RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms.


30 days
  5% (1)
1 year
  0% (0)
2-5 years
  5% (1)
6-10 years
  0% (0)
more than ten years
  88% (16)


Total Votes : 18
(last vote on : 10/31/2016 2:01:17 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 8:30:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Peon, our Constitution has more than one Amendment.


Yet bama would repeal the 1st ammendment for a football player who chose to exercise it.


All of the Amendments are treated the same way. Freedom of speach, emancipation of Blacks,

If that were true then how did "jim crow"evolve?



repeal of Prohibition, the right to peacefully assemble.


Kent state???



It's not just the Second Amendment. The court's primary purpose is to ensure all laws are constitutional. The 2nd is no more or no less as important as the 1st or any other. Albeit, many believe the others could not be kept whole if the 2nd didn't exist.


When in the history of this country has the 2nd ever done that?


Well, actually Thompson, you're arguing here for Bama. The laws exist. There's always someone who'll ignore the laws. Ultimately, our own preservation is our responsibility.

Three burning buildings and half a dozen guardsmen on the way to the hospital is a "peaceful" demonstration? I would hate to see what he thinks it takes to have a violent demonstration.




vincentML -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 8:51:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

F d
Someone, must be a person I have on hide, posted that I want to refuse that QB in SF of his 1st amendment rights.
How stupid can you get. I have stated that his has the right to do what he has done but that I believe he is a self serving jerk who is just doing this to get back in the spotlight or do you, whoever you are think that he has the right to make any moronic position he wants to but I don't have the same 1st amendment right to disagree with him.

Let's sort this out for the sake of clarity.

Up until the present there has been no Federal, State, or local civic agency that has attempted to interfere with Kaepernick's kneeling during the playing of the Anthem as a political statement. His actions have occurred in a privately owned venue. Consequently, there is no Constitutional restraint involved in what he is doing.

In the same manner the only way you would be able to claim a constitutional right to speak out against CK's position must follow some government agency interfering with your speech. I take it no agency has issued a desist order against you.

The exercise of free speech becomes an issue only when a government agency has tried to block you.

Constitutional free speech only becomes an issue when a government agency has taken overt action against the speaker.

Neither you nor Kaepernick is in jeopardy of Constitutionally based sanctions, so free speech guaranties are not an issue in this situation.

Conclusion: you do not know what you are blowing off about.

But, carry on . . .





Termyn8or -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 8:57:41 PM)

"Yet bama would repeal the 1st ammendment for a football player who chose to exercise it. "

Did he say that ? You read alot that is not written. I think he expressed disapproval with that action but to remove the guy's rights ? I do not remember reading that part, perhaps you can find a quote in his posts.

"If that were true then how did "jim crow"evolve?"

That is when the Constitution is not upheld. I don't know if it escaped your attentin but a town down south started entrapping homosexuals. They had an old law on the books against homosexuality and sent detectives out to entice them to solicit homosexual acts, NOT FOR MONEY, but at all. they arrested a bunch of homos aqnd threw them in jail but had to let them all go because it was unconstitutional. But that did not stop them from handcuffing them, throwing them in a cage, making them post bail and all that shit. I hope the homos sued the fuck out of them to the point the town can't afford to pay their thugs, err, police. What the fuck do you care who fucks whom ? And it is not like the homos came to the police station, or went to a school promoting homosexuality, the cops came to them just like they send female cops to entrap "johns".

Don't get me wrong, the thought of touching another Man that way turns my stomach, but they have to be allowed to do what they do. They are not hurting anyone. And in case nobody got the memo, it is not illegal in Russia, it is only illegal to promote homosexuality to minors in Russia. They do have fagbashers, but then again so did Canada, a fairly liberal state IMO, also had them a few years ago.

Anyway, as much as homosexuality turns me off I need to support their right and they need to support mine. We either stand together or fall apart.

"Kent state??? "

From what I heard, and I was and am in the state, is that they were getting pretty wild. Destroying property and all that. Only four dead is not that bad considering. If you only knew how many died in the race war in Cleveland you might think different but there are no figures on that.

It was a riot. It was a hostile protest. They got cut some slack because they were protesting the war in Nam which everyone was against by then. I am not saying that they should ot have protested, of course they should. Bur the the Constitution does mention "peaceably". It was not peaceful. they got rowdy protesting for peace. But then again they were a bunch of college kids still wet behind the ears.

