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

Grind really went full retard in this thread. Not only is the premise alarmist babble, but look who he thread banned? BRGRN? When is the last time that guy ever posted? Ken? Ken doesn't even post in threads he doesn't start. Once in a while, but he's not exactly someone who makes a pest of himself. Howey, his gay best friend? It is just like Grind to have to one of those too, that is sooo sex and the city.

I think Grind was drunk off his ass when he made this thread.
 
Jarod said:
He has not seen it because he did not look.
Also Supercandy is his best bud, so he wont call him out on anything.
Click to expand...

He thinks superfreak is his best friend, but you should see how they trash talked each other back when I was talking to both of them off board, which now I'm not. All true Jarod.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again... it is YOU that is trying to alter what the OP was about. The OP was about GUN registration. That is perfectly clear to everyone who watched the video in the OP.

You obviously did not watch it and thus are spouting off continuously about something that you have no clue on.
 
I had a falling out with both of them if you must know. I can't give too much detail. But one thing for sure is Grind and I will never fall out. We are tried and true. Cyber buddies till the end. Which will probably be sometime soon for me because I want to give up message board posting for July 4th. I've become a bit more religious.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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/
Click to expand...

1) False, Roe v. Wade reconises that the Constitution grants the Right to Prvacy and acknoledges that as a fundamental right. Then it acknoledges that the States have a right to protect the health and safety of life, including potential life. The Decision then ballances those interests and comes up with the rule about abortion being allowed until quickening. Read the opinion before you start spouting off on what it says and does, at least read the quote I provided.

2) Roe v. Wade outlines how the states have a right to limit "fundamental constitutional rights" (in R v W its the right to privacy) when they have a compelling interest to do so.

3) The Fire in the crowded theater is by far not the only time the Court ballanced State interest with Rights.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...


Of course it's horseshit...but getting the Robotic Righties here to admit as much is nigh impossible.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... tell us Zappa, what exactly have you contributed to this thread? A few petty and pathetic little attacks on posters... anything else?
Click to expand...



Why yes.

I've pointed out that Grind's thread title is total horseshit, despite 19+ pages of claims to the contrary.
 
It seems the second someone on the left makes a good point that is supported by fact, they start name calling until the point is so far back nobody remembers it.
 
Jarod said:
He has not seen it because he did not look.
Also Supercandy is his best bud, so he wont call him out on anything.
Click to expand...


You got that one right man!

Now let's sit back and watch them spin this for a couple pages to find justification for SF's attack and Damo's arrogance, shall we?
 
Jarod said:
It seems the second someone on the left makes a good point that is supported by fact, they start name calling until the point is so far back nobody remembers it.
Click to expand...

It gets crazy surreal when they do that, and then 2 posts later respond to a similar insult with a totally non-ironic claim that calling someone names means you "lost." Or, when they say that proclaiming you won means you "lost," and then proclaim they've won a few times.
 
Damocles said:
Well, since I cited the actual case earlier I figured you can look back and find it.
Click to expand...

I looked at the one you cited, I did not see where it talked about registration. Did I miss it?

When I cited R v. W, I actually posted the wording I was discussing... that led to complete silence on the issue, and I am sure if I press it I will be called an idiot several more times before anyone will come up with an honest reply.
 
Jarod said:
It seems the second someone on the left makes a good point that is supported by fact, they start name calling until the point is so far back nobody remembers it.
Click to expand...

lol... what 'fact' was that Jarod? The fact that you had no clue what you were talking about? The fact that you stole someone else's bad analogy? those facts Jarod?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You got that one right man!

Now let's sit back and watch them spin this for a couple pages to find justification for SF's attack and Damo's arrogance, shall we?
Click to expand...

Again, since you are too ignorant to actually read the thread... my comment to Jarod was based on the fact that he stole a bad analogy from another poster and then repeated it as if it would somehow be more clever the second time around.

For you to be calling anyone arrogant is truly funny. You have done nothing on this thread but attack other posters (well that and prove that you have no idea what the OP was about)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top