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  
•       •       •

4746 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:03 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



441 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-13 12:15:44 AM  
At least some people stayed awake in history class.
 
2014-02-13 12:51:22 AM  
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.
 
2014-02-13 01:08:23 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,


Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...
 
2014-02-13 01:12:14 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...


Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.  Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.
 
2014-02-13 01:17:12 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.  Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.


No, it didn't.

Given the circumstances, it was a stupid move.
 
2014-02-13 01:20:23 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 01:21:21 AM  
These are not the people law enforcement should be targeting.
 
2014-02-13 01:39:19 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...


How did the police know where the guns were?

i57.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-13 01:42:17 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 01:53:30 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. That's why there's specific language against it in the Constitution.
 
2014-02-13 02:05:07 AM  

fusillade762: How did the police know where the guns were?


I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

TuteTibiImperes: 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.


No, it didn't. That is absolutely the worst time to be taking a legally owned firearm away from someone. Things have gone to shiat, and the government thinks it's a bright idea to make it more difficult for me to defend my family and myself. Nope. Completely wrong.

TuteTibiImperes: but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.


No, it wasn't. You don't get to deprive someone of a constitutionally protected right because "maybe, these law-abiding citizens might shoot someone". Like I said, twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.
 
2014-02-13 02:44:38 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.



1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.
 
2014-02-13 02:49:00 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.


Good God I hope you are trolling.  Way to give an advantage to looters.
 
2014-02-13 02:54:37 AM  

The_Sponge: 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.


1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.


truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com

Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?
 
2014-02-13 03:07:55 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.


img.fark.net

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-13 03:08:47 AM  
What people don't like to think about is that 'the government' already thinks everyone is a criminal.

What is a criminal you ask?  Someone who can have their rights, property and freedom taken away, legally.
 
2014-02-13 03:09:18 AM  

violentsalvation: The_Sponge: 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.


1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.

[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 537x615]

Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?


Isn't the burden of proof on the person claiming it to be true?   Because nowadays any jackass with minimal Photoshop skills can create an 'authentic' document

/points to his Masters of Photoshop degree on the wall
 
2014-02-13 03:11:44 AM  

violentsalvation: Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?



I have no idea....this is the first time I have seen that.
 
2014-02-13 03:16:15 AM  

The_Sponge: violentsalvation: Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?


I have no idea....this is the first time I have seen that.


Best article (term used loosely) I could find.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip- sh otguns-rifles/

Sooo, maybe?
 
2014-02-13 03:17:38 AM  
I almost read a paragraph into this and then asked myself;"SELF! did a 9 year old write this?"
If you want me to take you seriously at least use your verbs correctly.
 
2014-02-13 03:19:04 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.


Um, exactly that hasn't only happened in the past, it's happened several different times in the past so it's a pattern and not one bad apple.  Registration laws being followed with (technically illegal) seizures or persecution of the property registered, that is.

This is actually a pretty legitimate thing to engage in passive resistance over, historically speaking.  Blatant violation of the second amendment tends to follow pretty inevitably.

// Which is why regulations are placed at the points of sale and not ownership in the first place.
 
2014-02-13 03:23:51 AM  

hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

[img.fark.net image 326x463]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hur ri cane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms
 
2014-02-13 03:24:43 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...


In a city under martial law?

Yeah, totally unreasonable.
 
2014-02-13 03:25:06 AM  
And this is why when someone starts claiming in a gun control thread that "no one wants to take your firearms" I know they're a lying sack of shiat.
 
Poe
2014-02-13 03:25:29 AM  
I think the folks in CT experienced an onslaught of tragic boating accidents over the past year, resulting in the loss overboard of untold numbers of "assault weapons."
 
2014-02-13 03:27:18 AM  

Cyber_Junk: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: 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.


1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.

[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 537x615]

Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?

Isn't the burden of proof on the person claiming it to be true?   Because nowadays any jackass with minimal Photoshop skills can create an 'authentic' document

/points to his Masters of Photoshop degree on the wall


That should be the case, yes. But I've only seen it on a few sites, mostly pro-gun sites, it did make Fox News, not that that means much. It might be more telling that I can't find it debunked, and can't find it reported on a more left wing site. I'd think if it was fake, that since Fox picked it up mediamatters and MSNBC would be all over it.

But I don't know for a fact that it is real or not.
 
2014-02-13 03:28:00 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."



When the rule of law had essentially broken down, those who had obtained firearms for self-defense in anticipation of the rule of law possibly breaking down -- and who had stayed behind rather than evacuating knowing that they were prepared to protect themselves if needed -- were forcibly deprived of their ability to protect their lives and property by the very people who were supposed to be doing it for them, but weren't. If ever there was a real-world scenario that illustrated EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment is for, that was it.
 
2014-02-13 03:33:02 AM  
Considering that Connecticut's governor has repeatedly called for sweeping state and national bans on so-called assault weapons, I wouldn't trust the government with knowledge of my firearms.  California has already shown that gun registries can and will be used for confiscation, so why give Connecticut a chance to do the same thing?
 
2014-02-13 03:37:40 AM  

Jim_Callahan: 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.

Um, exactly that hasn't only happened in the past, it's happened several different times in the past so it's a pattern and not one bad apple.  Registration laws being followed with (technically illegal) seizures or persecution of the property registered, that is.

This is actually a pretty legitimate thing to engage in passive resistance over, historically speaking.  Blatant violation of the second amendment tends to follow pretty inevitably.

// Which is why regulations are placed at the points of sale and not ownership in the first place.


What was DC v. Heller about, then?
Oh, that's right, the Supreme Court ordered the city to allow him to register his handgun.

Mandatory registration is constitutional.
 
2014-02-13 03:44:00 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: the Supreme Court ordered the city to allow him to register his handgun.Mandatory registration is constitutional


Mandatory registration was not decided in that case, the issue the Supreme Court decided was whether D.C. could arbitrarily and repeatedly deny someone to use the registration they had set up to deny him a firearm for his own defense.

I thought you were smarter than that, court cases are always about the contested point alone. Both Heller and McDonald involved gun owners who wished to register their firearm, so that was an uncontested point.
 
2014-02-13 03:50:05 AM  

hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

[img.fark.net image 326x463]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]


Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own guns
Carry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearm
Louisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.
Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?

demaL-demaL-yeH: In a city under martial law?

Yeah, totally unreasonable.


Sure is, sparky. You're in a situation where law is breaking down, and people are going apeshiat. Going around and illegally confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, during a time they're far more likely to need to use one to protect themselves, is by definition unreasonable. Besides, there's that whole pesky second amendment thing, you know?
 
2014-02-13 03:53:12 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

[img.fark.net image 326x463]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]

Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own guns
Carry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearm
Louisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.
Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?

demaL-demaL-yeH: In a city under martial law?

Yeah, totally unreasonable.

Sure is, sparky. You're in a situation where law is breaking down, and people are going apeshiat. Going around and illegally confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, during a time they're far more likely to need to use one to protect themselves, is by definition unreasonable. Besides, there's that whole pesky second amendment thing, you know?


demaL has some whacky ideas about the 2nd amendment, it's not worth it to get into it with him. Just nod and move on like when some homeless guy tells you he's Jesus Christ from planet Mongo and needs $5 to fly back.
 
2014-02-13 03:53:59 AM  

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.


That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.
 
2014-02-13 03:54:31 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 03:56:10 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

In a city under martial law?

Yeah, totally unreasonable.


Indeed, because you're then confiscated all the guns of people who obey the law. Who does that leave with guns?
 
2014-02-13 03:56:12 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own guns
Carry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearm
Louisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.
Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?


And it's just as likely that they used the Project Stargate psychics from the CIA to determine who had a gun and where to go to confiscate. My theory has just as much evidence as yours. The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.

If your suggestion is that they used the State CCP list to confiscate "guns", the overwhelming majority of which were not hand guns but long arms and shotguns, I'm going to need a little more than your pokey conspiracy theory to believe you.
 
2014-02-13 03:57:10 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Sure is, sparky. You're in a situation where law is breaking down, and people are going apeshiat. Going around and illegally confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, during a time they're far more likely to need to use one to protect themselves, is by definition unreasonable. Besides, there's that whole pesky second amendment thing, you know?


Let's not forget the fourth.
 
2014-02-13 03:59:03 AM  

Boojum2k: demaL has some whacky ideas about the 2nd amendment, it's not worth it to get into it with him. Just nod and move on like when some homeless guy tells you he's Jesus Christ from planet Mongo and needs $5 to fly back.


Thanks for the warning. I thought I had most of those people farkied already, but I guess you can't ever catch them all.
 
2014-02-13 04:00:46 AM  
Had the Supreme Court found registration unconstitutional, they would have ruled it just as unconstitutional as the trigger lock requirement.
The court did not. QED.
 
2014-02-13 04:03:26 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Had the Supreme Court found registration unconstitutional, they would have ruled it just as unconstitutional as the trigger lock requirement.
The court did not. QED.


*pat pat* it's okay, I know this kind of thing is above your level.
 
2014-02-13 04:03:39 AM  

Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.


So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.
 
2014-02-13 04:04:24 AM  

hardinparamedic: The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.


Sounds legit. You have a citation for that I take it?
 
2014-02-13 04:08:27 AM  

hardinparamedic: And it's just as likely that they used the Project Stargate psychics from the CIA to determine who had a gun and where to go to confiscate. My theory has just as much evidence as yours. The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.

If your suggestion is that they used the State CCP list to confiscate "guns", the overwhelming majority of which were not hand guns but long arms and shotguns, I'm going to need a little more than your pokey conspiracy theory to believe you.


Maybe they used the CCP list, maybe they didn't. We'll never know for sure. However, that doesn't invalidate my points.

- the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past
- any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again

And yes, they will do it again.
 
2014-02-13 04:08:37 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Boojum2k: demaL has some whacky ideas about the 2nd amendment, it's not worth it to get into it with him. Just nod and move on like when some homeless guy tells you he's Jesus Christ from planet Mongo and needs $5 to fly back.

Thanks for the warning. I thought I had most of those people farkied already, but I guess you can't ever catch them all.


My whacky idea: Make firearm training and regular qualification mandatory, like the Founders did.
Somehow idiots here believe that makes me a "gun-grabber".

/Come tp think of it, it's pretty much what the Swiss, who are touted as paragons by some here, do.
 
2014-02-13 04:13:08 AM  

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
 
2014-02-13 04:14:30 AM  

Boojum2k: Sounds legit. You have a citation for that I take it?


The fact of the matter is that there were armed patrols of police and military everywhere, and the city was under Martial law. Or we could ask Fox News.

A good number of the confiscations were done in people who were seeking shelter or being rescued otherwise.

Even google searching the matter doesn't reveal any evidence of the CCP rolls being used to guide confiscation outside of forums with no proof.
 
2014-02-13 04:15:52 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Maybe they used the CCP list, maybe they didn't. We'll never know for sure. However, that doesn't invalidate my points.

- the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past
- any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again

And yes, they will do it again.


And as a CCP holder, I think I'll continue to abide by the law instead of being paranoid that GUBAMENT GON COME AND TAKE MAH GUNS! and promote inane conspiracy theories with no proof behind them.

And I'll sleep better knowing there is at least some vetting and a basic level of competency of the people who pack heat on the street.
 
2014-02-13 04:16:06 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 04:20:15 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.


Made so much sense that in an EF5 with no houses standing, our governor threw DHS and their drones the hell out of the STATE. See, we saw what happened in Katrina and passed a little law down here that said "you don't get to claim 'state of emergency' and take our guns." I think there was one case of attempted looting in Moore last May. Notice the word 'attempted'. Because DHS got tossed out within a few hours of arriving and everyone still had their personal firearms. No one got shot to death, but looting? Yeah. Not so much.

Necessary my ass.
 
2014-02-13 04:24:20 AM  

Aigoo: Made so much sense that in an EF5 with no houses standing, our governor threw DHS and their drones the hell out of the STATE. See, we saw what happened in Katrina and passed a little law down here that said "you don't get to claim 'state of emergency' and take our guns." I think there was one case of attempted looting in Moore last May. Notice the word 'attempted'. Because DHS got tossed out within a few hours of arriving and everyone still had their personal firearms. No one got shot to death, but looting? Yeah. Not so much.

Necessary my ass.


That's pretty interesting, considering FEMA can't even step foot inside of your state without the request of the Governor through a request from the State EMA.

So less "threw them out of the state", and more "didn't request help from FEMA in the first place"
 
2014-02-13 04:29:14 AM  

Aigoo: 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.


Her, folks, stripped of all phony "maturity" and fake reasonableness, is the gun fapper argument - if you don't agree with them - you're a great big sissy. You can't really argue with that.
I don't mean to say it's correct - you just can't argue with it.
 
2014-02-13 04:29:28 AM  

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?
 
2014-02-13 04:30:53 AM  

hardinparamedic: And as a CCP holder, I think I'll continue to abide by the law instead of being paranoid that GUBAMENT GON COME AND TAKE MAH GUNS! and promote inane conspiracy theories with no proof behind them.


Christ, you are either one dense motherfarker, or trolling. There is no denying that the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past (there's plenty of proof), and that any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again (simple common sense here).

hardinparamedic: And I'll sleep better knowing there is at least some vetting and a basic level of competency of the people who pack heat on the street.


And I never said otherwise. Personally, I have had neither the want, nor the the need for a CCP. Should that ever change, I most certainly will jump through all necessary hoops to legally obtain said permit.
 
2014-02-13 04:33:13 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: There is no denying that the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past (there's plenty of proof), and that any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again (simple common sense here).


No one has denied that the Government has illegally confiscated firearms.

What they have done is called you out over an inane conspiracy theory that makes gun owners like me look like mentally unbalanced Alex Jones fanboys, and helps fuel the stereotype of the Paranoid Fudd.
 
2014-02-13 04:33:28 AM  

hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: Maybe they used the CCP list, maybe they didn't. We'll never know for sure. However, that doesn't invalidate my points.

- the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past
- any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again

And yes, they will do it again.

And as a CCP holder, I think I'll continue to abide by the law instead of being paranoid that GUBAMENT GON COME AND TAKE MAH GUNS! and promote inane conspiracy theories with no proof behind them.

And I'll sleep better knowing there is at least some vetting and a basic level of competency of the people who pack heat on the street.


But this isn't talking about CCP/CCL holders. This is talking about rifle owners and non-permit holders who are being told to register any firearm that has a capacity over <insert arbitrary capacity determined by legislator in whatever state> that if they do not register a firearm, they are felons.

Completely different situation, hardinparamedic. Many times I agree with you. This time, I do not. Because you are conflating the issue of concealed carry with gun ownership and the two are not mutually inclusive.

While I agree that violent offenders (that is, those who have been convicted of violent crimes), stalkers, people with restraining orders/no contact orders, mentally ill/mentally deficient/mentally incapacitated in any way individuals shouldn't be allowed to own or be in possession of firearms and that those who do possess firearms ought to have at least basic safety and marksmanship, I do agree that history has proven over and over ad nauseum that government-mandated registration does tend to lead to weapons confiscation. And the rallying cry used throughout the 20th century was almost always "think of the children!" and "safety and security!"

Not to be the jackass who Godwins the thread, but talk to a German old enough to remember. Because I have--just this week, in fact. And they are horrified that we are allowing this to happen in this country. And no, they are not registering their guns because they remember all too well what happened the last time they did.
 
2014-02-13 04:33:30 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Personally, I have had neither the want, nor the the need for a CCP. Should that ever change, I most certainly will jump through all necessary hoops to legally obtain said permit.


Same here. There's a lot to dislike about where I live, but they'll never give me any crap about any firearms I wish to own.
 
