I of the caution against playing the phrase game but even within that realm the controllers lose this one as badly as "within the home".
"In common use" CAN ONLY apply to exactly what the controllers have long claimed were the "only ones".
After losses, they do know this and THAT IS WHY we see the Missouri hype and the SUDDEN turnabout regarding militarization of th pOlice.
As gun control turns now to disarming the pOlice, it's going to be interesting to watch the flip flopping. The most hilarious is going to be the police unions looooong against civilian ownership/carriage all of a sudden being all for it (trying to protect their own ability to go armed).
There was a commenter on this article that systematically destroyed the court's position by pointing out that Colonial law present the exact opposite of what the court is trying to argue. That in itself is not my point though. My point is we must employ knowledge of the facts, not to make our arguments, but to point out that the left is intellectually unworthy of arguing with. My original post is as follows:
Interesting things are going through my mind right now as a result of Heyoka's posts. I'm a fair student of history, although not as well read on colonial times as I should be... working on it, but obviously he is. There is kernel of hope in all that he said about the judge not knowing anything about what she was talking about in her ruling. I say use that.
Liberals are for the most part intellectually inferior in their political ideology, and they know it. Why else would they ignore all evidence to the contrary, and wail at the top of their lungs about the children, whenever some conservative points out facts contrary to their argument? Because they don't want conservatives to know they are dullards! This judge (a term to be applied loosely) knows the law insofar as she can use it to interpret her desires for the setting of precedent, but she hasn't the first damn clue about the history of the law in question, which if I'm not mistaken, is the precedent already having been set that she is overturning. Stupid? Oh, hell yeah!
It is stupidity not because she is ignoring prior statutes (Heller) and pushing her own agenda, that's just blind obeisance. The stupidity comes from not knowing the history of the 2nd Amendment in the Colonial era, and therefore which laws apply that precedent.
Liberals hate being referred to as intellectually inferior, even though in most political spheres they are. They have a big complex about this, as is evident by the fact that they pass themselves off as "enlightened" and "superior" every single chance they get. People will always tell you what their weaknesses are, often by accusing their opponents of being what they are afraid of being seen as. Think about it. What happens every time a conservative tries to plead their case to a liberal? They are derided en masse as being idiots. This is misdirection. By pointing to the opposition and crying "STUPID!", they are praying that others won't see the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.
If one were to attack liberals, not on the merits of the argument (which they don't know anyway), but on the merits of whether or not they're even capable of arguing the point in the first place, we might find our situation improving. How does this work in a court of law? It doesn't... at least not yet. To bring down a building, you don't climb to the roof and blow a hole in it. You attack its foundation. The court's foundation is the people who, in their misguided stupidity, support it's current direction.
Last, but not least, in order to do this you're going to have to personally engage liberals in conversation, and then systematically destroy them. Not their beliefs, THEM. You must get in their face, and when the obscenities fly as a result, you have to really turn it on, leaving them no possible conclusion other than the fact that everything they believe about conservatives is WRONG. It won't be pleasant. It won't be fun. You can't so this on the blogs. It's a repugnant idea, I know, but make no mistake ladies and gentlemen, we are in the fight for our lives here. It's time we start taking the enemy to school. Otherwise we end up killing each other, and when it gets to that point nobody wins.
Bless the Founding Fathers' wisdom in codifying the 2nd Amendment otherwise the 'Crown' system would remain as it does in Kiwiland where Arms law is used to extinguish rights.
Recently, from the Regulations Review committee of Parliament assessing a complaint about a Regulation which extingished the right to possess and use a 'pistol grip' on a semi-automatic firearm without obtaining an expensive endorsement to a firearms licence:
The committee has resolved to decline the complaint on the basis that there have been no breaches of Standing Orders.
“ there could be no trespass against personal rights or liberties, as there is on right to possess or own or use a firearm except under the Arms Act.”
Clearly the committee believes that Kiwi 'subjects' have no rights other than those which legislation, magnanimously passed by Parliament, allows them to have … despite the Bill of Rights of 1689 still being part of Kiwi law!
Fuck the tyrants in black robes (and their co-conspirators in the legislature and "law enforcement") They do NOT get to determine our inalienable rights ... That was done LONG ago and they have no say.
6 comments:
I of the caution against playing the phrase game but even within that realm the controllers lose this one as badly as "within the home".
