Police officer, Aréanah Preston was killed in Chicago. Her assailant was arrested 3 times for GUN violations. The Soros-appointed D.A. dropped the charges - all three times.
Chicago has the STRICTEST gun laws in the nation. If you want to start to make a difference - you might want to ENFORCE the laws.

---

"he is going to start WW3!!!!"

Link?

---

All gun deaths are tragic, police deaths are truly sad IMHO.

ProTip - your language in your posting reduces your credibility. If you had a track record of leaning left and said, 'Trump-appointed XX' (like a judge), even if true I would still assume you have a bias in your post.

'Soros-appointed' is likely not true, and your prior posts suggests you are trying to make something more than it is.

I say this as a native to the Land of Lincoln.

Quote
Mr645
Police officer, Aréanah Preston was killed in Chicago. Her assailant was arrested 3 times for GUN violations. The Soros-appointed D.A. dropped the charges - all three times.
Chicago has the STRICTEST gun laws in the nation. If you want to start to make a difference - you might want to ENFORCE the laws.

LOL.

"Soros appointed..."

...Soros.
A lot of rich people spread their money all round to back different candidates.
Doesn't mean they always "get appointed" LOL

Kim Foxx's challenger, Bill Conway, received 10 million dollars from his rich as hell Father -and he wasn't "appointed" (via the benefit of 5 times the cash that Soros gave Foxx)
...he just lost.

There is no doubt that Kim Foxx has issues..she would not win her next election in 2024, she knows it and is not going to run.

I live here in Chi...there is MUCH more to this problem than just 'Kim Foxx'..

You're a pond skimmer Mr645.

"Soros" is blockhead-speak for "Jewish". It's an anti-semitic dog whistle.

---

Clear;y it's best guns are kept out of the hands of the liberals here, otherwise they would be cheering the death of cops all over

---

"he is going to start WW3!!!!"

Quote
Mr645
Clear;y it's best guns are kept out of the hands of the liberals here, otherwise they would be cheering the death of cops all over

You apparently don't know that there's a whole lot of Liberals that own guns..Im much further left of Liberal, I own a shotgun and a 9mm handgun..Most of my friends are gun owners..city peeps. When we go out? We never talk about guns.

I / They're just not making guns the centerpiece of their entire existence, like all of you reckless empty losers who feel the need to carry them around everywhere and whine about your (distorted) constitutional rights...it's you guys, Mister..you guys are the problem here.
shame on you and your inability to look into yourself and out into the world in an honest, objective and socially responsible way..you are a selfish shameful person in a crowd of same..who are,at the same time, being manipulated by the NRA and the officials you've elected in your one dimensional voting concept....Guns over Education, Guns over Health care, Guns over civil rights...sicko.

there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

Quote
Smote
there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

In the wake of the killing in Uvalde, here’s what America can learn from Australia’s response to tragedy...

---

Quote
Smote
there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

You deal with the violations one at a time; same as any other crime.

You deal with the violations one at a time; same as any other crime.


Like if you guys keep dealing with trolls one post at a time they'll ever end? They're dedicated to their cause and impervious to argument. They're making this forum both uninteresting and unreadable and you opposition figures, by responding, are prolonging that.

Quote
Mr645
Clear;y it's best guns are kept out of the hands of the liberals here, otherwise they would be cheering the death of cops all over

I'm calling it - I have not seen a single posting here of ANYONE 'cheering the deaths of cops', not a single one.

My BIL is a retired police officer.

I think you should apologize.

The discussion on this board has been nearly unanimously from an intent to try to END this violence.

That may be, but there is nothing but complaining about the Constitution here. I see nothing here about members actively trying to change the Constitution trying to change the situation. Until you do that, any legislation or lawsuits will just be running in circles. Likely the Supreme Court deciding on the side of individual right for self defense and sporting use by law abiding citizens with firearms in common use, again and again, as they have ruled a few times already over the past few decades.

My beliefs, and your beliefs on the subject have no bearing on the judicial precedents set forth by the Supreme Court that all lower courts must ultimately abide by. If they don't, ultimately the Supreme Court will have to step in. Illinois has gotten the direct attention of Justice Barrett already. Their justifications all but ignore the Heller and Bruen decisions. It's as if there is a LaLaLa I can't hear you situation. But you can't ignore higher courts. Doesn't end well ultimately.