2014-02-13 04:34:49 AM  

Aigoo: hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: Maybe they used the CCP list, maybe they didn't. We'll never know for sure. However, that doesn't invalidate my points.

- the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past
- any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again

And yes, they will do it again.

And as a CCP holder, I think I'll continue to abide by the law instead of being paranoid that GUBAMENT GON COME AND TAKE MAH GUNS! and promote inane conspiracy theories with no proof behind them.

And I'll sleep better knowing there is at least some vetting and a basic level of competency of the people who pack heat on the street.

But this isn't talking about CCP/CCL holders. This is talking about rifle owners and non-permit holders who are being told to register any firearm that has a capacity over <insert arbitrary capacity determined by legislator in whatever state> that if they do not register a firearm, they are felons.

Completely different situation, hardinparamedic. Many times I agree with you. This time, I do not. Because you are conflating the issue of concealed carry with gun ownership and the two are not mutually inclusive.

While I agree that violent offenders (that is, those who have been convicted of violent crimes), stalkers, people with restraining orders/no contact orders, mentally ill/mentally deficient/mentally incapacitated in any way individuals shouldn't be allowed to own or be in possession of firearms and that those who do possess firearms ought to have at least basic safety and marksmanship, I do agree that history has proven over and over ad nauseum that government-mandated registration does tend to lead to weapons confiscation. And the rallying cry used throughout the 20th century was almost always "think of the children!" and "safety and security!"

Not to be the jackass who Godwins the thread, but talk to a German old enough to remember. Because I have--just this week, in fact. And they are horr ...


Lots of golden paving stones with the words "good intentions" on them. . .
 
2014-02-13 04:35:09 AM  

hardinparamedic: Aigoo: Made so much sense that in an EF5 with no houses standing, our governor threw DHS and their drones the hell out of the STATE. See, we saw what happened in Katrina and passed a little law down here that said "you don't get to claim 'state of emergency' and take our guns." I think there was one case of attempted looting in Moore last May. Notice the word 'attempted'. Because DHS got tossed out within a few hours of arriving and everyone still had their personal firearms. No one got shot to death, but looting? Yeah. Not so much.

Necessary my ass.

That's pretty interesting, considering FEMA can't even step foot inside of your state without the request of the Governor through a request from the State EMA.

So less "threw them out of the state", and more "didn't request help from FEMA in the first place"


FEMA and DHA are not one and the same. Two different agencies. ;)
 
2014-02-13 04:37:01 AM  

Aigoo: Not to be the jackass who Godwins the thread, but talk to a German old enough to remember. Because I have--just this week, in fact. And they are horrified that we are allowing this to happen in this country. And no, they are not registering their guns because they remember all too well what happened the last time they did.


Your argument has one fundamental flaw: Adolf Hitler, whom you are referring to, was instrumental in loosening the totalitarian gun ownership restrictions that were imposed on Germany post Treaty of Versailles. In fact, private gun ownership was highly encouraged for the German citizen, and until fall of 1938, was not restricted except based on age. Even then, it was imposed on the Jewish and Jewish descendants, during the war private gun ownership was highly encouraged, and Hitler's designers even developed Volkweapons for the planned total war that became increasingly on the horizon with the progression of WWII.
 
2014-02-13 04:37:58 AM  

Aigoo: FEMA and DHA are not one and the same. Two different agencies. ;)


FEMA is under the Department of Homeland Security.

www.its.dot.gov
 
2014-02-13 04:40:49 AM  

jso2897: Aigoo: 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.

Her, folks, stripped of all phony "maturity" and fake reasonableness, is the gun fapper argument - if you don't agree with them - you're a great big sissy. You can't really argue with that.
I don't mean to say it's correct - you just can't argue with it.


No, it's more like "roll over and let your rights--all of them--be taken away in the name of "security" all you like. First Amendment? Hey, who cares if reporters get indicted for, well, you know, reporting? Second Amendment? Who needs self-defense? Third? Hey, let the police or whatever agency use your home as a staging ground, no worries! Fourth? Sure, you can frisk me, rifle through my belongings, search my phone, ipod, tablet, hard drives, read my e-mail...no worries! I have nothing to hide!

It's all in the name of National Security, so your Constitutional rights don't matter as long as the Government keeps you safe, right?

Nothing to do with guns. Everything to do with the Constitution. And I'll make the same argument in every NSA thread, every TSA thread, every cop breaking in and tasering/arresting you so they can use your house to stage a raid thread... but nice try there.

Sleep tight with your binky and night light. ;)
 
2014-02-13 04:44:50 AM  

Aigoo: jso2897: Aigoo: 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.

Her, folks, stripped of all phony "maturity" and fake reasonableness, is the gun fapper argument - if you don't agree with them - you're a great big sissy. You can't really argue with that.
I don't mean to say it's correct - you just can't argue with it.

No, it's more like "roll over and let your rights--all of them--be taken away in the name of "security" all you like. First Amendment? Hey, who cares if reporters get indicted for, well, you know, reporting? Second Amendment? Who needs self-defense? Third? Hey, let the police or whatever agency use your home as a staging ground, no worries! Fourth? Sure, you can frisk me, rifle through my belongings, search my phone, ipod, tablet, hard drives, read my e-mail...no worries! I have nothing to hide!

It's all in the name of National Security, so your Constitutional rights don't matter as long as the Government keeps you safe, right?

Nothing to do with guns. Everything to do with the Constitution. And I'll make the same argument in every NSA thread, every TSA thread, every cop breaking in and tasering/arresting you so they can use your house to stage a raid thread... but nice try there.

Sleep tight with your binky and night light. ;)


I wasn't even about to disagree with you about anything - but if I had been - that line of argument really just ......doesn't mean anything. The second amendment is actually important - and deserves better defenders.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-13 04:45:08 AM  

Aigoo: Nothing to do with guns. Everything to do with the Constitution. And I'll make the same argument in every NSA thread, every TSA thread, every cop breaking in and tasering/arresting you so they can use your house to stage a raid thread... but nice try there.


This. That comment you were responding to made me wish Fark had a "Dumb!" button.
 
2014-02-13 04:48:32 AM  

hardinparamedic: Aigoo: FEMA and DHA are not one and the same. Two different agencies. ;)

FEMA is under the Department of Homeland Security.

[www.its.dot.gov image 515x395]


Maybe so, but I stood there and watched DHS get booted. They were bringing drones in to 'provide security' and the governor said "you're not." There's a pretty ironclad agreement about where drones are permitted, and she called in LEOs from neighboring towns to assist the first couple days until more local police could compensate.

But you are right about one thing: despite Obama's promises, FEMA did jack all. They were here, but very few people got help from them. Likely because our governor makes no secret at all about her loathing of the President (which I don't like him either, but she should show a little respect for the office, regardless of her feelings about who holds it, but our governor is functionally retarded 85% of the time).
 
2014-02-13 04:52:26 AM  
So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.
 
2014-02-13 04:56:19 AM  

Boojum2k: Aigoo: Nothing to do with guns. Everything to do with the Constitution. And I'll make the same argument in every NSA thread, every TSA thread, every cop breaking in and tasering/arresting you so they can use your house to stage a raid thread... but nice try there.

This. That comment you were responding to made me wish Fark had a "Dumb!" button.


You guys are the gun grabbers favorite gun fappers - you are their poster children for the attack on gun rights.
Your juvenile, emotional, fake-macho arguments make gun rights advocates look like children. There are times I actually suspect some of you of being false flags - your "arguments" are that counterproductive.
But keep on handing them evidence that gun owners are all idiots - your personal emotional gratification is what's at stake here, I guess.
 
2014-02-13 04:56:56 AM  

jso2897: You guys are the gun grabbers favorite gun fappers


And that is why you are dumb.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:10 AM  

jso2897: Aigoo: jso2897: Aigoo: 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.

Her, folks, stripped of all phony "maturity" and fake reasonableness, is the gun fapper argument - if you don't agree with them - you're a great big sissy. You can't really argue with that.
I don't mean to say it's correct - you just can't argue with it.

No, it's more like "roll over and let your rights--all of them--be taken away in the name of "security" all you like. First Amendment? Hey, who cares if reporters get indicted for, well, you know, reporting? Second Amendment? Who needs self-defense? Third? Hey, let the police or whatever agency use your home as a staging ground, no worries! Fourth? Sure, you can frisk me, rifle through my belongings, search my phone, ipod, tablet, hard drives, read my e-mail...no worries! I have nothing to hide!

It's all in the name of National Security, so your Constitutional rights don't matter as long as the Government keeps you safe, right?

Nothing to do with guns. Everything to do with the Constitution. And I'll make the same argument in every NSA thread, every TSA thread, every cop breaking in and tasering/arresting you so they can use your house to stage a raid thread... but nice try there.

Sleep tight with your binky and night light. ;)

I wasn't even about to disagree with you about anything - but if I had been - that line of argument really just ......doesn't mean anything. The second amendment is actually important - and deserves better defenders.
[i18.photobucket.com image 480x360]


It's more like I am so pissed off at the people like the fist person quoted in that (I think): "oh, just register them, it's good for everyone and you're not a felon that way. Guns are bad, mmmkay?"

Guns are inanimate pieces of metal and plastic. They are neither bad nor good--they have no thoughts, no feelings, and cannot take any action of themselves. They're paperweights.

The people that utilize them... they are a different story.

But attributing thought or emotion to a piece of metal and plastic is like saying that a pen is evil or a phone is dangerous. Sure, a phone is dangerous if you throw it at someone's head and hit them in the eye, but otherwise, it pretty much sits on the table and does nothing until you pick it up.

The binky and nightlight comment wasn't directed at you, personally, it's directed at the... people... like the dude saying "oh, just register them so you're not felons." And "oh, but it was necessary to collect all the guns in New Orleans during Katrina." These are the same kinds of people that think that the TSA is necessary and prevents terrorism and keeps us safe, that the NSA spying is ok because if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be concerned (we've all heard these arguments, and they're nonsensical in my opinion). I'm sorry. I took and take my oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic very seriously. I take the Constitution very seriously. These rights were so important 240 years ago that a bunch of guys who couldn't agree on whether or not to have a strong central government or a weak central government with states having more autonomy were able to agree that these were important enough to be the building blocks of our country. And for the last 20 years, and especially the last 14, we've been pissing them away in the name of letting the government keep us safe. So yeah, I wonder what the holy fark is wrong with people. I won't apologize for that, but I will apologize for being abrasive about it.
 
2014-02-13 05:01:14 AM  

Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


Please try to understand that the people who dominate these discussions do not represent adult, lawful gun owners.
You are listening to the loony outliers, and they speak only for themselves. Most of us comply with the law and work to change it where we disagree with it. And I do not think the Conn. legislation will stand - but in the meantime relax - the grownup 98% of us are not going to go all Randy Weaver on you - please don't listen to these idiots.
 
2014-02-13 05:01:36 AM  

Aigoo: FEMA did jack all.


Under the NIMS framework, FEMA can't do ANYTHING without the go-ahead of the local incident command authority on site - their philosophy is literally we're here to help the locals when they ask for it, and the incident is best managed at the local level unless it's an incident of national significance.

You might quite literally be correct in that the Governor blocked them after requesting them in the first place (literally, until requested by the GOvernor his/herself, the only FEMA that can step foot in the state is an advanced disaster assessment team who's job is to provide intel to other responders, and has no authority.)

Aigoo: Maybe so, but I stood there and watched DHS get booted. They were bringing drones in to 'provide security' and the governor said "you're not." There's a pretty ironclad agreement about where drones are permitted, and she called in LEOs from neighboring towns to assist the first couple days until more local police could compensate.


FEMA has started using the drones for SAR operations in large disaster areas. Their high loiter times and advanced, real time visual signatures make them perfect for locating victims over large areas. To be quite honest, it won't be too long down the road until USAR teams are using AR-Parrot style drones equipped with thermal and infrared sensors to augment their searches.

/FEMA Disaster Contractor employee.
 
2014-02-13 05:05:04 AM  

jso2897: Most of us comply with the law and work to change it where we disagree with it. And I do not think the Conn. legislation will stand


Now you've swung from dumb to smart. But really, you come in and start ranting about "gun-fappers" particularly when I just researched and looked up a point about court decisions to thoroughly shoot down one incorrect post, and then apparently lump everyone in favor of gun rights into it, you're going to be called dumb. At least.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:42 AM  

jso2897: Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.

Please try to understand that the people who dominate these discussions do not represent adult, lawful gun owners.
You are listening to the loony outliers, and they speak only for themselves. Most of us comply with the law and work to change it where we disagree with it. And I do not think the Conn. legislation will stand - but in the meantime relax - the grownup 98% of us are not going to go all Randy Weaver on you - please don't listen to these idiots.


I understand and respect your POV, and I agree that it more than likely will get shot down in the courts, but until then...
 
2014-02-13 05:08:29 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.


Question: What is mentally ill? Is the person who thinks bowls should be stacked a certain way mentally ill? How about the person who simply can't sleep at night?

Do I think that some mentally ill people need a gun? No. All? Not so much.
 
2014-02-13 05:09:21 AM  

Piizzadude: I agree that it more than likely will get shot down in the courts, but until then...


Maybe they can convince this guy to retire and take his anti-constitution bullshiat home:

Late last month United States District Judge Alfred Covello issued a 47-page ruling calling Gov. Malloy's legislation constitutional, even though it imposed some restrictions on firearm owners.
"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control," Covello ruled

You could fertilize the Sahara with that much bullshiat.
 
2014-02-13 05:09:48 AM  

Aigoo: A whole bunch of stuff I've heard before six million times and agree with 97% of.



Yes. I know all that - I don't need to hear any of it for the 800 th time.
This attitude of superior wisdom won't win you any friends either - it's not much more helpful than the "You're a sissy!" argument. Try approaching people as if they were other adults who you respect, and addressing their concerns. Most gun legislation is illogical and badly conceived - and with patience and respect, most reasonable people can be gotten to see it. That's why we have been winning this debate, up until recently, anyway.
But the adamant preaching, the insults, and in worst case scenarios, thinly veiled threats (you don't do this, that I have seen) - none of that stuff helps - not one little bit.

And yes, Boojum - I am dumb - you win.

 Idiots. Goodbye.
 
2014-02-13 05:10:30 AM  

hardinparamedic: Aigoo: FEMA did jack all.

Under the NIMS framework, FEMA can't do ANYTHING without the go-ahead of the local incident command authority on site - their philosophy is literally we're here to help the locals when they ask for it, and the incident is best managed at the local level unless it's an incident of national significance.

You might quite literally be correct in that the Governor blocked them after requesting them in the first place (literally, until requested by the GOvernor his/herself, the only FEMA that can step foot in the state is an advanced disaster assessment team who's job is to provide intel to other responders, and has no authority.)

Aigoo: Maybe so, but I stood there and watched DHS get booted. They were bringing drones in to 'provide security' and the governor said "you're not." There's a pretty ironclad agreement about where drones are permitted, and she called in LEOs from neighboring towns to assist the first couple days until more local police could compensate.

FEMA has started using the drones for SAR operations in large disaster areas. Their high loiter times and advanced, real time visual signatures make them perfect for locating victims over large areas. To be quite honest, it won't be too long down the road until USAR teams are using AR-Parrot style drones equipped with thermal and infrared sensors to augment their searches.

/FEMA Disaster Contractor employee.


LOL... yeeeaaaah.... this is Oklahoma. Perhaps you've heard of this state? Oklahoma City isn't terribad, but this place is so red we make Texas look like a blue state. And our governor is as functionally retarded as Rick Perry. (Dear God, somebody find us a governor with a functional brain cell... please?)

