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 458
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4738 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:03 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 11:22:07 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Hmm. Dueling references.
*holds out hands - palms up - to weigh*
OED vs. some random online dictionary

The random online dictionary cites a number of references rather than the one. Additionally, and somewhat humorously, you also seem to be suggesting that I head a conspiracy of dubious online etymological and medical dictionaries, which is rather clownshoes.

That's rather a side point, though, as at least you seem to be tacitly admitting your previous assertion as to the exclusive meaning of the term under discussion is in error. You yourself provided the evidence.

Counterpoint:

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?
Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*


And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "

/go B rabbit!!
 
2014-02-13 11:22:59 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Umm, you take that to mean as the government takes away your guns. That is not the intent, and you know it. The intent was t be armed to defend against government if need be.

Bullshiat.
The purpose was to ensure that the state militias would be armed so that they could enforce the laws of the United States, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. Article I Section 8 in farking black and white.

You smoking crack? Maybe you should go get some Obamacare and sip hot chocolate in you PJs.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


And that has nothing to do with the individual right to bear arms, butt head.
 
2014-02-13 11:23:45 AM
Shh...choppers.

MAIL CALL!
 
2014-02-13 11:24:09 AM
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 
2014-02-13 11:24:36 AM
If that's the law of the state, then people need to register their weapons. If people don't like it, then they can sell their homes, pull their kids out of school, quit their jobs and move to a state with lax gun laws. GET THE FARK OUT. (I loooove being able to tell people to get out like i'm the true American that I am, it's just that normally the shoe is on the other foot)
 
2014-02-13 11:25:45 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH:

There is no hyphen in the Constitution.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
 
2014-02-13 11:26:13 AM

Oblio13: 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...


Oh, OH!  You want to talk about what the Founding Fathers MEANT when they wrote "well regulated".. okay, sure.. in that case you can't own any gun that the Founding Fathers didn't own.  Back to muskets & black powder for you sir.  You might as well whine that the right to bare arms means you should be allowed to own nukes and that we should return to state militias instead of having a standing professional army.
 
2014-02-13 11:28:49 AM

TuteTibiImperes: 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.


Are you that flucking stupid and gullible?
 
2014-02-13 11:29:44 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH

Counterpoint:

A fair one, I must admit. Seriously, not sarcastically.

On the subject of what the founders intended, I can't help but note that your first link says that members of the militia shall have their own weapons, comparable to those of a regular soldier.
 
2014-02-13 11:33:28 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?


You don't have to serve in the military and go through bootcamp to own a weapon in Switzerland. They don't strip that right away from you if you are found unfit for service, and they allow people to do civil service work instead, once again without stripping their right to own firearms.
 
2014-02-13 11:35:51 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 11:37:28 AM

smoky2010: 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.



It depends on the felony they were convicted of.
 
2014-02-13 11:37:48 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: bility to change the combination of the arms safe would easily address that. Neither of you would leave firearms out where a mentally ill person could have access, right?


It's locked with a key.

Should I now be required to buy a new safe, one with a combination lock that can be changed?
 
2014-02-13 11:37:56 AM
So where are the liberal hypocrites from the ACLU? They should be filing a class action suite for violations of
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Liberal Politicians in Connecticut cannot legally declare you to be a criminal and require you to incriminate yourself.
 
2014-02-13 11:41:44 AM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: bility to change the combination of the arms safe would easily address that. Neither of you would leave firearms out where a mentally ill person could have access, right?

It's locked with a key.

Should I now be required to buy a new safe, one with a combination lock that can be changed?


It should also have a backdoor release mechanism.  You'll give a copy of that key to the local constable
 
2014-02-13 11:42:08 AM

Daemonik: Oblio13: Daemonik:

Oh, OH!  You want to talk about what the Founding Fathers MEANT when they wrote "well regulated".. okay, sure.. in that case you can't own any gun that the Founding Fathers didn't own.  Back to muskets & black powder for you sir.  You might as well whine that the right to bare arms means you should be allowed to own nukes and that we should return to state militias instead of having a standing professional army.



