RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence

RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (Full Version)

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

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 8:52:53 AM)
thats why you will only ever be a sock

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 10:49:52 AM)
quote: which I took to mean anyone concealed (or open) carrying is just itching for a chance to use their firearm. And that is the strawman, because that is NOT what he said, yet that is what you have decided to argue against.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 10:59:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Here's how they try and do it in California. In a state that is overwhelmingly run by lefties, they still have to hide their intent from the public until it's an accomplished fate. These bills are presently being quietly run through the state assembly. Assembly Bill 156 (McCarty & de Leon) - AB 156, introduced as legislation to combat global warming, now requires the Attorney General to maintain information about ammunition transactions and vendor licenses. Assembly Bill 857 (Cooper & de Leon) – AB 857, introduced as legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, now serves as a restriction on curios, relics, and home-built firearms. Assembly Bill 1135 (Levine & Ting) – AB 1135’s introduced as legislation to form the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency, now serves as a reclassification of certain semi-automatic weapons to assault weapons. With this change any magazine capable of being removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm would now be classified as an assault weapon. This includes firearms that require a “tool” to remove the magazine such as rifles equipped with a “bullet button”. Assembly Bill 1511 (Santiago) – AB 1511’s introduced as energy saving bill, now severely limits the ability to loan a firearm between two law abiding citizens, for example a hunting trip or home protection. LOL, a much larger felching of asswipe than your ratpoison in the drinking water nutsucker jobs bill of your halcyon days of yore, wilbur: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB857 Explain the AB 857 restriction on curios and relics included in the 'climate change' bill here. First point out the climate change thingies, then move on to curios and relics. And exactly how they are restricted...... Your lying propaganda is as pathetic then as now, your buffoonery will continue in legend.

Nnanji -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 11:03:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic thats why you will only ever be a sock Funny. You and undertail are entertaining.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 11:19:19 AM)
and you are still wilbur the foolish felcher of fresno.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 4:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: which I took to mean anyone concealed (or open) carrying is just itching for a chance to use their firearm. And that is the strawman, because that is NOT what he said, yet that is what you have decided to argue against. Actually Mnottertail did say that people who concealed carry do so to find a situation in which to use the firearm, he has just been using other "proofs " to support his absurdity. You can hardly be blamed for not researching several pages of posts to find this. Still that was mnottertails postition so refuting it is resonable. not a strawman.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 4:22:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So, again, does the mere act of carrying a firearm mean one wants to use it and actively seeks out situations to use it? No, and he never said it did, which is why your argument is indeed a strawman. However, the only reason to carry a concealed handgun is to use if you need to, if you intended to just frighten off potential trouble you would carry it openly. Actually there are good reasons for carrying concealed. If you carry open you make yourself a target. If you carry open it can create a disturbance when people who are afraid of guns panic, call the cops and exagerate the situation (called swating, which the Bloomberg group has promoted) and has lead to tragedy. There are many juristictions where open carry is not allowed. There are others but I think these three should sufice.

Termyn8or -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 5:53:59 PM)
Talk about a bunch of dumb shit. Ron, you've outdone yourself again. (but then I can't be sure because I don't read every post) T^T

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 6:13:40 PM)
quote: Their job is to enforce the Constitution. Not according to the Constitution.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 6:16:47 PM)
quote: Actually Mnottertail did say that people who concealed carry do so to find a situation in which to use the firearm, I went back and looked, and you are correct. I apologize to ifmaz. There was no strawman. Thanks for correcting me BamaD.

