Jason Palmer 
Member since Mar 15, 2013


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Gunning for a Fight

You and I actually agree on something Mick. I realize that it's pointless to argue with the SCOTUS. That's why I have no intention of doing it.

Posted by Jason Palmer on 03/21/2013 at 2:41 AM

Re: “Gunning for a Fight

Mick, think about what you're saying. If the Founders intended for the commerce clause to mean that the government can regulate anything that they want, then why did they add the Bill of Rights? Why make a Constitution at all? All they would have to write down is "Congress shall pass any laws they deem necessary". Where do you come up with this stuff? To think that they went through so much trouble to emphasize a certain set of untouchable rights, only to allow them to be overridden by the whims of Congress is absurd!

Oh, and by the way, it's not us who are standing up for our rights that wants to send people to "re-education camps". You may want to look at some of the close associates of your hero Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

Posted by Jason Palmer on 03/20/2013 at 3:35 PM

Re: “Gunning for a Fight

Again, with the insults. Are you even able to act like an adult? It's like a reflex with you! No, I did not forget about the militia part. We the people are the militia. The Constitution is a document delegating to the government a very limited number of responsibilities. Even after the Constitution was written, there was disagreement amongst the Founders as to whether or not a Bill of Rights should be included. Many just assumed that it was not needed because the Constitution didn't grant the Federal Government the authority to limit the rights that were later spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but they included them to make certain that there was no question as to what the government was not allowed to do, including enacting laws against the ownership of firearms.

During the Revolutionary War, American militia men (shop keepers, blacksmiths, lawyers, carpenters, farmers, etc.) owned and used weapons that were equal or superior to those being used by the British troops. The Constitution was drafted approximately 6 years after the end of the war. So, after just having used military grade weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government, why on earth would the Founders include the Second Amendment for hunting purposes only? They wanted us to be able to match any army that would oppose us, including our own. It doesn't sound very nice to actually say it, but it's the truth. So, your attempt at sarcasm in your previous post is more of an accurate description than you realize. However, you still failed to mention where the government has any authority to limit what firearms I can own.

I've asked you several times to cite the clause in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to enact any gun laws and you have failed to do anything other than spout hyperbole and call me names. The fact of the matter is that you have no evidence to back up your claims, but continue to speak as if you are an authority on the subject. You should read up on American history and educate yourself.

Posted by Jason Palmer on 03/19/2013 at 8:37 PM

Re: “Gunning for a Fight

SCOTUS also ruled slavery and segregation Constitutional, so what's your point? I don't need political appointees to interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I take it to mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Posted by Jason Palmer on 03/19/2013 at 4:16 PM

Re: “Gunning for a Fight

Mick, again, please advise which clause in the Constitution allows Congress to enact any gun laws. It should be easy for you since you're not a "diddle brained rural sheriff". The problem is that you can't, so you have to resort to name calling and pleas based on emotional responses. If your points were well thought out and based on actual facts and logic, then you could be taken more seriously. You say that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right. Please provide a reason for your position other than the "because I said so" argument. That only works on small children who aren't able to think for themselves yet. You are in an adult forum, so try to act like one and let the rest of us know why you want to take our rights away when we have violated no one else's rights. We deserve that.

Also, you say that gun owners are paranoid. Please explain why we're paranoid. Also, please give one valid reason why the rules of history stop at the shores of the United States, and we are immune from the possibility of becoming ruled by tyrants. You make a pretty bold claim that it could never happen here, and accuse anyone who studies and knows history of being "paranoid" or a "gun worshiper". How can you guarantee that we will never again be ruled by tyrants if we give up our guns? Based on the name calling that you do, you seem to believe that you are so much more intelligent than everyone else here, so please enlighten us dimwitted gun worshipers.

Posted by Jason Palmer on 03/19/2013 at 8:24 AM

Re: “Gunning for a Fight

Mick, I don’t understand your logic. You claim that the US is not like any of the tyrannical governments that I listed, but then use a quote that backs up exactly what I’m saying. We are kept in a perpetual state of war, whether it be the war on drugs or the war on terror. They are both used as an excuse to strip us of our rights. We’re told that there’s a terrorist boogeyman in our closet or under our bed and that if we don’t let them grope us at the airport or roadside checkpoints then we’re all going to die. It’s the exact same thing that Hitler did, but you call me “whacked out” for knowing history and seeing the glaring similarities between us and 1930’s Germany.

I love how you continually play the typical progressive game of labeling people who want to retain their rights as “gun worshippers”. So I guess that would mean that you’re a government worshipper? All hail the great .gov!

I know you feel like the government should limit my access to firearms even though I’ve never used any of mine in a criminal manner, but that’s what is great about our Constitution. We are not a democracy, where the majority is allowed to remove the rights of the minority through a popular vote. We are a republic, where individual rights are respected, and no one is allowed to take away my rights without due process. A vote is not due process.

You say that, since we are guaranteed a right to life by the Constitution, that that is a valid excuse to strip me of my rights and property. Does that mean that any instrument ever used in the killing of another human being is fair game for prohibition and removal from their owners? Can the government come and take our cars, kitchen knives, baseball bats and knitting needles? How about this: maybe we should all just be locked in padded cells, fed three meals a day by the great, mighty government and be kept under constant surveillance at all times? We’d be safer and, according to you, it would fit within the rights of the government to do that because there is that clause about a right to life.

We can argue all day about what should be done, but it all boils down to this: I am not a criminal, I have done no harm to another human being with any of my firearms, and therefore no one has a right to take them from me. If you believe otherwise, please cite the clause in the Constitution that grants them the authority to do so.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jason Palmer on 03/18/2013 at 6:47 AM

Re: “Gunning for a Fight

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Jason Palmer on 03/17/2013 at 7:05 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2016 Boise Weekly

Website powered by Foundation