Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

White supremacy and the internet

Recommended Posts

@Shootist Jeff you’ve heard posters say that the right to free speech is not only harder to restrict, it is also felt to be a more basic freedom than the right to bear arms based on an random comma added as a flourish a couple hundred years ago.

Freedom of speech is, literally, the right that gun owners say they are protecting with their arms, so it does seem to be worth a fight.

You said that free speech should be restricted, but are short on answers regarding who gets to decide what speech deprives whom of which freedoms. 

Could a government pair the two? Could hate speech he used as rationale to restrict gun ownership? You’ve said that spreading white supremacy should be illegal. How about making those resorting to hate speech restricted from owning these tools, and perhaps acknowledging that when firearms are purchased, also stating that they are not part of such a group?

Would that be acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ironic thing about white supremacy is that the people who openly advocate supremacy of the white race are the best examples of a distinct lack of supremacy. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The ironic thing about white supremacy is that the people who openly advocate supremacy of the white race are the best examples of a distinct lack of supremacy. 

So true. If they would focus on improving themselves through education and good works, I don’t think they’d be in the business of hate.

They wish to stop progress so they remain on top. It’s rent seeking behavior. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Could hate speech he used as rationale to restrict gun ownership?

A no buy list for people who are on a secret list for secret reasons has already been proposed.

Of course I oppose it, along with the NRA. The NRA was smart to purchase the ACLU and get them to oppose it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could hate speech be used as rationale to restrict gun ownership?

Thankfully in civilized NZ gun ownership, tool ownership if you prefer, isn't a right. So yes. Apparently they even have this thing called a "Fit And Proper Test". It sounds like a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_licence_(New_Zealand)#The_"fit_and_proper_person"_test

But the NRA doesn't even want domestic abusers to have their guns taken away. Why is that?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20000215/nra-s-friend-of-the-court-brief-in-us-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so it begins:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-zealands-gun-laws-changing

 

they just effectively banned almost ALL semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols. There are very few made that hold less than 5 rounds. Congrats NZ, you’ve just joined the world of hysteria and knee jerk overreaction. 

These events make me realize how absolutely genuious George Washington, Ben Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers were for their prescience in writing the Bill of Rights.   

Given you antipodians have no constitutional rights to privacy and free speech, free press and such - there will come a day when some horrific act allows a PM to essentially single-handedly take those “rights” away from you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And so it begins:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-zealands-gun-laws-changing

 

they just effectively banned almost ALL semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols. There are very few made that hold less than 5 rounds. Congrats NZ, you’ve just joined the world of hysteria and knee jerk overreaction. 

These events make me realize how absolutely genuious George Washington, Ben Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers were for their prescience in writing the Bill of Rights.   

Given you antipodians have no constitutional rights to privacy and free speech, free press and such - there will come a day when some horrific act allows a PM to essentially single-handedly take those “rights” away from you. 

Nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Nope

You are absolutely correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

last I checked we could eliminate the 2nd amendment in the US tomorrow.

That sounds like an excellent idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And so it begins...

And so it continues. The exemplar of "will you foreigners shut up about our gun laws" whining keeps proving just how little fucks he gives about our gun laws by continually complaining about them. Just stick to "Fuck you, Second Amendment". It's what you always end on and you ignore everything your told about every other relevant angle anyway.

And no, we have no issues with you commenting on the laws down here. It's always good to compare the level of care we have towards the lives of our fellow country men, women, and children compared to those around that shining burning beacon trash fire on the hill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we’re all so fundamentally different, depending on race, creed, location etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chum said:

Because we’re all so fundamentally different, depending on race, creed, location etc..

Which change as society evolves. If you actually believe that's true, you'd support the potential of changing the Second Amendment right? Given the changes in race, creed, location of your population and all.

Or not. We've seen that excuse trotted out before, we'll see it again, and we'll know it is nought much more than an excuse for not dealing with the issue with high homicide in your country. That, at least, hasn't changed for decades. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, chum said:

Because we’re all so fundamentally different, depending on race, creed, location etc..

you act like your dumb white trash rural identifying ass is different all the fucking time bitch. shove your dogballs up your ass sideways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

you act like your dumb white trash rural identifying ass is different all the fucking time bitch. shove your dogballs up your ass sideways.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 4:20 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Where did I ever say anything about restricting ALL free speech?  I said why would you allow any kind of speech that promulgates hate like this?  Anything that allows people to radicalize to a violent hatred mindset?  

Essentially you're saying "why punish everyone for the sins of a few"?  I agree with you.

Jeff, you’re becoming white noise again, where your need and love of the argument becomes so tiresome I lose the will to live, let alone read and think about your POV.

Take a break or change tactics if you want a debate, you slip sometimes to where your intellect takes a back seat to your shit stirring, and it’s a waste.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And so it begins:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-zealands-gun-laws-changing

 

they just effectively banned almost ALL semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols. There are very few made that hold less than 5 rounds. Congrats NZ, you’ve just joined the world of hysteria and knee jerk overreaction. 

These events make me realize how absolutely genuious George Washington, Ben Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers were for their prescience in writing the Bill of Rights.   

Given you antipodians have no constitutional rights to privacy and free speech, free press and such - there will come a day when some horrific act allows a PM to essentially single-handedly take those “rights” away from you. 

Not "ALL" but then that would be another one o those facts pussmericans like you seem to have an aversion to. This first step has been given support not only by the "gun grabbers" (the ones you have nightmares about), nut also hunters and farmers. You know, those that are most likely to want or need such tools in their every day life. As opposed to  the tools that wan them to have fun, which would seem to make it a plaything rather than a tool.

As for the hyperbole of a PM essentially single-handedly taking those "rights" away. May I please offer you a shipment of straws, as the way you are grasping at them you will soon run out.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

last I checked we could eliminate the 2nd amendment in the US tomorrow.

 

6 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Don’t need to take the whole 2A away, just restore it to original intent 

 

Let's do it.  I'm there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 3:13 PM, Shortforbob said:

Snuff film production sale and  distribution and even possibly viewing, have been illegal in most civilised countries since forever.

