Why would he want to go work for the tyrannical government instead of living in this nice libertarian enclave?

I dont want to wind up like the Branch Davidians.

Why would he want to go work for the tyrannical government instead of living in this nice libertarian enclave?

 

Better military protection.

they're coming to get you. all of you.

they're coming to get you. all of you.

 

Same with all the crazies with guns. Everyone will be killed in the crossfire.

there's a lot more mass shootings and everyday gun homicides than Waco or Ruby incidents, though.

This is horses***. "Somelike the VT shooter", and who the hell is that? You want the government investigating all Americans just to make sure they are OK to own a gun? f*** you and your police state.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/12/na...checks-20130113

Tighter standards in 2007 might have prevented the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-hui Cho, from buying guns. He passed two background checks even though a judge had found him to be a danger to himself and ordered him to get mental health treatment. The state had interpreted the law to cover only in-patient treatment, so his name wasn't submitted. Virginia has since changed those rules.

 

This is what I'm talking about. Not investigating every random person who wants a gun, but actually making sure that people who are verified as mentally ill cannot get a gun, at least until a doctor releases them to do so. At the moment, only about half of states have submitted their mental health records to this registry. The NRA has lobbied hard to only get people that have already been involuntarily institutionalized to be in the system, though I have a feeling they really just want to undermine it entirely.

 

Why does the government have to be involved in every sale? What are they going to add to anything? Paying $50 in fees and filling out some paperwork just to feed the bureaucracy does nothing to make guns safer.

 

President Obama isn't going to go to your local outdoor store, you'll just have to fill out a form. This isn't real complicated. You only have to pay fees if you don't like the government spending money on you.

 

You said you cant grow guns in your closet, which is wrong.

 

We should hit up the range, you can have your closet guns and I'll have my real ones. Okay, I actually like shooting sporting clays. Can we do that?

 

And NY just went and banned firearms. I really dont care, if people dont want to enjoy their rights there so be it.

 

They didn't ban firearms. Their existing assault weapons ban gets a revised definition, the magazine limit goes to 7, they give more teeth to their mental health registry, and perhaps most importantly they made the licensing process uniform across cities and counties so the laws aren't different every 10 miles.

they're coming to get you. all of you.

 

All I am asking for is some consistency. If the constitution is outdated and needs to be modernized for guns, why not free speech and voting rights as well? After all, the Patriot Act is just to protect you.

All I am asking for is some consistency. If the constitution is outdated and needs to be modernized for guns, why not free speech and voting rights as well? After all, the Patriot Act is just to protect you.

 

The constitution has been modernized for voting rights several times directly and many times through legislation and court rulings. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't overturn one of the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act later this year and undue that modernization.

 

What sort of modernization to you envision for free speech rights? What problems are you trying to solve or prevent?

The constitution has been modernized for voting rights several times directly and many times through legislation and court rulings. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't overturn one of the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act later this year and undue that modernization.

 

What sort of modernization to you envision for free speech rights? What problems are you trying to solve or prevent?

 

None. But I am not really on the "outdated" camp either.

So there's the answer to your question, I guess. Why not? Because there doesn't appear to be a need or public desire to do so! Not so with guns, though the absolutionist RKBA position has been dead for almost a century now, maybe longer.

 

I don't see how someone can justify a RKBA objection to the AWB without also rejecting the NFA. So unless you're wanting to repeal 80 years worth of gun control, you're already living with an updated understanding of the 2nd.

So there's the answer to your question, I guess. Why not? Because there doesn't appear to be a need or public desire to do so! Not so with guns, though the absolutionist RKBA position has been dead for almost a century now, maybe longer.

 

I don't see how someone can justify a RKBA objection to the AWB without also rejecting the NFA. So unless you're wanting to repeal 80 years worth of gun control, you're already living with an updated understanding of the 2nd.

 

There is always a desire to, it is just usually done at the periphery by the government and very quietly. Some people care, most don't.

So there's the answer to your question, I guess. Why not? Because there doesn't appear to be a need or public desire to do so! Not so with guns, though the absolutionist RKBA position has been dead for almost a century now, maybe longer.

 

I don't see how someone can justify a RKBA objection to the AWB without also rejecting the NFA. So unless you're wanting to repeal 80 years worth of gun control, you're already living with an updated understanding of the 2nd.

 

Just yesterday Balta wanted someone who posted a youtube video arrested for terrorism. I could make an easy argument that free speech rights need to be curtailed and people arrested in order to prevent .0000001% of crime just like this gun restriction crap.

 

And we should ignore "public desire" as a justification for changing constitutional rights. That's when we get dumb laws like the alien and sedition acts or prohibition.

 

Edit: well, i dunno that that the alien and sedition acts were from public desire, but still. we get a lot of dumb laws or proposed laws based on public desire.

Edited January 16, 201313 yr by Jenksismybitch

Just yesterday Balta wanted someone who posted a youtube video arrested for terrorism. I could make an easy argument that free speech rights need to be curtailed and people arrested in order to prevent .0000001% of crime just like this gun restriction crap.

 

And we should ignore "public desire" as a justification for changing constitutional rights. That's when we get dumb laws like the alien and sedition acts or prohibition.

 

Edit: well, i dunno that that the alien and sedition acts were from public desire, but still. we get a lot of dumb laws or proposed laws based on public desire.

Public desire is also what gave us constitutional amendments like women's suffrage, lowering the voting age to 18, etc.

Public desire is also what gave us constitutional amendments like women's suffrage, lowering the voting age to 18, etc.

 

True, but those are more about expanding constitutional rights, not restricting them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/...-nagin/1845617/

 

Well that's gotta be George W. Bush's fault...

 

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has been indicted on 21 federal corruption charges including wire fraud, bribery and money laundering.

 

The charges are the outgrowth of a City Hall corruption investigation that already has resulted in guilty pleas by two former city officials and two businessmen.

 

The counts include wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, filing false tax returns and conspiracy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/...-nagin/1845617/

 

Well that's gotta be George W. Bush's fault...

 

Yes, it definitely is.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/...-nagin/1845617/

 

Well that's gotta be George W. Bush's fault...

Dude, you don't even have your jokes right.

 

With Nagin you're supposed to make the joke about how its racially motivated. Come on, this is the "Chocolate city!" guy!

Something the political fact checkers determined to be the "lie of the year" turned out to be true. I am so surprised.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whoops...rue_696223.html

Edited January 18, 201313 yr by mr_genius

Dude, you don't even have your jokes right.

 

With Nagin you're supposed to make the joke about how its racially motivated. Come on, this is the "Chocolate city!" guy!

 

I s*** you not I had "Looks like someone else didn't like black people either..." as my initial joke, but changed it. Poor decision on my part.

I s*** you not I had "Looks like someone else didn't like black people either..." as my initial joke, but changed it. Poor decision on my part.

You should have incorporated the word "Chocolate". Then you'd be really approaching quality.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-...wtown-shooting/

 

No AR-15 used in the shooting.

According to what one nbc anchor said a month ago. Great journalism!

According to what one nbc anchor said a month ago. Great journalism!

Duke has never really been concerned with reality.

 

Well done, sir.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...-01-24-04-19-05

 

 

But at least he gets to keep his pension. Second sick motherf***er in CA teacher union who gets to f*** the taxpayer after f***ing kids. This guy should just be used as chum. Take a bow teachers union, you deserve it.