Kalihi Uka is going to learn this is how EEF replies. "thought experiment" aka wasting peoples time.

I don’t think Kalihi Uka is particularly bright in the first place anyway.

I don’t think Kalihi Uka is particularly bright in the first place anyway.

I had a feeling something was off.  Now i'm thinking schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder.

But, don't fret over it.  Some people have no personality at all!      

I had a feeling something was off.  Now i'm thinking schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder.

But, don't fret over it.  Some people have no personality at all!      

Roses are red,

violets are blue,

I’m a schizophrenic,

and so am I.

- Bill Murray’s favorite poem, and my other personal motto 

Roses are red,

violets are blue,

I’m a schizophrenic,

and so am I.

- Bill Murray’s favorite poem, and my other personal motto 

Schizophrenia: Robin Williams



(YT previews seem to have stopped working again on here)

Stupid argument.

You can exercise your right to protest, but within the context of not creating a public nuisance or threat.  Do you think these idiots protesting in the middle of the freeways have a right to do that just because protesting is protected speech?  The government has every right to remove them where they are interfering with the free travel of others and putting themselves and drivers at risk of injury.

That doesn't meant they can't protest.  They just need to find a manner that doesn't create a risk to safety or interfere with others' rights.  What would happen if someone decided to run over a protester standing in the middle of the road and called it a counter-protest?  Some places have passed laws protecting drivers if they accidentally hit a protestor who was standing in the roadway.  In the end, people do get arrested for their choice of protest actions.  While the right exists, it's not a free pass for disruption of others' lives or threat to others' safety.

"You are applying your own test of reasonableness ...". 

So, are you saying i'm supposed to apply someone else's test of reasonableness?  I'm not a mind reader like you, so mine is the only test i can apply in the absence of legal statutes and ordinances. 

Or, you are saying I must apply your test of reasonableness and not that of the Supreme Court when interpreting the Second Amendment.  I'm not saying the SCOTUS is perfect given the Liberal decisions they made for decades, but when it comes to the law, you are not allowed to substitute your opinion for theirs without there being consequences. 

I guess narcissists have a problem accepting anyone else's opinions even if the opinion is the law of the land.

You call my argument stupid but then you give another one illustrating the same concept. You are making the same argument about time, place, and manner restrictions I made.
 

When I said you were applying your own sense of reasonableness I was not talking about the reasonableness of the noise, you implied it was stupid to have a rally at 2am, that is the stupid argument I was attacking. Whether you think a rally at 2am is a good idea or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the government can restrict that rally. The government doesn't step in and say 2am rallies are stupid as a justification to regulate them. Hence my example of a 2am rally on a massive farm where no neighbors would be woken up in the middle of the night compared to a 2am rally in an urban area where lots of people would be woken up in the middle of the night.

Once again, you're just arguing to argue.

Your explanation is pure gobbledygook.

I gave you concrete real world examples and "gobbledygook" is the best rebuttal you can come up with?
Did I just stump you and you don't want to admit it or are you off your game today?

"Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls."

No need to pretend like there needs to be a "thought [sic] experiment".  If the situation you propose existed, we already have contingency plans to contain the outbreak.  It starts with declaring martial law.  That alone gives the government the power necessary to put a pause on the Constitution in order to protect the nation from a threat to everyone's lives -- be it a hostile threat of violence or a natural one. Even a biological threat could originate as a hostile use of a bio weapon.

Don't try to reinvent the wheel.  Do some research instead.

SWOOSH
You fail to understand the purpose of a thought experiment

Since you failed, I will explain it to you. The purpose was to illustrate to Kalihi that there could be times where he would recognize the need to give government this level of power. Just like with most strong firearm rights supporters even they have a line that they are willing to draw in terms of what arms can be had and who can have them. A thought experiment helps flush out where someone draws the line and helps evaluate that line.

Telling me to do research about actual government plans is a stupid and irrelevant whataboutism type argument.

SWOOSH
You fail to understand the purpose of a thought experiment

Since you failed, I will explain it to you. The purpose was to illustrate to Kalihi that there could be times where he would recognize the need to give government this level of power. Just like with most strong firearm rights supporters even they have a line that they are willing to draw in terms of what arms can be had and who can have them. A thought experiment helps flush out where someone draws the line and helps evaluate that line.

Telling me to do research about actual government plans is a stupid and irrelevant whataboutism type argument.

There’s no emergency clause to the constitution

Neither is there a restriction on the types of weapons one can own

We just allowed the government to get away with it too many times and now they take their unconstitutional powers for granted

There’s no emergency clause to the constitution

Neither is there a restriction on the types of weapons one can own

We just allowed the government to get away with it too many times and now they take their unconstitutional powers for granted

You are correct that the constitution doesn't mention anything about the types of weapons one can own, I don't dispute that but I think it is a jump to therefore conclude any attempt at regulating it is therefore unconstitutional.

I think I can list examples where even you would agree a certain person or certain weapon should not be allowed.

You call my argument stupid but then you give another one illustrating the same concept. You are making the same argument about time, place, and manner restrictions I made.
 

