Loving the lefty tolerance

Tektite said:
So if there were a group of police inside, and there was another group of police outside, would they be deemed separate?
Click to expand...
If their actions were different and they were described as "another group of police officers outside were dancing the Hora while singing the praises of Obama" while the ones inside were described as "The first group of police officers hurried quickly to do their job and arrest the evil Christians who were complaining about being given free condoms"...

Then yes. They are two separate groups doing separate things.

Here I'll write a "story" so that it can be exemplified fully, and because I like it.

Benevolent Homosexual activists taking part in an awesomely good act of First Amendment Practice as they gathered at a local church to distribute free condoms and teach about Jesus's homosexual partners were rudely interrupted by a Church Service scheduled to happen that same Sunday morning. The Christians who were interrupting the glorious display acted stunned and pretended that this gathering of Christians happened every Sunday morning at the same time and that the Homosexual activists were interrupting their "Church Service" and "worship". These Christians rudely rejected the offer of free condoms and literature on the teaching of Jesus Christ and his homosexual partners.

The police were called, upon arriving one group of police entered the church and immediately went to work arresting the Christians and clearing the church from those interrupting the glorious display and collected free condoms for later delivery to drug dealers and prostitutes from the benevolent homosexual activists. Another group of police who waited outside quickly got bored and broke into a spontaneous display of love for our Great and Benificent Ruler, Supplier of Hope we Can Believe In, Changer of All Things Bad, Obama the Magnificent President for Life. Chants rang out through the parking lot "Hope, Hope, Hope"... as they danced the Hora holding each other's hands.
 
Note that they were two groups of people doing different things, hence the use of the word "another" just like in the article previously posted.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The AWB of 09, or H.R. 1022 doesn't have a chance even if passed by the house and senate. The lawsuit to stop it would be filed within minutes of Obama signing it. With Heller decided and the 'in common use' portion of that decision, every federal court in the land would have to decide one of three things.
1) every weapon in the AWB is not a weapon in common use (which would never work considering the list of weapons they have in there)
2) take a case by case basis which would totally flood the courts and overwhelm the system. Not going to happen.
3) decide the unconstitutionality of it. no brainer.

machine gun ownership is not illegal. you can still own machine guns made and taxed BEFORE May 19, 1986. It's only machine guns made AFTER that date that are banned and it's not even a ban. You can own a machine gun made after that date if you can get a tax stamp for it. The problem is that congress is not providing the ability for the ATF to accept the tax payment. Now we have a commerce clause violation. Why not fight that?
Click to expand...
Wow politics make strange bedfellows. Just so you know, there are lawyers all over the country beginning to gear up for a challege to any AWB that may come out of this session of congress. My best friend and I have already given our names to the NRA and serveral other organizations and are prepared to file suit on behalf of thousands of litigants. If this is one of the first fights Obama and the Dems want to pick, he going to find his government lawyers bogged down with lots of litigation. Really not the best place to start.
 
Socrtease said:
Wow politics make strange bedfellows. Just so you know, there are lawyers all over the country beginning to gear up for a challege to any AWB that may come out of this session of congress. My best friend and I have already given our names to the NRA and serveral other organizations and are prepared to file suit on behalf of thousands of litigants. If this is one of the first fights Obama and the Dems want to pick, he going to find his government lawyers bogged down with lots of litigation. Really not the best place to start.
Click to expand...

AWB is a third rail issue right now. It's politically radioactive. The dems aren't going to touch it.

It might come back in 30 years or so. But no one's going to do anything about it now. They'd rather make sure that criminals get a regular stream of those assault weapons than risk their job.
 
This site http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/02-27-07/discussion.cgi.10.html does a good job of showing you what would be banned if it passes. Too many varmint rifles, sporting and hunting guns etc. If McCarthy wants to bog down the new president's lawyers then I'll be her Huckleberry, me and thousands of lawyers across the country. We will make it virtually impossible to do anything else but take on gun suits. And I voted for Obama so imagine the real rage out there to take this on.
 
