Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Red Dead Redemption 2...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:44 PM
0 Replies, 10 Views
Capcom Shutters Dead...
Last post by LostToys
Today 07:25 PM
5 Replies, 522 Views
Ace Combat 7 Pre-Order...
Last post by Fubl
Today 07:23 PM
7 Replies, 486 Views
Warface PlayStation 4...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:19 PM
1 Replies, 39 Views
Earth Defense Force:...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:11 PM
1 Replies, 41 Views
Project Judge Opening...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:06 PM
1 Replies, 42 Views
Pokemon: Let’s Go,...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:03 PM
0 Replies, 48 Views
Introducing the...
Last post by EL CABONG
Today 03:26 PM
12 Replies, 651 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-02-2018, 06:45 AM   #341
AlfredT
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,143
And yes, while killing a baby because it has Downs is (imo) reprehensible, it is more reprehensible (and totalitarian as you bastards like to keep saying) to remove/ban abortions altogether using this or any other excuse.

Its like.. using a school shooting to .. ban all guns?
__________________
There are sharks in the water, and your mangina is bleeding heavily.
AlfredT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 06:48 AM   #342
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfredT View Post
Being against abortion = you're ok with saying what woman can do when they are pregnant as mandated by the state.
I'm sure you're the type whose wife will get drunk and shoot up while pregnant, because it would be wrong to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies while they damage and destroy an unborn baby!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfredT View Post
You'r a stupid cunt.
LOL. Poor Alfred, feeling a bit...

__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 07:26 AM   #343
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post

LOL. Poor Alfred, feeling a bit...

I was picturing the same image (maybe with a little more foaming at the mouth) behind his keyboard after I read these posts.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 10:13 AM   #344
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,846
Alfred, No problem with you disagreeing, and I'm not defending the folks who are trolling you, but they love it when you call them names and go batshit. It never helps to compare people to nazis and some of the other stuff that doesn't need to be repeated. Are people saying some provacative, hypocritical, misrepresentative stuff. Yes. Do they care? No. So don't lose your cool, just put them on ignore and don't feed the trolls. There is no win for you in arguing with them. No good point to be made, no catching them in a lie, no pointing out that they are idiots, etc that they will ever care about.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 10:41 AM   #345
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfredT View Post
And yes, while killing a baby because it has Downs is (imo) reprehensible, it is more reprehensible (and totalitarian as you bastards like to keep saying) to remove/ban abortions altogether using this or any other excuse.

Its like.. using a school shooting to .. ban all guns?
Are people arguing that school shootings should be legalized, or that the act of shooting up a school is somehow okay? No, they aren't.

People, generally speaking, arguing that abortion should not be legally permitted - which regularly comes with certain caveats - is based upon the idea that the abortion itself is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfredT View Post
Being against abortion = you're ok with saying what woman can do when they are pregnant as mandated by the state. Regafdless of your religious, ethics etc., on abortion, by being pro life, you advocate control of the physical bodies of women during pregnancies partially to the state/society.

Correct me there if I am wrong.

Islam: you own woman.

That's called logical correlation, you fucking insipid cunt.
No, as you've skipped a vital part of the equation: where did this pregnancy come from? Did the woman make the choice to engage in an an act - sex - that may result in pregnancy? If that answer is yes, the anti-abortion position is then based upon protecting the life created as a result of that act. Unless the government forced her to have sex, how is it that this is controlling a woman's body by her making a choice that led to pregnancy?

You're talking about choice for one person's body, but what's the choice of the unborn child and their body? So, this isn't about controlling the physical body of women -- it's about protecting the physical body of the child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfredT View Post
Lastly, I am center right. You can have guns, you can have capital punishment.. as long as you are part of an informed public. But hey, label me a democrat/liberal etc., because I don't fall in line with your neo con horseshit.
Is the act of owning a gun an act of ending a life? No, it's not. If it was, everyone would be dead in the U.S. since there are more firearms than people.