Hand over your computer, your right to free speech only applies to goose quills and India ink.

(And it's BEAR arms, not "bare". Sorry, I was an English major.)
 
2014-02-13 11:45:07 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.

This is entirely wrong. The word postdates Middle English, entering Early Modern English from Latin, and has a wider meaning that what you just made up along with your linguistic "history."

You lie.
Origin
late Middle English (in the sense 'control by rules'): from late Latin  regulat- 'directed, regulated', from the verb  regulare, from Latin  regula 'rule'.


Doesn't matter anyway:
DC v. Heller:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-3
0.
 
2014-02-13 11:45:39 AM

ex-nuke: So where are the liberal hypocrites from the ACLU? They should be filing a class action suite for violations of
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Liberal Politicians in Connecticut c ...


Favoureeted...sorry red2
 
2014-02-13 11:50:34 AM
If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don´t follow them, then you have a real problem.
 
2014-02-13 12:03:10 PM
 They shouldn't be hard to locate.
They'll be the ones jerking off to the Turner Diaries.
 
2014-02-13 12:14:28 PM

Joe Blowme: demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Hmm. Dueling references.
*holds out hands - palms up - to weigh*
OED vs. some random online dictionary

The random online dictionary cites a number of references rather than the one. Additionally, and somewhat humorously, you also seem to be suggesting that I head a conspiracy of dubious online etymological and medical dictionaries, which is rather clownshoes.

That's rather a side point, though, as at least you seem to be tacitly admitting your previous assertion as to the exclusive meaning of the term under discussion is in error. You yourself provided the evidence.

Counterpoint:

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?
Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "

/go B rabbit!!


The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?

//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.
 
2014-02-13 12:15:07 PM

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.


:)

I like when they talk about how "assault weapons" are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, then shortly thereafter say that only the police should have them.  This is bested by their outrage over the FN57 where they said the gun had only one purpose, killing police officers, and wanted to limit its availability to police officers.

I guess in their world, the police need to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time, AND they also have the need to kill other police officers.  GEE, I wonder why people wouldn't trust police officers to be the only people with any or a select class of firearms.
 
2014-02-13 12:16:05 PM
 
2014-02-13 12:16:49 PM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: bility to change the combination of the arms safe would easily address that. Neither of you would leave firearms out where a mentally ill person could have access, right?

It's locked with a key.

Should I now be required to buy a new safe, one with a combination lock that can be changed?


Custody of the key to the partner who is not mentally ill would work, would it not?
 
2014-02-13 12:17:43 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.


You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point.  I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.
Life is hard.  It's harder when you're stupid.
 
2014-02-13 12:19:03 PM
Honest question for those who support this law: How would the government maintaining a list of perfectly legal firearms prevent those firearms from being used in a shooting?
 
2014-02-13 12:19:44 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, clinical depression is a mental illness*. When your physician clears you, you get your shootin' irons back.

*Read on down through that final paragraph.


OR, we just keep our guns and anyone who doesn't like it can fark off.

We saw how quick the New Orleans PD was to give back the guns they illegally confiscated, just as we've seen how swift California is to give back guns they confiscate due to clerical errors.  Oh wait...
 
2014-02-13 12:21:49 PM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.

This is entirely wrong. The word postdates Middle English, entering Early Modern English from Latin, and has a wider meaning that what you just made up along with your linguistic "history."

You lie.
Origin
late Middle English (in the sense 'control by rules'): from late Latin  regulat- 'directed, regulated', from the verb  regulare, from Latin  regula 'rule'.

Doesn't matter anyway:
DC v. Heller:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.


Alito also added a hyphen.
And I have no problem with firearm ownership. I'd like to encourage it. I also want to ensure that we - all of society, that is - are getting the fullest and best use of that right.

And of the explicitly-named responsibility it entails.
 
2014-02-13 12:22:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.


