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

[zappasguitar]

Why? You wanted to compare them to America, so why not just use American data? You can't get more American than America.

YAAAAAAWWWWNNN...


More evasion...so scared he's going to get cornered.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

So precious.

LOL Man did he jump on you! He did not like the way you were speaking to his g...to Damo.

 

[Jarod]

then for you, jarod, the right to bear arms includes nukes.

No, because I personally belive that the Supreme Court has a right to set reasonable limits on certian rights. I belive we can prohibit certian speech and certian types of guns and assessories.

 

[zappasguitar]

It's irrelevant which others are doing it when WE are ALREADY doing it. It's not false equivalency (which is what you're hoping to shout out) when the country in question (America) is already confiscating/confiscated guns based on registration.

Can't just giver her a straight answer can ya?

Why is that I wonder?

 

[zappasguitar]

Classic Damo.

Pompous, condescending and arrogant...he's working the trifecta today!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, registration will never lead to confiscation in this country. It's just fear-mongering nonsense, with Grind being the chief cheerleader. Even I don't support an actual ban on all guns. No one does. I mean you could probably find someone who does, but they would be like STY who finds the NRA too eager to give up their guns.

registration has already led to confiscation in a couple of states, so all you're doing is pushing a lie.

 

[zappasguitar]

Or you could answer the fucking question, then try to "teach."

But that wouldn't give him the opportunity to talk down to the other person.

Nobody does condescending like our Damo.

 

[zappasguitar]

Oh, so I should have put the ruling first? Why are you and Onceler incapable of holding a conversation about someTHING rather than someONE?

It is slightly annoying, but I do know that when the Siamese twins enter the conversation they will be saying something about me, won't talk about the topic, and that it means my argument has been effective.

No...it just means you've managed to derail the conversation with your condescension and arrogance.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Now now now...no fair calling him on his hyperbole!

How's he going to put forth any semblance of an argument if he can't post his ridiculous, overblown exaggerations?

LOL... tell us Zappa, what exactly have you contributed to this thread? A few petty and pathetic little attacks on posters... anything else?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, because I personally belive that the Supreme Court has a right to set reasonable limits on certian rights. I belive we can prohibit certian speech and certian types of guns and assessories.

for a lawyer, you don't know much about the constitution. where in that document does it say that the supreme court has a right, or a right to set reasonable limits on our rights? what person could reasonably believe that the founders would create a central government, after winning their independence from an oppressive central government, with any power or authority to set limits to their rights?

 

[Airstrip One]

But that wouldn't give him the opportunity to talk down to the other person.

Nobody does condescending like our Damo me.

Fixed

 

[Jarod]

Yet, here in the USA they already tried this, while you remain ignorant and think that it isn't a violation, the SCOTUS disagrees with you. (I think the ruling was some time in the mid to late 60s.)

Do you have a cite? Or did you make this up, because the wording is important and Id like to see it befor I take your word for it.

 

[Jarod]

for a lawyer, you don't know much about the constitution. where in that document does it say that the supreme court has a right, or a right to set reasonable limits on our rights? what person could reasonably believe that the founders would create a central government, after winning their independence from an oppressive central government, with any power or authority to set limits to their rights?

You can start with Roe v. Wade, but it goes back much further than that.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Very few rights are unlimited. That argument is basically a non-starter.

Free speech isn't unlimited - there are restrictions on that. We could go down the whole list. The 2nd amendment isn't "special" in that respect; it has its own limits.

 

[Jarod]

Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 485; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1940); see [p156] Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 460, 463-464 (WHITE, J., concurring in result).

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 at p. 155 (imphassis added)

 

[Jarod]

So you see, not only Roe v. Wade, but an entire line of cases indicate that where a "fundamental right" comes up against a "Compelling State Interest" the Court may limit those rights.

 

[zappasguitar]

Haven't seen it, so far all the posts from you that I've read in this thread have been about me and have discussed the topic exactly zero.


I haven't yet seen one post that simply calls Jarod an idiot. I've seen some that call him an idiot then tell him why they think that by discussing the idea... Your post, nada. Only me. Again, when the Siamese Twins jump in about "Damo" it just means that Damo's argument has been effective and they hope to distract from that. It's not like I can read every post though, some may exist, but since I've started participating in this thread... not so much.

WHOOPSIE!!

thanks for proving yet again what an idiot you are.

Of cooooooourse you can't find any posts calling Jarod an idiot...you won't find them if you don't look to begin with.


I'll say it again...there is NOTHING like some good ol homespun Damo condescension!

 

[Jarod]

WHOOPSIE!!





Of cooooooourse you can't find any posts calling Jarod an idiot...you won't find them if you don't look to begin with.


I'll say it again...there is NOTHING like some good ol homespun Damo condescension!

He has not seen it because he did not look.
Also Supercandy is his best bud, so he wont call him out on anything.

 

[zappasguitar]

So what you are saying is that you are fucking retarded?

The OP was talking about GUN REGISTRATION and the effects of GUN REGISITRATION. The OP was NOT talking about registration of anything and everything.

No, what I'm saying is you guys got busted in another one of your bullshit petty word games and now you're frantically scrambling to find justification for a thread title that is total bullshit.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You can start with Roe v. Wade, but it goes back much further than that.

1) roe v. wade is not a ruling that limits a right, in fact it creates a right. I have no problem with the courts finding more rights, since the 9th Amendment actually says that the bill of rights are not our only rights.
2) you still are not showing where the constitution prescribes the right of the courts to set limits on rights. Now, if you're referring to marbury v. madison, understand that the courts assumed that power, it wasn't prescribed to them via the constitution. If we wanted to, pretty much anything the courts have decided after that is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
3) i'll post this here again, but the main claim that rights are not unlimited comes from the 'fire in a crowded theater' craptastic opinion. One that Holmes spent the rest of his career trying to fix and failing miserably because the government (supreme court included) will not surrender their power voluntarily. http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/t...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/