Government scores victory against woman who can't leave her house

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I believe he is Canadian.

Hey Emp, you gotta name for your heater?

Well, that explains allot.


Which one?
(But no, no names...)

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Well, that explains allot.


Which one?
(But no, no names...)

You must live in a pretty dangerous neighbourhood to feel that threatened. Wouldn't it be better to move?

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Once again, it has been the law of the land for more than 200 years now, the supreme court doesn't need to "agree" on it.
Your statment is inaccurate. Despite many attempts by anti-gun groups, the Supreme ciurt has UPHELD the right. That isn't "surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on," that is very clear.

YOUR creation of the facts is what's in question. My version is the law of the land. My gun sits comfortably in my pocket.

You may want to buy a banana for that pocket, in case the supreme court decides otherwise.

http://news.scotsman.com/world/Cruci...ens.3891291.jp

Apparently the issue isn't all that settled.

The Second Amendment states: "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."

America's most eminent constitutional lawyers are split on whether this limits gun ownership to members of militias, a debate fuelled by the vagueness of the original phrasing.

But no test case has managed to resolve the issue: the last time the Supreme Court tried was 70 years ago, and it failed to issue a definitive judgment.

But hey, keep going. Just don't scratch yourself down there when you got that in your pocket. Messy.

[rabble]

It is interesting to see this thread twist from being about 'free speech' to being about 'the right to bare arms'. And I agree with gonzo this is an interesting discussion without much name calling. Therefore, I will add my two cents - although it is probably only worth a about a half-penny.

I rather think the right to bare arms to secure a 'free state' was decided to the negative by the Civil war of the 1860s and that the right of citizens to secure themselves against tyranny is wrongly fought on second amendment grounds, EmporerEJ. As, I think it was rhetorical pointed out ... your handgun is wholly ineffective to protect yourself from 'the government'. And, although I have some sympathy for you protecting yourself from the criminal element, I would point out one is statistically more likely to be shot when one owns a firearm than when one does not.

If you really wish to protect yourself from tyranny I think you should take a closer look at the weakening ( particularly during the current Bush administration of ) 'due process' clauses of the Fourth Amendment. Particularly the prohibition against 'general searches'.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

You may want to buy a banana for that pocket, in case the supreme court decides otherwise.

http://news.scotsman.com/world/Cruci...ens.3891291.jp

Apparently the issue isn't all that settled.



But hey, keep going. Just don't scratch yourself down there when you got that in your pocket. Messy.

This comes up about every 8-10 years in a different permutation.
I'm not worried.
And once again, that case is about state's rights over federal rights.
(I live in PA where the 2nd amendment is fairly safe, except for Philadelphia, which, oddly enough, is the biggest crime area. Imagine that?)

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

You must live in a pretty dangerous neighbourhood to feel that threatened. Wouldn't it be better to move?

No, it's a very safe area. And it's kept safe, by people like me.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rabble

It is interesting to see this thread twist from being about 'free speech' to being about 'the right to bare arms'. And I agree with gonzo this is an interesting discussion without much name calling. Therefore, I will add my two cents - although it is probably only worth a about a half-penny.

I rather think the right to bare arms to secure a 'free state' was decided to the negative by the Civil war of the 1860s and that the right of citizens to secure themselves against tyranny is wrongly fought on second amendment grounds, EmporerEJ. As, I think it was rhetorical pointed out ... your handgun is wholly ineffective to protect yourself from 'the government'. And, although I have some sympathy for you protecting yourself from the criminal element, I would point out one is statistically more likely to be shot when one owns a firearm than when one does not.

If you really wish to protect yourself from tyranny I think you should take a closer look at the weakening ( particularly during the current Bush administration of ) 'due process' clauses of the Fourth Amendment. Particularly the prohibition against 'general searches'.

I see the argument being twisted further, into a discussion of the 4th amendment. Unfortunately, I agree with you on that point. You'll get no argument from me there. But it goes hand in hand, doesn't it? And since when does the 2nd amendment limit itself to handguns? Do you imagine for one minute, that the "peaceniks" wouldn't take the long guns as well?
They've already nibbled at them from the other end, by outlawing many of them.

And once again....more than 20 years safe. Never had to shoot anyone, or even point it at anyone. I have a Stun gun too. Would you like to take that as well? Firearms are always a weapon of last resort. But I sleep soundly knowing I have at least equal firepower to anything that's going to come at me. You go ahead and twist your statistics to mean anything you want. The NRA has statistics that say the exact opposite.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

This comes up about every 8-10 years in a different permutation.
I'm not worried.
And once again, that case is about state's rights over federal rights.
(I live in PA where the 2nd amendment is fairly safe, except for Philadelphia, which, oddly enough, is the biggest crime area. Imagine that?)

yeah... and how many of those crimes are committed with handguns stolen from good honest citizens like you that wouldn't have needed them if someone didn't have one already?

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

No, it's a very safe area. And it's kept safe, by people like me.

Prolly not, you are a regular gi Joe. I bet you never had the balls to join the military, but are happy to whack a local hooligan.

