calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 So, watch the video Chris. But there are too many police depts out there who are willing to treat Americans like stormtroopers, living on total power over people. Oops, and I see you just made a liberalasusual stupidass joke about the video, which you probably won't watch, because liberals emotionally vent about issues, and hate valid information to the contrary of their emotions. Yes, Bush was president during Katrina. But the gov was a lefty liberal democrat. Man up and discuss the content of the video instead of redirecting in any way possible. So, yes, it WAS the liberal state gov that did the brownshirts intimidation of honest, innocent Americans, and confiscation of their guns. Now, those guns weren't even registered - and think how many times this would happen if these dirty bastard "police" knew where all the guns were? Bush was a very, very pro-2nd Amendment president. It's the gov who calls out the troops. Read up on Kathleen Blanco, the DEMOCRAT liberal governor who screwed up the Katrina relief situation. SHE declared the emergency. And SHE refused to let the National Guard come in to help, and SHE refused to even let the RED CROSS come in. And, as lefty libs do, she blamed Bush for his lack of assistance, making a bogus complaint for political reasons. Backfired, she lost all support and didn't run for reelection, knowing she ruined her own reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Drugs aren't registered, yet the police somehow know who's carrying and who isn't. Maybe there will be more 'random' spot checks to see who's carrying a gun, and if it's not registered, take the gun and fine the person. The fact that you think the only way the police can do anything about anything is if the things are registered is very strange. As for the licence fee being raised - what if it were free? But then, the government would have to pay *something* to keep the system in place. So how about it costs, let's say $50 for a 10 year licence, or some other agreeable fee, with stipulations to keep the fee from rising more than inflation? You have a whole lot of counter-points that can easily be resolved with just a little common sense. Not saying that the whole process would be easy, but it's doable if everyone weren't so paranoid. This isn't nazi germany, or china under mao. This is the 21st century, where America, aided by other UN countries, went to way to remove a dictator who was doing evil things to his people; where a president can only serve 8 years at most before someone else takes over - so there's only so much they can actually do. It would take years to get the infrastructure in place to do anything like your tinfoil hat post - I'm pretty sure if a president were to try that they wouldn't be re-elected after the first term; I'm pretty sure the army - who would need to be onside of course - wouldn't carry it out. The police use a lot of evil awful racial profiling and just profiling in general when they "somehow know who's carrying" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I did watch the video. They were heavy handed with the old lady, and probably overzealous in taking the guns from everybody. But, I suspect they basically declared marshal law, given the amount of looting. I don't really know enough about the situation to comment. Do you know if the people of NO now have the right to their guns again? Of course, it's difficult to return the guns to the owners, since they weren't registered... Also, just to clarify, while the mayor was a democrat, that was under a republican government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 reposting what Cal posted: What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun confiscation? let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990sWhat about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 The Korean shop owners should have defended their businesses by sending out strongly worded letters and waiting for the non-existent police presence to arrive. I don't understand why so many people aren't getting this. Did the police stop or in many cases even try to defend the businesses in Ferguson or Balitimore? You also had the riots in England a few years ago where thugs ran the streets for a few days terrorizing the citizens until police finally got the situation under control. But until the police got things under control you had citizens unable to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Chris - martial law was NEVER declared - that is a federal thing, and the Gov wouldn't let the feds help. Refused to let the Red Cross help. She declared a state of emergency, and did it all on her own, and it blew up in her face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And how different was it compared to the baltimore and ferguson riots? Where people were presumably armed and able to defend themselves? Not very is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 What I read in Ferguson and Baltimore were business owners calling police and the police not responding to help. I did not read of any shop keepers standing armed at their stores like the LA riots where Korean business owners did and they saved their businesses from being looted and destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And 35 people were shot and killed in those riots, compared to about 3 in total over London, Baltimore and Ferguson, where shopkeepers weren't acting as vigilantes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Mobs strip and rob people in third night of riots in London and across England http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/mobs-strip-and-rob-people-in-third-night-of-rioters-in-london-and-across-england/story-e6freuy9-1226111887442 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Mobs strip and rob people in third night of riots in London and across England http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/mobs-strip-and-rob-people-in-third-night-of-rioters-in-london-and-across-england/story-e6freuy9-1226111887442 And let's ask those people if they'd rather be dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And let's ask those people if they'd rather be dead. Or we could ask them if they would have liked to be able to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And let's ask those people if they'd rather be dead. I would rather ask them if they were allowed to have conceal carry weapons to defend themselves You were ahead of me logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I know I prefer having the ability to be responsible for my own safety and not have to depend upon the timeliness of a police officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Remember this one Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 . The only reason that's a taboo is because it pisses you off. Just like homosexuality pisses some people off. I'm sorry you must understand i'm hailing you from another planet and sometimes the connection is iffy, did you just say pedophilia is taboo because it pisses people off? And that consenting sex between two adults of the same gender must be viewed as the same because some people are pissed off by that? Did I really read that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Physical damage is a completely different thing. Should a man with a large penis face criminal charges for marrying a small woman? Nobody should hurt anybody for fucks sake. And the psychological damage??? That's because puritanical society will hound her like the Sisters of Magdalena. WSS Did she marry a man with a large penis by choice or was she forced? See these really aren't that hard. Of course you're flailing all over the place, my god I mean all over the place now sex with children is all relative cause we let two gays marry...but seriously this is getting old? If a woman wants to marry a man with a large penis....there's probably a good reason for that huh? Gee what would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 So here's something to think about. I'm assuming each of us masturbated for the first time in our early teens. What was your very first fantasy? Magazine picture? One of your teachers? A girl in school? (if it's something really really kinky you don't have to tell us ) Did that experience warp your mind? Did it create psychological damage that you live with to this day? Seriously tell me why or why not. (keep in mind your fantasy with the teacher or the magazine model or the classmate would be considered illegal) Honest answers only WSS So a 2nd grader beating off to one of his cute classmates should be a punishable offense? Are you honestly making the argument that if a grown man can't have sex with a 2nd grader than neither should young boys her age? Look if I had an 8 year old and she had sex with another 8 year old boy, I would "very" upset...but mainly with myself because it showcased a major deficiency in my up bringing of her. A grown man having sex with my 8 year old daughter is a reflection on that man however. You seem to have trouble grasping this. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I'm sorry you must understand i'm hailing you from another planet and sometimes the connection is iffy, did you just say pedophilia is taboo because it pisses people off? And that consenting sex between two adults of the same gender must be viewed as the same because some people are pissed off by that? Did I really read that correct? Apparently English is not the first language on the planet you're calling from. Sex with a prepubescent child is pedophilia. It's most certainly an unnatural fetish. Disagree? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Charge WSS with a pointless analogy then expand on it? Way to take a stand. Your life is pointless, want me to expand on that? I can. I'm here for you bro. You can always count on me to expand ad infinitum to you how useless, meaningless and pointless your existence is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 So a 2nd grader beating off to one of his cute classmates should be a punishable offense? Are you honestly making the argument that if a grown man can't have sex with a 2nd grader than neither should young boys her age? Look if I had an 8 year old and she had sex with another 8 year old boy, I would "very" upset...but mainly with myself because it showcased a major deficiency in my up bringing of her. A grown man having sex with my 8 year old daughter is a reflection on that man however. You seem to have trouble grasping this. Why? I'd se 2nd grade is a little young for beating off but its your own logic that says its fucked up to beat off thinking of an adult which would be illegal. Is it or not? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Did she marry a man with a large penis by choice or was she forced? See these really aren't that hard. Of course you're flailing all over the place, my god I mean all over the place now sex with children is all relative cause we let two gays marry...but seriously this is getting old? If a woman wants to marry a man with a large penis....there's probably a good reason for that huh? Gee what would that be? Again with the mised point? Somebody brought up physical damage. Nobody should cause physical damage to anyone no matter how old they are. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Apparently English is not the first language on the planet you're calling from. Sex with a prepubescent child is pedophilia. It's most certainly an unnatural fetish. Disagree? WSS Uh yes...however in that post you were referring to said pedophilia as something that's more or less relative depending on what culture you might have been raised in. See in the modern world, and give the secular progressives their just due, they've come to the conclusion that having sex with children is pervasively damaging to them. Two children having sex with each other, while it shouldn't happen....is not the same as a grown man predating on the haplessness of small children. The empirical irrefutable evidence for this has long been in the books so put the little peener away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Remember this one Chris England, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I'd se 2nd grade is a little young for beating off but its your own logic that says its fucked up to beat off thinking of an adult which would be illegal. Is it or not? WSS wait wut? When did I say it's fucked up for a kid to beat off to an adult? That's actually probably the better scenario, wouldn't you agree? The kid recognizes that sexual activity between two people should start at roughly those ages where you're fully developed both physically and mentally. I will concede this issue gets murky at those ages approaching 18. But we had to arbitrarily choose an age knowing full well that some girls are fully ready to go by 16 and some women take till well over 18. All these calculations were already done for you bro.....I just feel like you're about to pull a hammy here or something with all these mental gymnastics you're trying to do equating homosexuality with other vastly depraved sexual conduct. Again the calculus was done for you long ago so just sit back and have a coke bro. Leave the heavy lifting to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Again with the mised point? Somebody brought up physical damage. Nobody should cause physical damage to anyone no matter how old they are. WSS omg I can't believe i'm having this conversation with a grown man. If a grown woman wants to walk funny for a couple days IT"S CAUSE SHE LIKES IT YOU GIMP. What are you not getting here? If she doesn't like it then she won't marry a guy with a huge cock. Why on earth does this need to be spelled out for you? And if it's happening against her will.......what's that called genius? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 omg I can't believe i'm having this conversation with a grown man. If a grown woman wants to walk funny for a couple days IT"S CAUSE SHE LIKES IT YOU GIMP. What are you not getting here? If she doesn't like it then she won't marry a guy with a huge cock. Why on earth does this need to be spelled out for you? And if it's happening against her will.......what's that called genius? Sorry you can't understand the conversation. There isn't any point in going further with you until you do. Try to follow the trail of conversations if you care to. If not just move along. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Uh yes...however in that post you were referring to said pedophilia as something that's more or less relative depending on what culture you might have been raised in. See in the modern world, and give the secular progressives their just due, they've come to the conclusion that having sex with children is pervasively damaging to them. Two children having sex with each other, while it shouldn't happen....is not the same as a grown man predating on the haplessness of small children. The empirical irrefutable evidence for this has long been in the books so put the little peener away. no it isn't, and it wasn't. I'm talking about other cultures and which 13 and 14 year olds are regularly sexually active. at the point of puberty. Which is scientifically natural in the animal kingdom of which we are a part. quit trying to sound so f****** incredulous and read something once in awhile. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Bottom line again since you are too lazy or stupid, is this: we have plenty of laws, many of them based on sexuality, that are in place for no scientific reason except for the fact they piss us, you and me and just about everyone, off. That's why homosexuality has previously been illegal. Because it pisses people off. not because there's any harm that comes from it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.