Liberal Gun Control Activist Caught Packing Gun[W:188]

Mycroft said:

ummm...I should have followed your lead and partially quoted you.

Click to expand...

Don't complain cause I ignore the rest of your nonsense. Kids and parents don't have to notify schools of the allergies/guns/anything of others. You basically weaseled yourself out of that ridiculous slippery slope argument.

Hatuey said:

That's how ridiculous your statement sounds.

1. Nobody is attacking you. That's hyperbole.
2. Nobody is persecuting you. That is hyperbole.
3. The reason people are asked about whether they own guns is because of possible situations. Nobody is comin' ta take ya guns once you tell the schools.

Click to expand...

Don't modify my quotes - that makes you a liar and dishonest.

A new low for you.

Mycroft said:

ummm...I should have followed your lead and partially quoted you. Then you would not have misunderstood what I was saying.

I wasn't answering your question with a yes...I was agreeing that we should move on.

I apologize for causing you to waste a post.

Click to expand...

That matches all his posts, which are wasted.

SMTA said:

Don't modify my quotes

Click to expand...

I made an analysis of your statement by substituting guns with another subject. Surprise, in the comparison, your argument fails.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063905556 said:

So anyone who owns a gun is a potential danger to a school?

Sheer lunacy...

Click to expand...

Greetings, Mo. :2wave:

Since they have tried a number of ways to attempt to discover how many people own guns, and more particularly who they are - which makes one wonder why they would want to know - I look at this as the latest attempt to abolish a right the Constitution states we have by law. Prediction: This won't work either, because the Second Amendment to the Constitution affirms the right of citizens to legally own guns. "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson

Hatuey said:

I made an analysis of your statement by substituting guns with another subject. Surprise, in the comparison, your argument fails.

Click to expand...

No surprise that still makes you a liar.

SMTA said:

No surprise that still makes you a liar.

Click to expand...

Lying.. about? I never stated that's what you posted. I said that's how ridiculous your statement sounds. It's no surprise that when exposed for weak debating, you go into ad-hom mode though.

Hatuey said:

So you can't tell us how this is an infringement on your right to own guns?

Click to expand...

black males have a 4/10 chance of committing a felony by age 40. Gun owners-1 out of a 100 or less

maybe black males should have to register with the school

does that violate your rights?

you don't understand a free society

I don't have to justify why a law is bad until the proponents of a law can prove it furthers a public good and does not unreasonably burden our rights

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063905666 said:

Didn't think you would get it...

I was right.

Click to expand...

No, I get it. I just disagree with the logic. A gun or a car can be dangerous, but responsible use of either dramatically mitigates the risk and therefore the mere potential for harm is not enough to abandon the concept entirely. Not sure why you'd arrive at any other conclusion.

Deuce said:

I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun in the household. Man, everything is so black and white with the ammosexuals.

Click to expand...

and people like you who constantly insult and belittle gun owners cannot understand why we think your support for moronic gun laws is based on a desire to harass us gun owners rather than do anything useful about criminals

Why is gun control almost always something left-wingers support as "crime control"?

TurtleDude said:

I don't have to justify why a law is bad until the proponents of a law can prove it furthers a public good and does not unreasonably burden our rights

Click to expand...

See also: same sex marriage.

Jamilah Nasheed, pride of the Missouri legislature. She's almost as embarrassing as Cynthia McKinney and Maxine Waters.

TurtleDude said:

black males have a 4/10 chance of committing a felony by age 40. Gun owners-1 out of a 100 or less

maybe black males should have to register with the school

does that violate your rights?

you don't understand a free society

I don't have to justify why a law is bad until the proponents of a law can prove it furthers a public good and does not unreasonably burden our rights

Click to expand...

Huh? Do you know what purpose school pictures serve? I'll give you a clue, it's not so kids can look nice once a year. Hell, registration of race isn't necessary when all students have to take a picture once every year for... what? 10+ years? Here are a few schools that do it:

http://www.ycs.wednet.edu/Page/135

Why are both ethnic AND race identification required?