In addition, I didn't use the term 'gun grabber', so I guess that's another fabrication on your part to try to sound more important.  Have you actually listened to the entire Heller audio?  Because I think your incredible wisedom and knowledge should be provided to the Supreme Court, as they are obviously not as smart and educated as you believe yourself to be.
 
2014-02-13 12:23:01 PM
What is wrong with this tummy anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0Ewu46w2iE
 
2014-02-13 12:27:06 PM

Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point.  I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.


The invented backstory where I cite the Founders, the debates in Congress, the Constitution, the laws the Founders wrote, and the regulations they imposed in their own words?
/Yeah, I can see how citing primary sources cuts my Fark credibility.

Farkage: Life is hard.  It's harder when you're stupid.


Sucks to be you.
 
2014-02-13 12:30:35 PM
Oy - - - skinheads.

Take your dinky flamewar outside would you?

Thanks - the management
 
2014-02-13 12:33:37 PM

Daemonik: Oblio13: 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...

Oh, OH!  You want to talk about what the Founding Fathers MEANT when they wrote "well regulated".. okay, sure.. in that case you can't own any gun that the Founding Fathers didn't own.  Back to muskets & black powder for you sir.  You might as well whine that the right to bare arms means you should be allowed to own nukes and that we should return to state militias instead of having a standing professional army.


Sorry, you aren't allowed to say that on the internet.  Or radio, TV, email, etc, because that isn't what the Founding Fathers had when the 1st Amendment was written.
And nukes aren't arms.  Learn before posting, mkay?
 
2014-02-13 12:38:27 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point.  I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.

The invented backstory where I cite the Founders, the debates in Congress, the Constitution, the laws the Founders wrote, and the regulations they imposed in their own words?
/Yeah, I can see how citing primary sources cuts my Fark credibility.

Farkage: Life is hard.  It's harder when you're stupid.

Sucks to be you.


I said in the last thread you f*cking idiot.  You know, the one where a guy was getting the crap beat out of him in a parking lot with a pool cue and shot his attacker?  And you just KNEW how it all started and EVERYTHING even though the people on the scene knew none of it?  You must be magical AND stupid!
Start with reading comprehension you moron.
 
2014-02-13 12:39:04 PM

Oblio13: Hand over your computer, your right to free speech only applies to goose quills and India ink.


I need to remember this line.  Thank you!
 
2014-02-13 12:39:57 PM

Farkage: And nukes aren't arms.


Oh?

/That sound was St. Ronnie calling you a moron.
 
2014-02-13 12:41:17 PM

Oblio13: Daemonik: Oblio13: Daemonik:

Oh, OH!  You want to talk about what the Founding Fathers MEANT when they wrote "well regulated".. okay, sure.. in that case you can't own any gun that the Founding Fathers didn't own.  Back to muskets & black powder for you sir.  You might as well whine that the right to bare arms means you should be allowed to own nukes and that we should return to state militias instead of having a standing professional army.


Hand over your computer, your right to free speech only applies to goose quills and India ink.

(And it's BEAR arms, not "bare". Sorry, I was an English major.)


Confiscation isn't allowed, but you can be restricted to possessing only a P2-233 and 56k modem that can only be used at the library and your house.  No portables, no RAM over 32MB, no 1tb hard drives etc.
 
2014-02-13 12:41:49 PM

Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point.  I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.

The invented backstory where I cite the Founders, the debates in Congress, the Constitution, the laws the Founders wrote, and the regulations they imposed in their own words?
/Yeah, I can see how citing primary sources cuts my Fark credibility.

Farkage: Life is hard.  It's harder when you're stupid.

Sucks to be you.

I said in the last thread you f*cking idiot.  You know, the one w ...


No, I read the freaking news articles. I even linked the police report for you.
Nothing prevented the shooter from driving away.
 
2014-02-13 12:42:05 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: And nukes aren't arms.

Oh?

/That sound was St. Ronnie calling you a moron.



Yes, you're very smart...now shaddup - Princess Bride
 
2014-02-13 12:44:53 PM

blame_canada: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: And nukes aren't arms.

Oh?
/That sound was St. Ronnie calling you a moron.


