Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(WIVB)   Local community organizer who advocated passage of the NY SAFE act that forbids firearms on school grounds arrested for...wait for it   (wivb.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, NY SAFE, community organizer, passage, firearms, elementary schools  
•       •       •

6183 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 3:04 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-10 08:06:03 PM  

lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?


Therefore... ban everything?

What are you advocating, exactly?  At what point does gun control go too far?
 
2014-02-10 08:24:29 PM  

rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?


Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.
 
2014-02-10 08:31:26 PM  

Pichu0102: rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?

Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.


Please cite for me how common these "friendly fire" incidents are at mass shootings.
 
2014-02-10 08:35:45 PM  

Doom MD: Pichu0102: rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?

Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.

Please cite for me how common these "friendly fire" incidents are at mass shootings.


Ooooo!  I'll help!  Is the answer zero?
 
2014-02-10 08:37:49 PM  

Baz744: You're assuming Weaver's conduct met all the elements of the crime of sedition, if in fact it exists.


You mean that there are extenuating circumstances of sedition?  Wellll, color me shocked.  You may want to have a wee big of a discussion with  demaL-demaL-yeH and set him straight.
 
2014-02-10 08:40:26 PM  
Another leftist that thinks the rules don't apply:
http://m.timesunion.com/local/article/Ready-aim-point-talk-5116592.ph p
 
2014-02-10 08:46:30 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.


Really, if you need to get the largest number of people killed in the shortest possible time in order to create a crisis and push your agenda then Gun Free Zones are indispensable.
 
2014-02-10 08:50:49 PM  

Pichu0102: rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?

Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.


It's a joke.  Leave us subhuman liters alone, and go hang out with the cool kids in TFD.
 
2014-02-10 08:53:35 PM  

Baz744: The fact that he did something you think sounds like sedition in ordinary English doesn't mean he actually committed the crime of sedition as defined by law.


You mean making sweeping generalizations about sedition may be somewhat retarded?
 
2014-02-10 08:58:19 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.


I can't remember the last time 26 people were killed at a gun range or firearms store.  When was that exactly?
 
2014-02-10 09:07:13 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


By "so often" you mean at the lowest rate in 30 years and falling? The only purpose of "Gun Free Zones" is to provide blood for liberals to dance in and family of their victims to use as props in their propaganda.
 
2014-02-10 09:50:43 PM  

Boojum2k: EatenTheSun: ikanreed: Okay, so, just to keep tabs, it's 4 gun nuts so far who've never gone through puberty.  Good to know.

When did puberty involve wanting to kill people?

ikanreed and lennavan are pretty much self-identified sociopaths, and think everyone else is the same.


FTFY

Lennavan has made no such statements.  I made that same mistake earlier.
 
2014-02-10 09:54:49 PM  

lennavan: EatenTheSun: lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.

No one sane does.

Teenagers are well known for being sane, indeed even logical.


Callous: Lennavan has made no such statements. I made that same mistake earlier.


He piped in and agreed with it.
 
Rat
2014-02-10 10:17:45 PM  
I'm a bit conflicted.  Part of me that knows that this SAFE act was kneejerked into legislation, and at least in my mind unconstitutional.  The other part of me says hey, you wanted this law and even championed it, so you need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Then, on my other hand (I do indeed have three) I'd hope that this upstanding member of society could back away from all this and go on leading the productive life it seems he's been leading, as I'd hope I could if something like this ever happened to me.

™ but my feet are chiming in to say fark him, send him to PMITA club sing sing
 
2014-02-10 10:38:04 PM  

Rat: Then, on my other hand (I do indeed have three)


Holy shiat, a Motie!

/The gripping hand gives it away.
 
2014-02-10 10:45:31 PM  
If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.
 
2014-02-11 06:49:19 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


Until they don't.
 
2014-02-11 07:01:04 AM  

Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.

Egad.  I don't call people names on FARK, but

neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime?

and

today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer.

WTF are you talking about?


Don't bother, the actual facts mean nothing to him.
 
2014-02-11 07:28:53 AM  
I'm so prescient it hurts. Thanks for the laughs.
 
2014-02-11 07:44:57 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Nope. They work as intended.


Kinda like the Redecker Plan, only for deranged killers instead of zombies.

/whether we're actually at the point where we need to implement such a plan is something to consider though
 
2014-02-11 08:32:37 AM  

kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.


Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".
 
2014-02-11 08:38:40 AM  

snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".


Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?
 
2014-02-11 08:42:32 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?


Well, actually, I had my turn.
How about you, Pud?
 
2014-02-11 08:45:26 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom smug posts to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone. think they are better than both sides of any argument.

img.fark.net

 
2014-02-11 08:48:27 AM  

snocone: HotWingConspiracy: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?

Well, actually, I had my turn.
How about you, Pud?


Oh wow, I had no idea. Who did you defend our society from?
 
2014-02-11 08:49:12 AM  

SpectroBoy: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom smug posts to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone. think they are better than both sides of any argument.

[img.fark.net image 373x330]


I'm not superior, but I was correct.
 
2014-02-11 08:55:37 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: snocone: HotWingConspiracy: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?

Well, actually, I had my turn.
How about you, Pud?

Oh wow, I had no idea. Who did you defend our society from?


I was an equal opportunity sorta deal.
But, let's talk about your shortcomings a bit more.
I am fascinated by anonymous internet pukes.
 
2014-02-11 08:57:55 AM  

snocone: HotWingConspiracy: snocone: HotWingConspiracy: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?

Well, actually, I had my turn.
How about you, Pud?

Oh wow, I had no idea. Who did you defend our society from?

I was an equal opportunity sorta deal.


So nobody?
 
2014-02-11 10:14:44 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
 
2014-02-11 10:21:30 AM  

Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem


That's nice for you. The corpses that lie at the feet of gun owners don't really get to make a choice anymore.
 
2014-02-11 10:36:48 AM  

ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.


You make that assumption based on the might of the united states military, without understanding who comprises the united states military and what side they may or may not fall on.
 
2014-02-11 10:41:04 AM  

jaybeezey: ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.

You make that assumption based on the might of the united states military, without understanding who comprises the united states military and what side they may or may not fall on.


You don't need guns to topple governments.
 
2014-02-11 10:57:42 AM  

Boojum2k: lennavan: Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?

Considering it didn't happen, that's obviously not what was suggested.


Oh, so it didn't happen in this one single instance, so therefore it is not possible?  Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.
 
2014-02-11 10:59:21 AM  

Callous: lennavan: Callous: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

So you wanna blame the victim?  You are aware that he robbed and murdered her right?

Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?  Kinda makes you re-think that high school teacher who carried while at the High School then, doesn't it?

She was in bed asleep when it happened.  I don't think the two are comparable.


You're right.  My analogy is not applicable to people who do not sleep.
 
2014-02-11 11:02:06 AM  

Callous: I agree with you that no one knows why they select their targets, except in cases where it's a kid shooting up his school, etc. However HOM has a point in that gun free zones do provide a measure of resistance prevention. I don't agree with him that we know it has any bearing on target selection. Other than anecdotal evidence of so many of them occurring in such places.

I do agree with some gun restrictions. No violent felons, crazies, etc. As far as carrying in a school I think any one that has a permit to carry should be allowed to carry. If you think there are teachers that are so unhinged that they would shoot a student for stupid reasons you should be actively fighting to have them no longer be teachers.


No, he does not have a point there.  There is no evidence to support that, indeed there is evidence that directly counters that assertion and I actually provided the citation in this thread.  I know saying that sounds correct, it sounds logical and seems to make sense but the actual data does not back it up.

Problem of course is we only find out they are that unhinged AFTER the school shootings.  Duh.
 
2014-02-11 11:04:14 AM  

EatenTheSun: lennavan: Boojum2k: Seriously, dude, I read the thread. You're a strawman-toting derper and I called you out for it. Own it, it's yours.

I actually factually rebutted his claim later in the thread.  He countered with a blog.  Search the thread for the word "blog."

Except he never quoted the blog at all. And you might want to read a few words past where it says "This is a blog".



Yes he did.  You can actually search the thread and see it.  This is an absolute knowable fact.  30 seconds to search the thread and you can find it.  When you read it, you will note he PURPOSELY left out that it was a blog.  He just quoted it.  I google searched it to find the source of his quote.

You see, I actively searched for the truth.  You're purposefully ignoring it.
 
2014-02-11 11:05:39 AM  

Fark It: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

Therefore... ban everything?

What are you advocating, exactly?  At what point does gun control go too far?


