View Full Version : Supreme Court Throws Out Handgun Ban
Fallen
06-26-2008, 11:48 AM
The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that Americans have a right to own guns, rejecting a 32-year-old ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. The ruling is historic -- it's the first time the court has issued a pronouncement on gun rights.
Fallen
06-26-2008, 11:49 AM
About damn time, too.
Deathravin
06-26-2008, 11:58 AM
Ya, because banning handguns in DC has worked wonders for their homicide rate. They're 18th now^ YAY gun control!
Clove
06-26-2008, 11:59 AM
Sweet.
I like Penn & Teller's idea for gun control.
Make it mandatory that all women carry guys, and paint them bright pink.
It was a joke, obviously, but it would probably lower crime.
...and oh... it was a flipping split decision.. thats scary, if Obama is the next president and appoints liberal judges we could lose that right.
Clove
06-26-2008, 12:50 PM
You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? We need some bullet control. Man, we need to control the bullets, that's right. I think all bullets should cost $5000. $5000 for a bullet. You know why? 'Cause if a bullet costs $5000, there'd be no more innocent bystanders. … Every time someone gets shot, people will be like, "Damn, he must have did something."
Chris Rock - HBO Special "Bigger and Blacker"
Bullet control.
AnticorRifling
06-26-2008, 02:05 PM
I would vote for bullet control, that would mean I've got $15,000,000 sitting in my ammo cans in the garage.
ClydeR
06-26-2008, 03:08 PM
This new court case should generate interest in the positions of the presidential candidates.
Gun Owners of America does a good job of rating each member of Congress on his voting record on second amendment issues. Based on the ratings, those of use who support a strong second amendment have slim pickings. GOA gave these ratings (http://www.gunowners.org/110srat.htm) to McCain and Obama--
McCain F-
Obama F
You can't get much worse than that.
GOA says that McCain (http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm) was pretty solidly pro-gun until he started running for president against George Bush. Then he became wickedly anti-gun, even making commercials for local anti-gun referendums. Now he's become a bit more pro-gun, but he has not abandoned his anti-gun ways completely, and he slips anti-gun measures into bills that appear to be pro-gun. The people at GAO really hate McCain, I think because he made the anti-gun commercials, including a trailer in the movie Pearl Harbor.
GAO says Obama (http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm) has not taken any steps to repeal anti-gun laws. And Obama has said that the Washington DC gun ban--the one that was ruled on today--was constitutional.
GAO says Bob Barr (http://gunowners.org/pres08/barr.htm) used to be anti-gun but has slowly become pro-gun over the years. GAO seems to give him the benefit of the doubt.
GAO says Chuck Baldwin (http://gunowners.org/pres08/baldwin.htm) is A-OK, even though he does not have a legislative record on which to base that determination. Baldwin has written a popular book about the second amendment and has made many speeches in favor of gun rights. It looks like GAO likes Baldwin more than the others.
I can't find a GAO profile on Ralph Nader.
Warriorbird
06-26-2008, 03:12 PM
There are more judicial categories than "liberal" and "conservative." I'm glad that such a chest thumping Republican decision was put forth, believe it or not. Than again I come from a part of the country where most Democratic politicians are part of the NRA too.
Tisket
06-26-2008, 03:13 PM
The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that Americans have a right to own guns, rejecting a 32-year-old ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. The ruling is historic -- it's the first time the court has issued a pronouncement on gun rights.
Excellent.
Stanley Burrell
06-26-2008, 03:22 PM
What ban? Every single time I go into Wal-mart, it's like, "KILL PEOPLE." With the little yellow discount smilie face next to a gunrack. I mean, that's some serious marketing pizazz.
TheEschaton
06-26-2008, 03:37 PM
Hell, even I thought this was a good decision.
radamanthys
06-26-2008, 04:23 PM
Yea. Yay freedom.
Mabus
06-26-2008, 04:35 PM
It is good to see that 5 judges read the papers of the founders. Finally, all those "militia only" people can shut the hell up.
Clove
06-26-2008, 04:56 PM
What ban? Every single time I go into Wal-mart, it's like, "KILL PEOPLE." With the little yellow discount smilie face next to a gunrack. I mean, that's some serious marketing pizazz.Not in D.C. you don't dipshit.
Stanley Burrell
06-26-2008, 05:05 PM
Not in D.C. you don't dipshit.
Oh. Viva la district!
Parkbandit
06-26-2008, 06:06 PM
I think the wake up call for most Americans should be the 4 Justices that wanted to legislate from the bench, and totally ignore the Constitution.
Warriorbird
06-26-2008, 06:09 PM
If nobody ever legislated from the bench... this would be a very different country. Some excellent conservative justices do it quite a lot. It's only legislating from the bench when you disagree with the outcome.
Latrinsorm
06-26-2008, 06:18 PM
PB is right, WB, we clearly need more decisions like Scott v. Sanford.
Sean of the Thread
06-26-2008, 07:35 PM
:clap:
Stanley Burrell
06-26-2008, 07:37 PM
Time to go suit up and fight me some redcoats!
SolitareConfinement
06-26-2008, 07:50 PM
This new court case should generate interest in the positions of the presidential candidates.
Gun Owners of America does a good job of rating each member of Congress on his voting record on second amendment issues. Based on the ratings, those of use who support a strong second amendment have slim pickings. GOA gave these ratings (http://www.gunowners.org/110srat.htm) to McCain and Obama--
McCain F-
Obama F
You can't get much worse than that.
GOA says that McCain (http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm) was pretty solidly pro-gun until he started running for president against George Bush. Then he became wickedly anti-gun, even making commercials for local anti-gun referendums. Now he's become a bit more pro-gun, but he has not abandoned his anti-gun ways completely, and he slips anti-gun measures into bills that appear to be pro-gun. The people at GAO really hate McCain, I think because he made the anti-gun commercials, including a trailer in the movie Pearl Harbor.
GAO says Obama (http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm) has not taken any steps to repeal anti-gun laws. And Obama has said that the Washington DC gun ban--the one that was ruled on today--was constitutional.
GAO says Bob Barr (http://gunowners.org/pres08/barr.htm) used to be anti-gun but has slowly become pro-gun over the years. GAO seems to give him the benefit of the doubt.
GAO says Chuck Baldwin (http://gunowners.org/pres08/baldwin.htm) is A-OK, even though he does not have a legislative record on which to base that determination. Baldwin has written a popular book about the second amendment and has made many speeches in favor of gun rights. It looks like GAO likes Baldwin more than the others.
I can't find a GAO profile on Ralph Nader.
:facepalm:
Parkbandit
06-26-2008, 08:57 PM
If nobody ever legislated from the bench... this would be a very different country. Some excellent conservative justices do it quite a lot. It's only legislating from the bench when you disagree with the outcome.
Not really. Those 4 justices decided to simply ignore the 2nd amendment and say that the US Government can ban guns from it's citizens... in effect trying to impose a quasi amendment.
Parkbandit
06-26-2008, 09:02 PM
PB is right, WB, we clearly need more decisions like Scott v. Sanford.
You are an idiot. Let's be honest about it.
Typical liberal... bring up a decision that happened in 1857 about slavery.. that way you can paint someone who doesn't agree with you as a racist or a bigot.
