Gun Owner's Rights Advocates: This is exactly what we are afraid of...

[Ron Burgandy]

Nothing but insults and tin foil hat psycho paranoia. What a mongoloid.

[evets618]

Automobiles are confiscated all the time. Just stop paying income taxes. They'll take your house, too, along with that precious collection of fine antique firearms.

Sorry, but no matter how many guns you have, the government has more. They have drones, too. Ask whatever the equivalent of the NRA is in Afghanistan how they arm themselves against the drones. But, it's a free country, and it's your money. You're perfectly free to keep lining the pockets of arms manufacturers as they continue to control you through fear of imaginary boogiemen.

[Ron Burgandy]

Let's just allow our elected officials to come up with a solution since the NRA/Larry feel any kind of regulation will result in people taking his guns.

They don't want to be reasonable? Well, tragedy motivated politicians don't either. Let's introduce some more pointless bans that won't affect a thing because dummies like Larry can't handle reporting their arsenals.

Fwiw I am more scared of Larry types since their paranoia is typically linked to mental illness. He is the problem since reason and logic do not make sense to him.

[larryguitar]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

Let's just allow our elected officials to come up with a solution since the NRA/Larry feel any kind of regulation will result in people taking his guns.

They don't want to be reasonable? Well, tragedy motivated politicians don't either. Let's introduce some more pointless bans that won't affect a thing because dummies like Larry can't handle reporting their arsenals.

Fwiw I am more scared of Larry types since their paranoia is typically linked to mental illness. He is the problem since reason and logic do not make sense to him.

 

Unable to acknowledge your pet idea is a proven failure, you resort to this; why did I bother?

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by larryguitar

Unable to acknowledge your pet idea is a proven failure, you resort to this; why did I bother?

 

You're a moron. Enjoy stupid legislature passed because your type is unwilling to accept that the majority of Americans aren't in favor of your HeMan hobby.

You failed this argument much like you failed law enforcement.

[seajay]

 

Originally Posted by larryguitar

Reducia ad absurdum.

If registration has always led to confiscation, supporting it while not 'supporting' confiscation is silly, or intellectual dishonesty.

I work in downtown Chicago, where carrying a pocket knife over 2 1/2" long is illegal. It's like {censored}ing Beirut some days...and the only people you can be absolutely, positively certain aren't carrying a gun are the law-abiding. Pass any laws you like, ban anything you want, and these folks will still be armed to the teeth.

The hard answer is that every adult needs to be responsible for their own safety. Would it be great to live in a world where people never did violence to one another? Sure thing, and if you find such a world please save me a seat. The world I live in includes a wide variety of people, many of whom are simply evil, and I think there's no easy way to rid yourself of evil; it must be fought where it arises, by those it threatens.

We've gotten to the point in this city that we have 'civilized' bank robberies; the guy shows a note, gets some money and nobody bothers him as he leaves. Sometimes he shows a gun, and we all *hope* he'll just take the money and leave. People prefer that to the alternative, which would be to perforate anyone who threatens you with deadly force RIGHT THEN AND THERE. So we have 'civilized' bank robberies, and they're skyrocketing...

There isn't a law, a ban or a damn think you can do that will stop the evil from being evil; as Jeff Cooper put it, "All an unarmed man can do in the face of evil is run from it, and evil isn't overcome by running from it." Until we all realize that the community's safety can't be shunted to the politicians or the police, but must be the responsibility of every single responsible person in it, we're doomed.

And for the record, I do support decriminalizing all drugs, and it's already legal to belong to a gang. (Really, do some research before you pop off with this stuff...) The drunk driving is not analogous, since there is no non-dangerous way to drive drunk. If you had a private road, I would fully support your right to drive as drunk as you likely often are (just going by the 'what I'm drinking on Christmas' thread...) while on it.

 

Holy {censored} get a grip.

[marshallnoise]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

You're a moron. Enjoy stupid legislature passed because your type is unwilling to accept that the majority of Americans aren't in favor of your HeMan hobby.

You failed this argument much like you failed law enforcement.

 

While the interwebz is just fun and games to you, you serve to show HCAF what classlessness and tastelessness are like. You just suck at life.