*complaining about the current interpretation of an ambiguous part of the Constitution here

Quote
Smote
That may be, but there is nothing but complaining about the Constitution here. I see nothing here about members actively trying to change the Constitution trying to change the situation. Until you do that, any legislation or lawsuits will just be running in circles. Likely the Supreme Court deciding on the side of individual right for self defense and sporting use by law abiding citizens with firearms in common use, again and again, as they have ruled a few times already over the past few decades.

My beliefs, and your beliefs on the subject have no bearing on the judicial precedents set forth by the Supreme Court that all lower courts must ultimately abide by. If they don't, ultimately the Supreme Court will have to step in. Illinois has gotten the direct attention of Justice Barrett already. Their justifications all but ignore the Heller and Bruen decisions. It's as if there is a LaLaLa I can't hear you situation. But you can't ignore higher courts. Doesn't end well ultimately.

You keep saying things that are not true. Here's a post in another thread:

'If I had my wishes, I would do two things:

1) Expand the National Firearms Act, which has survived full SCOTUS review and has been reaffirmed on a number of cases.

[en.wikipedia.org]

2) For any weapon not considered covered by a revised NFA, then we specify what a 'well-regulated militia' means, using the definition of 'regulated':

Reg-u-late: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"

To have weapons under 2A, you will: 1) register 2) insure 3) regulate the custody of your firearm(s).

That's it. A simple platform.'

I wish there were real options for a true new Amendment to the Constitution, something imagined and indeed designed to be a living document that would be regularly updated. But I've given up on that dream.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote
there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

You deal with the violations one at a time; same as any other crime.

Then why didn't Dettelbach give that answer? How long will the ATF take to clear the 10-40 million violation backlog? How long will it take to process and issue 40 million NFA tax stamps? Could it be because the ATF knows you can't ban firearms in common use, used legally, by law abiding citizens? That's the SCOTUS litmus test currently in use.

because clearly a 15" barrel is infinately more lethal than a 16" one. But you can have a much more concealable pistol chambered in the same round.

An AK pistol is legal, a longer AK rifle with a brace is not, because it isn't long enough.

Quote
Smote

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote
there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

You deal with the violations one at a time; same as any other crime.

Then why didn't Dettelbach give that answer?

In the video that you didn't post here?

I've seen your fictional video and read his mind across the Internet.

He did give the answer, but it occurred in an alternate dimension where you heard and understood and stopped coming here to post strawman arguments and other nonsensical anti-gun-control rhetoric.

---

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote
there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

You deal with the violations one at a time; same as any other crime.

Then why didn't Dettelbach give that answer?

In the video that you didn't post here?

I've seen your fictional video and read his mind across the Internet.

He did give the answer, but it occurred in an alternate dimension where you heard and understood and stopped coming here to post strawman arguments and other nonsensical anti-gun-control rhetoric.

I posted in another thread. Here it is again though. [www.youtube.com] and a second one. [www.youtube.com] and a third one
[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2023 06:30AM by Smote.

Quote
sekker

Quote
Smote
That may be, but there is nothing but complaining about the Constitution here. I see nothing here about members actively trying to change the Constitution trying to change the situation. Until you do that, any legislation or lawsuits will just be running in circles. Likely the Supreme Court deciding on the side of individual right for self defense and sporting use by law abiding citizens with firearms in common use, again and again, as they have ruled a few times already over the past few decades.

My beliefs, and your beliefs on the subject have no bearing on the judicial precedents set forth by the Supreme Court that all lower courts must ultimately abide by. If they don't, ultimately the Supreme Court will have to step in. Illinois has gotten the direct attention of Justice Barrett already. Their justifications all but ignore the Heller and Bruen decisions. It's as if there is a LaLaLa I can't hear you situation. But you can't ignore higher courts. Doesn't end well ultimately.

You keep saying things that are not true. Here's a post in another thread:

'If I had my wishes, I would do two things:

1) Expand the National Firearms Act, which has survived full SCOTUS review and has been reaffirmed on a number of cases.

