Page 5 of 34 First 12345678915 ... Last
  1. #41
    BKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    16,787
    Style
    Kodokan Judo/BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Driving, which has been repeatedly determined by the USSC to be a Fundamental right is strictly regulated. You have to a license(which requires training and testing), registration, insurance. Various transgressions around vehicular safety and via due process will lose you your fundamental right temporarily and under certain circumstances indefinitely. Does this prevent unlicensed drivers from doing illegal things with automobiles? No, however, said unlicensed drivers meet stronger penalties as well.

    Firearm ownership is by comparison an enumerated right. Yet for some reason certain segments of the populace believe that it should even less regulated than automobiles.
    You want to cite a SCOTUS case ? Because I'm finding plenty sovereign citizen garbage as expected, but no reference to SCOTUS decision.
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

  2. #42
    BKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    16,787
    Style
    Kodokan Judo/BJJ
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by submessenger View Post
    Pretty much everything you need to know are in these three articles:
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/devin-p...church-latest/
    https://patch.com/texas/sanantonio/t...-governor-says
    http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/sharpsh...church-gunman/

    Basics: he was USAF, got punted with a Big Chicken Dinner and a year of jail for beating his wife and child. Wife (now ex) and her parents are parishioners of the church that he shot up. He was denied weapons carry and purchase, he got his AR by lying at point of sale. Plumber that shot him caused the fatal wound, dude bled out as he crashed.
    Whether the plumber was lucky or recognized the vest and went for a head shot, good on him.

    So, no background check, he just lied on the form and walked out with an AR ?

    If he was denied a concealed carry permit, assuming for same reason (domestic violence conviction), he was in the system...
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

  3. #43
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,333
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BKR View Post
    You want to cite a SCOTUS case ? Because I'm finding plenty sovereign citizen garbage as expected, but no reference to SCOTUS decision.
    Thompson v. Smith
    Kent v Dulles

    Those are the two the come most readily to mind. Parts of them are often quoted by sovereign citizens and such. They usually conveniently leave out the parts that reinforce the government's ability to regulate them in the public interest and to, with due process of law, remove them from a citizen. This ultimately no different than the 2A crowd getting hung up on the word "infringed" trying to extrapolate that to mean that governmental regulation for the public good is not allowed. Thus making this right different than all other rights including the right to life.
    Last edited by Michael Tzadok; 11/06/2017 11:48am at .
    Don't rely on theory if your life is at stake.

  4. #44
    ChenPengFi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    7,437
    Style
    Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut
    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Driving, which has been repeatedly determined by the USSC to be a Fundamental right is strictly regulated. You have to a license(which requires training and testing), registration, insurance. Various transgressions around vehicular safety and via due process will lose you your fundamental right temporarily and under certain circumstances indefinitely. Does this prevent unlicensed drivers from doing illegal things with automobiles? No, however, said unlicensed drivers meet stronger penalties as well.

    Firearm ownership is by comparison an enumerated right. Yet for some reason certain segments of the populace believe that it should even less regulated than automobiles.


    Felons and the mentally ill are not prohibited from owning cars in the USA.
    That comparison is specious and moot.

  5. #45
    Nutcracker, sweet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KAUS
    Posts
    5,044
    Style
    BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BKR View Post
    Whether the plumber was lucky or recognized the vest and went for a head shot, good on him.

    So, no background check, he just lied on the form and walked out with an AR ?

    If he was denied a concealed carry permit, assuming for same reason (domestic violence conviction), he was in the system...
    The reporting is sketchy on exactly what the lie(s) were, but several sources indicate that (paraphrasing) he checked "no" to "do you have a criminal background," question. Not sure why there wasn't a Brady check anyways, or if he used a different identification. Maybe the store did something wrong, I'm sure that will come out if so. Academy is big business, around here.

  6. #46
    Winning is so much better with sore losers Join us... or die
    1bad65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wilco, TX
    Posts
    3,297
    Style
    boxing, gjj
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Act like an adult and I'll treat you like an adult. Until then I give as good as I get.
    If you continue to resort to insults in lieu of effective arguments and rebuttals, you'll lose the right to engage in discourse wirh me.

    You must enjoy it, as you keep coming for more. Me, I enjoy discourse with you, when you're not being a condescending asshole.

    If I keep seeing more condescension and insults and less adult discourse, it's no longer worth my time.

    I will say it's pretty pathetic to see a rabbi hurling insults online over differences in political views.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Demonstrating ignorance of US Constitutional law.
    Dred Scott.
    What I said was correct.

    The SC ruled blacks could be property.

    If you disagree, cite a source.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    The ban on Alcohol was an Amendment not a USSC decision genius.
    It was upheld by the SC.

    Source:
    https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histor...ohibition-1920


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Internment of Japanese Americans wasn't ruled upon by the USSC either.
    False.

    It was ruled upon in Korematsu v. United States.