There's no need for this hand wringing about social media..what He who shall not be named posted was a snuff film...it;s illegal.

As for suitable punishment.

How come no one ever discusses (non lethal) brain altering surgery to render these  seriously violent offenders harmless.

Shades of Clockwork Orange and I shudder as I type the suggestion..though I'm not quite sure why?

 

 

‘I was cured, All right...’

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

New polling shows support for stricter gun control, as Shooters hope for balance of power after NSW election

Mo' is going to shit himself. Jeff has already had his hissy fit and is still a little butt-hurt he can't talk about trucks anymore. 

It's a good thing Jeffie doesn't know about your road trains, he would get tumescent at the thought of what he could blame on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, frenchie said:
12 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

last I checked we could eliminate the 2nd amendment in the US tomorrow.

 

11 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Don’t need to take the whole 2A away, just restore it to original intent 

 

Let's do it.  I'm there. 

Hah!

Where's "there" exactly?

The "original intent" where the second amendment, alone among the Bill of RIghts, only applies to technology developed by 1789? The same people who accept that argument would freak right out if told they can have an abortion, but only with 18th century medical technology,.Or that their computers and phones are not covered by the 4th, not having been invented when it was written. But they're happy to say, "you can have a flintlock."

Or maybe the "original intent" where we had indoor militias? We didn't. The idea is that one gun in the home is protected because the Heller case was about one gun in the home. The people who happily accept that bullshit would freak right out if told that the NY Times has a first amendment right to file civil rights lawsuits but no other activity they might perform is protected. Because NAACP v Button was about the corporate first amendment right to sue, doncha know that's all the first could be about.

If you're talking about the discredited "original intent" of "collective rights only" you should read what Lawrence Tribe had to say about that BEFORE the Heller case. For non-readers, he updated his Constitutional Law textbook to REJECT that idea. He's a liberal and pro-gun control and literally wrote the book on constitutional law but is also susceptible to facts and got to reading some libertarian stuff and changed his mind. Open minds can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gissie said:
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And so it begins:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-zealands-gun-laws-changing

 

they just effectively banned almost ALL semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols. There are very few made that hold less than 5 rounds. Congrats NZ, you’ve just joined the world of hysteria and knee jerk overreaction. 

These events make me realize how absolutely genuious George Washington, Ben Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers were for their prescience in writing the Bill of Rights.   

Given you antipodians have no constitutional rights to privacy and free speech, free press and such - there will come a day when some horrific act allows a PM to essentially single-handedly take those “rights” away from you. 

Not "ALL" but then that would be another one o those facts pussmericans like you seem to have an aversion to.

He didn't say "All" so the quotation marks are kinda weird.

People who have an aversion to facts tend to question inconvenient ones when they are presented. It looks like this:

21 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:
On 3/20/2019 at 6:05 AM, Gissie said:

If the senate thinks that then you have much dumber politicians than us, not an easy thing to achieve.

If?

They do. It's just a matter of fact. I researched it. So can you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Given you antipodians have no constitutional rights to privacy and free speech, free press and such - there will come a day when some horrific act allows a PM to essentially single-handedly take those “rights” away from you. 

Not likely - our parliamentary system simply doesn't give them that sort of power.

NZ *MIGHT* be able to get away with more than here in Australia because they're a lot smaller, don't have State governments and more importantly, don't have an upper house (Senate) which very frequently acts as a brake on executive govt here.

So no.

WRT magazine capacity, sounds quite reasonable to me. One of the IMO stupid things about our bans was I had to surrender a nice Ruger 44 Mag semiauto with a short tube magazine simply because it was semiauto but it was practically impossible to make it into a removable magazine large capacity rifle. There was no sense in it. But - shrug - so sad too bad, I ended up getting a Winchester 30-30 lever action as a replacement. The public safety is vastly improved as a consequence....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Not likely - our parliamentary system simply doesn't give them that sort of power.

NZ *MIGHT* be able to get away with more than here in Australia because they're a lot smaller, don't have State governments and more importantly, don't have an upper house (Senate) which very frequently acts as a brake on executive govt here.

So no.

WRT magazine capacity, sounds quite reasonable to me. One of the IMO stupid things about our bans was I had to surrender a nice Ruger 44 Mag semiauto with a short tube magazine simply because it was semiauto but it was practically impossible to make it into a removable magazine large capacity rifle. There was no sense in it. But - shrug - so sad too bad, I ended up getting a Winchester 30-30 lever action as a replacement. The public safety is vastly improved as a consequence....

FKT

Yep, I surrendered a semi auto 222 and kept a 375 H&H which would kill you after it travelled through an engine block, just awesome stopping power. 

Go figure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 12:28 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

last I checked we could eliminate the 2nd amendment in the US tomorrow.

Nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 2:44 PM, shaggybaxter said:
On 3/19/2019 at 11:20 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Where did I ever say anything about restricting ALL free speech?  I said why would you allow any kind of speech that promulgates hate like this?  Anything that allows people to radicalize to a violent hatred mindset?  

Essentially you're saying "why punish everyone for the sins of a few"?  I agree with you.

Jeff, you’re becoming white noise again, where your need and love of the argument becomes so tiresome I lose the will to live, let alone read and think about your POV.

Take a break or change tactics if you want a debate, you slip sometimes to where your intellect takes a back seat to your shit stirring, and it’s a waste.

Its only "white noise" when you realize you have no counter-argument to the logic I posted above.  And it was a legitimate question..... Why not strengthen your laws so that these kinds of racist shitstains cannot spew their garbage in public and get their message of hate out to others?  Why would you not support rules and laws that bar this sort of speech on any public platform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its only "white noise" when you realize you have no counter-argument to the logic I posted above.  And it was a legitimate question..... Why not strengthen your laws so that these kinds of racist shitstains cannot spew their garbage in public and get their message of hate out to others?  Why would you not support rules and laws that bar this sort of speech on any public platform?

Hi Jeff,

No it's not a matter of having no counter argument at all. I like shooting  and I have zero issue with Aus' regulatory oversight, something you guys have never attempted and scream blue murder when it is even suggested. That's not productive debate, that's being pigheaded.