[en.wikipedia.org]

2) For any weapon not considered covered by a revised NFA, then we specify what a 'well-regulated militia' means, using the definition of 'regulated':

Reg-u-late: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"

To have weapons under 2A, you will: 1) register 2) insure 3) regulate the custody of your firearm(s).

That's it. A simple platform.'

I wish there were real options for a true new Amendment to the Constitution, something imagined and indeed designed to be a living document that would be regularly updated. But I've given up on that dream.

regulate deffinition in the late 1700s, when that ammendment was written. [forums.macresource.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2023 06:44AM by Smote.

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

In the wake of the killing in Uvalde, here’s what America can learn from Australia’s response to tragedy...

Same in Cuba, step one, register all guns, step two make private gun ownership illegal, step three...... Shhhh

---

"he is going to start WW3!!!!"

Quote
Mr645

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

In the wake of the killing in Uvalde, here’s what America can learn from Australia’s response to tragedy...

Same in Cuba, step one, register all guns, step two make private gun ownership illegal, step three...... Shhhh

you missed Nazi Germany....

Yup, Australia will turn into Cuba any day now.

…aaaany day now.

Quote
pdq
Yup, Australia will turn into Cuba any day now.

…aaaany day now.

Every socialist country is either Cuba or Venezuela.

Not any of those European nations.

Was the restriction of private gun ownership really the first step in Cuba? I thought it was the rich upper class sugar barons manipulating the thoroughly corrupt government to relentlessly screw the underclass.

Quote
Smote
regulate deffinition in the late 1700s, when that ammendment was written. [forums.macresource.com]

From that same thread...

Quote
Smote
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

regulate:to bring order, method, or uniformity to

The primary definition from the poster’s own link…
“regulate - transitive verb
1a:
to govern or direct according to rule
1b:
(1) to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) to make regulations for or concerning

Quote
Smote
http://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

their deffinitions and examples come from different editions of the Oxford Dictionary before and after the 2nd A was written and rattified.

I love this one "1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." Which governmental agencies, laws, and regulations control her mind? Her mind is obviously well ordered and methodical in thought, thus the obvious conclusion is that it was a clandestine proceeding. Well regulated.

Who is the author of this “definition”? What are his credentials to be a legitimate interpreter of the Constitution? And why is there actually NO definition, just cherry-picked usages instead?

Who is this “constitution.org”?? Try to find anything about them/it online other than their own site (and while you’re there, watch the “comedic” YouTube video they present at the bottom of their homepage).

Edit; also note that Smote's linked "authority" on the specific term uses "well-regulated" for his usage examples, a hyphenated word. It is NOT hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2023 01:40PM by DeusxMac.

Quote
Smote

Quote
sekker

Quote
Smote
That may be, but there is nothing but complaining about the Constitution here. I see nothing here about members actively trying to change the Constitution trying to change the situation. Until you do that, any legislation or lawsuits will just be running in circles. Likely the Supreme Court deciding on the side of individual right for self defense and sporting use by law abiding citizens with firearms in common use, again and again, as they have ruled a few times already over the past few decades.

My beliefs, and your beliefs on the subject have no bearing on the judicial precedents set forth by the Supreme Court that all lower courts must ultimately abide by. If they don't, ultimately the Supreme Court will have to step in. Illinois has gotten the direct attention of Justice Barrett already. Their justifications all but ignore the Heller and Bruen decisions. It's as if there is a LaLaLa I can't hear you situation. But you can't ignore higher courts. Doesn't end well ultimately.

You keep saying things that are not true. Here's a post in another thread:

'If I had my wishes, I would do two things:

1) Expand the National Firearms Act, which has survived full SCOTUS review and has been reaffirmed on a number of cases.

[en.wikipedia.org]

2) For any weapon not considered covered by a revised NFA, then we specify what a 'well-regulated militia' means, using the definition of 'regulated':

Reg-u-late: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"

To have weapons under 2A, you will: 1) register 2) insure 3) regulate the custody of your firearm(s).

That's it. A simple platform.'

