Terrific news for freedom and stuff in Texas! Gov. Greg Abbott signed two great big gun laws on Saturday, making it legal for Texans with permits to carry handguns openly, and for concealed carry permit holders to carry their guns on college campuses. But don't be fooled! Wackaloon Open Carry Advocate Kory Watkins wants you all to know that if you really loved the Second Amendment, you'd recognize that
Bull? Yeah, bullshit. Kick it up a notch to Jules Verne. Never fuck with an old graduate of the Comanche County College for Confused Cannon Cockers at Ft. Sill. Also the seven P's:Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.
Firstly, I never suggested militia membership be required, and secondly, the 14th Amendment does not prohibit qualification testing to own a gun, while the 2nd Amendment demands it. The fact that you thought you had countered my argument is amusing though.
So explain again how you will force the actual crimnals who commit 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun to be forced into such training without violating their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination sweety.....
Crimes are still going to happen. I would guess there's not a single law that has been written that hasn't been broken at one time or another, but that is not an argument not to have laws.
Yes, there was the report about misrecording, not denying. But 1) they don't only record solved crimes. That's how we know how many unsolved crimes there are. There is also the British Crime Survey, which actually goes out and asks people, which is how we know not every crime is reported to the police.2) Murders are pretty fucking hard not to record as murders. You know, that whole dead body thing is a bit of a clue.3) misrecording has nothing to do with left wing politics, but more about hitting government targets, and if you think Blair was a left winger, then you have no clue.4) I know people who legally own guns. We just happen to feel that not letting them wave the around in public to cover their personal inadequacies is a good thing.
No, see in the US a law is constitutional that applies to everyone, since per settled and codified law Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & the 5th amendment, any law requiring a felon to IDENTIFY THEMSELF violates the 5th amendment, and can not be used as a punishment.
That covers 85% of all gun control laws that require one to IDENTIFY THEMSELF...
Now explain again how you are going to force the actaul criminals who commit 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun to be forced into such training sweety....
Oh thats right, you believe beating the dog for the cat schiiting in your shoe magically stops the cat from schiiting in your shoe, got it, you have no solution other than to punish innocents for the crimes of the few criminals, got it, dismissed....
The 2A does NOT demand qualification testing. The right belongs to the people, not to the militia.The 14th Amendment is the amendment that holds the states, admittedly theoretically, to the same standards as the US government in regards to the rights of citizens. So, it does in fact counter your argument. The entire Bill of Right, as passed initially, are restrictions on the power of the federal government. The 14A supposedly places the SAME restrictions on the states. Except that the Supreme Court, in it's dealings with rights, holds all but the 2A equally restrictive to the states.
Yes,I need to take lessons from you. The US has 6 times the population, ans20x the number of murders. Those are facts. Sorry they don't fit your world view.
All you are going to do is drag up statistics which are at best irrelevant, at worst wrong., as many of hours have been.
STandard anarchist retort that has what meaning in the lecture we are giving you, NOTHING!
But hey, when are you ever going to force the BATF to prosecute more than 45 on average out of the 130,000 rejected each year sweety?
Oh thats right, illegal unconstitutional laws claimed by the leftists to reduce violence, but only persecute the law abiding serve what logical purpose in reducing violence eh sweety, NONE!
See, if the system is broke to begin with, and all you do is throw more unenforceable laws on top of broken laws and neither will be enforced, you have performed a perfect circle jerk, such a perfect simile of all anti gun advocates.....well done!
You are just having a nonsensical rant, and you make a lot of assumptions about me that are not true. I am not anti-gun, but am pro-responsibility. I think people should demonstrate responsibility as part and parcel of gun ownership. You are free to disagree that gun owners should be responsible, but that is your opinion and at no time will I ever agree with you on that. Have a good evening, and take care.
Well, despite your position that it isn't important, I think gun safety is incredibly important and should be mandated. I would prefer that over a complete ban on discharging firearms, since it is only the ownership of firearms that is constitutionally protected. Discharging of said firearms is not protected anywhere in the constitution. Go ahead and read the document. It is not in there.
Well, free speech is a protected right, whereas discharging firearms is not. Unless you can show where in the constitution that right is enumerated and protected, then it doesn't exist.
I am simply pointing out there are plenty of things that can be done to regulate gun ownership that are fully protected by the constitution, and you know that, otherwise you wouldn't be so worried about losing your "rights." If they are set in stone then you would have no reason to be so afraid, nor would you be commenting here. If you think you are doing it to "troll" then you are not doing a good job at all, obviously.