As for capital punishment, such punishment - which has been misused by the state - is supposed to be carried out in response to people committing crimes against others. What crime did the unborn child commit? If you're against the government saying it's illegal for a woman to simply kill her unborn child who hasn't even had a chance to do anything except be innocent, how are you in support of the government specifically and purposely killing other people? With capital punishment, the presumption in the discussion is that they're actually guilty of some sort of heinous crime, but what's the unborn child guilty of?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Are people saying some provacative, hypocritical, misrepresentative stuff. Yes.
Remember: it's okay when you do it. That's the Whimbrel way.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 10:44 AM   #346
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
A. Why, it's as if you concluded with what you thought "smart, rational, calm gun control" would probably involve. My responses largely focused on how ignorant your vague claims on what this sort of gun control would probably include were.

B. Now you may not have noticed the last bit of Vallor's quote, judging by your response. It states: ".... a solution which doesn't include infringement." Your response is a heaping amount of infringement, and I'd wager it's a greater amount of infringement than you really want to outright say -- hence the vagueness.

C. It's particularly ironic considering you were apparently unable to respond to any rebuttals I offered, instead choosing to claim victimhood again.
A. Yes, I did conclude with my ideas about what smart, rational, calm gun control would probably include. You may think it is ignorant, but the fact that some of this is already happening in reality, and other people are calling for other aspects of it would indicate that you are incorrect. Several times you wrote, It is worth noting that Whimbrel didn't elaborate..... Why? Had you written me a personal note somewhere requesting that I elaborate everything I state all the time? If so, who gives a fuck? I threw out some ideas. So what. It is not worth noting that I didn't write a formal policy declaration for the ATC. Get over yourself.


B. Actually you didn't notice. I specifically addressed the implicit paradox at the outset of my post directly under the quote. Reading comp for the ....


C. "Unable to respond"...Just, keep telling yourself that, rebuttal boy. Saying you wrote a shitty response is not claiming victimhood, but if your self esteem needs some good feelings today, go ahead and poof yourself up a bit more. Don't worry, we're not embarrassed for you. Every rebuttal boy needs to feel like a big boy once in a while, so don't feel bad about being so obvious about it in public. We understand where you are coming from. Really. Claim those victories!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 11:05 AM   #347
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
A. Yes, I did conclude with my ideas about what smart, rational, calm gun control would probably include. You may think it is ignorant, but the fact that some of this is already happening in reality, and other people are calling for other aspects of it would indicate that you are incorrect.
People doing something and that thing happening doesn't make something smart, rational, or calm. Do you think that it automatically does? If you do, you've shown you're not smart or rational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Several times you wrote, It is worth noting that Whimbrel didn't elaborate..... Why? Had you written me a personal note somewhere requesting that I elaborate everything I state all the time? If so, who gives a fuck? I threw out some ideas. So what. It is not worth noting that I didn't write a formal policy declaration for the ATC. Get over yourself.
You through out vague nothingness, which I pointed out several times. I didn't ask for a formal declaration, I pointed out you didn't offer specifics. You know, reading comprehension and all that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
B. Actually you didn't notice. I specifically addressed the implicit paradox at the outset of my post directly under the quote. Reading comp for the ....
That's what you thought you did? Jeez, that's fairly dumb. Allow me to pull your quote for you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Well, the NRA seems to be pretty much fucked at this point, and yes, the rights in the constitution were never intended as a death pact. Clearly the founders never enunciated a right to school safety because they did not anticipate that a right meant to provide security would be perverted to become a source of domestic terror.
You can't enunciate a right to school safety. 2nd Amendment rights aren't the source of "domestic terror," people are. If you wanted some sort of "right to school safety," you need to remove the source of what makes it unsafe -- people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
C. "Unable to respond"...Just, keep telling yourself that, rebuttal boy. Saying you wrote a shitty response is not claiming victimhood, but if your self esteem needs some good feelings today, go ahead and poof yourself up a bit more. Don't worry, we're not embarrassed for you. Every rebuttal boy needs to feel like a big boy once in a while, so don't feel bad about being so obvious about it in public. We understand where you are coming from. Really. Claim those victories!
Ah, yes, another non-response. Yes, you are claiming victimhood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Once again, in trying to dissect the hell out of my post and ignoring what everybody else was saying or what it was a direct, explicit, and quoted response to, you have just built a castle on sand for no reason. You are literally taking my words out of context even when I explicitly state and quote the context in the very words you then try to distort to make some entirely unrelated point. Why??? I guess you had time to kill and bullshit to spread.
Your post is complaining that you're being targeted, which is nothing new for you to cry about.

