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.

(Russia Today)   Connecticut has created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals, because some residents are refusing to register guns under a new law enacted after the Sandy Hook School shooting   (rt.com) divider line 441
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4752 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:03 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 08:25:45 AM  
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
 
2014-02-13 08:26:46 AM  

Carthax: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

How about "no?" Is "no" good for you?


The problem is that if you don't register, and you're caught, you are now a felon. You know what that means, you are no longer allowed to own or possess firearms. They will then confiscate ALL of your guns.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the possibility of being a felon is not something I want on my record. I do not want to seriously restrict my future employment because I made a stand over registering magazines (that they state already knows I own anyway because I bought them legally).
 
2014-02-13 08:27:18 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed.  I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.


No, it wasn't. Your wishful thinking won't change that.
 
2014-02-13 08:29:01 AM  
Daemonik:
You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?...

Good idea. You should look up what the Founders meant by "well regulated", as well as what they meant by "militia". If the Bill of Rights isn't clear enough, they also explained themselves in The Federalist Papers. The exhaustive research done for the Heller decision is only a Google search away. Last but not least, the definition is right in the US Code:

... every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age (and) former members of the armed forces up to age 65...
 
2014-02-13 08:29:07 AM  

dittybopper: So owning a gun should be the same: You can own them and use them, but you need to understand that you will face legal sanctions if you misuse them.


I pretty much agree... I sometimes think universal background checks are a pretty good idea, but whatever... I know they're not going to stop anyone who shouldn't have one from getting one anyway if they really want one, so they're mostly just a slight barrier at best... But, stuff like assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions seem completely pointless to me... Especially when the ban is based solely on how scary a weapon looks, not actual effectiveness at killing... And, I'm really not clear on the point of registries like the one here... How is that going to help stop crime? If Lanza's mom's weapons were all registered, how would that have prevented him from still taking them and shooting up the school? I just don't understand what they're trying to achieve...
 
2014-02-13 08:30:32 AM  
Also, it needs to be said in every gun thread: Shoulder thing that goes up.
 
2014-02-13 08:31:10 AM  
So many little penises....
 
2014-02-13 08:31:39 AM  

Aigoo: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

No, the best course of action is exactly what the people of Connecticut are doing: when a judge says, in effect, "well sure it infringes the Second Amendment, but THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" and when the legislators and the courts deliberately and wrongfully define any semiautomatic weapon as an "assault weapon" (which pretty much puts most pistols and hunting rifles, not to mention your basic 22LR, in that category as well), molon farking labe is precisely the right course of action.

Just because some nutcase kid shot up a school--and there are conflicting reports on whether he did it with a civilian AR-15 variant (which bears nothing in common with an actual military assault rifle besides cosmetic appearance) or a regular old rifle--does not mean that every single individual in the State of Connecticut or in the United States of America who owns a weapon capable of firing more quickly than a farking musket is going to go batshiat and start shooting up schools, movie theaters, or gatherings of people where politicians happen to be present.

Jesus Christ, put on your big boy/girl panties you bunch of pussies. Stop acting like Americans constantly accuse the French of acting and farking grow a pair. Never thought I'd live to see the day when the whole damned country needed to be tucked in with a teddy bear and a goddamned night light.


Actually, it was done with two pistols.  The AR-15 and another rifle were in the trunk of his car.  Of course, the media just wanted to report that "OMG KIDS WERE KILLED WITH ASSAULT RIFLES OMGWTFBBQ"
 
2014-02-13 08:32:18 AM  

Farkage: BlackCat23: smoky2010: BlackCat23: smoky2010: Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.

Foley has as much of a chance of becoming govoner as Atlantis does of rising from the deep blue sea. The majority of the state hates him, so I doubt it'll happen

August11: Connecticutians?

Nutmeggers >.>

I'd love to see Courtney run, he's a really good guy. I met him a couple of times when I was working for a non-profit hospital in WAY WAY eastern CT. I'd vote for him. I have thought about running for office for years, I think with all of this stuff going on, I may do it sooner then later. Start small (locally) and see where it goes.

I would, too. But at the same time, he's another long time player in the state's poltik. And I have to wonder what changes he'd make to his platform to "conform" to the standards of the screaming, foot pounding few. I've met him, myself, and yes, he seems a genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders, but I still fear that, like Blumenthol, This is always going to be the catch-22 of state elections :\

I hate the 'vote for the lesser of the assholes' part of CT politics.  It just seems like when the elections come around it's what we always end up doing...