You oscillate sometimes where your love of the argument blinds you to possible outcomes, you're more interested in the actual debate than actually listening to the other point of view. That's tiresome when its clear you have the intellect, too much focus on the battle of wits turns off people who are interested in advancing the conversation.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shaggybaxter said:

I have zero issue with Aus' regulatory oversight, something you guys have never attempted and scream blue murder when it is even suggested.

Actually, we have several ongoing bans and confiscation programs that are similar.

Unlike Aussie gun grabs, owners are not compensated when they surrender their guns here. For that and other reasons, compliance rates are dismally low and "boating accidents" seem to happen to previously-legal property with statistically unlikely frequency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 1:02 PM, phillysailor said:

Don’t need to take the whole 2A away, just restore it to original intent 

In order to fight an overbearing federal govermnet or foreign power, a militia needs arms capable of winning such a battle. That means tanks and missiles and land mines and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, another 505 sailor said:

In order to fight an overbearing federal govermnet or foreign power, a militia needs arms capable of winning such a battle. That means tanks and missiles and land mines and more.

And 9 round revolvers in the censored caliber. That's what noted militiaman (or maybe noted person) Dick Heller was in court about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

Hi Jeff,

No it's not a matter of having no counter argument at all. I like shooting  and I have zero issue with Aus' regulatory oversight, something you guys have never attempted and scream blue murder when it is even suggested. That's not productive debate, that's being pigheaded.

You oscillate sometimes where your love of the argument blinds you to possible outcomes, you're more interested in the actual debate than actually listening to the other point of view. That's tiresome when its clear you have the intellect, too much focus on the battle of wits turns off people who are interested in advancing the conversation.

You're entitled to your opinion.  Had you bothered to actually read some of my previous posts where I DO support more regulatory oversight in the US, under certain conditions and up to a point - you would not say what you're saying.  Because I'm "pro-gun", you've automatically pigeon-holed me into your stereotype of what you think an NRA redneck in the US must be like.  There's not much I can do at this point to change your mind on that, nor do I frankly care what you think of me or my POV.

The simple fact of the matter is that I honestly don't care what NZ or AUS does with their gun laws.....  your country, your rules.  Whether you believe it or not, like it or not - I'm simply pointing out that IMHO, NZ has overreacted - just like AUS did - to a one-off event where the NZ history simply doesn't support taking those sorts of drastic measures.  The fact of the matter is that there was not a problem before this incident and the NZ society seemed to function just fine and with very little problems despite the easy availability of these types of weapons.  That it took an outsider nutjob to come to the country and take advantage of those freedoms to essentially now punish hundreds of thousands of law abiding kiwi gun owners is more than a bit ironic.  The uncomfortable truth is that a politician is using a tragic event to advance an agenda and more than anything to be seen as "doing something".  The PM is at least astute enough to not let a crisis go to waste.  But yet the root cause of this tragic event is essentially ignored and covered over by the very tangible act of banning guns from the people who were never a threat in the first place.  The root cause is the hate and the ability for that hate to be promulgated far and wide to a global audience in real time.  Dealing with that would be far more effective and there could be some targeted laws that would likely pay immediate dividends to stopping future attacks such as these.  But that's too politically difficult as it would inconvenience some other folks who are more politically aligned with her, so she is going after the easy low hanging fruit. 

And I don't really blame her.  I would probably do the same if I were in her shoes.  But it doesn't make it right and more importantly if does make it effective.  But you all will be able to point to NZ in 20 years and say "SEE, NO MASS SHOOTINGS SINCE CHRISTCHURCH!!"  Nevermind that there hadn't been any for the 20 years prior, but that's not worth talking about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

In order to fight an overbearing federal govermnet or foreign power, a militia needs arms capable of winning such a battle. That means tanks and missiles and land mines and more.

Nukes. Every militia should have a nuke or two, just in case. Maybe store some of them in Washington DC just in case the government gets uppity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That it took an outsider nutjob to come to the country and take advantage of those freedoms to essentially now punish hundreds of thousands of law abiding kiwi gun owners is more than a bit ironic.

You got a source for hundreds of thousands of Kiwi Gun Owners having semi-autos that are being confiscated, or are you pulling it out of your ass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

In order to fight an overbearing federal govermnet or foreign power, a militia needs arms capable of winning such a battle. That means tanks and missiles and land mines and more.

It seems to me the Taliban has done pretty well fighting an overbearing federal gov't for the last 18 years without tanks and missiles and fighter jets and aircraft carriers and nukes and such.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constitution seems to expect the army be disbanded after two years.  

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

There is no similar limitation on the navy.   There are two reasons,   The navy of the time had fixed assets with a long lifespan that required continuous maintenance.   The army had a few cannon.   The navy couldn’t intimidate or occupy citizens in their homes and farms.    The framers felt more comfortable with citizen militias, regulated by congress.

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribedby Congress;

In this context it seems clear what the 2A meant. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Congress has the power to regulate these militias.   They can require weekly drills, written tests, practical tests, bonds and insurance, whatever they want.    They can dismiss individuals deemed unfit or annoying,   

If they can not regulate the weapons used by the militia I demand antiaircraft missiles, bio weapons and land mines for my private amphibious militia’s use.    They can and do regulate the weapons used by both official state national guard and my personal militia.   The 2A never says small arms.

arm (n.2)

"weapon," c. 1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, weapons; war, warfare" (11c.), from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE *ar(ə)mo-, suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lark said:

Congress has the power to regulate these militias.   They can require weekly drills, written tests, practical tests, bonds and insurance, whatever they want.    They can dismiss individuals deemed unfit or annoying,   

If they can not regulate the weapons used by the militia I demand antiaircraft missiles, bio weapons and land mines for my private amphibious militia’s use.    They can and do regulate the weapons used by both official state national guard and my personal militia.   The 2A never says small arms.

They can't disarm the people. They did require possession of arms and ammo and equipment at the lower levels of government, but Congress never did that and "regulate" has come to mean requiring confiscation instead of requiring possession. Hence the disapproval from those of us whose property is targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Importunate Tom said:

They can't disarm the people. They did require possession of arms and ammo and equipment at the lower levels of government, but Congress never did that and "regulate" has come to mean requiring confiscation instead of requiring possession. Hence the disapproval from those of us whose property is targeted.