The federal requirements separate ethnicity and race. Because Hispanic people can be of different races, the government is attempting to provide Hispanic and Latino individuals a better way to describe themselves.

Click to expand...

Hell, schools that ask for a copy of a parent's DL, child's birth certificate, school transcripts, student photos etc. have a registry of the parent/child's race. Are you new to this?

Hatuey said:

Huh? Do you know what purpose school pictures serve? I'll give you a clue, it's not so kids can look nice once a year. Hell, registration of race isn't necessary when all students have to take a picture once every year for... what? 10+ years?

Click to expand...

Give it up Hatuey. the only purpose of this proposed law was to harass gun owners

that you cannot even give a decent reason for it proves that. Face it, you are defending a moron who pushes laws that have a disparate impact on white conservatives

TurtleDude said:

and people like you who constantly insult and belittle gun owners cannot understand why we think your support for moronic gun laws is based on a desire to harass us gun owners rather than do anything useful about criminals

Why is gun control almost always something left-wingers support as "crime control"?

Click to expand...

Which moronic gun laws did I support, again? Was that the Brady Bill that Saint Reagan supported?

TurtleDude said:

Give it up Hatuey. the only purpose of this proposed law was to harass gun owners

Click to expand...

And yet you can't show how. That's pretty weak.

that you cannot even give a decent reason for it proves that. Face it, you are defending a moron who pushes laws that have a disparate impact on white conservatives

Click to expand...

I have, it allows schools/law enforcement to better deal with incidents involving guns in schools. You haven't shown how it restricts your right to own guns or even hinder it in any way.

Flamethrower said:

Missouri state Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a Democrat who has sponsored several “anti-gun” bills in her state, was arrested Monday night during a protest outside of the Ferguson Police Department. However, it’s what police officers found on her that is raising eyebrows.

Nasheed was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun and extra rounds of ammunition, according to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson. She also refused to take a breathalyzer test after officers determined she “smelled strongly of intoxicants,” sources told KMOV-TV.



See Story Here:

Just Guess What Ferguson Police Found on Missouri Democrat Who Has Sponsored Several ‘Anti-Gun’ Bills

View attachment 67174801

View attachment 67174802

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action has dubbed several pieces of legislation sponsored by Nasheed “anti-gun,” including an amendment that would require gun owners to report a firearm stolen within 72 hours.

Nasheed also reportedly pushed for a bill that would have required any “parent or guardian of a child who attends a public, private, or charter school shall notify, in writing, the superintendent of the school district, or the governing body of a private school or charter school, that such parent or guardian owns a firearm within thirty calendar days” of enrollment.
Gun Control Nut Protests At Ferguson, Gets Arrested While Possessing A Handgun - Downtrend

Please know the real position of gun control activists like Obama and Nasheed: "Guns are for me, not for thee."

Click to expand...

Sarah Brady, when she led Handgun Control also carried a pistol.

The 72-hr report window for a stolen weapon seems reasonable, so long as provision is made for not realizing it because not at home.

Requiring that parents who own weapons inform the school their kid goes to is bull**** though.

SMTA said:

They laws do reflect anti-gun sentiments, as the OP stated.

The 72 hour reporting is up to the gun owner - just like a car owner who has had their vehicle stolen.

Personally, I would report the stolen weapon in the hope of recovery.

Regarding the schools, what part of 'it's none of their business' do you consider agreement?

Never done that, and I never will.

It is none of the schools business.

Click to expand...

No they do not. Neither in any way restricts the ownership, usage, or anything else related to guns. Unless you definition of anti-gun is anything that you disagree with, these are not anti-gun.

Hatuey said:

And yet you can't show how. That's pretty weak.



I have, it allows schools/law enforcement to better deal with incidents involving guns in schools. You haven't shown how it restricts your right to own guns or even hinder it in any way.

Click to expand...