But for what it's worth, given the President's track record with drones, I don't give a damn what they're used for, I do not trust our government with drones on US soil for any reason whatsoever. So I support that call and would support it again. I'll personally go house to house before I'll trust a drone in Oklahoma skies. Talk about a guy who shouldn't have access to weapons. Jesus!
 
2014-02-13 05:12:13 AM  

jso2897: Most gun legislation is illogical and badly conceived


Best answer to that I've seen in a while:
http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=ixhsuB6xMR8
 
2014-02-13 05:13:12 AM  

hardinparamedic: FEMA has started using the drones for SAR operations in large disaster areas. Their high loiter times and advanced, real time visual signatures make them perfect for locating victims over large areas. To be quite honest, it won't be too long down the road until USAR teams are using AR-Parrot style drones equipped with thermal and infrared sensors to augment their searches./FEMA Disaster Contractor employee.


I'm good with drones being used for SAR and similar missions.
 
2014-02-13 05:13:40 AM  

Boojum2k: Piizzadude: I agree that it more than likely will get shot down in the courts, but until then...

Maybe they can convince this guy to retire and take his anti-constitution bullshiat home:

Late last month United States District Judge Alfred Covello issued a 47-page ruling calling Gov. Malloy's legislation constitutional, even though it imposed some restrictions on firearm owners.
"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control," Covello ruled

You could fertilize the Sahara with that much bullshiat.


He isn't the last word, and so what if your 2nd amendment rights are "burdened", you are not losing them and your constitutional right to own a gun is still there. It is as black and white as speeding. Follow the law or get caught and pay the penalty.

Just register the gun and show how law abiding gun owners are
 
2014-02-13 05:16:32 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.


Mild depression? That's a mental illness, you may not have a gun.
Grandpa is living with you and has Alzheimers Disease? He has access to your guns, you may not have a gun.
Attention deficit disorder is also a "mental illness." Are you saying I shouldn't be able to have a gun? By the way, I served four years in the US Army. If I'm trusted with an M203 grenade launcher, I think I can be trusted with a 9mm.
 
2014-02-13 05:17:43 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?


Or my favorite proposal, the children and relatives of politicians are to be the first to be drafted.
 
2014-02-13 05:17:45 AM  

hardinparamedic: And it's just as likely that they used the Project Stargate psychics from the CIA to determine who had a gun and where to go to confiscate. My theory has just as much evidence as yours. The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.

If your suggestion is that they used the State CCP list to confiscate "guns", the overwhelming majority of which were not hand guns but long arms and shotguns, I'm going to need a little more than your pokey conspiracy theory to believe you.


In PA, they record every individual that purchases a gun and has to submit to a background check. Technically, they don't keep a list of gun owners, they simply keep track of everyone tries to legally purchase one. It would not surprise me if LA did the same thing.
 
2014-02-13 05:20:15 AM  

Piizzadude: so what if your 2nd amendment rights are "burdened", you are not losing them


They are, in fact, being infringed at that point.
 
2014-02-13 05:21:21 AM  

jso2897: Aigoo: A whole bunch of stuff I've heard before six million times and agree with 97% of.


Yes. I know all that - I don't need to hear any of it for the 800 th time.
This attitude of superior wisdom won't win you any friends either - it's not much more helpful than the "You're a sissy!" argument. Try approaching people as if they were other adults who you respect, and addressing their concerns. Most gun legislation is illogical and badly conceived - and with patience and respect, most reasonable people can be gotten to see it. That's why we have been winning this debate, up until recently, anyway.
But the adamant preaching, the insults, and in worst case scenarios, thinly veiled threats (you don't do this, that I have seen) - none of that stuff helps - not one little bit.

And yes, Boojum - I am dumb - you win.

 Idiots. Goodbye.


Don't act like a farking idiot and you don't have to be insulted. But when you come in here (as about 85% of Farkers tend to do on this topic) and call everyone  gun fappers without considering that even the most calm, rational discussions have seen people insulted and called gun lunatics, gun fappers and other assorted and much worse insults and you perpetuate that, what in the hell do you expect? It's Fark. I'm used to it. I just come out swinging now and then calm down if there's anyone reasonable about.

And hey--you are in fact deliberately being a dick (or you're drunk--in which case, you're forgiven because hey, it's Fark, and that's a normal state of being), because you couldn't be bothered to note the fact that I did apologize for being abrasive. So... quit being a butthurt self righteous douche.
 
2014-02-13 05:23:12 AM  

Boojum2k: Piizzadude: so what if your 2nd amendment rights are "burdened", you are not losing them

They are, in fact, being infringed at that point.


It does not say that the second amendment cannot come with terms and conditions, and if you say it does then everyone gets one. The nuts, the felons everyone.
 
2014-02-13 05:26:09 AM  

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??!?
 
2014-02-13 05:26:59 AM  

jso2897: Idiots. Goodbye.


You sure do fall back on name calling quite often, don't you?
 
2014-02-13 05:28:36 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 05:29:33 AM  

Piizzadude: It does not say that the second amendment cannot come with terms and conditions


And yet, as seen in the past, and now with California and New York (that story seems more credible given the lack of any rebuttal), government officials are pretty complacent about stepping across that fine line directly into infringement.

Therefore, the line must drawn further back to remove that opportunity from them.
 
2014-02-13 05:29:55 AM  

fusillade762: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

How did the police know where the guns were?


They went around door to door and asked. And since most people weren't doing anything wrong, they saw no reason to withhold the fact that they had firearms in their homes.
 
2014-02-13 05:31:33 AM  

kellyclan: fusillade762: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

How did the police know where the guns were?

They went around door to door and asked. And since most people weren't doing anything wrong, they saw no reason to withhold the fact that they had firearms in their homes.


And if they objected, they were beaten and hospitalized.
 
2014-02-13 05:32:05 AM  

Aigoo: And hey--you are in fact deliberately being a dick (or you're drunk--in which case, you're forgiven because hey, it's Fark, and that's a normal state of being), because you couldn't be bothered to note the fact that I did apologize for being abrasive. So... quit being a butthurt self righteous douche.


You can pretty much ignore anything jso says. S/he actually called me "a pussy little white boy from shiatville Texas" one time for some reason.
 
2014-02-13 05:32:45 AM  

Boojum2k: Piizzadude: It does not say that the second amendment cannot come with terms and conditions

And yet, as seen in the past, and now with California and New York (that story seems more credible given the lack of any rebuttal), government officials are pretty complacent about stepping across that fine line directly into infringement.

Therefore, the line must drawn further back to remove that opportunity from them.


All the way up to taking them from you, there is nothing wrong. When they say no one can have a gun anymore, I will be right there with you.

Registering, reasonable background checks, any type of safety (as long as it is easily released by the registered owner) are all ok. Advisable even.
 
2014-02-13 05:33:32 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.


Way to twist around words.  Go have some coffee and come back when your reading comprehension improves.
 
2014-02-13 05:35:27 AM  

Aigoo: But for what it's worth, given the President's track record with drones, I don't give a damn what they're used for, I do not trust our government with drones on US soil for any reason whatsoever. So I support that call and would support it again. I'll personally go house to house before I'll trust a drone in Oklahoma skies. Talk about a guy who shouldn't have access to weapons. Jesus!


You do realize that the Civilian GlobalHawk models currently used by civilian letter agencies are completely incapable of carrying any kind of munitions,right?
 
2014-02-13 05:35:34 AM  

Piizzadude: All the way up to taking them from you, there is nothing wrong. When they say no one can have a gun anymore, I will be right there with you.


You're heading to New York to protest, I take it?
 
2014-02-13 05:36:02 AM  

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


Actually, they were taking people's guns. That comment you responded to was talking about the cops and National Guard illegally confiscating firearms in New Orleans during/after Katrina.
 
2014-02-13 05:37:11 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Actually, they were taking people's guns.


Don't worry, Piizzadude will be right there with you. Weather and schedule permitting, of course, and not if there's anything better to do.
 
2014-02-13 05:37:33 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Aigoo: And hey--you are in fact deliberately being a dick (or you're drunk--in which case, you're forgiven because hey, it's Fark, and that's a normal state of being), because you couldn't be bothered to note the fact that I did apologize for being abrasive. So... quit being a butthurt self righteous douche.

You can pretty much ignore anything jso says. S/he actually called me "a pussy little white boy from shiatville Texas" one time for some reason.


Really? Well, that was a shiatty thing to say, and I apologize, and withdraw the remark.
At any rate - you guys win - I'll never attempt to advocate gun rights from my stuffy, academice perspective here again - I abandon the debate to those of you who believe it is best argued by impugning the other side's physical courage.
Good luck with that.
We're all counting on you.
 
2014-02-13 05:37:35 AM  

Boojum2k: And if they objected, they were beaten and hospitalized.


You know, I'm not defending the door to door searches and confiscations, but there is a good reason why weapons and firearms aren't allowed in shelters, right?

The later I have no problem with Law Enforcement securing, as long as they are given back to those people after the situation has ended. I've worked disaster housing shelters before. The emotion and anger in a lot of those people is not a place where you want firearms around.
 
2014-02-13 05:38:38 AM  

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

Actually, they were taking people's guns. That comment you responded to was talking about the cops and National Guard illegally confiscating firearms in New Orleans during/after Katrina.


My bad, i missed that part of the conversation, carry on then. I thought it wrong then, think it wrong now. I understand it, but it is still wrong.

Boojum2k: Piizzadude: All the way up to taking them from you, there is nothing wrong. When they say no one can have a gun anymore, I will be right there with you.

You're heading to New York to protest, I take it?


New York will go the way of the soda ban
 
2014-02-13 05:39:35 AM  

hardinparamedic: You know, I'm not defending the door to door searches and confiscations, but there is a good reason why weapons and firearms aren't allowed in shelters, right?


That's fine, I do agree with that, although they should have taken much better care in returning those firearms to the rightful owners. It's the rest of the behavior that was obscene.
 
2014-02-13 05:40:18 AM  

Boojum2k: That's fine, I do agree with that, although they should have taken much better care in returning those firearms to the rightful owners. It's the rest of the behavior that was obscene.


Not disagreeing with you.
 
2014-02-13 05:40:26 AM  

Boojum2k: Pokey.Clyde: Actually, they were taking people's guns.

Don't worry, Piizzadude will be right there with you. Weather and schedule permitting, of course, and not if there's anything better to do.


Sorry I was wrong, I support the NY ban.

The 2nd also does not say what kind of gun, nor how many bullets. Assault weapons and anything over 6 bullets is too much
 
2014-02-13 05:43:18 AM  

Piizzadude: New York will go the way of the soda ban


And meanwhile, they're confiscating guns using a registry. They've proven that an American government cannot be trusted with that information.

In the 80's, when some assholes were calling for HIV-positive people to be rounded up for public safety, would you have started fighting the idea at registering them or when they were being trucked off?

When the government demonstrates it cannot be trusted in a particular area, it must have more restrictions on it for that area.
 
2014-02-13 05:44:23 AM  

Piizzadude: The 2nd also does not say what kind of gun, nor how many bullets.


The 1st says nothing about TV, radio, or the internet. The 4th says nothing about phone records, internet logs, or video data.
 
2014-02-13 05:44:29 AM  

Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.



It actually says exactly what terms and conditions. It says you can have arms that you can bear; handheld infantry weapons.

And everyone is law abiding. A few hacks with an agenda ignored the constituents and changed the rules.

Thought exercise: What would be some reasonable restrictions on your 1st Amendment rights?
 
2014-02-13 05:46:50 AM  

Boojum2k: Piizzadude: New York will go the way of the soda ban

And meanwhile, they're confiscating guns using a registry. They've proven that an American government cannot be trusted with that information.

In the 80's, when some assholes were calling for HIV-positive people to be rounded up for public safety, would you have started fighting the idea at registering them or when they were being trucked off?

When the government demonstrates it cannot be trusted in a particular area, it must have more restrictions on it for that area.


They are not confiscating in this instance. They want registration. I am ok with that.

The asshole in the 80s was a different amendment. We kinda learned that from the whole Japanese fiasco/stupidity.
 
2014-02-13 05:48:41 AM  

Piizzadude: They are not confiscating in this instance. They want registration. I am ok with that.


No, they're just populated by the same sort that live around the corner in NYC who are.

No, it's not okay.
 
2014-02-13 05:50:05 AM  

Boojum2k: Piizzadude: The 2nd also does not say what kind of gun, nor how many bullets.

The 1st says nothing about TV, radio, or the internet. The 4th says nothing about phone records, internet logs, or video data.


There are restrictions on tje 1st, which i disagree with. And as far as the the 4th, the constitution is a living document.

The 2nd also does not say anything about guns that can shoot 100/second
 
2014-02-13 05:50:54 AM  

Piizzadude: Assault weapons and anything over 6 bullets is too much


Considering that politicians often classify something an "assault weapon" simply on cosmetic features, no they are not.

And saying anything with a capacity over 6 rounds is too much makes no sense, either. I could do a hell of a lot more damage with a 5 round Taurus Judge revolver (fires .45LC or .410 shotgun shells) than I could ever do with my .22 rifle that I've had since I was a child (it holds 14 rounds).
 
2014-02-13 05:51:06 AM  

kellyclan: Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


It actually says exactly what terms and conditions. It says you can have arms that you can bear; handheld infantry weapons.

And everyone is law abiding. A few hacks with an agenda ignored the constituents and changed the rules.

Thought exercise: What would be some reasonable restrictions on your 1st Amendment rights?


Can you yell fire in a crowded theater or is that illegal?
 
2014-02-13 05:54:31 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Piizzadude: Assault weapons and anything over 6 bullets is too much

Considering that politicians often classify something an "assault weapon" simply on cosmetic features, no they are not.

And saying anything with a capacity over 6 rounds is too much makes no sense, either. I could do a hell of a lot more damage with a 5 round Taurus Judge revolver (fires .45LC or .410 shotgun shells) than I could ever do with my .22 rifle that I've had since I was a child (it holds 14 rounds).


I am not a gun enthusiast so I do not have an answer, nor do I know all the types of guns. I do agree that some guns get villianized unjustly as something else (see dog, pitbull for example).

This is up to our elected officials, and for the two sides to come to something reasonable.

The basics for me are simple, you have the right to have the gun without a doubt. There are laws that you must follow to have that right.  If you do not like the law, change it. Up until then, follow it.
 
2014-02-13 06:00:51 AM  

Piizzadude: And as far as the the 4th, the constitution is a living document.The 2nd also does not say anything about guns that can shoot 100/second


Did you keep a straight face while talking out of both sides?

Piizzadude: I am not a gun enthusiast so I do not have an answer, nor do I know all the types of guns.


Argument from ignorance. Niiice, don't often see that one so openly stated.

Piizzadude: you have the right to have the gun without a doubt. There are laws that you must follow to have that right.


There are rights which say the government cannot pass certain laws.

Piizzadude: If you do not like the law, change it. Up until then, follow it.


No one is obliged to follow an unjust law.
 
2014-02-13 06:01:27 AM  

Boojum2k: No one is obliged to follow an unjust law.


*obligated
 
2014-02-13 06:03:12 AM  
I'm shocked so many did register.
 
2014-02-13 06:06:27 AM  
Boojum2k:

1st - wtf?

2nd - I am ignorant to the types and capabilities, it does not diminish my stance or opinion.

3rd - Yes you cannot pass a law to take away gun entirely, that would be a great example of the right trumping law, but there is nothing to restrict said right.

4th - Yes, it is called being a felon. I think that killing a cheating wife is just and to charge me with manslaughter for it is unjust. How far will that fly?


Follow the laws or become a felon. If your a felon you lose some of your rights. It is that simple.
 
2014-02-13 06:07:30 AM  

violentsalvation: These are not the people law enforcement should be targeting.


Yet...
 