I think that idea is pretty much what modern elections are made up of.
 
2014-02-13 08:33:34 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well, that flies in the face of the responsible 'law-abiding' gun owner doesn't it.


You mean like the people in basically every other country except Japan?

This level of defiance cannot be explained by the observation 
that criminals have an inelastic demand curve.80 A large slice of the 
ordinary citizenry seems to be operating under the same curve.

Across the board, for countries large and small, developed and 
emerging, a strong defiance impulse is evident. 
In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered 
firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high 
as 4 million.81
The Chinese reported 680,000 legal guns in 2005, 
with estimates of nearly 40 million illegal guns.82 The German 
police union estimates that Germany has "about 45 million civilian 
guns: about 10 million registered firearms; 20 million that should be 
registered, but apparently are not; and 15 million firearms―such as 
antiques . . . and black-powder weapons . . . that do not have to be 
registered."83


It's almost a cliche story from the UK that some construction or renovation project turns up guns that an owner had hidden in order to 


Fine, don't register your assault weapons, just don't complain when you get caught with an unregistered one and you're convicted of a felony and forever banned from owning any guns.

Isn't that a bit of circular reasoning, though?  "Hey, you owned these guns which are totes legal to own, but you didn't tell us about them, so now even though there is no legal bar for you to own them, you've committed a felony by owning a gun that is legal for you to own.  Because you didn't tell us".

And so what if that *DOES* happen?  It hasn't worked in the UK as I pointed out above, and if you read that law review article I posted you'd really understand the depth of the problem.  In farkin' *CHINA*, the number of illegal, unregistered guns outnumbers the legally registered ones by nearly 6 to 1.  In a country with no real "gun culture" and a legal system that doesn't really bother too much with the niceties of "individual rights".

Plus, we'll just make more.  I can make a functional firearm with just the stuff you can buy at your local Home Depot.  It's not that hard for someone who is handy.  In fact, it's actually easier to make something like a submachine gun than it is to make a semi-auto.  And if you're already barred from owning a gun in the first place, what's to stop you from either making a real machine gun, or modifying one you bought on the black market to full auto?  If you get caught with it, you're up shiat creek either way, so why not?

In the final analysis, you assume that just because a law is passed, that "law abiding" people will follow it.  When it comes to something that people consider to be a fundamental right, you're wrong.  *YOU* might not consider it a fundamental right, but *THEY* do.  That doesn't make them bad people.  They aren't going to go out and start raping old ladies and bayoneting babies because they decided not to register their guns.  To them, though, they are answering to what they consider to be a higher law:  The Constitution.  You may well disagree, but that doesn't make them felons any more than possession of an unregistered copy of Das Kapital or Mein Kampf would make you a felon if a law were passed forbidding unregistered private ownership of those tomes.
 
2014-02-13 08:35:26 AM  

BlackCat23: Still, I stand by the fact that, since the law is enacted, you should register. The way to fight the law is not by making yourself a non-voting felon.


So civil disobedience is wrong?
 
2014-02-13 08:35:34 AM  

imfallen_angel: So many little penises....


pedophile alert!!
 
2014-02-13 08:38:46 AM  
img.fark.net

Wont somebody think of the Children!
 
2014-02-13 08:39:25 AM  

Mr Perkins: Wont somebody think of the Children!


Cool kids hold it sideways, gangster-style.
 
2014-02-13 08:40:16 AM  

dittybopper: BlackCat23: Still, I stand by the fact that, since the law is enacted, you should register. The way to fight the law is not by making yourself a non-voting felon.

So civil disobedience is wrong?


It is when that civil disobedience automatically keeps you from doing anything else in the future. Yes, your case might get in front of the courts, but at least half a dozen other cases already are. Don't put yourself in a position to be even more powerless. On top of that, it's a nice way for them to completely legally take what guns you have. I get where you're coming from, but the backlash from such actions would be entire counter productive
 
2014-02-13 08:40:45 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: My whacky idea

No, that wasn't your whacky idea.
Whacky idea part 1, and I quote:
It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service
Whacky idea part 2, quote again
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.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8136924/Local-community-organizer-who-a dv ocated-passage-of-NY-SAFE-act-that-forbids-firearms-on-school-grounds- arrested-forwait-for-it

It's what the Swiss do.
It's what the Founders did.
It's what the Constitution specifically calls for.
There's nothing whacky about it.
It lets us cut the DoD budget and ensures that people of draft age are physically and mentally fit, and are competent with firearms.
What the fark is your problem with that?
Are you one of those entitlement types who believes that rights don't come with concomitant responsibilities?


