+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says (/showthread.php?tid=281550)
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - Racer X - 10-27-2023
btfc wrote:
“ Did I say it was absolute without any restrictions or restraints, yes or no.
And I urged everyone to let this be between Acer and myself. “
What a weasel…
Nope, not at all. he said, and I quote
"But why do you point to a gun law and imply it is a positive feature when you think that the right to own a firearm is absolute?"
I don't think it, nor have I ever said it.
Let Acer be a man and deal with this on their own.
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - Tiangou - 10-28-2023
Smote wrote:
Let Acer be a man and deal with this on their own.
Back off and cool down.
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - DeusxMac - 10-28-2023
Smote wrote:
Let Acer be a man and deal with this on their own.
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - Acer - 10-28-2023
Smote wrote:
Geez. Maybe I should get a gun so I no longer have to hide under the porch.
Then the right to own a gun is not absolute for you? Forgive me if I misinterpreted your copy-paste of court opinions as implying that it was.
So, tell me. When should the right to bear arms be denied? In prison, I assume. Threat of domestic violence? Mental health? Past felonies? When traveling on public transportation? I need some parameters here if I am to understand your position on this topic.
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - Racer X - 10-28-2023
CONVICTION for violent felony, so domestic violence restraining order, although laudable, isn't constitutional because there has been no CONVICTION yet.
Involuntary commitment for violent mental illness beyond a 72 hour hold is reasonable, with the caveat that if you become no longer a danger to yourself and others you can get your Right back.
Just remember, that your voting Rights don't get taken away unless you are convicted. Nothing you say loses your voting, free speech, due process, search and seizure, religion etc etc etc unless there is a conviction for a felony or possible sentance over a year. It varies on that state to state.
Pre-emptive firearms loss, even temporary, for Red Flag laws shouldn't be Constitutional, no matter how badly we want it. That is a slope we should never set foot on. "A Right delayed is a Right denied."
Non-violent felonies shouldn't count. Kiting checks doesn't make you a physical danger to your community, nor does lying to get food stamps for your kids. The Bryan Range case will probably clear up the non-violent felon issue. There is also an 18USC 922g3 case covering drug use, of great interest to the Biden family. Both dad and son. One of the 2 is going to lose. History of prohibition on carrying drunk is proven, but smoking pot last week has no practical actual impact on your firearm handling today. Pot IS still against the law, regardless of what a state may have voted.
Sensative places without their own specific dedicated security shouldn't be allowed in my opinion. Unless you take serious active steps to keep us safe, and take full responsibility for any negative outcome, let us carry. If you don't have trained armed security and metal detectors in place, it isn't enough.
The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness includes in the Right to Life the Right to Self Defense to preserve our own life. That is obvious, or should be. I'd like to see someone argue we don't have the Right to defend our own life.
You asked, and I answered.
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - Speedy - 10-28-2023
“well regulated”.
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - Racer X - 10-28-2023
Speedy wrote:
“well regulated”.
why do you refuse to accept that in 1791 well regulated ment in proper working order? All the dictionaries from around that time period plainly show regulated's meaning.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regulate
"1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet."
notice rules and restrictions is AFTER, and less comonly used, than 1 and 2? and LAWS aren't mentioned.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regulated
"REG'ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions."
once again, AFTER, it is a less common useage than put in good order or adjusted by rule or methods.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/well-regulated
"(of a business, military outfit, routine, etc) controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations, tradition, etc: a well-regulated militia"
notice it never said LAWS? nothing legally binding or commanding?
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - Acer - 10-28-2023
Smote wrote:
CONVICTION for violent felony, so domestic violence restraining order, although laudable, isn't constitutional because there has been no CONVICTION yet.
Involuntary commitment for violent mental illness beyond a 72 hour hold is reasonable, with the caveat that if you become no longer a danger to yourself and others you can get your Right back.
Just remember, that your voting Rights don't get taken away unless you are convicted. Nothing you say loses your voting, free speech, due process, search and seizure, religion etc etc etc unless there is a conviction for a felony or possible sentance over a year. It varies on that state to state.
Pre-emptive firearms loss, even temporary, for Red Flag laws shouldn't be Constitutional, no matter how badly we want it. That is a slope we should never set foot on. "A Right delayed is a Right denied."
Non-violent felonies shouldn't count. Kiting checks doesn't make you a physical danger to your community, nor does lying to get food stamps for your kids. The Bryan Range case will probably clear up the non-violent felon issue. There is also an 18USC 922g3 case covering drug use, of great interest to the Biden family. Both dad and son. One of the 2 is going to lose. History of prohibition on carrying drunk is proven, but smoking pot last week has no practical actual impact on your firearm handling today. Pot IS still against the law, regardless of what a state may have voted.
Sensative places without their own specific dedicated security shouldn't be allowed in my opinion. Unless you take serious active steps to keep us safe, and take full responsibility for any negative outcome, let us carry. If you don't have trained armed security and metal detectors in place, it isn't enough.
The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness includes in the Right to Life the Right to Self Defense to preserve our own life. That is obvious, or should be. I'd like to see someone argue we don't have the Right to defend our own life.
You asked, and I answered.
Yes, you did. Thanks.
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - RgrF - 10-28-2023
Keep asking Acer, it gives him something to do - something he obviously loves.
Re: 18 people were killed and 13 injured in Maine shootings, governor says - Racer X - 10-28-2023
Acer wrote:
That's why despite the simplified name on the top, the legislation and regulation take great pains to precisely define what is and what is not covered for any law. Any definition will include gray areas, because life is like that. We must accept that, and move on to the problem we are trying to solve.
I can only assume you are saying this because you haven't read the 3 proposed BATFE regulations that have spawned at least 5 lawsuits. Just one of the reasons, and not even the biggest reason, is because they REFUSE to define when a block of aluminum or spool of printer filament crosses over into a frame or receiver. It is literally a "We'll know it when we see it"
"The rule makes clear that the terms shall not include a forging, casting, printing, extrusion,
unmachined body, or similar article that has not yet reached a stage of manufacture where it is
clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon (e.g., an unformed block of
metal, liquid polymer, or other raw material). " clearly identifiable to whom? I could identify a partially machined block of aluminum as an AR receiver, my wife couldn't.
And I have seen their internal manual, and it doesn't tell their own technical inspectors what the concrete criteria are. There aren't any. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/new-training-aid-overview-final-rule-2021r-05f-definition-frame-or-receiver-and/download 10 different experts will give different answers. Do our roads just have "No Speeding" signs, without actually telling us what that number is?
The pistol brace "rule" is a joke. They can't make up their own minds. 4 answers since 2010. Every change was because of pressure from the White House, not because the hardware changed.
Same with the bumpstock ban. Now, to his credit, President Obama, when told by the BATFE that bumpstocks weren't "machine guns" and braced pistols weren't short barreled rifles, he was dissapointed, but he accepted their answers. His predecessors don't have his integrity, IMHO.