2014-02-13 06:12:02 AM  

Piizzadude: It is that simple.


Someone would like to have some words with you.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so" - Thomas Jefferson.
 
2014-02-13 06:12:02 AM  

Piizzadude: 3rd - Yes you cannot pass a law to take away gun entirely, that would be a great example of the right trumping law, but there is nothing to restrict said right.


The test for a reasonable restriction on the second Amendment is that it cannot foster confiscation or blanket bans, and that it cannot prevent firearms which are commonplace from being owned and used in a lawful manner.

A law which restricts firearms discharges in a city limits to ranges, private property, and clubs would be legal, but a ban on handgun ownership in that city would be unconstitutional.
It's why the NFA is constitutional (severe restrictions on "destructive devices" and true automatic weaponry), while blanket bans are not legal or constitutional.
 
2014-02-13 06:12:48 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.  Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.


8/10, that's going to get some nibbles.
 
2014-02-13 06:18:05 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.  Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.


"Emergency measures" -- funny how that term can be used, should it become convenient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_law_in_Egypt
 
2014-02-13 06:24:35 AM  

Piizzadude: I am not a gun enthusiast so I do not have an answer, nor do I know all the types of guns. I do agree that some guns get villianized unjustly as something else (see dog, pitbull for example).


Well, just for reference

img.fark.net
The one on the left is a .22LR. The one on the right is a .45 Colt.

This is one reason why capacity restrictions make no sense. Unless you shoot someone point-blank with a .22, you're not likely to kill them. Shoot them with a .45 and you'll almost always stop someone with one shot, if not outright kill them. Yet, with some sort capacity law, my rifle that fires .22s would be illegal, but a 5 or 6 round revolver that fires .45 Colt would not be.

Another reason it makes no sense is how quickly you can change a magazine/reload a revolver with a speed loader with a little practice. Just get on youtube sometime and you can find plenty of examples that prove that point.
 
2014-02-13 06:27:15 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: 8/10, that's going to get some nibbles.


No, I can assure you they're completely serious.
 
2014-02-13 06:27:44 AM  
What's it like, to be such a terrible coward you can't exist without guns? Glad I don't live my life quaking in my boots.
 
2014-02-13 06:29:48 AM  

Boojum2k: Piizzadude: It is that simple.

Someone would like to have some words with you.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so" - Thomas Jefferson.


So tj is OK with my example then?

If society as a whole says that law is just, then you must comply with it or face the consequences.

Majority Rules
 
2014-02-13 06:31:42 AM  

hardinparamedic: Piizzadude: 3rd - Yes you cannot pass a law to take away gun entirely, that would be a great example of the right trumping law, but there is nothing to restrict said right.

The test for a reasonable restriction on the second Amendment is that it cannot foster confiscation or blanket bans, and that it cannot prevent firearms which are commonplace from being owned and used in a lawful manner.

A law which restricts firearms discharges in a city limits to ranges, private property, and clubs would be legal, but a ban on handgun ownership in that city would be unconstitutional.
It's why the NFA is constitutional (severe restrictions on "destructive devices" and true automatic weaponry), while blanket bans are not legal or constitutional.


I am not seeing where it is saying that there is a ban on handguns in Connecticut.
 
2014-02-13 06:31:49 AM  

KeatingFive: Glad I don't live my life quaking in my boots.


Thanks for self-identifying as a troll! Buhbye!
 
2014-02-13 06:32:53 AM  
Lock them up.
 
2014-02-13 06:33:34 AM  

KeatingFive: What's it like, to be such a terrible coward you can't exist without guns?


Meh, it'd be a lot like surrendering any other of your Constitutional rights.  After all, very few of them come in handy on a day-to-day basis for any given person.  I don't really need the right to protest or publish controversial material to go to work, eat dinner, and watch TV.  ...and the right to be secure against unwarranted search & seizure is only really useful if you've got something to hide.
 
2014-02-13 06:34:19 AM  

Piizzadude: So tj is OK with my example then?


I think we're okay with you voluntarily not owning a firearm. I'm a little sketchy about you being able to vote, since you do not understand history, law, or firearms, yet feel free to make pronouncements on all.
 
2014-02-13 06:34:51 AM  
Oh yes, mandatory criminals , the best kind of criminal for law enforcement and local District Attorney , you can expect some of these individuals starting to feel a thrill run up there leg in looking forward to escalate this along with increasing there agenda  and evuantually fill and even create more prisons  !
 
2014-02-13 06:39:25 AM  
Well, given that there are already ~2.3 million people in prison in the US, what's a few 10,000's of new felons?  The way things are going, the whole population will be felons eventually.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-13 06:44:06 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be repeal the stupid pants wetter driven law. 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.

 
2014-02-13 06:45:16 AM  

Piizzadude: If society as a whole says that law is just, then you must comply with it or face the consequences.


Ladies and Gentleman, what we have here is a man who would not only turn an escaped slave back over to his master, he'd do it proudly! For he is no criminal, and the law is the law. Why, up to the 1970's, he be exposing gay men and women to the police for their crimes, for he is no criminal and the law is the law.
 
2014-02-13 06:46:36 AM  

Piizzadude: Boojum2k: Piizzadude: It is that simple.

Someone would like to have some words with you.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so" - Thomas Jefferson.

So tj is OK with my example then?

If society as a whole says that law is just, then you must comply with it or face the consequences.

Majority Rules


0_o

Uh, no. Not really. What was the last grade of school you completed? Seventh?
 
2014-02-13 06:49:40 AM  
This is a good thing, with drugs being decriminalized we really need to fill those empty cells in prisons with some other fabricated criminal du jour
 
2014-02-13 06:50:18 AM  

Piizzadude: Boojum2k: Piizzadude: It is that simple.

Someone would like to have some words with you.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so" - Thomas Jefferson.

So tj is OK with my example then?

If society as a whole says that law is just, then you must comply with it or face the consequences.

Majority Rules


Society as a whole has said no such thing. And you must hate it that the pesky Constitution gets in the way of your ideas that (as you admit) are conceived with complete ignorance of firearms.
 
2014-02-13 06:50:58 AM  
For those of you not in the know, this law has already gone to court. The judge found that the law was unconstitutional, but refused to rule on it. It seems to me that the judge wants this to go to the state Supreme Court or, less likely, to the SCOTUS.

\CT Farker
\\Registered my magazines
 
2014-02-13 06:52:02 AM  

Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


So you agree Rosa Parks should've done hard jail time?
 
2014-02-13 06:52:48 AM  
As a CT resident, and someone who enjoys shooting(though I own none of my own), let me be clear on a few things.


1) This law is farking stupid. We're one of the largest gun manufacturing states, and it's doing terrible things for that business. On top of that, we're big on hunting and sport shooting. Doing terrible things for those, as well.

BUT

2)you had MONTHS to get this done. It's been in every paper, news station, radio station, etc. The only excuse you have for NOT doing it is pure diseguity.  And while i commend most people for standing by their principles, you have done nothing but make yourself a felon. If you wanted to make a real change, you would have registered your guns and magazines, and flooded your reps at the same time, daily, with letters, emails, and phone calls about how much you think this law is  bullshiat. No one is coming for your guns. If you already had them, you had the chance to register them and have them grandfathered. Instead, you made the choice to not do so.

/the law is nothing more than a kneejerk, feel good, bullshiat reaction that effects legal, law abiding gun owners and not the folks like Lanza that could have given two shiats and a fark about the laws.
//it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.
 
2014-02-13 06:55:33 AM  

smoky2010: For those of you not in the know, this law has already gone to court. The judge found that the law was unconstitutional, but refused to rule on it. It seems to me that the judge wants this to go to the state Supreme Court or, less likely, to the SCOTUS.

\CT Farker
\\Registered my magazines


I was rather surprised he said what he said in the ruling.  I tend to agree with you assesment...
I mean, when a judge rules that what he is restricting is a "Firearm in common use for lawful purposes", even though that is exactly what was protected in the Heller decision, you have to kind of wonder.
 
2014-02-13 06:58:00 AM  

BlackCat23: //it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.


They can tell you the difference!  The evil one always has the goatee.
/I hope that law gets slapped down ferociously.  Malloy is a dick.
 
2014-02-13 06:58:01 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Piizzadude: I am not a gun enthusiast so I do not have an answer, nor do I know all the types of guns. I do agree that some guns get villianized unjustly as something else (see dog, pitbull for example).

Well, just for reference


The one on the left is a .22LR. The one on the right is a .45 Colt.

This is one reason why capacity restrictions make no sense. Unless you shoot someone point-blank with a .22, you're not likely to kill them. Shoot them with a .45 and you'll almost always stop someone with one shot, if not outright kill them. Yet, with some sort capacity law, my rifle that fires .22s would be illegal, but a 5 or 6 round revolver that fires .45 Colt would not be.

Another reason it makes no sense is how quickly you can change a magazine/reload a revolver with a speed loader with a little practice. Just get on youtube sometime and you can find plenty of examples that prove that point.


Thats the crazy thing about this law, I had to register some magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Yet, my .22 rifle that holds 18 rounds is perfectly legal.
 
2014-02-13 07:03:26 AM  

Farkage: BlackCat23: //it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.

They can tell you the difference!  The evil one always has the goatee.
/I hope that law gets slapped down ferociously.  Malloy is a dick.


It's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.
 
2014-02-13 07:03:42 AM  

smoky2010: Pokey.Clyde: Piizzadude: I am not a gun enthusiast so I do not have an answer, nor do I know all the types of guns. I do agree that some guns get villianized unjustly as something else (see dog, pitbull for example).

Well, just for reference


The one on the left is a .22LR. The one on the right is a .45 Colt.

This is one reason why capacity restrictions make no sense. Unless you shoot someone point-blank with a .22, you're not likely to kill them. Shoot them with a .45 and you'll almost always stop someone with one shot, if not outright kill them. Yet, with some sort capacity law, my rifle that fires .22s would be illegal, but a 5 or 6 round revolver that fires .45 Colt would not be.

Another reason it makes no sense is how quickly you can change a magazine/reload a revolver with a speed loader with a little practice. Just get on youtube sometime and you can find plenty of examples that prove that point.

Thats the crazy thing about this law, I had to register some magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Yet, my .22 rifle that holds 18 rounds is perfectly legal.


Would make more sense to go by muzzle energy per round (in joules/round) times maximum rate of sustained fire over a minute, including reloading (in rounds/second).

The product would have units of power, (joules/second = watts) and, I'd assume, be rationally-correlated with overall 'badness'.
 
2014-02-13 07:05:37 AM  

Piizzadude: kellyclan: Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


It actually says exactly what terms and conditions. It says you can have arms that you can bear; handheld infantry weapons.

And everyone is law abiding. A few hacks with an agenda ignored the constituents and changed the rules.

Thought exercise: What would be some reasonable restrictions on your 1st Amendment rights?

Can you yell fire in a crowded theater or is that illegal?


Can you shoot a random person in the face unprovoked?
 
2014-02-13 07:09:42 AM  

Doom MD: Piizzadude: kellyclan: Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


It actually says exactly what terms and conditions. It says you can have arms that you can bear; handheld infantry weapons.

And everyone is law abiding. A few hacks with an agenda ignored the constituents and changed the rules.

Thought exercise: What would be some reasonable restrictions on your 1st Amendment rights?

Can you yell fire in a crowded theater or is that illegal?

Can you shoot a random person in the face unprovoked?


And the round is awarded to Doom MD
 
2014-02-13 07:09:49 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.


Remember when the only way to collect phone records was with a person-specific warrant.

Remember how enhanced security measures on airplanes were a temporary measure in the wake of 9/11?

Do you know what a slippery slope is?

I used to be ambivalent about guns. These threads and people like you have made me pro-gun. I suspect I'm not the only one.
 
2014-02-13 07:15:42 AM  

Piizzadude: He isn't the last word, and so what if your 2nd amendment rights are "burdened", you are not losing them and your constitutional right to own a gun is still there. It is as black and white as speeding. Follow the law or get caught and pay the penalty.

Just register the gun and show how law abiding gun owners are


That is a wonderful argument. I've been issued speeding citations first for 'driving while teenager', 'driving a hot-rod', 'driving a sports car' (In one rare moment of honesty I was told - if you drive a car that looks like that you must have been speeding sometime even if you weren't right now), and 'driving near an officer who needs to make quota'. The last time I had a dash cam (LOVE THEM), showing I was driving 38 in a 40 (speedo said 40 - it reads a bit fast) when he said I was doing 51. The judges won't sustain a ticket less than 10 over unless they don't like you, so they're all for 10 over or more by some mysterious magic. So, in conclusion, fark you and fark your 'follow the law and you won't pay the pentaly'. Fark you to hell.

It does not say that the second amendment cannot come with terms and conditions, and if you say it does then everyone gets one. The nuts, the felons everyone.


You must be a citizen, and you must not be a felon - and that mean a felon as the founders defined it. (i.e. pot possession isn't sufficient to strip your rights)
There is no other restriction. Specifically, the framers said and meant for there to be none. It does say it can't come with restrictions. It says exactly that.

The founders were classically educated. The knew what happened to democracy in Athens, and how it was lost.
(to use Athens) They knew that 'the 400' eventually sent men to murder any who spoke for preserving democracy, while claiming submitting to their tyranny was the only way to prevent calamity - the real possibility that Spartans would murder all males. (the 411 BC tyranny) In fact 'the 400' had been conspiring with Sparta to undermine Athens' democracy for the purpose of installing themselves as tyrants, as did 'the 30' later.
The broad strokes and little building block events have been repeated in different combinations many times in recorded history, with tragic, bloody, terrible consequences.
The framers knew that horrible history. They knew no bit of paper stops terrible or selfish men, nor the stupid toadies that help enable them and that all countries have sociopath men like this. The 1st and 2nd amendment rights to speak and be effectively armed are crucial checks on those folks, especially if they're in the government. To keep using Athens - Judges and government officials were part of the conspiracy. There are no exceptions to make it harder for those folks to subjugate citizens. The framers meant the 2nd to mean the same weapons the government might turn on the citizens - i.e. military weapons. They said so, we have their words as they debated how to write the Constitution. Private ownership wasn't restricted until the 20th century.

 
2014-02-13 07:15:56 AM  

smoky2010: Farkage: BlackCat23: //it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.

They can tell you the difference!  The evil one always has the goatee.
/I hope that law gets slapped down ferociously.  Malloy is a dick.

It's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.


I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.
 
2014-02-13 07:18:02 AM  

smoky2010: t's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.


Murphy? Likely not. Bluementhol? His follwing is very loyal. And like you, I became disenfranchised with him when he became a senator. He did great things for the state as AG, but then went full derp once Mr Smith Mr Mr Blumenthol went to Washington.

 There's nothing about this bullshiat that isn't kneejerk. And they're completely blind to that fact because some people(who, granted, went through unimaginable tragedy)screamed very loud about it. They are not indicative of the million+ gun owners in the state. On top of this delicious bit of irony, the town of Newington had something like a 300% rise in permit requests since the shooting. It's depressing, all around.

/and for the record. I'm the libbiest lib that has ever libbed. Well, in  Litchfield County, anyway
//but I take our constitutional rights very seriously. That's part of being an actual liberal. Without constitutional amendment, there should be no changes like this. I was against the brady bills, as well. Just as I'm against any first amendment changes, privacy laws, etc.
 
2014-02-13 07:21:17 AM  

Farkage: smoky2010: Farkage: BlackCat23: //it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.

They can tell you the difference!  The evil one always has the goatee.
/I hope that law gets slapped down ferociously.  Malloy is a dick.

It's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.

I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.


I did the same thing, I sent a well reasoned email to his office and received a 2 page form letter back. He is a dick.
 
