Preppers and Nutters, the party is over.

Sparta said:
Its entirely unconstitutional when the USSC has expressly protected those 'types' of weapons. And AGAIN those types' are not identified by anything other than scary LOOKING features. So what weapons would be banned? What ones wouldn't? If you aren't knowledgeable about them, try some pictures.
Click to expand...

It's not just features - it's effectiveness & capability.

And there isn't anything unconsitutional about it. Why do you think a ban on those weapons is unconstitutional?
 
Superfreak said:
No, you didn't. You still didn't. Yes, contraception is cheaper than unwanted children. But my question was 'why do people need insurance to pay for it'? It is cheap. Why can't they pay for it themselves rather than mandating everyones insurance pay for it?
Click to expand...

Contraception isn't really that cheap for someone w/ a low income. And who cares - if the bottom line is that taxpayers will ultimately save money, which they will, isn't that the point?
 
Thing1 said:
Contraception isn't really that cheap for someone w/ a low income. And who cares - if the bottom line is that taxpayers will ultimately save money, which they will, isn't that the point?
Click to expand...

So that gives them the right to my money? I'm supposed to pay their way?
 
Thing1 said:
Contraception isn't really that cheap for someone w/ a low income. And who cares - if the bottom line is that taxpayers will ultimately save money, which they will, isn't that the point?
Click to expand...

What is implied in the question is the right wingers don't like paying for someone to have sex.
 
apple0154 said:
When a crime is committed and someone tries to think of ways to prevent such a crime from happening in the future they're using the victims to promote an agenda? You're a nutter, USF, and your posts continue to verify that.
Click to expand...


You agenda is gun control....and you're using the 20 dead children and the emotion it creates to advance that agenda....why even deny it ?
Like our liberals admit, don't let a good crisis go by when you can exploit it to your political advantage....
 
Thing1 said:
That's typical pennywise, pound-foolish thinking.

Unwanted pregnancies cost the taxpayers MUCH more in the long run. Preventing them is a good priority to have when it comes to coverage.
Click to expand...


Then don't get knocked up....thats YOUR responsibility.....

In the long run, I shouldn't be responsible for your unwanted offspring either....I'm already paying for your abortions, wtf more do you want, you greedy shitcake.
 
bravo said:
Then don't get knocked up....thats YOUR responsibility.....

In the long run, I shouldn't be responsible for your unwanted offspring either....I'm already paying for your abortions, wtf more do you want, you greedy shitcake.
Click to expand...

Ah - is that the kind of civilized/no-insult debate you always talk about?

Maybe you shouldn't be (and we're not talking about my offspring, btw) - but you are. So, would you rather pay much more for unwanted pregnancies, or much less for contraception, which would also reduce the need for abortion?

Your choice on that. Choose wisely.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
What it ultimately comes down to is, do you want to pay for contraception or unwanted babies?
Click to expand...


I don't want to pay for either.....its not my responsibility.......

Your unwanted children are still your responsibility....and if you refuse to be responsible, we'll take care of your kids, and you can go to prison where you
won't burden the rest of us beyond the cost of your incarceration....thats taxpayers money well spent.
 
Thing1 said:
Like I said, it's a kichen sink approach. If bans on certain kinds of weapons - which police around the nation almost unanimously approve of - make it more difficult to commit certain crimes, then that's something most people today are probably going to support.
Click to expand...
if we the people wrote the constitution and had our different legislative bodies create police departments, where did we give them power to determine what we can and cannot own via our rights?

Thing1 said:
And there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Many of our rights have limits or restrictions.
Click to expand...
what does 'shall make no law' and 'shall not be infringed' mean? does it mean 'can reasonably be restricted'?

http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/t...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
 
Thing1 said:
It's not just features - it's effectiveness & capability.

And there isn't anything unconsitutional about it. Why do you think a ban on those weapons is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
because it goes against the basis of why the 2nd Amendment was written. because it exempts certain groups while prohibiting it for others.
 
Thing1 said:
It's not just features - it's effectiveness & capability.

And there isn't anything unconsitutional about it. Why do you think a ban on those weapons is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
Well when the court has specifically stated weapons of a military use are protected (US v Miller) and that weapons in common use are also protected (DC. v Heller), I'd think banning them would be unconstitutional.

And yes, it was just features. What sort of 'effects' are you trying to ban? The ability to kill? Muskets do that.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The tax would be exempt for industrial use.
Click to expand...

So a normal person cannot buy lead itself but can buy things made out of lead? I'm not sure I follow how that would affect anything. I mean, I can buy lead solder by the pound. Are you saying your tax wouldn't apply to lead solder, but other lead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top