Originally Posted by ineedone
You really do not know how to multi-quote? Dude, you can just do a little cut and paste. It makes responding to your jibberish easier.
What do liberals just not believe in a constitution? Or is it they believe in interpreting the constitution a different way? Yeah that ACLU hates the constitution (I am assuming you know who the ACLU is...) whatever, I wont be convincing your crazy ass anytime soon. Well regulated militia means well regulated militia? thanks for that insight... you seem like a sharp one. Usually you do not define something by using the same words, but I do not know stupid that well, so maybe you can inform me on what the hell that is suppose to mean.
So no person that has a legal license to use a gun has committed death? How do you commit death? I know people that commit homicide or suicide, but I guess you win on that one?
Edit: I will respond to this one, because it's so obvious to anyone with a brain or without an ego (no one in this thread really), that you BLATANTLY changed the meaning of what I said. YOU did. I typed it correctly (and no, it doesn't make you smart to point out I just said "said", and then claimed that I "typed"). I said, one more time to see if your unfathomably stupid mind can comprehend this, that those people, that HAVE the LICENSE required to own weapons that are FULL-AUTO, or things like a .50 caliber, have NOT committed any murders, from using those "Big, awesome guns.." The LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, have NOT caused any reason, to further ban those weapons. THUS, the only reason TO do it, is because SOMEONE does not want you to have them for fear of repercussion, or they just can not stand you having that liberty as it is like ants crawling on your skin. Those people who DO kill, do so at their (and the victims) OWN PERIL. A person can choose to walk away, BUT, if they want someone killed they DO NOT need a gun.
You know every person that has a high powered military grade weapon? and you know they are reasonable? How many friends do you have because that is A LOT of people. You do realize states have different gun licensing laws right? So, for example, in VA you can be a complete state ward pyscho, but still have a valid license to buy banana clips for a glock that is modified to fire fully automatic rounds (this would be the Cho kid). That is a completely legal sale in that state. I guess you did not know this guy did you? Well, I mean that is only one guy so I guess that is ok.
I do not know how my argument is invalid. My "argument" or my opinion *Knowledge is true opinion, this doesn't qualify for you, coming up next. (which is what I said) is that I feel some weapons are exponentially more dangerous then others. WRONG, weapons do not act by themselves, it's the person behind it that does. Those weapons should not be available to the general public in my view. However, if you are licensed military, police, or something equivalent Because they always do the right thing. (I am thinking of the guys who train people to shoot and what not - my best bud is a gun smith and trains spec ops guys how to shoot so I trust him) then sure go ahead. But some idiot cowboy, yeah that dude can go eat a huge smelly wiener before I feel comfortable with him having some of that shit. Show me one. More times than not, it is a city person that does moronic things like look down the barrel to see if it's loaded. If you really think a (mind you, real cowboy, you know, from out west?) does not know how to handle a gun, you have just proved how stupid you are. I think that view is pretty reasonable and I do not think you can find a serious person who, even if they disagree, thinks that is unreasonable. I like reasonable gun control - which means a unified system so that everyone knows the laws, that everyone who is legally allowed access to firearms can obtain them, and so that some of that crazy shit does not get into idiots hands. I bet you would like to know what guns I have. OH NOOOO!
I am glad that you know what I am. Just in case I forget. And you do know Jesus can read forums right? He is not going to be happy when he sees the language you have been using. Better start those hail marys.
What did you do wiki privacy and constitution? Good job.. I guess? But I am glad that you really like Brandeis, a HUGE liberal Justice, super progressive, all up on social justice. I guess there may be some hope for you yet?
Except that it has nothing to do with the issue of drones and privacy. The government is allowed to "spy" on you so long as they do not invade certain spaces. For example, it is completely legal for the police to fly a helicopter over your house. However, it would be illegal/unconstitutional for them to fly over your house and look around with infrared technology without a warrant to do so.
Next step, it is legal for the police to follow you, to park outside your house and wait for you to leave. It would be unconstitutional for them to come on to your property, attach a GPS device to your car, and leave and watch you on GPS.
Now to drones, it would be legal for them to fly a drone and watch you. It would be unconstitutional or illegal for them to use some of the crazy tech that drones can have to look/listen into your house without a warrant etc.
Privacy is not an absolute. There are certain places where one expects to have privacy (e.g., inside ones home) but once you step into the public space (e.g., outside of the home) you no longer have an expectation of privacy.
4th amendment jurisprudence is really cool and is always being litigated so if it interest you awesome..
So your jerking off hands broke up with you? Sorry man.
I am glad you can admit that, but how am I a bigot? Because I think you are stupid? Trust me, it has nothing to do with your race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, any of that. Mostly because of what you say... but I do not know how thinking someone is dumb because of the actual words they say makes another a bigot... please enlighten me...
|