But why am I not allowed sawed off shotguns, mustard gas, sarin, and the occasional nuke for home defense?    Why is my ability to protect myself with an attack helicopter regulated?    The FAA says I need a license and the aircraft must be serviced by a sanctioned mechanic, etc.    ATF and FAA both object to my personal collection of hellfire missiles.   My A10 is not allowed depleted uranium slugs.    This is unconstitutional.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 12:19 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

they just effectively banned almost ALL semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols. There are very few made that hold less than 5 rounds. Congrats NZ, you’ve just joined the world of hysteria and knee jerk overreaction. 

It's really idiotic to claim that assault weapon ownership has anything to do with freedom.

In fact, by turning our country into a shooting gallery, you have diminished our freedom, not to mention our safety. 

Be a man, walk the world with open hands. 

Gunz are for cowards (and Nazis) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lark said:

But why am I not allowed sawed off shotguns, mustard gas, sarin, and the occasional nuke for home defense?    Why is my ability to protect myself with an attack helicopter regulated?    The FAA says I need a license and the aircraft must be serviced by a sanctioned mechanic, etc.    ATF and FAA both object to my personal collection of hellfire missiles.   My A10 is not allowed depleted uranium slugs.    This is unconstitutional.   

Thank you Lark - Tom is an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lark said:

But why am I not allowed sawed off shotguns, mustard gas, sarin, and the occasional nuke for home defense?    Why is my ability to protect myself with an attack helicopter regulated?    The FAA says I need a license and the aircraft must be serviced by a sanctioned mechanic, etc.    ATF and FAA both object to my personal collection of hellfire missiles.   My A10 is not allowed depleted uranium slugs.    This is unconstitutional.   

Some of those things are "dangerous and unusual."

You know, like stun guns.

Related question: do you think the BIll of Rights applies to technology developed since 1789? Since you seem to have thoughts on the matter...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same free speech NZ shares is what we have in Australia. The guy wasn't able to gun down people in Australia because he couldn't get the guns here. He went to NZ specifically because he could get the weapons he wanted for the attack that he couldn't get her.

When it comes to solutions, gun control is the demonstrably effective solution, which is why the NZ government is using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lark said:

If they can not regulate the weapons used by the militia I demand antiaircraft missiles, bio weapons and land mines for my private amphibious militia’s use.

I want to see the living room that will support amphibious craft.

You know that grabbers believe the second amendment applies in the home only, right? Not in public spaces like garages that are attached to the home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Some of those things are "dangerous and unusual."

You know, like stun guns.

Related question: do you think the BIll of Rights applies to technology developed since 1789? Since you seem to have thoughts on the matter...

 

I think this is an arm, used by the army, and valid for my militia.   My right to possess it, and drill with it, shall not be infringed.   I don’t need a pilot’s license.   

5 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

I want to see the living room that will support amphibious craft.

You know that grabbers believe the second amendment applies in the home only, right? Not in public spaces like garages that are attached to the home.

My canoe fits in the living room, and can be equipped to disperse algal toxins   That will offer protection from those evil city folk depending on the aquifer, liberal bastards that they are.  

7B0E8331-67FC-4DBB-B61A-1DA0D2782A9B.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lark said:

My canoe fits in the living room, and can be equipped to disperse algal toxins

That's dangerous and unusual for sure.

The questions I asked are still real questions that have come up before our courts. Way back at post 137 you seemed at least a little interested in such real things and less focused on silly straw men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Hah!

Where's "there" exactly?

I'm willing to support repealing the 2nd, if that's what it takes to get sane regulations.

That's all. 

Emotionally, mentally: I'm there.  Ready.  Willing. 

Let's do it.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, frenchie said:

I'm willing to support repealing the 2nd, if that's what it takes to get sane regulations.

That's all. 

Emotionally, mentally: I'm there.  Ready.  Willing. 

Let's do it.

We may have different ideas of "sane" as mentioned in the "assault" weapon thread.

But I support your right to do whatever you want emotionally and mentally. I even go further.

On 4/7/2018 at 9:08 PM, badlatitude said:

There is nothing I can do now but support a full Second Amendment extermination, which I will do with huge endowments. Money talks.


I'm totally fine with you $pending your money in an effort to eliminate the second amendment like badlat does. You're OK with $peech and don't like cen$or$hip, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

That's dangerous and unusual for sure.

The questions I asked are still real questions that have come up before our courts. Way back at post 137 you seemed at least a little interested in such real things and less focused on silly straw men.

My answer was the nuclear armed B29.   The constitution must be a living document and allowed to regulate dangers that did not exist to be wielded by a rogue county or towne militia of the revolutionary era.    I feel the NRA was right until it wasn’t.   The 2A relates to militias.    If I am wrong, Congress can still regulate my personal militia as I outlined.   They can require me to drill for an inspector, test my competence, even require insurance and a bond should I accidentally wipe out a population center with my nuke.       It actually goes much further then this, with the blessing of even libertarians.   My right to arms is infringed.   The literal interpitation makes no more sense then calling my living room an amphibious storage depo, the garage a dinghy boathouse, the family room the electronics shop, the basement a machine shop and the drive a dry dock for my militia navy.   I think I will petition Congress for a Letter of Marque against jet skis.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lark said:

The 2A relates to militias.

And "the people."

If it meant only militias, it's hard to explain what Justice Taney had to say about Dred Scott being able to "keep and carry arms" or to explain why they heard Jack Miller's case in the first place. Those are a couple of reasons Lawrence Tribe rejected that idea before the Supreme Court did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Importunate Tom said:

And "the people."

If it meant only militias, it's hard to explain what Justice Taney had to say about Dred Scott being able to "keep and carry arms" or to explain why they heard Jack Miller's case in the first place. Those are a couple of reasons Lawrence Tribe rejected that idea before the Supreme Court did.

