doublegunshop.com - home Forums Is KING BROWN an Anti-Gunner?

ed good:

Friend to owls and doves....slayer of grouse.(the bastards!)
No.....I misquote.... hunter of grouse...no birds were harmed in his pursuits. (allegedly).

King asks, "Where's something more substantial than pernicious spite-and-spleen evidence to support your accusation? I'm no more anti-gunner than you are---and you know it." First off, Brian has accused King of nothing. I have voiced my opinion of him based upon his own words posted here. I only ask that others read and consider the evidence. Nothing pernicious.

Here's something rather substantial supporting alleged spite and spleen opinions of King's anti-gun proclivities... his own words. Once again, here is King Brown's most recent statement subverting the Second Amendment. This is from his post on 7-7-14 in post# 371726:



Here is my reply to him and a link to an article by Second Amendment Constitutional scholar David Kopel which shows that King was lying when he claimed that the Heller ruling in any way supported what Warren Burger was promoting in his infamous Parade Magazine article.:




King went on later to claim that Burger was a Conservative Supreme Court Justice. While he was nominated by Nixon, he turned out to be a flaming Liberal once on the SCOTUS, and was a major disappointment to Conservatives. Burger voted with the majority to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade for example.

King claims that this is all nonsense... in spite of written proof to the contrary. ed good claims I am a liar without telling us where I lied or offering up a shred of evidence. Funny how these guys operate.

King has made many similar deceptive claims in the months since the Newtown shootings. His letter to Sen. McCain and the NRA was simply an attempt to convince them that concessions to the anti-gun forces was the correct path. King would never show us the text from those letters, but that is what he was proposing here as he pilloried the NRA for its' response after Newtown. The same strategy in 1968 led to the passage of GCA 1968, which put onerous restrictions on the law abiding without making even a small dent in gun crime. King has had dozens of requests to show us even one little thing he has done to preserve or promote gun rights in Canada. Still nothing, unless shooting a gun from time to time is supposed to be proof that you are an ardent supporter of gun rights. I think Obama tried that with his famous skeet shooting photo-op. Nobody's buying it.

Now King is frantically attempting to reinvent himself. But it is now too late for him to go back and delete what he has said. Everytime King posts an anti-Second Amendment remark, I put the thread, date, and post number into a notebook in my desk. The evidence file. I also have an almost full page color photo and article about John Kerry's goose hunt in Mahoning County, Ohio when he was attempting to convince Ohio gunners that he was not an anti-gun liar. I call that the Democrat I.Q.Test. It didn't work for him either.

King's newest attempt at deception is not going to work either. If he did not wish to be perceived as an anti-gun/anti-NRA/anti-Second Amendment troll, he should not have posted the things that he said. He can't put the Genie back in the bottle with more lies this time.

King, you had over a full day to come up with something better than that lame-ass response. I really expected more from an advanced liar like you.

Are you still worried that the venerated visionary Dave W. will finally take notice that you and a few other anti-gun trolls are frequently attempting to subvert the foundation of firearms freedom, and that which he has built and believes in?

Boy, I can remember the good ole days when there wasn't any demonizing. I did enjoy your facts though, kinda wished you did one of the link things to pictures of Ms Vaccination World. Just fool'in around King, I must refocus my flowery tolerance for the occasional greatness of differing opinion.

I will answer my own questions and elaborate on this line of questioning
1. What do you consider reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights?
No.
2. What do you think would be an effective law that would impact the use of firearms for illegal purposes yet not restrict law abiding citizens.
We have more than 20,000 laws on the books, form local, county, state and federal. Enforce existing law.
3. Do you think that restricting the constitutional rights of those who have done nothing wrong is acceptable to address acts being committed by criminals? In other words, do you support the theory and practice of being considered guilty until proven innocent? The act of having to participate in a background check is being guilty until proven innocent. Until you can prove (via a NICS Check) that you have no record, the assumption is that you do. Again �guilty until proven innocent.�. There is no other constitutional right that requires the procedures involved in purchasing a firearm to exercise that right.
4. Would you support a system that registers all persons convicted of a felony into a single data base and require them to have an ID card that shows them being a convicted felon? Absolutely. Criminals , by virtue of their actions have abdicated the rights of citizenship. In many states we need a firearms ID Card or permit to purchase, possesses guns and we have broken no laws. Why is it felt to be wrong, humiliating, degrading, ostracizing etc. to require a criminal to have identification indicating that they are a convicted Felon. Why is there not a database in this country that anyone can access to see who is a convicted felon? Now the trend is to eliminate asking a person if they have a criminal record on job applications. Lowers their self-esteem they say.
5. Class 3: legal in about 36 states. Suppressors, full auto. I believe that I should be allowed to won them. Why you might ask. Because I want to. Just like why people are allowed to own and drive cars that can go in excess of 150 MPH but the speed limits do not exceed 75 in this country. High performance cars, high performance firearms. I love doubles and black guns. And check the records on how many legally owned Class 3 firearms have been involved in crimes.
6. Permits: why is my drivers license good in all 50 states but not my permit? cars kill and main far more than firearms. Makes no sense. At a minimum permits should be good anywhere in the country. What�s even worse is that my NY Permit is no good in NYC but theirs are good throughout NY. Makes no sense.
7. Back ground checks. : keep the existing system and ensure that the records aren�t being kept. The proposed expanded back ground checks as proposed by the Senate after Sandy Hook were extremely restrictive and would have turned you into a felon if you lent your friend a gun to hunt with and you didn�t do a background check. That is just one example of what it would have done.

Bottom line is to show me where additional restrictions have reduced crime.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the current trend of wanting to allow convicted felons the right to vote again. The logic given is that they have paid their debt to society and therefore should have their rights restored. I have not heard them address the question of whether or not that would include gun ownership rights since being a convicted felon disqualifies one from owning a gun now. But they want full restoration from what I have seen.

brian: "the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Milita"...that's the part to me that is not clearly defined. and perhaps it was left that way on purpose?

one could interpret that the unorganized militia includes those militia units under the command of state governors.

and one could also interpret that the unorganized militia includes all citizens.


Ed,
the Bill Of rights was ratified when there was no Active Army. After the revolution, states still maintained their own militias called to service when needed. These have been and are now under the control of the Governor of each state unless federalized. These are the organized militias.
The unorganized militia would be those citizens not members of the organized militia or in todays parlance, not members of the National Guard.

Brian, I believe King already typed that crime was unavoidable, or at least the headline grabbing tragedies. I'd tend to assume there're other motivations?

Excellent response Brian. Too bad it was directed at an illiterate anti-gun troll with prejudice toward the 2nd Amendment and his own misguided and uneducated preconceived notions. I certainly appreciate it. Totally wasted on guys like ed, King, nca225, homer, etc.

[\quote]
Here' are other statistics: Charles Darwin's signature discovery ceased to be a matter of serious debate long ago in most of the world. But 42 per cent of Americans are "not to" or "not at all" confident that all life on earth is the product of evolution. Similarly, 51 per cent are skeptical the universe started with a "big bang," and 36 per cent doubt the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. A former Playboy model with a high school education is a world-wide leader in the anti-vaccination movement.[/quote]

Comrade King, not only do you miss the point, but you're the "Gift that Keeps on Giving".

Now, you've completely identified yourself as just another common, anti-intellectual, sociopathic, statist religious BIGOT.

When you demonize other's faith-based beliefs, you should be ready for the rebuttal of your own. The true anti-intellectual religious movement is found among religious statists like yourself. The issue is not the dogma, but the resulting morality. Since none of those christian beliefs are being sociopathically inflicted on others, your point is irrelevant since it's a matter of individual religious freedom.

Look at you own statist religious beliefs, complete with unconstitutional, sociopathic infliction and forcing free and equal citizens into involuntary exchanges of goods and service.

It's you and your ilk that are the anti-intellectual, sociopathic, religious fundamentalists.

brian: I am confused as to the differences between the national guard and the national guard of the united states. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) for more details.

anyway, it would be nice if congress or a federal court would define for us the current meaning of, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," as referenced in the preamble of the second amendment. logic tells me that back then it was referring to the state militias and not any federal military organization, reserve or otherwise. and it did not include any other citizens who were not enrolled in a state militia...even us unregulated citizen militiamen.

Well, there's anti-gun Constitutional Scholar ed good still questioning settled law about the Militia and the Individual RKBA... and looking hard for any imagined loophole that might help him restrict our rights.

Then there's more from 2nd Amendment Scholar King Brown:



From his post # 371710. Apparently, from his perverted and confused view of the Second Amendment, King obviously finds it tragic that the High Court had the temerity to rule it unconstitutional for states and localities to place restrictions on our Constitutional right. I'm not sure how the SCOTUS rulings in Heller or McDonald increases the number of "grabbers" by ruling that D.C. or Chicago can't just arbitrarily usurp the Bill of Rights. But the Liberal Leftist Democrat grabbers have been working overtime since then to create new laws to do an end run around our Constitutional Rights. Wherever we see infringements on the 2nd, we see politicians of the same mindset as King.

But hey... King does not have an anti-Second Amendment bone in his body. If he says it... it must be true. Quotes from him to the contrary! Don't believe what he himself has said... believe the lie he later uses to cover up what he has said!

You gotta love a guy who can deny his own words with a straight face. What a fraud!

Hey King... Are you still worried that the venerated visionary Dave W. will finally take notice that you and a few other anti-gun trolls are frequently attempting to undermine the foundation of firearms freedom, and that upon which he has built this website, and believes in? Do you think sucking up to him will help? I can give you a few more flowery adjectives. How 'bout cerebral and eloquent!