You're a fucking retard.
Keller
06-26-2008, 10:48 PM
You are an idiot. Let's be honest about it.
Typical liberal... bring up a decision that happened in 1857 about slavery.. that way you can paint someone who doesn't agree with you as a racist or a bigot.
You're a fucking retard.
Do you honestly believe you wouldn't have bitched about that decision? I don't.
But all the talk about greater freedoms for gun owners doesn't begin to explain what the ruling means in Chicago, which has seen a recent spate of gun violence.
Nine people were killed in 36 shootings during one weekend this spring. The next week, five people were found shot to death inside a South Side home.
Chicago Public Schools officials say 27 students have been killed by gunfire since September.
Pamela Bosley lost her 18-year-old son two years ago, when a bullet struck him as he helped a fellow student unload instruments outside a South Side Church.
"If you didn't have the guns, we'd still have our children," she said.
Annette Nance-Holt, whose 16-year-old son was killed on a city bus last spring when someone sprayed bullets inside it, was livid with the court's decision.
"I'm still trying to figure out who we are more in love with, our children or our guns," she said. "It's crazy. I'm safer being a deer knowing people are hunting you."
Daley was also troubled by the ruling.
I love the unbiased media... setting it up with the liberal point of view.
Fucking morons. All those deaths and murders happened while there WAS/IS a handgun ban. So obviously, the ban doesn't prevent deaths.
Of course, lifting it will not really prevent them in big cities either, not 100%, every once in awhile perhaps a potential virginia tech type incident will be thwarted because someone legally carrying a weapon, but drive bys, etc, aren't stopped, by either a ban or by legal gun carriers.
If you want to prevent that type of gang violence, you need more cops, a better less corrupt education system, and you need to encourage better family life among the poor (keeping dad in the picture, etc).
Warriorbird
06-27-2008, 09:05 AM
So... government should be legislating "keeping Dad in the picture?"
More cops = smaller government?
A less corrupt education system = private schools and Jesus camp?
Next.
Embrace those libertarian ideals!
For my own part I think taking a look at our drug policies (and securing our borders... something Republicans CLAIM to want but always sandbag because ADM and Walmart and every construction company ever don't want it) would probably work to reduce gang violence. Though I could see spending some of the Iraq money on extra cops back home.
Daniel
06-27-2008, 10:02 AM
and you need to encourage better family life among the poor (keeping dad in the picture, etc).
How do you reconcile this statement with mandatory minimums?
Warriorbird
06-27-2008, 10:42 AM
He can't. It's also a pity PB has Keller on ignore. Keller's last post won this thread.
Parkbandit
06-27-2008, 10:46 AM
Unlikely. Unless this is what Keller started a thread about "There is a first time for everything"
HE FINALLY WON A THREAD!!
LOL BRIELUS
06-27-2008, 11:07 AM
i was really surprised the split was so close. I was convinced it was going to be 8-1 or 7-2. We were literally a John Kerry appointment away from the slippery slope of allowing the government to ban guns under a ruse of gun control/safety reasons.
How do you reconcile this statement with mandatory minimums?
WTF are you talking about?
Are you racist or something? You think all black men are criminals and locked up and that is why there are so many broken homes? WTF?
I hate to break it to your klanness, but not all young black men are criminals, and the lack of fathering is a problem of culture and education.
More cops = smaller government?
Libertarians are always, always, in favor of law enforcement. We're not always in favor of all the laws on the books, but law enforcement is a vital part of society and seen as the #1 functional of government.
A less corrupt education system = private schools and Jesus camp?
No, dipshit. Merit pay for teachers, school of choice, charter & magnet schools, accountability, and the ceasation of tenuring poorly performing teachers merely out of seniority. And of course, no more lowering of standards.
CrystalTears
06-27-2008, 11:15 AM
Are you racist or something? You think all black men are criminals and locked up and that is why there are so many broken homes? WTF?
I hate to break it to your klanness, but not all young black men are criminals, and the lack of fathering is a problem of culture and education.
WTF is right. Are you new here?
and oh... small government != goverment employing less people. It is == government involved in less things.
Adding police officers doesn't make government bigger, it just makes government better at one of it's duties.
Making government bigger is doing something like adding a new regulatory office to regulate something new. Or adding new powers to existing regulatory offices, etc.
WTF is right. Are you new here?
Did I mistakenly stumble into a klan meeting?
CrystalTears
06-27-2008, 11:18 AM
No, your assumptions about Daniel.
Clove
06-27-2008, 11:21 AM
Daniel is right, we need to make sure children have more contact with family members who are felons. They need role-models.
Fallen
06-27-2008, 11:22 AM
I too thought it was a bit strange he directly equated poor people with criminals.
Warriorbird
06-27-2008, 11:30 AM
Where to start?
Sentencing for drug possession is one of the two areas with actual documentable evidence of racial bias in our judicial system. Quite a few libertarians are for some degree of drug legalization. You neglected that bit while 'speaking for everybody.'
Small government = the government spending less and interfering in people's lives less.
Having seen the direct evidence of how successful education 'reform' is... close a school and develop a stupid population. It's a pretty simple correlation. When a bunch of Republicans are then unwilling to fund further 'reform' measures... the population slides even further downhill.
Sean of the Thread
06-27-2008, 11:36 AM
Let's be clear that a lack of parenting/father etc in ANY race has a serious effect on so many things both cultural and educationally.
In my case it made me a stronger individual.. not a criminal(damn close a few times). Thankfully I had some teachers/coaches around that gave a shit to mentor me somewhat. I excelled in school academically but was constantly in trouble for stirring the shit.
It's been 14 years and they're still talking about me stealing a maintenance golf cart and rampaging thru the school like a Magnum P.I. chase scene.
I love it warriorbird, you're telling me what I believe.
I am for legalization of marijuana. I am not for legalization of crack, cocaine, heroine, ecstasy, meth, or any other drug that can kill you.
I do think we need different drug enforcement and prosecution protocols, dividing defendants based on if they are violent or not, gang affiliated or not, and sending them to different prisons.
IF you want to believe small government means less police officers, thats fine, but since you have this hardon about apparently calling me out, repeatedly, on libertarian beliefs, you should realize that libertarians believe the #1 and main function of a government should be to protect it's citizens from those who would do them harm or infringe their rights. Ergo, we do not believe that more cops == bigger government.
This thread gets an A for retardedness. Its about gun control, then crime, then people are saying the way to address such issues is to be lighter on criminal sentencing... sure, that'll work. Nevermind it is just treating a symptom, not the disease, and that it stereotypes a huge segment of the population.
Education & culture are the disease that need to be treated. The first step to doing that is to stop protecting school teachers, administrators, and teacher unions that care more about protecting the status quo than making improvements and helping kids.
LOL BRIELUS
06-27-2008, 11:49 AM
can we go back and talk about how gun ownership is finally allowed in DC, and now law abiding citizens can defend themselves in their own home against rapists, murderers and robbers?
I always thought the word robber was a funny word.
the last apartment I lived in before we bought our house had a shitty storage area in the basement, each unit got a 4x4 locker or whatever it was, but the units were built out of like 1/2inch thick fiber board. MAybe even 3/8s. People would just tear the door down with their bare hands and steal the shit in there.
