RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights?

RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 8:39:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: States or municipalities shouldn't be restricting rights. Restricting First Amendment rights or Freedom of the Press wouldn't be tolerated for one minute! I don't understand why people have tolerated this nonsense for so long. The difference is that firearms are potentially a threat to other citizens. When free speech or freedom of the press poses a threat to other citizens, it is also restricted. No reason firearms should be exempt from this reasonable approach. this is fucking rich! free speech posing a threat Yup. It's why we have libel laws. Not to mention classified information. Both "infringe" upon free speech, because of the potential harm they present. thank you very much, therefore there is no need for legislation on the issue, just like we have murder laws therefore there is no need for gun legislation. Of course there is no laws against shooting yourself in the foot.

Musicmystery -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 8:41:58 PM)
You are an idiot---we already HAVE legislation for both. Go check your law book.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 8:48:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You are an idiot---we already HAVE legislation for both. Go check your law book. you are an idiot because you are completely clueless to the distinction. Oh been there done that bought the library.

Musicmystery -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 8:53:11 PM)
This may help: http://www.dictionary.com

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:04:50 PM)
Fast Reply... Lest we forget, let us revisit what started this... A 74 year old man, a law abiding citizen, named Otis McDonald, living in one of the dangerous and violent places in Chicago wanted to keep a registered fire-arm in his home for personal protection but the city would rather only non law abiding citizens have them.

Musicmystery -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:06:51 PM)
No. The city doesn't want them to have hand guns. Long guns are fine and legal.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:08:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This may help: http://www.dictionary.com more raid for the bug fest! The mainstream distinction between lawful and legal is that one deals with substance and the other form. bills in the fuckign mail oh and thanks for the worthless dictionary btw

Musicmystery -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:10:47 PM)
Point is speech and firearm restrictions. Both are restricted, by law, to prevent harm to others.

zenny -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:13:44 PM)
Yes, laws are in place to protect people even when their purpose is explicitly (or not) stated otherwise.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Point is speech and firearm restrictions. Both are restricted, by law, to prevent harm to others. only for the idiots that consented to be governed. Of course it does not change the fact its only code with the force of law. you need to either take 5 minutes out life and study or hang it up man. Perfect example of why this country so so fucked up, people dont even know the fucking basics.

Musicmystery -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:18:02 PM)
None of which has anything at all to do with the point made. Take your change of subject elsewhere.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:19:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Yes, laws are in place to protect people even when their purpose is explicitly (or not) stated otherwise. Ok well I will hang 10 pounds of gold around your neck and give you all the applicable law toss your ass in a ghetto and see how much protection you get from your law.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery None of which has anything at all to do with the point made. Take your change of subject elsewhere. see there you go again. here is more raid for the bugfest. As the consented you do not have 2nd amendment rights, not that anyone can explain it to you in 100 years because you dont understand the difference between rights and privileges either. but enjoy

zenny -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Yes, laws are in place to protect people even when their purpose is explicitly (or not) stated otherwise. Ok well I will hang 10 pounds of gold around your neck and give you all the applicable law toss your ass in a ghetto and see how much protection you get from your law. My post was heavily sarcastic. Also, the police are not under obligation to protect anyone thanks to that ole' supreme court ruling.. Castle Rock vs. Gonzales iirc

Musicmystery -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:28:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: States or municipalities shouldn't be restricting rights. Restricting First Amendment rights or Freedom of the Press wouldn't be tolerated for one minute! I don't understand why people have tolerated this nonsense for so long. The difference is that firearms are potentially a threat to other citizens. When free speech or freedom of the press poses a threat to other citizens, it is also restricted. No reason firearms should be exempt from this reasonable approach. HERE is the point. None of your babble addresses it. Insult all you want. That's the point.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:31:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Yes, laws are in place to protect people even when their purpose is explicitly (or not) stated otherwise. Ok well I will hang 10 pounds of gold around your neck and give you all the applicable law toss your ass in a ghetto and see how much protection you get from your law. My post was heavily sarcastic. Also, the police are not under obligation to protect anyone thanks to that ole' supreme court ruling.. Castle Rock vs. Gonzales iirc Oh... well right you are. They work for the corporate court. Thats just a another one of the misdirections, and all attorneys are foriegn agents, and all legislation is, is a way to circumvent due process of Law. Sorry I didnt catch that, good point.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:37:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Point is speech and firearm restrictions. Both are restricted, by law, to prevent harm to others. only for the idiots that consented to be governed. Of course it does not change the fact its only code with the force of law. you need to either take 5 minutes out life and study or hang it up man. Perfect example of why this country so so fucked up, people dont even know the fucking basics. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery HERE is the point. None of your babble addresses it. Insult all you want. That's the point. wrong again, there was the point. I planted an axe right between your eyes and you failed to see it.

Musicmystery -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:40:50 PM)
Here's the thread you're on: quote: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? Your head has been up your ass so long, you don't miss it.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/5/2010 9:49:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Here's the thread you're on: quote: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? Your head has been up your ass so long, you don't miss it. Oh well my apologies, I thought this was about law, I was not aware this thread was restricted to the clueless consenting.

subrob1967 -> RE: Supreme Court leaning towards extending gun rights? (3/6/2010 12:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No. The city doesn't want them to have hand guns. Long guns are fine and legal. Good luck getting an FOID card to buy one in Cook County.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125