testtest

Is Constitutional Carry a Mistake?

babaylan​

"'I'm not going to argue established legal principles with someone who clearly has no background in the subject."

Sorry had to remove my like from post #80. Not going to give the impression of support for someone that would give the appearance of being so arrogant as to write the above. Yes, many of us are just working-class laymen, that doesn't mean we are illiterate or incapable of understanding without "background". Many of us also have a background that just might surprise you. Just because we choose to follow a different path than the one we started on; does not make us stupid. Also, there is something called Autodidacticism.
 
bc22wm said:

babaylan​

"'I'm not going to argue established legal principles with someone who clearly has no background in the subject."

Sorry had to remove my like from post #80. Not going to give the impression of support for someone that would give the appearance of being so arrogant as to write the above. Yes, many of us are just working-class laymen, that doesn't mean we are illiterate or incapable of understanding without "background". Many of us also have a background that just might surprise you. Just because we choose to follow a different path than the one we started on; does not make us stupid. Also, there is something called Autodidacticism.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with not knowing something. No one is born knowing everything. There is very much something wrong with not only insisting you are correct when your prior statements have made it clear that what you think you know is factually incorrect, but insulting people who point this out.

You should understand that arrogance is an unwarranted confidence in incorrect beliefs, not the self-assurance that education provides.

If you are posting on this forum, you have access to the Internet, and all the information you need to verify how constitutional law actually works in the US is at your fingertips.

If you are going to claim a position contrary to longstanding legal practice, the burden of proof is upon you.

I am not going to argue the point, because I am not under any obligation to educate you. It's like arguing with antivax people and flat earthers. The evidence is overwhelmingly against them, and I'm only going to point it out once before I terminate the exchange.
 
Furthermore, ignorance of the law is no excuse. You have a legal and moral responsibility to know the law before you take it into your own hands.

If you want to live in a lawless state, you have every right to wish that, but that is not the state in which we live, and fantasies of how the right to keep and bear arms described in Amendment II is absolute are really of no use to anyone, when they have already been explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court multiple times.
 
babaylan said:
I am not going to argue the point, because I am not under any obligation to educate you.
Click to expand...
Don't recall asking you to. I'm far from all knowing, yet the many courses I took in my youth on Constitutional law, has at least given me a "working knowledge". I fear living in a bubble more than most anything else, however the "ignore" button is a great thing when used judiciously. Bye Bye.
 
HansGruber said:
You, uh…you might want to watch numerous videos of people—so-called “sovereign citizens”—who claim this getting hauled out of their vehicles, cuffed, and sentenced, and having their tuchus’ handed to them in courts across the country…and being upheld on appeal.

That’s a non-winning argument.
Click to expand...
It was supposed to be a joke, I was playing off of that. Apparently Babayla got it.
 
The supreme court has at some point said the NFA is constitutional. That doesn't mean it actually is. It does mean it effectively is, but the fact is it is unconstitutional.

At any rate, I didn't specify a specific right. I responded to the comment " no right is absolute", which is absolutely bullshite. And worse, it is a very common response from gun control proponents. I've heard Biden say it several times this year alone.

And I really hope you're a lawyer, because then I won't have to feel bad riding you down every chance I get. Because lawyers are, well, lawyers. If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers.
 
Bassbob said:
The supreme court has at some point said the NFA is constitutional. That doesn't mean it actually is. It does mean it effectively is, but the fact is it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Miller is highly flawed, and decided without Miller's lawyer even responding or offering arguments .

In light of subsequent rulings , Miller ( and Hughes ) are Very Ripe ( legally) to be overturned .

But in the messy real world , there would be massive political pushback about OMG ! Machineguns ! Icky!

This is one that is best litigated one bite at a time .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top