Parkland Trio get their jobs back. The Community is safe?

[JoeB131]

The Dealer will never be in court explaining they followed the law and sold the car and reported the sale to the DMV and the Tax Commissioner.

Here's the difference. To own a car in Illinois, I have to be licensed, insured, and permited by both the state and city I live in to own a car. There are hundreds of cops out there ready to pull me over if I violate even a minor traffic law like speeding or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. I would LOVE it if we regulated guns the way we regulate cars.

But you want gun makers to suffer through this. Not because you want justice for the victims. Not because you want to hold the guilty accountable. But because you want to bankrupt the companies with frivolous lawsuits.

I want to bankrupt them because of their irresponsibility. The thing is, cars are utilitarian. Why you do have car enthusiasts, most of us just use our cars to get places. Guns, on the other hand, are really not necessary. There's no good reason to own a gun if you aren't a soldier or a cop. But the gun industry keeps marketing even more dangerous guns, becuase they realize they are going to make more money off of THIS GUY

than they will off the guy who bought one gun once, and maybe takes it out once a year to target practice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'd feel safer if we didn't live in a country where some fucking idiot doesn't think the Militia amendment means that a guy like Nick Cruz has a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to own MILITARY GRADE weaponry.

That they are making scapegoats out of law enforcement.

The United States Military does not and never has used AR-15

you trumpkins know nothing.
“Its military version was adopted by the United States Armed Forces as the M16 rifle. ... Colt continued to use the AR-15trademark for its line of semi-automatic-only rifles marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers, known as Colt AR-15.
Manufacturer: ArmaLite; Colt's Manufacturing Company
Designer: Eugene Stoner (AR-10); Jim Sullivan; Bob Fremont
Mass: 6.55 lb (2.97 kg) with 20 round magazine
View attachment 338575
Wikipedia › wiki › ArmaLite_AR-15
ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedi”

Moron be specific now and tell us when semi auto was the same as full auto or had a selector for it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Dealer will never be in court explaining they followed the law and sold the car and reported the sale to the DMV and the Tax Commissioner.

Here's the difference. To own a car in Illinois, I have to be licensed, insured, and permited by both the state and city I live in to own a car. There are hundreds of cops out there ready to pull me over if I violate even a minor traffic law like speeding or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. I would LOVE it if we regulated guns the way we regulate cars.

But you want gun makers to suffer through this. Not because you want justice for the victims. Not because you want to hold the guilty accountable. But because you want to bankrupt the companies with frivolous lawsuits.

I want to bankrupt them because of their irresponsibility. The thing is, cars are utilitarian. Why you do have car enthusiasts, most of us just use our cars to get places. Guns, on the other hand, are really not necessary. There's no good reason to own a gun if you aren't a soldier or a cop. But the gun industry keeps marketing even more dangerous guns, becuase they realize they are going to make more money off of THIS GUY

View attachment 339836

than they will off the guy who bought one gun once, and maybe takes it out once a year to target practice.

Driving and owning a car are NOT a protected right by the US Constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

Driving and owning a car are NOT a protected right by the US Constitution.

Neither is owning a gun.

The constitution just says the states can keep militias...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Driving and owning a car are NOT a protected right by the US Constitution.

Neither is owning a gun.

The constitution just says the states can keep militias...

LOL No it does not you Lying piece of human refuse. The amendment clearly states the PEOPLE have the right. And EVERY single amendment where it says the people have a right it is KNOWN to mean all citizens. But you retards claim thhis one is an exception. Further the Court clarified it. You are stupid ignorant and a MORON.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL No it does not you Lying piece of human refuse. The amendment clearly states the PEOPLE have the right. And EVERY single amendment where it says the people have a right it is KNOWN to mean all citizens. But you retards claim thhis one is an exception. Further the Court clarified it. You are stupid ignorant and a MORON.

The court didn't "clarify" it, they ignored 200 years or legal juris prudence that stated the second was about militias.

The reality- gun ownership was RARE in the colonies, because a gun cost more than a skilled worker could make in a month. It was seen as something only the elite would have. but then again, the Founding Slave Rapists felt the same way about voting.

 

[SavannahMann]

So what annoys you is that the gun makers have the same protections as anyone else. If I tried to sue HP and Best Buy saying the Hacker who stole my money and posted illegal porn online claiming to be me used their computer and they should have known not to make or sell it to this guy the lawsuit would be thrown out as frivolous.

