Supreme Court dismisses second amendment case.

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Sackeshi, Apr 27, 2020.

  1. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Citation its on video. Did fox news not cover it?
     
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fact remains:
    You supplied no citation, and no quote from same, that supports what you said.
     
  3. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
  4. Jacob E Mack

    Jacob E Mack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2019
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No.
     
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing in the videos you cited shows protesters invading the state capitol and pointing guns at legislators.
    The video -did- show people with guns inside the capitol building yelling at the governor, but no guns were pointed at anyone and no legislators were involved

    You embellished an embellishment, and got the facts wrong.

    As per the norm.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2020
  6. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    this video does

     
    SkullKrusher likes this.
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    - There is no invasion
    - No one in the video pointed a gun at anyone.
    - The only people involved were protestors, police and capitol personnel - no legislators were present, and the yelling was directed at the governor.

    Why do you choose to be wrong?
     
  8. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then the above is an admission that, yes, the proposal on the part of yourself would indeed take finite resources and investigators away from legitimate law enforcement purposes, and instead they would be applied exclusively for looking for excuses to deprive individuals of their legally owned firearms based on the notion they said something that you do not like.

    The entire premise is something far more appropriate for what who has aspirations of dictatorial rule and is so convinced that their outlook is the only correct one, that they must forcefully silence anyone and everyone who holds and contradictory belief.

    In short, simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, what is being proposed on the part of yourself is tyranny for the sake of identifying and punishing political opponents.

    Under such a system, why would anyone choose to go into law enforcement? Why would not all posts be abandoned as entire precincts quit en masse in response to such a move? Why would anyone take the chance of being held financially liable to exercising their own best judgement and making a mistake?

    What will the punishment be for the one who made the complaint, if it turns out they intentionally filed a false report? Can the accused bring suit against their accuser for significant financial gain and legal costs, essentially bankrupting their accuser as a result?

    The incident being described on the part of yourself would constitute a charge of assault with a deadly weapon at the very least, making it no different than if the suspect in question had been attempting to shoot at law enforcement officers. In the united states deadly force would be warranted as a first response, not a last response.

    A smart individual will refrain from attempting to deprive another individual of their private property. Those who have no regard for the rights or property of others do not deserve to be given a second chance, as they have done nothing to earn a second chance. Let such individuals simply die so society does not have to deal with them and their actions multiple times.

    Such would amount to a significant violation of the fourth amendment of the united states constitution, and never pass muster in a court of law.

    Again, the entire premise is something far more appropriate for what who has aspirations of dictatorial rule and is so convinced that their outlook is the only correct one, that they must forcefully silence anyone and everyone who holds and contradictory belief.

    In short, simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, what is being proposed on the part of yourself is tyranny for the sake of identifying and punishing political opponents. The fact that such is supported so readily on the part of yourself is quite revealing.

    The legal standard of innocent until proven guilty dictates otherwise.

    Then perhaps what should be supported on the part of yourself is the practice of constitutional carry, meaning that anyone who can legally own a firearm can carry it in a concealed manner without need for any paperwork or payment of fees.

    There is no violence to be had in either the owning or carrying of a firearm. Absolutely no violence whatsoever. It is only when a firearm is actually used in an active, physical manner, that the notion of violence enters the equation.

    It is not an act of violence to simply carry a firearm. It is an act of violence to draw a firearm and deliberately point or discharge it in the direction of someone else with no regard for their well being.

    Then the above statement on the part of yourself is an admission that firearm-related restrictions do not actually work, as the nation of Canada is proving incapable of preventing its own people from illegally purchasing firearms for the purpose of engaging in international smuggling.

    What thoughts are had, is the above situation and/or scenario did not occur at all. There was no invasion, and absolutely no one had a firearm pointed at them. Absolutely no one whatsoever, and no evidence to the contrary can be demonstrated on the part of yourself. No video of said pointing of firearms occurred, otherwise it would have been all over the news, and it would be quite easy for yourself to show the exact timestamp during the video evidence at which point the event occurred.

    But such cannot be done in the part of yourself. All that can be done is claiming such occurred, while presenting a long, unrelated video and expecting others to watch the whole thing to try and find the exact moment the crime occurred, when in fact no crime occurred.
     
  9. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes - but only for the little people. Someone like Howard Stern not only can own a gun. He gets a license to carry it concealed.
     
  10. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,751
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are perks to fame and fortune.
     
  11. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male

    [​IMG]

    https://twitter.com/SenPolehanki/status/1255899318210314241
     
  12. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So liberals are not really all about the people. Shocking.
     