2014-02-13 07:21:35 AM  

jso2897: Aigoo: 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.

Her, folks, stripped of all phony "maturity" and fake reasonableness, is the gun fapper argument - if you don't agree with them - you're a great big sissy. You can't really argue with that.
I don't mean to say it's correct - you just can't argue with it.


That's an interesting argument from someone who claimed the GOP made the movie that supposedly incited Benghazi.
 
2014-02-13 07:23:24 AM  

Farkage: I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.


This was essentially the same response my friend got when he did the same. He also pointed out that Blumenthol would never have allowed this to happen while he was AG, since the state relies so heavily on firearms manufacturing, and his job as AG would have been to keep those jobs in balance with safty. He got the same brush-off. The issue is, most people in the state would gladly re-elect him. He's a staple of CT politics, and such a well known name for the good he once did that this will hardly put a tarnish spot on his political silver spoon.


/Malloy? He's got very little chance of surviving this. CT is a very diverse state, politically. And you're going to see a lot more people vote red outside of litchfield county(the local hive of scum and villainy known as the teaparty)just to oust him over this. It's going to be a huge farking talking point come the election.
 
2014-02-13 07:24:00 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.


You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself
 
2014-02-13 07:24:17 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.


So, in your mind, someone diagnosed with depression shouldn't be allowed to have firearms?  My wife is an Army officer.  After her first trip to Iraq, she went to mental health, was diagnosed with mild depression, and prescribed Lexapro.  She has had her security clearances renewed, and redeployed a couple of times, where she had a weapon on her at all times.  But in your mind, we shouldn't be allowed to have a .22 in our house, because... Why?
 
2014-02-13 07:27:27 AM  
Good luck with that.
 
2014-02-13 07:27:38 AM  

Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


I hate when people quote this line, but there is a connotation regarding terms and conditions with "shall not be infringed."

Obviously Americans have already been willing to accept "reasonable" limits, but you're clearly misrepresenting the language in the document you're referring to.
 
2014-02-13 07:29:58 AM  
FTA: "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

Well. Sounds like THIS legislator has at least 2 brain cells.
 
2014-02-13 07:30:10 AM  

Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
 
2014-02-13 07:31:18 AM  

BlackCat23: smoky2010: t's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.

Murphy? Likely not. Bluementhol? His follwing is very loyal. And like you, I became disenfranchised with him when he became a senator. He did great things for the state as AG, but then went full derp once Mr Smith Mr Mr Blumenthol went to Washington.

 There's nothing about this bullshiat that isn't kneejerk. And they're completely blind to that fact because some people(who, granted, went through unimaginable tragedy)screamed very loud about it. They are not indicative of the million+ gun owners in the state. On top of this delicious bit of irony, the town of Newington had something like a 300% rise in permit requests since the shooting. It's depressing, all around.

/and for the record. I'm the libbiest lib that has ever libbed. Well, in  Litchfield County, anyway
//but I take our constitutional rights very seriously. That's part of being an actual liberal. Without constitutional amendment, there should be no changes like this. I was against the brady bills, as well. Just as I'm against any first amendment changes, privacy laws, etc.


I agree with your assessment. This was a knee jerk reaction to a true tragedy. They, incorrectly, assumed that legal gun owners need to be restricted. They completely ignored the facts that Lanza stole the guns he used. The new law didn't do anything about illegal guns or the mentally ill.
I always considered myself a very middle of the road person, politically anyway. I support background checks on all firearms, but the system to check people out needs to be available for people to do personal sales, you shouldn't have to go through a FFL and pay a fee.
Tolland County here, Hope you make out okay in the storm today, I'm already at work....
 
2014-02-13 07:32:41 AM  

smoky2010: Farkage: smoky2010: Farkage: BlackCat23: //it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.

They can tell you the difference!  The evil one always has the goatee.
/I hope that law gets slapped down ferociously.  Malloy is a dick.

It's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.

I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.

I did the same thing, I sent a well reasoned email to his office and received a 2 page form letter back. He is a dick.


The thing that really pisses me off is I'm pretty liberal, but I am 100% behind the ENTIRE bill of rights, including the 2nd Amendment.  I hate it when people decide to try to redefine or marganalize it ("But it's an outdated amendment!  We don't NEED it!"), while counterarguments about how they could then ignore the 4th, 5th, and half the 1st get responses from them of "That's different!!".  Cherrypicking the Bill of Rights is unacceptable.  If each of us decided which of the amendments we feel should be supported and which we can ignore because "feelings", there would be no rights left.  (And yes, I actually know people that say the 5th is outdated and you should be forced to testify because if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to hide.  After all, investigative techniques are better now than they were when the Constitution was written.)
 
2014-02-13 07:33:01 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:33:14 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: You say no one is denying the Govt. has illegally confiscated arms, and in the next breath you say it's a conspiracy theory.... despite evidence in reality to the contrary and contrary to your own admission.


Maybe. 

Just. Just maybe.

You want to read the entire thread before jumping in the middle of it.

His (Pokey.Clyde)'s statement, was that the US Government intentionally used the Concealed Carry Permit rosters to know who to target for deliberate confiscations. When he was confronted with no proof for this claim, he acted incredulous and stated he was willing to believe it - which is what I called him out over.

Despite the fact the majority of the confiscations were shotguns and rifles, obtained by illegal searches of secured, and unsecured properties by military and police authorities, and by forcibly taking them from people who did not evacuate and identified as having firearms to authorities.

But yeah. I'm totes denying it happened. You caught me.
 
2014-02-13 07:34:54 AM  

BlackCat23: Farkage: I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.

This was essentially the same response my friend got when he did the same. He also pointed out that Blumenthol would never have allowed this to happen while he was AG, since the state relies so heavily on firearms manufacturing, and his job as AG would have been to keep those jobs in balance with safty. He got the same brush-off. The issue is, most people in the state would gladly re-elect him. He's a staple of CT politics, and such a well known name for the good he once did that this will hardly put a tarnish spot on his political silver spoon.


/Malloy? He's got very little chance of surviving this. CT is a very diverse state, politically. And you're going to see a lot more people vote red outside of litchfield county(the local hive of scum and villainy known as the teaparty)just to oust him over this. It's going to be a huge farking talking point come the election.


Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.
 
2014-02-13 07:36:28 AM  
Connecticutians?
 
2014-02-13 07:36:33 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: your second argument shouldn't exist if FEMA cannot even come into the state without a request (which the governor never made. how do you reconcile this with reality?


FEMA cannot self-activate as a disaster response authority without a disaster assistance request by the Governor of that state. Even if they ARE requested, the incident does not become FEMA's incident - it's still managed by local authorities. They CAN send in individuals to prepare reports and advise federal authorities on what is going on in preparation for a disaster response activation. Those individuals have no power to perform activities or assist/direct in response or recovery operations unless activated by the Governor's request for aid.

But why let things like pesky facts get in the way of a good paranoia.
 
2014-02-13 07:39:35 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:41:36 AM  

Cyber_Junk: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: 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.


1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.

[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 537x615]

Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?

Isn't the burden of proof on the person claiming it to be true?   Because nowadays any jackass with minimal Photoshop skills can create an 'authentic' document

/points to his Masters of Photoshop degree on the wall


Like a birth certificate or something?
 
2014-02-13 07:42:57 AM  

smoky2010: I always considered myself a very middle of the road person, politically anyway. I support background checks on all firearms, but the system to check people out needs to be available for people to do personal sales, you shouldn't have to go through a FFL and pay a fee.
Tolland County here, Hope you make out okay in the storm today, I'm already at work....


Torrington, here. We're supposed to take a full fledged snow-dicking. Everything up here is already shut down, so I don't have to worry much.

 But I agree, between the idea of punishing law abiding owners(and the guys I go shooting with regularly), this completely ignored any further penalties for people that use illegal firearms in the use of a crime, on top of that, Malloy killing mental health priorities not long after was just farking stupid. Like I said, I'm insanely liberal. I think we should all have healthcare, I belive in equal rights. I also believe in strictly enforcing the constitution and bill of rights. And as I said, if this makes it to SCOTUS, or even district courts, I doubt it'll survive. I know a few gun clubs up here are doing fund raisers to get the ball rolling. The other thing I don't like is they're trying to push through a law about mental health restrictions that are completely off the wall. I suffer from anxiety. Not depression, not phycosis, bipolar or anything else, but the law would prevent me, a guy with the jitters who doesn't much care for interpersonal interaction outside of friends and family, from owning a gun. I'm no risk to anyone or myself, this is well documented, but that doesn't stop them from once again making ridiculous, nebulizing laws.

 I have sent more than my fair share of letters. I've just gotten form letters in return. My next step is to get some friends together and phone-bomb offices. When that doesn't work, I will change my voting style. I haven't voted republican since 2004, but for what it's worth, CT republicans that aren't teaparty shills are generally rather reasonable, and have kept the balance in CT for decades. But it would likely make little difference since I live in Litchfield county, a heavily red area in the first place(for example, the only county McMahon won). It's going to be an uphill battle on this, and the only hope, IMO, is for the people to force this through the courts.
 
2014-02-13 07:45:37 AM  

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 >.>
 
2014-02-13 07:50:35 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:51:44 AM  
The 2nd amendment says I don't need your frikkin permit. Piss off.
 
2014-02-13 07:57:19 AM  

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 :\
 
2014-02-13 08:02:21 AM  
i976.photobucket.com">
 
2014-02-13 08:02:40 AM  

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...
 
2014-02-13 08:04:12 AM  

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.


Yeah, that's really not going to happen.

Understanding Gun Control in America:  The Remainder Problem.

It doesn't even work in countries that don't have a gun culture as deeply rooted as in the US:

Data from international experiments with gun prohibition and 
registration illustrates a powerful and nearly universal individual 
impulse to defy gun bans. With data from seventy-seven countries, 
the International Small Arms Survey reports massive illegal 
parallel holdings with an average defiance ratio of 2.6 illegal guns 
for every legal one.75 This average is pulled down by rare cases like 
Japan.76


So yeah, across-the-board registration just isn't going to fly in the US.  *BEST* case, you'll have 3 unregistered guns for every legally registered one.
 
2014-02-13 08:04:31 AM  

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!
 
2014-02-13 08:09:04 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 08:09:34 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.


I am going to weigh in here to say this was a very BAD idea.  Why strip law-abiding gun owners of their weapons when they needed them most?
 
2014-02-13 08:09:40 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 08:10:51 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...


Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.
 
2014-02-13 08:11:06 AM  

Farkage: 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...


Could be worse. C'mon up to Litchfield County(Torrington in paticular)where the politics of the area has been firmly in the grasp of two families for the last 30+ years. There's still a "good ol' boy" network up here. Voting for the lesser of the two evils still gets you Bond level evil, either way you go. CT runs off long-term professional politics. They start as city council members, and work up to mayor, reps, then governor and beyond. I don't think there's ever been a "dark horse" pol in state history :\
 
2014-02-13 08:11:24 AM  

August11: Connecticutians?


Connecticoonts.
 
2014-02-13 08:11:48 AM  
Kind of funny, because pretty soon it really will be only a single shot break action shotgun will be legal, and only in 410. We keep telling you what will happen, you keep saying it won't, but then it does.

Liberals are scum.
 
2014-02-13 08:12:10 AM  

dittybopper: 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.

Yeah, that's really not going to happen.

Understanding Gun Control in America:  The Remainder Problem.

It doesn't even work in countries that don't have a gun culture as deeply rooted as in the US:

Data from international experiments with gun prohibition and 
registration illustrates a powerful and nearly universal individual 
impulse to defy gun bans. With data from seventy-seven countries, 
the International Small Arms Survey reports massive illegal 
parallel holdings with an average defiance ratio of 2.6 illegal guns 
for every legal one.75 This average is pulled down by rare cases like 
Japan.76

So yeah, across-the-board registration just isn't going to fly in the US.  *BEST* case, you'll have 3 unregistered guns for every legally registered one.


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

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.
 
2014-02-13 08:12:34 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.


You understand that this logic is exactly the reason why gun registration is bad.  You are basically saying 'It is OK for the government to unilaterally suspend constitutional rights as long as they feel it is justified'.  This is the exact senerio that justifiably scares most gun owners (and believers in the constitution).
 
2014-02-13 08:14:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: Kind of funny, because pretty soon it really will be only a single shot break action shotgun will be legal, and only in 410. We keep telling you what will happen, you keep saying it won't, but then it does.

Liberals are scum.


it would actually be a 10 gauge, this way you can get ammo. They'll also outlaw hand-loading pretty soon.
 
2014-02-13 08:14:44 AM  

hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

[img.fark.net image 326x463]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]


Since you live in Tennessee, why don't YOU look up the laws in Louisiana before you go full potato?
 
2014-02-13 08:16:08 AM  

Cold_Sassy: I am going to weigh in here to say this was a very BAD idea.  Why strip law-abiding gun owners of their weapons when they needed them most?


Large amounts of this.  It is precisely when law and order break down that the need for individuals to protect themselves and their property is most acute.  That is when the Second Amendment should be accorded the most respect.

In an emergency, your property (ie., supplies like fresh water or the means to make it, medicines, shelter, fuel for cooking or water purification, etc.)  may be the only thing keeping you alive, so protecting it from theft may well be worth killing someone over, as a means of self-defense.
 
2014-02-13 08:16:37 AM  

Thunderpipes: Kind of funny, because pretty soon it really will be only a single shot break action shotgun will be legal, and only in 410. We keep telling you what will happen, you keep saying it won't, but then it does.

Liberals are scum.


A break-action .410? Why would you need such a dangerous assault rifle?
 
2014-02-13 08:17:19 AM  

smoky2010: Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.


We fought it pretty farking hard up here in Litchfield Co, from Dems, to Reps, to Teabaggers alike. We *all* knew it was a bad law. On top of that, I like to chuck out the fact that gun permit registrations in Sandyhook went up something like 300% since the shootings happened, and it's flatly ignored. So the entire town can get guns, but because the vocal minority(and those that lost their children, whom I feel terrible for. Not just platitude, but genuinely feel for, and as such, understand their standpoint)have managed to get laws passed that only a minority wanted in the first place. CT, per capita, has some of the highest gun ownership rates in the country. Most of these people are law abiding, safe, and generally sport shooters or hunters. And it was like NO ONE even farking CONSIDERED the fact that a huge part of our economy in the state has to do with firearms manufacture. Which is now leaving the state in droves due to this. So, so many things wrong.

 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. The way to fight the law is roll with it, then make just as much of a stink as that very vocal minority did. And in this case, the gun owners are the majority. I don't like the law, not one bit, but putting yourself on the wrong side of it isn't going to help your case.
 
2014-02-13 08:17:34 AM  

smoky2010: 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...

Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.


Yeah, I hear you.  I've donated a few times to the lawsuit.
Regarding people understanding the laws here, a friend of mine up the road (degree from Yale, not at all a stupid girl) was 100% in favor of this law because "Nobody should be able to just walk into a gun store and just buy a machine gun no questions asked.  This has to be stopped!!!"  And that was just last June.
Dear god do I wish she was kidding.  I invited her to come to a gun store with me and find out how well her ideas of gun purchases work...  She was actually surprised when I explained the laws to her, but it didn't change her mind because "you don't need a gun".
 
2014-02-13 08:19:15 AM  
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
 
2014-02-13 08:21:03 AM  
Nobody seems to remember where "fire in a crowded theater" came from.

It came from a decision outlawing protest against World War I. Is that an example you'd like to follow?
 
2014-02-13 08:21:08 AM  

Farkage: smoky2010: 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...

Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.