Actually, if they were specifically designing computer to be hacked easily, and marketing directly to hackers, you'd have a pretty good case. Quite the contrary, almost every computer now comes with free anti-virus software.

You can sue Gun makers and sellers for the same reasons you can sue other companies. If Remington makes a defective product. They can be, and are sued. Taurus for example was sued a few years ago by several people because their PT 111 series of pistols had a flaw. They paid out a lot of money in damages. They even lost a class action lawsuit.

Quite the contrary. The victims of the DC Snipers DID sue the gun makers and sellers, because they made it too easy for a convicted felon and a minor to acquire weapons they had no business having. They got quite a large judgment, too. THAT'S when congress stepped in and passed a law preventing that kind of lawsuit from happening again.

Judge OKs Settlement in D.C. Sniper Lawsuit

A judge has signed off on a $2.

www.foxnews.com

The law you object to merely offers the same protections to the makers of guns that the manufacturer of any other product has. Protection from frivolous lawsuits. If Dodge makes the Hellcat and some idiot buys it and does as I described. Dodge will never be in court explaining that they make the car and the dealer sells it. They do not ship direct to the customer.

The Hellcat isn't specifically designed to kill people. Guns are.

Guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed to fire ammunition, with varying degrees of accuracy. The most accurate firearms can reach more than a mile and hit the target. A thousand yards, which used to be the next to impossible shot, is now done regularly by people.

And that is where your comparison breaks down, not that it was ever accurate. The Hellcat is designed to go fast. Far faster than can be operated legally on any road in the country. The Hellcat sacrifices safety, for more speed. It has a headlight which is not a headlight, but a ram air scoop to drive more air into the engine. It literally gave up a light, to get more power from the engine.

You say guns are designed to kill. That is preposterous. Continuing your analogy, the Hellcat owner is responsible if he is tagged doing a hundred and fifty on a two lane road. We don’t blame Dodge despite the fact that Dodge specifically designed that car to go insanely fast.

And if guns are designed to kill, then we have an issue. I inherited a 16 guage Shotgun from my father. It is older than I am. It has never killed anyone. I inherited a rifle from my Dad, who got it from his Dad, that has never killed anyone. These weapons have never even been hunting, and that means that despite the purported intent of the maker, none of them have fulfilled their purpose even once.

That seems odd. Of all the weapons I have, the only one that has been used to fulfill it’s purpose is a pistol that I use to kill Copperhead Rattlesnakes in my yard. Not all my property. I leave them alone in the woods, but when the encroach onto my grass and maintained areas, and threaten me, the family, and the pets, I eliminate them.

So of all the weapons, the only one which has fulfilled it’s purpose, is a revolver loaded with mini shot shells intended for small pests.

A weapon is a tool. A tool like a knife, a hammer, or a saw. Some are more expensive, and more precise, and others are cheap, and sloppy. But like those tools, they can be used for good, or ill. The pry bar that is used to separate components on an old car being restored which have rusted together can also be used to open a door that is intended to keep them out. The Knife used to filet fish can be used to kill another. The hammer that drives nails, can be used to crush a skull.

It is this reality that pushes lawmakers to include any other item that can be used to cause harm as a Felony Assault. They do not limit it to firearms. Because there are a lot of ways you can be murdered.

A gun is a tool. Like the keyboard I am sitting at now. It can be used to type threatening letters, search for illegal pornography, write life changing stories and books, or just update people to the inane activities they may be involved in.

We punish behavior. We punish the driver who does a hundred a fifty in anything, not just the Hellcat. We punish those who behave badly.

 

[SavannahMann]

LOL No it does not you Lying piece of human refuse. The amendment clearly states the PEOPLE have the right. And EVERY single amendment where it says the people have a right it is KNOWN to mean all citizens. But you retards claim thhis one is an exception. Further the Court clarified it. You are stupid ignorant and a MORON.

The court didn't "clarify" it, they ignored 200 years or legal juris prudence that stated the second was about militias.

The reality- gun ownership was RARE in the colonies, because a gun cost more than a skilled worker could make in a month. It was seen as something only the elite would have. but then again, the Founding Slave Rapists felt the same way about voting.

Actually, the Heller decision showed that the individual right to bear arms, while not unlimited, was an individual right.

