would the state stop you from marrying a tree?

: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

So to answer your question… the state can stop me from marrying by not issuing a license.

If you’re going to start nit-picking whether there is any point to government restricting any individual rights and contemplation on the issue of what is marriage and the legality of tree-human unions, then there really is nothing to be gained by further discussion.

Having purchased weapons at gun shows,picked up a nice piece on Mar. 12 at a gun show, I know that you are a baldfaced f***ing liar.

To the contrary, you are the liar.  Not every dealer at a gun show is an FFL dealer.  And, to be frank, some of the FFL dealers will look the other way if the price or deal is right.

BTW, go to the parking lot of a gun show sometime.  There’s probably many more transactions taking place out the trunks of autos than inside the show.

Another question: why do gun shows tend to attract people very interested in Nazi memorabilia and other white supremacist stuff?  I’ve never been to a gun show that wasn’t hawking Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc.

Liargate: Elapsed time since Jadetroll was asked to back up his anwsers: 24hrs 45 minutes

Responses: 0

Youre not getting off easy this time, Jadetroll

Son of America

Having purchased weapons at gun shows,picked up a nice piece on Mar. 12 at a gun show, I know that you are a baldfaced f***ing liar. And yes, you can buy from private individuals and it is up to you to follow the law. The so-called gunshow loophole is crap, I personally know several people who are involved in the gun show circuit nationally, and they are above reproach. I specificaly do not have business dealings with these people because I am not lilywhite and have NO desire to taint them. Vendors at gun shows are a very law abiding class of citizens, and to even suggest any illegality to them is a good way to get your ass escorted into the street, the sound of police sirens coming toward you being the prefered option. If it is among the orbit of people I do business with, it is a good way to get your ass beat into a coma and pitched into a dumpster. Ft. Washington is a rather crappy place to live, by your stated oppinions you fit right in.

To the contrary, you are the liar. Not every dealer at a gun show is an FFL dealer. And, to be frank, some of the FFL dealers will look the other way if the price or deal is right.-Jadetroll

Hey hey Hey! whats that? why, its another BULLSHIT LIE from our own troll king, Jadetroll!

Man, you have no idea what you are talking about! The ATF is the regulating factor that keeps FFL members compliant. Those who choose to forgo the background checks and sell a gun without proper I.D. don’t just get a slap on the hand, they are liable for FEDERAL PROSECUTION. Do the fumes from the garbage you dump at your job really make you this delusional?

And BTW, why do ALL democratic protests have copies of the communist manifesto and socialist papers that abdicate anarchy and proselytize Fidel Castro? Just something I noticed about democrats, Jadetroll.

Yeah, dipshit, two can play that game

Son of America

Liargate Update: Still a pathetic liar who won’t back up his statement. (Jadetroll)

2Hotel9,

If go to Moscow you can pick up all manner of Soviet kitsch. I’ve thought about buying these beautiful ceremonial blankets.  But then I think about being an anti-communist and abjure.

I’ve never been to a gun show.  I either inherited or have been given in other ways all my firearms.  I have been to computer expos though. 

You don’t have to globe trot to get all those goodies! Anyway, most of it is substandard crap. I always felt bad for John Red, the only thing they had better, equipment wise, was NBC gear. But if the temp. was above 50 degrees F. they would fallout from heat exhaustion. Poor bastards!

Junior Grade you have obviously never been to a gun show. If you had you would know that there is far and away more Imp.Japanese and Soviet/Warsaw Pact memorabilia than Nazi. Has been for about 25 years. As for why there are so many vendors displaying such crap, it is because they foolishly thought it would be worth something. Just like the idiots who"invested" in Beaniebabies and Cabbagepatch dolls. Like you. Also, you have never been to a gun show because your boyfriend, sorry, your same sex life partener, would not approve. You know, he is a real A**hole, you can do better.

Heh.  That’s good.  Communist artifacts being sold by capitalist entrepeneurs.

Actually, I’ve always been fascinated with Russia’s history.  I’ve wanted to travel to Moscow for a long time.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

jadegoldwhatever, go to packing.org. Check the regs for purchase and carry.
You can start with MN. Both purchase and carry aps have questions regarding mental capacity. There is a 30 waiting period. Training for carry is required and there are some areas of no carry such as schools. You can also check gun shows there for rules. The gun shows I’ve been to require a purchase permit or a carry permit to buy.
“The best we could hope for the citizens is that they be well armed”
(Or words to that effect) The founding fathers maintained the citizenry be armed to defend themselves from criminals and from tyranny within.
Makes sense to me!
I have and exercise the right to keep and bear arms!
And yes, jadegoldwhatever I will defend that right to the final round!

Still waiting for Jadegold to answer for his lying accusations......

Someone said of Jadegold:

Or face the fact that what little respect you have will be gone.

Perhaps I missed it, but I think Jadegold lost all respect quite some time ago.