Yeah, I hear you.  I've donated a few times to the lawsuit.
Regarding people understanding the laws here, a friend of mine up the road (degree from Yale, not at all a stupid girl) was 100% in favor of this law because "Nobody should be able to just walk into a gun store and just buy a machine gun no questions asked.  This has to be stopped!!!"  And that was just last June.
Dear god do I wish she was kidding.  I invited her to come to a gun store with me and find out how well her ideas of gun purchases work...  She was actually surprised when I explained the laws to her, but it didn't change her mind because "you don't need a gun".


Right, no one needs a gun, until you need a gun. Just like, you never need a fire department, until your house is on fire.
 
2014-02-13 08:21:51 AM  

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?
 
2014-02-13 08:23:16 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.

No, what the court has made it very clear is Inter arma enim silent leges.

The courts will allow the state to do any g.d. thing they choose to do.
Wasn't the fark weekend movie "Judgment at Nirenberg" just 2 weeks ago? Slow learners huh?
 
2014-02-13 08:25:38 AM  
I left Vermont for VA. Vermont has some of the loosest gunlaws in the country. Hardly any gun crime. And lo and behold, Burlington moron liberals are now pushing for the same type of laws. Democrats control the entire government, so might be able to get them passed on the state level (which they need to to allow a town to create ordinances).

What bugs me, is not a single law they pass does absolutely anything to reduce crime. Not one. All it does is create new criminals from the law abiding. Why can't liberals be honest? Why do they just lie, all the time? President said you can keep your rifles, you can keep your shotguns, etc. That the next big lie to surface, that we all knew about?

Sick of this crap. I own two rifles, a beautiful 1941 numbers matching K98, and a modern Springfield M1A. Had to have magazines sent from VT to VA to avoid being a felon transporting through NY state. We just got a Democratic Governor here in VA. How long till I am a felon as well? All for 100 rounds of target shooting a year, and collection factor? How long until the ancient bolt action rifle is illegal because the round is too big, or it was used in a war, or it has metal parts, or something stupid?
 
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.
 
2014-02-13 09:35:00 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.  Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.


So your logic is "things are really farked up and the police can't respond to emergencies, lets take your guns so you have no chance of defending yourself."  That's some weapons grade koolaid you've been drinking.
 
2014-02-13 09:41:02 AM  
Connecticut has a very transient population. If I'm only going to be living in your glorified shiathole of a state for 5 years before I pack up and leave, I will simply hide my scary looking guns in the attic until I move someplace else where those guns won't cause people to get their panties in a bunch.
 
2014-02-13 09:43:40 AM  

smoky2010: 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.


How do you equate citation of specific examples with inappropriate paranoia? A direct response to you doesn't count as "piggy-backing" of your comments. It's considered a response.

Do you realize that by countering a position with nothing other than accusations and derision, you push people away from your point of view?

Polarizing an issue makes more activists for BOTH sides, and it's counter-productive to your goals when you dismiss arguments as paranoia or feelings of inadequacy.
 
2014-02-13 09:44:33 AM  

cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself


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.
 
2014-02-13 09:44:50 AM  

Dimensio: 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.


shiat, now i have to take the hook out myself
 
2014-02-13 09:48:25 AM  

Pangea: How do you equate citation of specific examples with inappropriate paranoia?


"No one wants to take your guns" and "You are being paranoid, you nut job" is the sound the benevolent make as they label you a paranoid nut job and take your guns.
 
2014-02-13 09:50:56 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 10:00:35 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 10:01:05 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.


If it's a non-violent felony, why not?

I can understand the prohibition against convicted *VIOLENT* felons having guns:  They've shown through their actions that they can't be trusted.  I'm 100% OK with that.

But I see no benefit to society to have someone like Martha Stewart, convicted nonviolent felon, barred from firearms ownership for the rest of her life.

Maybe you can explain to me what vital societal purpose is served by that prohibition.
 
2014-02-13 10:03:51 AM  

mbillips: 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.


Godwining thread in 3... 2... 1...
You mean like this?  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-contr o l-stephen-p-halbrook
 
2014-02-13 10:06:51 AM  
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."
 
2014-02-13 10:07:19 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

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.


What about the others in the household?

For example, with the exception of the bolt action .22 LR my parents gave me when I was a kid, all of the guns in the bopper household have been acquired since the distaffbopper and I have been cohabitating at least, and probably since we've been married.

She has equal right to those firearms that I do.  Removing them from the house because I might be clinically depressed is a violation of *HER* rights.

SImilarly, what if the situation were reversed?  What if she were clinically depressed?  Should I give up my rights because of her illness?

And what about the guns that aren't legally firearms (ie., the custom flintlock my father built for me).  She knows how it operates and how to load it.  But legally, it's not a firearm under federal or state law.  What about those sorts of guns?
 
2014-02-13 10:09:53 AM  

YixilTesiphon: 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.


Better stop selling gasoline too.
 
2014-02-13 10:11:44 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.


So when there is no effective law enforcement, the Police have deserted and cannot possibly provide any protection to anyone, it makes sense to you to remove the possibility that any normal person could protect themselves.
 
2014-02-13 10:11:57 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

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.


Ah, so basically "only those who can afford a physician long enough to be 'cleared' of any mental health problems can have firearms. And what about those who just get declared as "having mental problems" by a police officer who saw them for 10 seconds, or some state-funded doc who gets a bonus for every 'dangerous person' he writes up?

You hate the poor.
 
2014-02-13 10:19:40 AM  
Well, duh. Anyone who thought most people would comply with such a law have no understanding of human nature or the American people's basic, historical distrust of government.
 
2014-02-13 10:19:58 AM  
Sorry, all my firearms were lost in a tragic canoeing accident on Lake Michigan several years ago.
 
2014-02-13 10:21:59 AM  

hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own guns
Carry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearm
Louisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.
Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?

And it's just as likely that they used the Project Stargate psychics from the CIA to determine who had a gun and where to go to confiscate. My theory has just as much evidence as yours. The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.

If your suggestion is that they used the State CCP list to confiscate "guns", the overwhelming majority of which were not hand guns but long arms and shotguns, I'm going to need a little more than your pokey conspiracy theory to believe you.


Actually they went door to door FORCING their way in and searching for guns whether there was anyone there or not.
Nagin should have gone to prison over that order but didn't. But he will do time for bribery and corruption, at least there is that.
 
2014-02-13 10:23:40 AM  

dittybopper: 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.

If it's a non-violent felony, why not?

I can understand the prohibition against convicted *VIOLENT* felons having guns:  They've shown through their actions that they can't be trusted.  I'm 100% OK with that.

But I see no benefit to society to have someone like Martha Stewart, convicted nonviolent felon, barred from firearms ownership for the rest of her life.

Maybe you can explain to me what vital societal purpose is served by that prohibition.


My neighbor is a non-violent felon. He is a raging alcoholic and is currently incarcerated. This is his 4th time being in prison for drinking related crimes in 10 years. As he has some serious medical issues, they don't keep him in jail for too long as he is a very expensive inmate. He'll be out for this conviction with a total of 7 months served. He has violent outbursts and hasn't beat his current wife and kids that I am aware of.

Do you think that this repeat offender should be allowed to possess and carry weapons? I think that seeing he can't abide by the rules, he should not have that privilege any longer. I also think that he shouldn't have a license any longer but, CT doesn't seem to agree with me. I guess 4 drunk driving and reckless driving convictions hasn't crossed that threshold yet.

So, long story short, no, I don't think that ANY felon should have access to firearms, whether they are violent or not. They have proven that they do not obey by the rules and shouldn't be allowed this privilege.
 
2014-02-13 10:24:12 AM  

Poe: I think the folks in CT experienced an onslaught of tragic boating accidents over the past year, resulting in the loss overboard of untold numbers of "assault weapons."


Only a fraction have followed the new law, however, and the state could soon face serious consequences if they all decide to take action. If they are lucky they will only lose their jobs, if the state starts killing people in SWAT raids? The funny part is, this is all about scary looking black rifles that are basically 250-300 yard guns. What the politicians need to be worried about is the bolt action deer rifles in real rifle calibers, 500 - 1000 yard guns in the hands of pissed off people who have been backed into a corner and expect the Brown Shirts are going to kill them anyway.
 
2014-02-13 10:28:35 AM  

Piizzadude: Boojum2k: Pokey.Clyde: Actually, they were taking people's guns.

Don't worry, Piizzadude will be right there with you. Weather and schedule permitting, of course, and not if there's anything better to do.

Sorry I was wrong, I support the NY ban.

The 2nd also does not say what kind of gun, nor how many bullets. Assault weapons and anything over 6 bullets is too much


You're over your limit on bullshiat posts.  The 1st amendment does not say what kind of speech, nor how much.  Anything over 6 posts is too much.
 
2014-02-13 10:29:59 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, duh. Anyone who thought most people would comply with such a law have no understanding of human nature or the American people's basic, historical distrust of government.


What the hell is going on today.  Is this a repeat of 1938 already?  Don't forget Poland boys or we will shizzle the nizzle before the drizzle.
 
2014-02-13 10:36:23 AM  

smoky2010: dittybopper: 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.

If it's a non-violent felony, why not?

I can understand the prohibition against convicted *VIOLENT* felons having guns:  They've shown through their actions that they can't be trusted.  I'm 100% OK with that.

But I see no benefit to society to have someone like Martha Stewart, convicted nonviolent felon, barred from firearms ownership for the rest of her life.

Maybe you can explain to me what vital societal purpose is served by that prohibition.

My neighbor is a non-violent felon. He is a raging alcoholic and is currently incarcerated. This is his 4th time being in prison for drinking related crimes in 10 years. As he has some serious medical issues, they don't keep him in jail for too long as he is a very expensive inmate. He'll be out for this conviction with a total of 7 months served. He has violent outbursts and hasn't beat his current wife and kids that I am aware of.

Do you think that this repeat offender should be allowed to possess and carry weapons? I think that seeing he can't abide by the rules, he should not have that privilege any longer. I also think that he shouldn't have a license any longer but, CT doesn't seem to agree with me. I guess 4 drunk driving and reckless driving convictions hasn't crossed that threshold yet.

So, long story short, no, I don't think that ANY felon should have access to firearms, whether they are violent or not. They have proven that they do not obey by the rules and shouldn't be allowed this privilege.


I think it might be impossible to paint with a broader brush than the one you're using. What are you basing your knowledge of his violent outbursts on? It must either be hearsay or the something you witnessed but didn't report. Your opinion lacks credibility for varying reasons in either of those scenarios.

Fortunately your anecdotes are not good enough to dictate what happens in our society.
 
2014-02-13 10:36:41 AM  
demaL-demaL-yeH
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.


Ah, another snowflake unabel to do basic research.

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.


So, in order for a militia to be well-regulted (in  working order, functioning as expected)), it is necessary that the right of the PEOPLE to to keep and bear ams not be infringed. (not just keep, but their right to bear them.) because it is comprised of the armed citizenry--bringing their own weapons. The militia cannot function well if the citizenry cannot keep and maintian their own weapons.
 
2014-02-13 10:38:50 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 10:41:09 AM  

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'.
 
2014-02-13 10:42:44 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Piizzadude: I am not a gun enthusiast so I do not have an answer, nor do I know all the types of guns. I do agree that some guns get villianized unjustly as something else (see dog, pitbull for example).

Well, just for reference

[img.fark.net image 166x213]
The one on the left is a .22LR. The one on the right is a .45 Colt.

This is one reason why capacity restrictions make no sense. Unless you shoot someone point-blank with a .22, you're not likely to kill them. Shoot them with a .45 and you'll almost always stop someone with one shot, if not outright kill them. Yet, with some sort capacity law, my rifle that fires .22s would be illegal, but a 5 or 6 round revolver that fires .45 Colt would not be.

Another reason it makes no sense is how quickly you can change a magazine/reload a revolver with a speed loader with a little practice. Just get on youtube sometime and you can find plenty of examples that prove that point.


There are already loopholes in use on these new laws. This is a legal magazine in NY under the new magazine limitation laws:

img.fark.net

Don't forget that the worst school shooting of all time, the VT massacre, was carried out with Brady Bill approved firearms including the magazine limitations. The solution was to carry a backpack full of spare magazines.

The people passing these laws have no knowledge of firearms so they pass knee jerk reactions laws out of fear of the unknown.

The other side doesn't help, though. The VT perp should never have had a firearm as he had been adjudicated mentally unsound yet managed to purchase firearms. There do need to be some background check changes. That's about the only law I've seen put forth that might actually target criminals.
 
2014-02-13 10:42:51 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'.


Wrong
SC disagrees with you so..... you lose.
 
2014-02-13 10:46:12 AM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

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.

What about the others in the household?

For example, with the exception of the bolt action .22 LR my parents gave me when I was a kid, all of the guns in the bopper household have been acquired since the distaffbopper and I have been cohabitating at least, and probably since we've been married.

She has equal right to those firearms that I do.  Removing them from the house because I might be clinically depressed i ...


Ability 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?

incrdbil: demaL-demaL-yeH
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.

Ah, another snowflake unabel to do basic research.

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.

So, in order for a militia to be well-regulted (in  working order, functioning as expected)), it is necessary that the right of the PEOPLE to to keep and bear ams not be infringed. (not just keep, but their right to bear them.) because it is comprised of the armed citizenry--bringing their own weapons. The militia cannot function well if the citizenry cannot keep and maintian their own weapons.


There is no hyphen in the Constitution.
 
2014-02-13 10:48:11 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 10:49:20 AM  

Securitywyrm: demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

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.

Ah, so basically "only those who can afford a physician long enough to be 'cleared' of any mental health problems can have firearms. And what about those who just get declared as "having mental problems" by a police officer who saw them for 10 seconds, or some state-funded doc who gets a bonus for every 'dangerous person' he writes up?

You hate the poor.


Well, good thing that the AFFORDABLE Care Ace is law, and that it covers mental illnesses. And poor people.*


*Who aren't being screwed by a Republican state legislature and governor.
 
2014-02-13 10:51:34 AM  
demaL-demaL-yeH

You lie.

Hardly.

Origin:
1620-30;

[C17: from Late Latin rēgulāre to control, from Latin rēgula a ruler]

c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, "act of regulating;" sense of "rule for management" is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng.

What's even funnier is that your own single link contradicts your assertion as to the strict meaning of the word, giving "[to] control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly" before your imagined exclusive definition of "[to] control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations."

Lol. :)

/you lie, indeed
 
2014-02-13 10:51:38 AM  

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;
 
2014-02-13 10:59:03 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

You lie.

Hardly.

Origin:
1620-30;

[C17: from Late Latin rēgulāre to control, from Latin rēgula a ruler]

c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, "act of regulating;" sense of "rule for management" is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng.

What's even funnier is that your own single link contradicts your assertion as to the strict meaning of the word, giving "[to] control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly" before your imagined exclusive definition of "[to] control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations."

Lol. :)

/you lie, indeed


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

Oooh. That's a toughie.

/I'll take the OED.
 
2014-02-13 11:00:43 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;



Would you please link that again...I can't hear you over all of Wall Street's awesome...
 
2014-02-13 11:02:10 AM  
HEROES tag needed.
 
2014-02-13 11:03:59 AM  
media.tumblr.com25.media.tumblr.com  brandynbold.com  gifatron.com images2.wikia.nocookie.net media0.giphy.com likegif.com
 
2014-02-13 11:04:57 AM  
...and now for something completely the same...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-7LCucXpic
 
2014-02-13 11:06:06 AM  
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.
 
2014-02-13 11:14:51 AM  

dittybopper: August11: Connecticutians?

Connecticoonts.


OK, I laughed...
 
2014-02-13 11:15:02 AM  

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*
 
2014-02-13 11:17:01 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*


As you were son.
 
2014-02-13 11:19:06 AM  

blame_canada: 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*

As you were son.


At ease, eh.

