SCOTUS - Same Sex Marriage a Right in Every State
-
So, watch the video Chris. But there are too many police depts out there
who are willing to treat Americans like stormtroopers, living
on total power over people.
Oops, and I see you just made a liberalasusual stupidass joke about the video,
which you probably won't watch, because liberals emotionally vent about issues,
and hate valid information to the contrary of their emotions.
Yes, Bush was president during Katrina. But the gov was a lefty liberal
democrat. Man up and discuss the content of the video instead of redirecting in
any way possible. So, yes, it WAS the liberal state gov that did the brownshirts
intimidation of honest, innocent Americans, and confiscation of their guns.
Now, those guns weren't even registered - and think how many times this would happen
if these dirty bastard "police" knew where all the guns were?
Bush was a very, very pro-2nd Amendment president. It's the gov who calls out the
troops.
Read up on Kathleen Blanco, the DEMOCRAT liberal governor who screwed up the
Katrina relief situation. SHE declared the emergency. And SHE refused to let
the National Guard come in to help, and SHE refused to even let the RED CROSS
come in.
And, as lefty libs do, she blamed Bush for his lack of assistance, making a bogus
complaint for political reasons.
Backfired, she lost all support and didn't run for reelection, knowing she ruined her own reputation.
-
Drugs aren't registered, yet the police somehow know who's carrying and who isn't. Maybe there will be more 'random' spot checks to see who's carrying a gun, and if it's not registered, take the gun and fine the person.
The fact that you think the only way the police can do anything about anything is if the things are registered is very strange.
As for the licence fee being raised - what if it were free? But then, the government would have to pay *something* to keep the system in place. So how about it costs, let's say $50 for a 10 year licence, or some other agreeable fee, with stipulations to keep the fee from rising more than inflation?
You have a whole lot of counter-points that can easily be resolved with just a little common sense.
Not saying that the whole process would be easy, but it's doable if everyone weren't so paranoid. This isn't nazi germany, or china under mao. This is the 21st century, where America, aided by other UN countries, went to way to remove a dictator who was doing evil things to his people; where a president can only serve 8 years at most before someone else takes over - so there's only so much they can actually do. It would take years to get the infrastructure in place to do anything like your tinfoil hat post - I'm pretty sure if a president were to try that they wouldn't be re-elected after the first term; I'm pretty sure the army - who would need to be onside of course - wouldn't carry it out.
Drugs aren't registered, yet the police somehow know who's carrying and who isn't. Maybe there will be more 'random' spot checks to see who's carrying a gun, and if it's not registered, take the gun and fine the person.
The fact that you think the only way the police can do anything about anything is if the things are registered is very strange.
As for the licence fee being raised - what if it were free? But then, the government would have to pay *something* to keep the system in place. So how about it costs, let's say $50 for a 10 year licence, or some other agreeable fee, with stipulations to keep the fee from rising more than inflation?
You have a whole lot of counter-points that can easily be resolved with just a little common sense.
Not saying that the whole process would be easy, but it's doable if everyone weren't so paranoid. This isn't nazi germany, or china under mao. This is the 21st century, where America, aided by other UN countries, went to way to remove a dictator who was doing evil things to his people; where a president can only serve 8 years at most before someone else takes over - so there's only so much they can actually do. It would take years to get the infrastructure in place to do anything like your tinfoil hat post - I'm pretty sure if a president were to try that they wouldn't be re-elected after the first term; I'm pretty sure the army - who would need to be onside of course - wouldn't carry it out.
The police use a lot of evil awful racial profiling and just profiling in general when they "somehow know who's carrying"
-
I did watch the video. They were heavy handed with the old lady, and probably overzealous in taking the guns from everybody. But, I suspect they basically declared marshal law, given the amount of looting. I don't really know enough about the situation to comment. Do you know if the people of NO now have the right to their guns again? Of course, it's difficult to return the guns to the owners, since they weren't registered...
Also, just to clarify, while the mayor was a democrat, that was under a republican government.
-
reposting what Cal posted:
What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun confiscation?
let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate
1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.
The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.
How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s
What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)
Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened. -
The Korean shop owners should have defended their businesses by sending out strongly worded letters and waiting for the non-existent police presence to arrive.
The Korean shop owners should have defended their businesses by sending out strongly worded letters and waiting for the non-existent police presence to arrive.
I don't understand why so many people aren't getting this. Did the police stop or in many cases even try to defend the businesses in Ferguson or Balitimore?
You also had the riots in England a few years ago where thugs ran the streets for a few days terrorizing the citizens until police finally got the situation under control. But until the police got things under control you had citizens unable to defend themselves.
-
Chris - martial law was NEVER declared - that is a federal thing, and
the Gov wouldn't let the feds help. Refused to let the Red Cross help.
She declared a state of emergency, and did it all on her own, and it blew up
in her face.