One time I went down and someone had used a screw driver to stab a note in the door.
"Dear Robber,
If I ever find out who you are, I will kill you!"
I thought it was just the funniest thing. I hear "Robber" I think
http://www.thescore.ca/sixpack/hamburglar.gif
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Savchick/robber%20at%20wall%20800x6002.jpg
Parkbandit
06-27-2008, 12:13 PM
i was really surprised the split was so close. I was convinced it was going to be 8-1 or 7-2. We were literally a John Kerry appointment away from the slippery slope of allowing the government to ban guns under a ruse of gun control/safety reasons.
And we're literally an Obama appointment away from travelling down that slippery slope come November. At least 2 spots will open up... and given Obama's track record, that turns into a 6-3 decision the other way.
Parkbandit
06-27-2008, 12:15 PM
I too thought it was a bit strange he directly equated poor people with criminals.
You obviously haven't read most of Daniel's political posts. He's often portrays them as 'victims' and having no other choice.
Parkbandit
06-27-2008, 12:18 PM
Small government = the government spending less and interfering in people's lives less.
Incorrect WB.
Definition of small government, as described by most Conservatives:
A Small government is one which minimizes its own activities. In its "perfect" form it would confine itself to foreign policy, defense and law and leave other activities to local government, companies and individuals.
I bolded the part where it pertains to this discussion. Small government actually desires a larger law enforcement presence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_government
Because we all know that guns kill people - not people.
Because we all know that pens mispell words - not people.
Warriorbird
06-27-2008, 12:41 PM
So you fire everybody, crb. Destroy the unions. Remove tenure. Leave people powerless. Keep salaries low as fuck. Who the hell is going to want to teach?
There's a difference between Republican and libertarian views on small government. Crb puts himself clearly in the "just like nearly every other Republican camp."
Small government isn't that small when you bloat defense and the prison industrial complex.
I only told you what you believed after you told me what I believed, crb, ad infinitum.
Parkbandit
06-27-2008, 01:08 PM
Small government isn't that small when you bloat defense and the prison industrial complex.
Once again, you're mistaken on the term "small government" and what most conservatives define it as.
So you fire everybody, crb. Destroy the unions. Remove tenure. Leave people powerless. Keep salaries low as fuck. Who the hell is going to want to teach?
There's a difference between Republican and libertarian views on small government. Crb puts himself clearly in the "just like nearly every other Republican camp."
Small government isn't that small when you bloat defense and the prison industrial complex.
I only told you what you believed after you told me what I believed, crb, ad infinitum.
Did I say I wanted to pay teachers peanuts?
In an ideal world teachers would get paid 60-80k a year, or say $100k if we extended the school year into the summer, which we should. They would all have masters degrees. They would enjoy their job and have less stress because funding for necessary classroom expenses would be covered. Teachers unions would cease or exist or stop trying to influence politics to the benefit of the union at the expense of the children. They would stop fighting common sense reforms, merely because a reform may result in non-union teachers being hired. They would stop fighting accountability that makes them look bad. Teachers would no longer get tenured, allowing them to be more easily fired if their job performance or enthusiam slips, as is the case in pretty much every other profession.
So you see, it is a trade off. Pay good teachers more, fire bad teachers. I would call that fair, as I believe any sane person would.
PB's wikipedia link is good, read it.
Stanley Burrell
06-27-2008, 01:53 PM
Pay good teachers more, fire bad teachers more is like saying ...
Elect good politicians more, don't elect bad politicians more. And fortunately, I have X-ray specs that let me view all teachers in their evil or pure essence.
And if you thought I Google searched this image as R.L. Stine, you are very, very wrong, mister.
http://images.contentreserve.com/ImageType-100/0288-1/%7B8C3C48D7-9828-4940-A7F6-8E78960ECE25%7DImg100.jpg
Pay good teachers more, fire bad teachers more is like saying ...
Elect good politicians more, don't elect bad politicians more. And fortunately, I have X-ray specs that let me view all teachers in their evil or pure essence.
And if you thought I Google searched this image as R.L. Stine, you are very, very wrong, mister.
http://images.contentreserve.com/ImageType-100/0288-1/%7B8C3C48D7-9828-4940-A7F6-8E78960ECE25%7DImg100.jpg
The problem stanely is that teachers gain tenure too easily and then it is nearly impossible to fire them thanks to the unions.
Obviously, it is hard to prevent hiring bad teachers, but the school district needs more flexibility to fire them.
So you end up with shit like this:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0DA1E3CF934A15752C0A9679582 60
"What happened is obvious," said Donald A. Meyers, principal at Fridley High School. "Last hired is the first fired." Laid Off, Again
Maybe we shouldn't base things purely on seniority hrmm?
Stanley Burrell
06-27-2008, 02:09 PM
I'd never provide tenure to anyone who taught evolution in the classroom either.
Stanley Burrell
06-27-2008, 02:11 PM
^ Which is roughly about as astute at proving a point as that link.
"Tenure", as a fucking word, doesn't even apply its commodities to educators not on a collegiate level.
the teachers in my highschool got tenure.
Stanley Burrell
06-27-2008, 02:28 PM
I'm sure the teachers in my high school received tenure as well. And that an actual tenure of a non-research associate-and-above professor at a learning institution could rival the combination of two or three salaries.
I don't feel that educators of our youth have any business being backed by a union as is, as in all honesty, I've never known Jimmy Hoffa to hop out some nearby bushes and start beating down educators.
wpqoeiqojeiojr
TheEschaton
06-27-2008, 03:39 PM
And we're literally an Obama appointment away from travelling down that slippery slope come November. At least 2 spots will open up... and given Obama's track record, that turns into a 6-3 decision the other way.
Actually, the two slots likely to open up are Ginsburg and Stevens, two Obama appointees would probably just preserve the 5-4 originalist majority, with Kennedy having an inordinate influence.
After reading the decision I'm amending my view as follows: I agree with the outcome, but not the reasoning, of the majority.
Like the minority, I don't believe the 2nd is an absolute right (keep in mind, conservatives, all of the rights in the BoR have limits and exceptions). However, a complete ban, which is what the DC law said, obviously abridged all rights, irrespective of 'valid use' gun ownership. That is certainly not allowed under the 2nd.
Allereli
06-27-2008, 03:52 PM
I'm sure the teachers in my high school received tenure as well.
I'm pretty sure my middle school had tenured teachers
edit:
on topic: One thing you don't have in the District is kids shooting themselves/others with their parents' guns. This is bound to go up dramatically. My aunt and uncle's neighbors had a gun and the younger son shot the older one and killed him. That was in CT.
The punishment for crimes committed with guns was also extremely high because of the ban, I'm not sure the disparity in sentencing will be allowed anymore.
Just a look at the other side of the argument. Honestly the people here should not be allowed to own guns.
ClydeR
06-27-2008, 04:05 PM
Actually, the two slots likely to open up are Ginsburg and Stevens, two Obama appointees would probably just preserve the 5-4 originalist majority, with Kennedy having an inordinate influence.
Ginsburg has been literally falling asleep on the bench.