/Let's eat grandma.
//Let's eat, grandma.
///Punctuation saves lives, eh.
 
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."
 
2014-02-13 01:23:08 PM  

trappedspirit: [i141.photobucket.com image 500x550]


No Markley's Law  violations?  Defiantly need to find a space for that.  In fact, you could likely supplant that with the 'Free Space' and everything would be just about the same.
 
2014-02-13 01:31:33 PM  

lude: 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


*clicks profile*
Even if I had one, I sure as fark wouldn't be showing it to a serial rapist.
By the way, since your profile doesn't specify, are you one of those drooling morons projectors who calls people who don't walk around armed in public for no good reason afraid?

/Research.
 
2014-02-13 01:34:54 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 ...


So you have nothing. No facts. No primary sources. No principled arguments. Nothing.
/Just getting it out of the way before the modmins inevitably clean up the garbage.
 
2014-02-13 01:37:31 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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 ...



Oh man...where the hell is Alamagordo anyways?
 
2014-02-13 01:43:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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 ...

So you have nothing. No facts. No primary sources. No principled arguments. Nothing.
/Just getting it out of the way before the modmins inevitably clean up the garbage.


You have yet to respond to anything I said with anything other than your opinion. Not once.
I can't but help notice how you ignore every comment I've posted that proves this.
 
2014-02-13 01:52:33 PM  

Magnanimous_J: 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?


They may not prevent a shooting, but if you know Bill Weston on Elk Ct has an AR15, and someone is shot with an AR15, it gives you a place to start your investigation.

Additionally, if someone is convicted of a felony or judged to be mentally incompetent the police will know to go retrieve the guns.

Finally, it provides an additional charge to levy against those who have them illegally. With the right companion legislation the police could even be given the right to demand anyone carrying one in public display their valid registration card, so someone up to no good could potentially be stopped before they did anything if they didn't have the gun legally.
 
2014-02-13 01:52:43 PM  

Magnanimous_J: 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?


magic, like gun free zones
 
2014-02-13 01:53:56 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.


Farkage: 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.


I'm going to have to grade you "Needs Improvement" for reading comprehension.
/Work on it with your mom.
 
2014-02-13 01:55:50 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?
 
2014-02-13 02:00:30 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: demaL-demaL-yeH: Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Farkage: 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.

I'm going to have to grade you "Needs Improvement" for reading comprehension.
/Work on it with your mom.


And you again talk around what I said without addressing mg last comments. I know you can't address them without admitting you're wrong, so you pretend they aren't there.
Nice try troll.
 
2014-02-13 02:05:36 PM  

Joe Blowme: 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.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?


Sorry. Forgot a link.
/Enjoy.
//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.
Zombie Reagan:
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.
 
2014-02-13 02:05:59 PM  
Good for them. I certainly would refuse as well, and encourage others to do the same. There's nothing the government can do when the people stand together.
 
2014-02-13 02:07:08 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme: 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.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link.
/Enjoy.
//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.
Zombie Reagan:
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.


Why do you keep bringing up Reagan?
 
2014-02-13 02:09:11 PM  
Duh. Gen registry is wrong and should be illegal.
 
2014-02-13 02:09:22 PM  

theprinceofwands: Good for them. I certainly would refuse as well, and encourage others to do the same. There's nothing the government can do when the people stand together.


The phrase "target-rich environment" comes to mind - if they're armed.
/Sorry. Random thought.
 
2014-02-13 02:10:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme: 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.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link.
/Enjoy.
//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.
Zombie Reagan:
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.


Thanks for the link,

 ""A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." "

Says same thing just in the era vernacular.
 
2014-02-13 02:10:50 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.


Current left-wing spin, meet actual Reagan quote:
"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."

So your first pic is accurate, and the "quiz" is made of out-of-context bullshiat.
 
2014-02-13 02:12:35 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Current left-wing spin, meet actual Reagan quote:
"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."

So your first pic is accurate, and the "quiz" is made of out-of-context bullshiat.


It's his specialty
 
2014-02-13 02:12:42 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes:
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 didn't. Violence isn't related to the 'number of guns floating around'. Rights, however, and the ability to defend them, are. It is NEVER acceptable to revoke Constitutional, or basic human rights. That's why we have things like Constitutions and governments. Any time either are abusive, they must be abolished and a new, better version implemented.
 
2014-02-13 02:13:20 PM  

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme: 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.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link.
/Enjoy.
//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.
Zombie Reagan:
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Why do you keep bringing up Reagan?


Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?
 
2014-02-13 02:16:18 PM  

Joe Blowme: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme: 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.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link.
/Enjoy.
//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.
Zombie Reagan:
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Thanks for the link,

 ""A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." "

Says same thing just in the era vernacular.


It's a spurious quote. Spurious means FAKE. Washington didn't say that.
 
2014-02-13 02:17:25 PM  

theprinceofwands: Good for them. I certainly would refuse as well, and encourage others to do the same. There's nothing the government can do when the people stand together.


Well, actually, they could arrest anyone who fails to register, convict them, and throw them in jail. If they all want to stand together and proclaim that they're commiting a felony it just makes it that much easier.

Added bonus, once they're convicted they'll lose their rights to vote, making it easier to pass firearm safety legislation in the future.
 
2014-02-13 02:17:52 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?


See, when you start from false premises, you wind up like lemaD here, babbling random inanities.
Dude, no one takes you seriously.
 
2014-02-13 02:18:38 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme: 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.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link.
/Enjoy.
//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.
Zombie Reagan:
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Why do you keep bringing up Reagan?

Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?


Now but I would love to know why you're using a german word to describe me in a manner which is pretty inconsistent with my comments in the thread. Are you, as a jewish veteran, trying to Godwin me?
 
2014-02-13 02:18:49 PM  

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?


Except that you're utterly and totally wrong that the founders did that, or that the constitution calls for it, thereby nullifying everything you say. As usual, since you're nothing but a lying, ignorant troll.
 
2014-02-13 02:19:27 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If they all want to stand together and proclaim that they're commiting a felony it just makes it that much easier.


Wow, you are a good little goose-stepper aren't you?
 
2014-02-13 02:23:30 PM  

redmid17: Are you, as a jewish veteran, trying to Godwin me?


Is he really, or claims he is?
 
2014-02-13 02:26:05 PM  

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?

See, when you start from false premises, you wind up like lemaD here, babbling random inanities.
Dude, no one takes you seriously.


rsp.pca.org

Facts. Citations. Primary sources. Contemporaneous accounts.
I link debates in the Congressional Record, the Constitution, the original texts of Amendment II, and the laws the Founders passed.
I get in return fake George Washington quotes.
Put up or shut up.

/By the way, you misspelled obscenities.
 
2014-02-13 02:26:31 PM  

Boojum2k: redmid17: Are you, as a jewish veteran, trying to Godwin me?

Is he really, or claims he is?


I have no farking idea. Then again, why would you use a foreign word to describe a "holy" trinity and project it as my primary set of values unless you had a different agenda.

/heilig = holy
 
2014-02-13 02:27:11 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?

See, when you start from false premises, you wind up like lemaD here, babbling random inanities.
Dude, no one takes you seriously.

[rsp.pca.org image 600x386]

Facts. Citations. Primary sources. Contemporaneous accounts.
I link debates in the Congressional Record, the Constitution, the original texts of Amendment II, and the laws the Founders passed.
I get in return fake George Washington quotes.
Put up or shut up.

/By the way, you misspelled obscenities.


How about you answer my question?
 
2014-02-13 02:28:50 PM  

redmid17: I have no farking idea. Then again, why would you use a foreign word to describe a "holy" trinity and project it as my primary set of values unless you had a different agenda./heilig = holy


Considering his babbling and use of out-of-context lines of law while ignoring the rest of the text and actual case law, and his earlier ludicrous claim that Heller decided registration because the SC didn't go off-point to address it, I wouldn't believe much of what he says.
 
2014-02-13 02:29:09 PM  

Securitywyrm: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

Mild depression? That's a mental illness, you may not have a gun.
Grandpa is living with you and has Alzheimers Disease? He has access to your guns, you may not have a gun.
Attention deficit disorder is also a "mental illness." Are you saying I shouldn't be able to have a gun? By the way, I served four years in the US Army. If I'm trusted with an M203 grenade launcher, I think I can be trusted with a 9mm.


Don't forget that until very recently homosexuality was also a mental illness in the dsm. It's been removed, but equally ridiculous things still exist.
 
2014-02-13 02:30:51 PM  

Piizzadude: Boojum2k: Piizzadude: It does not say that the second amendment cannot come with terms and conditions

And yet, as seen in the past, and now with California and New York (that story seems more credible given the lack of any rebuttal), government officials are pretty complacent about stepping across that fine line directly into infringement.

Therefore, the line must drawn further back to remove that opportunity from them.

All the way up to taking them from you, there is nothing wrong. When they say no one can have a gun anymore, I will be right there with you.

Registering, reasonable background checks, any type of safety (as long as it is easily released by the registered owner) are all ok. Advisable even.


Except that we disagree, and you aren't in charge of deciding for others.
 
2014-02-13 02:31:05 PM  

Boojum2k: TuteTibiImperes: If they all want to stand together and proclaim that they're commiting a felony it just makes it that much easier.

Wow, you are a good little goose-stepper aren't you?


If I have to register my car every year, you can register your Weapon of Peacetm
 
2014-02-13 02:31:57 PM  

Boojum2k: redmid17: I have no farking idea. Then again, why would you use a foreign word to describe a "holy" trinity and project it as my primary set of values unless you had a different agenda./heilig = holy

Considering his babbling and use of out-of-context lines of law while ignoring the rest of the text and actual case law, and his earlier ludicrous claim that Heller decided registration because the SC didn't go off-point to address it, I wouldn't believe much of what he says.


I mean I doubt registration would be considered unconstitutional. It's survived more than a few legal challenges IIRC, but I don't think SCOTUS  really had anything to say about it other than Heller agreed to it.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
 
2014-02-13 02:32:27 PM  

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?

See, when you start from false premises, you wind up like lemaD here, babbling random inanities.
Dude, no one takes you seriously.

[rsp.pca.org image 600x386]

Facts. Citations. Primary sources. Contemporaneous accounts.
I link debates in the Congressional Record, the Constitution, the original texts of Amendment II, and the laws the Founders passed.
I get in return fake George Washington quotes.
Put up or shut up.

/By the way, you misspelled obscenities.

How about you answer my question?


He won't. He ignores questions that would prove him wrong. I've been waiting for a response for a while, and I know if he does actually respond, he'll simply ignore things he can't address. He's a troll, pure and simple.
 
2014-02-13 02:32:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If I have to register my car every year


Show me your Constitutional right to your car.

I'll be waiting.
 
2014-02-13 02:32:53 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Boojum2k: TuteTibiImperes: If they all want to stand together and proclaim that they're commiting a felony it just makes it that much easier.

Wow, you are a good little goose-stepper aren't you?

If I have to register my car every year, you can register your Weapon of Peacetm


You don't have a constitutional right to the car, and you don't have to register the car, only to use it on public roads.
 
2014-02-13 02:32:55 PM  

Piizzadude: Boojum2k: Piizzadude: The 2nd also does not say what kind of gun, nor how many bullets.

The 1st says nothing about TV, radio, or the internet. The 4th says nothing about phone records, internet logs, or video data.

There are restrictions on tje 1st, which i disagree with. And as far as the the 4th, the constitution is a living document.

The 2nd also does not say anything about guns that can shoot 100/second


Nor does the 1st cover computers by that logic, only quill and parchment.
 
2014-02-13 02:35:46 PM  

Piizzadude: Boojum2k: Piizzadude: It is that simple.

Someone would like to have some words with you.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so" - Thomas Jefferson.

So tj is OK with my example then?

If society as a whole says that law is just, then you must comply with it or face the consequences.

Majority Rules


Therefore you would have supported slavery, and the extermination of the Jews...both of which were approved by the majority (at least at the time).
 
2014-02-13 02:35:56 PM  

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme: 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.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link.
/Enjoy.
//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.
Zombie Reagan:
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Why do you keep bringing up Reagan?

Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?

Now but I would love to know why you're using a german word to describe me in a manner which is pretty inconsistent with my comments in the thread. Are you, as a jewish veteran, trying to Godwin me?


The English phrase is problematic because it is one of the Christian names for their god, so my use of it unmodified might offend, whereas the mixed language reference is clearly satirical hyperbole.
 
2014-02-13 02:36:18 PM  

redmid17: I mean I doubt registration would be considered unconstitutional.


As I noted earlier, since it has been abused for confiscation, it is no longer a power the various governments can be trusted to have. The line should be pulled back from that point.
 
2014-02-13 02:40:14 PM  

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.


Wrong. Well regulated meant practiced, or capable. It meant people knowing how to shoot. This has been covered ad nauseum by experts and supported fully with primary sources.
 
2014-02-13 02:42:40 PM  

theprinceofwands: Except that you're utterly and totally wrong that the founders did that, or that the constitution calls for it, thereby nullifying everything you say. As usual, since you're nothing but a lying, ignorant troll.


The originals are quoted and linked upthread. Is this an attempt to sway the lazy and gullible, those with profound reading comprehension issues, and those with the attention span of a gnat?
 
2014-02-13 02:43:23 PM  

HeadLever: trappedspirit: [i141.photobucket.com image 500x550]

No Markley's Law  violations?  Defiantly need to find a space for that.  In fact, you could likely supplant that with the 'Free Space' and everything would be just about the same.


How could I forget penis?  I'll have to rethink this.
 
2014-02-13 02:44:07 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme: 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.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link.
/Enjoy.
//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.
Zombie Reagan:
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Why do you keep bringing up Reagan?

Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?

Now but I would love to know why you're using a german word to describe me in a manner which is pretty inconsistent with my comments in the thread. Are you, as a jewish veteran, trying to Godwin me?

The English phrase is problematic because it is one of the Christian names for their god, so my use of it unmodified might offend, whereas the mixed language reference is clearly satirical hyperbole.


Yes it was extremely clear* that it was hyperbole and satirical in nature. That was why my first inclination was to ask if you were Godwinning me.

*it's not

Try again and, to clarify, no those do not constitute my holy trinity. BTW, that should only offend someone if you capitalize it (Holy Trinity ). It's much more often referred to as the Holy Ghost. Uncapitalized it means nothing to Christian.
 
2014-02-13 02:46:12 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Magnanimous_J: 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?

They may not prevent a shooting, but if you know Bill Weston on Elk Ct has an AR15, and someone is shot with an AR15, it gives you a place to start your investigation.

Additionally, if someone is convicted of a felony or judged to be mentally incompetent the police will know to go retrieve the guns.

Finally, it provides an additional charge to levy against those who have them illegally. With the right companion legislation the police could even be given the right to demand anyone carrying one in public display their valid registration card, so someone up to no good could potentially be stopped before they did anything if they didn't have the gun legally.


So it won't do anything to save any lives, but it MIGHT give police a slight advantage in solving crimes committed with weapons that make up an insignificantly small % of all violent crimes?

Is that worth a massive violation of the constitution and harassment of law abiding citizens? If it were my state, I'd tell them to eat a dick.
 
2014-02-13 02:46:53 PM  

smoky2010: 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, y ...


Then evil has won, and there's no point or purpose to anything.

Jobs are meaningless. RIGHTS matter.
 
2014-02-13 02:49:20 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.


If you're not trolling then you're ignorant, evil, or both. Whichever it is I hope you soon cease to pollute our world.
 
2014-02-13 02:51:06 PM  

theprinceofwands: 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.

If you're not trolling then you're ignorant, evil, or both. Whichever it is I hope you soon cease to pollute our world.