Bull? Yeah, bullshit. Kick it up a notch to Jules Verne. Never fuck with an old graduate of the Comanche County College for Confused Cannon Cockers at Ft. Sill. Also the seven P's:Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.
Firstly, I never suggested militia membership be required, and secondly, the 14th Amendment does not prohibit qualification testing to own a gun, while the 2nd Amendment demands it. The fact that you thought you had countered my argument is amusing though.
So explain again how you will force the actual crimnals who commit 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun to be forced into such training without violating their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination sweety.....
Crimes are still going to happen. I would guess there's not a single law that has been written that hasn't been broken at one time or another, but that is not an argument not to have laws.
Also too, recall what Ralph Kramden promised his wife Alice: To the moon, Alice; to the moon.
Bollocks.
Yes, there was the report about misrecording, not denying. But 1) they don't only record solved crimes. That's how we know how many unsolved crimes there are. There is also the British Crime Survey, which actually goes out and asks people, which is how we know not every crime is reported to the police.2) Murders are pretty fucking hard not to record as murders. You know, that whole dead body thing is a bit of a clue.3) misrecording has nothing to do with left wing politics, but more about hitting government targets, and if you think Blair was a left winger, then you have no clue.4) I know people who legally own guns. We just happen to feel that not letting them wave the around in public to cover their personal inadequacies is a good thing.
No, see in the US a law is constitutional that applies to everyone, since per settled and codified law Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & the 5th amendment, any law requiring a felon to IDENTIFY THEMSELF violates the 5th amendment, and can not be used as a punishment.
That covers 85% of all gun control laws that require one to IDENTIFY THEMSELF...
Now explain again how you are going to force the actaul criminals who commit 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun to be forced into such training sweety....
Oh thats right, you believe beating the dog for the cat schiiting in your shoe magically stops the cat from schiiting in your shoe, got it, you have no solution other than to punish innocents for the crimes of the few criminals, got it, dismissed....
The 2A does NOT demand qualification testing. The right belongs to the people, not to the militia.The 14th Amendment is the amendment that holds the states, admittedly theoretically, to the same standards as the US government in regards to the rights of citizens. So, it does in fact counter your argument. The entire Bill of Right, as passed initially, are restrictions on the power of the federal government. The 14A supposedly places the SAME restrictions on the states. Except that the Supreme Court, in it's dealings with rights, holds all but the 2A equally restrictive to the states.
Wow, the pot calling the kettle black. Here's an example of your "well-worded" laws. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...Semper fi
Yes,I need to take lessons from you. The US has 6 times the population, ans20x the number of murders. Those are facts. Sorry they don't fit your world view.
All you are going to do is drag up statistics which are at best irrelevant, at worst wrong., as many of hours have been.
Then by your logic, no one can be forced to follow any laws and they are all now null and void. Well done.
STandard anarchist retort that has what meaning in the lecture we are giving you, NOTHING!
But hey, when are you ever going to force the BATF to prosecute more than 45 on average out of the 130,000 rejected each year sweety?
Oh thats right, illegal unconstitutional laws claimed by the leftists to reduce violence, but only persecute the law abiding serve what logical purpose in reducing violence eh sweety, NONE!
See, if the system is broke to begin with, and all you do is throw more unenforceable laws on top of broken laws and neither will be enforced, you have performed a perfect circle jerk, such a perfect simile of all anti gun advocates.....well done!
You are just having a nonsensical rant, and you make a lot of assumptions about me that are not true. I am not anti-gun, but am pro-responsibility. I think people should demonstrate responsibility as part and parcel of gun ownership. You are free to disagree that gun owners should be responsible, but that is your opinion and at no time will I ever agree with you on that. Have a good evening, and take care.
Well, despite your position that it isn't important, I think gun safety is incredibly important and should be mandated. I would prefer that over a complete ban on discharging firearms, since it is only the ownership of firearms that is constitutionally protected. Discharging of said firearms is not protected anywhere in the constitution. Go ahead and read the document. It is not in there.
Well, free speech is a protected right, whereas discharging firearms is not. Unless you can show where in the constitution that right is enumerated and protected, then it doesn't exist.
I am simply pointing out there are plenty of things that can be done to regulate gun ownership that are fully protected by the constitution, and you know that, otherwise you wouldn't be so worried about losing your "rights." If they are set in stone then you would have no reason to be so afraid, nor would you be commenting here. If you think you are doing it to "troll" then you are not doing a good job at all, obviously.