I'm pretty sure my middle school had tenured teachers
edit:
on topic: One thing you don't have in the District is kids shooting themselves/others with their parents' guns. This is bound to go up dramatically. My aunt and uncle's neighbors had a gun and the younger son shot the older one and killed him. That was in CT.
The punishment for crimes committed with guns was also extremely high because of the ban, I'm not sure the disparity in sentencing will be allowed anymore.
Just a look at the other side of the argument. Honestly the people here should not be allowed to own guns.
on topic: One thing you don't have in the District is kids shooting themselves/others with their parents' guns. This is bound to go up dramatically. My aunt and uncle's neighbors had a gun and the younger son shot the older one and killed him. That was in CT.
Ir you are irresponsible in your gun ownership and something like this happens, you need to be held liable. I will not quibble on that point.
I'm for responsible gun ownership, responsible CC laws. But jackasses who aren't responsible need to be held liable for whatever harm comes from it.
Stanley Burrell
06-27-2008, 04:17 PM
Ginsburg has been literally falling asleep on the bench.
You really are retarded, aren't you?
That said, Clarence Thomas has done a wonderful job being an African American republican with a conservative card. Actual benchmarks for that guy, or whoever the fuck it was that was able to scout him out in the first place.
CrystalTears
06-27-2008, 04:19 PM
When Stanley calls you retarded, you may as well pack up your bags and leap off the highest building.
Stanley Burrell
06-27-2008, 04:20 PM
Thank you, I think.
Daniel
06-27-2008, 04:40 PM
I too thought it was a bit strange he directly equated poor people with criminals.
It's a pretty demonstratable fact that there is a correlation between income level and crime rates. I reject the notion that this has anything to do with these people being more "depraved" or anything related to that notion.
However, I do believe that there are things that exacerbate this problem. One of the most notable being mandatory minimums on crimes.
A poor guy makes a mistake because he's under a lot of pressure and then spends the next 5-9 years in prison. This effectively ruins any shot he might of had at rehabilitating his life, and in the situation where he has a family..pretty much ensures that it will forever be broken. I think it's a piss poor solution to a problem and does absolutely nothing to address the root cause.
CrystalTears
06-27-2008, 04:45 PM
Someone who commits a crime out of desperation can be sympathized with and you could understand their motivation. It doesn't make them any less of a criminal. Are you saying someone should be given a nicer deal because he's poor?
Stanley Burrell
06-27-2008, 04:52 PM
It's just probably a good idea not to wave now-legal handguns in front of a U.S. city with one of the highest crime rates on the planet and say "We care about minorities and gang-related violence."
Maybe enough of these weapons can get into the hands of criminals so as that people who won't gamble away their kids' breakfast, lunch & dinner actually have a real necessity to bring about the protection of family members by substituting physical food for gun steel. You fucking dumb piece of shit weapon peddling fucks. Good God.
Let's go after the separation between church and state clause next since we're all so hard-penis venereal-18th-century-genital-yellow fever word-for-word interpretation of written doctrines.
Fucking dumb bastard ignoramuses. I'm serious. The only decent thing this can do is put weapons in the hands of disgruntled peasants within the same district Bush II occupies.
Edited: If you're going to be for it due to economical gain, just say it. No snerty pseudo-opinionated hiding-behind-the-truth bullshit. Please. Don't be a flagrant derogatory-opposite-of-heterosexual in doing so. You could just say "I'm an arms merchant." Not a U.S. historian + lawmaker. People are fucking stupid. I mean like, hit on the head with large, blunt metal objects while eating paint chips and drowning in a bathtub of Drain-O fucking stupid. Jesus stupid fucking Christ.
Clove
06-27-2008, 05:05 PM
A poor guy makes a mistake because he's under a lot of pressure and then spends the next 5-9 years in prison.I have mixed feelings about mandatory sentencing, because sometimes justice is not always so black and white. On the other hand, descretion can be abused and given the choice between possibilities of sentencing more harshly than necessary and of not sentencing harshly enough; I'd prefer the former.
That being said, substitute "poor" with rich, ignorant, black, white, gay, male, female or any other category you like. We all face pressure and we all face temptation, but a criminal act is a criminal act. If the poor are not more depraved than anyone else, then they have the same understanding of right and wrong. If the poor are not dumber than anyone else, then they have the same understanding of the consequences of their actions. No doubt getting caught commiting a felony places a person who is already in a bad situation, in a worse one. That's really the point.
Sorry, I worked in a prison way too long to be a sucker for the 'I'm a victim' routine that people use when justifying their illegal actions.
We are a nation of laws, founded on the rule of law for a reason.
I can buy mitigating circumstances for sentence considerations (which applies to the previously mentioned manditory minimums) but guilty is still guilty.
Warriorbird
06-27-2008, 05:42 PM
I'm sure y'all would've been all about locking people up during Prohibition too and never ever drinking a tasty fermented beverage.
Pigs can also fly.
ClydeR
06-27-2008, 05:47 PM
You really are retarded, aren't you?
I was agreeing with TheE that Ginsburg is likely to retire soon. She has literally fallen asleep on the bench in open court on more than one occasion. The most recent such occasion was yesterday, which was the court's last public session until this fall. Most of the court's time yesterday was devoted to listening to Scalia read his opinion in the gun case. She already knew what he was going to say. Who can blame her?
She has suffered numerous health problems, and her drowsiness is probably a side effect from the treatment.
She is certainly not the first Supreme Court judge to fall asleep in court. Rehnquist also fell asleep during a public question and answer session once or twice. He too was drowsy because of medication.
Latrinsorm
06-27-2008, 05:50 PM
Typical liberal... bring up a decision that happened in 1857 about slavery.. that way you can paint someone who doesn't agree with you as a racist or a bigot.That's one possible explanation. An alternative is that I was pointing out that your desired goal (removing judges who "legislate from the bench") can lead to extremely undesireable ends (state endorsement of slavery and dehumanization).
That you react so defensively says considerably more about you than it does about me.
I am not for legalization of crack, cocaine, heroine, ecstasy, meth, or any other drug that can kill you.It turns out that marijuana can also kill you. I know you're a big fan of medical science so I thought I'd bring that to your attention. :)
Stanley Burrell
06-27-2008, 05:51 PM
One problem she's never suffered has been lacking enough mental know-how to understand where she was in the space/time continuum. I don't care how old she's getting, she will give it her all to renounce douchebaggery. She can't retire now, as much as TheE loves Jewish people.
Edit: If she (Ginsberg) has to sit on the bench until they wheel her up there with an O2 mask, Ginsberg will do that. Not because of stubborn garbage, but because she sits on the bench as an actual Supreme Court justice. We are talking about a Supreme Court that was barely replaced with Harriet Miers as this president's first choice justice nominee. You have to genuinely understand WTF that even means, with all political and social biases asides, if you want to have a place on the X-Y coordinate system as a member of the homo sapiens species, on this planet, capable of garnering an opinion about a Supreme Court decision.
And this is why I don't post in these political threads. This is not worth it.
Allereli
06-27-2008, 05:59 PM
It turns out that marijuana can also kill you. I know you're a big fan of medical science so I thought I'd bring that to your attention. :)
what the hell kind of pot are you smoking?
I'm sure y'all would've been all about locking people up during Prohibition too and never ever drinking a tasty fermented beverage.
