Meanwhile, over at Occupy the NRA...

Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
956
Likes
143
Location
Amherst, NH
Feedback: 5 / 0 / 0
I've had some civil discussions with some people that I feel at least got them thinking, some of them pretty funny. However, now the sheeple are all listening to this guy:


Brian Marlatt writes,

"Here is how I replied to "you would think differently with a gun pointed at your head."

Actually I have had a gun pointed at my very well-informed head. It was fired by a person with whom I was discussing his breach of contract and the probability of needing to seek a legal remedy should an out-of-court agreement not be reached.

He pulled the handgun from his desk and fired it at me from a range... of fifteen feet. The blast of powder and debris hit me in the face, all in about one tenth of a second. I ignored it and calmly proceeded to outline to him the consequences he faced if he did not honour the terms of the contract. Eventually he did. The gun was never mentioned. I did not send him to jail for the unlawful discharge of a firearm in which he was in lawful possession - a starter's pistol, as it turned out, which would have been lethal had I been just across the desk, according to a police officer I spoke with years later when discussing gun control.

Police who will tell you that gun control is a major objective. They will also tell you that the majority of acts of gun violence and death are committed with legal obtained firearms, generally in domestic violence. Police will also tell you that knowing if a firearm is known to be on a premises, the kind, and number, they are better informed to respond in a way that reduces risk to the family and others, including the person with the firearm, and to police intervening. All-hazards response necessitated by wide-gun ownership escalates potential levels of gun violence.

The best law in this area is likely similar to that in Australia where justification of gun ownership and possession is required. Even then access is tightly controlled. Responsible gun ownership is thereby encouraged and the incidence of gun violence is much less.
Gun ownership is not a right. It needs to be justified on a case by case basis. No right of gun ownership for personal defence exists. Such ownership is willful intent to use a firearm for the purpose of wounding or manslaughter. All such ownership is itself a crime. Handguns are almost impossible to justify. Except in rare cases where they can be justified they must be banned, as must all firearms which are or may be converted to any form of military use in the civilian population.

As to so-called the US Constitution Second Amendment right to "bear arms," it does not exist despite recent US Supreme Court findings which merely reflect the political nature of the US judicial system.

The written US Constitution is quite specific, there is no "right to bear arms" available to the individual. There is a "right to bear arms" only to provide a means for the State to raise "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." If you aren't in a militia raised by the State you have no "right to bear arms." Moreover, "to bear arms" has nothing to do with private gun ownership. The 18th century revolutionary government was seeking to raise an army on the cheap. This is not the 18th century. There is no debate. There is no individual right to bear arms.

By the way, the Second US Militia Act o 1792, the Upper Canadian Militia Act of 1791, and the British colonial militia provisions of 1758 are how the US Constitutional 2nd Amendment would have been understood: in the service of the King or later the US President, who was given the legal right by the act to raise regiments as militia from the citizenry by calling up ALL white male freeholders aged 15 to 45 to serve on immediate notice. The various militia acts also require such persons to muster in uniform and armed according to the terms of the act at intervals of twice a year or other periods.

If you think you have a 'right to bear arms' or oppose gun control you need to demonstrate how, under the law, you are not a current member of the National Guard, as militia's are known in the US today. Say hello to the draft.

By the way, my area of academic expertise is 18th century history and I am Canadian. Americans have made this an international issue through their misconduct, funding gun lobbies here and abroad, being the major source of illegal firearms of all kinds for criminal activity, recent shooting by US citizens at the Canadian border by unbalanced Americans and the use of the border as a roadblock to apprehend US suspects, thereby putting the lives of families travelling internationally at risk, and recent attempts to impose US law extraterritorially, including claims that legal possession in the US should mean legal possession outside of the US.

[Almost] The only point of personal opinion you will find in this note is the belief that the people who should not have access to firearms are those who oppose gun control because they are a danger to society, whether or not they have criminal intent."​

The size of his ego is stoltifying! He's a smug, pompous ass, but I've committed myself to no name calling there. However, I think I'm just about done. It was fun to poke holes in their fallacies, at first. Now it's just getting tedious. Oh well...
 