    Source:
    http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/...mericans-.html
    A succubus is a Lilin-demon in female form, or supernatural entity in folklore that appears in dreams and takes the form of a woman in order to seduce men, usually through sexual activity. Religious traditions hold that repeated sexual activity with a succubus may result in the deterioration of health or mental state, or even in death.

  7. #47
    BKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    16,787
    Style
    Kodokan Judo/BJJ
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Thompson v. Smith
    Kent v Dulles

    Those are the two the come most readily to mind. Parts of them are often quoted by sovereign citizens and such. They usually conveniently leave out the parts that reinforce the government's ability to regulate them in the public interest and to, with due process of law, remove them from a citizen. This ultimately no different than the 2A crowd getting hung up on the word "infringed" trying to extrapolate that to mean that governmental regulation for the public good is not allowed. Thus making this right different than all other rights including the right to life.
    The Thompson vs Smith case is a Virginia State Supreme Court Case, commonly cited out of context by sovereign citizen lunatics. In any case, no matter one's interpretation, it not enforceable outside of the state of Virginia.

    The Kent vs Dulles case is also cited quite a bit by SovCitz, but had to do with passports, not driving licenses.

    I tried to find a SCOTUS case dealing specifically with the "right to drive", and could not find it.

    I agree that the constitutional rights can be regulated. That is obvious on it's face, the first is regulated, the second is regulated, the 4th, etc.

    Now that (as you pointed out), the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals (like the rest of the bill of rights, duh...), the regulation part is less likely to go overboard.

    AFAIK, driving is a privilege. Not travel in general, but specifically driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway. Even walking as a form of travel is regulated to some degree (most states have laws about drunk pedestrians), trespass laws, don't walk in public roadway, jaywalking, etc.).

    It's kind of a sideshow to compare firearms ownership to driving a motor vehicle. Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can and are already regulated. It's a question of degree and kind, and we have a legal process for determining what is constitutional/legal.
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

  8. #48
    BKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    16,787
    Style
    Kodokan Judo/BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChenPengFi View Post
    Felons and the mentally ill are not prohibited from owning cars in the USA.
    That comparison is specious and moot.
    However, some mentally ill (or perhaps disabled is a better word) people cannot get a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway.

    Specious and moot, two great words that go great together !
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

  9. #49
    BKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    16,787
    Style
    Kodokan Judo/BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by submessenger View Post
    The reporting is sketchy on exactly what the lie(s) were, but several sources indicate that (paraphrasing) he checked "no" to "do you have a criminal background," question. Not sure why there wasn't a Brady check anyways, or if he used a different identification. Maybe the store did something wrong, I'm sure that will come out if so. Academy is big business, around here.
    Right, I get Brady check and I have no criminal record, whenever I purchase firearm from a dealer.

    They will figure it out eventually, I'm sure the ATF is all over that aspect of the case.
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

  10. #50
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,333
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    If you continue to resort to insults in lieu of effective arguments and rebuttals, you'll lose the right to engage in discourse wirh me.

    You must enjoy it, as you keep coming for more. Me, I enjoy discourse with you, when you're not being a condescending asshole.

    If I keep seeing more condescension and insults and less adult discourse, it's no longer worth my time.

    I will say it's pretty pathetic to see a rabbi hurling insults online over differences in political views.
    Funny you like hurling insults and put downs until they come back at you. If you want to put me on your ban list, I really don't care. At worst you simply wouldn't see any of my responses to your fecal finger painting.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    What I said was correct.

    The SC ruled blacks could be property.

    If you disagree, cite a source.
    Moving goal posts.



    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    Idiot. The USSC doesn't decide whether or not amendments are constitutional and thus cannot uphold them or strike them down. They didn't in this case either. They decided that various acts of Congress to provide enforcement for the Amendment were Constitutional, which lacking a seriously activist court was pretty much a no brainer given the recently passed amendment. Sad that you can't tell the difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    False.

    It was ruled upon in Korematsu v. United States.

    Source:
    http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/...mericans-.html
    False. The US Supreme Court ruled on the removal of Mr Korematsu from a Military restricted zone after he refused to leave of his own volition. The USSC specifically chose not to rule on the Constitutionality of the internment camps. They only ruled on the Constitutionality of removing citizens from military restriction zones for reasons of national security.
    Since the petitioner has not been convicted of failing to report or to remain in an assembly or relocation center, we cannot in this case determine the validity of those separate provisions of the order. It is sufficient here for us to pass upon the order which petitioner violated. To do more would be to go beyond the issues raised, and to decide momentous questions not contained within the framework of the pleadings or the evidence in this case. It will be time enough to decide the serious constitutional issues which petitioner seeks to raise when an assembly or relocation order is applied or is certain to be applied to him, and we have its terms before us.
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../214/case.html
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../case.html#222

    If you want to talk intelligently on these things you really should educate yourself as to what they are, and how they fit into the overall frame work of US Constitutional law.
    Don't rely on theory if your life is at stake.

Page 5 of 34 First 12345678915 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in