 

[Muhammed]

The three cops who were eventually fired because of their actions at the Parkland High School Shooting, have been ordered reinstated after an Arbiter sided with them. The complaint was that it took too long to fire the trio, and that was wrong, and they should be given their jobs back with back pay.

Florida officer fired for his response during Parkland shooting will get his badge back | CNN

One of the Florida sheriff's deputies who was fired for his response during the 2018 Parkland school shooting will be reinstated with back pay and retain his seniority.

www.cnn.com

Are any of you relieved that these fine officers are back on the job? Citizens do you feel safer knowing these folks will be patrolling your neighborhood? Cops, do you want them backing you up during a dangerous situation? What job could you assign them to that would not present a moment where they might have to take action? Crossing guard?

If you assume that there is no shame in cowardice. It is just the way that person is made up. Ok, fine. But that person should not be in a position where risking his life is part of the job. He should stay safe, in an office, or somewhere where the threat of violence is as low as possible.

You're full of shit. Risking your life is not in a police officer's job description.

You watch too many action movies.

 

[SavannahMann]

The three cops who were eventually fired because of their actions at the Parkland High School Shooting, have been ordered reinstated after an Arbiter sided with them. The complaint was that it took too long to fire the trio, and that was wrong, and they should be given their jobs back with back pay.

Florida officer fired for his response during Parkland shooting will get his badge back | CNN

One of the Florida sheriff's deputies who was fired for his response during the 2018 Parkland school shooting will be reinstated with back pay and retain his seniority.

www.cnn.com

Are any of you relieved that these fine officers are back on the job? Citizens do you feel safer knowing these folks will be patrolling your neighborhood? Cops, do you want them backing you up during a dangerous situation? What job could you assign them to that would not present a moment where they might have to take action? Crossing guard?

If you assume that there is no shame in cowardice. It is just the way that person is made up. Ok, fine. But that person should not be in a position where risking his life is part of the job. He should stay safe, in an office, or somewhere where the threat of violence is as low as possible.

You're full of shit. Risking your life is not in a police officer's job description.

You watch too many action movies.

Indeed? And what of the Army? Or Navy? Coast Guard? Risking ones life in service is exactly what the higher calling narrative describes. Police are a Service branch.

But let’s take this as merely a Law Enforcement Branch. Inside the school, an individual was committing numerous crimes, continually. While the officers failed to enter, additional crimes were being committed. Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Murder, Attempted Murder. There was little danger in the offender getting away, since you could hear the gunshots continuing inside.

So as a matter of law enforcement, the cessation of the breaking of the law, by the offender, the officers also failed. So Policy, and Duty, no matter how you define it, were certainly ignored.

 

[SavannahMann]

The Dealer will never be in court explaining they followed the law and sold the car and reported the sale to the DMV and the Tax Commissioner.

Here's the difference. To own a car in Illinois, I have to be licensed, insured, and permited by both the state and city I live in to own a car. There are hundreds of cops out there ready to pull me over if I violate even a minor traffic law like speeding or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. I would LOVE it if we regulated guns the way we regulate cars.

But you want gun makers to suffer through this. Not because you want justice for the victims. Not because you want to hold the guilty accountable. But because you want to bankrupt the companies with frivolous lawsuits.

I want to bankrupt them because of their irresponsibility. The thing is, cars are utilitarian. Why you do have car enthusiasts, most of us just use our cars to get places. Guns, on the other hand, are really not necessary. There's no good reason to own a gun if you aren't a soldier or a cop. But the gun industry keeps marketing even more dangerous guns, becuase they realize they are going to make more money off of THIS GUY

View attachment 339836

than they will off the guy who bought one gun once, and maybe takes it out once a year to target practice.

In another thread, you admit you want to bankrupt companies who make guns, which proves the provisions applied to the Lawful Firearms Protection Act is required. But let’s take your car analogy, weak as it might be.

I actually do not have to license, get tags and pay taxes, or get insurance on a car I buy. I have to do so if I want to drive it on the road. But lets say I want to use it on my property. A work truck that will not leave the land. No tags, insurance, or taxes required. I can even get a waiver and get my gasoline Tax Free. Red Gas. A crime to use it on the road, but legal to use on private property.

Or let’s say I buy a Four Wheel Drive Truck, I make major modifications to it in my garage, and when I am done, it is set up for mudding. But those modifications have made it illegal to operate on the road. Now, I am not allowed to get tags, much less insurance. No insurance company would pay off if I was driving it in the mud, as intended, and crashed it. If they did, it would be accompanied by a letter saying I am no longer insured with them.

