Law Bump Stock Ban About to be Introduced

[Farmer Br0wn]

concession accepted. I just asked you a direct question and you ran from it like you were on fire.

I do fully accept you concession!

You've been asked repeatedly by several different posters to provide the most basic evidence to support your assertion, and you "ran from it like you were on fire" as you say.

 

[Greoric]

Federalists vs Anti Federalists, do you have any concept of who those people are?

I'm still not seeing anything dude. If you want to make your point about a "historical context" after a population just won a war with private ownership of weapons you kind of have to fucking support it don't you?

 

[Greoric]

Why do we have a Constitution in the first place? 2nd time you've dodged just that question specifically, just in the last 5 minutes.

You're not goal post moving again you fuck. You kept refering to the "historical context". Where concluding that from? What specific saying, speech, personal letters, legislation, or bill are you referring to?

 

[lfd0311]

I do fully accept you concession!

You've been asked repeatedly by several different posters to provide the most basic evidence to support your assertion, and you "ran from it like you were on fire" as you say.

3rd time, why do we have a Constitution to begin with? What was happening in the country that made one nceessary? I'm trying to hold your hand and lead you down the path of understanding basic American History, but if you aren't willing to take the first steps for yourself, I can't help you.

 

[Greoric]

Are you for real? I'm just lurking here waiting with baited breath until you post yet another inane comment about bump stocks or hammers? Is that what you think?

If you think anything I've posted was an insult you've set a pretty low bar . . . if I'm going to insult you you'll know it . . . so stop with the whining.

You should see his new thing about "historical contexts".

 

[lfd0311]

You're not goal post moving again you fuck. You kept refering to the "historical context". Where concluding that from? What specific saying, speech, personal letters, legislation, or bill are you referring to?

The. Constitution. Why do we have one? That's the greater historical context of nearly a decade I've been talking about for... what, 2 days now? Again, I'm not shifting goalposts, you're just finally catching up. The historical context of the time is what matters.

 

[Greoric]

3rd time, why do we have a Constitution to begin with?

To contain government within enumerated powers. Great. We were able to sabotage that goal post move. Now on to the "historical context". Any specific language or documentation to support it?

 

[spamking]

* Lame attempts at insults. Thus, not actually insults.

They weren't even "lame" attempts dude . . . you drone on and on about historical context, but can't even read a post correctly without inferring crap to make things sound better in your own brain.

 

[Greoric]

I actually can't do this anymore. This twat is actually starting to piss me off because he can't nut up and concede.... and that pisses me off more that could actually happen on an Internet forum. I'm out.

 

[spamking]

You should see his new thing about "historical contexts".

I'm just lurking and trying to throw lame insults . . . or something

 

[lfd0311]

You should see his new thing about "historical contexts".

Just to put how dishonest your argument has become, This one of my first posts in this thread, from monday at 12:09:

I'm not making any arguement for more firearms restriction, I'm arguing that those who feel that the government doesn't and has never had the right to make laws about firearms are way off base about where our laws even come from. Historical context needs to be applied.

And when you didn't address the historical context, I replied with this:

Historical context. Why is "regulate" in the language to begin with? What does regulate mean?

Read through the thread. I've been talking about historical context the entire time.

 

[all caps]

I don't know about you guys but I feel much safer with these tools of murder being banned

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

3rd time, why do we have a Constitution to begin with? What was happening in the country that made one nceessary? I'm trying to hold your hand and lead you down the path of understanding basic American History, but if you aren't willing to take the first steps for yourself, I can't help you.

@Greoric beat me to it.

Also, it's interesting that you have repeatedly avoiding answering any of my questions posed to you, yet you insist that I extend a courtesy to you that you have repeatedly refused to extend to me. That's a very self-centered view of reality you have.

You're refusing to quote any line in the act that you insist substantiates your argument. The reason you haven't is because we both know you won't find it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

To contain government within enumerated powers. Great. We were able to sabotage that goal post move. Now on to the "historical context". Any specific language or documentation to support it?

I'd go with something more like this.

To form a Republic between otherwise sovereign territories. The Constitution was written to assign specific powers to that government and the Bill of Rights was introduced as a safeguard against the federal usurpation of the rights of the states and the people.

 

[lfd0311]

To contain government within enumerated powers. Great. We were able to sabotage that goal post move. Now on to the "historical context". Any specific language or documentation to support it?

Dude, just say "I don't want to get into it" if this is what you're going to come back with. The country was falling apart, the Confederation wasn't working, the Federal Government had zero power, individual states were making trade agreements with other countries with out the consent of the central authority, because their wasn't one, Georgia was at war with the Cherokee and two of it's neighbor states were active trade partners of the Cherokee and refused to enter the war on behalf of the state at war with them and refused to stop trading with the Cherokee and could not be made to do so, and would not allow troops from other states to march across thier borders and assist in the fighting. While this was going on Vermont had been an independent Republic since the beginning of the Revolution and refused to join the Confederation because of an issue with Massachusetts and was in the process of attempting to rejoin the British Empire as part of Canada in return for the UK declaring war on specifically Massachusetts and invading it from Vermont with British troops from Canada. It was anarchy. Even with all of that the acceptance of Federal power still was a hot button issue that took years to hammer out. That's the historical context I'm talking about. The Constitution as a whole is a concession to the supremacy of Federal Power with specific checks to appease the Anti Federalists. The 2nd Amendment was simply a part of that, not the main topic the way it is seen today.

 

[lfd0311]

@Greoric beat me to it.

Also, it's interesting that you have repeatedly avoiding answering any of my questions posed to you, yet you insist that I extend a courtesy to you that you have repeatedly refused to extend to me. That's a very self-centered view of reality you have.

You're refusing to quote any line in the act that you insist substantiates your argument. The reason you haven't is because we both know you won't find it.

So you wanted to give a generic non answer too? Again, read the thread before repeating things that have already been gone over.

 

[lfd0311]

They weren't even "lame" attempts dude . . . you drone on and on about historical context, but can't even read a post correctly without inferring crap to make things sound better in your own brain.

Case in point

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

So you wanted to give a generic non answer too? Again, read the thread before repeating things that have already been gone over.

So where is the line in the act you cited that substantiates your claim?

A simple question you keep avoiding.

 

[spamking]

Case in point

Really? Show me where that post hurt you this time . . .

Good grief.

 

[spamking]

So you wanted to give a generic non answer too? Again, read the thread before repeating things that have already been gone over.

Okay . . . this is just too rich . . . and I don't really care if you feel insulted or not at this point . . . you are being completely unreasonable by even considering posting this comment let alone actually hitting "post reply" on it . . . you have repeatedly rehashed crap that folks have refuted with the exact same "argument" this entire thread.

But, but, historical context . . . hammers, regulated . . . and more historical well regulated hammer context.