Results 1 to 10 of 142

Thread: Constitutional Rights

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Penis シ View Post
    Ehh, I agree with the guy on the left in the first one. In the second one; no hardcore pornography? That seems a bit pervasive. I understand no child or animal, but what I own of what two consenting adults shouldn't be called into question. He also has an issue with profanity? I understand limiting the rights of free speech as far as preventing dangerous situations, but again, a law to make people feel more comfortable is bullshit. I'll say what I want where I want and wont give a shit. As far as the flag burning thing goes; I get it. But at the same time, I wouldn't burn an American flag, I wouldn't associate with someone that has; but I wouldn't say "HEY LET'S SEND THIS GUY TO JAIL FOR EXPRESSING HIMSELF". It's just benign.

    And I go back. That motherfucker said to ban "assault weapons". Fuck that made up term. "This gun looks scary, I bet we can ban it if we cause confusion about it". I take it back Spasm. That guy is simply a Contrarian and a dumb one at that.
    for a weapon to be considered an "assault weapon" doesn't it have to be chambered in a certain caliber (or range of calibers) and have automatic fire capability exceeding a certain RPM?
    Quote Originally Posted by OMGBEARS
    I feel it is important for me to let you know how feeble your efforts to strike such feelings inside of me really are. I have the internal fortitude of a large animal, an elephant, for instance. Likewise, I'm the result of coitus between the devil and a pack mule made out of chainsaws, so I am extremely strong, and carry little care for others in this world. Trees also stand aside due to my chainsaw blood.
    Quote Originally Posted by ๖ReS View Post
    How am I supposed to tell you to fuck off without replying ?

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acolyte_to_jippity View Post
    for a weapon to be considered an "assault weapon" doesn't it have to be chambered in a certain caliber (or range of calibers) and have automatic fire capability exceeding a certain RPM?
    no.

    an assault weapon is any object used to assault another. therefor making an assault weapons ban, ban things like rocks, pens, bats, milk cartons, plush teddy bears and pillows.
    Personal reform

  3. Default

    from wikipedia:

    Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.

    it's ambiguous, so no law can be made about it as an ambiguous law is pointless.

    Through the darkness of futures past,
    The magician longs to see
    One chants out between two worlds:
    Fire, walk with me.

  4. Default

    What's better is how the word was created. It was created to SOUND like Assault Rifle during a time when assault rifles were already banned. This got people all flustered and now the media uses the two terms ALMOST interchangeably. Pisses me off when Piers Morgan talks about how fast these guns can shoot, etc. Any time I hear someone talk about "assault weapons" I automatically assume they're an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by maynard View Post
    your helmet is being shipped.

  5. Default

    Given that the gun is to protect me from the gov I do not think they shoot fast enough...

    I want the old days where I could own a ship loaded up with some cannons...

    Think for a moment that back when the founders wrote this yes all they had were muskets but individuals that had the money owned armed ships capable of destroying an entire city! If anything I feel like individually we have given up a lot of heavy firepower that we previously did have in the past. I do not think anyone today is allowed a weapon that can take out a city but back then such things could be found on privately owned ships.

    Obviously today we do not want people running around with the ability to blow up a city and I do not think anyone is trying to allow for that but it is something to think about as to what sort of firepower the founders were allowing and were already present in their day.



  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZERO View Post
    Given that the gun is to protect me from the gov I do not think they shoot fast enough...

    I want the old days where I could own a ship loaded up with some cannons...
    Maritime law still allows for some crazy shit in the States. That is why the "Freemen" and stateside Moors will claim they do not recognize the jurisdiction of most courts and LEOs because of the gold-trimmed flags flown in many courts.

    Anyways, on the topic of owning ships outfitted with cannons, how comfortable is everyone with rearming local militias?

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SCRIBBLE View Post
    Maritime law still allows for some crazy shit in the States. That is why the "Freemen" and stateside Moors will claim they do not recognize the jurisdiction of most courts and LEOs because of the gold-trimmed flags flown in many courts.

    Anyways, on the topic of owning ships outfitted with cannons, how comfortable is everyone with rearming local militias?
    you saw how well that went with the Antoine Martin case.
    Quote Originally Posted by OMGBEARS
    I feel it is important for me to let you know how feeble your efforts to strike such feelings inside of me really are. I have the internal fortitude of a large animal, an elephant, for instance. Likewise, I'm the result of coitus between the devil and a pack mule made out of chainsaws, so I am extremely strong, and carry little care for others in this world. Trees also stand aside due to my chainsaw blood.
    Quote Originally Posted by ๖ReS View Post
    How am I supposed to tell you to fuck off without replying ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •