Vote

Status
Not open for further replies.
mikestone967 said:
"Retired Lawyer"..... That explains it.
Yes that indeed explains why and how I know so much about the law and how it works. It also helps explain why I have a solid, experienced based understanding of the legal and political processes and related history.
 
Yes that indeed explains why and how I know so much about the law and how it works. It also helps explain why I have a solid, experienced based understanding of the legal and political processes and related history.



Your "knowledge" is hysterically lacking so don't go patting yourself on the back just yet...

Being a FORMER lawyer doesn't qualify you for Jack and it most DEFINITELY does NOT make you and "expert" in anything!

Sorry to bust your bubble but your "former" law experience accounts for squat with me as you've already proven you have no concept of the Supreme Law of the Land..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What kind of "Law" did you practice?

Enlighten me. Explain why your prior law service makes you the "go to expert" on all things Constitutional?

You're proud of your title so elaborate for me. What kind of cases did you handle?
Murder? Robbery? Rapes?

Or is it boring stuff like mortgage law or tax law?
 
mikestone967 said:
...Enlighten me. Explain why your prior law service makes you the "go to expert" on all things Constitutional?...

  • I'm licensed to practice law. You obviously are not.

  • I've had a good deal more formal legal education than you have.

  • I've successfully practiced law for a lot of years in the real world. I've represented the interests of real clients in the real world for real stakes. I've done so under the scrutiny of regulators, judges, colleagues and opposing lawyers.

  • I have in fact successfully furthered the interests of my clients allowing me to comfortably retire before the age of 60.

  • I haven't claimed to be a Constitutional expert, but I'm clearly far better versed in the subject, in real life terms, than are you.
 
Being a FORMER lawyer doesn't qualify you for Jack and it most DEFINITELY does NOT make you and "expert" in anything!

Donny, you're out of your element... :rolleyes:

I will commend your for spelling 'definitely' correct, though; far too many are defiantly defiant.

TCB
 
mikestone967 said:
...don't so don't preach to me about ignorance.. I don't require nor do I appreciate your assessment based on almost zero facts of "who",or "what" I am....
I make no assessment based on who or what you are.

Ignorance is merely not knowing something. We are all ignorant about some things.

So I've concluded that you are ignorant about the law and the courts based solely on what you have written about the law and courts. The things you have written demonstrate that you don't know anything about the law, the courts, or how they work.
 
So you're saying if we win it was because that was what the Svengalis intended and the work and maneuvering and building alliances to stop the trickery was all because we were permitted to think we were accomplishing anything? Not just in TN, but in the other states where we've worked and changed the law? Because it was what was going to happen anyway because ... why?
Kind of like saying if the Wright Brothers had never been born, an airplane would just have assembled itself in a junkyard in 1903, because that was what the Svengalis intended.
 
I'd really like to understand what our members on the mikestone side of this argument do instead of what they don't. I get that you think voting is a sham because all politics is rigged and corrupt and that any participation in the government is a waste of time, I have friends that think this too, but what do you propose instead of refusing to participate in any part of the political process as participating in civil society instead?

Being "against" isn't the same as being "for" something else and I assume you're for something instead.
Alexanders post is spot on for the "inevitable" in my eyes, but I won't condone or promote that idea on this or any other forum.

I'm open to ideas. Care to share some? I'm somewhat involved in my local community but most events are not politically motivated, and I wouldn't participate if they were.

As for what I stand for, the constitution as it's written for starters. Not interpretation, but what's written. Interpretation of anything only allows speculation and inevitably offers opportunities to try and circumvent what is actually there. Unfortunately that has become common practice in this day and age. Beyond that, I stand for a total clean house of congress and the house/senate. Term limits, no more "career politicians". An elected office position is meant to be a brief term of service for the people. I stand for checks and balances which have been almost non existent for the last couple of decades. I stand for the way the country was meant to be, not what it has become.


Again, feel free to offer suggestions that don't involve physically responding to tyranny, I'm all ears. One thing I know for sure at this point is, voting ain't gonna fix nothing.
 