"When in the history of this country has the 2nd ever done that? "

So you got a plunger for your toilet but it is not clogged.

If you don't understand the concept of having it and not needing it I don''t know what to tell you.

And as I have said before, anti-gunners say we could never take o tthe government. Well that is true in a frontal assault. What, you think we are going to show up at the whitehouse with a bunch of .38s ? No, to enforce law they have to come out, we pick them off in the streets. Kill half the cops and see if they get any more applicants. Of course they will get more militarized but so will we. Make it so the cops are afraid to get out of their cars.

How do they serve warrants ? How do they do evictions ? How do they collect taxes ? And if we go to the cars and just shoot them on sight they'll be unable to even write a fucking speeding ticket.

Cut off their revenue. Cops are not going to go out there and take a fifty fifty chance of losing their life over bringing in some speeding tickets without a huge paycheck, and they already do quite well.

Another thing, I bet alot of people still have really old guns in the gun free countries. They just don't use them because they are civilised people living with other civilised people. There is no reason. Nobody, including e, has seem my guns for months.

A couple of months ago I showed the kid (23 descendant from goodfellas type) because he wants me to will it to him when I die. He likes it because it is very old. Well I likes it because it is very old. Still works. He wants to buy it but he is a bit young in the mind. He does not have great control over his anger though I will admit it has gotten better since I met him years ago. In fact he told of an incident he had at work and the boss told him he was impressed at how he handled it.

But before, in a way it was like I did my own background check. When I first met this kid he really should not have a gun. Now I don't know. I told hi before, one day I am going to smack you upside the head and you will do nothing about it. When that happens I will will the gun to him unless someone in the family wants it. I doubt they do. But like I said, in a way I did my own background check, he used to be hotheaded like all hell and I got through to him. Do what serves your needs, do what supports your position. And getting physical is an automatic loss. He is aothewr one who I know who has not lost a fight, but he will. He is still young and if he gets physical again (doubtful) he might just run into the wrong person.

That is another thing about guns, there are people out there so tough that you have to shoot them two or three times. I myself was close, y sparring partner kicked me twenty feet across the room nd I cam e back and said "Do that again". Well twice was enough but the fact is that my musculature at the time was that good that I bet a .22 would have only penetrated some flesh. And I know people who were twice as strong as me. One was a bricklayer who fell off the scaffold onto a ton of bricks, and broke the ton of bricks. The foreman was bitching at him after looking them over "You broke ALL of them !". He went back to work. I also saw this dude fall from about fifteen feet from the ground onto pavement right on his back and get right up. I thought we were going to have to take him to the hospital. You want to pull a gun on a guy like that ? Just empty the thing into him then.

He is not the only one. Hell, the last time I got my ass kicked it took three guys to do it. And the they had to shoot me, with a .38 and got me about an inch under the left eye. The bullet deflected down into my neck where it still remains because the best ENTs in town said it would be foolish to try to remove it as trying could make me a quadrapalegic. The fact that I could walk and talk then means it missed everything that really counts, though I did have some problems.

Guns don't always kill, you have to make sure they do.

And the take for the assbeating and the shooting when they found out they hadn't killed me ?

$12.

With people like that in the country, we don't need any fucking crackass ideas from countries that have subjects.

T^T




BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 8:58:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

F d
Someone, must be a person I have on hide, posted that I want to refuse that QB in SF of his 1st amendment rights.
How stupid can you get. I have stated that his has the right to do what he has done but that I believe he is a self serving jerk who is just doing this to get back in the spotlight or do you, whoever you are think that he has the right to make any moronic position he wants to but I don't have the same 1st amendment right to disagree with him.

Let's sort this out for the sake of clarity.

Up until the present there has been no Federal, State, or local civic agency that has attempted to interfere with Kaepernick's kneeling during the playing of the Anthem as a political statement. His actions have occurred in a privately owned venue. Consequently, there is no Constitutional restraint involved in what he is doing.

In the same manner the only way you would be able to claim a constitutional right to speak out against CK's position must follow some government agency interfering with your speech. I take it no agency has issued a desist order against you.

The exercise of free speech becomes an issue only when a government agency has tried to block you.

Constitutional free speech only becomes an issue when a government agency has taken overt action against the speaker.