He's Canadian; what did you expect him to say?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[laugh2] I actually said as one of my responses, "Thank God you're canadian", to which he replied, " I thank God for it regularly, not to fear." [rofl]

The thing that scares me is that the nitwits on the page don't see the problem with a canadian (and I use the little c on purpose) suggesting policy or law changes. Man, this is an ugly wave we're riding right now!
 
Lots of unsubstantiated claims that are not supported by evidence mixed in with a health dose of willful ignorance. You could go down the list and refute them all one by one, but he'd just ignore you and call you a nutjob anyway.
 
These morons conveniently forget that "the people" in the First Amendment are the same "people" in the Second Amendment. There is no valid collective view of the Second Amendment. It is an individual right, just like the First Amendment.

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

**sholes - the whole bunch of them.
 
He's Canadian so his opinion doesn't count and further more I don't care what any foreign person has to say on the matter. It's none of their business.

Anyone know what gun laws are like in Canada?

His argument is scary though that
"The written US Constitution is quite specific, there is no "right to bear arms" available to the individual. There is a "right to bear arms" only to provide a means for the State to raise "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." If you aren't in a militia raised by the State you have no "right to bear arms."

Do you think the anti's could argue this and actually win?
 
Most gun crimes are not by using legally owned firearms in the US or Canada. Not sure where he got that one. Would be really tough to manipulate the numbers that much.

Sent from my SPH-P100 using Tapatalk 2
 
Notice how he conveniently left this out, ... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Assaults and rapes rates are higher in Canada than the US. How's that gun control working out for those people?

Canadians aren't really good at anything, not even hockey anymore. How's that "we didn't even win a medal" in world juniors working out for you?
 
I wish "I am Canadian" wasn't buried in the second to last paragraph. I could have saved myself about 5 minutes.

That's what I thought when I read it. I only felt the need to respond when some so-called Americans were saying what great ideas he had, and how he was right on about the SCOTUS!
 
Why would anyone think that the "people" referenced in the second ammendment are the government? The constitution was written to limit government power NOT to protect it. Why would the founders feel the need to protect a government's "right" to keep and bear arms? does goverent even have any rights? It astounds me how willfully ignorant the gun grabbers are.
 
Last edited:
If they take away our guns it will just come down to who has the biggest "insert killy thing here". It was like that for thousands if not millions of years mankind has been here on this rock. One thing that irks me is it is not a right granted by the Constitution.....it is an absolute right granted by the creator. If he doesn't like it here he should go to Australia. But remember, the same protection he receives from "the document" to spew this rubbish is the same protection we receive. Maybe we really need to get the message out to people that this whole sham is going to incrimentally encroach on our rights until we truly are subjects to the ruling class........sorry for the rant
 
They are all for saying only the goverment has the right to have guns but then talk about how the people have freedom of speech. But the same people want to limit free speech by deeming anything they find offensive, including the truth, hate speech or lies and therefore not protected. They're all a huge flaming pile of hypocrites.
 
I've had some civil discussions with some people that I feel at least got them thinking, some of them pretty funny. However, now the sheeple are all listening to this guy:


Brian Marlatt writes,

"Here is how I replied to "you would think differently with a gun pointed at your head."

Actually I have had a gun pointed at my very well-informed head. It was fired by a person with whom I was discussing his breach of contract and the probability of needing to seek a legal remedy should an out-of-court agreement not be reached.

He pulled the handgun from his desk and fired it at me from a range... of fifteen feet. The blast of powder and debris hit me in the face, all in about one tenth of a second. I ignored it and calmly proceeded to outline to him the consequences he faced if he did not honour the terms of the contract. Eventually he did. The gun was never mentioned. I did not send him to jail for the unlawful discharge of a firearm in which he was in lawful possession - a starter's pistol, as it turned out, which would have been lethal had I been just across the desk, according to a police officer I spoke with years later when discussing gun control.

Police who will tell you that gun control is a major objective. They will also tell you that the majority of acts of gun violence and death are committed with legal obtained firearms, generally in domestic violence. Police will also tell you that knowing if a firearm is known to be on a premises, the kind, and number, they are better informed to respond in a way that reduces risk to the family and others, including the person with the firearm, and to police intervening. All-hazards response necessitated by wide-gun ownership escalates potential levels of gun violence.