Now what's funny about your stance here also involves your response to Alfred:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Alfred, No problem with you disagreeing, and I'm not defending the folks who are trolling you, but they love it when you call them names and go batshit. It never helps to compare people to nazis and some of the other stuff that doesn't need to be repeated. Are people saying some provacative, hypocritical, misrepresentative stuff. Yes. Do they care? No. So don't lose your cool, just put them on ignore and don't feed the trolls. There is no win for you in arguing with them. No good point to be made, no catching them in a lie, no pointing out that they are idiots, etc that they will ever care about.
".... they love it when you call them names and go batshit."
Do you call people names? Yes, you do.
Do you go batshit? Yes, you do.
"Are people saying some provacative, hypocritical, misrepresentative stuff. Yes. Do they care? No."
Do you say provocative stuff? Yes, I'd say you do. Although it seems you may believe yourself to be the arbiter of what is or isn't provocative.
You just hurled names within 30 minutes of advising someone else against such a thing. So, that's hypocritical. You used to complain about a lack of sourcing and whatnot, but it's okay when you don't live up to the standards you demand of your opponents in these threads -- you're armed with emotions.
Do you misrepresent stuff? Does this day of the week end with a y? You actually edit quotes, post outright false information, and don't seem to care at all. Hypocritical? You betcha, but it's obvious the standards you demand of others aren't meant to apply to yourself or like-minded individuals.
Would it seem that the advice you're giving is a lie due to the fact you're unwilling to follow it yourself, even just 30 minutes later? Why yes, it would.

I do thank you for the laugh.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 11:48 AM   #348
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post

A. That's what you thought you did? Jeez, that's fairly dumb. Allow me to pull your quote for you:
Yeah, I said directly UNDER the quote, but nice try.

Your little moral critique is meaningless since you have no leg to stand on. A flaming hypocrite can not make much of an impact chastising somebody else for hypocrisy, and since you show no insight about your own conduct, don't get too upset if I don't take you too seriously here.

Yes, I may agree with Alfred about some posters, but I still encourage him not to call them nazis and I stand by that. Do I say some provocative things, absolutely. I am included in that.

Did I call you rebuttal boy? Did that hurt your feelings? I was only satirizing your absurd victory claim that I was unable to respond to your mighty rebuttals. If you think that is going batshit, you need to get over yourself even more.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 12:08 PM   #349
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Yeah, I said directly UNDER the quote, but nice try.
A quick search shows you not saying paradox, it shows your ignorance on the 2nd Amendment, however.

So, you think people have a "right" to being safe in a school? That may be a goal, but it's impossible to give someone that right. Do children have the "right" to be safe on the road?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Your little moral critique is meaningless since you have no leg to stand on. A flaming hypocrite can not make much of an impact chastising somebody else for hypocrisy, and since you show no insight about your own conduct, don't get too upset if I don't take you too seriously here.
If you don't believe a flaming hypocrite can much much of an impact in that manner, why do you think you'll make an impact? Your hypocrisy is obvious and has been shown. Quick, post another bit about principles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Yes, I may agree with Alfred about some posters, but I still encourage him not to call them nazis and I stand by that. Do I say some provocative things, absolutely. I am included in that.
Ah, yes, here it is. Baby steps towards admitting your rampant hypocrisy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Did I call you rebuttal boy? Did that hurt your feelings? I was only satirizing your absurd victory claim that I was unable to respond to your mighty rebuttals. If you think that is going batshit, you need to get over yourself even more.
No, why would I get my feelings hurt on a gaming forum where topics like guns and other things are discussed? It's an example of calling people names, exposing your hypocrisy. I didn't say calling me "rebuttal boy" was going batshit, I said you go batshit. Again, there is that reading comprehension issue.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 12:37 PM   #350
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
A quick search shows you not saying paradox, it shows your ignorance on the 2nd Amendment, however.

So, you think people have a "right" to being safe in a school? That may be a goal, but it's impossible to give someone that right. Do children have the "right" to be safe on the road?
Yawn.

