| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tankfixer
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
 |
|
In article <l3ma64d4r60fnn371jjfsqpret8vljqdq8@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT), John Graeme
jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote:
Not true
Less cops mean more crime
Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence. I can cite several
studies by criminologists that found that the police have no
significant effect on crime.
Hell, you can cite a hundred by the Nazi Rifle
Association alone---all of which were paid to reflect
their views.
|
So instead of actually impeaching his source you just toss petty
insults.
Typical.
| Quote: |
The "cops" program started under Clinton saw major
decline in crime in most areas a year or two after it
was initiated---government stats reflect
The Program was defunded--by the GOP and the states
didn't pick up the program
|
It was never intended to be an enternal program. And the cities and
states knew that.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <p3nc64ho3u47ig0ao4oqif7iqjuae1acp3@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:23:05 -0500, "David Moffitt"
dmoffitt@stomping-leftist-twits.org> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:l3ma64d4r60fnn371jjfsqpret8vljqdq8@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT), John Graeme
| <jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote:
|
| >> Not true
| >> Less cops mean more crime
|
|
| >Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence. I can cite several
| >studies by criminologists that found that the police have no
| >significant effect on crime.
|
| Hell, you can cite a hundred by the Nazi
Godwin's Law: prov.
MufftitfLoon's law
"Act like a nazi, then whine because you get called
one"
|
I know, your whining is getting tiresome.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <der764toucc0pbc6s5gng31qd1u6chlu8q@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT"
craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
But the folks in DC, Chicago and other restricted cities are not out of the
woods. I would expect DC to impose very strict requirements, and a lot of
red tape to be able to posses a gun.
So you're saying that some rationality still might
exist to counter gunloonery?
|
How is tyranny rational ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <hcd8645u2ode1e0l20miuk7lafbmovv777@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:47:02 -0400, "Topp@Work"
topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:der764toucc0pbc6s5gng31qd1u6chlu8q@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT"
craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
But the folks in DC, Chicago and other restricted cities are not out of
the
woods. I would expect DC to impose very strict requirements, and a lot of
red tape to be able to posses a gun.
So you're saying that some rationality still might
exist to counter gunloonery?
What do you find rational about disarming LAW ABIDING people to protect
themselves?
Because the stupidity of claiming that "more guns"
cause less crime is astoundingly juvenile
|
What is juvenile is the leftists continued belief that guns "cause"
anything.
| Quote: |
The idea of "individuals" enforcing laws or preventing
crimes, at best, is a puffed up anecdotal evidentiary
propaganda---and mostly the H ollyWood, John Wayne
version of society.
|
Better to deprive them of their civil rights then ?
Because of your illusions ?
| Quote: |
The law in a high crime district was, at least, in part
mitigated by the strict gun laws.
|
The criminals would never obey those laws, how did they help but to
enslave the innocent citizens ?
| Quote: |
Now everyone can have one.
|
Sorry but no, criminals and the mentally ill will not.
| Quote: |
Now we can experience "shoot first", mentality of
anyone with a "criminal" mentality.
|
I'm sorry you have such little faith in your own character that you must
wish to impose tyranny on the public.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <5id864p4mlcsqb3lnb1v8asls7l342jph7@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:11:44 -0500, "LT"
craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
SCOTUS has for once and for all affirmed that the 2nd Amendment implies the
right to keep and bare arms is directed at the individual, not a group
(militia) and the states have no authority to deny that right,
Holy shit
And for years and years the rightwing has claimed the
USSC cannot decide anything correctly (to their view).
Now that you've got 5 rightwing extremist idiots,
locked in some world of the 18th century, you figure
they're "right on"
It's true THEY interpreted it that way----but any
rational, non "federalist society" Justice would ruled
as the minority did
You won the battle, but lost the war.
Eventuall, Americans cannot survive with murderous
mentality promoted by the Nazi Rifle Association and
it's thugs.
|
Good thing the SC rulled the mentally ill can't have a gun...
Your writing indicts you
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <har764lpbeegeudn84v4b6o4th999fc98h@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:01:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net
(B1ackwater) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard78sp@primus.ca"
leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
Yep, then we can start practicing stiff-arm salutes,
goose-steps while you march lockstep with neo-nazis.
|
I'm suprised you can type with that arm in the airall the time.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <EcSdnbox8L05bf7VnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@giganews.com>,
topprolmc@comcast.net says...
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:har764lpbeegeudn84v4b6o4th999fc98h@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:01:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net
(B1ackwater) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard78sp@primus.ca"
leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
Yep, then we can start practicing stiff-arm salutes,
goose-steps while you march lockstep with neo-nazis.
Bwaaahaaa....You are obviously about 15 years old, or just a moron...
|
Or both
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <v8r764lt6s9gjkr0jegdoorvaajd70fua8@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400,
"leonard78sp@primus.ca" <leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
So every minority gets to have guns to counter white
supremacy----
|
Does that bother you ?
| Quote: |
Wow, I'd be very, very afraid if I were you.
|
I'm not worried but you seem to be.
Have you been trying to tell us something about yourself ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
B1ackwater
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:30:53 -0400, "Topp@Work"
<topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4864063a.38784390@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net
wrote:
"
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not
difference
as far as the law goes.
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ...
It would never come back up in the same route...
Banning something you have a right to own has been deemed unconstitutional,
along with making it inoperable for your defense...
So what will come up is regulation issues....
Such as, waiting periods...Purchase of one a month....etc, etc...
|
Agreed ... they'll try back-door routes. The decision
does NOT affect 'restrictions' that come short of an
outright ban. That means the possibility of a red-tape
jungle, intrusive & hostile 'qualification' requirements
and procedures too. Jaywalkers ??? Can't have dangerous
criminals like THOSE owning guns !!!
It's unclear whether attempts to ban AMMO are thwarted
by the latest decision. Very strictly interpreted, it
applies JUST to the "arms" ... not anything that goes
IN them. One could argue that an 'arm' is not an 'arm'
without free access to vital mechanical accessories - be
they cartridges, bullets, powder ... arrows, speartips
or a sword-sharpener for that matter. Still, I can just
see SOME city trying to get around the decision by
declaring the gunpowder in cartridges as "terrorist
bomb-making material".
It may also be possible to make USING a gun, even in
self-defense, a crime of some sort - even if it's just
in violation of a "discharging a firearm inside the
city limits' sort of crime - to harass and intimidate
the common Joe. Until lately, 'criminals rights' nutters
had made it SO easy for killers, rapists and robbers to
SUE anyone who shot them that the situation had become
quite grim. Fortunately a number of states finally
passed laws that exempted the innocent from such legal
abuses. Not ALL states however ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jun 26, 2:01 pm, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
|
I half agree with you here. The founding fathers were liberals-
everyone ought to liberally have guns.
The conservatives were in dissent, Souter Stevens Ginsberg and Breyer.
Left is not right if you are spinning around.
The right to bear arms is against unreasonable search and seizure.
Like George Bush senior told George Bush Junior after he kidnapped me,
" If he had a gun you would be dead".
Exterminate the Department of Education
i had to type six secret passwords to post this message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jun 26, 3:26 pm, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400,
"leonard7...@primus.ca" <leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
So every minority gets to have guns to counter white
supremacy----
Wow, I'd be very, very afraid if I were you.
|
bring it on maggot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jun 26, 3:26 pm, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:01:27 GMT, b...@barrk.net
(B1ackwater) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
Yep, then we can start practicing stiff-arm salutes,
goose-steps while you march lockstep with neo-nazis.
|
the halocaust was a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Topp@Work
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4868e3af.10806453@news.east.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:30:53 -0400, "Topp@Work"
topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4864063a.38784390@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net
wrote:
"
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not
difference
as far as the law goes.
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ...
It would never come back up in the same route...
Banning something you have a right to own has been deemed
unconstitutional,
along with making it inoperable for your defense...
So what will come up is regulation issues....
Such as, waiting periods...Purchase of one a month....etc, etc...
Agreed ... they'll try back-door routes. The decision
does NOT affect 'restrictions' that come short of an
outright ban. That means the possibility of a red-tape
jungle, intrusive & hostile 'qualification' requirements
and procedures too. Jaywalkers ??? Can't have dangerous
criminals like THOSE owning guns !!!
|
They will try, but it got 1000000 times more difficult now....
| Quote: |
It's unclear whether attempts to ban AMMO are thwarted
by the latest decision. Very strictly interpreted, it
applies JUST to the "arms" ... not anything that goes
IN them. One could argue that an 'arm' is not an 'arm'
without free access to vital mechanical accessories - be
they cartridges, bullets, powder ... arrows, speartips
or a sword-sharpener for that matter. Still, I can just
see SOME city trying to get around the decision by
declaring the gunpowder in cartridges as "terrorist
bomb-making material".
|
They can't use that since it would be like making ink prohibitivly
expensive....
Which is a limit on the right of free speech.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
B1ackwater
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:46:39 -0400, "Topp@Work"
<topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4868e3af.10806453@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:30:53 -0400, "Topp@Work"
topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4864063a.38784390@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net
wrote:
"
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not
difference
as far as the law goes.
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ...
It would never come back up in the same route...
Banning something you have a right to own has been deemed
unconstitutional,
along with making it inoperable for your defense...
So what will come up is regulation issues....
Such as, waiting periods...Purchase of one a month....etc, etc...
Agreed ... they'll try back-door routes. The decision
does NOT affect 'restrictions' that come short of an
outright ban. That means the possibility of a red-tape
jungle, intrusive & hostile 'qualification' requirements
and procedures too. Jaywalkers ??? Can't have dangerous
criminals like THOSE owning guns !!!
They will try, but it got 1000000 times more difficult now....
|
Um ... not 1,000,000 times ....
The grabbers WILL persist. No twist or turn or distortion
of law or fact is too much if it helps them achieve their
holy mission to disempower the proles. Like the anti-evolution
people, they'll be back every year with a NEW angle to beat
the letter of the law. Since Americans worship the letter
more than the spirit, *eventually* the grabbers might get
lucky.
| Quote: |
It's unclear whether attempts to ban AMMO are thwarted
by the latest decision. Very strictly interpreted, it
applies JUST to the "arms" ... not anything that goes
IN them. One could argue that an 'arm' is not an 'arm'
without free access to vital mechanical accessories - be
they cartridges, bullets, powder ... arrows, speartips
or a sword-sharpener for that matter. Still, I can just
see SOME city trying to get around the decision by
declaring the gunpowder in cartridges as "terrorist
bomb-making material".
They can't use that since it would be like making ink prohibitivly
expensive....
Which is a limit on the right of free speech....
|
Not in the internet age where all info is 'paperless' ... and,
just coincidentally, tracable  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RM v2.0
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
| Quote: |
Not in the internet age where all info is 'paperless' ... and,
just coincidentally, tracable :-)
Not necessarily. Free WIFI, public libraries, lots of ways to stay anonymous |
on the Net. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
106 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
