If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   Remember that Colorado sheriff who announced that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like? Yeah...about that   (cnsnews.com) divider line 658
    More: Followup, Colorado, Weld County, gun controls, sheriffs  
•       •       •

28459 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



658 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 04:24:32 PM

GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?


Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?
 
2013-03-19 04:24:43 PM
Sheriff: I will NOT be supporting these gun control laws that will cause undue harm to law-abiding citizens by requiring them to pay a $12 registration fee...

...but if your ass gets caught with so much as a gram of marijuana, so help me GOD, I will use every tool at my disposal to make sure that the prosecutor can bury your ass under years of supervised probation. I'll also be there to honor the warrant for your arrest if you miss ONE payment to the court for your probation costs and court costs. I don't give a shiat how the missed days from work affects your ability to pay. Die, hippy.
 
2013-03-19 04:25:04 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

$12 for a background check... that's less than the farking sales tax. So, now you have to pay $812 dollars....


So it's okay to be forced to pay to exercise you're constitutional rights?
 
2013-03-19 04:25:29 PM

macdaddy357: What makes these inbred redneck sheriffs think they are the Supreme Court?


They don't think that. They think that they are law enforcement officers being told to do the impossible.
 
2013-03-19 04:25:30 PM
> will not enforce any new gun laws.

That declaration holds a dangerous lack of vision.
 
2013-03-19 04:25:34 PM

sirgrim: WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?

And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.


What if it doesn't save a single child?  Is it still worth it to appease to some liberal sense of "We are doing something!"

I can't imagine 6 year old kids trapped in a classroom huddled scared in a corner will have any better chance against someone swapping mags vs a large mag.

Let's concentrate on things that will actually make a difference.  Like improved mental healthcare?

But no, just like banning 20oz sodas will end obesity, limiting magazine sizes will eliminate school shootings, right?
 
2013-03-19 04:25:58 PM

Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat.  It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century.  You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this.  These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?


Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons?  I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays.  Is that wrong, legally?  I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.

You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791?  Oh boy.  I was using it as an example.  The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns.  Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?


You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?
 
2013-03-19 04:26:01 PM
They're all bluster and no backbone.
 
2013-03-19 04:26:52 PM

GoldSpider: FreetardoRivera: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

[murlocparliament.com image 695x535]

A poll tax is a reasonable restriction on the right to vote.  Reasonable.


Is it justified? It needs to be justifiable to be reasonable (I mean, other than to give a favorable Math outcome to the GOP to make themselves feel better).
 
2013-03-19 04:27:16 PM

Evil High Priest: They're sheriffs now? Who knew!

Sheriffs get to allocate resources. They don't get to decide court cases.


And the DOJ doesn't? Snicker.
 
2013-03-19 04:27:28 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Sheriff: I will NOT be supporting these gun control laws that will cause undue harm to law-abiding citizens by requiring them to pay a $12 registration fee...

...but if your ass gets caught with so much as a gram of marijuana, so help me GOD, I will use every tool at my disposal to make sure that the prosecutor can bury your ass under years of supervised probation. I'll also be there to honor the warrant for your arrest if you miss ONE payment to the court for your probation costs and court costs. I don't give a shiat how the missed days from work affects your ability to pay. Die, hippy.


He is a sheriff in Colorado.  Think about that and your comment for a second.
 
rka
2013-03-19 04:27:34 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: ZeroPly: the rural parts of the country

Screw the hillbillies


Weld County isn't full of hillbillies. It has Longmont and Greeley as well as two of Denver's north-eastern suburbs in Northglenn and Thornton.

I can hit a golf ball to Weld County from my house and I don't live in the sticks.

/It's also the #1 agricultural county in the entire US east of the Rocky Mountains but I suppose to you anyone on a farm is a hillbilly.
 
2013-03-19 04:27:44 PM

GoldSpider: A poll tax is a reasonable restriction on the right to vote.  Reasonable



3/10 trolling
or
6/10 sarcasm
 
2013-03-19 04:27:54 PM

GoldSpider: Kahabut: Did you know that a Sheriff is sworn to uphold the law of the land?

So then... I think we are done here.

Dereliction of duty, maybe.  I find it hard to believe that would ever constitute a crime.  Law enforcement exercises prosecutorial discretion every day.