The truth is, there are a lot of vehicles, that are not insured. Dirt Bikes, Four Wheelers, Go Fast Carts. None of them are insured or licensed, they’re illegal to use on the road.

So would you charge insurance only on those who want to take their guns into public? The CCW folks? They already pay fees to get their CCW, and many, myself included, are signed up with groups like the USCCA, which offers insurance so long as I am not committing a crime with my weapon at the time of the shooting. In other words, I did not go to an Ex Girlfriends house and fire some shots at her. It has to be defensive shooting.

As I said, they pay fees, so the taxes is covered. They’re licensed, and if they are not insured, they generally do not cause any problems. Statistically, the CCW folks are the least criminal of all groupings of citizens. Police are arrested more frequently, per captia, than CCW folks. The McMichaels not withstanding, the CCW folks most common criminal activity is not having their license with them. In Georgia, that is a Felony.

So demanding that people have insurance and taxes, and licenses for their weapons, is that not a little vindictive? What would you say if someone decided that Explicit Albums must pay a fee to be sold? I would argue it is a violation of the First Amendment. I would encourage one of the groups I belong to, the ACLU, to take the case and fight it.

What you would do, if you enacted this scheme, is put self defense out of the reach of the poorest people, living in the most crime ridden neighborhoods. You would hurt those who need it the most. The rich, and middle class, would pay the fees, and laugh at you while they were doing it. People who had guns, and couldn’t afford the fees, like the poor, would become criminals, and all you would do is make a lot of White Power idiots very happy. Then they could point at the poor Blacks, Browns, and Whites, and say that they are all criminals. It would be used as proof of the criminal nature of the minorities who could not afford your punitive taxes, and fees, and drive more people into their waiting arms. Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me, which is another, in a long list, of why I would Oppose it.

 

[Muhammed]

The three cops who were eventually fired because of their actions at the Parkland High School Shooting, have been ordered reinstated after an Arbiter sided with them. The complaint was that it took too long to fire the trio, and that was wrong, and they should be given their jobs back with back pay.

Florida officer fired for his response during Parkland shooting will get his badge back | CNN

One of the Florida sheriff's deputies who was fired for his response during the 2018 Parkland school shooting will be reinstated with back pay and retain his seniority.

www.cnn.com

Are any of you relieved that these fine officers are back on the job? Citizens do you feel safer knowing these folks will be patrolling your neighborhood? Cops, do you want them backing you up during a dangerous situation? What job could you assign them to that would not present a moment where they might have to take action? Crossing guard?

If you assume that there is no shame in cowardice. It is just the way that person is made up. Ok, fine. But that person should not be in a position where risking his life is part of the job. He should stay safe, in an office, or somewhere where the threat of violence is as low as possible.

You're full of shit. Risking your life is not in a police officer's job description.

You watch too many action movies.

Indeed? And what of the Army? Or Navy? Coast Guard? Risking ones life in service is exactly what the higher calling narrative describes. Police are a Service branch.

But let’s take this as merely a Law Enforcement Branch. Inside the school, an individual was committing numerous crimes, continually. While the officers failed to enter, additional crimes were being committed. Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Murder, Attempted Murder. There was little danger in the offender getting away, since you could hear the gunshots continuing inside.

So as a matter of law enforcement, the cessation of the breaking of the law, by the offender, the officers also failed. So Policy, and Duty, no matter how you define it, were certainly ignored.

Bullshit. What order did they fail to comply with?

I swear, you people think it's a video game where they have full unlimited situational awareness.

It's ridiculous to try to make them scapegoats.

 

[Crepitus]

The three cops who were eventually fired because of their actions at the Parkland High School Shooting, have been ordered reinstated after an Arbiter sided with them. The complaint was that it took too long to fire the trio, and that was wrong, and they should be given their jobs back with back pay.

Florida officer fired for his response during Parkland shooting will get his badge back | CNN

One of the Florida sheriff's deputies who was fired for his response during the 2018 Parkland school shooting will be reinstated with back pay and retain his seniority.

www.cnn.com

Are any of you relieved that these fine officers are back on the job? Citizens do you feel safer knowing these folks will be patrolling your neighborhood? Cops, do you want them backing you up during a dangerous situation? What job could you assign them to that would not present a moment where they might have to take action? Crossing guard?