Again, feel free to offer suggestions that don't involve physically responding to tyranny, I'm all ears. One thing I know for sure at this point is, voting ain't gonna fix nothing.
Let me point out that the reason we are in the fix we are in is because the OTHER SIDE didn't take that position. THEY worked. THEY voted. And they won, while a lot of us sat on the sidelines saying, "Voting ain't gonna fix nothing."
 
. . . .As for what I stand for, the constitution as it's written for starters. Not interpretation, but what's written. Interpretation of anything only allows speculation and inevitably offers opportunities to try and circumvent what is actually there. . . . .
This sounds simple enough, but it's completely unworkable when talking about laws. A court must interpret laws and constitutions in order to do its job. The 2A talks about "arms." As soon as a court has to answer the question, "Is [insert item here] an "arm" within the meaning of the 2A?," it must necessarily interpret the term "arms."
 
Let me point out that the reason we are in the fix we are in is because the OTHER SIDE didn't take that position. THEY worked. THEY voted. And they won, while a lot of us sat on the sidelines saying, "Voting ain't gonna fix nothing."
Frank mentioned that we are all ignorant on some things, and for you this is one of those things.

There are no "sides", this is a entire govt issue. And folks like you that keep advocating a "side" are just what the govt wants in order to keep us divided and preoccupied with trivial BS.

Once you come to the understanding that "all sides" are the problem you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about, although I seriously doubt you ever will.
 
This sounds simple enough, but it's completely unworkable when talking about laws. A court must interpret laws and constitutions in order to do its job. The 2A talks about "arms." As soon as a court has to answer the question, "Is [insert item here] an "arm" within the meaning of the 2A?," it must necessarily interpret the term "arms."
You and Frank are for sure more well versed with "law" by far than I am. I'm not saying it's not the way things are, I'm saying it's the way things should be. And since I was directly asked, it's also what I stand for.

No offense to any current or former lawyers but I despise the profession mainly on the basis of interpretation. The way in which most lawyers use interpretation in a court of law invites persuasion with the intent to mislead.

Now for the few (lawyers) on here that I'm familiar with, it's greatly beneficial when you can quote factual law as it stands for us, but that's definitely not the same as arguing a case in court.
 
Good Ol' Boy,

I've already pointed out that I'm involved in the pig wrestling exercise (every now and then the pig does end up on the spit;)).

barnbwt has already stated his intent.
I need to be far, far more active in the primaries next go around, and participate in the party, to make sure policies I value get attention.

I am honestly interested in what alternatives you and mikestone and others that don't vote and don't involve yourselves in local or state politics do as an alternative to participating in some part of the political process vs. the not participating in that process. Since I do participate and you and others have decried that approach, I ask that you and others with the same attitude share your efforts on behalf of the 2A in particular.
 
Good Ol' Boy,

I've already pointed out that I'm involved in the pig wrestling exercise (every now and then the pig does end up on the spit;)).

barnbwt has already stated his intent.

I am honestly interested in what alternatives you and mikestone and others that don't vote and don't involve yourselves in local or state politics do as an alternative to participating in some part of the political process vs. the not participating in that process. Since I do participate and you and others have decried that approach, I ask that you and others with the same attitude share your efforts on behalf of the 2A in particular.
Re-read post 83.

I don't have an answer but I will not participate in the current sham that is "politics".

Outside of politics I'm open to suggestions...care to offer any?
 
I'm somewhat involved in my local community but most events are not politically motivated

We have threads and threads on people coming up with ideas and advice. I'm looking to you for ideas from your perspective to share with the folks that have similar beliefs as your's. What sort of "involvement" are you alluding to? If you can't think of any clear examples, that's ok. That's what threads like these may develop from others who have made a conscious effort along these lines.
 
I don't have an answer but I will not participate in the current sham that is "politics".

Outside of politics I'm open to suggestions...care to offer any?