Pigs can also fly.
Its simple math. You know the costs upfront when you commit the crime. It should be no suprise to face the consequences when you get caught.
That you react so defensively says considerably more about you than it does about me.It turns out that marijuana can also kill you. I know you're a big fan of medical science so I thought I'd bring that to your attention. :)
There has never been a case of marijuana overdose recorded by medical science.
To overdose on it you'd literally have to injest ridiculous amounts of it. It is easier to overdose on water (yes... you can overdose and die just from drinking too much water) than marijuana.
http://www.drug-overdose.com/marijuana.htm
The Drug Awareness Warning Network Annual Report, published by the US federal government contains a statistical compilation of all drug deaths which occur in the United States. According to this report, there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes.
Or perhaps another source?
The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.
Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), available on the web at http://www.samhsa.gov/;
http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html
Animal tests have revealed that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to have lethal effect. This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of the amount of cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (i.e., stoned) relative to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In other words, to overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as you needed to get stoned. In contrast, the ratio for alcohol varies between 1 to 4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000 people die from alcohol overdoses every year and no one EVER dies of marijuana overdoses.
http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm
It is virtually impossible to overdose from marijuana, which sets it apart from most drugs.
Twit.
Tea & Strumpets
06-27-2008, 07:04 PM
I'm sure y'all would've been all about locking people up during Prohibition too and never ever drinking a tasty fermented beverage.
Pigs can also fly.
What's with all these ridiculous and assinine accusations? What's with this retarded game of "if it was this year, this is who you are"? I think Keller started it in the other thread with that silly comment about PB being pro slavery if the year was 'X' (I'm too lazy to find the post).
Alright, if it were 1969, I would be Neil Armstrong walking on the moon... Sheesh, how ridiculous of an argument can you make with a straight face?
Warriorbird
06-27-2008, 07:11 PM
You can make valid parallels between Prohibition era crime and "War on Drugs" era crime. I don't consider it ridiculous at all. If anything I think that marijuana is a lot less dangerous than alcohol.
Ganalon followed where I was going with it. He posted his opinion which I consider a lot more reasonable than most even if I disagree with it.
Saying that you're "against any legislating from the bench" removes a lot of really important Supreme court decisions... a number of them by conservatives.
Do I need to make it simpler?
Keller
06-27-2008, 07:17 PM
I think Keller started it in the other thread with that silly comment about PB being pro slavery if the year was 'X' (I'm too lazy to find the post).
The inference I assumed you'd get was that PB, being against "legislating from the bench" would have raised hell about that decision, too.
Parkbandit
06-27-2008, 07:23 PM
What's with all these ridiculous and assinine accusations? What's with this retarded game of "if it was this year, this is who you are"? I think Keller started it in the other thread with that silly comment about PB being pro slavery if the year was 'X' (I'm too lazy to find the post).
Alright, if it were 1969, I would be Neil Armstrong walking on the moon... Sheesh, how ridiculous of an argument can you make with a straight face?
Actually, it was the latrine making that assumption. He had to go all the way back to 1857 to make that leap.. which was extremely amusing.
Latrinsorm
06-27-2008, 07:48 PM
There has never been a case of marijuana overdose recorded by medical science.You misunderstand: I was referring not to physical death but to mental death. I would also suggest that you are ignoring a way that marijuana can cause physical death that is not overdose. As I have no information on that, I take no position on its relative frequency.
Actually, it was the latrine making that assumption. He had to go all the way back to 1857 to make that leap.. which was extremely amusing.Once again, any inference of pro-slavery leanings is not evidence of an implication on my part. You've stated you don't want judges to legislate from the bench - this position has consequences regardless of your insistence to the contrary.
Tea & Strumpets
06-27-2008, 07:57 PM
Do I need to make it simpler?
I'm sure you couldn't be any more simple. :D
An easier and more effective way to make the point might have been to highlight other examples of what you consider 'legislating from the bench' that you feel had positive outcomes, rather than saying that someone would have been pro-slavery or for prohibition. It kind of ruins the point you are trying to make when you make a ridiculous connection at the end of it.
Not that there's really much discussion going on here...
Allereli
06-27-2008, 08:12 PM
More food for thought:
The people whose council has upheld the gun ban year after year are the same people who pay federal taxes and do not have a representative vote in Congress.
I'm so glad you are now legally able to carry a gun near their homes and my workplace.
Parkbandit
06-27-2008, 08:26 PM
Once again, any inference of pro-slavery leanings is not evidence of an implication on my part. You've stated you don't want judges to legislate from the bench - this position has consequences regardless of your insistence to the contrary.
I would teach you about the three branches of the US Government.. but we both know that would be pointless as you have shown zero ability to learn.
If you had to go to an 1857 case to make your point, you've already lost.
Keller
06-27-2008, 08:28 PM
An easier and more effective way to make the point might have been to highlight other examples of what you consider 'legislating from the bench' that you feel had positive outcomes, rather than saying that someone would have been pro-slavery or for prohibition. It kind of ruins the point you are trying to make when you make a ridiculous connection at the end of it.
Let ME make it simpler for you.
Had Tawney written the minority opinion in Scott and the ownership of another human being been found contradictory to our constitution, THAT would have been "legislating from the bench." It's not a matter of being pro-slavery or not. It's a matter of not seeing the world in such absolute terms. I forget who I was harassing the other week, but whoever it was also had the same "view" on "legislating from the bench."
Keller
06-27-2008, 08:29 PM
I would teach you about the three branches of the US Government.. but we both know that would be pointless as you have shown zero ability to learn.
Oh wise one, bless us with your unparallelled knowledge of all things you read on wikipedia.
Warriorbird
06-27-2008, 08:37 PM
Bush V. Gore would be high on the recent conservative "legislating from the bench" list.
Latrinsorm
06-27-2008, 08:40 PM
I would teach you about the three branches of the US Government.. but we both know that would be pointless as you have shown zero ability to learn.
If you had to go to an 1857 case to make your point, you've already lost.Victory would be eliciting a reasonable response from you. This battle was lost before it ever began. :(
Keller
06-27-2008, 08:45 PM
Victory would be eliciting a reasonable response from you. This battle was lost before it ever began. :(
I would give you a reasonable response, but we all know you're too stupid to understand it. :rofl:
Parkbandit
06-27-2008, 08:51 PM
Victory would be eliciting a reasonable response from you. This battle was lost before it ever began. :(
If you want a reaonable response, put forth a reasonable argument. Using an 1857 case to 'prove' your point is retarded at best since it happened 150 years ago.
Keller
06-27-2008, 09:05 PM
If you want a reaonable response, put forth a reasonable argument. Using an 1857 case to 'prove' your point is retarded at best since it happened 150 years ago.
Would you prefer he use future decisions to make his point? Would that be more "reasonable." I don't think there could be a more perfect example of prohibiting "legislating from the bench" having adverse consequences than the Scott decision.
Tea & Strumpets
06-27-2008, 10:32 PM
Let ME make it simpler for you.
Had Tawney written the minority opinion in Scott and the ownership of another human being been found contradictory to our constitution, THAT would have been "legislating from the bench." It's not a matter of being pro-slavery or not. It's a matter of not seeing the world in such absolute terms. I forget who I was harassing the other week, but whoever it was also had the same "view" on "legislating from the bench."
