Comments on: Err, that’s not very helpful

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:30:05 +0000

Guav, absolutely! However, if the law was adhered to he wouldn’t be harming us either, because the authorities would be obeying it and the politics of deception would be a non-starter.

IOW, he isn’t helping us, but we shouldn’t be needing help if we held our officials to the law or incarcerated them when they break it.

By: Guav

Guav — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:43:15 +0000

Straightarrow, his position may be correct, but his delusion that he’s helping the gun rights cause is not.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:12:26 +0000

I never knew the Second Amendment protected anybody’s right to sell arms. Presumably, he could argue that his intended customers have that right, but that doesn’t necessarily give him standing to assert their rights. Only abortions work that way, because … um … er … that’s different.

By: ben

ben — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:00:11 +0000

Is the media intentionally out there to mislead? Everyone I know, EVERYONE! who is not a gun-nut thinks that guns are registered. Is the media just part of all those ill-informed folks, out to get us and make everyone think that that’s the way things are, or both?

By: emdfl

emdfl — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:11:28 +0000

He ought to go with the “I didn’t “register” the machine guns because the supreme court has held that because they are illegal for me to have, registering them would be a violation of my 5th Amendment rights(self incrimination), heh, heh, heh. Let’s see the prosecutors work around that one.

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:01:12 +0000

interpretation of deem infringement reasonable

make that -”interpretation of infringement deem it …”

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:58:12 +0000

. In fact, the claim sounds like something he made up after he was caught. Yep, I agree. However, as phony as his claim to higher purposes is, his late adopted position is correct. The laws he is accused of violating and almost certainly did, are illegal. Each and every one of them violates the constitutional prohibition against "infringement". What part of "shall not be infringed" is too damn hard to understand? Why do juries not get it? More importantly why do 2A advocates think departure from the strict interpretation of deem infringement reasonable if it is used against someone we don't like? Liberty cannot live in an exception rich environment.

By: ben

ben — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:31:06 +0000

and he had dozens of guns in his home – some registered, some not – when agents raided it in February 2005.

There is no gun registration of ANY kind in Washington State. Full Auto is not allowed here, so those could not be registered. Who are these idiotic repoters?

By: Guav

Guav — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:19:49 +0000

Yes, because Middle America�forget about the Coastal “Elities”�is really going to wake up and smell the coffee when they hear about a neo-Nazi selling full autos to extremists …. it’ll really make them rally to the 2nd Amendment cause.

As you note, it’s OBVIOUSLY something he cooked up after feeling ridiculously stupid for being busted by federal agents who he’s probably spent a lifetime calling bumbling idiots, but it’s not even a good retroactive justification.

What a retard.