I wish there were real options for a true new Amendment to the Constitution, something imagined and indeed designed to be a living document that would be regularly updated. But I've given up on that dream.

regulate deffinition in the late 1700s, when that ammendment was written. [forums.macresource.com]

Your definition is even better-aligned than the one I used from 2023.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote
regulate deffinition in the late 1700s, when that ammendment was written. [forums.macresource.com]

From that same thread...

Quote
Smote
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

regulate:to bring order, method, or uniformity to

The primary definition from the poster’s own link…
“regulate - transitive verb
1a:
to govern or direct according to rule
1b:
(1) to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) to make regulations for or concerning

Quote
Smote
http://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

their deffinitions and examples come from different editions of the Oxford Dictionary before and after the 2nd A was written and rattified.

I love this one "1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." Which governmental agencies, laws, and regulations control her mind? Her mind is obviously well ordered and methodical in thought, thus the obvious conclusion is that it was a clandestine proceeding. Well regulated.

Who is the author of this “definition”? What are his credentials to be a legitimate interpreter of the Constitution? And why is there actually NO definition, just cherry-picked usages instead?

Who is this “constitution.org”?? Try to find anything about them/it online other than their own site (and while you’re there, watch the “comedic” YouTube video they present at the bottom of their homepage).

Edit; also note that Smote's linked "authority" on the specific term uses "well-regulated" for his usage examples, a hyphenated word. It is NOT hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment.

the author of the deffinitions and examples is the various editions of the Oxford Dictionary over the decades. They were just collated by a third party. it's obvious just looking at the page. Spelling and punctuation 2 centuries ago was often odd. I'm pretty sure you know that. If he is quoting something from 2 centuries ago, using the spelling and punction from that era is certainly appropriate.

Which agencies, laws and regulations control the woman's mind in the example?

And the primary deffinition in my own example is in presumably 2020 or later times. I'm illustrating the deffinition around the time the document was written. If the document section in question was redefined or altered in the past decade or so, your deffinition might be appropriate.

But since Heller and Bruen, and a few other cases were decided, the only thing that is legally relevant today is that the 2nd A encompasses a personal right to keep and bear arms, and those arms can be anything in common use, used by lawful people for lawful purposes.

Please feel free to take your argument to DC and have a case heard by SCOTUS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2023 02:51PM by Smote.

Webster's Dictionary, 1828, is probably as close as we can get to an authoritative, one might say originalist, definition in the day of the Founding Fathers:

REG'ULATED, participle passive: Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
[webstersdictionary1828.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2023 02:32PM by Acer.

Quote
Smote

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote
regulate deffinition in the late 1700s, when that ammendment was written. [forums.macresource.com]

From that same thread...

Quote
Smote
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

regulate:to bring order, method, or uniformity to

The primary definition from the poster’s own link…
“regulate - transitive verb
1a:
to govern or direct according to rule
1b:
(1) to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) to make regulations for or concerning

Quote
Smote
http://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

their deffinitions and examples come from different editions of the Oxford Dictionary before and after the 2nd A was written and rattified.

I love this one "1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." Which governmental agencies, laws, and regulations control her mind? Her mind is obviously well ordered and methodical in thought, thus the obvious conclusion is that it was a clandestine proceeding. Well regulated.

Who is the author of this “definition”? What are his credentials to be a legitimate interpreter of the Constitution? And why is there actually NO definition, just cherry-picked usages instead?

Who is this “constitution.org”?? Try to find anything about them/it online other than their own site (and while you’re there, watch the “comedic” YouTube video they present at the bottom of their homepage).

Edit; also note that Smote's linked "authority" on the specific term uses "well-regulated" for his usage examples, a hyphenated word. It is NOT hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment.

the author of the deffinitions and examples is the various editions of the Oxford Dictionary over the decades. They were just collated by a third party. it's obvious just looking at the page. Spelling and punctuation 2 centuries ago was often odd. I'm pretty sure you know that. If he is quoting something from 2 centuries ago, using the spelling and punction from that era is certainly appropriate.

Which agencies, laws and regulations control the woman's mind in the example?

As I stated, those are NOT definitions! They are ONLY cherry-picked usages; nothing more.