Neither you nor Kaepernick is in jeopardy of Constitutionally based sanctions, so free speech guaranties are not an issue in this situation.

Conclusion: you do not know what you are blowing off about.

But, carry on . . .



Come on man. The person in question was saying that I violated CKs 1st amendments rights by exercising my 1st amendment rights. I know that you really want to believe what you said but you could only reach that conclusion by not reading what I actually said as opposed to what you wanted to believe I said.




vincentML -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 8:58:26 PM)

quote:

And according to the polls in 18 days the voters will virtually repeal the 1st and 2nd.

That is rank nonsense. The people have no vote in abolishing or installing an Amendment.




BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 9:03:40 PM)

You read alot that is not written. I think he expressed disapproval with that action but to remove the guy's rights ?

As I said before I think that CK is a self serving jerk, but that he has every right to speak his mind. He doesn't understand the difference between you shouldn't do that and you can't do that.




BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 9:05:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And according to the polls in 18 days the voters will virtually repeal the 1st and 2nd.

That is rank nonsense. The people have no vote in abolishing or installing an Amendment.

Again you are dense.
Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind?




vincentML -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 9:15:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

I notice that the anti gun people here don't seem to want to answer the poll.
There is that one person who seems to think that the criminals will just march in an surrender their gun.
The only way there would be any chance of getting the guns in the hands of criminals would be to unleash the military, round up everyone and do a house to house search of the whole country, and the chances of that working would be on the level of Custer's chances at the Little Big Horn.

No, the way to begin would be to close down the manufacturers to bring the mass production of guns, magazine, and ammunition to a screeching halt. The followup would be registration of guns for hunting and sport. That would be voluntary at first. The shut down of production and the advent of licensing would be followed by a Federal anti-carry law to supersede all state laws.

That would isolate the criminals, militia, and other crazies. The ATP, FBI and federalized national guard would then come after your unregistered guns.

All of the above is just my thought experiment on how the process might work after the archaic Second Amendment were repealed.




vincentML -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 9:18:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And according to the polls in 18 days the voters will virtually repeal the 1st and 2nd.

That is rank nonsense. The people have no vote in abolishing or installing an Amendment.

Again you are dense.
Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind?


You make outlandish accusations in your frenzied paranoia and assign remarks to Hillary that she never made. She has called for regulations not repeal. Give me a citation for your lies.




vincentML -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 9:20:05 PM)

quote:

Come on man. The person in question was saying that I violated CKs 1st amendments rights by exercising my 1st amendment rights. I know that you really want to believe what you said but you could only reach that conclusion by not reading what I actually said as opposed to what you wanted to believe I said

Fuck all. Constitutional rights are not an issue.




Termyn8or -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 10:15:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And according to the polls in 18 days the voters will virtually repeal the 1st and 2nd.

That is rank nonsense. The people have no vote in abolishing or installing an Amendment.

Again you are dense.
Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind?



Lots of shit has to happen first. First of all she has to get a supreme court justice nominee through congress, and if they aren't liberal enough it is not going to happen. then they have to get a uncostitutional law passed and she has to sign it, and technically it will take effect until it is challenged in Constitutional grounds.

This is why we need an opposing congress. She might put up Sarah Brady as a nominee and with a democrat congress might just get that off.

BUT, even if they pass a ban it cannot be enforced because anyone can cite supreme court cases and the law is effectively null and void. And if the judge does not agree he will be overturned which is like kryptonite to judges. The supreme court has already made the highest case law possible.

For that to change, first of all there has to be a challenge. And then the supreme court has to decide willingly to even hear the case. And there is no guarantee that one of the nine will make a difference because they might just like guns, whether or not she knows it.

Likewise Trump could nominate one who is conservative, or claims to be but be against guns. Again, someone has to challenge the previous ruling or it stands.

If either of them tries to subvert Castle Law Doctrine by executive order, there are enough people with one dollar each to make a serious challenge to that. Executive orders are generally meant for the military, not domestic issues and IIRC only a scant few of them have been overturned or even challenged in the courts. Having the courts overrule an EO is a black mark on the President's record. Why do you think Obama didn't do it ? You know he wants to.

You have to remember you are not electing a dictator. There are still checks and balances.