    Wildjoker5 likes this.
  13. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,751
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Politicians of both parties are not really all about the people. My comment wasn't partisan.
     
    JET3534 likes this.
  14. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope has nothing to do with politics, its about saving lives, crimes that don't involve physical or sexual violence can be handled when a call is made, those that do involve violence need to be investigated before hand to prevent such violence from occurring.

    The nations of Japan and South Korea that both have a basic and total prohibition on firearms have less than 600 homicides yearly combined. Meanwhile the US with twice their population has 12,000 homicides with guns alone. Hell we have more police killings of civilians in one year than they have civilians killing civilians.
    The standard would be Investigate and take into custody anyone who makes violent remarks or actions, very simple. Anyone not willing to arrest someone who posts that they want to kill someone should choose a different profession.

    Frivolous claims will face up to a year in prison and be liable for libel civilly. Since we don't want people clogging the system.

    Yes, for libel and any emotional or financial problems caused to them if the person acted in bad faith.

    In Europe police as you said may only use deadly force if there is imminent danger and no other way to prevent death, and barely any police are killed yet in the US with the shoot when "you feel scared" hundreds are killed a year showing failed policy. Maybe when criminals know the police won't try to kill them they will cooperate with police more.

    Would you feel the same way if it was a family member or friend of yours who was executed for a property crime?

    The constitution needs to be updated and no it does not violate the 4th amendment because what you do with your phone or computer is not protected. Who would care anyway unless they were trying to plan a crime?

    The constitution does not protect you from social consequences, trot around telling everyone and their mother you are armed and well people are going to think differently.

    I would support the canadian system of getting a gun, because it is tiresome enough to stop people who don't have a good reason to want a gun from getting one and to make sure anyone who gets one will be careful not to have it taken away.

    If federal constitutional carry of handguns were passed would you be good with all other guns being banned? and a 10 bullet cap? plus confescation?

    It is violence to point a gun at someone or draw a gun regardless of it being fired it is also violence to carry a gun with the intent to intimidate.

    They do work quite well they almost never have mass shooting and only about 500 gun deaths a year, the only thing is that most gun deaths are by american guns making it america's problem not canadas

    [​IMG]


    https://twitter.com/SenPolehanki/status/1255899318210314241

    really?
     
  15. willburroughs

    willburroughs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I am curious where you get this 94% number. In 2018, registered Republicans were 31%. Or are you saying that 3/4 of registered Republicans are actually 'super liberals'?
     
  16. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    48 out of 51 city council seats are democrat. Thus they have a 93/4% support

    Edit a ton of New yorkers both city and state are only registered republican due to family tradition but vote blue.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
  17. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So now the position being presented on the part of yourself is that words amount to violence, no different than actual physical violence?

    The nations of Japan and Korea are not in any way, shape, or form, comparable to the united states. Their homicide numbers are not achieved by legal restrictions, but numerous centuries of population control until the spirit of rebellion has been bred out of the people, to the point the people would rather commit suicide than face dishonor and embarrassment over their actions. Something that simply cannot be done in the united states.

    And as stated on the part of yourself, in a system without qualified immunity law enforcement officers would be on the line for any bad action, such as actions deemed by the courts to amount to harassment or an arrest that was determined to be unjustified

    Again, under such a system, why would anyone choose to go into law enforcement?

    Insufficient.

    Or perhaps criminally-minded individuals should comply as a first response, rather than carrying on in a manner that suggests they do not appreciate being challenged.

    Association would not be had with an individual who believed committing such offenses were a good idea at the time due to their own being bored and looking for something they considered to be "fun" to do at the expense of another. If such association were ever to be had, said association would swiftly be terminated without so much as a second thought.

    The united state supreme court has ruled otherwise. Online communication is protected just as much as any other form of communication.

    Absolutely everyone.

    If you have nothing to hide, release all of your personal identifying information, social media passwords, bank account numbers, and actually prove you are not hiding anything from anyone.

    The actions taken by a private individual against another is not the same thing as actions taken by an agent of the government.

    Which would focus exclusively on private individuals who are simply trying to abide by the law in the acquisition of firearms, while doing absolutely nothing to address those who acquire and use firearms illegally. Thus declaring the law abiding individuals are the problem rather than the criminals.

    Focusing on the legal trade of firearms, will do absolutely nothing whatsoever to address the illegal trade of firearms.

    Since such proposals would ultimately not serve to save any lives, or prevent the illegal misuse of firearms by those who cannot legally possess them under any circumstances, there would be no point in supporting such. Constitutional rights simply do not work that way.