[TheRymanChu]

 

Originally Posted by marshallnoise

While the interwebz is just fun and games to you, you serve to show HCAF what classlessness and tastelessness are like. You just suck at life.

 

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by marshallnoise

While the interwebz is just fun and games to you, you serve to show HCAF what classlessness and tastelessness are like. You just suck at life.

 

You can enjoy the stupid laws too. The first run was posted by Mesa and is on the front page. Welcome to stupid legislation to match your stupid lust for devices of death. It's so fitting I can only hope modifications are made to ensure its more absurd.

You and Larry oppose my country and you are both a detriment to my freedom. A failed law enforcement officer and a ranting psycho racist. The percent cross section of NRA types.

[DoubleBarrel]

 

Originally Posted by drewl

Wrong again Einstein

 

got any backup ? Typical liberal. just want insult people, and expect us to believe what they say with no proof, just because they say it.

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...-barney-frank/

http://www.openmarket.org/2011/05/26...-by-taxpayers/

And then he played the race card to try and get out of it. Typical

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/260835

I already know your response........"those sites are biased" Even if they are, it doesn't mean they are wrong

[marshallnoise]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

You can enjoy the stupid laws too. The first run was posted by Mesa and is on the front page. Welcome to stupid legislation to match your stupid lust for devices of death. It's so fitting I can only hope modifications are made to ensure its more absurd.

You and Larry oppose my country and you are both a detriment to my freedom. A failed law enforcement officer and a ranting psycho racist. The percent cross section of NRA types.

 

Folks, this is the image of an individual who defines pathetic in a way that Merriam-Webster couldn't even hold a candle to. It's never enough to simply disagree, but he must bring the level of banter down to the lowest common denominator. This is anti-American. This low-level thinking is what has driven our country to the fiscal cliff and invades our lives in ways we don't even fully understand.

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by marshallnoise

Folks, this is the image of an individual who defines pathetic in a way that Merriam-Webster couldn't even hold a candle to. It's never enough to simply disagree, but he must bring the level of banter down to the lowest common denominator. This is anti-American. This low-level thinking is what has driven our country to the fiscal cliff and invades our lives in ways we don't even fully understand.

 

This is my freedom of speech. Voicing my opinion, no matter how much you disagree with it, is what our country was founded on. The reason they wanted guns was to protect themselves from people that tried to stifle that right.

So because I disagree with you I am unamerican? You lose a debate by resulting to racism and insults and now claim I'm unamerican?

[guitarbilly74]

 

Originally Posted by marshallnoise

Bill, they compiled it for a specific purpose. This information was likely never intended to be made public in the first place. The FOIA was probably passed AFTER this gun registration program was enacted.

 

hey Paul, yeah I don't like this article. I think it's a lame attempt to demonize people who did nothing wrong or illegal. However, that is the downside of living in a country with free speech and free press: stupid people have the right to say/print stupid {censored}. It sucks, but dealing with this type of crap is a relatively small price to pay for the freedoms we have.

It happens all the time on both sides on the issue and we can't change laws every time the press says something stupid. So while this article is dumb and uncalled for, it's no reason to change guns registration laws.

What should (and probably will) happen is the pro-gun folks will cancel their subscriptions to this paper and maybe some anti-gun folks will rally behind it and eventually the free market will sort out if these guys deserve to stay in business. That should be the whole extent of the repercussions.

Like I said before, I support your 2nd amendment rights to bear arms as much as I support 1st amendment rights of free speech and free press. So yes, the article is stupid, but it's no reason to change current legislation.

[Keebz]

Gun bans are highly unlikely. Tell me again how that banning drugs worked out? Bans only increase crime, give authority to the illegal dealer, waste public funds trying to enforce these bans. Make everything legal, I'm not {censored}ing joking.

[DoubleBarrel]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

This is my freedom of speech. Voicing my opinion, no matter how much you disagree with it, is what our country was founded on. The reason they wanted guns was to protect themselves from people that tried to stifle that right. ?

 

Wrong !

It was to protect themselves from the government !So if the Gov got to out of control, the citizens with thier right to bear arms could form a militia and overthorw & replace the gov't.

The Second Amendment provides that "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." The issue turns on whether that right to bear arms represents an "individual" or "collective" right. The NRA (and Ashcroft) advocate an affirmative individual right, akin to First Amendment free speech protections, granting us the right to have guns to hunt, protect ourselves, and hold government storm troopers at bay.