I am a gun owner, I would find this harassing. QED.

as to your second point massive fail

If I own guns and my son brings a gun to school, they still have to prove it was a gun that came from our home-not one my son got from Billy for a pair of Nike shoes.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You seem to think stigmatizing people doesn't restrict their rights, The supreme court disagrees with you. In Title VII and related cases, anything that MIGHT reasonably chill a person from exercising their rights (as opposed to preventing them from exercising their rights) is a prima facie case of retaliation .

and you have still failed to prove any value to this.

Redress said:

No they do not. Neither in any way restricts the ownership, usage, or anything else related to guns. Unless you definition of anti-gun is anything that you disagree with, these are not anti-gun.

Click to expand...

again that is a dishonest take on the law

its designed to stigmatize gun owners and has absolutely no legitimate value.

are kids of gun owners going to be treated differently? then its discriminatory.

if not, what is the purpose

TurtleDude said:

I am a gun owner, I would find this harassing. QED.

as to your second point massive fail

If I own guns and my son brings a gun to school, they still have to prove it was a gun that came from our home-not one my son got from Billy for a pair of Nike shoes.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You seem to think stigmatizing people doesn't restrict their rights, The supreme court disagrees with you. In Title VII and related cases, anything that MIGHT reasonably chill a person from exercising their rights (as opposed to preventing them from exercising their rights) is a prima facie case of retaliation .

and you have still failed to prove any value to this.

Click to expand...

That is pretty stupid. Since you have an irrational reaction, that means the laws only purpose is to cause you to have an irrational reaction...

TurtleDude said:

again that is a dishonest take on the law

its designed to stigmatize gun owners and has absolutely no legitimate value.

are kids of gun owners going to be treated differently? then its discriminatory.

if not, what is the purpose

Click to expand...

Nope, no stigma attached unless some one wants to overreact, and that is their own fault.

Redress said:

Nope, no stigma attached unless some one wants to overreact, and that is their own fault.

Click to expand...

so you say, I deny it. its designed to stigmatize gun owners.

TEll me how it has any use.

TurtleDude said:

I am a gun owner, I would find this harassing. QED.

Click to expand...

Terrible, no laws which TurtleDude feels harass him shall be made from now on.

as to your second point massive fail

If I own guns and my son brings a gun to school, they still have to prove it was a gun that came from our home-not one my son got from Billy for a pair of Nike shoes.

Click to expand...

Hey! Now we're getting closer to where I want you to be. By ensuring the school knows you own guns, you can save procedural time and doubt that it's your gun when the police come knocking. Now imagine if you will:

Scenario A:

Kid A shoots Kid B after school with gun he bought from Jamal the Drug Dealer and runs home to safety, ditches gun on the way but still the police figure out he's the killer.
Police aren't sure where the gun used in the crime comes from as they can't find it.
Police pull school records, find that parents (of Kid A) own some guns.
Police ask parents to see weapons, they can't match them to the weapon used in the crime. Automatically, parents aren't held responsible for breaking any state/federal laws on gun storage.

Scenario B:

Kid A shoots Kid B after school with gun he bought from Jamal the Drug Dealer and runs home to safety.
Police find the gun but can't figure out where it came from.
Police pull school records, find that parents own some guns.
Police ask parents to see weapons, they can't match them to the weapon used in the crime. Automatically, parents aren't held responsible for breaking any state/federal laws on gun storage.

In neither scenario is there a harassment of gun owners. :shrug:

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You seem to think stigmatizing people doesn't restrict their rights, The supreme court disagrees with you. In Title VII and related cases, anything that MIGHT reasonably chill a person from exercising their rights (as opposed to preventing them from exercising their rights) is a prima facie case of retaliation .

and you have still failed to prove any value to this.

Click to expand...

Alright, moving the goalposts some more eh Turtle? Fine. I'll play. How does reporting that you own a gun constitute a stigma? For example, do you believe that in any scenario where a gun must be reported/registered constitutes a stigma? Because that just means you're hypersensitive. Nothing else.

PS: I'm glad you moved away from the "do blacks have to register" argument. That just seems silly given the fact that every year, parents/children provide information on their race, gender, color etc.