Could you dumb it down a little more? It's hard for me to keep with all the smart folk around. All I've managed to gather so far is that if we had all been born in the 1920's, Ganalon would be Elliott Ness and Warriorbird would be Al Capone.
Keller
06-27-2008, 10:40 PM
Could you dumb it down a little more? It's hard for me to keep with all the smart folk around. All I've managed to gather so far is that if we had all been born in the 1920's, Ganalon would be Elliott Ness and Warriorbird would be Al Capone.
Or you can be coy and avoid/ignore the argument. Did I mention prohibition?
TheEschaton
06-27-2008, 10:42 PM
If there was no "legislating from the bench", construed as interpretation by reasonable people, the Constitution would be dead, as we'd be held to the law from 1776.
As to Gan's point, we are a nation of laws, but we cannot hold the law sancrosanct. Once you do so, progress ends. Laws, because they're made by men, who have their own agendas, biases, and motives, can be unjust, unfair, and out of line with universal, natural law. It is then not only our right, but our DUTY, to not obey those laws. Our founding fathers said that, the abolitionists said it, MLK said it.
Now, people often call us liberals relativists, but if you do not believe there is a natural law to ascribe to, that term describes you. And if you do, then you can see why there needs to be room for disobeying.
The question, of course, becomes: what principles are natural? There's the rub, and it would take a lot more space than there is here.
TheEschaton
06-27-2008, 10:49 PM
Could you dumb it down a little more? It's hard for me to keep with all the smart folk around. All I've managed to gather so far is that if we had all been born in the 1920's, Ganalon would be Elliott Ness and Warriorbird would be Al Capone.
Basically, he's saying that slavery was 'the law,' and Tawney held up 'the rule of law' by declaring slaves to be property, thus denying real, actual justice.
Furthermore, he contends that if the dissent won, and overturned 'law,' that would be considered 'legislating from the bench,' even though it served justice.
If you people really want to go back 150 years in a political argument, you gotta realize Republicans will win, every damn time.
At the time of the civil war the country was split on north south lines (no shit huh?) the north was almost all anti-slavery republicans, the south was almost all pro-slavery democrats.
Even so, would it be fair to walk around and tell everyone who votes for a Democrat that they're supporting a pro-slavery party? Not really, so mayhaps the historical references should stay in a history book. Hrmm?
Keller
06-27-2008, 11:10 PM
THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT QUOTE LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH UNQUOTE. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT NOMINAL POLITICAL PARTY SUPPORTED WHAT POSITION.
I hope that helps.
Sean of the Thread
06-28-2008, 10:37 AM
Fuck it.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/HESTON.jpg
Latrinsorm
06-28-2008, 10:57 AM
Not really, so mayhaps the historical references should stay in a history book. Hrmm?Because as we all know, people who cannot learn from history are guaranteed to never repeat it.
Sean of the Thread
06-28-2008, 11:21 AM
Well that's actually an interesting statement seeing how I'm a Creationist.
TheEschaton
06-28-2008, 12:04 PM
It's funny, they criticize a person for using history, when the constructionalist viewpoint is largely historical. In fact, this whole ruling hinged on what the SCOTUS felt the Framers meant by the word 'militia.'
The irony of it is that the constructionalists on the court, who usually stick to the literal meaning of the word, INTERPRETED it to mean every male, and thus every citizen, and APPLIED that meaning to modern society.
It's funny, they criticize a person for using history, when the constructionalist viewpoint is largely historical. In fact, this whole ruling hinged on what the SCOTUS felt the Framers meant by the word 'militia.'
Once again The E just makes things up:
[The Court determined] that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"—is controlling and is not curtailed by the prefatory clause that announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State";
Parkbandit
06-28-2008, 12:43 PM
In TheE's defense, he didn't make it up. It's the spin that all the libs are using.
I bet. It's good to finally have a victory, back to rolling the rock uphill though.
TheEschaton
06-28-2008, 01:02 PM
Once again The E just makes things up:
LOL. Try reading the opinion instead of looking it up on Wikipedia. It says BECAUSE 'Militia' applies as 'every citizen,' the prefatory phrase is not controlling. The inference there is that if it meant something more specific, it might become 'limiting' or even 'controlling,' and not merely prefatory.
In fact, according to the dissent, if you interpret 'Militia' differently, the phrase becomes much more important. Thus, the case hinges on that definition.
Clear enough for you? Keep in mind, I agree with the decision, just not the reasoning.
Stanley Burrell
06-28-2008, 01:42 PM
I bet. It's good to finally have a victory, back to rolling the rock uphill though.
O.K.
Gun sales finally legal in Ft. Lauderdale, eh? And I think that rock is lying directly on top of District minorities.
Honestly, great for D.C. Keep that hillbilly shit out of actual cities.
I bet. It's good to finally have a victory, back to rolling the rock uphill though.
Keep up the good work Sisyphus.
http://www.indorphyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Sisyphus.jpg
Stanley Burrell
06-28-2008, 02:27 PM
It's funny, they criticize a person for using history, when the constructionalist viewpoint is largely historical. In fact, this whole ruling hinged on what the SCOTUS felt the Framers meant by the word 'militia.'
The irony of it is that the constructionalists on the court, who usually stick to the literal meaning of the word, INTERPRETED it to mean every male, and thus every citizen, and APPLIED that meaning to modern society.
I don't really know how accurate that is; but despite my quarrels with law, one of my fundamental ideals is that we keep what savviness we have updated -- And not stuck in Hammurabai's Code. To me, this is nothing more, and nothing less than than common sense. Laws, in general, in a perfect; perhaps naive world, won't be looked at if they are doing what they are supposed to do. They're working laws, amendments, written doctrine, etc. When they don't work, we (ideally) rephrase and accommodate changes in time to reflect changes in law.
I truly do not understand why I'm being such a bitch about this in the first place. I hate politics. All I know is that as someone who plays text-based online medieval MMORPGs, something in my brain tells me that if I'm not a member of law enforcement, or part of the armed services, I'm ranking pretty low on the need-to-acquire-a-firearm scale.
If you want funny, TheE, think about the fact that one of our arch-conservative weapon advocates; we'll call this man Vice President Dick Cheney, managed to shoot a fellow hunter with birdshot in a line-of-fire formation while hunting fenced-in quails.
I think the idea that (via what I've heard from my conservative peepz) weapons sales are based on some psychological record is great, but I'm going to be hard-pressed to believe lower class white Appalachia has moved itself closer to full psychological evaluations in its spare time.
Again, I have no idea why this riles me up so badly. I know that no matter how much politics cares about me, I say that I don't/won't reciprocate that relationship. Maybe my parents didn't buy me an actual Abrams tank to ride around the streets while I wasn't busy playing with plastic soldiers.
This is bizarre as shit. I don't want to have an opinion about this.
Parkbandit
06-28-2008, 03:19 PM
On a related note - http://www.suncoastgunshows.com/html/concealed_weapons_permit.htm
August 9th
Clove
06-28-2008, 06:23 PM
I'm ranking pretty low on the need-to-acquire-a-firearm scale.What does need have to do with it? You rank pretty low on the need-to-acquire-rubbers scale (since you're very unlikely to get laid) that doesn't mean you shouldn't own a few packs.
