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.

(Inside Bay Area)   Knock knock. Who's there? Home Invasion. Home invasion who? Home inva...powpowpowpowpow   (insidebayarea.com) divider line 321
    More: Fail, Hayward Police Department  
•       •       •

16611 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 1:47 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-11 08:06:02 AM

Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?

What was that you were saying again?


Well you hippies seem to say one thing about domestic conflict and another about foreign ones.  I bet you think the Taliban can do it.
 
2014-02-11 08:39:58 AM

Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?



A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.
 
2014-02-11 08:50:19 AM

Deep Contact: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?


A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.


I wouldn't bet on being able to detonate any round with a delayed fuse...
 
2014-02-11 10:26:34 AM

bestie1: As a detective for Scotland Yard, 3 time biathlon champ, and a fairly decent break dancer I think this story needs fresher beats.


Let's dance!
 
2014-02-11 10:30:10 AM

ex-nuke: Very infrequently a local ACLU chapter will support a gun case but the stated opinion of the National ACLU is that they are against the Second Amendment.


Boojum2k: Doom MD: False. The aclu's stance is the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right, despite holding all other rights as individual ones. This is in direct contradiction to the heller decision. The NRA defends the 2nd differently

I think COMALite J wins the award for most times being called out and kicked around for saying something stupid in a thread. I've seen multiple different versions of your post over the last several hours.


See my Reply above. ex-nuke is wrong that the national NRA's stated position is being against the Second Amendment entirely. As for claiming that it's a collectivist right, I did not know that, but if they indeed do hold that position, it's wrong of them to do so. It is indeed an individual right backing a collective responsibility.
 
2014-02-11 12:58:40 PM

Clemkadidlefark: For hunting vermin inside the home ... my fav ...

[i299.photobucket.com image 640x480]


Are you saying you've actually shot people in your home, or do you just fantasize about it?
 
2014-02-11 01:03:40 PM

COMALite J: See my Reply above. ex-nuke is wrong that the national NRA's stated position is being against the Second Amendment entirely. As for claiming that it's a collectivist right, I did not know that, but if they indeed do hold that position, it's wrong of them to do so. It is indeed an individual right backing a collective responsibility.


You mean the ACLU, the NRA are the other guys.
 
2014-02-11 02:12:24 PM

Kahabut: What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?


Words.
 
2014-02-11 02:16:24 PM

bestie1: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?

What was that you were saying again?

Well you hippies seem to say one thing about domestic conflict and another about foreign ones.  I bet you think the Taliban can do it.


OH, I see.  You're confused (or retarded).

I'm not a hippy you moron.  (are there even hippies anymore?)

The Taliban has russian (~70's vintage) anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.  Or at least they did.  I'm not saying they can do it, even with that gear.

With unlimited access to gear, I could show you how to take ALL the drones down at once.  BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ACCESS.  But hey, if you think you can get a number of high altitude precision guided missiles and some really big sub-nuclear explosive EMPs, I'll tell you how to use them.
 
2014-02-11 02:18:53 PM

Deep Contact: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?


A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.


Great, so now figure out how to shoot down the barrel of a tank going 50mph, and do it reliably enough to stop them all.  And while you're at it, figure out what to do about all the APCs with 20mm guns, and the strykers, and the air support, and you'll have yourself a revolution.

:stare:  You can't be that dumb.
 
2014-02-11 02:21:48 PM

Kahabut: (are there even hippies anymore?)


They communicate via frisbee.
 
2014-02-11 02:32:42 PM

Kahabut: Great, so now figure out how to shoot down the barrel of a tank going 50mph, and do it reliably enough to stop them all. And while you're at it, figure out what to do about all the APCs with 20mm guns, and the strykers, and the air support, and you'll have yourself a revolution.


Most of the military is on my side :) You figure out what to do about them.
 
2014-02-11 03:20:51 PM

Kahabut: Deep Contact: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?


A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.

Great, so now figure out how to shoot down the barrel of a tank going 50mph, and do it reliably enough to stop them all.  And while you're at it, figure out what to do about all the APCs with 20mm guns, and the strykers, and the air support, and you'll have yourself a revolution.

:stare:  You can't be that dumb.


They have to take a pee break sometime.
 
2014-02-11 04:09:15 PM

Darth_Lukecash: AngryDragon: COMALite J: Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support

I really hate to burst your bubble.

"In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in  D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.  "

Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requireme ...


Please cite this court case that upholds the 2A as an EXPLICITLY and EXCLUSIVELY collective right and states that it WASN'T also an individual right (not that it doesn't mention an individual right, but specifically states that it isn't an individual right.) (Waiting for the inevitable MIller V. U.S.) -- read the decision about the militia, it doesn't say what you think it says. The decision states that the WEAPON must have legitimate use in a militia, not that the person must be a member of a militia.  Miller lost the case because he was dead when it was finally argued and the SCOTUS was unaware that the US military as well as police departments used (still do use) SBS.

/Just like ROE V. WADE, MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, and TINKER V. Des Moines were unanimous.  BROWN V. BoE is the only unanimous descision I can think of.

//If you understand English grammar and sentence structure, you'd understand SCOTUS is correct about the way the Amendment is written.

///Read Jefferson's feelings on weapons retention by the people, the founding fathers grew up in a time when everyone who was physically able to lift a gun had and regularly used one...this included 8 year old children. Irrational fear of firearms is a strictly modern invention.
 