You worry about judges and court decisions like a lawyer.   That bores me, as the court is merely a bunch of political appointees making political decisions that are occasionally beneficial to the people.   Precedent only endures until the next political whim appointees a few judges, as modern politics show.   There is no point arguing, when it will change every couple decades.  I look at written language, as intended by the writer, and take it to its logical conclusions,   The results are illogical unless modified for the era.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lark said:

I look at written language, as intended by the writer, and take it to its logical conclusions

And yet you have no problem with the "logical conclusion" that we had indoor militias or the "logical conclusion" that the Bill of Rights applies only to technology that existed when it was written? I infer a different intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

And yet you have no problem with the "logical conclusion" that we had indoor militias or the "logical conclusion" that the Bill of Rights applies only to technology that existed when it was written? I infer a different intent.

I have played with the argument that it only referred to technology of the day, that your right to muskets and flintlocks shall not be infringed.    Your right to cannon is not infringed by the ATF, but because it is an antique, not because it is an arm.   https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-muzzleloading-cannons-classified-destructive-devices

I don’t believe it, but I’ve played with this argument.   It would limit the mass murders of course, so it would be a convenient way to regulate per the 2A interpitation the gun lobby pretends to believe.    I think the framers realized match locks became obsolete and better (worse) weapons were inevitable.   But they never imagined MAD or thermonuclear war.   Nor did they Imagine somebody would need a gun to protect himself from his neighbor who needed a gun to protect his mosque from his neighbor who needed a gun to protect his church from the other neighbor, that one man could kill 50 in a few minutes.  They were worried about national defense, not local crime.  

Even if they threw local crime in a national defense amendment, it must be interpited in the reality that an arm can now burn a city or suffocate a brigade.   An arm could fall from the sky and flatten a skyscraper.   We do regulate all these things and there is no protest against it aside from my feeble voice.   Why are some arms infringed and not others?   Because the 2A as you define it makes no sense.  It is a silly argument the NRA and gun protectors make,    Some arms are too dangerous for the public.   We all agree they should be infringed.   You argue yours are not but mine are, but try to use the constitution as a distraction to protect yours alone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Congress.

i am pleased to announce the formation of the Johnny Appleseed militia, of the state and territory of Ohio, Indiana, and points west.   As a constitutionally described militia, it is my pleasure to follow any regulation passed by a majority of votes of your hard working assembly, signed by the even harder working President, and delivered to Fort Appleseed by horse courier.  In the absence of such direction, I intend to muck about as I see fit.

I am pleased to report the Johnny Appleseed Air Corps has identified and hopes to acquire a surplus arm (bomber) formerly of the army air corpse.   I regret to inform you that the FAA, ATF nor any other state or federal entity has any ability to prevent its flying or otherwise infringe upon my constitutional rights.  I am not a pilot, but since it’s old analog technology it cannot be too complicated.  I found a video on YouTube.   I intend to drill over large population centers until I get the knack.

I am also proud to announce the formation of the Johnny Appleseed Militia Navy, composed of one sloop and a pair of small craft.   Please explain to the state of Ohio they are no longer able to require registration.   It has also come to my attention that jet skis are noisy.   Disturbing the peace is against statute in 50 of the states.   As outlined in section 8-15 of the US Constitutuin, it is within Congrssional mandate to use its various militias to “Execute the laws of the Union”.   Therefore, as under Section 8-10 and 8-11, I request a Letter of Marque so I may take and dispose of these illegal craft for the benefit of the Union and its peoples.

It is with regret that I report the Johnny Appleseed Nuclear Deterent and Zoning enforcement division is having trouble acquiring fissionable material,   It is hoped that as in section 8-16 this Congress will provide for the better arming of this militia by donating one or two warheads surplus from its standing army.

The biological and chemical warfare divisions are making rapid progress, having acquired a test tube, microscope and soiled baby diaper.   Multiple uninfringed arms of this nature are expected shortly. 

If this Congress should wish to review its troops, they are welcome during Saturday’s Pierogi Fry, Automatic weapons Drill, Catapult and Howitzer demonstration plus Vodka fest.    BYOB.

Respectfully,

General and Commadore PA

Johnny Appleseed Militia and gun club.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 9:59 PM, Importunate Tom said:

If?

They do. It's just a matter of fact. I researched it. So can you.

I agree with you that their "assault weapon" ban is so stupid it's hard to believe, but you don't have to believe me. You can read it here.

How would you react if you were me? They not only propose unbelievably stupid shit, but I get called a liar for stating the proposals because they're just too stupid to believe. As if that's my fault.

No, you get called a liar because you lie about things.

I think almost everyone agrees that a lot of the suggestions like the one you have highlighted here are a bit silly. Maybe you should ask yourself why they do not suggest anything more moderate and "liberal"?

Politics is the art of the possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lark said:

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

Trump could get Tom and his wife's extending stock to repel the illegals crossing the border. Save on the fence, use the well armed militia. They are just dying (heh heh) for a reason to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lark said:
6 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

And yet you have no problem with the "logical conclusion" that we had indoor militias or the "logical conclusion" that the Bill of Rights applies only to technology that existed when it was written? I infer a different intent.

I have played with the argument that it only referred to technology of the day, that your right to muskets and flintlocks shall not be infringed.

You're not really playing with that kind of fire unless you burn something you like.

How about: you have a right to an 18th century printing press, but nothing more modern for mass communications is protected by the first?

5 hours ago, Lark said:

Even if they threw local crime in a national defense amendment, it must be interpited in the reality that an arm can now burn a city or suffocate a brigade.   An arm could fall from the sky and flatten a skyscraper.   We do regulate all these things and there is no protest against it aside from my feeble voice.   Why are some arms infringed and not others?

Local crime and other purposes were always part of the second.

US v Miller:

Quote

 

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

...

ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

So these people are primarily civilians, soldiers on occasion, and are expected to appear bearing the kinds of arms that civilians might have for ordinary lawful purposes when called for militia service.

To make sure their civilian guns were not too wimpy, laws mandated ownership of militarily useful weapons.

