Gun control debate (merged)

#15,626
#15,626
Orangeslice13 said:
View attachment 324669
Click to expand...

You know how I feel about that crap . Every loss of freedom , every restriction, every law / mandate , every internment, imprisonment , mass genocide , and every failed socialist government after switching from capitalism ..was done by someone deciding it was for the greater good of society .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and 82_VOL_83
#15,629
#15,629
0nelilreb said:
You know how I feel about that crap . Every loss of freedom , every restriction, every law / mandate , every internment, imprisonment , mass genocide , and every failed socialist government after switching from capitalism ..was done by someone deciding it was for the greater good of society .
Click to expand...

Another movie quote.
“you shot an unarmed man!!”
“Well, he should have armed himself “
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#15,630
#15,630
Orangeslice13 said:
Oh,
You’re a moron that can not read.
View attachment 324670
Click to expand...
While relaxing gun laws for "real" Germans. You are trying to make the Holocaust a gun control issue which is intellectually dishonest. Racial cleansing laws are a separate and distinct issue. America has done the same thing to Native Americans and black people despite having the 2nd Amendment, so your logic doesn't work.
 
#15,631
#15,631
0nelilreb said:
I don’t at all .. but there’s this little black smuge of ink we call a comma in the 2a that I’m going to use to blow what you want to say next all to piece . LOL
Click to expand...
I’m in the Orange Slice Militia. We have 6 members and are “well regulated” by ourselves as we don’t need anyone’s permission
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, C-south, NorthDallas40 and 5 others
#15,632
#15,632
MG1968 said:
No thanks. Australia perpetrated a massive seizure of legal firearms from legal gun owners. If you want the US to be like Australia you need to work to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I am aware of the obstacles that stand in the way of us having sane gun laws.
 
#15,633
#15,633
Ashevolle said:
While relaxing gun laws for "real" Germans. You are trying to make the Holocaust a gun control issue which is intellectually dishonest. Racial cleansing laws are a separate and distinct issue. America has done the same thing to Native Americans and black people despite having the 2nd Amendment, so your logic doesn't work.
Click to expand...
It was literally taking guns from Jews that prevented them from defending themselves.
And now you’re making my points. Disarming the native Americans and Blacks allowed the US government to suppress them. That never should have happened. But I’m sure it’d be different this time.
So are you the “real American” who wants to send the rest of us to the “re-education” camps?

Like I said, just not smart
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, NorthDallas40, 82_VOL_83 and 1 other person
#15,636
#15,636
0nelilreb said:
I don’t at all .. but there’s this little black smuge of ink we call a comma in the 2a that I’m going to use to blow what you want to say next all to piece . LOL
Click to expand...
Statutory Language Not to be Construed as "Mere Surplusage"
A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that courts should "give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed."84 The modern variant is that statutes should be construed "so as to avoid rendering superfluous" any statutory language: "A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant...."85 A related principle applies to statutory amendments: there is a "general presumption" that, "when Congress alters the words of a statute, it must intend to change the statute's meaning."86 Resistance to treating statutory words as mere surplusage "should be heightened when the words describe an element of a criminal offense."87

There can be differences of opinion, of course, as to when it is "possible" to give effect to all statutory language – that is, to search for distinctions between similar terms or apparently redundant language without distorting the significance of those distinctions -- and when the general rule should give way to a more "common sense" interpretation.88

The presumption against surplusage also can guide interpretation of "redundancies across statutes," but the canon "is strongest when an interpretation would render superfluous another part of the same statutory scheme."89 Two overlapping statutes may be given effect so long as there is no "positive repugnance" between them.90

A converse of the rule that courts should not read statutory language as surplusage is that, as discussed below, courts should not add language that Congress has not included
 
#15,638
#15,638
Orangeslice13 said:
It was literally taking guns from Jews that prevented them from defending themselves.
And now you’re making my points. Disarming the native Americans and Blacks allowed the US government to suppress them. That never should have happened. But I’m sure it’d be different this time.
So are you the “real American” who wants to send the rest of us to the “re-education” camps?