2014-02-11 04:17:42 PM

Boojum2k: StopLurkListen: It's too easy for criminals to get illegal guns, what's the solution? I don't think everyone should have guns. Too many kids have accidents with guns in the home.

Start with early education. Teach kids gun safety so they know it like their ABC's.


This.

Leftists feel about gun safety education in schools the way radical fundamentalists feel about anything other than abstinence only in schools.

\Not sure if its just fear or a desire to keep people in the dark about weapons.

\\Lack of knowledge breeds fear

\\\Fear helps their gun-banning agenda
 
2014-02-11 04:24:33 PM

Deep Contact: Kahabut: Deep Contact: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?


A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.

Great, so now figure out how to shoot down the barrel of a tank going 50mph, and do it reliably enough to stop them all.  And while you're at it, figure out what to do about all the APCs with 20mm guns, and the strykers, and the air support, and you'll have yourself a revolution.

:stare:  You can't be that dumb.

They have to take a pee break sometime.


Asymmetric Warfare: The operators of tanks, warplanes, crew-served weapons all require people to operate, they have to take a break sometime, potty/food/sleep, that's when they get hit by insurgents. Of course, kind of hard to hit drone pilots if you're in Afghanistan, and the pilots are in Tampa, FL.
 
2014-02-11 04:32:10 PM

Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?

What was that you were saying again?


Doesn't matter...you don't attack the tank.

You attack supply lines, logistics support, and people when they're NOT in tanks.  Pretty simple.
 
2014-02-11 04:32:46 PM

Boojum2k: COMALite J: See my Reply above. ex-nuke is wrong that the national NRA's stated position is being against the Second Amendment entirely. As for claiming that it's a collectivist right, I did not know that, but if they indeed do hold that position, it's wrong of them to do so. It is indeed an individual right backing a collective responsibility.

You mean the ACLU, the NRA are the other guys.

Right. Thanks for catching that.
 
2014-02-12 12:10:42 AM

tkwasny: Galloping Galoshes: diaphoresis: Guns kill people... guns occasionally miss.

This is why there needs to be more gun control.  If the homeowner had more gun control, none of them would have gotten away.
/get back to the range.

"well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.


Wow, that's the most hilarious misrepresentation of the second amendment I've yet heard. Normally it's just ignoring the whole bit about the well regulated militia and focusing on the right to bear arms but I've never see anyone take on the well regulated militia bit so superbly.

/A well regulated militia is not a bunch of guys who can aim straight, it's a state-sanctioned and regulated reservist force under the control of military authorities. A bunch of guys with guns is an always has been a mob, and their stories don't usually end well in the history of the US with the obvious exception being your War of Independence. Interestingly, no uprisings in history have claimed a lawful right to exist under the second amendment. Doesn't stop literally tens of millions of Americans believing that the second amendment gives them the constitutional right to rise up against tyranical government. The only thing stupider than that is the complete failure to recognise that a tyranical government will have suspended or torn down the constitution and the Supreme Court is never going to be able to confirm your rights anyway. Farking NRA.
 
2014-02-12 12:18:15 AM

DarkVader: tkwasny: Galloping Galoshes: ....
"well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.

And my state does.  There's a pay state range about 5 miles away and a free state range about 30 miles away.


Socialism!!!
 
2014-02-12 12:59:10 AM

Jim_Callahan: Road Rash: Not unless you're in a militia.

A militia is by definition not government-controlled (or in the case of state militias, not federally controlled), so by that logic you  still can't restrict the ownership of guns by private individuals, because that would de-facto be banning militias.


Crap. A militia is defined and regulated under state law. It's not a wing of the state government in the usual sense but it's commander in chief would be the state governor.

Note the amendment doesn't say "only state militias (in modern parlance, the national guard units)" it just says 'militias'.  A well-regulated militia means a group of armed, private citizens that are well-trained in the use of their arms... so even if you're going with it being a prerequisite clause... it's still saying that the government can't make any laws preventing citizens from forming, essentially, their own paramilitary groups.

Total crap. Try getting together a private army and opposing federal forces and claim you have a second amendment right to do so. That would be totally hilarious. Think through your statement and ask yourself why private armies don't actually do any fighting but instead just behave like a bunch of kids playing cowboys even when they hate their government and state it's tyrannical because there's a health insurance website problem. It's not just me who thinks you're a tool, James Madison does too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46)

A non-state-sanctioned militia is not regulated. It falls outside the second amendment. Don't agree? Well what regulations do you cite in support?

Being able to buy guns and not be oppressed by the government over it... is a prerequisite for the existence of a militia.  So... even by your own logic, your conclusions fail.

I don't particularly disagree, but you have got the bit about the right being to buy guns to be part of the militia and not hassled by the government totally arse-backwards. In pre-second-amendment times, militia involvement and hence gun ownership was frequently compulsory and this was enforced - authorities came to your home and you could be charged if you couldn't show them your musket or, in the case of cavalry men, pistol. The right to bear arms actually provided the right to NOT bear arms in a number of states, and was introduced to appease folks who felt that gun ownership went against their religion. (I want to say Quakers but I might have that wrong.)

But keep trying and you might just get one detail correct someday.
 
Displayed 21 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report