    And yet it is not an act of violence to merely carry a firearm, regardless of whether or not the carrying is done in a legal manner.

    If the nation of Canada cannot address firearm smuggling on its own, then it has no business attempting to possess its own firearm-related restrictions that can be so easily rendered moot and violated.

    The firearm-related homicide rate in the nation of Canada was never noteworthy in terms of high casualties to begin with.

    Correct. There was no invasion, and absolutely no one had a firearm pointed at them. Absolutely no one whatsoever, and no evidence to the contrary can be demonstrated on the part of yourself. No video of said pointing of firearms occurred, otherwise it would have been all over the news, and it would be quite easy for yourself to show the exact timestamp during the video evidence at which point the event occurred.

    The above picture does not show firearms being pointed at anyone.
     
  18. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Direct threats are yes violence, Even in 9 times out of 10 the "I'm gonna kill you" is not acted on the 1 time out of 10 is enough to investigate all of them, especally if one puts it in text.
    The countries of Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand do not have cultures of honor yet they don't have the same level of violence, because gun control.
    They would not be liable for getting an arrest wrong, they would only be liable for not making an arrest. Someone presents evidence arrest them, if its wrong no risk to police.
    What more do you want.
    Maybe US police should be less aggressive. If a criminal thinks they might die they will fight the arrest.
    They can record search results and other online activity as multiple people have been arrested for things they searched up.
    Keeping identifying info secret is different from caring if the government looks at my texts.

    Do you agree that anyone on any form of government assistance or who owes any debts should be barred from owning a gun? Since the public should not have to pay for someones weapons?

    It focuses on proving an individual can be trusted with a gun and can competently use a gun.

    Then I guess federal constitutional carry will never happen.

    In some places open carry is equal to brandishing.

    If they closed the land border they could stop it 100% because people can't smuggle gun on planes.

    The 2 people are clearly looking down with their guns pointed diagonally downward.

    The picture (not video oops) was taken by a legislator. Also if no invasion why do they have military camo and bullet proof vests on?

    The clear response needs to be from Michigan to pass a law authorising the state troopers to bring water cannons and teargas against all armed protests in the future on public property. Some how the law was not updated in 150 years.
     
  19. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thus confirming the previously established point about the proposal on the part of yourself, and that it would indeed take finite resources and investigators away from legitimate law enforcement purposes, and instead they would be applied exclusively for looking for excuses to deprive individuals of their legally owned firearms based on the notion they said something that you do not like.

    As was stated previously, the entire premise is something far more appropriate for what who has aspirations of dictatorial rule and is so convinced that their outlook is the only correct one, that they must forcefully silence anyone and everyone who holds and contradictory belief.

    In short, simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, what is being proposed on the part of yourself is tyranny for the sake of identifying and punishing political opponents.

    Then such must ultimately proven on the part of yourself. Provide the research and evidence that confirmed as being fact, that it was their firearm-related restrictions, and only their firearm-related restrictions exclusively, that resulted in their not having the same levels of violence as the united states, and not any other factor related to culture. Show that the levels of violence that existed before these firearm-related restrictions rivaled, equaled, or even exceeded those of the united states, and their firearm-related restrictions served to change such results immediately afterward.

    Thus meaning law enforcement officers would be pressured into making far more arrests than they can physically manage, under whatever justification can be used at the time, even if the arrest is ultimately deemed to be unjustified after the fact by the courts, all because their jobs are being threatened if they do not make enough arrests.

    Such a proposal would apply more to the minority community than anyone else, and swiftly be deemed as being racist in nature.

    What is needed is ultimately a system of protection for the accused, that makes false reporting so serious that one will only file a report if they are convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that an incident needs to be reported. Done under the understanding that if the report turns out to be false, unjustified, or without merit, the one who made the report is financially liable for any and all expenses experienced on the part of the accused, such as bail, attorney fees, and lost wages.

    Explain, why should the one who is willing to commit assault with a deadly weapon be given the benefit of the doubt? Explain why they should not be met with deadly force as a first response?

    And yet the constitutional protections apply to digital media as well.

    Should government be able to come into your private residence on a daily basis to look for evidence of wrongdoing, just in case you did something wrong?

    Again, constitutional rights do not work that way.

    While still holding that those who use and acquire firearms illegally are not a problem in need of being addressed, despite the number of individuals they kill annually.

    Irrelevant and off topic.

    Show such to be the case. Show which locations are being referred, and cite the language of their laws that hold such.

    Then why is it not doing such? If the nation of Canada knows that it has a problem in need of address, why is it ultimately not doing anything about it?

