Registration WILL lead to CONFISCATION. Don't trust the takers.

Damocles said:
I can see how my imprecise language could make people think that if that statement were taken out of context of the conversation, however context in the actual thread would, in reality bring a deeper understanding of what I was saying. Pretending that you didn't participate or change your 'understanding" of what I was saying as the conversation progressed is simply, IMO, pretense. I don't believe that you are stupid, or incapable of following a conversation.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you just answered my fucking question in ("How is registration of firearms a 5th Amendment violation?) you could have explained what you meant.

I still don't understand what you meant. Just explain yourself. If you didn't mean that registration violates the 5th Amendment, what did you mean?
 
Thing1 said:
Beyond that, law enforcement everywhere favors things like a ban on assault weapons. Why is that? Because it's effective in reducing violence & crime.
Click to expand...

It most certainly IS fear and irrationality since all evidence shows that 'assault weapons' (a term that cannot be specified) are used in AT MOST 2% of all gun crimes. How can it be effective at anything when they are a statistical outlier to begin with?
 
Dungheap said:
Maybe if you just answered my fucking question in ("How is registration of firearms a 5th Amendment violation?) you could have explained what you meant.

I still don't understand what you meant. Just explain yourself. If you didn't mean that registration violates the 5th Amendment, what did you mean?
Click to expand...

uh oh... Dung is having another meltdown.
 
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 said:
Care to quote? Posting from my phone and all. If not I'll look it up at home.
Click to expand...


Basically, there's a multi-tiered analysis under the 1st Amendment. Content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny. Content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions are subject to intermediate scrutiny.

The test, roughly speaking, is as follows: In a public forum, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.

So the least restrictive means prong doesn't exist and the governmental interest must only be "significant" as oppose to "compelling."
 
Dungheap said:
Basically, there's a multi-tiered analysis under the 1st Amendment. Content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny. Content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions are subject to intermediate scrutiny.

The test, roughly speaking, is as follows: In a public forum, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.

So the least restrictive means prong doesn't exist and the governmental interest must only be "significant" as oppose to "compelling."
Click to expand...

So, if I'm reading you right, only the USE of certain speech falls under significant interest and can have more restrictions, but not the CONTENT/CAPACITY of speech?
 
Superfreak said:
So if you proclaim it is horseshit, you believe it regardless of the fact that you have been proven wrong time and time again?
Click to expand...


No one has proven me wrong as of yet.

Of course, in accordance with standard Rightie operating procedure, you've begun repeating ad nauseum that I was proven wrong.

The thread title is hopelessly open ended...it neither mentions which specific object, when regulated, will be confiscated, nor does it or does it employ qualifiers that might make the title somewhat correct.

But despite the numerous flaws and errors, you continue to doggedly defend Grind because frankly, admitting that he was wrong and one of us AOL'ers got the better of you guys is simply intolerable, isn't it?
 
Superfreak said:
The OP was about GUN registration. Period. Not registration in general of anything and everything. The OP video talks specifically about GUN registration and where it led to in Canada. It was posted as a warning of what will transpire here if we start down that path.

You have been proven wrong time and again.
Click to expand...


Except this isn't Canada, is it?

And it wasn't posted "as a warning"...it was posted as dead solid, set-in-stone FACT.

"Registratiion WILL LEAD TO confiscation...not MIGHT LEAD to...not WILL LEAD TO UNLESS...



WILL.


LEAD.


TO.


CONFISCATION.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No one has proven me wrong as of yet.

Of course, in accordance with standard Rightie operating procedure, you've begun repeating ad nauseum that I was proven wrong.

The thread title is hopelessly open ended...it neither mentions which specific object, when regulated, will be confiscated, nor does it or does it employ qualifiers that might make the title somewhat correct.

But despite the numerous flaws and errors, you continue to doggedly defend Grind because frankly, admitting that he was wrong and one of us AOL'ers got the better of you guys is simply intolerable, isn't it?
Click to expand...

So you are going to continue to ignore the video in the OP? Continue to pretend that didn't spell out precisely what this thread was about?

I had no clue you were from AOL, nor do I care.
 
I tried a google on "Countries that began gun registration that didn't lead to confiscation" and no sites popped up.

But if I typed in "Countries that began gun registration that lead to confiscation", 944,000 sites appeared.

How odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top