SCOTUS Needs to Reaffirm RKBA Extends Outside of Home

[PistolPackingMomma]

For context, let's refer to the chronological order of the posts, because you are either confused or dishonest.

You're making some wild false inferences if you think I don't believe in jury nullification or "wouldn't have supported rosa parks." You are
Making unfounded accusations there.

Point being- we're here in the spirit of fully abiding by the law. While you may not be directly stating "Connecticut gun owners should not register their guns" on this forum, you are directly implying it with "I stand behind Connecticut gun owners not registering." It is simply a minor difference in semantics.

Please keep your opinion about breaking the law to yourself.

WOULD you have supported Rosa Parks? She broke the law.

The Founding Fathers technically did too.

And again, one's OPINION on law/civil disobedience is not the same as advocating for others to do so; it's an opinion on a discussion forum, is not in violation of the rules, and you are out of line to try and control the expression of such.

Here is where I ASKED you to clarify, and instead, you go off on a rant.

Let's also note that you said "While you may not be directly stating "Connecticut gun owners should not register their guns" on this forum, you are directly implying it with "I stand behind Connecticut gun owners not registering."

So implication of his view is the same as advocating law breaking? :uhoh:

Thankfully this is a forum, so I can reference what you and the Gunner of Sudden Valley typed, and recall what you spew off...

To #1: This statement is false:


So yes, he attempted to infer, or rather blindly concluded I did not support Rosa Parks or Jury Nullification. You push the question, further intertwining it to your and the Sudden Valley Gunman logic that must not support Rosa Parks because I don't agree with you.

No, sugar, I flat out asked you what you would have done when Rosa Parks didn't move to the back of the bus. If that is too difficult for you to comprehend...well, TS.

To #1: This statement is also false:

That's direct answer. My answer was "yes."

I never asked you about the situation in Connecticut, but keep spinning and contorting.

To #1: Again, you're making another false accusation...

Rather than attempting to define "valid" civil disobedience I conversely admitted the definition of civil disobedience could be very broad.

So are only some acts of civil disobedience okay with you then? Which ones? Why?

Is there a maximum number of false statements you can make until you can't comment anymore? :lol:

I wouldn't know. Share with us when you find out though.

 

[cirrusly]

For context, let's refer to the chronological order of the posts, because you are either confused or dishonest.


Here is where I ASKED you to clarify, and instead, you go off on a rant.

You're deliberately omitting the Sudden Valley Active Shooter posts prior in which he stated, "Good to know he doesn't believe in jury nullification, or wouldn't have supported Rosa Parks." This was before you asked that question. So yes, for true context please DO refer to chronological order of the posts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're confused.

Let's also note that you said "While you may not be directly stating "Connecticut gun owners should not register their guns" on this forum, you are directly implying it with "I stand behind Connecticut gun owners not registering."

So implication of his view is the same as advocating law breaking? :uhoh:

It is not the same as "law breaking" but the statement of "I stand behind Connecticut gun owners not registering" is advocating an illegal act. The illegal act being not registering. And if you refer to rule number 15 it explicitly states, "posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here, Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional..."

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

INo, sugar, I flat out asked you what you would have done when Rosa Parks didn't move to the back of the bus. If that is too difficult for you to comprehend...well, TS.

I never asked you about the situation in Connecticut, but keep spinning and contorting.

You asked after the Active Shooter of Sudden Valley accused me of not supporting Rosa Parks, so while your question was direct, it deliberately followed the Gunner of Sudden Valley's accusation. I'm sorry you are incapable of comprehending that.

So are only some acts of civil disobedience okay with you then? Which ones? Why?

Theoretically many illegal acts could be deemed as "civil disobedience," thus the true determination of what constitutes true civil disobedience is subjective and broad. Again, I addressed that in my last response.

I wouldn't know. Share with us when you find out though.

You didn't get shut down yet?

 

[cirrusly]

No the founders envisioned people who would ignore laws that are not constitutional. You do realize that the 2A is an enumeration of the right to resist right? That enumerating the 2A and recognizing the right to bear arms to keep government in check is also the recognition of the right to use those arms.

If you're suggesting we "Ignore laws that are not constitutional" that is in direct violation of rule 15 of these forums. If you do indulge in illegal activity and ignore laws, don't post about it on here.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

The point is regardless of whether the law is constitutional or not, on these forums "ignoring laws" is not tolerated. Period. The forum rule has nothing to do with my opinion of the founding fathers' vision.

Do you believe jurors should convict those who don't follow the states rules?

Depends on the circumstance.

So you only agree with it when it suits you and your opinion?

It depends on circumstance because should jurors convict murderers and rapists? That is a different circumstance than: should jurors convict a citizen for failing to register a weapon.

In both of these examples citizens were not following state rules. But if you cannot see the difference in circumstance between a murder or rapist on trial versus a citizen who failed to register a weapon, please go join Bloomberg and Mayors Against Guns.

Thus, I maintain my response to your question: "It depends on circumstance."

You are using OCDO as an excuse to avoid a discussion of the constitutional issues at hand that is blatantly obvious.

Not at all. I merely pointed out when you violated forum rule #15.

 

[OC for ME]

I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

The Founders were traitors to their country. They committed high treason. They deserved to hang, or be subject to the punishments allowed under the law.

Of course, if their motive to commit high treason obviates the high treason, well, no harm no foul.....right?

Ends justifies the means. Your "sig line" could be construed as advocating a reader to commit high treason.

A mountain out of a mole hill. You got spanked by PPM, take your lumps and move on. When PPM gets on her giddy-up I tend to step out of the way. I don't always, but I try to remember to do so anyway.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The Founders were traitors to their country. They committed high treason. They deserved to hang, or be subject to the punishments allowed under the law.

Of course, if their motive to commit high treason obviates the high treason, well, no harm no foul.....right?

Ends justifies the means. Your "sig line" could be construed as advocating a reader to commit high treason.

A mountain out of a mole hill. You got spanked by PPM, take your lumps and move on. When PPM gets on her giddy-up I tend to step out of the way. I don't always, but I try to remember to do so anyway.

+1

He keeps regurgitating the same lame arguments. PPM destroyed them. I explained all of the above that he keeps whining about what I said (while purposefully as if trying to insult changing my name). Funny he purposefully seems to ignore the direct explanations.

 

[OC for ME]

+1

He keeps regurgitating the same lame arguments. PPM destroyed them. I explained all of the above that he keeps whining about what I said (while purposefully as if trying to insult changing my name). Funny he purposefully seems to ignore the direct explanations.

I left his sig line alone in one respect..... it is nonsensical. I get his sentiment, but the wording.....ouch.....hurts to read it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I left his sig line alone in one respect..... it is nonsensical. I get his sentiment, but the wording.....ouch.....hurts to read it.

Not being the best at grammar myself I don't have much room for complaint in that arena. I hear what you are saying though. I think I have gotten better from the constructive criticism of this board.