Now we have grabbers who want to ban and confiscate my thoroughly ordinary squirrel shooter and call that "reasonable regulation." The "regulation" you want to reference was about mandating, not prohibiting, ownership, and left the wimpy guns alone.

As for dangerous and unusual weapons, they were restricted at the time. No one had a problem with it and no one does today, though some like to use distractions about nukes to justify banning and confiscating squirrel guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

No, you get called a liar because you lie about things.

Cite at least two, since "things" are plural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

They can't disarm the people. They did require possession of arms and ammo and equipment at the lower levels of government, but Congress never did that and "regulate" has come to mean requiring confiscation instead of requiring possession. Hence the disapproval from those of us whose property is targeted.

Well, to choose a current example, this isn't bad. The lie here is your allegation that gun owners disapprove of confiscation.

Because what actually happens is that gun aficionados are v v careful to make sure that gun buybacks are enormously difficult, and simply not possible at all at the legislation level.You refuse to agree to anything, and then bitch and moan that confiscation is the only option left.

No, you do not disapprove of your property being targeted. it is a deliberate strategy.

10 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Actually, we have several ongoing bans and confiscation programs that are similar.

Unlike Aussie gun grabs, owners are not compensated when they surrender their guns here. For that and other reasons, compliance rates are dismally low and "boating accidents" seem to happen to previously-legal property with statistically unlikely frequency.

This is, of course, not quite correct. Here is a handy link I found: https://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Noting for interest: The buyback was organised by politicians of both persuasions, and was funded by convincing a local business and private doners to offer a $50 gift card for each gun.

Despite the meagre exchange, and the site being camped out by gun advocates offering twice as much cash as the police, there were still over 200 guns turned in.

Of course not even the NRA are able to come out and say they oppose a voluntary buy back, but they do try and claim that the law requiring the police to sell seized items in a transparent manner means that the guns cannot be destroyed...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Because what actually happens is that gun aficionados are v v careful to make sure that gun buybacks are enormously difficult, and simply not possible at all at the legislation level.You refuse to agree to anything, and then bitch and moan that confiscation is the only option left.

No, you do not disapprove of your property being targeted. it is a deliberate strategy.

10 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Actually, we have several ongoing bans and confiscation programs that are similar.

Unlike Aussie gun grabs, owners are not compensated when they surrender their guns here. For that and other reasons, compliance rates are dismally low and "boating accidents" seem to happen to previously-legal property with statistically unlikely frequency.

This is, of course, not quite correct. Here is a handy link I found: https://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Noting for interest: The buyback was organised by politicians of both persuasions, and was funded by convincing a local business and private doners to offer a $50 gift card for each gun.

Unrelated distraction.

Gun "buybacks" are generally unrelated to the bans and confiscation programs. They're voluntary efforts and while I think they're generally executed in a stupid way I don't oppose them. They're voluntary.

The confiscation programs are not voluntary and don't ever offer compensation, as I said.

So you tried one instead of two and failed. And your messenger attack wasn't even relevant to my exchange with Gissie, in which my sources show that I was again telling the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Unrelated distraction.

Gun "buybacks" are generally unrelated to the bans and confiscation programs. They're voluntary efforts and while I think they're generally executed in a stupid way I don't oppose them. They're voluntary.

The confiscation programs are not voluntary and don't ever offer compensation, as I said.

So you tried one instead of two and failed. And your messenger attack wasn't even relevant to my exchange with Gissie, in which my sources show that I was again telling the truth.

You are just repeating the same bullshit I complained about. A buyback is a buyback. They are not organised on large scale with real public funding for the reasons I mentioned.

the way I see it: Either you are a lying piece of shit cynically following the NRA talking points, or you are too fucking stupid to be trusted with a gun anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

You are just repeating the same bullshit I complained about. A buyback is a buyback.

You are repeating the same distraction. A buyback is a buyback and I don't oppose them.

A confiscation program is not a buyback. You can tell the difference, in general, by whether or not "boating accidents" are claiming previously-legal property. More specifically, you can tell the difference by whether or not possession of the property in question is a crime. As it is in places like CT, CA, NJ, and others I have noted. In none of those cases do the governments offer compensation when a banned gun is surrendered. And you can't find a case where banned guns are surrendered for compensation because we don't do that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You're entitled to your opinion.  Had you bothered to actually read some of my previous posts where I DO support more regulatory oversight in the US, under certain conditions and up to a point - you would not say what you're saying.  Because I'm "pro-gun", you've automatically pigeon-holed me into your stereotype of what you think an NRA redneck in the US must be like.  There's not much I can do at this point to change your mind on that, nor do I frankly care what you think of me or my POV.

The simple fact of the matter is that I honestly don't care what NZ or AUS does with their gun laws.....  your country, your rules.  Whether you believe it or not, like it or not - I'm simply pointing out that IMHO, NZ has overreacted - just like AUS did - to a one-off event where the NZ history simply doesn't support taking those sorts of drastic measures.  The fact of the matter is that there was not a problem before this incident and the NZ society seemed to function just fine and with very little problems despite the easy availability of these types of weapons.  That it took an outsider nutjob to come to the country and take advantage of those freedoms to essentially now punish hundreds of thousands of law abiding kiwi gun owners is more than a bit ironic.  The uncomfortable truth is that a politician is using a tragic event to advance an agenda and more than anything to be seen as "doing something".  The PM is at least astute enough to not let a crisis go to waste.  But yet the root cause of this tragic event is essentially ignored and covered over by the very tangible act of banning guns from the people who were never a threat in the first place.  The root cause is the hate and the ability for that hate to be promulgated far and wide to a global audience in real time.  Dealing with that would be far more effective and there could be some targeted laws that would likely pay immediate dividends to stopping future attacks such as these.  But that's too politically difficult as it would inconvenience some other folks who are more politically aligned with her, so she is going after the easy low hanging fruit. 

And I don't really blame her.  I would probably do the same if I were in her shoes.  But it doesn't make it right and more importantly if does make it effective.  But you all will be able to point to NZ in 20 years and say "SEE, NO MASS SHOOTINGS SINCE CHRISTCHURCH!!"  Nevermind that there hadn't been any for the 20 years prior, but that's not worth talking about.  

