(February 21, 2021 at 5:25 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 5:18 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Doesn't specify any particular firearm.  Womp womp.  

If you want to refer to some right that might allow you to put a goddamned vulcan on your truck...it's the 9th implicitly, not the 2nd explicitly.  Not any bit about weapons..a bit about rights not enumerated.

It doesn't even specify firearm.

It says "bear arms" i.e. handheld weapons.

So - no nukes. But when phasers become reality - I want one. No cleaning - no moving parts....

Unless a nuke is handheld, in your telling - but ofc you're a goddamned idiot - so who pays attention to your telling of anything?

I'm starting to suspect that the constitution doesn't actually protect your rights to a firearm, handheld or otherwise. You playing with a full deck? Are you concerned about your ability to qualify?

That's what you're asserting. A right to unqualified possession. There is no such right.

Quote:It doesn't even specify firearm.

It says "bear arms" i.e. handheld weapons.

So - no nukes. But when phasers become reality - I want one. No cleaning - no moving parts....

No, it doesn't specify handheld weapons at all. But even if it did nukes aren't off the table you can put one of those in a suitcase and also should have the right to a handheld anthrax dispenser. As for phasers, you realize they could be classified as a WMD.


(note by suitcase i mean backpack but still like a minor point as it could still be considered a personal arm )

(February 21, 2021 at 5:25 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 5:18 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Doesn't specify any particular firearm.  Womp womp.  

If you want to refer to some right that might allow you to put a goddamned vulcan on your truck...it's the 9th implicitly, not the 2nd explicitly.  Not any bit about weapons..a bit about rights not enumerated.

It doesn't even specify firearm.

It says "bear arms" i.e. handheld weapons.

So - no nukes. But when phasers become reality - I want one. No cleaning - no moving parts....

That's a plasma weapon so if you roll a 1 you will take a wound; unless it was made by the Tau.

(February 21, 2021 at 5:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 5:25 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: It doesn't even specify firearm.

It says "bear arms" i.e. handheld weapons.

So - no nukes. But when phasers become reality - I want one. No cleaning - no moving parts....

Unless a nuke is handheld, in your telling - but ofc you're a goddamned idiot - so who pays attention to your telling of anything?

I'm starting to suspect that the constitution doesn't actually protect your rights to a firearm, handheld or otherwise.  You playing with a full deck?  Are you concerned about your ability to qualify?

That's what you're asserting.  A right to unqualified possession.  There is no such right.

Consider you can put a nuke in a suitcase it's a weird cut-off point he has, and does that mean spray bottles of biological chemical weapons should be allowed?

(note by suitcase i mean backpack but still like a minor point as it could still be considered a personal arm )

(February 21, 2021 at 5:41 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 5:28 pm)Brian37 Wrote: FFS, speech is regulated too. News stations that use public airwaves have to have broadcasting licensing. I know, I have interned in TV and worked in Radio. I would have gotten fired from the radio station I worked at if I said "fuck" on air.  Cable tv shows like Real Time are regulated differently and don't rely on public airwaves. You can even be fined for not playing station IDs at the legal time required. 

Even if one runs a private media network, it is still a business, and still requires a business license. Regulations are not calls for bans. Just like having health inspectors check a restaurant is not a call to ban selling food. 

You also cannot shout fire in a theatre if there is none.

The FCC does NOT have a list of words you can't say on the air - numbnuts....  The determination of what can be said is " community standards". They do not regulate or license speech.

And the shouting fire in a theater bit is just fucking stupid. It's simply illegal. Having a license wouldn't make it any different. Were it so - your license to own guns would give you permission to shoot people.

Dumbass

"Community standards" is still a regulation numbnuts. The first amendment does not ban regulations on speech. It only protects your right to dissent peacefully. It does not give you the right to call for murder of others, or incite insurrection. SO YEA, speech can be and is regulated. Dissent peacefully, is a REGULATION. If free speech were absolute, one could call for murder of others or insurrection. 

The far right nuts really do want it to be legal to shoot people and get away with it if they had their way. "Stand your ground" laws are fucking bullshit. They allow assholes to shoot first and claim fear after. Trevon Martin died needlessly because a Rambo asshole wanted to play police. 

Having laws that require licenses for firearms is not a violation of either the first or second amendment. Just like having laws against drinking and driving isn't banning drinking, or driving, but merely a REGULATION that you cannot do both at the same time. 

There is no violation of your rights for say banning firearms from passenger cabins or nursing homes. There also would not be a ban on firearms if one were to limit clip size or volume of firearms one can own. Just like we no longer sell cars that burn leaded gas isn't a ban on auto sales.

Stop harping on the 2nd Amendment. It isn't going away. But they also wrote that when they only had muskets. Things have changed since then.



Gun owners on the extreme far right confuse selfishness as fighting for "rights".

Quote:The FCC does NOT have a list of words you can't say on the air - numbnuts....  The determination of what can be said is " community standards". They do not regulate or license speech.

And the shouting fire in a theater bit is just fucking stupid. It's simply illegal. Having a license wouldn't make it any different. Were it so - your license to own guns would give you permission to shoot people.

Dumbass

Irrelevant really because you just acknowledged that there can be legal restrictions to something written in the constitution. So explain why guns can't have similar restrictions

(February 21, 2021 at 6:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 5:41 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: The FCC does NOT have a list of words you can't say on the air - numbnuts....  The determination of what can be said is " community standards". They do not regulate or license speech.

And the shouting fire in a theater bit is just fucking stupid. It's simply illegal. Having a license wouldn't make it any different. Were it so - your license to own guns would give you permission to shoot people.

Dumbass

"Community standards" is still a regulation numbnuts. The first amendment does not ban regulations on speech. It only protects your right to dissent peacefully. It does not give you the right to call for murder of others, or incite insurrection. SO YEA, speech can be and is regulated. Dissent peacefully, is a REGULATION. If free speech were absolute, one could call for murder of others or insurrection. 

The far right nuts really do want it to be legal to shoot people and get away with it if they had their way. "Stand your ground" laws are fucking bullshit. They allow assholes to shoot first and claim fear after. Trevon Martin died needlessly because a Rambo asshole wanted to play police. 

Having laws that require licenses for firearms is not a violation of either the first or second amendment. Just like having laws against drinking and driving isn't banning drinking, or driving, but merely a REGULATION that you cannot do both at the same time. 

There is no violation of your rights for say banning firearms from passenger cabins or nursing homes. There also would not be a ban on firearms if one were to limit clip size or volume of firearms one can own. Just like we no longer sell cars that burn leaded gas isn't a ban on auto sales.

Stop harping on the 2nd Amendment. It isn't going away. But they also wrote that when they only had muskets. Things have changed since then.



Gun owners on the extreme far right confuse selfishness as fighting for "rights".

Blah blah blah de blah....

I stand by the OP.

You voted ( D ). You voted to sell more guns.

To deny it is dishonest. You KNEW it would happen....

Quote:Blah blah blah de blah....

I stand by the OP.

You voted ( D ). You voted to sell more guns.

To deny it is dishonest. You KNEW it would happen....

Yup, such a compelling argument. I'm right because I say so. Simply flawless 

Hey stalker....

I' ll bet you sit there staring at your reply to see if I look at it.... Keep hitting "refresh".....

How many hours do you go before you crumble in disappointment at not seeing my name at the bottom of your reply?


That's rhetorical of course. I won't look at your reply to this either....

Zarking loser....

(February 21, 2021 at 6:24 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

Quote:The FCC does NOT have a list of words you can't say on the air - numbnuts....  The determination of what can be said is " community standards". They do not regulate or license speech.

And the shouting fire in a theater bit is just fucking stupid. It's simply illegal. Having a license wouldn't make it any different. Were it so - your license to own guns would give you permission to shoot people.

Dumbass

Irrelevant really because you just acknowledged that there can be legal restrictions to something written in the constitution. So explain why guns can't have similar restrictions

Don't use the word "restrictions" it makes the nuts needlessly paranoid. "Regulations" is a less scary word for them.

If you argue "regulations" you can argue things like, "You don't complain that the wiring in your house isn't a free for all." There are regulations as to wire gauge, insulation of the wiring, and distance between studs.  I don't think any sane person would want the breaker box to their house installed in the shower. 

OLB won't even accept even SCOTUS Scalia has made a couple of decisions on firearms that say firearms can be regulated.

But yea, "community standards" is a regulation itself.