He's trolling
 
2014-02-13 02:51:17 PM  

theprinceofwands: If you're not trolling


He's trollin'
 
2014-02-13 02:51:58 PM  

redmid17: theprinceofwands: 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.

If you're not trolling then you're ignorant, evil, or both. Whichever it is I hope you soon cease to pollute our world.

He's trolling


11 farking seconds!
 
2014-02-13 03:01:34 PM  
I can't afford to lose more intelligence by being subjected to demaL-demaL-yeH's tripe...ignore function activated. *breathes sigh of glorious relief*
 
2014-02-13 03:03:50 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: theprinceofwands: Good for them. I certainly would refuse as well, and encourage others to do the same. There's nothing the government can do when the people stand together.

Well, actually, they could arrest anyone who fails to register, convict them, and throw them in jail. If they all want to stand together and proclaim that they're commiting a felony it just makes it that much easier.

Added bonus, once they're convicted they'll lose their rights to vote, making it easier to pass firearm safety legislation in the future.


Works with small groups, not huge swaths of the population. You can't simply incarcerate 1/3 of a nation, or even declare them felons as it would decimate the ability of the nation to function. en masse, the people are impervious to control.
 
2014-02-13 03:05:12 PM  

Magnanimous_J: TuteTibiImperes: Magnanimous_J: 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?

They may not prevent a shooting, but if you know Bill Weston on Elk Ct has an AR15, and someone is shot with an AR15, it gives you a place to start your investigation.

Additionally, if someone is convicted of a felony or judged to be mentally incompetent the police will know to go retrieve the guns.

Finally, it provides an additional charge to levy against those who have them illegally. With the right companion legislation the police could even be given the right to demand anyone carrying one in public display their valid registration card, so someone up to no good could potentially be stopped before they did anything if they didn't have the gun legally.

So it won't do anything to save any lives, but it MIGHT give police a slight advantage in solving crimes committed with weapons that make up an insignificantly small % of all violent crimes?

Is that worth a massive violation of the constitution and harassment of law abiding citizens? If it were my state, I'd tell them to eat a dick.


It may save lives. I mean, simply being registered won't prevent a gun from firing at another person, but if it helps get guns out of the hands of the criminally inclined and unstable, and helps the police catch those who misuse them, that could easily save lives.

Your point about assault weapons being used in only a small fraction of crimes is well taken, the registry should really be mandatory for all firearms.

Going to a website and entering a serial number or mailing in a little card is hardly an onerous burden to place on gun owners.
 
2014-02-13 03:08:21 PM  

redmid17: theprinceofwands: 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.

If you're not trolling then you're ignorant, evil, or both. Whichever it is I hope you soon cease to pollute our world.

He's trolling


Thank god...seen too many of those be real in my time...not sure how much more I could take and still bother with humanity.
 
2014-02-13 03:11:43 PM  
TuteTibiImperes:

It may save lives.

No, it can't/won't. There's absolutely zero chance of it saving lives. There's a tiny chance of it expediting punishment of the guilty, but that's about it. Balanced against the enormity of the invasion and threat of future abusive action it's simply not worth it.
 
2014-02-13 03:20:57 PM  

theprinceofwands: TuteTibiImperes:

It may save lives.

No, it can't/won't. There's absolutely zero chance of it saving lives. There's a tiny chance of it expediting punishment of the guilty, but that's about it. Balanced against the enormity of the invasion and threat of future abusive action it's simply not worth it.


This, fark, is the poster child for people who should not be walking around armed in public.
 
2014-02-13 03:29:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: This, fark, is the poster child for people who should not be walking around in public.


For stating that an invasion of rights and government abusive action which has already occurred and therefore is assuredly going to occur again isn't worth an imaginary gain in safety?
Nah, he had the right idea. *plonk*
 
2014-02-13 03:29:55 PM  
TuteTibiImperes

Going to a website and entering a serial number or mailing in a little card is hardly an onerous burden to place on gun owners.

Regardless of the convenience, it's nearly irrelevant, if some 50-85% of firearms owners simply refuse to comply. And this in a relatively liberal, New England blue state.
 
2014-02-13 04:37:27 PM  
Why am I reading about Connecticut in an article from the Kremlin propaganda news network?
 
2014-02-13 05:09:56 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: theprinceofwands: TuteTibiImperes:

It may save lives.

No, it can't/won't. There's absolutely zero chance of it saving lives. There's a tiny chance of it expediting punishment of the guilty, but that's about it. Balanced against the enormity of the invasion and threat of future abusive action it's simply not worth it.

This, fark, is the poster child for people who should not be walking around armed in public.


I'm still waiting. Nice to see when you've been beaten you just go silent.
 
KIA
2014-02-13 05:21:49 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:

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


But that says that they're expected to have bayonettes and to be able to fix them to bayonette lugs.

I was specificially told by Congress that bayonnette lugs made it an assault rifle and unsuitable to militia use?
 
2014-02-13 05:37:58 PM  

fusillade762: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

How did the police know where the guns were?

[i57.tinypic.com image 326x463]


They went DOOR TO DOOR.  They DIDN'T know, they went LOOKING for them DOOR TO DOOR.  Feinstein orgasmed.
 
2014-02-13 05:53:42 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: 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.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

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.


Homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental illness for most of the 20th century. In addition, governments have never labelled people as mentally ill for politician expediency.
 
2014-02-13 06:16:14 PM  
Thanks God, these small-penised men have taken up the fight against our oppressive government!
 
2014-02-13 06:26:16 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Magnanimous_J: TuteTibiImperes: Magnanimous_J: 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?

They may not prevent a shooting, but if you know Bill Weston on Elk Ct has an AR15, and someone is shot with an AR15, it gives you a place to start your investigation.

Additionally, if someone is convicted of a felony or judged to be mentally incompetent the police will know to go retrieve the guns.

Finally, it provides an additional charge to levy against those who have them illegally. With the right companion legislation the police could even be given the right to demand anyone carrying one in public display their valid registration card, so someone up to no good could potentially be stopped before they did anything if they didn't have the gun legally.

So it won't do anything to save any lives, but it MIGHT give police a slight advantage in solving crimes committed with weapons that make up an insignificantly small % of all violent crimes?

Is that worth a massive violation of the constitution and harassment of law abiding citizens? If it were my state, I'd tell them to eat a dick.

It may save lives. I mean, simply being registered won't prevent a gun from firing at another person, but if it helps get guns out of the hands of the criminally inclined and unstable, and helps the police catch those who misuse them, that could easily save lives.

Your point about assault weapons being used in only a small fraction of crimes is well taken, the registry should really be mandatory for all firearms.

Going to a website and entering a serial number or mailing in a little card is hardly an onerous burden to place on gun owners.


So... do you think everyone should have to register their ethnicity with the government? It's a small inconvenience and it's not like the government would ever do something bad with that information of if you're black, white, Arabic, Chinese, etc . It's not like we've ever locked up tens of thousands of people and took their property because we declared war on a particular country.

The question is not "What will the government do NOW with the information." The question is, what will the government be able to do with the information later?
 
2014-02-13 06:29:19 PM  

Doom MD: Homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental illness for most of the 20th century. In addition, governments have never labelled people as mentally ill for politician expediency.


Because Paranoid Schizophrenia is a politically and morally influenced diagnosis which causes no other life harm than the social stigma that is placed on it?

Because that would be the only way that argument would NOT be pants on head dumb.

HindiDiscoMonster: Just Maybe you might want to reread what I said... I made no mention of his post, only what was in that one specific post... the first part of your post says that nobody is denying the Govt did what they did, then the very next thought that came out seemed to be you indicating it was all a conspiracy theory.


So, you have an adult learning disability, then, that makes you unable to read? Because I was referring to his claim that the Louisiana State Government turned over CCW rolls to the Feds so they would know where to go to confiscate guns from during Katrina.

THATwas the conspiracy theory.
 
2014-02-13 06:38:06 PM  
 
2014-02-13 06:45:22 PM  

hardinparamedic: HindiDiscoMonster: I think you misspelled "right".

The loss of the right of a convicted felon to own a firearm has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme court for over 50 years.


Are you saying owning a gun is a privilege or are you just saying it can be taken away?

/because it's a right
 
2014-02-13 06:46:21 PM  
I have this weird feeling...like I've seen all this before somewhere.  People like to agree so violently that they would rather kill the other than admin defeat.

So bizarre being left-handed in an American century.
 
2014-02-13 07:01:34 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

I never said we didn't have responsibilities. My only point is that you like many others seem to conflate "right" and "privilege". Driving is a privilege for example whereas we have a right to a fair trial by comparison... not that the govt. thinks we do, but we do.


And the concomitant responsibility is to serve as a juror.
Rights come with responsibilities.
/Yin-Yang.
//Opposite sides of a coin.
//Do you understand yet?
 
2014-02-13 07:04:21 PM  

redmid17: hardinparamedic: HindiDiscoMonster: I think you misspelled "right".

The loss of the right of a convicted felon to own a firearm has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme court for over 50 years.

Are you saying owning a gun is a privilege or are you just saying it can be taken away?

/because it's a right


I'm saying the right can be restricted, because there are people out there who legitimately believe ANY Restriction of felons from owning firearms is unconstitutional.
 
2014-02-13 07:09:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: redmid17: hardinparamedic: HindiDiscoMonster: I think you misspelled "right".

The loss of the right of a convicted felon to own a firearm has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme court for over 50 years.

Are you saying owning a gun is a privilege or are you just saying it can be taken away?

/because it's a right

I'm saying the right can be restricted, because there are people out there who legitimately believe ANY Restriction of felons from owning firearms is unconstitutional.


Which has nothing to with his correction of someone.
 
2014-02-13 07:10:39 PM  

Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: theprinceofwands: TuteTibiImperes:

It may save lives.

No, it can't/won't. There's absolutely zero chance of it saving lives. There's a tiny chance of it expediting punishment of the guilty, but that's about it. Balanced against the enormity of the invasion and threat of future abusive action it's simply not worth it.

This, fark, is the poster child for people who should not be walking around armed in public.

I'm still waiting. Nice to see when you've been beaten you just go silent.


Is that what you consider a successful strategy? Refuse to make a principled argument and declare victory after you fail to present any evidence. I have a life, work, family, and better things to do than deal with your inability to exert any effort to be coherent, let alone present a rational, factual argument.

See that bold part up there? That's a big claim. Why don't you offer some verifiable facts to back it up?
NB Fake George Washington quotes won't cut it.
 
2014-02-13 07:14:53 PM  
Ok, so I get that you dismiss us because we are not American Enough...but we live in America too.  North America.  And we visit...a lot.

So anyway...here is some more music to try to lighten the mood a wee bit.  Not a rick-roll.  Honest Injun.  Behold New Order...(warning...do not click unless you are over 21 years old and hate girls packing pistols)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uEBuqkkQRk
 
2014-02-13 07:17:48 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: demaL-demaL-yeH: HindiDiscoMonster: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

I never said we didn't have responsibilities. My only point is that you like many others seem to conflate "right" and "privilege". Driving is a privilege for example whereas we have a right to a fair trial by comparison... not that the govt. thinks we do, but we do.

And the concomitant responsibility is to serve as a juror.
Rights come with responsibilities.
/Yin-Yang.
//Opposite sides of a coin.
//Do you understand yet?

cognitive dissonance is you strong point... so that is something I guess.


You made a claim that I'd mistaken a right for a privilege, which is ridiculous.
Try reading what you've quoted. I can help you with the big words.
/You can move your lips: We're not watching.
//Stop snickering, ditty.
 
2014-02-13 07:26:15 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: demaL-demaL-yeH: You made a claim that I'd mistaken a right for a privilege, which is ridiculous.Try reading what you've quoted. I can help you with the big words./You can move your lips: We're not watching.//Stop snickering, ditty.

I was right... I should have followed the pack on this one...

/plonk



I like you...please don't leave me here alone with these savages.  I beg you.
 
2014-02-13 07:32:29 PM  
Is depression a felony crime now?
You should not have your rights revoked without--at minimum--a trial by jury.
 
2014-02-13 07:41:23 PM  

Galius_Persnickety: Is depression a felony crime now?
You should not have your rights revoked without--at minimum--a trial by jury.



And there it is folks...the land of Lincoln to the rescue once again.  Please look after the cows this time.

Cheers - Toronto
 
2014-02-13 07:52:13 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: theprinceofwands: TuteTibiImperes:

It may save lives.

No, it can't/won't. There's absolutely zero chance of it saving lives. There's a tiny chance of it expediting punishment of the guilty, but that's about it. Balanced against the enormity of the invasion and threat of future abusive action it's simply not worth it.

This, fark, is the poster child for people who should not be walking around armed in public.

I'm still waiting. Nice to see when you've been beaten you just go silent.

Is that what you consider a successful strategy? Refuse to make a principled argument and declare victory after you fail to present any evidence. I have a life, work, family, and better things to do than deal with your inability to exert any effort to be coherent, let alone present a rational, factual argument.

See that bold part up there? That's a big claim. Why don't you offer some verifiable facts to back it up?
NB Fake George Washington quotes won't cut it.


That wasn't my quote you put in bold there genius. And you have yet to respond to anything I questioned you on. Like have you listened to the Heller audio? Or ANY of the other points I made that leave you looking foolish? Nope, you ignore them, as you always have if it would undermine your rather pathetic sense of superiority.
 
2014-02-13 09:06:42 PM  

Farkage: That wasn't my quote you put in bold there genius. And you have yet to respond to anything I questioned you on. Like have you listened to the Heller audio? Or ANY of the other points I made that leave you looking foolish? Nope, you ignore them, as you always have if it would undermine your rather pathetic sense of superiority.


I listened to the Heller arguments when they were made. I read the opinion and reviewed it very recently. If registration were blatantly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have addressed it in Heller. Instead, the Supreme Court has ruled that registration is constitutional, but self-incrimination is not. After Heller, the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari in Justice v. Cicero, which decision explicitly and comprehensively upheld the constitutionality of registration.

You'd have to make a point in order for me to address it.
 
2014-02-13 09:15:51 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: That wasn't my quote you put in bold there genius. And you have yet to respond to anything I questioned you on. Like have you listened to the Heller audio? Or ANY of the other points I made that leave you looking foolish? Nope, you ignore them, as you always have if it would undermine your rather pathetic sense of superiority.

I listened to the Heller arguments when they were made. I read the opinion and reviewed it very recently. If registration were blatantly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have addressed it in Heller. Instead, the Supreme Court has ruled that registration is constitutional, but self-incrimination is not. After Heller, the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari in Justice v. Cicero, which decision explicitly and comprehensively upheld the constitutionality of registration.

You'd have to make a point in order for me to address it.


Oh, I was wrong. Please accept my apologies for mistaking that horribly incomplete and barely coherent argument for yours.

/But the same criticism applies.
 
2014-02-13 09:36:16 PM  
Praise you and all the holy things under heaven.  So there.
 
2014-02-13 10:51:20 PM  
These types of laws that CT, NY, etc., pass are soft confiscation.  They can't outright confiscate weapons (though they make noise about confiscation being "on the table"), so they cast a wider and wider net when it comes to defining "legal" weapons and accessories, under the mealy-mouthed guise that "you still have a right to certain guns, therefore the 2nd isn't being infringed."  They then require registration of all of these weapons and their magazines (in some cases suggesting that owners be required to show proof of purchase in order to prove they were lawfully obtained, which especially in the case of magazines is horseshiat), and ban ALL transfers, including inheritance.  What happens when you die and your legal property cannot be inherited by its rightful heirs, who can't legally take those items?

These laws ARE confiscation.
 
2014-02-13 11:57:07 PM  
This is how the government controls, by making ordinary citizens who would never harm anybody into criminals.