Socrtease said:
This site http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/02-27-07/discussion.cgi.10.html does a good job of showing you what would be banned if it passes. Too many varmint rifles, sporting and hunting guns etc. If McCarthy wants to bog down the new president's lawyers then I'll be her Huckleberry, me and thousands of lawyers across the country. We will make it virtually impossible to do anything else but take on gun suits. And I voted for Obama so imagine the real rage out there to take this on.
Click to expand...

Obama would veto it as soon as he saw the polls and the money behind it. Gun nuts don't think about anything else.
 
leaningright said:
OK. Now that I am clear on what we're talking about. I am not so revved up about making machine gun ownership legal again because I think there are more important battles to fight to maintain what we currently have. Obama will try to implement the Clinton ban again, and he will prevail. When Pelosi and the gang have this "victory" they will try for a little more and a little more. Most of them already don't want the average person to have handguns and this is what they will pursue next. Look for it in the next 4 if not 6 years.
Click to expand...
No offense, but if we take the long-standing "let's keep the status quo" approach, we will always lose in the long run. Just a little at a time, but still lose, as we have been losing. Each time we lose a little ground, that becomes the status quo for the next battle. The 1986 ban on what was previously a punative tax is a case in point. No one, for a long time, has even dreamed of challenging the 1934 limit on full auto weapons. But some people were jumping through the class III hoops and coughing up the tax. Then they added the pre-1986 stricture, and that became the new status quo. If a sunset had not been demanded when the AWB was passed under Clinton, that would be the new status quo.

We simply cannot afford to fight from the status quo all the time, because each new status quo starts from a position of less liberty. It is past time for a new strategy of pushing back, and making the new status quo in favor of our liberties, instead of in favor of government control.
 
Do you guys honestly dream of a time when you can hunt deer using machine guns again?

Gang members steal them and then hunt something entirely different - the most dangerous game!
 
Socrtease said:
This site http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/02-27-07/discussion.cgi.10.html does a good job of showing you what would be banned if it passes. Too many varmint rifles, sporting and hunting guns etc. If McCarthy wants to bog down the new president's lawyers then I'll be her Huckleberry, me and thousands of lawyers across the country. We will make it virtually impossible to do anything else but take on gun suits. And I voted for Obama so imagine the real rage out there to take this on.
Click to expand...
Isn't there a precedent, set long ago, that the state has to be able to show they have a legitimate interest in order to curtail a constitutional right? Since the 2nd has now been declared an individual right, and the statistics show no relevance between gun control and crime control, would it be possible to attack the legitimate interest of banning or limiting firearms?
 
Watermark said:
Your statistics are made up.

And people get illegal weapons from "law-abiding" citizens all the time. That's the primary way gangs get armed: they steal a persons car and get the gun.
Click to expand...

Never heard any such thing. Source? Gangs get guns from burglarizing homes, I've seen that....but cars? And often???

Damocles, I already conceded that analogy and further clarified my point. I will at the mo' refrain from telling you where your sarcasm is better housed.
 
Tektite said:
Never heard any such thing. Source? Gangs get guns from burglarizing homes, I've seen that....but cars? And often???

Damocles, I already conceded that analogy and further clarified my point. I will at the mo' refrain from telling you where your sarcasm is better housed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I really wanted to write the "story". Don't take it personally. :D
 
Watermark said:
Do you guys honestly dream of a time when you can hunt deer using machine guns again?

Gang members steal them and then hunt something entirely different - the most dangerous game!
Click to expand...

It's never been about hunting, ever. It's not even about sporting purposes. It's about being appropriately armed if ever it's needed.
 
Let me echo STY's response. Owning firearms is mostly never about hunting only but about a number of other things. Many have firearms for recreation, some have them for hunting and self defense. Some have them as heirlooms. Machine guns would fall into the recreation/self-defense/heirloom category. Still a small arm and I believe covered in the 2nd ammendment. While I am not against background checks and even some form of registration I am against an all out ban. Tell the firearm enthusiast to ditch his guns and take up knitting as recreation and there's going to be problems. This is why all the dust gets kicked up every time a none-gun-friendly person gets elected president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top