The best law in this area is likely similar to that in Australia where justification of gun ownership and possession is required. Even then access is tightly controlled. Responsible gun ownership is thereby encouraged and the incidence of gun violence is much less.
Gun ownership is not a right. It needs to be justified on a case by case basis. No right of gun ownership for personal defence exists. Such ownership is willful intent to use a firearm for the purpose of wounding or manslaughter. All such ownership is itself a crime. Handguns are almost impossible to justify. Except in rare cases where they can be justified they must be banned, as must all firearms which are or may be converted to any form of military use in the civilian population.

As to so-called the US Constitution Second Amendment right to "bear arms," it does not exist despite recent US Supreme Court findings which merely reflect the political nature of the US judicial system.

The written US Constitution is quite specific, there is no "right to bear arms" available to the individual. There is a "right to bear arms" only to provide a means for the State to raise "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." If you aren't in a militia raised by the State you have no "right to bear arms." Moreover, "to bear arms" has nothing to do with private gun ownership. The 18th century revolutionary government was seeking to raise an army on the cheap. This is not the 18th century. There is no debate. There is no individual right to bear arms.

By the way, the Second US Militia Act o 1792, the Upper Canadian Militia Act of 1791, and the British colonial militia provisions of 1758 are how the US Constitutional 2nd Amendment would have been understood: in the service of the King or later the US President, who was given the legal right by the act to raise regiments as militia from the citizenry by calling up ALL white male freeholders aged 15 to 45 to serve on immediate notice. The various militia acts also require such persons to muster in uniform and armed according to the terms of the act at intervals of twice a year or other periods.

If you think you have a 'right to bear arms' or oppose gun control you need to demonstrate how, under the law, you are not a current member of the National Guard, as militia's are known in the US today. Say hello to the draft.

By the way, my area of academic expertise is 18th century history and I am Canadian. Americans have made this an international issue through their misconduct, funding gun lobbies here and abroad, being the major source of illegal firearms of all kinds for criminal activity, recent shooting by US citizens at the Canadian border by unbalanced Americans and the use of the border as a roadblock to apprehend US suspects, thereby putting the lives of families travelling internationally at risk, and recent attempts to impose US law extraterritorially, including claims that legal possession in the US should mean legal possession outside of the US.

[Almost] The only point of personal opinion you will find in this note is the belief that the people who should not have access to firearms are those who oppose gun control because they are a danger to society, whether or not they have criminal intent."​

The size of his ego is stoltifying! He's a smug, pompous ass, but I've committed myself to no name calling there. However, I think I'm just about done. It was fun to poke holes in their fallacies, at first. Now it's just getting tedious. Oh well...



Seems like everybody is missing the point here:

He is asserting that we only get to have arms if we are in service to the king.

He is asserting that the entire reasoning used by the founders for the United States to exist in the first place - is bogus.
 
These morons conveniently forget that "the people" in the First Amendment are the same "people" in the Second Amendment. There is no valid collective view of the Second Amendment. It is an individual right, just like the First Amendment.



**sholes - the whole bunch of them.

Yes, the term "the People" is every where in the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. Everywhere, all liberals claim that this means an individual right to that, or an individual right to this. But I guess when they said "the People" in the Second Amendment, they just screwed up.

Sort of like this...



WARNING: Language.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, the term "the People" is every where in the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. Everywhere, all liberals claim that this means an individual right to that, or an individual right to this. But I guess when they said "the People" in the Second Amendment, they just screwed up.

Sort of like this...



WARNING: Language.


I love the way Teller keeps pointing to the word "People" - with a "hey retards look at this word" .... look on his face.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not going to lie, I wasn't expecting Pen and Teller to be on OUR side (being on TV and all)... But that was EPIC.
 
I think the men who actually wrote the constitution would disagree. If he doesn't think so he should read Federalist paper 46 and educate himself. The men who wrote the 2nd amendment were very clear as to it's intent. And the federalist papers are documentation of their intentions. Funny how they never come into constitutional discussion though...
 
Back
Top Bottom