Those who don't participate will reap no reward (I am choosing not to participate in the pres election this go around since I do not believe there is a reward to be found; but that will obviously not be the case for down ballot or subsequent ballots).

"Outside of politics..."
Dude, are you an ATF plant? Or a Huffpo 'investigative journalist?' Seriously. You are brazenly trying to bate people into saying seditious things in public. "Politics" is how we resolve things that doesn't involve violence (even 'law' falls under this area, broadly), so apart from politics, force is the only way to force an issue. Moral, law abiding gun owners are peace loving, freedom loving people, who would never entertain such thoughts if there is even a glimmer of a peaceful solution. Even then, our tenants are fundamentally defensive in nature, so your obvious appeals to 'revolt' are completely opposed to our stance--that's why even when half the country's been on fire from civil unrest, law abiding gun owners have not joined the conflagration to become revolutionary outlaws.

I'm sure that answer will be unsatisfying to you (and your bosses) but it's the truth about "gun culture 2.0" You're coming off either as a plant or someone who has no idea what he's asking for...

TCB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for what I stand for, the constitution as it's written for starters. Not interpretation, but what's written.


I get what you're saying; I really do

But you have to realize that every word has multiple definitions.

What your really saying is that what you stand for is your interpretation of the Constitution.
 
I was under the impression that this forum exists to discuss ways to promote governmental respect of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
barnbwt is right in respect that politics is the most straightforward way to resolve issues in society without violence (however a broad definition of violence you want to apply) between differing group, but in addition to the political struggle there's the struggle in society to make RKBA normal. We can and should work politically since restrictive laws directly impact our rights and can be most easily prevented or reversed by putting in the time and effort with politicians and politically active groups to ensure the people who want to put these laws in place are converted in their views or there's a conversion of their office. That's done not just at election time, but long before even the primaries by engaging in the local and state parties and the politically active groups influencing who directs/guides/controls the process.

BUT we also can work in our communities in society to make RKBA a normal aspect of society. That social struggle is as, if not more important, in the long term than the political one because by changing the underpinnings of politics in society we can influence what is considered as "reasonable" in politics. RKBA becomes normal not by having a carry law or carrying, but by having society as a whole view shooting, shooting sports and recreation and people involved with shooting as normal as bicycling or gardening as a foundation for acceptance of RKBA. In many parts of the country no one thinks anything of a shotgun or rifle in a pickup truck or neighbors helping neighbors in crisis. The first day of deer or duck season is still a big deal. There are plenty of places still where law enforcement is even thinner on the ground than the fire department and neighbors respond to calls for assistance where something suspicious is noticed or a smoke is spotted. They get referred to as volunteers in the news, but they were usually first on the scene and worked spontaneously until the LE or FD arrived. BUT there are a lot of places, many urban centers that this is alien and strange and their experience with firearms is entirely different. Winning the hearts and minds of people is the surest way to prevent legislation from ever being considered much less passed into law. Every time we change people's views about us and what we do we win a bit. Every time we take someone shooting and they enjoy it and are less ignorant of it and feel less anxiety about it we win a little. Every time we get a recreational group or church group or school group to introduce shooting and shooting safety as a fun and safe activity without ranting about how vexed we are we win a little (I taught my daughter's Brownie troop to shoot). Even outside of directly getting people introduced to firearms and shooting safely for recreation or for hunting or collecting we can engage others in normal conversations about the Olympic shooting sports (first Gold for USA in RIO was a 19 year old from West Virginia and she's getting positive coverage on the news) or a Netflix show on collecting old firearms or even just show that we're normal helpful engaged folks that mention we were going to or coming from the range like we were going or coming from the gym, we help alter perceptions in society about us. It requires more effort and more awareness and more thought on our part than the active participation in politics, but it is the foundation for politics and bears fruit.
 
Last edited:
You and Frank are for sure more well versed with "law" by far than I am. I'm not saying it's not the way things are, I'm saying it's the way things should be. And since I was directly asked, it's also what I stand for.
Then you seek an impossible state, I'm afraid. Neither legislators, nor courts, nor attorneys, nor anybody else can deal with the law in a complete absence of interpretation.