If you assume that there is no shame in cowardice. It is just the way that person is made up. Ok, fine. But that person should not be in a position where risking his life is part of the job. He should stay safe, in an office, or somewhere where the threat of violence is as low as possible.

Desk jobs for sure.

 

[miketx]

The three cops who were eventually fired because of their actions at the Parkland High School Shooting, have been ordered reinstated after an Arbiter sided with them. The complaint was that it took too long to fire the trio, and that was wrong, and they should be given their jobs back with back pay.

Florida officer fired for his response during Parkland shooting will get his badge back | CNN

One of the Florida sheriff's deputies who was fired for his response during the 2018 Parkland school shooting will be reinstated with back pay and retain his seniority.

www.cnn.com

Are any of you relieved that these fine officers are back on the job? Citizens do you feel safer knowing these folks will be patrolling your neighborhood? Cops, do you want them backing you up during a dangerous situation? What job could you assign them to that would not present a moment where they might have to take action? Crossing guard?

If you assume that there is no shame in cowardice. It is just the way that person is made up. Ok, fine. But that person should not be in a position where risking his life is part of the job. He should stay safe, in an office, or somewhere where the threat of violence is as low as possible.

No it's not safe as long as democrats are free.

 

[miketx]

The three cops who were eventually fired because of their actions at the Parkland High School Shooting, have been ordered reinstated after an Arbiter sided with them. The complaint was that it took too long to fire the trio, and that was wrong, and they should be given their jobs back with back pay.

Florida officer fired for his response during Parkland shooting will get his badge back | CNN

One of the Florida sheriff's deputies who was fired for his response during the 2018 Parkland school shooting will be reinstated with back pay and retain his seniority.

www.cnn.com

Are any of you relieved that these fine officers are back on the job? Citizens do you feel safer knowing these folks will be patrolling your neighborhood? Cops, do you want them backing you up during a dangerous situation? What job could you assign them to that would not present a moment where they might have to take action? Crossing guard?

If you assume that there is no shame in cowardice. It is just the way that person is made up. Ok, fine. But that person should not be in a position where risking his life is part of the job. He should stay safe, in an office, or somewhere where the threat of violence is as low as possible.

You're full of shit. Risking your life is not in a police officer's job description.

You watch too many action movies.

Indeed? And what of the Army? Or Navy? Coast Guard? Risking ones life in service is exactly what the higher calling narrative describes. Police are a Service branch.

But let’s take this as merely a Law Enforcement Branch. Inside the school, an individual was committing numerous crimes, continually. While the officers failed to enter, additional crimes were being committed. Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Murder, Attempted Murder. There was little danger in the offender getting away, since you could hear the gunshots continuing inside.

So as a matter of law enforcement, the cessation of the breaking of the law, by the offender, the officers also failed. So Policy, and Duty, no matter how you define it, were certainly ignored.

Bullshit. What order did they fail to comply with?

I swear, you people think it's a video game where they have full unlimited situational awareness.

It's ridiculous to try to make them scapegoats.

Why you got ham in your name?

 

[Muhammed]

The three cops who were eventually fired because of their actions at the Parkland High School Shooting, have been ordered reinstated after an Arbiter sided with them. The complaint was that it took too long to fire the trio, and that was wrong, and they should be given their jobs back with back pay.

Florida officer fired for his response during Parkland shooting will get his badge back | CNN

One of the Florida sheriff's deputies who was fired for his response during the 2018 Parkland school shooting will be reinstated with back pay and retain his seniority.

www.cnn.com

Are any of you relieved that these fine officers are back on the job? Citizens do you feel safer knowing these folks will be patrolling your neighborhood? Cops, do you want them backing you up during a dangerous situation? What job could you assign them to that would not present a moment where they might have to take action? Crossing guard?

If you assume that there is no shame in cowardice. It is just the way that person is made up. Ok, fine. But that person should not be in a position where risking his life is part of the job. He should stay safe, in an office, or somewhere where the threat of violence is as low as possible.

You're full of shit. Risking your life is not in a police officer's job description.

You watch too many action movies.

Indeed? And what of the Army? Or Navy? Coast Guard? Risking ones life in service is exactly what the higher calling narrative describes. Police are a Service branch.

But let’s take this as merely a Law Enforcement Branch. Inside the school, an individual was committing numerous crimes, continually. While the officers failed to enter, additional crimes were being committed. Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Murder, Attempted Murder. There was little danger in the offender getting away, since you could hear the gunshots continuing inside.