Paranoia strikes deep.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

yeah... and how many of those crimes are committed with handguns stolen from good honest citizens like you that wouldn't have needed them if someone didn't have one already?

So, your entire world turns on what's happening in the news?
because some kid stole his mom's gun, and sold it for drugs, that gun ends up being used in a crime in philly, we should outlaw all the guns? That's your resonsible comment on the subject?

Ok...how about this as a response? How many? Can you show me more than one? Now, how many crimes are prevented by gun ownership? How many people sleep better knowing they have one. And, once again, why do YOU care what I do in my house, and person?
You are perfectly welcome to do exactly what you want. Why do you seek control over my actions?

Perhaps a life under the thumb of the crown has warped you?

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Prolly not, you are a regular gi Joe. I bet you never had the balls to join the military, but are happy to whack a local hooligan.

Paranoia strikes deep.

You just jumped the shark again.
My service to this country is not something I take lightly, or will discuss with an idiot like you.
Silly of me to think you had actually mellowed and turned into a normal person.
Nope, same asshole you've been for some time now.
As promised, I've avoided commenting on your inane blather, but you just can't help yourself, can you?
You just have to keep following me around, humping my leg with meaningless comments.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

So, your entire world turns on what's happening in the news?
because some kid stole his mom's gun, and sold it for drugs, that gun ends up being used in a crime in philly, we should outlaw all the guns? That's your resonsible comment on the subject?

No, my comments were general and nothing about any individual story.

Rephrase it the other way: Why does mom need a gun? It mom didn't have a gun, a whole little parade of crimes wouldn't have happened. Where would the guns on the street come from if they were not being sold to the public at large? The dudes in the hood with 2 felony convictions aren't buying guns at Wal-Mart, but they have them. The "problem" that gun owners point to was created in the most part by gun owners themselves. Sort of like people complaining about the price of gas and driving around in a 5MPG hummer.

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Ok...how about this as a response? How many? Can you show me more than one? Now, how many crimes are prevented by gun ownership? How many people sleep better knowing they have one. And, once again, why do YOU care what I do in my house, and person?
You are perfectly welcome to do exactly what you want. Why do you seek control over my actions?

Perhaps a life under the thumb of the crown has warped you?

How many crimes prevented because of gun ownership? Are you kidding? For the most part, any crime prevented usually ends up in bloodshed or death.
"I shot him because I thought he was trespassing... but it was really the newspaper delivery guy coming early". Most people feel incredibly safe with a gun, but rarely if ever actually use it for it's intended purpose. Most often, they appear to be used to impress your friends, make your dick seem larger, and to have around so your son can sell it for drugs later.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

No, my comments were general and nothing about any individual story.

Rephrase it the other way: Why does mom need a gun? It mom didn't have a gun, a whole little parade of crimes wouldn't have happened. Where would the guns on the street come from if they were not being sold to the public at large? The dudes in the hood with 2 felony convictions aren't buying guns at Wal-Mart, but they have them. The "problem" that gun owners point to was created in the most part by gun owners themselves. Sort of like people complaining about the price of gas and driving around in a 5MPG hummer.



How many crimes prevented because of gun ownership? Are you kidding? For the most part, any crime prevented usually ends up in bloodshed or death.
"I shot him because I thought he was trespassing... but it was really the newspaper delivery guy coming early". Most people feel incredibly safe with a gun, but rarely if ever actually use it for it's intended purpose. Most often, they appear to be used to impress your friends, make your dick seem larger, and to have around so your son can sell it for drugs later.

Just goes to show, you can "suppose" anything. You have no "real" data, just "opinion."
And Like I said, here's the best part: you COULD have exactly what you want. (You know, if you were in a FREE country.)

You can be perfectly content without a gun. I like mine.
And what's more, I have the right to have it. It's not up for "negotiation" or "discussion." You don't like it? Don't come here. Stay up there where you are under the protective umbrella of NORAD.
Don't worry, we'll still protect you, and your right to disagree with us. (You know, with weapons, we'll do that. 'Cause there are people in the world that want to kill, even you.)

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Just goes to show, you can "suppose" anything. You have no "real" data, just "opinion."
And Like I said, here's the best part: you COULD have exactly what you want. (You know, if you were in a FREE country.)

You can be perfectly content without a gun. I like mine.
And what's more, I have the right to have it. It's not up for "negotiation" or "discussion." You don't like it? Don't come here. Stay up there where you are under the protective umbrella of NORAD.
Don't worry, we'll still protect you, and your right to disagree with us. (You know, with weapons, we'll do that. 'Cause there are people in the world that want to kill, even you.)

The air must be thin up there on that high horse.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The air must be thin up there on that high horse.

That's right.....we're all cowboys, on horses, and we got six shooters.

RAWHIDE!

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

You just jumped the shark again.
My service to this country is not something I take lightly, or will discuss with an idiot like you.
Silly of me to think you had actually mellowed and turned into a normal person.
Nope, same asshole you've been for some time now.
As promised, I've avoided commenting on your inane blather, but you just can't help yourself, can you?
You just have to keep following me around, humping my leg with meaningless comments.

dodged the question....lol. About what I expected.