Like I said, just not smart
Click to expand...
My point is that a government can twist and restrict the holy 2nd amendment when it wants to. We interned Japanese American citizens during WW2. Do you think the 2nd Amendment saved them? When the full might of the US government moves against you, the 2nd Amendment is only useful as toilet paper.
 
#15,639
#15,639
MG1968 said:
Your irrational fear of guns shouldn’t infringe on my right to own them.
Click to expand...
I own a gun and don't have an irrational fear of it. I have a sober understanding of the implications of America's current gun laws and am OK with changing them.
 
#15,640
#15,640
Ashevolle said:
Statutory Language Not to be Construed as "Mere Surplusage"
A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that courts should "give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed."84 The modern variant is that statutes should be construed "so as to avoid rendering superfluous" any statutory language: "A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant...."85 A related principle applies to statutory amendments: there is a "general presumption" that, "when Congress alters the words of a statute, it must intend to change the statute's meaning."86 Resistance to treating statutory words as mere surplusage "should be heightened when the words describe an element of a criminal offense."87

There can be differences of opinion, of course, as to when it is "possible" to give effect to all statutory language – that is, to search for distinctions between similar terms or apparently redundant language without distorting the significance of those distinctions -- and when the general rule should give way to a more "common sense" interpretation.88

The presumption against surplusage also can guide interpretation of "redundancies across statutes," but the canon "is strongest when an interpretation would render superfluous another part of the same statutory scheme."89 Two overlapping statutes may be given effect so long as there is no "positive repugnance" between them.90

A converse of the rule that courts should not read statutory language as surplusage is that, as discussed below, courts should not add language that Congress has not included
Click to expand...

61ACB4EA-1C80-493B-A3BF-D3FCA7A63A28.jpeg
Ahhh that wonderful little comma followed up immediately by ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed . has been giving leftist lawyers fits for so long because there isn’t a work around. It’s a glorious little ink smudge.
 
#15,642
#15,642
Ashevolle said:
My point is that a government can twist and restrict the holy 2nd amendment when it wants to. We interned Japanese American citizens during WW2. Do you think the 2nd Amendment saved them? When the full might of the US government moves against you, the 2nd Amendment is only useful as toilet paper.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS disagrees .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, NorthDallas40 and 82_VOL_83
#15,643
#15,643
0nelilreb said:
View attachment 324673
Ahhh that wonderful little comma followed up immediately by ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed . has been giving leftist lawyers fits for so long because there isn’t a work around. It’s a glorious little ink smudge.
Click to expand...
Funny how we have lots of laws that do currently infringe your right to bear arms. Apparently the comma is not as might as you presume.
 
#15,645
#15,645
Ashevolle said:
Funny how we have lots of laws that do currently infringe your right to bear arms. Apparently the comma is not as might as you presume.
Click to expand...

It’s mighty enough to keep people such as yourself from saying the 2a was meant for the militia and I shouldn’t apply to me . Isn’t it ?
 
#15,647
#15,647
0nelilreb said:
It’s mighty enough to keep people such as yourself from saying the 2a was meant for the militia and I shouldn’t apply to me . Isn’t it ?
Click to expand...
My point is the 2nd amendment yields to loads of legal infringements. With the right Supreme Court, it will yield even more.
 
#15,648
#15,648
Ashevolle said:
You said your guns sucked at being deadly. Apparently you were sandbagging because you have inflicted death with them. Your anecdotal evidence of responsible gun ownership is hardly instructive on America's gun violence epidemic.

Dangerous people having access to guns is the root of the problem. A feasible solution is getting rid of their access to guns. It's worked in lots of other countries. The US is unwilling to follow logical suit, therefore mass shootings happen here at higher rates than elsewhere.
Click to expand...
So you are anti hunter also. Nice to know.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top