So as a matter of law enforcement, the cessation of the breaking of the law, by the offender, the officers also failed. So Policy, and Duty, no matter how you define it, were certainly ignored.

Bullshit. What order did they fail to comply with?

I swear, you people think it's a video game where they have full unlimited situational awareness.

It's ridiculous to try to make them scapegoats.

Why you got ham in your name?

Because I thought it was funny. to make fun of muzzies.

 

[Muhammed]

Driving and owning a car are NOT a protected right by the US Constitution.

Neither is owning a gun.

The constitution just says the states can keep militias...

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[miketx]

The three cops who were eventually fired because of their actions at the Parkland High School Shooting, have been ordered reinstated after an Arbiter sided with them. The complaint was that it took too long to fire the trio, and that was wrong, and they should be given their jobs back with back pay.

Florida officer fired for his response during Parkland shooting will get his badge back | CNN

One of the Florida sheriff's deputies who was fired for his response during the 2018 Parkland school shooting will be reinstated with back pay and retain his seniority.

www.cnn.com

Are any of you relieved that these fine officers are back on the job? Citizens do you feel safer knowing these folks will be patrolling your neighborhood? Cops, do you want them backing you up during a dangerous situation? What job could you assign them to that would not present a moment where they might have to take action? Crossing guard?

If you assume that there is no shame in cowardice. It is just the way that person is made up. Ok, fine. But that person should not be in a position where risking his life is part of the job. He should stay safe, in an office, or somewhere where the threat of violence is as low as possible.

You're full of shit. Risking your life is not in a police officer's job description.

You watch too many action movies.

Indeed? And what of the Army? Or Navy? Coast Guard? Risking ones life in service is exactly what the higher calling narrative describes. Police are a Service branch.

But let’s take this as merely a Law Enforcement Branch. Inside the school, an individual was committing numerous crimes, continually. While the officers failed to enter, additional crimes were being committed. Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Murder, Attempted Murder. There was little danger in the offender getting away, since you could hear the gunshots continuing inside.

So as a matter of law enforcement, the cessation of the breaking of the law, by the offender, the officers also failed. So Policy, and Duty, no matter how you define it, were certainly ignored.

Bullshit. What order did they fail to comply with?

I swear, you people think it's a video game where they have full unlimited situational awareness.

It's ridiculous to try to make them scapegoats.

Why you got ham in your name?

Because I thought it was funny. to make fun of muzzies.

That's not what I want to hear.

 

[JoeB131]

In another thread, you admit you want to bankrupt companies who make guns, which proves the provisions applied to the Lawful Firearms Protection Act is required. But let’s take your car analogy, weak as it might be.

I actually do not have to license, get tags and pay taxes, or get insurance on a car I buy. I have to do so if I want to drive it on the road. But lets say I want to use it on my property. A work truck that will not leave the land. No tags, insurance, or taxes required. I can even get a waiver and get my gasoline Tax Free. Red Gas. A crime to use it on the road, but legal to use on private property.

That's kind of a retarded analogy. Okay, let's say we let you own a gun, but you can't own any bullets.

That works, too.

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It says that in the context of a "Well-Regulated Militia".

 

[JoeB131]

So demanding that people have insurance and taxes, and licenses for their weapons, is that not a little vindictive? What would you say if someone decided that Explicit Albums must pay a fee to be sold? I would argue it is a violation of the First Amendment. I would encourage one of the groups I belong to, the ACLU, to take the case and fight it.

Naw, it's sensible. Vindictive would be sending in the ATF to kick down your door in the middle of the night, and then after they've confiscated your guns, MAKE YOU WATCH as they melt them down. "MY BABIES!!!!!"

What you would do, if you enacted this scheme, is put self defense out of the reach of the poorest people, living in the most crime ridden neighborhoods. You would hurt those who need it the most. The rich, and middle class, would pay the fees, and laugh at you while they were doing it. People who had guns, and couldn’t afford the fees, like the poor, would become criminals, and all you would do is make a lot of White Power idiots very happy. Then they could point at the poor Blacks, Browns, and Whites, and say that they are all criminals. It would be used as proof of the criminal nature of the minorities who could not afford your punitive taxes, and fees, and drive more people into their waiting arms. Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me, which is another, in a long list, of why I would Oppose it.

Oh, please. If you guys were okay with black folks having guns, you wouldn't support THIS kind of shit.