I said that since a group feels that any gun control is infringement there is a logical constraint on who could then discuss gun control and not think it is an infringement. Your brilliant response was that some people will think gun control is infringement. Umm yeah. Duh.

there is no constitutional right to safety, hence my imbalanced rights arguments. I think that at this stage, only an idiot or someone in denial of history would think that the 2nd amendment can be used to defend inaction against violence. One can't say " I need this because it is for my protection" while the guns are being used to kill innocents and think the protection argument holds sway.

You asked earlier what guns should be allowed. I don't know, but I would guess a few handguns deemed appropriate for personal protection and a few types of hunting shotguns and rifles. Anything else by special application, permit, or registration, with increased responsibility and liability for owners and manufacturers. and resellers. Every other gun would be grandfathered upon registration, and no additional ammo or guns would be sold from the prohibited groups. This allows "personal protection" for the fantasy rambo league, maintains the 2nd amendment, and imposes sensible gun control moving forward.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 03:14 PM   #351
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Yawn.

I said that since a group feels that any gun control is infringement there is a logical constraint on who could then discuss gun control and not think it is an infringement. Your brilliant response was that some people will think gun control is infringement. Umm yeah. Duh.
No, my response was the word infringement objectively means that infringing, which is what you're advocating, was.... infringement. My "brilliant response" was based on knowing what a word meant. Geez.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
there is no constitutional right to safety, hence my imbalanced rights arguments. I think that at this stage, only an idiot or someone in denial of history would think that the 2nd amendment can be used to defend inaction against violence. One can't say " I need this because it is for my protection" while the guns are being used to kill innocents and think the protection argument holds sway.
If there is no right, it's not a right. The 2nd Amendment isn't an act of violence, only an idiot would think that ownership of a firearm amounted to an act of violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
You asked earlier what guns should be allowed. I don't know, but I would guess a few handguns deemed appropriate for personal protection and a few types of hunting shotguns and rifles. Anything else by special application, permit, or registration, with increased responsibility and liability for owners and manufacturers. and resellers. Every other gun would be grandfathered upon registration, and no additional ammo or guns would be sold from the prohibited groups. This allows "personal protection" for the fantasy rambo league, maintains the 2nd amendment, and imposes sensible gun control moving forward.
I think your most honest and accurate statement was "I don't know."

Which "few" handguns are "appropriate" for personal protection? What "few" types of hunting shotguns and rifles are acceptable? Give some specifics.

What does increased responsibility and liability equate to?

Who are the "prohibited groups," the ammo and guns you want banned?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2018, 10:46 PM   #352
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,092
One of my favorite sites, the libertarian leaning Reason.com posted an article today with the proper attitude and title.

The poor lady they are responding to is barely able to function. Her fear must keep her inside her house at all times!

Quote:
Renkl is afraid because other people are afraid, and she is not interested in considering whether those fears are reasonable. "Not only am I married to a schoolteacher, and the mother of one, I also have two younger sons in college," she writes. "Not a single day goes by when I don't worry about whether they will all be safe in their classrooms."

In reality, Renkl's sons are nearly 1,000 times as likely to die in a traffic accident as they are to die in a mass shooting, which is roughly as likely as being killed by a dog and only slightly more likely than dying from a lightning strike. Stinging insects kill more Americans each year than mass shooters do. Yet Renkl thinks the government should make policy decisions based on the shortness of her breath and the coldness of her heart.
Both articles are worth reading. Hers for the histrionics, the one on Reason for a dose of sense.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2018, 05:20 AM   #353
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
The poor lady they are responding to is barely able to function. Her fear must keep her inside her house at all times!
It really has gotten absolutely ridiculous. When I went to high school in the 80s we were four times more likely to die in a school shooting than kids are today, and we NEVER had ANY active shooter drills or ANY hyperbolic fear-driven responses to a supposed wave of school gun violence.

This isn't just isolated to gun violence. Kids today, and for at least a decade or more, have been cocooned by parents who seem to live in fear of everything. Playgrounds have been neutered to remove 'danger,' going anywhere alone as a kid (like to a corner store or a park) is in many locations a criminal offense that can get a parent arrested, and on and on.

I think the Internet and social media have driven this in large part, but never underestimate the stupidity of people in simply feeding their own fears and ignorance on their own as well.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2018, 06:17 AM   #354
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,510
Fears and misguided senses of fairness are the two greatest weapons of the uniparty. That's how they maintain their power.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2018, 12:45 AM   #355
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Yawn.