Well, actually, the fact is, the Founders didn't know what the fark they were talking about when it came to standing armies. Their whole "well-regulated militia" idea worked fairly well in a pre-industrial society for small-scale problems, the sort faced by colonists. Faced with war on a national scale, the militia failed miserably. See the War of 1812. Ever since then, the main defense of the country has been in the hands of a professional standing army and navy. Fortunately, standing armies under the control of a representative, elected government did not prove to be the tools of oppression they had been under absolute monarchs.

Objections to unnecessary government overreach in terms of firearms (and you could certainly argue that's the case in New York) can be defended best under the "right to privacy" interpretation that the court has come to uphold under the First and Fourth Amendments. I know a vast number of gun nuts think that the 2nd Amendment enshrines a right to rebellion, but they're full of crap both legally and practically. The Constitution is a framework FOR HOW ELECTED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WORKS, and it contains no poison pills or out clauses.

Personal firearms ownership is not merely a weak bulwark against tyranny; it's no bulwark at all. Plenty of police states have allowed widespread firearms ownership (Nazi Germany and Iraq are two prime examples). Successful revolts are always supplied and sponsored by an adversary nation helping the insurgents smuggle in arms and ammunition (as was the case in 1775-1783).
 
2014-02-13 08:40:53 AM  

Basily Gourt: [i976.photobucket.com image 600x348]">


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 08:42:16 AM  

dittybopper: RobSeace: Piizzadude: Can you yell fire in a crowded theater or is that illegal?

Well, if it's actually on fire, not only is it allowed, but it's a very good idea and highly encouraged!

Yeah, I laugh at that example of a restriction on a right, because it's not prior restraint.  You *ARE* free to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you just need to be prepared to suffer the legal consequences afterwards.  They don't muzzle you prior to entering.

So owning a gun should be the same:  You can own them and use them, but you need to understand that you will face legal sanctions if you misuse them.


This is rational and something I never thought of, regardless of how obvious it may be.

I will be saving this gem for later use.
 
2014-02-13 08:42:46 AM  

OnlyM3: Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon,


You didn't just quote Ayn Rand in a non-ironic fashion, did you? ::facepalm::
 
2014-02-13 08:43:40 AM  

smoky2010: Carthax: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

How about "no?" Is "no" good for you?

The problem is that if you don't register, and you're caught, you are now a felon. You know what that means, you are no longer allowed to own or possess firearms. They will then confiscate ALL of your guns.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the possibility of being a felon is not something I want on my record. I do not want to seriously restrict my future employment because I made a stand over registering magazines (that they state already knows I own anyway because I bought them legally).


If I lived in that state, I would be challenging that law in court.  It's blatantly unconstitutional, and is based on fear of "scary" guns.
 
2014-02-13 08:45:18 AM  

smoky2010: The problem is that if you don't register, and you're caught, you are now a felon. You know what that means, you are no longer allowed to own or possess firearms. They will then confiscate ALL of your guns.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the possibility of being a felon is not something I want on my record. I do not want to seriously restrict my future employment because I made a stand over registering magazines (that they state already knows I own anyway because I bought them legally).


You know, if there are a whole lot of those cases where Joe Upstandingcitizen, Boy Scout leader, Little League coach, never been in any serious trouble beyond a traffic ticket, gets arrested for having an unregistered gun, and made into a felon by fiat, not because he hurt somebody, but because he owned something he believed it was his right to own under the Constitution of the United States, and common law stretching back to before the US even existed, how do you think juries and voters are going to react to that?

But hey, that's fine.  You want to register them to avoid legal sanctions now, go right ahead.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
 
2014-02-13 08:46:12 AM  

Joe Blowme: imfallen_angel: So many little penises....

pedophile alert!!


Actually, it's a Markley's Law violation.
 
2014-02-13 08:46:33 AM  

Carthax: smoky2010: Carthax: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

How about "no?" Is "no" good for you?