Here's a very on-point "usage" from the OED:

Regulated
"Of troops: Properly disciplined
1690 London Gazette 'We hear likewise the the French are in great Allarm in Dauphine and Fresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side'"

Quote
Smote

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Smote
there is one thing I'm sure that everyone can agree on, I hope. That no amount of laws, however strict, will effect change, unless they are enforced. Regardless of the subject of the laws. We have all seen in the past few years aspects of this. Theft crimes aren't being pursued like in the past. Even traffic laws being ignored have caused speeding and reckless driving to be rampant.

If guns are banned, unless you prosecute, convict and incarcerate, those laws are useless. I do understand that not everyone anti-firearm is advocating an outright ban. If you curtail gun ownership, will you have the stomach to follow through upholding the law?

I posted a video of a hearing in which Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, refuses to answer how they plan on dealing with 40,000,000 criminals if the pistol brace ban is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. You going to lock up 40 million people for NFA violations? 40 million for a victimless crime, an administrative violation?

You deal with the violations one at a time; same as any other crime.

Then why didn't Dettelbach give that answer?

In the video that you didn't post here?

I've seen your fictional video and read his mind across the Internet.

He did give the answer, but it occurred in an alternate dimension where you heard and understood and stopped coming here to post strawman arguments and other nonsensical anti-gun-control rhetoric.

I posted in another thread. Here it is again though. [www.youtube.com] and a second one. [www.youtube.com] and a third one
[www.youtube.com]

You've mischaracterized the entire exchange.

In the first video, Dettelbach clearly answered what he was allowed to answer. "It depends on the facts and the circumstances of the case" is a clear and concise answer and accords with DeusxMac's reply.

...Would have been helpful if Jim Jordan let him finish a sentence.

Second, Thomas Massie is just grandstanding. He's asking the chief of ATF to make an on-the-spot forensic exam and legal conclusion. He's being an arrogant jerk whose agenda clearly trumps truth. Which is not a poor reflection on Dettelbach.

Third, Mike Johnson makes a bunch of blatant mischaracterizations of the law and false allegations against Biden and then tries to sucker Dettelbach into agreeing with his bullcr@p. Again, someone whose agenda is clearly NOT to pursue truth.

None of this is a poor reflection on Dettelbach, and in no case is he unresponsive.

---

another critical thing that the committee was questioning, was why they flip-flopped on a determination that they made twice already, and then changed it without any laws, which are only created or amended, by the legislature.

I have an actual brace, purchased in I believe 2014, and I have the letter saying that specific make and model brace is legal to own and use without any NFA tax stamp, as it is still a pistol. I have a second letter from the ATF which is the determination that simply shouldering a pistol with a brace does not somehow redesign the brace into a shoulder stock, creating a short barrelled rifle, making me a felon. They specifically used the word redesign, because it plainly means no physical change happened to the pistol or the brace. Using a wrench as a hammer obviously isn't redesigning it.

And since both letters and determinations, Congress has absolutely not redefined what a pistol or rifle are. They decided that back in 1934 with the NFA. The ATF is not empowered to say your chicken is now a duck simply because it now swims. Everything that makes a chicken a chicken is still there. (yes, some chickens swim. They aren't ducks though)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2023 07:16PM by Smote.

Quote
pdq
Yup, Australia will turn into Cuba any day now.

…aaaany day now.

Except for place enforced lock downs for COVID. That sounded like fun

---

"he is going to start WW3!!!!"

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
pdq
Yup, Australia will turn into Cuba any day now.

…aaaany day now.

Every socialist country is either Cuba or Venezuela.

Not any of those European nations.

From Wkpedia.
Why is Norway's tax rate so high?
The relatively high tax level is a result of the large Norwegian welfare state. Most of the tax revenue is spent on public services such as health services, the operation of hospitals, education and transportation.

---

"he is going to start WW3!!!!"

Quote
Mr645

From Wkpedia.
Why is Norway's tax rate so high?
The relatively high tax level is a result of the large Norwegian welfare state. Most of the tax revenue is spent on public services such as health services, the operation of hospitals, education and transportation.