    They do not.

    Did said legislator have a firearm pointed directly at them? Or is such simply one more gross misrepresentation being put on display for the purpose of sensationalism?

    Why is such relevant? An individual is free to wear whatever they wish to wear. Were the vests truly kevlar with trauma plate inserts? Or are they simply equipment vests with numerous pockets for carrying numerous goods?

    Again, what is being called for on the part of yourself is a system of tyranny. The message of the protestors is not agreed with so they must be silenced by force, even when they are not physically disrupting anything.
     
  20. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In places where the only action the SD OR PD has is traffic crimes what use is there for them to NOT spend resources that are not being used for anything else to investigate possible plans of violence? You realise most county jails are filled with drunk drivers and petty offences not felons right?

    This is Australia which had a gun culture like the one in the US before the ban.
    People would quickly stop making threats and searching about how to do crimes leading to less deaths.

    I would support in general all civil suits requiring the person filing to cover all costs if they lose.

    Because more people die when police come in guns blazing, like in Florida with the UPS Truck

    They do? Well you know you are being tracked at all times by your phone right?

    If I post threats yes. That is my whole point, only those who make threats.


    How do they get a gun if no one will sell because they know the government is able to find out now?

    You can find dozens of cases of people being changed by their shirt accidentally coming up and showing the gun

    Probably because the US is their biggest trading partner why is the US absolved of all responsibility for the problems we cause out neighbors.

    They felt scared enough to wear bullet proof vests the next day and be escorted by civilians acting as armed security. Also yes they said they were pointing guns at them and yelling

    No one knows but they wanted to look as scary as possible and intimidating as they could

    Only for ARMED protesters.
     
  21. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The above is an admission that the accusation against yourself is indeed factually correct.

    Such is not evidence, it is merely a claim.

    Again, provide the research and evidence that confirmed as being fact, that it was their firearm-related restrictions, and only their firearm-related restrictions exclusively, that resulted in their not having the same levels of violence as the united states, and not any other factor related to culture. Show that the levels of violence that existed before these firearm-related restrictions rivaled, equaled, or even exceeded those of the united states, and their firearm-related restrictions served to change such results immediately afterward.

    The above is nothing more than a claim that the ends supposedly justify the means that would be used to reach them.

    Insufficient. One who files a false report should not receive the benefit of the doubt. If their report turns out to be false, they should automatically be on the line for any and all expenses occurred on the part of the accused. If the penalty for filing a false report is nothing more than a civil suit against them, it has no deterring effect since such suits can take years to play out in a court of law.

    So the individual who is in the act of committing assault with a deadly weapon should not be met with deadly force in turn? They should be given the benefit of the doubt, the opportunity to stop their attempt at murdering someone of their own volition, and surrender peacefully?

    Off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    And yet such a course of action is not employed when so-called "threats" are communicated verbally.

    What is being discussed is not a one-time search, but continuous searches for an undetermined amount of time, just in case you potentially acquire the means to commit harm after the initial search.

    Ask the state of California. All firearms are registered to their legal owners, no exceptions, and yet every year forty percent of the number of firearms found in illegal possession by prohibited individuals were originally sold in the state of California to begin with.

    The simple truth of the matter, is that even when government can prove who trafficked what firearm to which individual for which murder, the trafficker rarely gets convicted, much less actually serve time in prison for the part they played.

    Show such to be the case. Show which locations are being referred, and cite the language of their laws that hold such.

    The united states already has firearm-related restrictions on the subject relating to the purchasing and selling of firearms, and who legally can and cannot. There is nothing more it can do on the matter, other than pass more firearm-related restrictions that are just as easy to ignore, and just as likely to be unenforced.

    Feeling scared is not the same thing as being threatened.

    So they claim, but there is absolutely no evidence to support the accusations. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever/

    Even if such was indeed the case, and which there is no evidence to support, such is not a criminal offense.

    Is such an illegal act?
     
  22. SkullKrusher

    SkullKrusher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    2,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Although I understand the anger and frustrations of the protesters , it can be counterproductive and very dangerous to go beyond the general condition of the 1st Amendment of “peacefully assembling” , hence becoming a “mob” similar to Antifa or Richard Spencer’s torch carrying element.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2020
  23. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
  24. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it believed on the part of yourself that security was not present at the time, and able to respond if something were to go wrong?
     
  25. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    So you think security should have to wait until a shot is fired before stepping in? Would you support the execution of every armed protester that took part in the last few weeks if there was a massacre of legislators?
     

Share This Page