The problem here is we need a republican congress to put down anyone Clinton would nominate. But I am pretty sure that Trump does not know who to nominate. He has no law schooling as if it matters because Obama was supposedly a scholar and has no idea of the spirit of the Constitution, but with both parties animosity against him they will probably not confirm anyone he puts up. Just out of spite and jealousy, because he won over them.

But that is OK. Deadlock the government. They fuck everything up so the less they do the better.

As long as Clinton does not get a democrat congress we should be alright. Except for that WW3 thing. She can, as commander in chief of the military, direct them to attack another country. That is one area where I trust Trump more. She has lived a life of immunity and successful coverups. She has never faced any consequences. She does not understand war, and in fact lied about being under fire. Not that I really do understand war all that much, but I do understand that it is only good for the military contractors. Like Haliburton that moved to Dubai after sucking the US dry. And Blackwater. Morton Thiachol. Raytheon. Lockheed.

And they own her and the reason the republic party does not like Trump is because he is not owned by those people but they are. And I bet AIPAC hasn't given Trump a fucking dime. That is one good reason to discard some of his public gaffs. And they are not as bad as Clinton laughing out loud about serious shit like an autistic child. Trump may be a bit displaced from reality, and if he gets elected he is going to find out a whole lot of shit he never wanted to know. But she is out on Mars somewhere. I mean, Trump probably did get over in a few deals but don't forget business is business and they were trying to get over on him as well. Talking about all his lawsuits, he was the plaintiff in well over half of them. You don't know the details, maybe they did shoddy work, maybe they didn't even fulfill the contract. Got the fucking transcripts bring them out. By all means.

I am really not trying to stick up for Trump, he is a rich lazy asshole who uses every tool in the book to get ahead, and yes, at the cost of others. But you tell me one politician or rich person who did not do that. Last one even came close was Henry Ford and liberals hate him because he was not a Jew lover. So who does that leave ? Bill Gates ? He stole almost everything. Bought DOS cheap, built a shell on it and sold it. Later figured out how to make people pay for it. And Win 95 was stolen from a company called Quarterdeck which put out a DOS shell called Desqview. TEN YEARS EARLIER. The main thing Bill Gates did is to figure out how to make people pay. The GUI was Apple. Windows 3.11 had very little going for it beyond IBM's OS2 with Presentation Manager.

What other heroes do you all have I can trash. Abe Lincoln ? He did not want to free the slaves. In fact he wanted to send them back to Africa. And his proclimation only applied to rebel states, loyal states were allowed to keep their slaves.

Who else ? Seriously, who else ? What about the Alien and Sedition act, curbing of free speech almost before the ink was dry on the Constitution.

They might come for our guns, I say give them to them lead first. They got a fucking 100 million people ? Well we do. When they call them in simply say no. They are asshole motherfuckers who have Europe and Australia cowed and brainwashed. They are all over the world.

I want to know how Diane Feinstein can keep getting reelected. She usually runs unopposed. Where the fuck is the NRA ? Where the fuck are the gun owners there ?

Well being California I guess they might be cleaning their guns while loaded...

Rant over.

T^T




lovmuffin -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 10:58:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I don't think we are the same size - that would be your spin on shit.

But Australia is similar in size to north America.
They have similar wide open spaces like the US does.
They also adopted a similar gun restriction policy to ours.
They don't have daily gun deaths that run into the 000's.
They don't have mass killings several times every year.
They don't have guns in virtually half the households.
They don't have people carrying guns in public places.
And, like us, they don't need 'gun free zones' because the whole country is treated as a gun free zone.


That's because most of us Aussies* are nice well behaved people who don't want guns in our public sphere.[:D]


I'm not sure to what extent you all are nice and well behaved but thanks for making my point to fd. Please also mention to fd that my spin on shit was sarcasm. While you're at it could you mention to the trash mouth with the vile critter parts that it speaks to exactly what I meant by consumer demand. I do however seriously doubt that all the Aussies turned in their banned firearms. Likely IMO a large percentage of your countrymen hid them away.

quote:

ORIGINAL:
* There are exceptions like one or two people who post here who aren't nice at all, but every country has its share of angry obsessed imbeciles. Keeping these people well away from any kind of firearm is a very good idea IMHO.


I would agree that keeping angry obsessed imbeciles away from firearms is a good idea. I hope you're not suggesting that our tens of millions of gun owners who would assert their Second Amendment rights are angry obsessed imbeciles.




Dvr22999874 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 11:10:44 PM)

lovmuffin...........you are surely right there. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of weapons hidden away in this country but again, as has been said, we don't seem to get the shootings and killings every day that America seems to get, but thinking back, I wonder if we ever did ? Nowadays it seems that only the crims have guns that they use or wave around. The other illegal gun owners are still crims in the eyes of the law, but they keep their weapons for their own uses and because they admire the weapons for what they are, not for what they actually do. I know of a guy not far from here who has an old WW2 MG42 and yes, it is a magnificent piece of machinery that he keeps to admire and maybe fire in the bush now and again. It is terrifying to watch him cut a tree down with it.




igor2003 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/21/2016 11:47:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And according to the polls in 18 days the voters will virtually repeal the 1st and 2nd.

That is rank nonsense. The people have no vote in abolishing or installing an Amendment.

Again you are dense.
Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind?



That's the same kind of sputum that right wing scare mongers and talking heads have been spreading for the last 8 years against Obama, and none of it has come true. Unless you have a cite from a credible source I can only see this as more bullshit. But I have an open mind. Just prove what you say.




Dvr22999874 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 12:01:00 AM)

But does it matter WHAT the polls say really ? If the majority of voters vote for the person who is going to repeal those laws or amendments, then surely the minority should go along with that decision ? or is this another trumpism................I will respect the results as long as I win !!! What a total wanker.............and the drongoes cheered him for that.




Termyn8or -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 12:12:32 AM)

I wonder how it would be with eight supreme court justices.

Well actually we know now and I don't notice much difference in my daily life. Time comes when they are dead tied four to four. That - this may be stretching it here - might be able to be considered a recusal.

What would they do ?

So if we get a congress and a President that do not get along, that is better. They fuck up everything so the less they do the better. Go ahead and rename bridges and highways. That's useful. But they can block such a appointment. So with a 4/4 tie, I think it would be a draw. In such a case they are mooted and business as usual goes on. But they are not always going to split like that on every case.

T^T




Termyn8or -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 12:14:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

But does it matter WHAT the polls say really ? If the majority of voters vote for the person who is going to repeal those laws or amendments, then surely the minority should go along with that decision ? or is this another trumpism................I will respect the results as long as I win !!! What a total wanker.............and the drongoes cheered him for that.


WTF ?

T^T




BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 1:04:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

I notice that the anti gun people here don't seem to want to answer the poll.
There is that one person who seems to think that the criminals will just march in an surrender their gun.
The only way there would be any chance of getting the guns in the hands of criminals would be to unleash the military, round up everyone and do a house to house search of the whole country, and the chances of that working would be on the level of Custer's chances at the Little Big Horn.

No, the way to begin would be to close down the manufacturers to bring the mass production of guns, magazine, and ammunition to a screeching halt. The followup would be registration of guns for hunting and sport. That would be voluntary at first. The shut down of production and the advent of licensing would be followed by a Federal anti-carry law to supersede all state laws.

That would isolate the criminals, militia, and other crazies. The ATP, FBI and federalized national guard would then come after your unregistered guns.

All of the above is just my thought experiment on how the process might work after the archaic Second Amendment were repealed.

She also wants to repeal the law which prevents frivolous lawsuits to harass gun manufacturers into bankruptcy. Of course you would approve of such abuse of the legal system, in fact I suspect that you won't even see how that is abuse.




BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 1:10:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And according to the polls in 18 days the voters will virtually repeal the 1st and 2nd.

That is rank nonsense. The people have no vote in abolishing or installing an Amendment.

Again you are dense.
Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind?


You make outlandish accusations in your frenzied paranoia and assign remarks to Hillary that she never made. She has called for regulations not repeal. Give me a citation for your lies.

Didn't you watch the debate when she wants to overturn Heller?
And you do know that this only stopped firearms bans.
You mean you really don't remember her saying that she would "consider" following the Australian example.
You don't remember her debate with Sanders when she berated him for not supporting the law to prevent frivolous law suits?




BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 1:12:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Come on man. The person in question was saying that I violated CKs 1st amendments rights by exercising my 1st amendment rights. I know that you really want to believe what you said but you could only reach that conclusion by not reading what I actually said as opposed to what you wanted to believe I said

Fuck all. Constitutional rights are not an issue.

He brought it up and pretended it was not me, why are you going after me for defending myself but not him for his stupid attack.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875