Stanley Burrell
06-28-2008, 06:38 PM
What does need have to do with it? You rank pretty low on the need-to-acquire-rubbers scale (since you're very unlikely to get laid) that doesn't mean you shouldn't own a few packs.
Because people obtain objects due to a need to obtain said object. Now-legal shotgun doesn't bend space/time in order to spontaneously appear on Farmer John's lap, as he rocks back and forth on his porch cradling his boomsfarm.
Clove: It's just a dumbass opinion on a message board. And it doesn't have anything to do with my box of condoms, fancy that.
Strange man.
Stanley Burrell
06-28-2008, 06:47 PM
What does need have to do with it?
I'll even give you a Stanley answer so I can be incoherent:
Because when Onyx told me to throw my guns upward and to "bacdafucup", that was meant to be taken as a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment rights and the necessity to defend our homes.
Clove
06-28-2008, 11:52 PM
Because people obtain objects due to a need to obtain said object.Really. Well I have about 300 DVD's I don't need. I know my father has about 2000 models he doesn't need. Oh and a bunch of firearms he doesn't need either. I don't imagine stamp collectors do a tremendous volume of postage. The decision was whether people had a RIGHT to own firearms, not a NEED to own firearms. Double your dose and focus.
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 03:19 AM
Really. Well I have about 300 DVD's I don't need. I know my father has about 2000 models he doesn't need. Oh and a bunch of firearms he doesn't need either. I don't imagine stamp collectors do a tremendous volume of postage. The decision was whether people had a RIGHT to own firearms, not a NEED to own firearms. Double your dose and focus.
First off, a firearm isn't a DVD, you derelict. I'll buy your dad DVDs, fuck you.
Secondly, understand this was pertaining to weapons. You don't buy weapons as gifts to other human beings as you would DVDs. What you said amounts to a pile a birdshit. You accuse me of not making sense ... and then defecate an example of weapon purchases akin to your father's DVD collection. You know why I don't murder myself everyday? Because I don't equate the gift of giving DVDs or my dad's models (whatever the fuck you even mean by that) to, "I bought you this uzzi."
Clove: You are rating on my perceived stupidity level currently with that sort of commentary.
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 03:24 AM
^ /Interchangeable with any other gift/object-obtained-analogy somehow linking a handgun permit to any other more-legal possession one owns as necessitated commodity.
You know who shouldn't have to spell that shit out for you?
Me.
Clove
06-29-2008, 08:51 AM
First off, a firearm isn't a DVD, you derelict. I'll buy your dad DVDs, fuck you.No shit retard, what's your point. I was speaking to your observation that people only acquire things they need, and that notion is purely retarded.
Secondly, understand this was pertaining to weapons. You don't buy weapons as gifts to other human beings as you would DVDs.No YOU don't give weapons to other human beings as gifts, either because you don't appreciate them or don't know anyone who does. I can assure you that people do, however and not just firearms.
My father collects firearms and enjoys target shooting. He owns dozens and firearms (and accessories) make excellent gifts. Several of my coworkers hunt and some skeet shoot. They also collect. I have owned firearms although I'm not much a collector and don't target shoot anymore so I don't own any currently. I have however, collected my share of dangerous things.
You don't have a desire to own a firearm or see a reason to buy one for anyone. That is of course perfectly fine, but it does NOT mean that because you don't see any reason to own one that NOBODY has reasons to own one and shouldn't have the RIGHT to own one. Not everyone is like you (thank fucking god).
Parkbandit
06-29-2008, 09:42 AM
:rofl: @ Clove trying to debate with Stainley. Sure, you'll end up winning.. but in the end, don't you feel bad taking advantage of a retard?
No YOU don't give weapons to other human beings as gifts, either because you don't appreciate them or don't know anyone who does. I can assure you that people do, however and not just firearms.
You don't have a desire to own a firearm or see a reason to buy one for anyone. That is of course perfectly fine, but it does NOT mean that because you don't see any reason to own one that NOBODY has reasons to own one and shouldn't have the RIGHT to own one. Not everyone is like you (thank fucking god).
I have to chime in with Clove here. I have several people in my family who even live outside of Texas and they collect firearms, sport shoot, and are avid hunters. Yes, we purchase firearms, gear, and accessories for those pursuit as gifts on a regular basis. That is their passion and their hobby much the same as someone who races cars, collects comic books, or strange japanese art deco for their condo (hmmmm).
Funny thing is that its not these people who are the ones behind all the gun violence (well, except for maybe the comic book collectors and japanese art deco collectors).
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 12:20 PM
Right.
Anyway, here's my post again that you're responding to, you deluded fuck.
I don't really know how accurate that is; but despite my quarrels with law, one of my fundamental ideals is that we keep what savviness we have updated -- And not stuck in Hammurabai's Code. To me, this is nothing more, and nothing less than than common sense. Laws, in general, in a perfect; perhaps naive world, won't be looked at if they are doing what they are supposed to do. They're working laws, amendments, written doctrine, etc. When they don't work, we (ideally) rephrase and accommodate changes in time to reflect changes in law.
I truly do not understand why I'm being such a bitch about this in the first place. I hate politics. All I know is that as someone who plays text-based online medieval MMORPGs, something in my brain tells me that if I'm not a member of law enforcement, or part of the armed services, I'm ranking pretty low on the need-to-acquire-a-firearm scale.
If you want funny, TheE, think about the fact that one of our arch-conservative weapon advocates; we'll call this man Vice President Dick Cheney, managed to shoot a fellow hunter with birdshot in a line-of-fire formation while hunting fenced-in quails.
I think the idea that (via what I've heard from my conservative peepz) weapons sales are based on some psychological record is great, but I'm going to be hard-pressed to believe lower class white Appalachia has moved itself closer to full psychological evaluations in its spare time.
Again, I have no idea why this riles me up so badly. I know that no matter how much politics cares about me, I say that I don't/won't reciprocate that relationship. Maybe my parents didn't buy me an actual Abrams tank to ride around the streets while I wasn't busy playing with plastic soldiers.
This is bizarre as shit. I don't want to have an opinion about this.
Good job.
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 12:30 PM
My father collects firearms
And doesn't post on an MMORPG message board involved in the fascination of video games.
Several of my coworkers hunt and some skeet shoot.
I don't want to know about your coworkers skeeting. Anyway, your coworkers don't play text-based MMORPGs and post on a message board catered to such an interest. If they do, avoid them. Especially the day they bring a gun into work because they're QQ'ing over a vBulletin post.
They also collect. I have owned firearms although I'm not much a collector and don't target shoot anymore so I don't own any currently. I have however, collected my share of dangerous things.
In response to "collect":
I was just in DC, and a gang of minorities flashed a bunch of handguns they legally purchased and shouted out "WE'RE ARTIFICERS NOW LOLOLOLOLOL."
And to be honest, 9 times out of 10, a family who has children brought into their lives and either keeps or deliberately obtained a handgun during that interval is seriously fucked. Both mentally and physically. That isn't an opinion either.
Anyway Clove, you big scary man, what this isn't going to be is a Daniel vs. ParkBandit clone thread tangent.
EVERYONE, CLOVE WINS. 5-4 SUPREME COURT RULING. AND NOW WE CAN SHUT UP.
Sean of the Thread
06-29-2008, 12:49 PM
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/HESTON.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/fmj.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/p229-large.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/wayne1.jpg
/END
Clove
06-29-2008, 12:52 PM
And doesn't post on an MMORPG message board involved in the fascination of video games.
I don't want to know about your coworkers skeeting. Anyway, your coworkers don't play text-based MMORPGs and post on a message board catered to such an interest. If they do, avoid them. Especially the day they bring a gun into work because they're QQ'ing over a vBulletin post.This is the politics folder. Apparently you're lost.
In response to "collect":
I was just in DC, and a gang of minorities flashed a bunch of handguns they legally purchased and shouted out "WE'RE ARTIFICERS NOW LOLOLOLOLOL."I highly doubt it. I also highly doubt they had a legal carry permit. I further doubt that this ruling has affected their decision to obtain and carry firearms.
And to be honest, 9 times out of 10, a family who has children brought into their lives and either keeps or deliberately obtained a handgun during that interval is seriously fucked. Both mentally and physically. That isn't an opinion either.It is an opinion and millions of families in the US and Canada with children keep firearms without incident. Just like they have electricity, rat poison, toxic medication, power tools, dangerous exotic pets, knives and swords, trampolines, indeed all manner of dangerous things. If you raise your children, look after them properly and correctly manage your hazardous property there's nothing "seriously fucked" about having children and dangerous things. This is also opinion- but given the number of families with children that successfully cope with deadly things, I feel it's a solid one.
Anyway Clove, you big scary man, what this isn't going to be is a Daniel vs. ParkBandit clone thread tangent.It sure as hell isn't.
Parkbandit
06-29-2008, 12:53 PM
I think Stainley is upset because the mentally disabled aren't allowed to have guns.
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 01:46 PM
They (The Infamous "They") could do, like, a parody of the Antique Road Show where some urban minority goes on and tries to get an appraisal of his/her glok.
I'm only going to use .5% of my neural tissue for this one, that gang members need firearms for personal protection more than GemStone players do.
From raider orcs. Aside from SeanyD, who made sure to bussacap in some playa-hatin' Dark Elves between log-ins. Whose dopplegangers are, in fact, the non-law/military supporters of this thread.
.
Clove still is winning the thread. I concur. Recently,
This is the politics folder.
You mean...
This isn't the mothership? :(
<<I highly doubt it. I also highly doubt they had a legal carry permit. I further doubt that this ruling has affected their decision to obtain and carry firearms.>>
You haven't been to a gun show, have you? Or Virginia Tech. No matter, you still win the thread. DC just signed the mindreading legitamite salesmanship operative that will govern all sales of firearms as legal, law-abiding and Kosher for Passover.
pwo13-40i4095e0rtorewiop4e4t9805u4we4iotpekrl;e4kpot45oe i3w90riritrp2o3p5i4op
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 01:55 PM
By the way, post about how you've been to a gun show and know how SHIT GOES DOWN all across America whereby the sales of firearms are involved.
Anyway Clove, you big scary man, what this isn't going to be is a Daniel vs. ParkBandit clone thread tangent.
It sure as hell isn't.
Oh snap. Thanks for clarifying that then.
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 01:57 PM
I think Stainley is upset because the mentally disabled aren't allowed to have guns.
If I didn't ignore this post, I'd probably say something like:
"KAI GUYS, YAH THAT.
...Or I can achieve orgasm."
Clove
06-29-2008, 02:06 PM
Really Stainley, it's okay to ask your doctor about upping your prescription.
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 02:07 PM
When you do it, you're wearing the tinfoil helmet, I'm just concerned about my protection.
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 02:08 PM
Really Stainley, it's okay to ask your doctor about upping your prescription.
I did.
I was all like, "THIS GUY ON AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD WANTS ME TO UP MY LEXAPRO."
And he was like, "Word. Here you go. Legalize gun sales, tho'."
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 02:12 PM
On the real though, if you flaunt a weapon at me, and aren't part of a citizens' militia, protected by our constitution, I'm'a call the cops, who I happen to know very well, on your inferiority-complex-having anus.
Clove
06-29-2008, 02:12 PM
And he was like, "Word. Here you go. Legalize gun sales, tho'."Really? Doesn't he read teh paper? They already are legal. Did he give the thumbs up for women's sufferage too?
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 02:13 PM
Just the prostate exam.
Clove
06-29-2008, 02:14 PM
On the real though, if you flaunt a weapon at me, and aren't part of a citizens' militia, protected by our constitution, I'm'a call the cops, who I happen to know very well, on your inferiority-complex-having anus.You should, that's called "brandishing" and I don't know of any state where that behavior isn't illegal. For the last time owning a firearm/=carrying a firearm. The Supreme Court did not address restrictions to carrying a firearm.
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 02:14 PM
(Thread about politics, don'cha'know.)
Stanley Burrell
06-29-2008, 02:24 PM
You should, that's called "brandishing" and I don't know of any state that isn't illegal. For the last time owning a firearm/=carrying a firearm. The Supreme Court did not address restrictions to carrying a firearm.
First of all:
I'm talking about, let's say, there's a hypothetical group of incredibly museum-caliber artificers of firearms. Who are heavy into text-based-gaming and LARPing in their spare time.
And by some chance, I find out one of these individuals owns a weapon that he/she points to, with a missing-tooth Khaladon-esque grin; and by some hypothetical masturbatory stroke of fate, I happen to process this in my brain...
You're under arrest for a weapons charge, and I probably don't even have to know the local police. And :rofl: @ 90% of our pasty white overweight asses trying to actually bring our intuition of law into a hypothetical scenario, in real-life, involving officers. Do you actually understand who we are, attempting to vouch for this?
I'm glad that (for the most part) people who do have a need to carry weapons can do the physical deciphering of how badly our first amendment rights need to be protected. And I'm not a fan of police, but the cops here are exceptional individuals who have a knack for understanding this ongoing concept called:
REALITY.
"Wait a second here officer, I'd like you to direct your attention to the Politics folder located at http://www.forum.gsplayers.com Yes, that is my broadsword."
Second: I'm glad you at least find humor in this.
Clove
06-29-2008, 07:20 PM
First of all:You're an idiot. Go play in traffic.
Second: I'm glad you at least find humor in this.I don't think anyone finds humor in your posts.
Tisket
06-29-2008, 07:31 PM
Stan's posts are a mystery wrapped in an enigma tied up with a riddle. But they sometimes do have a point hidden inside them. I guess it's just easier to call him a moron than try to decipher his posts most of the time though.
Seriously Stan! Write to the lowest common denominator dude! Wtf is wrong with you?!
lulz
Clove
06-29-2008, 07:39 PM
Stan's posts are a mystery wrapped in an enigma tied up with a riddle. But they sometimes do have a point hidden inside them. I guess it's just easier to call him a moron than try to decipher his posts most of the time though.
Seriously Stan! Write to the lowest common denominator dude! Wtf is wrong with you?!
lulzStan entertains himself with his posts, that's all. He's like a male, drug addled, adult version of Miss I in that respect- and it provokes a similar reaction.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.