According to constitutional theorists, the Framers who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those in favor of centralized authority over the states.

Some observers argue further that the Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists, the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that "a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing."

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

So because I disagree with you I am unamerican? You lose a debate by resulting to racism and insults and now claim I'm unamerican?

 

I think you are a lot of things, but I wouldn't say unamerican. Just because you are dumb and wrong, doesn't mean you are unamerican.

 

A quote from Carl Shurz, Union Army General, later US Senator, and, still later, US Secretary of the Interior:

 

[soapbladder]

 

Originally Posted by seajay

Holy {censored} get a grip.

 

No kidding... Anyone that thinks d-town Chicago is like Beirut is smoking something. All those crazy commodities traders and what not... I work close to downtown, and often go into the harder neighborhoods for work. If I lived in the hood, I would own a gun for home protection. But just passing through, all I've needed to avoid trouble is a little bit of common sense--it goes a long way.

[seajay]

 

Originally Posted by soapbladder

No kidding... Anyone that thinks d-town Chicago is like Beirut is smoking something. All those crazy commodities traders and what not... I work close to downtown, and often go into the harder neighborhoods for work. If I lived in the hood, I would own a gun for home protection. But just passing through, all I've needed to avoid trouble is a little bit of common sense--it goes a long way.

 

Yeah, but he ain't skeered!

Give me a {censored}ing break.

[marshallnoise]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

This is my freedom of speech. Voicing my opinion, no matter how much you disagree with it, is what our country was founded on. The reason they wanted guns was to protect themselves from people that tried to stifle that right.

So because I disagree with you I am unamerican? You lose a debate by resulting to racism and insults and now claim I'm unamerican?

 

Whoa, where did I use racism in this? You are unamerican because you don't feel the need to defend the whole constitution and only certain parts. Right now we are at war with the 2nd Amendment by using the 1st. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but so am I. You are a low life because you resort to the lowest common denominator in your speech. You aren't interested in discourse, you are interested in ridicule which is a tactic from the playground. It is just lame.

[SexWithRobots]

A picture on the topic is clearly being painted that you cant even step foot out of your house without being violently attacked. Absurd.

[marshallnoise]

 

Originally Posted by guitarbilly74

hey Paul, yeah I don't like this article. I think it's a lame attempt to demonize people who did nothing wrong or illegal. However, that is the downside of living in a country with free speech and free press: stupid people have the right to say/print stupid {censored}. It sucks, but dealing with this type of crap is a relatively small price to pay for the freedoms we have.

It happens all the time on both sides on the issue and we can't change laws every time the press says something stupid. So while this article is dumb and uncalled for, it's no reason to change guns registration laws.

What should (and probably will) happen is the pro-gun folks will cancel their subscriptions to this paper and maybe some anti-gun folks will rally behind it and eventually the free market will sort out if these guys deserve to stay in business. That should be the whole extent of the repercussions.

Like I said before, I support your 2nd amendment rights to bear arms as much as I support 1st amendment rights of free speech and free press. So yes, the article is stupid, but it's no reason to change current legislation.

 

I totally agree with all you said. I know I would not purchase a gun anywhere where I would wind up on a government database as having a firearm. I am arguing with the pretense that these folks registered to own handguns and expected only the government to have knowledge of it. Had they known that it would be compiled and broadcast in this way, my bet is that 9/10 of them would not have chosen to get a gun in this manner.

Freedom of speech is fine, I support zero restrictions on it. But I would definitely be interested in seeing what the media would do if there was a massive demonization campaign launched to rewrite the 1st Amendment to limit what the press can say or not say. The backlash would be the same as what the NRA and 2nd Amendment folks are producing right now.

[marshallnoise]

 

Originally Posted by DoubleBarrel

Wrong !

It was to protect themselves from the government !So if the Gov got to out of control, the citizens with thier right to bear arms could form a militia and overthorw & replace the gov't.

The Second Amendment provides that "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." The issue turns on whether that right to bear arms represents an "individual" or "collective" right. The NRA (and Ashcroft) advocate an affirmative individual right, akin to First Amendment free speech protections, granting us the right to have guns to hunt, protect ourselves, and hold government storm troopers at bay.