Funny thing, the prosecutor also has discretion, and so long as he and the Sheriff see eye to eye, there is no crime.  As soon as they don't see eye to eye, the crimes start flying around like shiat in a monkey house. We have in fact seen that happen before, right here on fark.  I would not be surprised to see it again here.
 
2013-03-19 04:28:00 PM

GUTSU: So it's okay to be forced to pay to exercise you're constitutional rights?


If I had to pay to register to pay to vote, then you'd have a point.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that sales tax on guns in unconstitutional because they force you to pay the state to exercise your constitutional right.
 
2013-03-19 04:28:19 PM

meat0918: They're all bluster and no backbone.


Bingo. 340 morons who are about to discover the definition of "dereliction of duty", I expect.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:28 PM

GUTSU: WippitGuud: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

$12 for a background check... that's less than the farking sales tax. So, now you have to pay $812 dollars....

So it's okay to be forced to pay to exercise you're constitutional rights?


Ok, so lets make the rule something like this:
"Acquisition of a firearm requires a background check. If you cannot afford the background check, then the background check will be waived."

Which puts it in the same boat as Right to Council.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:34 PM

coeyagi: Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.

Because granny with bad eyesight needs more than 6 rounds.  Or something about like a gang of people invading the house.  You know, real statistical worries.


This whole push for more gun control legislation is based on that......They have to go back 10 years and total up all the mass shootings to inflate the number  and make it scary enough to try to do something about via legislation
 
2013-03-19 04:29:46 PM

Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?


It doesn't have to be discrimination based on a protected class if protected classes are disproportionately affected (ie adverse impact). Protected class here being race. One could make an argument that since hispanics, blacks, and other racial minorities are disproportionately poorer than asians and whites, it has an adverse impact on their ability to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

IANAL so I don't know how well that would hold up.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:54 PM

WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.


"It's not difficult to comply with" is not a justification for an asinine law. I can easily buy my Sunday beer on a Saturday, but blue laws are still retarded.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:57 PM

lilplatinum: Bravo Two: Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?

Inoright?  This is just like when it was decided you couldn't shout fire in a crowded theater and then the right to free speech disappeared.


If you had to get a background check before freely speaking then I'd say its an analogy worth considering.
 
2013-03-19 04:30:05 PM

Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?


So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?
 
2013-03-19 04:30:39 PM

GUTSU: You have never been to a gun show, and I doubt you are any sort of reasonable person. Why do you demonize people you've never met? Why do you assume people selling firearms are shady characters?


Rrrrrright. Also, I've certainly never fired a gun, or made love to a woman, or worked a day in my life. And the reason I'm not impressed by people who can drive stick must be because I can't.

I'm sure there are some gun shows out there populated by nothing but lantern-jawed sportsmen, constitutional scholars, Glock executives in button-downs, Olympic biathletes, and antique buffs. And then there are the ones where people go to buy guns.

Like I said, no matter how much you love or hate guns, check one of those out. You can decide for yourself if these people are "shady," or patriotic defenders of our Second Amendment rights. I'll say this much, they're the safest places in the world, and not because there are a million guns lying around.
 
2013-03-19 04:30:58 PM

sirgrim: WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?

And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.


And if the parent and child is killed during a home invasion while the parent is swapping mags? Is it worth it then?
 
2013-03-19 04:31:24 PM
stupid law - nobody's going to pay attention to - not gonna enforce it - blah blah blah

fine lets all just sit on our hands and whine for and against and wait for the next 26 dead children and women.
.  .  .  .
Or we could give something a try and see if it works, if it doesn't and proves unworkable then fine lets move to something that is workable.

Because what we have now   ISN'T WORKINGor hasn't anyone noticed?  I would think that when you've been to enough funerals for dead children you'd start to think about things that don't work like our current LACK OF GUN REGULATION.
I'll go through it again- more people have died in gun violence since the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders than in all the shoot outs in the Wild West Era.

So the ball is in your court, YOU come up with something instead of "no".
 
2013-03-19 04:31:40 PM
Federal government won't enforce DOMA = hooray!
Local government won't enforce gun laws = OMG THIS GUY NEEDS A FIRING!
 
2013-03-19 04:31:45 PM

Giltric: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?


It's like mandating people buy an ID to vote. It puts financial obstacles in the way of exercising a civil right. It  disenfranchises the poor...who happen to be the victims of a majority of the crimes being committed.


The poor have no excuse.  Welfare more than covers the cost of an ID.  Put down the 40 and the pack of smokes and get an ID.
 
2013-03-19 04:32:00 PM

GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?


What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?
 
2013-03-19 04:32:22 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: ZeroPly: the rural parts of the country

Screw the hillbillies


Not a really good PR strategy for the feds. Remember that the rural parts of the country are disproportionately represented by both active military and veterans. You know, the people who actually have real experience with guns, combat, and all those other other things that are being discussed. Feinstein has already had her pee-pee slapped by that Marine's "F*ck you and your idiot ideas, biatch" diatribe. What Obama and company are not looking for is a discussion of why people like them with no meaningful firearms know-how are supposed to be legislating firearms. It's kind of like SOPA/PIPA but with "clips" instead of DNS.
 
2013-03-19 04:32:28 PM

WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.


The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.
 
2013-03-19 04:32:55 PM

Giltric: coeyagi: Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.

Because granny with bad eyesight needs more than 6 rounds.  Or something about like a gang of people invading the house.  You know, real statistical worries.

This whole push for more gun control legislation is based on that......They have to go back 10 years and total up all the mass shootings to inflate the number  and make it scary enough to try to do something about via legislation


The whole push for less gun control is based on that too.  Cherry picking data.  Don't get me wrong, I am not a gun control advocate, but I favor their position on actually wanting to do something about the issue.  The other side only gives a f*ck about themselves, and anyone who says that expanding gun rights will help the situation is a lying f*ck shill for the gun lobby.
 
2013-03-19 04:32:59 PM

Darth_Lukecash: umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.

Clip limit does not infringe on an ownership of a weapon. You an Scalia can ignore the "Well Regulated Militia" part.


I'm not ignoring it. I know that it doesn't mean what you think it means so it is moot.
 
2013-03-19 04:33:30 PM

Communist_Manifesto: As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all.


When they came for the jews...I was not a jew so I did not care.

+1 for boot licking.
 
2013-03-19 04:33:33 PM

wildcardjack: Ahem... Lots of Sheriffs don't enforce laws they disagree with already.

Furthermore, the issues mentioned wouldn't be enforced by the Sheriffs. These are ATF issues.


There's a difference between enforcing laws and refusing to report crimes one has discovered, if one has a legal duty to report such crimes.  Under federal law, all citizens have a duty to report felonies unless they have certain relationships with the offenders.  IDK if sheriffs have any stricter duty.  I do know that "the offender elected me" is not among the exempted relationships.
 
2013-03-19 04:34:38 PM

tricycleracer: GUTSU: So it's okay to be forced to pay to exercise you're constitutional rights?

If I had to pay to register to pay to vote, then you'd have a point.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that sales tax on guns in unconstitutional because they force you to pay the state to exercise your constitutional right.


I'm not talking about sales tax, since you can purchase firearms from other private party and aren't subject to sales tax. However having to pay for a background check, is a restriction. But hey, fark poor people right?
 
2013-03-19 04:34:45 PM

pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?


Why would something held in a public venue be applicable or comparable to something owned and held at home? Now if you want to compare carrying a gun in public to holding  a concert in public, go ahead.
 
2013-03-19 04:35:04 PM

Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?


Think Poll Tax.
 
2013-03-19 04:35:21 PM

way south: lilplatinum: Bravo Two: Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?

Inoright?  This is just like when it was decided you couldn't shout fire in a crowded theater and then the right to free speech disappeared.

If you had to get a background check before freely speaking then I'd say its an analogy worth considering.


Limits on two fundamentally different things are going to be demonstratively different in effect.  The argument I was responding to was implying that any limit is going to lead to the destruction of that right.  Even Scalia agrees the 2nd amendment can be limited.
 
2013-03-19 04:35:59 PM

Fano: Would they go sans sherif?


+1
 
2013-03-19 04:37:34 PM

semiotix: You can decide for yourself if these people are "shady," or patriotic defenders of our Second Amendment rights.


For the most part they are neither. They're just people looking to buy and sell stuff.

