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

(Russia Today)   Connecticut has created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals, because some residents are refusing to register guns under a new law enacted after the Sandy Hook School shooting   (rt.com) divider line 458
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4739 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:03 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 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 05:49:53 PM

hardinparamedic: 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.


Maybe

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.

here is a hint... if I am saying something about someone else's post, I will quote them instead... also I will specify that in some way your post has something to do with their post and that is why I am saying something.
 
2014-02-13 05:51:34 PM

hardinparamedic: 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.


What sort of paperwork do the drones do? (Aigoo's post) Oh wait... I know... they are secretarial drones...
 
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 06:15:07 PM

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.
 
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 06:34:02 PM

smoky2010: 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 you misspelled "right".
 
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 07:01:01 PM

That's 'Master Troll' to You: Thanks God, these small-penised men have taken up the fight against our oppressive government!


I am thinking you should have chosen a different name.
 
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 07:04:48 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.


that has nothing to do with my post.
 
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 07:10:33 PM

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.
 
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 07:13:06 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.


seems to work for you...

/I have no idea why I am still talking to you.
 
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 07:20:25 PM

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
 
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 09:19:09 PM

blame_canada: 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.


don't worry, I'm still here...
 
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.
 
2014-02-14 12:28:23 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.


uh...it does say "shall not be abridged," not "within all reasonable limits"
 
2014-02-14 12:30:45 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.


You realize Randy Weaver didn't go "Randy Weaver" on anyone, the FBI and BATFE went "Big Brother" on his wife and son...dude walked AFTER his family was murdered
 
2014-02-14 12:41:23 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?


BZZZZZT!

/Prior restraint
//Can't be punished, prosecuted, or prevented from saying anyhting....only AFTER
 
2014-02-14 01:18:27 AM

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.


And the responsibility that comes with the 2A is that you not ILLEGALY harm or kill someone else not, that you give up some of your rights so other people feel safer.
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report