So why in god's name would you even bother stating your opinion if you firstly state you don't give care about the other party or their point of view? That's either:

a) proving my point, or;

b) you had the worlds worst teacher on how to get others to listen to your PoV.

Evolution gave us two ears and one mouth, try using the receiver thingy's and not the transmitter for other souls, not just yours. Or just keep barking at the wind 'ços the bark sounds so cool.   

I'll give you a hint: you may even find that remarkably, you won't have to bitch all the time about people not bothering to read what you write.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

So why in god's name would you even bother stating your opinion if you firstly state you don't give care about the other party or their point of view? That's either:

a) proving my point, or;

b) you had the worlds worst teacher on how to get others to listen to your PoV.

Evolution gave us two ears and one mouth, try using the receiver thingy's and not the transmitter for other souls, not just yours. Or just keep barking at the wind 'ços the bark sounds so cool.   

I'll give you a hint: you may even find that remarkably, you won't have to bitch all the time about people not bothering to read what you write.  

 

 

 

People seem to read what I write. As evadent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

People seem to read what I write. As evadent. 

Yet you often complain they don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yet you often complain they don't. 

Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

You are repeating the same distraction. A buyback is a buyback and I don't oppose them.

A confiscation program is not a buyback. You can tell the difference, in general, by whether or not "boating accidents" are claiming previously-legal property. More specifically, you can tell the difference by whether or not possession of the property in question is a crime. As it is in places like CT, CA, NJ, and others I have noted. In none of those cases do the governments offer compensation when a banned gun is surrendered. And you can't find a case where banned guns are surrendered for compensation because we don't do that here.

The only reason these confiscation programs are not buybacks is because the gun lobby has managed to prevent it.

If you want things to be done differently, bitching about "the grabbers" is missing the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

The only reason these confiscation programs are not buybacks is because the gun lobby has managed to prevent it.

That's absurd for a number of reasons. The top two:

Grabbers would never TRY to compensate gun owners for guns that are taken, so there would be nothing to prevent.

Nutterz may be nutz, but would not "manage to prevent" people being paid for their guns.

Since you obviously don't know, here's how it works in America:

Guns are property until they are banned. At that moment, they become a public nuisance. No longer property that can be owned.

Compensation has never been required for the removal of a public nuisance, so no pesky fifth amendment problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

Everything you ever wanted to know about Lying Tom.


Heh. Take it to another thread, but you still can't find a lie. That makes you Lying Battlecheese. The difference is I have proven it. And the fact that I'm willing to talk shit about you under my real name and you're just an anonymous coward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Grabbers would never TRY to compensate gun owners for guns that are taken, so there would be nothing to prevent.

Tom. You need to pay better attention to the world around you.

You are simply not correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Tom. You need to pay better attention to the world around you.

You are simply not correct.

OK, find me an example of a gun ban that features compensation when the banned items are surrendered.

US "buybacks" are unrelated because our grabbers only misuse one of those words. They are indeed buying guns, which is fine with me. They're not buying them "back" because they were never government owned.

In Australia, their grabbers misuse both words, since they're not "buying" either. They're taking property with compensation, which is different from a consensual sale. They're still not taking it "back" but grabbers the world over trust only governments with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

OK, find me an example of a gun ban that features compensation when the banned items are surrendered.

There are loads of them.

Not in america of course, for the reasons I have already mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:
1 hour ago, Importunate Tom said:

OK, find me an example of a gun ban that features compensation when the banned items are surrendered.

There are loads of them.

Not in america of course, for the reasons I have already mentioned Tom has already cited.

Fixerated.

I knew to expect the "nuisance" dodge of the fifth amendment in that case because it's part of an ongoing pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2019 at 9:54 PM, Lark said:

Dear Congress.

i am pleased to announce the formation of the Johnny Appleseed militia, of the state and territory of Ohio, Indiana, and points west.   As a constitutionally described militia, it is my pleasure to follow any regulation passed by a majority of votes of your hard working assembly, signed by the even harder working President, and delivered to Fort Appleseed by horse courier.  In the absence of such direction, I intend to muck about as I see fit.

I am pleased to report the Johnny Appleseed Air Corps has identified and hopes to acquire a surplus arm (bomber) formerly of the army air corpse.   I regret to inform you that the FAA, ATF nor any other state or federal entity has any ability to prevent its flying or otherwise infringe upon my constitutional rights.  I am not a pilot, but since it’s old analog technology it cannot be too complicated.  I found a video on YouTube.   I intend to drill over large population centers until I get the knack.

I am also proud to announce the formation of the Johnny Appleseed Militia Navy, composed of one sloop and a pair of small craft.   Please explain to the state of Ohio they are no longer able to require registration.   It has also come to my attention that jet skis are noisy.   Disturbing the peace is against statute in 50 of the states.   As outlined in section 8-15 of the US Constitutuin, it is within Congrssional mandate to use its various militias to “Execute the laws of the Union”.   Therefore, as under Section 8-10 and 8-11, I request a Letter of Marque so I may take and dispose of these illegal craft for the benefit of the Union and its peoples.

It is with regret that I report the Johnny Appleseed Nuclear Deterent and Zoning enforcement division is having trouble acquiring fissionable material,   It is hoped that as in section 8-16 this Congress will provide for the better arming of this militia by donating one or two warheads surplus from its standing army.

The biological and chemical warfare divisions are making rapid progress, having acquired a test tube, microscope and soiled baby diaper.   Multiple uninfringed arms of this nature are expected shortly. 

If this Congress should wish to review its troops, they are welcome during Saturday’s Pierogi Fry, Automatic weapons Drill, Catapult and Howitzer demonstration plus Vodka fest.    BYOB.

Respectfully,

General and Commadore PA

Johnny Appleseed Militia and gun club.

 

 

 

Idiot.

BTW - "Commadore"  Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 4:39 AM, Battlecheese said:

This is, of course, not quite correct. Here is a handy link I found: https://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Noting for interest: The buyback was organised by politicians of both persuasions, and was funded by convincing a local business and private doners to offer a $50 gift card for each gun.