None of those things make Norway a socialist country. In fact, the US also spends tax money on all of those things.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

What are they teaching kids these days?

Quote
Mr645
Police officer, Aréanah Preston was killed in Chicago. Her assailant was arrested 3 times for GUN violations. The Soros-appointed D.A. dropped the charges - all three times.
Chicago has the STRICTEST gun laws in the nation. If you want to start to make a difference - you might want to ENFORCE the laws.

They arrested and charged the 4 who murdered her, all 4 are teens. Their parents must be so proud. [www.yahoo.com]

"The four suspects -- ages 19, 19, 18 and 16 -- "were out looking for victims" that night and are believed to be connected to multiple robberies and a car theft in the hours leading up to Preston's murder, interim Chicago Police Superintendent Eric Carter said at a news conference."

"The four suspects were all charged with first-degree murder and face other charges, including armed robbery and arson, police said. The 16-year-old will be charged as an adult, police said." Don't forget theft of a firearm. Or is that too minor to bother with?

The key is that they were charged at least. Now comes the plea bargaining, and I'm sure they will get far less than the max sentences, which should be life, no parole.


HOWEVER, Kimberly M. Foxx WAS ELECTED DA. [en.wikipedia.org]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2023 05:13PM by Smote.

For the record...

"In 2020, Conway ran for the Cook County State's Attorney office in Illinois, where he took 2nd place with 31% of the vote in the Democratic primary but lost to the incumbent* Kim Foxx (50.19% of the vote) on March 17, 2020. Kim Foxx ultimately won the general election by defeating Republican Pat O'Brien. Various sources note that Conway's campaign was mostly sponsored by his father William E. Conway Jr with over $10 million, while Kim Foxx's campaign was supported large donations from Michael Sacks, Fred Eychaner, SEIU, Chicago Federation of Labor, EMILY's List, and George Soros.."


*"[Foxx] won the [2016] Democratic primary for state's attorney's race on March 15, 2016 with 58% of the vote, and went on to win the November general election with 72% of the vote."

I just wants guns in the hands of well regulated militia.

Is that too much to ask?

right now, it's too much to ask that lawmakers and lower court judges follow the Constitution in conjunction with SCOTUS rulings.

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"Operative Clause. In Scalia's view, the text and history of the amendment's operative clause (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) is controlling. “The people” refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset, such as the militia; the phrase to “keep and bear arms” means to have weapons and carry them, and not just in a military context; and “the right of the people” refers to a preexisting right. Scalia reasons that these textual elements show that the amendment “guarantee(s) the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and that the amendment's text implicitly recognizes the preexistence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed” (Id., at 2790-2797). Congress merely codified a widely recognized right; it did not create a new right (Id., at 2797).

Prefatory Clause. According to Scalia, the prefatory clause (“well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia as being necessary to deny Congress the power to abridge the individual right to keep and bear arms. And while the reason for codifying the prefatory clause “was to ensure the preservation of a well-regulated militia, this does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the right to bear arms; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting"

NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2023 06:01PM by Smote.

Scalia made it all up.

There was no legal precedent for an individual right to bear arms and the entire history of the drafting of that clause contradicts the logic he used to create the "operative clause" BS.

Madison was rolling over in his grave that day.

What an activist judge pretending to be an originalist makes up while taking massive payoffs from the gun lobbies, a true conservative judge may overturn.

---

Quote
Tiangou
Scalia made it all up.

There was no legal precedent for an individual right to bear arms and the entire history of the drafting of that clause contradicts the logic he used to create the "operative clause" BS.

Madison was rolling over in his grave that day.

What an activist judge pretending to be an originalist makes up while taking massive payoffs from the gun lobbies, a true conservative judge may overturn.

then change it.

And just because you have issue with it, it is still the law. At this moment, legislaturists and lower court judges seem to think they aren't bound by the law. It was strengthened by Caetano and Bruen, so some new SCOTUS Justices are onboard, and following the Constitution and case law, as THEY are bound to do..

Whining and not doing anything accomplishes nothing but make you look like a whiner. Me, I actively contact my elected officials every day. EVERY DAY. Sent out 4 email already. More tonight probably.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2023 03:09AM by Smote.