According to constitutional theorists, the Framers who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those in favor of centralized authority over the states.

Some observers argue further that the Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists, the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that "a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing."

I think you are a lot of things, but I wouldn't say unamerican. Just because you are dumb and wrong, doesn't mean you are unamerican.

 

If anyone spent any time reading the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, they would know that the 2nd Amendment was passed as part of the Bill of Rights for the express purpose of making sure the government did not get out of control. It is called recourse. Call me a {censored}ing lunatic (as some have already), but then you might have to call the 250 or so founding fathers lunatics as well.

The Bill of Rights was fought for by the Antifederalists because they knew these 10 bills were critical for keeping a free state. The Antifederalists wanted them to be written into the Constitution itself. The Federalists did not. The Federalists basically said that the Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution simply did not enumerate control over those 10 snippets of freedom. The Antifederalists were so sure that some group of assholes in the future would ignore the Constitution that the Bill of Rights were necessary. Guess who was correct?

By the by, the only way the Constitution was ratified amongst all 13 states (9 of which was required) was the guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be adopted part and parcel.

I may hate the things people do with the 1st Amendment, but by God I will defend that person's right to say what they want. I do, however, think that all 10 are critical to the functioning of the United States, as well as the whole original document. Anyone who hasn't taken the time to understand what the framers were intending, really doesn't get {censored}.

[Phrophus]

 

Originally Posted by marshallnoise

If anyone spent any time reading the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, they would know that the 2nd Amendment was passed as part of the Bill of Rights for the express purpose of making sure the government did not get out of control. It is called recourse. Call me a {censored}ing lunatic (as some have already), but then you might have to call the 250 or so founding fathers lunatics as well.

The Bill of Rights was fought for by the Antifederalists because they knew these 10 bills were critical for keeping a free state. The Antifederalists wanted them to be written into the Constitution itself. The Federalists did not. The Federalists basically said that the Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution simply did not enumerate control over those 10 snippets of freedom. The Antifederalists were so sure that some group of assholes in the future would ignore the Constitution that the Bill of Rights were necessary. Guess who was correct?

By the by, the only way the Constitution was ratified amongst all 13 states (9 of which was required) was the guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be adopted part and parcel.

I may hate the things people do with the 1st Amendment, but by God I will defend that person's right to say what they want. I do, however, think that all 10 are critical to the functioning of the United States, as well as the whole original document. Anyone who hasn't taken the time to understand what the framers were intending, really doesn't get {censored}.

 

The constitution was also drafted in a way that would enable its evolution. It may be important to understand what the founders intended, but the founders' intentions are not the only considerations when interpreting the constitution. In other words, just because the founders thought "A" was a good idea doesn't mean that "A" is still a good idea.

[marshallnoise]

 

Originally Posted by Phrophus

The constitution was also drafted in a way that would enable its evolution. It may be important to understand what the founders intended, but the founders' intentions are not the only considerations when interpreting the constitution. In other words, just because the founders thought "A" was a good idea doesn't mean that "A" is still a good idea.

 

Sure, so pass an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Do it the way it was intended. Or is the methodology too dated as well?

There is nothing in the Constitution that needs to be changed. It is the single, last best hope on Earth for the United States to continue to prosper. And I must add, it HAS to be tag teamed with the Declaration of Independence for you to even begin to understand WHY the Constitution was drafted in the manner it was.

[Rock Hardness]

bENDB O VER i GOT YR TAG TERAm./;

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by marshallnoise

Whoa, where did I use racism in this? You are unamerican because you don't feel the need to defend the whole constitution and only certain parts. Right now we are at war with the 2nd Amendment by using the 1st. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but so am I. You are a low life because you resort to the lowest common denominator in your speech. You aren't interested in discourse, you are interested in ridicule which is a tactic from the playground. It is just lame.

 

I don't argue or discuss things with frothing at the mouth psychopaths and I've stated my position several times for you to read.

What's lame is your inability to recognize your own need for mental help. We are all just wondering when you will finally snap. You've aluded to owning illegal firearms in one of these gun threads so obviously you're ok with breaking the law as long as you feel it's ok. That's the behavior of a sociopath waiting for a trigger to snap.

Glad you're not in Texas. You're scary.