When I said you were applying your own sense of reasonableness I was not talking about the reasonableness of the noise, you implied it was stupid to have a rally at 2am, that is the stupid argument I was attacking. Whether you think a rally at 2am is a good idea or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the government can restrict that rally. The government doesn't step in and say 2am rallies are stupid as a justification to regulate them. Hence my example of a 2am rally on a massive farm where no neighbors would be woken up in the middle of the night compared to a 2am rally in an urban area where lots of people would be woken up in the middle of the night.

Wrong.

My example is no different than making it illegal to fire a gun inside a residential neighborhood or within city limits -- EXCEPT when done in self defense/defense of others.  None of that is an arbitrary solve-no-real-problem law that makes me a felon because I happened to be carrying 12 inches beyond a gun free zone sign.

Why don't you quit ATTACKING ME AND MY ARGUMENTS (your word -- attack).  Maybe try to actually understand what I'm saying first and them make your point.  You attacking me and other members is why you get wrapped around the axle and can't stop attacking.

If your farm has neighbors who complain about the noise, you can bet they will call the sheriff.  You make an assumption that a rally on some ambiguous farm is not going to bother anyone.

You are correct that the constitution doesn't mention anything about the types of weapons one can own, I don't dispute that but I think it is a jump to therefore conclude any attempt at regulating it is therefore unconstitutional.

I think I can list examples where even you would agree a certain person or certain weapon should not be allowed.

a dogpile of words

You are correct that the constitution doesn't mention anything about the types of weapons one can own, I don't dispute that but I think it is a jump to therefore conclude any attempt at regulating it is therefore unconstitutional.

I think I can list examples where even you would agree a certain person or certain weapon should not be allowed.

Anything arm an individual infantryman uses should be covered by the 2A as that's what would be used by the militia and people expected to own.  To include machine guns, grenades, rpgs, etc in the modern day.

Crew served weapons and vehicles could be up for debate.  Some people owned gatling guns, canons, and warships, but they weren't common and more of a organization possession.

Wrong.

My example is no different than making it illegal to fire a gun inside a residential neighborhood or within city limits -- EXCEPT when done in self defense/defense of others.  None of that is an arbitrary solve-no-real-problem law that makes me a felon because I happened to be carrying 12 inches beyond a gun free zone sign.

Why don't you quit ATTACKING ME AND MY ARGUMENTS (your word -- attack).  Maybe try to actually understand what I'm saying first and them make your point.  You attacking me and other members is why you get wrapped around the axle and can't stop attacking.

If your farm has neighbors who complain about the noise, you can bet they will call the sheriff.  You make an assumption that a rally on some ambiguous farm is not going to bother anyone.

How did I attack you? I always come at these discussions in a non-aggressive manner, they only turn muddy when you make them muddy. Disagree politely and we can have adult exchanges.

The whole point about the farm vs an urban area is to illustrate how time, place, and manner restrictions can limit constitutional rights in certain specific ways because of the interest of society.

Anything arm an individual infantryman uses should be covered by the 2A as that's what would be used by the militia and people expected to own.  To include machine guns, grenades, rpgs, etc in the modern day.

Crew served weapons and vehicles could be up for debate.  Some people owned gatling guns, canons, and warships, but they weren't common and more of a organization possession.

Since a line has to be drawn somewhere, realistically speaking, I would draw the line at automatic firearms and explosive devices.

Since a line has to be drawn somewhere, realistically speaking, I would draw the line at automatic firearms and explosive devices.

If the cops have it, then by definition it's safe enough for civil society and therefore civilians should be able to own and carry it.

If the cops have it, then by definition it's safe enough for civil society and therefore civilians should be able to own and carry it.

Common sense

Since a line has to be drawn somewhere, realistically speaking, I would draw the line at automatic firearms and explosive devices.

So would you also be infavor of the following "automatic" firearms being illegal:

Bumpstocks
Auto Key Card
Forced reset triggers
Trigger cranks

If the cops have it, then by definition it's safe enough for civil society and therefore civilians should be able to own and carry it.

Larue Tactical has a saying "if it's not legal for your voters to own, we won't sell it to you" with regard to LEO's asking for stuff.

barrel wraps should be illegal

How did I attack you? I always come at these discussions in a non-aggressive manner, they only turn muddy when you make them muddy. Disagree politely and we can have adult exchanges.

The whole point about the farm vs an urban area is to illustrate how time, place, and manner restrictions can limit constitutional rights in certain specific ways because of the interest of society.

i used your word = 'attacking."

And I also said you were attacking me and my arguments, so don't try to wriggle away by arguing the different between attacking me vs attacking my argument.

You call my argument stupid but then you give another one illustrating the same concept. You are making the same argument about time, place, and manner restrictions I made.
 

When I said you were applying your own sense of reasonableness I was not talking about the reasonableness of the noise, you implied it was stupid to have a rally at 2am, that is the stupid argument I was attacking. Whether you think a rally at 2am is a good idea or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the government can restrict that rally. The government doesn't step in and say 2am rallies are stupid as a justification to regulate them. Hence my example of a 2am rally on a massive farm where no neighbors would be woken up in the middle of the night compared to a 2am rally in an urban area where lots of people would be woken up in the middle of the night.