I said that since a group feels that any gun control is infringement there is a logical constraint on who could then discuss gun control and not think it is an infringement. Your brilliant response was that some people will think gun control is infringement. Umm yeah. Duh.

there is no constitutional right to safety, hence my imbalanced rights arguments. I think that at this stage, only an idiot or someone in denial of history would think that the 2nd amendment can be used to defend inaction against violence. One can't say " I need this because it is for my protection" while the guns are being used to kill innocents and think the protection argument holds sway.

You asked earlier what guns should be allowed. I don't know, but I would guess a few handguns deemed appropriate for personal protection and a few types of hunting shotguns and rifles. Anything else by special application, permit, or registration, with increased responsibility and liability for owners and manufacturers. and resellers. Every other gun would be grandfathered upon registration, and no additional ammo or guns would be sold from the prohibited groups. This allows "personal protection" for the fantasy rambo league, maintains the 2nd amendment, and imposes sensible gun control moving forward.
No there is no Constitutional right to safety, there also isn't one where the government provides a life for you. There is however one based on self preservation, and the fact that you feel threatened that people own guns really says it all about your viewpoint on guns.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2018, 06:24 PM   #356
PacerDawn
Choadwanger
 
PacerDawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,848
And so it begins...

Deerfield bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

Quote:
Owners of assault weapons living in north suburban Deerfield have until June 13 to remove the firearms from within village limits or face daily fines after a ban was approved Monday night.

The Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved a ban on certain types of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, amending a 2013 ordinance that regulated the storage of those items.

The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the ordinance. One change from the law as it was originally discussed exempts retired police officers from the ban, according to Village Manager Kent Street.

Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney. He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.
Won't stand up you say? Too late, they have already been given an inch...

Quote:
[Village Manager Kent] Street said the new law is modeled after one approved by Highland Park in 2013. That ban survived a legal challenge by one of the city’s residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislation constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand when it declined to take up the appeal.
Way to show those murderers! Now there is no way will anyone bring an "assault weapon" there to kill people. They will get fined!
__________________
The last time someone slipped viagra in my drink, I found out the hard way.

Last edited by PacerDawn; 04-06-2018 at 06:48 AM..
PacerDawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2018, 06:33 PM   #357
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacerDawn View Post
Won't stand up you say? Too late, they have already been given an inch...
The Supreme Court has been completely negligent in it's duty by not taking up some very legitimate 2nd amendment cases in the last few years.

This one, the one in Maryland re: the vaguely worded "Unusual" firearms ban, and one in San Diego county where open carry is banned and the Sheriff issues zero concealed carry permits effectively ensuring there is no ability for self defense outside the home (a direct conflict of Heller) are just a few grossly blatant cases the court has skipped on hearing.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2018, 08:48 PM   #358
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,700
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2018, 09:30 PM   #359
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
The Supreme Court has been completely negligent in it's duty by not taking up some very legitimate 2nd amendment cases in the last few years.

This one, the one in Maryland re: the vaguely worded "Unusual" firearms ban, and one in San Diego county where open carry is banned and the Sheriff issues zero concealed carry permits effectively ensuring there is no ability for self defense outside the home (a direct conflict of Heller) are just a few grossly blatant cases the court has skipped on hearing.
Basically violating the Constitution. But you don't want our guns right Whimple?
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2018, 09:26 AM   #360
Major Dan
Conductor Dan
 
Major Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where BNSF pays me the most
Posts: 2,258
Things will get so crazy if guns are banned. They have been legal and around since the inception of our country. I can not imagine the chaos it will bring to our nation if they try to take them away. It will be, I imagine, much like prohibition, and there will be a black market and grey markets along with smuggling and untold violence that comes with such things. The drug smugglers will now smuggle guns, like they don't all ready. Not to mention they countless police stand offs that will ensue. Will the police kill innocent people over refusing to give up their guns, when just yesterday it was legal? When said person could be a friend or relative? I think this could get very ugly. It saddens me to even contemplate the scenario. Time to become an ex-pat if it comes to pass.
__________________
Just call me, "Conductor Dan, formerly Major Dan, aka Major Dan (r)"
Major Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM.