Feds demand gun store owner turn over customer list. He refuses

[paperview]

Well please explain why you ask the question. I don't see how it has anything to do with anything else we have been discussing.

Tell me why I should care? I'll care if they are taken away.

<=YOUR words I presume? WHY did you ask that if it wasn't germane?

Bravo. So far you've completed avoided any point.

That's pretty much how Thomas the Tank Engine operates.

I've known him and his style for about a decade now, and he doesn't go much beyond cheerleading, making vapid comments, and slurping on Limbaugh and Beck's dick. Guzzling cheap moonshine 24/7 adds to his "brilliant" soliloquies.

Sorry, it's crude, but it had to be said. cause itsa fact.

 

[paperview]

Then why don't you apply the same standard to @paperview ???

Why is he allowed to mention a city, but I am not? That is DOUBLESPEAK.

Hey doof: One more time: Each poster speaks for himself -- and the Whiskey Rebellion --- in which a strong Federal government corralled the militia to put down the uprising, which Washington leading the charge -- was about more than....a city.

The question to be asked, as George put it: Is our children learning?

Most people who know and understand history, recognize the importance of the Whiskey rebellion in our fledgling and young country.

Most people have never even heard of the Athens "battle."

BTW: After they "won" in Athens -- the corrupt powers were simply replaced by a more powerful machine. It was a brave stance, but they didn't really accomplish as much as you think they did.

Most people never heard of it, today, because its not taught in Government Public School. You can rest assured that the newspapers of the day went wild for weeks over the event, and veteran groups all around the south were primed and ready to take up arms to end voter fraud by the Democrats. In fact, your statement proves that Public Schools are either abysmally failing in their mission to educate our youth about American History, or that Public Schools have a political mission to omit such instances in our history.

One would think that our Public Schools would teach about the only successful revolution in the United States during the 20th Century, wouldn't you?

The Battle of Athens was also about "more than a city," it was a response to the political machine corruption of the Democrats all around the South, and it worked. Those regimes fell all over the place in the ensuing decade.

...

When the Democrats realized that armed citizens (black and white) had finally destroyed them in the South, they suddenly embraced the Civil Rights movement ...

Most people have never heard of it because it was blip on the radar. And the aftermath? yeah, just the same ole machine under different names.

No, it wasn't "a revolution" -- and no those southern dems in all of Tennessee didn't really give a crap about voting rights for the 'negroids.'

'n those conservative dems turned Dixiecrat, then publicans.

Getting back to the Whiskey Rebellion, which you seem to know nothing about -- what happened the first time an insurgency was tried in our new republic, under "a more perfect Union" -- and what was the Federal response to it?

 

[candycorn]

Shall not infringe means just that. Charging more to price people out is an Infringement.

Some could argue any price that is being charged is pricing people out. It becomes a matter of degrees argument.

All the more reason we need the 2nd Amendment , people wanting to take things away.

It is conceivable that when this nation was formed no words to paper could possibly set right from wrong.
As it was America was formed illegally by breaking England's Laws.
But they knew right from wrong. I for one know writing down rules is not going to make people understand right from wrong and you are proof.
The law abiding should not suffer because of the law breaker.
Making laws just to make a population law breakers is beneath any educated persons intelligence.
So as gun laws seems to have another agenda other than saving lives one now believes owning guns is necessary as true intentions are not honorable.
You here stories about other things that cause more deaths than guns. Like Bikes, sports,
swimming, cars and the like who knows but we cannot trust having overzealousness removing weapons needed to hold back the bad guy and maybe some day Tyranny.

Not taking anything away. If you want it you will save for it.

 

[MikeK]

Yes which is why you have so many shootings, because crazy ***** are allowed to buy guns.

Noomi,

The problem in the U.S. is indeed the crazies -- not the guns. I must admit our swollen and grossly mismanaged population is host to an increasingly substantial percentage of dangerous crazies. Also, there are between 200,000,000 and (an estimated) 300,000,000 guns in the hands of American citizens (no one knows for sure). So even if it were possible to strip our population of all guns, which it is not, do you think that would be fair to the sane, law-abiding population?

I will ask you to consider the difference in the way our respective nations originated. America was born in a cloud of rebellious gunsmoke. Without guns in the hands of ordinary citizens there would be no United States. That fact is imbedded in our history and in our national character and it's much too late to do anything about it. Because, like illegal drugs, as long as someone has the cash to pay for guns someone else will make them available.

The most government can do is go through the motions of prohibiting illegal possession and use of drugs and guns. But as long as money talks and someone is listening nothing short of totalitarian rule can eliminate either. And the only crazy who can't get hold of a gun is one who has no money.

 

[candycorn]

Nonsense.

As if someone who goes the speed limit, pays her taxes, signals when she turns left, abides by every law that she is aware of...is going to become James Dillinger if she can't have a gun?

No.

We have the 2nd Amendment so there is no way to get rid of guns. What you should do is tax the crapolla out of them and make them unattractive due to cost.

James Dillinger.......??????

never heard about him, what was he known for ??

Candy is famous for making things up when she can't remember anything that supports her position.

Criticize spelling errors when you have no real case; only excuses.

 

[candycorn]

Yes which is why you have so many shootings, because crazy ***** are allowed to buy guns.

Noomi,

The problem in the U.S. is indeed the crazies -- not the guns. I must admit our swollen and grossly mismanaged population is host to an increasingly substantial percentage of dangerous crazies. Also, there are between 200,000,000 and (an estimated) 300,000,000 guns in the hands of American citizens (no one knows for sure). So even if it were possible to strip our population of all guns, which it is not, do you think that would be fair to the sane, law-abiding population?

I will ask you to consider the difference in the way our respective nations originated. America was born in a cloud of rebellious gunsmoke. Without guns in the hands of ordinary citizens there would be no United States. That fact is imbedded in our history and in our national character and it's much too late to do anything about it. Because, like illegal drugs, as long as someone has the cash to pay for guns someone else will make them available.

The most government can do is go through the motions of prohibiting illegal possession and use of drugs and guns. But as long as money talks and someone is listening nothing short of totalitarian rule can eliminate either. And the only crazy who can't get hold of a gun is one who has no money.

There are crazies the world over and somehow principally only those here with access are able to mow down kids to their heart's content.

 

[Brain357]

By acquiescence, you have not revoked Paperview's claim. You are a part of this thread, whether you like it or not.



Acquiesce - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

There are a lot of posts I haven't commented on. Now I'm required to comment on everything am I?

And there are many that I haven't commented on either, and it is assumed that any piece of information (confined to this THREAD) that conforms to your ideology and or to my ideology, that is not revoked by either of us, is, by default, accepted by us through acquiescence.

We only know what you have read, or should have read, not what you haven't read. We are not you, and thus we, and outside readers, assume that you have read and accepted those terms and definitions.

Oh great. So if I go through and find some post of mine that you didn't respond to I can assume you agree with it. And I can assume quantum and t do too. Or maybe they have other things to do and didn't feel that had to respond to every single post...

 

[Brain357]

<=YOUR words I presume? WHY did you ask that if it wasn't germane?

Bravo. So far you've completed avoided any point.

Sorry shitstain. NOT playing your game.

Ok, so you make no point. Impressive.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There are a lot of posts I haven't commented on. Now I'm required to comment on everything am I?

And there are many that I haven't commented on either, and it is assumed that any piece of information (confined to this THREAD) that conforms to your ideology and or to my ideology, that is not revoked by either of us, is, by default, accepted by us through acquiescence.

We only know what you have read, or should have read, not what you haven't read. We are not you, and thus we, and outside readers, assume that you have read and accepted those terms and definitions.

Oh great. So if I go through and find some post of mine that you didn't respond to I can assume you agree with it. And I can assume quantum and t do too. Or maybe they have other things to do and didn't feel that had to respond to every single post...

No, because it is assumed that you and I have CONFLICTING ideologies. Apparently you missed the word "conform" when you quoted me.

You have engaged and entered the arena of this thread, you are bound to it, all of it, just as we are. If this too complicated, then you should not be here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well as far as I can tell they haven't been taken over by tyranny and lost their voting rights. If you know when that happened and then a rebellion returned their rights let me know.

Why does the ability to vote, which exists only if a government grants it, matter more to you than freedom?

You have nothing without the right to vote. Lose that and see how quickly you lose your guns.

Would you like a list of the different classes of people in the US who have no right to vote but still have rights?

 

[Howey]

Good! Know your rights and use them!

He has no right to make and sell an illegal part to a gun.

 

[paperview]

And there are many that I haven't commented on either, and it is assumed that any piece of information (confined to this THREAD) that conforms to your ideology and or to my ideology, that is not revoked by either of us, is, by default, accepted by us through acquiescence.

We only know what you have read, or should have read, not what you haven't read. We are not you, and thus we, and outside readers, assume that you have read and accepted those terms and definitions.

Oh great. So if I go through and find some post of mine that you didn't respond to I can assume you agree with it. And I can assume quantum and t do too. Or maybe they have other things to do and didn't feel that had to respond to every single post...

No, because it is assumed that you and I have CONFLICTING ideologies. Apparently you missed the word "conform" when you quoted me.

You have engaged and entered the arena of this thread, you are bound to it, all of it, just as we are. If this too complicated, then you should not be here.

You have a very warped idea of debate.

 

[candycorn]

And that too is un-constitutional. My but you progressives just hate the rule of law don't you...

The costs of guns is in the constitution? Who knew?

Shall not infringe means just that. Charging more to price people out is an Infringement.

I'm sorry.

The Constitution doesn't say that it is...pricing it at $1.00 prices some people out so charging any price is an infringement...now isn't it?

Anyway, we can' have you liberals interpreting the Constitution to say whatever you want, can we?

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News

During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.

Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.

"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."​

No!

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution doesn't say that it is...pricing it at $1.00 prices some people out so charging any price is an infringement...now isn't it?

Interesting.

Aside from the fact that you apparently do not understand the basic difference bethween the selling price of an item and a tax laid upon it....

Tell me then why a state cannot levy a huge tax on abortions for the purpose of restricting/limiting the exercise of the right to same.

 

[candycorn]

The Constitution doesn't say that it is...pricing it at $1.00 prices some people out so charging any price is an infringement...now isn't it?

Interesting.
Tell me then why a state cannot levy a huge tax on abortions for the purpose of restricting/limiting the exercise of the right to same.

It can. Who says it can't?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution doesn't say that it is...pricing it at $1.00 prices some people out so charging any price is an infringement...now isn't it?

Interesting.
Tell me then why a state cannot levy a huge tax on abortions for the purpose of restricting/limiting the exercise of the right to same.

It can. Who says it can't?

Just about everyone who belives that the constitution protects the right to have an abortion.


Tell me why a state cannot levy a huge tax on voting for the purpose of restricting/limiting the exercise of the right to same.

 

[paperview]

Interesting.
Tell me then why a state cannot levy a huge tax on abortions for the purpose of restricting/limiting the exercise of the right to same.

It can. Who says it can't?

Just about everyone who belives that the constitution protects the right to have an abortion.


Tell me why a state cannot levy a huge tax on voting for the purpose of restricting/limiting the exercise of the right to same.

Er...24th Amendment.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What part of "A well-regulated militia" do gun owners not understand? Those are the first words of the 2nd Amendment, before "shall not be infringed".

How many of you gun owners are members of the militia? Do any of you want to argue that armed citizens are the militia? What is the purpose of your well-regulated militia? To fight government tyranny? If that is true, then you should all be convicted of dereliction of duty for standing around with your thumbs in your asses while Bush was torturing POWs to death in secret prisons during a war that was started over complete lies.

The militia is all able-bodied males of appropriate age not in the armed forces. It really is that simple...so yes, that means I AM a member of the militia.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I see thread after thread by Conservatives whining about Obama taking our rights and destroying American freedom, which proves that millions of well-regulated gun owners are nothing but a bunch of pussies.

In other words you give in to tyranny, and are quite comfortable with it as long as they throw YOU a bone once in awhile, correct?

Yeah, dingleberry. That's right. I'm a disabled veteran who has to smoke weed every day or collapse from a violent seizure. The government determined before I was even born that marijuana is not medicine, and yet here I am using it as medicine because the legal pills that I was on didn't do anything at all except give me terrible nightmares.

I'm perfectly okay with the government kicking in my front door and shoving a gun to my head for growing my own medicine, while right-wing gun owners cheer on the big government for taking away my rights.

**** yourself deep and hard with your AR-15.

Posting shit like this...not only should you not be permitted to own a gun (or anything else more dangerous than a plastic spork), you should probably be locked up.

 

[Jarlaxle]

he sold illegal parts guys

Proof?

*crickets chirp*