-
And how different was it compared to the baltimore and ferguson riots? Where people were presumably armed and able to defend themselves? Not very is the answer.
-
What I read in Ferguson and Baltimore were business owners calling police and the police not responding to help. I did not read of any shop keepers standing armed at their stores like the LA riots where Korean business owners did and they saved their businesses from being looted and destroyed.
-
And 35 people were shot and killed in those riots, compared to about 3 in total over London, Baltimore and Ferguson, where shopkeepers weren't acting as vigilantes.
-
Mobs strip and rob people in third night of riots in London and across England
-
Mobs strip and rob people in third night of riots in London and across England
Mobs strip and rob people in third night of riots in London and across England
And let's ask those people if they'd rather be dead.
-
Mobs strip and rob people in third night of riots in London and across England
And let's ask those people if they'd rather be dead.
-
Mobs strip and rob people in third night of riots in London and across England
And let's ask those people if they'd rather be dead.
-
I know I prefer having the ability to be responsible for my own safety and not have to depend upon the timeliness of a police officer.
-
-
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
-
Well what you hope for doesn't concern me much, since you are such an unmitigated asshole but you are correct. The only reason that's a taboo is because it pisses you off. Just like homosexuality pisses some people off. If you came home and found you are 30 year old wife in bed with another man you'd probably kill him. Or her or want to.This was culturally decided between men and women long ago. If you ever had a young daughter and came home to find a grown man sticking is cock in her but she swore she consented, you'd still kill the guy. I hope that happens to you in your next life.
Why? The Bible says so?
So should that be illegal?
WSS
. The only reason that's a taboo is because it pisses you off. Just like homosexuality pisses some people off.
I'm sorry you must understand i'm hailing you from another planet and sometimes the connection is iffy, did you just say pedophilia is taboo because it pisses people off? And that consenting sex between two adults of the same gender must be viewed as the same because some people are pissed off by that? Did I really read that correct?
-
Physical damage is a completely different thing. Should a man with a large penis face criminal charges for marrying a small woman? Nobody should hurt anybody for fucks sake. And the psychological damage??? That's because puritanical society will hound her like the Sisters of Magdalena.Apart from the mental and possibly physical damage? OK, suspending reality to call it a 'victimless crime' - should a crime only be a crime if it's victimless? Like trespassing, gambling, speeding, smoking weed, gay marriage, things like that?
WSS
Physical damage is a completely different thing. Should a man with a large penis face criminal charges for marrying a small woman? Nobody should hurt anybody for fucks sake. And the psychological damage??? That's because puritanical society will hound her like the Sisters of Magdalena.
WSS
Did she marry a man with a large penis by choice or was she forced? See these really aren't that hard. Of course you're flailing all over the place, my god I mean all over the place now sex with children is all relative cause we let two gays marry...but seriously this is getting old? If a woman wants to marry a man with a large penis....there's probably a good reason for that huh? Gee what would that be?
-
So here's something to think about. I'm assuming each of us masturbated for the first time in our early teens.
What was your very first fantasy? Magazine picture? One of your teachers? A girl in school? (if it's something really really kinky you don't have to tell us
)Did that experience warp your mind? Did it create psychological damage that you live with to this day? Seriously tell me why or why not.
(keep in mind your fantasy with the teacher or the magazine model or the classmate would be considered illegal)
Honest answers only
WSS
So here's something to think about. I'm assuming each of us masturbated for the first time in our early teens.
What was your very first fantasy? Magazine picture? One of your teachers? A girl in school? (if it's something really really kinky you don't have to tell us
)Did that experience warp your mind? Did it create psychological damage that you live with to this day? Seriously tell me why or why not.
(keep in mind your fantasy with the teacher or the magazine model or the classmate would be considered illegal)
Honest answers only
WSS
So a 2nd grader beating off to one of his cute classmates should be a punishable offense? Are you honestly making the argument that if a grown man can't have sex with a 2nd grader than neither should young boys her age? Look if I had an 8 year old and she had sex with another 8 year old boy, I would "very" upset...but mainly with myself because it showcased a major deficiency in my up bringing of her. A grown man having sex with my 8 year old daughter is a reflection on that man however. You seem to have trouble grasping this. Why?
-
. The only reason that's a taboo is because it pisses you off. Just like homosexuality pisses some people off.
I'm sorry you must understand i'm hailing you from another planet and sometimes the connection is iffy, did you just say pedophilia is taboo because it pisses people off? And that consenting sex between two adults of the same gender must be viewed as the same because some people are pissed off by that? Did I really read that correct?
I'm sorry you must understand i'm hailing you from another planet and sometimes the connection is iffy, did you just say pedophilia is taboo because it pisses people off? And that consenting sex between two adults of the same gender must be viewed as the same because some people are pissed off by that? Did I really read that correct?
Apparently English is not the first language on the planet you're calling from. Sex with a prepubescent child is pedophilia. It's most certainly an unnatural fetish. Disagree?
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login