|
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 9:34 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... I didn't purposely dodge it. I didn't notice it. What was it again? You simply forgot to don your tin hit. My tin hat is presently soaking in WD-40. |
Had to share this story
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:49:04 PM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:28:15 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: L'il Snottie spews... "Gettin' real personal.. .guess I am hitting a nerve... Like I said before, it's the baby brother syndrome, nobody ever told you no... " You are an amusing little man. You were the spoiled pampered one...an only child and an adopted one at that. I figure Inky and his wife over compensated for your numerous short comings. Don't know if Scotty was adopted or not, but what the **** difference would that make to your stupid posts? You keep a data base on folks also? Is there something wrong with being adopted? Are you a 'better' person if you're *not* adopted? Asshole racist herring was the first abortion that lived. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: We were discussing the possibilities or probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. === That would provoke a nationwide disturbance not seen since the civil war, and would be political suicide for any strong advocate. There would be states that threatened secession from the union and they'd be serious about it. PS, I regret to report that my forecast for a weekend nor'easter up your way still looks pretty solid. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 9:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/30/2014 8:26 PM, KC wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:58 PM, KC wrote: Deciding I was a tea party supporter because I mentioned "Dana". BTW, I never said Dana Loash (sp), and I never said I supported the "Dana" at all. Your arrogance let you decide who I was talking about, that I must be a supporter, and that that made me a Tea Party Supporter... then your insecurity really made you lash out at the lady... Could have been talking about Dana Perino, I never really said but I guess it wouldn't matter, you already got all the info that supports your point of vie.. er um, all you need... lol... For such a rich guy, you are pretty narrow... for sure... You are so full of **** it's unbelievable. Funny though. Your words... "...you are a tea party supporter, noted". You are starting to act like harry krause. First, there is no question as to which "Dana" you were referring to. IIRC you referenced the interview with her that happened to be on FoxNews. It was the only way I found out who she was. Did you really, or are you getting more and more like harry cause the Dana you trashed doesn't work for Fox news and I have never seen her there so I don't see how you really could have... oh, forget it... Dana Perino is on Fox news... so.....redux. Yes, I've concluded you are a Tea Party supporter based on your numerous references and endorsements of Tea Party politicians and your many references of admiration for FoxNews celebrities like Shawn Hannity. Those were not your words, but you can go back if intellectual integrity matters any... You assumed because I mentioned someone (in another context), I supported that person, then you made further conclusions based on that mis-information, that I was a tea party supporter. Nothing about anything I have said in the past, etc.... your words, not mine... You've lectured me to get news from sources other than MSNBC. I do. I watch FoxNews to get their flavor on current events or subjects. I also watch MSNBC, CNN and a couple of the major broadcast networks to get their "flavor". You seem to only reference FoxNews as the only reliable "news" source. Never said that at all, in fact I do remember talking about how CNN has gotten much better in the last few years too... you make up your mind, then allow the harry and your imagination to fill in the rest... :) Given all that, I have concluded you are indeed a Tea Party supporter. Nothing wrong with that ... it's your choice. Really doesn't matter anyway, you made your decision from an uninformed and mis-informed place.. so garbage in, garbage out... but you seem to be cool with that, whatever... If I am wrong, I extend my apologies. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:18:25 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:30:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 9:23 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 7:47 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:57:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:41 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45! Different issue. Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you own, illegal? Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment). You registered it, they know you have it. Making previously legal guns "illegal" has been done before and in several states. But they don't confiscate them. They grandfather them. If you owned 'em before they became illegal, you can keep them. But you can't sell them and in some places you can't even give them to your heirs. There are people who would push for laws that would not even grandfather them in. The rest of your post is pure conjecture. Conjecture based on other laws that have been passed. There is some ammo that was outlawed and if they catch you with it, you can be charged, no matter when you bought it. And many would agree rightly so. I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. You can't have it one way, A minute ago you were talking about rights for minorities as a step forward. I noticed you dodged the answer about the bill of rights protections that we are losing and they are far more fundamental than gay marriage and a parking place close to the door. I didn't purposely dodge it. I didn't notice it. What was it again? Again I understand we may have created rights for some special interest groups that the founding fathers could have never envisioned but the ones in the Bill of Rights are under constant attack. I would start with attacks on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th amendments. ****** Just the 4th amendment problems There was a great one on the news tonight. FBI agents impersonated cable guys and did a search of a hotel room without a warrant and with that information they went back, got a warrant and raided the guys. This wasn't trying to stop a terrorist attack or catch a serial killer. It was arresting a bookie in Las Vegas. There was also a story about "border patrol" check points up to 100 miles from the border and they are using the same rules they use on the border (search you, search your car, ask questions you have no real obligation to answer etc) Of course you really have no rights on the side of the road anyway. The courts have chipped away at the 4th amendment to the point that a cop can stop you for no particular reason (always your word against his about why he stopped you) Make everyone get out of the car MARYLAND v. WILSON Question you without a Miranda warning BERKEMER v. McCARTY Search everyone and the passenger compartment of the car for weapons Terry v. Ohio They can "ask" you if they can search your trunk but if you say no, that is "reasonable suspicion" They can also detain you until they can get a dog there ILLINOIS v. CABALLES Then the kubuki theater starts. It is your word against the cop whether the dog "alerted". Hint, they always do. Then he has probable cause. If you resist in any way they can simply arrest you, maybe taze you, drench you with pepper spray and beat the **** out of you, impound your car, then they need to "inventory" it. (AKA rip it apart to be sure there was no hidden property they might get accused of stealing) You might just be shot and killed Who needs the gestapo when we have these guys Jesus Christ, you sound like a community organizer for criminals. Cops used to routinely jack people against cars for simple traffic stops, and answer any lip with a nightstick. They act much better now. It'll never be perfect. Seems paranoid to me. Fear the cops, huh? === I don't think it's paranoid at all. The sort of thing that Greg describes happens all the time. I always chuckle when I read a news account where the driver "consented to a search of his vehicle". You just know that's some kind of BS. |
Had to share this story
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45! Different issue. Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you own, illegal? Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment). You registered it, they know you have it. If you had a pre ban AR in California, you had to register it, when it was banned, pay a $200 license, and if you got caught later, without the license, they take it and arrest you. What if they decide, that you now have to pay a $1000 license for each firearm you own? Yearly? As much legality and possibility as the AR tax. |
Had to share this story
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:00 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I said: Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense. You replied: Who's doing that? and you continued: For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping. If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping, there would be no infringement of my rights. $100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed upon. John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense. I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective. Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and friends/family members killing each other. Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of the problem. In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law. Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for. There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them. The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally. For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine restrictions are not an issue. I am just not sure what another law can do. I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from. What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of the 'paper trail' you espouse? As my expressed opinion to Greg points out: Registration creates a papertrail of legal ownership. Transfers, sale or loss (theft or otherwise) must be immediately reported and entered in the registration data base. It *could* get a law abiding gun owner off the hook for crimes committed with a stolen firearm. It's the system currently in force in my state. It certainly doesn't infringe on any of my rights to buy or inherit a firearm and it doesn't cost a cent in terms of fees or tax. It is the taxes that will be added later is the scare. Like state senator Perata here. Wanted to add a 5 cents per bullet tax. Of course Perata has never met a tax he did not like, if paid by someone else. And he is against any new CCW licenses. But he has one. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com