Yes, you're very smart...now shaddup - Princess Bride


As you wish, eh.
Wait. Rick Moranis was not in that movie.
Take off, eh.
 
2014-02-13 12:45:27 PM

pedrop357: Oblio13: Daemonik: Oblio13: Daemonik:

Oh, OH!  You want to talk about what the Founding Fathers MEANT when they wrote "well regulated".. okay, sure.. in that case you can't own any gun that the Founding Fathers didn't own.  Back to muskets & black powder for you sir.  You might as well whine that the right to bare arms means you should be allowed to own nukes and that we should return to state militias instead of having a standing professional army.


Hand over your computer, your right to free speech only applies to goose quills and India ink.

(And it's BEAR arms, not "bare". Sorry, I was an English major.)

Confiscation isn't allowed, but you can be restricted to possessing only a P2-233 and 56k modem that can only be used at the library and your house.  No portables, no RAM over 32MB, no 1tb hard drives etc.



Blue4, is that you?  I can't remember how to spell ignore properly.  Please send mail.  By the way, nice PDP-11 you're packing.

Cheers

P.S. Please reinstate Godwin's law on the way out.
 
2014-02-13 12:45:28 PM
This is great news for the prison building community.
 
2014-02-13 12:58:27 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point.  I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.

The invented backstory where I cite the Founders, the debates in Congress, the Constitution, the laws the Founders wrote, and the regulations they imposed in their own words?
/Yeah, I can see how citing primary sources cuts my Fark credibility.

Farkage: Life is hard.  It's harder when you're stupid.

Sucks to be you.

I said in the last thread you f*cking idiot.  You know, the one w ...

No, I read the freaking news articles. I even linked the police report for you.
Nothing prevented the shooter from driving away.


And again, you ignore the facts that were written and invent what you need to in order to pretend you're smart. But you already know your own method of arguing, so it doesn't surprise me in the least when you ignore the reality of someone calling you out on it.
And as I also said in an above comment, you certainly haven't listened to the Heller audio, have you? Of course not. And even if you did, since it contradicts what you "know for a fact to be true", you'd just ignore that as well.
You're a troll, and should step up to the plate and admit it.
 
2014-02-13 01:03:58 PM
 
2014-02-13 01:04:13 PM

Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point.  I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.

The invented backstory where I cite the Founders, the debates in Congress, the Constitution, the laws the Founders wrote, and the regulations they imposed in their own words?
/Yeah, I can see how citing primary sources cuts my Fark credibility.

Farkage: Life is hard.  It's harder when you're stupid.

Sucks to be you.

I said in the last thread you f*cking i ...



Doffs hat...kneels down...pulls out sword...um...next?
 
2014-02-13 01:06:56 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Oh?

/That sound was St. Ronnie calling you a moron.

From a legal, common law definition, arms would not generally include nuclear weapons.

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

And I am pretty sure that it was not 'St. Ronnie' that came up with that name. Lastly, SNRT doesn't roll off the tongue like START.



Hey look!  A dirty suitcase.  How filthy
 
2014-02-13 01:11:11 PM
i141.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-13 01:13:09 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: And nukes aren't arms.

Oh?

/That sound was St. Ronnie calling you a moron.


Just how farking big is your coont?

/no, don't send pictures

//lude
 
2014-02-13 01:15:31 PM

Daemonik: Oblio13: 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...

Oh, OH!  You want to talk about what the Founding Fathers MEANT when they wrote "well regulated".. okay, sure.. in that case you can't own any gun that the Founding Fathers didn't own.


And by your stupid line of thought, free speech doesn't apply to anythign beyond parchment, printing press, and speaking in the town square.  No limit to the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights have any such ttime period/ technology applied to them.
 
2014-02-13 01:18:48 PM

ex-nuke: So where are the liberal hypocrites from the ACLU?


I generally support the ACLU's mission and actions, but I have to admit that their position on the 2nd amendment reeks of hypocrisy & double-standards.

ACLU: "We're concerned about all your rights -- except one."
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report