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 280
    More: Obvious, NY SAFE, community organizer, passage, firearms, elementary schools  
•       •       •

6162 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 3:04 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-11 05:31:43 PM  

Boojum2k: 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.


*looks upthread*
Ah. Here's the  missing link. Wiki gives the Madison originals that clearly show that bearing arms was referring to military service.
 
2014-02-11 05:33:52 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia


And the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms in equal weight to that, and has been correctly determined by the Supreme Court to be an individual right just like all the others.
Congress could levy a tax to provide firearms and training to all adult citizens, under that clause, but they can't take the guns away from them.
 
2014-02-11 05:37:56 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Wiki gives the Madison originals that clearly show that bearing arms was referring to military service.


Oddly enough, that version did not make it into the Bill of Rights. And again, you're opposing organized law enforcement at this point, not modern gun ownership or a modern military.
 
2014-02-11 05:44:42 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia

And the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms in equal weight to that, and has been correctly determined by the Supreme Court to be an individual right just like all the others.
Congress could levy a tax to provide firearms and training to all adult citizens, under that clause, but they can't take the guns away from them.


Did I say anything about confiscating firearms from anybody except the mentally ill and criminals?
Well?
 
2014-02-11 05:49:59 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Did I say anything about confiscating firearms from anybody except the mentally ill and criminals?Well?


Trying to figure out what you are arguing, you're so all over the map you've got Texas mud on your feet and Maine dirt in your hair, with some New Zealand pollen clinging to your sleeves.

I've stated before I think gun safety education should begin in elementary school. Make it second nature for children to understand and respect firearms, for starters. That sounds like it's in line with what you are arguing.
 
2014-02-11 05:53:43 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Wiki gives the Madison originals that clearly show that bearing arms was referring to military service.

Oddly enough, that version did not make it into the Bill of Rights. And again, you're opposing organized law enforcement at this point, not modern gun ownership or a modern military.


What the fark are you nattering about?
I'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.
We meet in the equivalent of the town square, drill, train, and qualify with our arms and ammunition, which are inspected.
Every person 16 legally present in the United States and over until death dost thou part participates to the fullest extent possible - participation mandatory and with real penalties attached for missing drill.
Alternative service is done by felons, the mentally ill, physically disabled, and conscientious objectors.
Everybody is screened, physically and mentally for fitness for duty, and must meet minimum standards.
You can own whatever firearms you qualify with, and you must keep them in proper repair and properly secured.
Crew-served weapons are stored at the armory.
 
2014-02-11 05:55:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.


Nope. Long since replaced by the National Guard.
 
2014-02-11 05:55:56 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Did I say anything about confiscating firearms from anybody except the mentally ill and criminals?Well?

Trying to figure out what you are arguing, you're so all over the map you've got Texas mud on your feet and Maine dirt in your hair, with some New Zealand pollen clinging to your sleeves.

I've stated before I think gun safety education should begin in elementary school. Make it second nature for children to understand and respect firearms, for starters. That sounds like it's in line with what you are arguing.


Back when the CMP was run by the Army, we did this.
 
2014-02-11 05:59:17 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.

Nope. Long since replaced by the National Guard.


The National Guard is not the organized Militia. The invention of a National Guard of federalized state troops supplemented by an "unorganized Militia" - a true oxymoron, if there ever was one - was one of Congress' biggest farkups ever.
 
2014-02-11 06:00:55 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: National Guard is not the organized Militia. The invention of a National Guard of federalized state troops supplemented by an "unorganized Militia" - a true oxymoron, if there ever was one - was one of Congress' biggest farkups ever.


Eh, these days it's a bit different.
 
2014-02-11 06:15:07 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: National Guard is not the organized Militia. The invention of a National Guard of federalized state troops supplemented by an "unorganized Militia" - a true oxymoron, if there ever was one - was one of Congress' biggest farkups ever.

Eh, these days it's a bit different.


It doesn't have to be. What we have now is a clusterfark of the untrained, the incompetent, other idiots of all stripes, and the fearful and mentally ill.
 
2014-02-11 06:23:43 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: What we have now is a clusterfark of the untrained, the incompetent, other idiots of all stripes, and the fearful and mentally ill.


So start with the mandatory education. In a generation we'll have people much better able to handle firearms safely and competently. Improve mental health treatment, restore mandatory physical education through high school, things like that.

Hey, best of the left and right wing worlds!
 
2014-02-11 06:47:01 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: What we have now is a clusterfark of the untrained, the incompetent, other idiots of all stripes, and the fearful and mentally ill.


And that's just law enforcement!
 
2014-02-11 06:47:25 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: What we have now is a clusterfark of the untrained, the incompetent, other idiots of all stripes, and the fearful and mentally ill.

So start with the mandatory education. In a generation we'll have people much better able to handle firearms safely and competently. Improve mental health treatment, restore mandatory physical education through high school, things like that.

Hey, best of the left and right wing worlds!


Who the fark is left wing?
/As liberal as Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt.
//Not as liberal as Thomas Paine.
 
2014-02-11 06:52:30 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Who the fark is left wing?/As liberal as Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt.//Not as liberal as Thomas Paine.


How about Lincoln?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin133463.html
 
2014-02-11 07:13:50 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Who the fark is left wing?/As liberal as Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt.//Not as liberal as Thomas Paine.

How about Lincoln?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin133463.html


OK. If you insist:

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
 
2014-02-11 07:16:55 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.


It's like you scanned for what you agree with, bolded it, and ignored the rest.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
Hey look, it's the modern Republican position!
 
2014-02-11 07:20:28 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.


God you're an idiot.

It is entertaining to imagine the spittle collecting in the corners of your mouth as you post increasingly tangential thoughts.

The current second amendment is what passed ratification
That is now clarified by SCOTUS decision as law of the land.
Congress would only be able to change that with a Constitutional Convention
Which SCOTUS could still interpret to mean exactly what they started with.

SCOTUS is the ultimate umpire on what is and isn't law, not Congress.  Sorry.  Anyone with a 10th grade education knows this.
 
2014-02-11 07:21:23 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.

It's like you scanned for what you agree with, bolded it, and ignored the rest.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
Hey look, it's the modern Republican position!


No, it farking isn't.
 
2014-02-11 07:23:55 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, it farking isn't.


Yes, actually it is. Adding new disabilities and burdens is the Democratic Party's position.
 
2014-02-11 07:25:02 PM  

AngryDragon: 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.

God you're an idiot.

It is entertaining to imagine the spittle collecting in the corners of your mouth as you post increasingly tangential thoughts.

The current second amendment is what passed ratification
That is now clarified by SCOTUS decision as law of the land.
Congress would only be able to change that with a Constitutional Convention
Which SCOTUS could still interpret to mean exactly what they started with.

SCOTUS is the ultimate umpire on what is and isn't law, not Congress.  Sorry.  Anyone with a 10th grade education knows this.


Tell us how Amendment II nullifies any of the enumerated Militia powers of Congress.
The Supremes do not fark with specifically enumerated powers, although they do chip at   necessary and proper.
Hint: These laws were passed immediately after Amendment II was ratified.
 
2014-02-11 07:35:13 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: No, it farking isn't.

Yes, actually it is. Adding new disabilities and burdens is the Democratic Party's position.


Right to Work is the Democratic Party's position?
Disenfranchising voters is the Democratic Party's position?

What color is the sky on your home planet, madam?
 
2014-02-11 07:41:09 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Right to Work is the Democratic Party's position?Disenfranchising voters is the Democratic Party's position?


No, forcing people to join parasitic organizations to fund the Democratic Party is their position. And yes, disenfranchising voters is the Democrat position. particularly military voters.
 
2014-02-11 07:44:30 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Right to Work is the Democratic Party's position?Disenfranchising voters is the Democratic Party's position?

No, forcing people to join parasitic organizations to fund the Democratic Party is their position. And yes, disenfranchising voters is the Democrat position. particularly military voters.


*sigh*
You oversold it.
'Bye.
 
2014-02-11 07:47:47 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: You oversold it.


Sorry, I don't lie to people to make them feel better.
 
2014-02-11 09:45:09 PM  

lennavan: 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.


No, he didn't. He quoted a reply to the blog.
 
2014-02-11 10:36:09 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?


I know.. lets punish everyone because of one dumb biatch what left guns out where her kid can get them.
 
2014-02-11 10:38:32 PM  

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?


How many teachers or peace officers have had their gun taken away from them while carrying at school?
 
2014-02-11 10:39:43 PM  

lennavan: 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.


You are right too.  We need to take guns away from everyone that is asleep at school.
 
2014-02-11 10:41:44 PM  

lennavan: 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?!?!?!"


Why dont you show us the pending threat of all the teachers who shoot their kids at school.
Surely these loose cannons sometimes are around kids at other hours and mow them down....
 
Displayed 30 of 280 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report