Short and to the point: Obama the Liar

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

1. I've already told you I don't care what Scalia says. It's not like I have formed my opinion based on 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, and 2008 happenings (to what do I refer Cali?).

I assume you are referring to Supreme Court cases on guns and the National Firearms Act. If not, it would be easier for everyone if you actually just gave your opinion rather than thinking it would be a fun game for everyone to guess what you are thinking.

2. According to sources I have come across on the internet tubes, these legally owned "machine guns" (fully-auto) have been used a grand total of zero times in crime.

And?

3. So we all agree that national guard militia use select-fire M16s. We also now agree that these weapons, owned by civilians (there are more than 100,000 machine guns in private hands in the USA), have been used ZERO times in crime. Yet, I am told, it is unreasonable for me to own one manufactured in the last 2 decades.

Precisely. What difference does it make if no legally owned automatic weapons have been used in a crime (assuming that this statistic is more accurate than your "fact" on suppressors)? Your argument is that those weapons are "necessary" for "self-defense." How many instances can you cite in the past 50 years where a legally owned automatic weapon was necessary for self-defense and was successfully used for self-defense? THAT is the constitutional standard you have set for your own belief system (which we will accept for a moment for the sake of argument). Your "statistic" cited above may in fact be true, and perhaps even argues for making them legal under government regulation (of the type now in place at a minimum, as it must clearly be working if nobody is legally owning those guns for crime), but it has nothing to do with whether or not ownership of those guns is a Constitutional right.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I assume you are referring to Supreme Court cases on guns and the National Firearms Act. If not, it would be easier for everyone if you actually just gave your opinion rather than thinking it would be a fun game for everyone to guess what you are thinking.



And?



Precisely. What difference does it make if no legally owned automatic weapons have been used in a crime (assuming that this statistic is more accurate than your "fact" on suppressors)? Your argument is that those weapons are "necessary" for "self-defense." How many instances can you cite in the past 50 years where a legally owned automatic weapon was necessary for self-defense and was successfully used for self-defense? THAT is the constitutional standard you have set for your own belief system (which we will accept for a moment for the sake of argument). Your "statistic" cited above may in fact be true, and perhaps even argues for making them legal under government regulation (of the type now in place at a minimum, as it must clearly be working if nobody is legally owning those guns for crime), but it has nothing to do with whether or not ownership of those guns is a Constitutional right.

Current regulations make it so prohibitive, we wouldn't be able to accumulate meaningful data. However, this is a red herring.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I assume you are referring to Supreme Court cases on guns and the National Firearms Act. If not, it would be easier for everyone if you actually just gave your opinion rather than thinking it would be a fun game for everyone to guess what you are thinking.



And?



Precisely. What difference does it make if no legally owned automatic weapons have been used in a crime (assuming that this statistic is more accurate than your "fact" on suppressors)? Your argument is that those weapons are "necessary" for "self-defense." How many instances can you cite in the past 50 years where a legally owned automatic weapon was necessary for self-defense and was successfully used for self-defense? THAT is the constitutional standard you have set for your own belief system (which we will accept for a moment for the sake of argument). Your "statistic" cited above may in fact be true, and perhaps even argues for making them legal under government regulation (of the type now in place at a minimum, as it must clearly be working if nobody is legally owning those guns for crime), but it has nothing to do with whether or not ownership of those guns is a Constitutional right.

I don't need to prove prior use for self-defense. I merely need to demonstrate the utility for self-defense, in the context of an informal militia of citizens, comprising 1 or more individuals, looking to our current formal militia as the baseline.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't need to prove prior use for self-defense. I merely need to demonstrate the utility for self-defense, in the context of an informal militia of citizens, comprising 1 or more individuals, looking to our current formal militia as the baseline.

So the standard is no longer what would be necessary for an informal militia (however you define that), but what would be "useful?"

Boy am I glad you aren't in charge.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Current regulations make it so prohibitive, we wouldn't be able to accumulate meaningful data. However, this is a red herring.

Don't look at me. I am the one who said this was irrelevant.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So the standard is no longer what would be necessary for an informal militia (however you define that), but what would be "useful?"

Boy am I glad you aren't in charge.

If you want to parse semantics, that is boring.

Necessary implies the minimum acceptable standard. Reasonable (i.e. useful) is what I see as a standard that is utilitarian, beyond the minimum acceptable standard.

A strong argument could be made that select-fire M16s is a minimum acceptable standard, as that is what the National Guard uses. (of course there are exceptions, but I don't expect Cali to know them, hence I won't address them, lol. Moron.)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you want to parse semantics, that is boring.

Necessary implies the minimum acceptable standard. Reasonable (i.e. useful) is what I see as a standard that is utilitarian, beyond the minimum acceptable standard.

A strong argument could be made that select-fire M16s is a minimum acceptable standard, as that is what the National Guard uses. (of course there are exceptions, but I don't expect Cali to know them, hence I won't address them, lol. Moron.)

Do you know them within 24% of being right? Or do you know them like you know your other facts?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Do you know them within 24% of being right? Or do you know them like you know your other facts?

My opinion of Georgetown Law is fading rapidly.

Ok, I lied. It had faded into oblivion a long time ago.

Well, I lied again. My mission president went to Georgetown law, and I have a lot of respect for him.

If you want every exception explained to you, you had better get someone with the energy and patience of a Tex.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My opinion is fading rapidly.

Ok, I lied. a long time ago.

I lied again. My mission law, and I have a lot of respect.

want every exception explained to you, someone with the energy and patience of.

Your post above has been re-written with 25% removed, given that that appears to be your acceptable margin of error. Makes sense.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Your post above has been re-written with 25% removed, given that that appears to be your acceptable margin of error. Makes sense.

I've gotten my gospel out. I'm not sure what you accomplished.