The recent Caetano case makes a pretty good example. Ms. Caetano had pepper spray & was convicted of a crime for having it. From a 2A perspective, we have to ask, "Is pepper spray an 'arm' within the meaning of the 2A?" (IOW, we have to do a little interpretation.) The Massachusetts courts said "no," and held that the 2A didn't apply because pepper spray didn't exist in 1791. SCOTUS took the case and came back with a resounding "Yes, it's an arm within the meaning of the 2A" (in a judicial beatdown that I rather enjoyed). If courts could not "interpret" the term "arms," neither one of them could have decided Caetano. At all.
 
It is worth noting that, in the political battlefield, those who do not vote are just as important to how the game is played as those who do vote.

In other words, they also play just an important role in political maneuvering as those who do vote and are every bit as much the political chess pieces that voters are. And thus, their subjective reasoning for inaction are every bit as manipulatable by political powers for the purpose of affecting election outcomes as those who do vote.

Political powers count on some people NOT voting just as much as they count on certain groups of people voting one way or the other.

Not voting doesn't mean you're not participating...it simply means you're changing the rules in how your gamepiece is played in the game. The big difference is that this gamepiece allows itself to be used politically by deliberately withholding its own deliberate choices on how it is played.

So the irony is that by not voting, you actually place yourself into the power of those that do vote and the political powers who come about as part of that process. The ultimate of the dreaded herd mentality that so many people like to refer to as "sheep".
 
Said by Spats

SCOTUS took the case and came back with a resounding "Yes, it's an arm within the meaning of the 2A" (in a judicial beatdown that I rather enjoyed)


That was quite enjoyable particularly in light of how infrequently it happens. :D


I think the MA judge on the case, in the aftermath of it being sent back down to MA, took the beat down to heart and put in some extra effort to remedy the situation as best as possible.
 
My comment will drift off firearms, but add a small measure of what happens when people don't participate in their governance which seems to be more of what this thread is about.

Our township was being run by a cadre of Good Ole Boys for many years. Several people in the township became wealthy due to the malfeasance that occurred for many years. Secret meetings, allowing private mining interests to extract soils from township owned lands without compensating the township coffers. (lined a lot of pockets, though) Projects being done using favoritism, land uses laws being neglected, permits being given without any scrutiny and many other miscreancies.

Five years ago a large group of citizens worked day and night to turn the malfeasors out of office. This was done in the face of threats being made by township officials and township officials using county law enforcement to harass the citizens. A large turnout of voters threw them out.

A week ago, in a quiet primary election, 3 of those who were booted out, got back into office. One of them doesn't even live in the township. She owns property, but is rarely here. Those 3 along with 1 survivor of the heave ho 4 years ago now represent a majority on the board. One other member, the treasurer, will probably retire the first of the year and his replacement will likely be one of the miscreants from before.

My point is this. 11% of the registered voters turned out to vote. No one cared to be involved except the malfeasors who worked hard to get back into office. Because voters did not remain engaged in their own governance, corrupt officials are back in power. That is the microcosm of political apathy. Some of the views in this thread represent the macrocosm of apathy. A lot of bitching goes on in chat rooms and around the coffee table, but not much activism is done, so we flounder as a nation. Some strain at gnats, but don't actually get involved. Those who refrain from voting for whatever reason, in my opinion, have helped make the mess we have now. When one has not been engaged in our governance other than to express disgust, one becomes part of the problem. Sadly there are millions like that. More sadly Franklin's words hang over us like the sword of Damocles. "We gave you a Republic madam, if you can keep it."
 
Last edited:
There are no "sides", this is a entire govt issue. And folks like you that keep advocating a "side" are just what the govt wants in order to keep us divided and preoccupied with trivial BS.

Once you come to the understanding that "all sides" are the problem you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about, although I seriously doubt you ever will.
And your claim to know this is based on, what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top