Therefore only LEOs can have guns in schools.  Is that really so disagreeable to you that you need to stretch that argument into "BAN EVERYTHING?!?!?!"
 
2014-02-11 12:14:10 PM  

Rat: The other part of me says hey, you wanted this law and even championed it, so you need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.Then, on my other hand (I do indeed have three) I'd hope that this upstanding member of society could back away from all this and go on leading the productive life it seems he's been leading, as I'd hope I could if something like this ever happened to me.™ but my feet are chiming in to say fark him, send him to PMITA club sing sing


Nope. Just because someone has led an otherwise exemplary productive life is no reason not to apply mandatory minimum prison terms for the first time they inadvertently violate a gun law. Really. That's what mandatory minimum sentencing is all about.
 
2014-02-11 01:58:35 PM  

snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".


Ah, so you're for reinstituting the organized Militia of the United States, too.
Good.
 
2014-02-11 02:00:41 PM  

jaybeezey: ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.

You make that assumption based on the might of the united states military, without understanding who comprises the united states military and what side they may or may not fall on.


I'm getting awfully tired of fark seditionists.
/Take up arms and die for your convictions or STFU.
 
2014-02-11 03:12:29 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: jaybeezey: ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.

You make that assumption based on the might of the united states military, without understanding who comprises the united states military and what side they may or may not fall on.

I'm getting awfully tired of fark seditionists.
/Take up arms and die for your convictions or STFU.


The faster they do it, the faster the rest of us can continue running a peaceful democracy.
 
2014-02-11 03:29:21 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Ah, so you're for reinstituting the organized Militia of the United States, too.
Good.


WTF? The only defend society you mutts can come up with is supposedly an armed one?
cough bullzhit cough
pity the fools

Your agenda is showing.
 
2014-02-11 03:53:50 PM  

snocone: demaL-demaL-yeH: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Ah, so you're for reinstituting the organized Militia of the United States, too.
Good.

WTF? The only defend society you mutts can come up with is supposedly an armed one?
cough bullzhit cough
pity the fools

Your agenda is showing.


We are an armed society. That isn't going to change any time soon.

 It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service - to fulfill their responsibility to uphold the laws of the United States, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion as members of an organized Militia.
At the very least it will train, discipline, qualify, inspect, and regulate the Militia and its arms in accordance with Article I Section 8.
 
2014-02-11 03:55:03 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service


The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
 
2014-02-11 04:12:20 PM  

Boojum2k: The Supreme Court disagrees with you.


Yeah, it's undeniable that the second amendment exists.  I don't think even the most lefty left of actual judges would support his position.

//That doesn't mean the second amendment is a good thing, just that it's definitely there.
 
2014-02-11 04:16:38 PM  

ikanreed: Yeah, it's undeniable that the second amendment exists. I don't think even the most lefty left of actual judges would support his position.//That doesn't mean the second amendment is a good thing, just that it's definitely there.


It's a cultural thing. It works well for Europe to have strict gun control, because the people there have long histories of being serfs, it's part of the cultural mindset. The U.S. does not have the same mindset, and a lot more restrictions on government power, so any kind of strict gun control along with an elimination of the 2nd amendment would be unenforceable and disastrous. You'd have to throw out the rest of the Bill of Rights to make any kind of headway.
 
2014-02-11 04:19:00 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.


And they're farking wrong, look at the farking debate and first proposed versions of Amendment II.
But Congress can fix it, and the Supremes can't do squat about it, since Militia Powers are enumerated in Article I Section 8.
 
2014-02-11 04:23:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: But Congress can fix it


No, Constitutionally they cannot, any more than Congress can repeal Roe v Wade. Your argument lost.
 
2014-02-11 04:25:16 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And they're farking wrong, look at the farking debate and first proposed versions of Amendment II.
But Congress can fix it, and the Supremes can't do squat about it, since Militia Powers are enumerated in Article I Section 8.


I assume you are opposed to having local, state, and federal police agencies, since that is what the debate in the Wikipedia article was primarily about.
 
2014-02-11 05:25:16 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: But Congress can fix it

No, Constitutionally they cannot, any more than Congress can repeal Roe v Wade. Your argument lost.


LOLWUT?
SECTION 8.
The Congress shall have power
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

There ain't farkall the Supremes can do about it, either.
 
Displayed 50 of 280 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report