"In common use" CAN ONLY apply to exactly what the controllers have long claimed were the "only ones".
After losses, they do know this and THAT IS WHY we see the Missouri hype and the SUDDEN turnabout regarding militarization of th pOlice.
As gun control turns now to disarming the pOlice, it's going to be interesting to watch the flip flopping. The most hilarious is going to be the police unions looooong against civilian ownership/carriage all of a sudden being all for it (trying to protect their own ability to go armed).
There was a commenter on this article that systematically destroyed the court's position by pointing out that Colonial law present the exact opposite of what the court is trying to argue. That in itself is not my point though. My point is we must employ knowledge of the facts, not to make our arguments, but to point out that the left is intellectually unworthy of arguing with.
My original post is as follows:
Interesting things are going through my mind right now as a result of Heyoka's posts. I'm a fair student of history, although not as well read on colonial times as I should be... working on it, but obviously he is. There is kernel of hope in all that he said about the judge not knowing anything about what she was talking about in her ruling. I say use that.
Liberals are for the most part intellectually inferior in their political ideology, and they know it. Why else would they ignore all evidence to the contrary, and wail at the top of their lungs about the children, whenever some conservative points out facts contrary to their argument? Because they don't want conservatives to know they are dullards! This judge (a term to be applied loosely) knows the law insofar as she can use it to interpret her desires for the setting of precedent, but she hasn't the first damn clue about the history of the law in question, which if I'm not mistaken, is the precedent already having been set that she is overturning. Stupid? Oh, hell yeah!
It is stupidity not because she is ignoring prior statutes (Heller) and pushing her own agenda, that's just blind obeisance. The stupidity comes from not knowing the history of the 2nd Amendment in the Colonial era, and therefore which laws apply that precedent.
Liberals hate being referred to as intellectually inferior, even though in most political spheres they are. They have a big complex about this, as is evident by the fact that they pass themselves off as "enlightened" and "superior" every single chance they get. People will always tell you what their weaknesses are, often by accusing their opponents of being what they are afraid of being seen as. Think about it. What happens every time a conservative tries to plead their case to a liberal? They are derided en masse as being idiots. This is misdirection. By pointing to the opposition and crying "STUPID!", they are praying that others won't see the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.
If one were to attack liberals, not on the merits of the argument (which they don't know anyway), but on the merits of whether or not they're even capable of arguing the point in the first place, we might find our situation improving. How does this work in a court of law? It doesn't... at least not yet. To bring down a building, you don't climb to the roof and blow a hole in it. You attack its foundation. The court's foundation is the people who, in their misguided stupidity, support it's current direction.
Last, but not least, in order to do this you're going to have to personally engage liberals in conversation, and then systematically destroy them. Not their beliefs, THEM. You must get in their face, and when the obscenities fly as a result, you have to really turn it on, leaving them no possible conclusion other than the fact that everything they believe about conservatives is WRONG. It won't be pleasant. It won't be fun. You can't so this on the blogs. It's a repugnant idea, I know, but make no mistake ladies and gentlemen, we are in the fight for our lives here. It's time we start taking the enemy to school. Otherwise we end up killing each other, and when it gets to that point nobody wins.
Bless the Founding Fathers' wisdom in codifying the 2nd Amendment otherwise the 'Crown' system would remain as it does in Kiwiland where Arms law is used to extinguish rights.
Recently, from the Regulations Review committee of Parliament assessing a complaint about a Regulation which extingished the right to possess and use a 'pistol grip' on a semi-automatic firearm without obtaining an expensive endorsement to a firearms licence:
The committee has resolved to decline the complaint on the basis that there have been no breaches of Standing Orders.
“ there could be no trespass against personal rights or liberties, as there is on right to possess or own or use a firearm except under the Arms Act.”
Clearly the committee believes that Kiwi 'subjects' have no rights other than those which legislation, magnanimously passed by Parliament, allows them to have … despite the Bill of Rights of 1689 still being part of Kiwi law!
Kiwi III
Fuck the tyrants in black robes (and their co-conspirators in the legislature and "law enforcement")
They do NOT get to determine our inalienable rights ... That was done LONG ago and they have no say.
This is a direct repudiation of "Miller", that it was my understanding "Heller" mostly avoided.
Am I wrong?
I don't see this tactic going far. It's got far too many problems for many courts to embrace it.
But even if it does have legs, no matter. People are not going to give up their black rifles.
Post a Comment