The problem is that if you don't register, and you're caught, you are now a felon. You know what that means, you are no longer allowed to own or possess firearms. They will then confiscate ALL of your guns.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the possibility of being a felon is not something I want on my record. I do not want to seriously restrict my future employment because I made a stand over registering magazines (that they state already knows I own anyway because I bought them legally).

If I lived in that state, I would be challenging that law in court.  It's blatantly unconstitutional, and is based on fear of "scary" guns.


It has already made it to the courts. I judge said that it is not constitutional but didn't strike it down. It seems to me that the judge is going to make this go to the Supreme Court. I wrote a better comment further up the thread saying this exact thing.
 
2014-02-13 08:50:51 AM  

Daemonik:
You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?...

It's a real shame your public school never taught the definition of words.
 
2014-02-13 08:50:55 AM  

Securitywyrm: Piizzadude: Farkage: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

Just how the fark do you rationalize that??!?  Disarming the law abiding public absolutely ensures only the people that refused to register their guns (criminals) in a time of crisis are armed, while the police are completely overwhelmed and are unable to help you if anything happens helps society out precisely how??!?

Dey not tankin' ur gunz, theys wants you to register dem. ani't noes disarmin' goin' on  less you cant foller da lawz.

If you could just kindly point to ONE example in history where citizens were required to register all their guns and it was not followed by mass confiscation, that would be great.


Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.? Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.
 
2014-02-13 08:52:06 AM  
I applaud the people ignoring this law. Register nothing.  the gun grabber scum can never be trusted; any law that involves any form of registration is only initiated due to the desire to enable future confiscation.

I see the progressives have become authoritarian 'the law is the law' when civil disobedience is practiced by the other side.
 
2014-02-13 08:53:28 AM  

incrdbil: I applaud the people ignoring this law. Register nothing.  the gun grabber scum can never be trusted; any law that involves any form of registration is only initiated due to the desire to enable future confiscation.

I see the progressives have become authoritarian 'the law is the law' when civil disobedience is practiced by the other side.


Imagine if the Democrats followed the law? How many times has Obama singlehandedly changed Obamacare for political gain? Liberal scum better prepare for having the tables turned. People really do get sick of this crap.
 
2014-02-13 08:55:01 AM  

dittybopper: smoky2010: The problem is that if you don't register, and you're caught, you are now a felon. You know what that means, you are no longer allowed to own or possess firearms. They will then confiscate ALL of your guns.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the possibility of being a felon is not something I want on my record. I do not want to seriously restrict my future employment because I made a stand over registering magazines (that they state already knows I own anyway because I bought them legally).

You know, if there are a whole lot of those cases where Joe Upstandingcitizen, Boy Scout leader, Little League coach, never been in any serious trouble beyond a traffic ticket, gets arrested for having an unregistered gun, and made into a felon by fiat, not because he hurt somebody, but because he owned something he believed it was his right to own under the Constitution of the United States, and common law stretching back to before the US even existed, how do you think juries and voters are going to react to that?

But hey, that's fine.  You want to register them to avoid legal sanctions now, go right ahead.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.


You must not live in CT. The juries here would eat you alive! As someone with a professional career, in a highly regulated industry, I cannot afford a felony on my record. If you can, good for you. You can tack your criminal record to your wall next to your tin-foil hat.

Also, don't forget that even if you did win your court case, you would never get your guns back. It would take years to make it to court, and by that time, your guns would have been melted down to puddles years earlier. Also, whenever you went for a new job and someone googled our name and saw that you were arrested for not following the laws, I think your chances of getting that job would be seriously restricted. No, it's not legal and you'll never know about it. Unless, of course, you own your own business or like to work in the service industries (i.e. fast food).
 
2014-02-13 08:56:23 AM  

incrdbil: I see the progressives have become authoritarian 'the law is the law' when civil disobedience is practiced by the other side.


I, for one, am shocked and saddened.
 
2014-02-13 09:01:12 AM  

mbillips: I know a vast number of gun nuts think that the 2nd Amendment enshrines a right to rebellion, but they're full of crap both legally and practically. The Constitution is a framework FOR HOW ELECTED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WORKS, and it contains no poison pills or out clauses.


It's not a poison pill or out clause.  It's the ultimate in checks and balances.

The government has the power to call forth the military (including the militia) to suppress insurrections.  The people retain the means to overthrow the government by force if necessary.

