Friday, April 25, 2014

Classic Comment


A person who breaks into another's home is violating the rights of the owner. But the State of New Jersey doesn't have the right to decide who gets to travel within its borders. I liken this to the situation in Mississippi during segregation. It was wrong to tell some people not to drink from certain water fountains or not to occupy certain seats on a bus. It's wrong to bar good citizens from having their firearms in their possession.

Better thinking, please.

First, equating racial segregation to gunloonery is not a hill one wants to die on.  According to Greggy:

 the photo here the equivalent of not being able to fondle gusn across state lines.


Second, let's debunk the myth of "good citizens" once again and sagely.

It's important to understand what Greggy means by "good citizen" is someone who's not a felon..sometimes.  IOW, a "good citizen" can be someone who has a lengthy criminal record and/or someone with major substance abuse/mental health/alcohol issues.

Third, it's rather offensive when gunloons, such as Greggy, attempt to link gunloonery to the civil rights movement.  Would Martin Luther King, Jr or Medgar Evers be alive today had they been armed to the teeth?  How about Malcolm X?  The plain fact is gunloonery has been a major factor in trying to stem the advancement of black civil rights

Fourth, Greggy has continued in his refusal to read Heller.


  1. Jadegold, are you aware that the first gun and weapon control laws were aimed specifically at denying freed blacks the ability to keep and bear arms? are you aware that the black codes stated that a black person couldn't own a dog because that dog could be used as a weapon? Are you aware that King actually attempted to get a weapons permit and was denied? The sad fact is people like you, and most of those who are gun control advocates are historically against rights.

  2. Goldilocks and his three comments return. If he couldn't talk about race, sex, and a spice, he'd have nothing to say. Not that what he does say is of any value.

  3. The problem is that Greg has made it clear that he is fact adverse. He has made it clear that his opinion of the Second Amendment is the way "he wants it to be", which is one that is without a historic or legal basis.

    I don't think its worth my time dealing with someone who is not only ignorant, but willfully ignorant to boot.

    1. Sitting by yourself alone in a room must be a trying experience for you, then.

  4. Lets not forget that the Jim Crow laws were passed and upheld by the southern Democrats. In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with a larger percentage of Republicans voting in favor than Democrats.

    "The Senate version:
    Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
    Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:
    Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
    Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)"

  5. "which is one that is without a historic or legal basis." - So can you say whether current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment grants an individual the right to own a gun regardless of their status as a member of the militia? It seems like something was recently decided by the Supreme Court that specifically addresses this for the first time ever, but maybe you can clear it up for us.

    1. Over 250 years of interpreting it the other way doesn't give confidence that this conservative slanted court got it right, and certainly has a much better chance of being overturned by a future court. Their current ruling doesn't even fit a typical precedent setting acceptability.

    2. Simon asked you to provide support for your claim, but you haven't done so. By all means, show us this long history of interpreting the Second Amendment one way.

    3. Still haven't read the cases from that pre-Heller period, eh Anonymous? Otherwise you'd know that the courts didn't interpret the amendment the way you keep claiming that they did.

    4. Can you cite the wording from a majority opinion where a gun owner was found to be in the wrong for possessing a weapon while not being a member of the militia?

    5. Yep. That's all they had to say in the Miller case- that Miller didn't have a right to ANY gun because he wasn't in a militia. But that's not what they said, is it? Instead they were going on about the type of gun, which means he had a right to other types of guns.