I would add a system like Japan's, where you can certainly have a gun - but you must keep it only at a licensed facility, which is also the only place you can go to shoot it. You get to wank with your surrogate penis, and the cops get to stop being so fucking paranoid about everyone in the vicinity having a gun. (That nonsense about how if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns? Yeah, that's an ADVANTAGE. If only criminals have guns, that makes it pretty fucking easy to spot the criminals!)
Semi-related observation: I have a fake FB account, just for convenience, with no friends, no data, privacy set to 11 across the board, and I never post anything there . . . I just use the convenient "Login with FB" button from time to time on other sites.And FB shows me a list of "people I may know" . . . filled with people I know. It's pretty fucking creepy.
Obviously someone got called an "ammosexual" and went all "I know you are but what am I?", not realizing that ammosexual is a pun on homosexual, and legisexual doesn't fit the pattern at all.
Freedom of speech isn't unlimited - they should maybe read the cases they're citing. The rule is that the state can't punish publication of truthful, lawfully-obtained information "absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order." Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989); Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979).
Anyone think that the ability of legislators to legislate, without fear of violent retaliation against themselves or their families, might be a "state interest of the highest order"?
Each case is a balancing act - and the press usually wins - but I wouldn't bet the ranch on how this one comes out.
Depends on what direction you're heading...
Simple. Let us just go posting their addresses and names and say "This is where the guns are"
See how first ammendment they feel then.
i totally read that as "public records of penis". tomato, tomahto
I would add a system like Japan's, where you can certainly have a gun - but you must keep it only at a licensed facility, which is also the only place you can go to shoot it. You get to wank with your surrogate penis, and the cops get to stop being so fucking paranoid about everyone in the vicinity having a gun. (That nonsense about how if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns? Yeah, that's an ADVANTAGE. If only criminals have guns, that makes it pretty fucking easy to spot the criminals!)
Tell me why ...
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
More important to know the addresses of these gun nuts so nice people with butterfly nets can visit them...http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-P...
I thought Shirley was J. Edgar Hoover's code name...
Exists on a few Twatter posts, otherwise not. Calley keeps a supremely low profile also too.
California state legislators can be found in Sacramento when in season.
"Targets"? More likely, it told people who to avoid.
But... the government knows where (just about) everyone lives. Not just gun owners.
Semi-related observation: I have a fake FB account, just for convenience, with no friends, no data, privacy set to 11 across the board, and I never post anything there . . . I just use the convenient "Login with FB" button from time to time on other sites.And FB shows me a list of "people I may know" . . . filled with people I know. It's pretty fucking creepy.
Obviously someone got called an "ammosexual" and went all "I know you are but what am I?", not realizing that ammosexual is a pun on homosexual, and legisexual doesn't fit the pattern at all.
tl;dr A copycat. A bad copycat.
Yikes. That's only 3 months away.
Freedom of speech isn't unlimited - they should maybe read the cases they're citing. The rule is that the state can't punish publication of truthful, lawfully-obtained information "absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order." Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989); Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979).
Anyone think that the ability of legislators to legislate, without fear of violent retaliation against themselves or their families, might be a "state interest of the highest order"?
Each case is a balancing act - and the press usually wins - but I wouldn't bet the ranch on how this one comes out.