Termyn8or -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 6:39:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Their job is to enforce the Constitution. Not according to the Constitution. Really. I would like to hear the logic behind that one but I am quite sure you'll never sit there and type a post long enough to even begin to defy simple logic. The government is supposed to be governed by the Constitution, how the hell are they not bound to enforce it ? T^T

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 7:25:27 PM)
quote: Really. I would like to hear the logic behind that one Easy, if you want to know what the the Constitution says about the Supreme Court and it's duties, then just read the Constitution. You will be very surprised to learn that it says very little about it, other than how they are appointed and what their jurisdiction is. Here, I'll make it easy for you. quote: U.S. Constitution Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. That's it. That's all there is to it. Now how about you tell me where it says they are supposed to enforce the Constitution. You will note, however, that it's power covers "all cases, in law and equity", etc. Which covers pretty much anything.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 7:30:17 PM)
quote: The government is supposed to be governed by the Constitution, how the hell are they not bound to enforce it ? because, despite what you have been led to believe, the US Constitution is a very poorl;y written and shoddily thought out document. It is full of huge holes and governed by a bunch of assumptions that the meaning, which was clear to those who wrote it at the time, was made clear, when in many cases it was not.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 8:30:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Actually Mnottertail did say that people who concealed carry do so to find a situation in which to use the firearm, I went back and looked, and you are correct. I apologize to ifmaz. There was no strawman. Thanks for correcting me BamaD. Sometimes you get a comment that responds to something said much earlier, it happens.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 8:32:46 PM)
True, and it doesn't help that I often just skip over Mnottertail's posts.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 8:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick True, and it doesn't help that I often just skip over Mnottertail's posts. Don't we all. They are abusive and irrational.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 9:01:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So, again, does the mere act of carrying a firearm mean one wants to use it and actively seeks out situations to use it? No, and he never said it did, which is why your argument is indeed a strawman. However, the only reason to carry a concealed handgun is to use if you need to, if you intended to just frighten off potential trouble you would carry it openly. He said "You carry it it use it. You have said as much." which I took to mean anyone concealed (or open) carrying is just itching for a chance to use their firearm. I said no one goes out looking for a reason to use their firearm. There is an extremely large difference between going out looking for a reason to draw and fire versus carrying for defense. The conversation is similar to having fire extinguishers in the home yet hoping never to have to use them, or are we all secretly wanting to be firemen whenever possible? You can and do take what you want, and I never said that, so you have a strawman. You don't carry a fire extinguisher with you. 'To use, just in case.' It is not similar unless you carry a fire extinguisher with you at all times. Concealed or open, your choice.

ifmaz -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 9:08:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So, again, does the mere act of carrying a firearm mean one wants to use it and actively seeks out situations to use it? No, and he never said it did, which is why your argument is indeed a strawman. However, the only reason to carry a concealed handgun is to use if you need to, if you intended to just frighten off potential trouble you would carry it openly. He said "You carry it it use it. You have said as much." which I took to mean anyone concealed (or open) carrying is just itching for a chance to use their firearm. I said no one goes out looking for a reason to use their firearm. There is an extremely large difference between going out looking for a reason to draw and fire versus carrying for defense. The conversation is similar to having fire extinguishers in the home yet hoping never to have to use them, or are we all secretly wanting to be firemen whenever possible? You can and do take what you want, and I never said that, so you have a strawman. You don't carry a fire extinguisher with you. 'To use, just in case.' It is not similar unless you carry a fire extinguisher with you at all times. Concealed or open, your choice. It is extremely similar: one carries a firearm not in the hopes they will use it but "just in case". Likewise, one has fire extinguishers in their home, health insurance, an alarm system, etc not in the hopes they will use them but "just in case"; one would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 9:19:14 PM)
one carries the firearm in their home, only. One carries the fire extinguisher in public, only. Then they would be similar. You carry an extra shoelace, a sewing kit, a surgical team, a bail bondsman, and a phalanx of police, a table saw, a deck of cards, safety glasses, a hardhat, steel toed boots, a psychologist, an ambulance, your complete medical records, ad infinitum, "just in case". Then they are similar. In the meantime, accused of domestic violence? Lose the guns till the dispostion of the case. Nothing breaking about states doing what is already in the fed law.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/9/2016 10:07:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The government is supposed to be governed by the Constitution, how the hell are they not bound to enforce it ? because, despite what you have been led to believe, the US Constitution is a very poorl;y written and shoddily thought out document. It is full of huge holes and governed by a bunch of assumptions that the meaning, which was clear to those who wrote it at the time, was made clear, when in many cases it was not. The primary purpose is to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. They do not hear crimanal or civil cases. They rule on the Constitutionality of the process.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625