The Founding Fathers weren't fools:  They knew that *NO* government lasts forever.  Through their knowledge of Greek and Roman history, they knew that even longstanding democracies can be subverted into totalitarian dictatorships.  So they made it as difficult as possible to amend the Constitution, while still retaining the ability for it be amended to suit the times.

But they also explicitly recognized it in their debates on the Constitution itself:

 Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.  Federalist #46  Publius (James Madison, future president)

Right there in the debate about the Constitution itself the idea that regular citizens with their arms might, in some remote. unknown future, be forced to fight against the federal government is expressly contemplated.

It's not a poison pill, it's one of the checks and balances that were carefully considered prior to the adoption of the Constitution itself.
 
2014-02-13 09:01:56 AM  

imfallen_angel: So many little penises....


You might be surprised to find out that people with large penises are also fully capable of feelings of inadequacy.

Also, as in your case, some people with feelings of inadequacy can behave like large penises.
 
2014-02-13 09:06:12 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: demaL-demaL-yeH: Are you one of those entitlement types who believes that rights don't come with concomitant responsibilities?

you seem to be the type that does not understand the difference between "right" and "privilege". you might want to consult a dictionary.


You don't seem to grasp that responsibilities are the flip side of rights; that one is meaningless and void without the other.
This is a common character flaw in the "me" and later generations.

Yes, Hobbes was correct that this is a dog eat dog world.
And yes, Rousseau was correct, in that we are not dogs: H. sap. sap. is a herd animal, too.

What you have is a direct result of your ancestors, and of living as a member of a civilized society.
You have rights. You also have responsibilities to the rest of us.

You have a right to bear arms so that you can fulfill your responsibility to bear arms in the defense of us all, not just yourself.
 
2014-02-13 09:10:12 AM  

dittybopper: smoky2010: The problem is that if you don't register, and you're caught, you are now a felon. You know what that means, you are no longer allowed to own or possess firearms. They will then confiscate ALL of your guns.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the possibility of being a felon is not something I want on my record. I do not want to seriously restrict my future employment because I made a stand over registering magazines (that they state already knows I own anyway because I bought them legally).

You know, if there are a whole lot of those cases where Joe Upstandingcitizen, Boy Scout leader, Little League coach, never been in any serious trouble beyond a traffic ticket, gets arrested for having an unregistered gun, and made into a felon by fiat, not because he hurt somebody, but because he owned something he believed it was his right to own under the Constitution of the United States, and common law stretching back to before the US even existed, how do you think juries and voters are going to react to that?


Thats why jury nullification is so important to educate citizens about; especially when it comes to ignoring the  instructions that you can't do it.
 
2014-02-13 09:10:20 AM  
- Confiscates firearms from American citizens
- lets Iraqis keep their rifles for self-defense


/thanks America!
 
2014-02-13 09:11:06 AM  
I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.
 
2014-02-13 09:14:35 AM  

mbillips: Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.?

You mean this UK?


In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered 
firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high 
as 4 million.


Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.

That's a distinction without a difference.  Just because they didn't show up at your door with a SWAT unit to forcibly take them from you doesn't make it any better:  Either way, they'd be forced by the Fourth Amendment to compensate you.

But cash doesn't compensate you for loss of utility.
 
2014-02-13 09:15:41 AM  

Dimensio: I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.


Heh.
 
2014-02-13 09:16:26 AM  

dittybopper: Dimensio: I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.

Heh.


i was thinking 6/10?
 
2014-02-13 09:18:20 AM  

incrdbil: Thats why jury nullification is so important to educate citizens about; especially when it comes to ignoring the  instructions that you can't do it.


Agreed.

Whenever I hear someone has jury duty, I give them the spiel, and I also make a point to tell them not to mention it in voire dire.
 
2014-02-13 09:18:36 AM  
c6.nrostatic.com
 
2014-02-13 09:19:13 AM  

Dimensio: These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.


I'm going to re-use that if you don't mind.
 
2014-02-13 09:19:42 AM  

dittybopper: mbillips: Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.?

You mean this UK?

In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered 
firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high 
as 4 million.

Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.

That's a distinction without a difference.  Just because they didn't show up at your door with a SWAT unit to forcibly take them from you doesn't make it any better:  Either way, they'd be forced by the Fourth Amendment to compensate you.

But cash doesn't compensate you for loss of utility.


So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.
 
2014-02-13 09:20:21 AM  

Joe Blowme: [c6.nrostatic.com image 630x380]


I do not believe that the image of a perfectly safe, civilian-legal target rifle is of relevance to this discussion, which relates to deadly semi-automatic assault weapons.
 
2014-02-13 09:20:28 AM  

dittybopper: Heh.


Lol, I see you steered clear of that worm this time.
 
2014-02-13 09:21:52 AM  

Dimensio: I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.


Oh man, that's awesome. Well done, Dimensio.
 
2014-02-13 09:22:48 AM  

Mr Perkins: Basily Gourt: [i976.photobucket.com image 600x348]">

[img.fark.net image 311x391]


The ironic thing about all these "but ... but ... but ... Native Americans!" arguments is that more guns ultimately would have made no difference to the fate of the natives, kinda the same argument pro-gun types are making about this registration law.  Over 90% of the native population died from disease and in the end they simply lacked the infrastructure, technology, cohesiveness and population to prevail against the invaders.
 
2014-02-13 09:23:23 AM  

incrdbil: I applaud the people ignoring this law. Register nothing.  the gun grabber scum can never be trusted; any law that involves any form of registration is only initiated due to the desire to enable future confiscation.

I see the progressives have become authoritarian 'the law is the law' when civil disobedience is practiced by the other side.


No kidding!!


i976.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-13 09:26:29 AM  

smoky2010: dittybopper: mbillips: Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.?

You mean this UK?

In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered 
firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high 
as 4 million.

Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.

That's a distinction without a difference.  Just because they didn't show up at your door with a SWAT unit to forcibly take them from you doesn't make it any better:  Either way, they'd be forced by the Fourth Amendment to compensate you.

But cash doesn't compensate you for loss of utility.

So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.


Blah blah blah. This is the problem with slippery slope. We said Democrats would enact registries, you said no they won't. And look what we have. Registration leads to confiscation, period. Look at Canada. They outlaw a 22 rilfe because it looks like an AK-47, then confiscate. Australia did the same thing, and Obama admin has said Australian gun laws are a model.

Wake up.

Next thing will be dropping the 4th amendment so cops can randomly search your house for guns.
 
2014-02-13 09:29:11 AM  

dittybopper: mbillips: I know a vast number of gun nuts think that the 2nd Amendment enshrines a right to rebellion, but they're full of crap both legally and practically. The Constitution is a framework FOR HOW ELECTED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WORKS, and it contains no poison pills or out clauses.

It's not a poison pill or out clause.  It's the ultimate in checks and balances.

The government has the power to call forth the military (including the militia) to suppress insurrections.  The people retain the means to overthrow the government by force if necessary.

The Founding Fathers weren't fools:  They knew that *NO* government lasts forever.  Through their knowledge of Greek and Roman history, they knew that even longstanding democracies can be subverted into totalitarian dictatorships.  So they made it as difficult as possible to amend the Constitution, while still retaining the ability for it be amended to suit the times.

But they also explicitly recognized it in their debates on the Constitution itself:

 Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered b ...


What the fark? That pantywaist MADISON said that? He was the one who wanted to propose a clause about obscenity in the first Amendment.

My respect for him just quadrupled.
 
2014-02-13 09:29:52 AM  

Thunderpipes: smoky2010: dittybopper: mbillips: Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.?

You mean this UK?

In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered 
firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high 
as 4 million.

Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.

That's a distinction without a difference.  Just because they didn't show up at your door with a SWAT unit to forcibly take them from you doesn't make it any better:  Either way, they'd be forced by the Fourth Amendment to compensate you.

But cash doesn't compensate you for loss of utility.

So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.

Blah blah blah. This is the problem with slippery slope. We said Democrats would enact registries, you said no they won't. And look what we have. Registration leads to confiscation, period. Look at Canada. They outlaw a 22 rilfe because it looks like an AK-47, then confiscate. Australia did the same thing, and Obama admin has said Australian gun laws are a model.

Wake up.

Next thing will be dropping the 4th amendment so cops can randomly search your house for guns.


Where can I donate to your tin-foil fund? I want to make sure that you don't run out of tin-foil hats and let common sense interfere with logic.

Also, when you want to spout out random crap, please don't piggy-back off of my comments in a thread.
 
Displayed 50 of 441 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report