Despite the meagre exchange, and the site being camped out by gun advocates offering twice as much cash as the police, there were still over 200 guns turned in.

Of course not even the NRA are able to come out and say they oppose a voluntary buy back, but they do try and claim that the law requiring the police to sell seized items in a transparent manner means that the guns cannot be destroyed...

A $50 gift card for a $2000 AR-15 or a $600 Glock???  This is fair compensation?

And the only reason there were 200 guns turned in is because the vast majority of those 200 were either broken, non-working, or the people needed immediate cash for their next opioid fix. 

You really can't be THIS stupid.  Never mind, obviously you CAN be this^^ stupid.  As evadent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 5:20 AM, Importunate Tom said:

You are repeating the same distraction. A buyback is a buyback and I don't oppose them.

A confiscation program is not a buyback. You can tell the difference, in general, by whether or not "boating accidents" are claiming previously-legal property. More specifically, you can tell the difference by whether or not possession of the property in question is a crime. As it is in places like CT, CA, NJ, and others I have noted. In none of those cases do the governments offer compensation when a banned gun is surrendered. And you can't find a case where banned guns are surrendered for compensation because we don't do that here.

And one of the other ways in which owners skirt confiscation programs aside from boating accidents, is if they have enough financial wherewithal, they just move them to a property out of state where there is no confiscation or registration or requirement to modify it, costing money.  You know, just like @badlatitude did when he moved his SCAR assault rifle out of CA to OR to skirt CA state gun regulations - de$pite him wanting to ban the 2nd amendment, he $ure wanted to make $ure he could $till enjoy the 2nd amendment for him$elf.  Becau$e the rule$ only apply to poor people in hi$ mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Idiot.

BTW - "Commadore"  Really?

 If you are referring to the noncomforming spelling and occasional rough verbiage, the hour was late when whimsy struck.   I feared leaving you deprived of whit and wisdom, so I posted anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 12:54 AM, Lark said:

Dear Congress.

i am pleased to announce the formation of the Johnny Appleseed militia, of the state and territory of Ohio, Indiana, and points west.   As a constitutionally described militia, it is my pleasure to follow any regulation passed by a majority of votes of your hard working assembly, signed by the even harder working President, and delivered to Fort Appleseed by horse courier.  In the absence of such direction, I intend to muck about as I see fit.

I am pleased to report the Johnny Appleseed Air Corps has identified and hopes to acquire a surplus arm (bomber) formerly of the army air corpse.   I regret to inform you that the FAA, ATF nor any other state or federal entity has any ability to prevent its flying or otherwise infringe upon my constitutional rights.  I am not a pilot, but since it’s old analog technology it cannot be too complicated.  I found a video on YouTube.   I intend to drill over large population centers until I get the knack.

I am also proud to announce the formation of the Johnny Appleseed Militia Navy, composed of one sloop and a pair of small craft.   Please explain to the state of Ohio they are no longer able to require registration.   It has also come to my attention that jet skis are noisy.   Disturbing the peace is against statute in 50 of the states.   As outlined in section 8-15 of the US Constitutuin, it is within Congrssional mandate to use its various militias to “Execute the laws of the Union”.   Therefore, as under Section 8-10 and 8-11, I request a Letter of Marque so I may take and dispose of these illegal craft for the benefit of the Union and its peoples.

It is with regret that I report the Johnny Appleseed Nuclear Deterent and Zoning enforcement division is having trouble acquiring fissionable material,   It is hoped that as in section 8-16 this Congress will provide for the better arming of this militia by donating one or two warheads surplus from its standing army.

The biological and chemical warfare divisions are making rapid progress, having acquired a test tube, microscope and soiled baby diaper.   Multiple uninfringed arms of this nature are expected shortly. 

If this Congress should wish to review its troops, they are welcome during Saturday’s Pierogi Fry, Automatic weapons Drill, Catapult and Howitzer demonstration plus Vodka fest.    BYOB.

Respectfully,

General and Commadore PA

Johnny Appleseed Militia and gun club.

Great satire!

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Great satire!

Thanks

I’m glad you enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-24/new-zealand-gun-law-reform-christchurch-shooting/10933132

Jeff and Mo' will be thrilled that self-entitled wankers exist everywhere. They'll have their work cut out for them though. As Australia demonstrated some decades back, a motivated populace is a hard thing to overcome when it comes to keeping toys that kill and New Zealand is very motivated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A $50 gift card for a $2000 AR-15 or a $600 Glock???  This is fair compensation?

And the only reason there were 200 guns turned in is because the vast majority of those 200 were either broken, non-working, or the people needed immediate cash for their next opioid fix. 

You really can't be THIS stupid.  Never mind, obviously you CAN be this^^ stupid.  As evadent.  

Of course it is not fair compensation. It is, however, very revealing - the general public and local businesses are sufficiently bothered by the inability of politicians to do anything about this that they are DONATING actual money so that at least a token compensation can be offered.

Why are you so against this too? Do you have a reason? or are you just going along with the NRA?

Do you even understand it is "your" side which prevents proper buybacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Fixerated.

I knew to expect the "nuisance" dodge of the fifth amendment in that case because it's part of an ongoing pattern.

If we must:

On 12/6/2018 at 8:02 PM, Importunate Tom said:

3rd Circuit Upholds NJ Ban
 

I haven't read the opinion yet. I'll be interested to see how the fifth amendment claim was handled. The usual approach is to deem the previously-legal property a "public nuisance" an eliminating a public nuisance requires no compensation.

I expect gun owners to note and return that level of respect.

Ah yes. But I see you skirting around the much more interesting and relevant question: Why not just have a buyback?

As in that event I linked - they are supported by politicians of both persuasions. But when they do even manage to organise a privately-funded off-the-books one the NRA still pickets the venue, heckling people attempting to participate, and tries to disrupt the destruction of the tools (despite them being turned in for that explicit purpose).

Why do you think this happens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 9:38 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

BS  - I'll bet you $1M US (not worthless Canadian beavers) that I can kill more people in a shorter amount of time with an 18 wheeler than you can with a rock.  

So you admit that you are a dickless 1/2 a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites