Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

4765 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 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.

 
Displayed 50 of 441 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report