Marcintosh: Or we could give something a try and see if it works, if it doesn't and proves unworkable then fine lets move to something that is workable.


I carry a magic rock, and I've never been shot. Clearly, distributing magic rocks is a worthwhile endeavor, because why not?

/Since when is "Let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" a valid form of lawmaking?
 
2013-03-19 04:37:43 PM

redmid17: pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?

Why would something held in a public venue be applicable or comparable to something owned and held at home? Now if you want to compare carrying a gun in public to holding  a concert in public, go ahead.


My point was that we already have to sometimes pay to exercise our rights.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it already happens a whole lot.
 
2013-03-19 04:37:58 PM

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.

Because granny with bad eyesight needs more than 6 rounds.  Or something about like a gang of people invading the house.  You know, real statistical worries.

This whole push for more gun control legislation is based on that......They have to go back 10 years and total up all the mass shootings to inflate the number  and make it scary enough to try to do something about via legislation

The whole push for less gun control is based on that too.  Cherry picking data.  Don't get me wrong, I am not a gun control advocate, but I favor their position on actually wanting to do something about the issue.  The other side only gives a f*ck about themselves, and anyone who says that expanding gun rights will help the situation is a lying f*ck shill for the gun lobby.


Body armor and high cap magazines seem to work well in protecting police officers. That was their justification in going from 6 round wheel guns to high cap semi autos.

Shouldnt civillians be allowed the same protective gear as police officers?
 
2013-03-19 04:38:02 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: DROxINxTHExWIND: Sheriff: I will NOT be supporting these gun control laws that will cause undue harm to law-abiding citizens by requiring them to pay a $12 registration fee...

...but if your ass gets caught with so much as a gram of marijuana, so help me GOD, I will use every tool at my disposal to make sure that the prosecutor can bury your ass under years of supervised probation. I'll also be there to honor the warrant for your arrest if you miss ONE payment to the court for your probation costs and court costs. I don't give a shiat how the missed days from work affects your ability to pay. Die, hippy.

He is a sheriff in Colorado.  Think about that and your comment for a second.


The SHERIFFS didn't legalize marijuana in Colorado. Elected officials did. The same elected officials that this sheriff plans to ignore regarding gun control. Whats stopping him from deciding that MJ should remain illegal and going on a rampage to round up smokers?
 
2013-03-19 04:38:04 PM

unyon: FTFA: Cooke says of the new laws: "They're feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable."

Of course they're unenforcable, because the guy in charge of enforcing them just explained that he refused to do so.


L
 
2013-03-19 04:38:05 PM

Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.


What does the FBI have to do with enforcement of state-level laws?
 
2013-03-19 04:38:28 PM

pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?


Is Central Park owned by you, or if it's public land, would your concert impede other citizens use of the park? Last time I checked, you could hold your drum circle or kazoo jam on your own land without charge.
 
2013-03-19 04:38:47 PM

pudding7: redmid17: pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?

Why would something held in a public venue be applicable or comparable to something owned and held at home? Now if you want to compare carrying a gun in public to holding  a concert in public, go ahead.

My point was that we already have to sometimes pay to exercise our rights.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it already happens a whole lot.


That's fine. Your comparison was just off. Public application of rights is totally different than private application of rights, even if the gun can obviously be used in a public setting.
 
2013-03-19 04:38:52 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: semiotix: You can decide for yourself if these people are "shady," or patriotic defenders of our Second Amendment rights.

For the most part they are neither. They're just people looking to buy and sell stuff.

Marcintosh: Or we could give something a try and see if it works, if it doesn't and proves unworkable then fine lets move to something that is workable.

I carry a magic rock, and I've never been shot. Clearly, distributing magic rocks is a worthwhile endeavor, because why not?

/Since when is "Let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" a valid form of lawmaking?


Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
 
2013-03-19 04:39:24 PM
How is this any different than a pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control?  If you won't do your job, you shouldn't have that job, regardless of your personal beliefs.
 
2013-03-19 04:39:29 PM

Giltric: Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!


How do you feel about the legalities of sanctuary cities? Should they fire the politicians and law enforcement officals who refuse to enforce immigration laws?



That or wall the cities off.
 
Displayed 50 of 658 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report