Bullet Serialization

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
We should just serialize black people. I mean its more likely a black person commits a gun crime than a non-black, legal gun owner.

If our goal is to lower crime, then this is the best course of action.

Add to that metal detectors and ID check/log to get into any high crime concentration area like Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Oakland.

*****

The above post was sarcastic parody of the stupid posts of some of the stupid posters supporting the stupid idea of serializing bullets.

fail

Perhaps you would prefer we serialize the "Rednecks"?

Those stupid drunk idiots who have guns as toys?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
One thing the Dems and their supporters excel at is claiming to support personal freedom and the Constitution, then using the law to make it practically impossible.

And this is different than the Republicans?

I really wish people would stop trying to vilify one party when they both operate using identical tactics and for the same ends.

I cant really think of any constitutional right the republicans attack like the dems attack the 2nd. Not even close.

I'm not saying both parties dont suck, but this one point that actually holds water.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no "Deterence". That is not the point.

What is the point?

Sandorski wants guns banned. That is Sandorski's point.

Well, yes, I want the ability to have Guns Banned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to that happening. It is to make weapons/Ammo traceable back to a Person. It will aid in the solving of Crimes and/or to those who supply Criminals.

Deterence is just not an effective force. If it was, the Death Penalty would have such a dramatic effect on US Murder rates that it would be the lowest rate amongst the First World. It is, as you know, the highest.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. You don't care whether or not it works, so there is no point in arguing that with you. You only want this because it makes it harder for the average citizen to afford a weapon. It's the shotgun approach: who cares if something works or not, just throw a bunch of laws and regulations at a problem, eventually everything becomes so confusing, beauracratic (sp?), and difficult to handle that the end result is the same; the average law abiding citizen will not have weapons.*

And why do you keep capitalizing Common Nouns in your Sentences? Only Proper Nouns need capitalization, such as the Name of a Person, City, State, or Country. You don't need to capitalize Bullet Serialization in your Discussion.

*unless you are a "special" citizen like California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, despite her ardent support for gun control, not only owns a gun herself, but is legally allowed to carry it concealed for her own protection in the state of California! But it's ok for her to do that, she's more important than the rest of us, and also smarter, so she knows how to handle the weapon.

You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

You're right, it's not a conspiracy. Like most of the amendments, it's as plain as day. And yet people like you continue to twist the meaning of the second amendment to fit your agendas. If the same was done to every other amendment and constitutional limitation placed on the government, there would be no point in even having a constitution, as it would have no meaning.

EDIT: As for being "good policy", please tell me that's a joke. Gun control has been nothing but a huge failure.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: NeoV
you are wasting your time

ANY suggestion EVER made on this forum to even remotely slow or reduce the availability of any gun or ammo to any American is met with nothing but "great, criminals will still have all of their guns/ammo, common citizens get screwed" - despite any points made to the contrary - our drug laws, or laws, our police, etc, etc, etc - it's all their fault, it's not the fact that just about any schmuck can buy a gun and sell it to whomever he pleases.

Meanwhile, another 25-50 people were killed this weekend across the country at the hands of a gun - but it's no big deal, put your heads back in the sand

This is the epitomy of stupidity of the gun control idiots.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

You're right, it's not a conspiracy. Like most of the amendments, it's as plain as day. And yet people like you continue to twist the meaning of the second amendment to fit your agendas. If the same was done to every other amendment and constitutional limitation placed on the government, there would be no point in even having a constitution, as it would have no meaning.

EDIT: As for being "good policy", please tell me that's a joke. Gun control has been nothing but a huge failure.

No, a joke is the thought that I'm twisting the 2nd and you are not.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: NeoV
you are wasting your time

ANY suggestion EVER made on this forum to even remotely slow or reduce the availability of any gun or ammo to any American is met with nothing but "great, criminals will still have all of their guns/ammo, common citizens get screwed" - despite any points made to the contrary - our drug laws, or laws, our police, etc, etc, etc - it's all their fault, it's not the fact that just about any schmuck can buy a gun and sell it to whomever he pleases.

Meanwhile, another 25-50 people were killed this weekend across the country at the hands of a gun - but it's no big deal, put your heads back in the sand

This is the epitomy of stupidity of the gun control idiots.

Nah, your response is the epitome of the stupidity of your side of the argument. You don't want to even abide by the 2nd Amendment, you just want Guns.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: NeoV
you are wasting your time

ANY suggestion EVER made on this forum to even remotely slow or reduce the availability of any gun or ammo to any American is met with nothing but "great, criminals will still have all of their guns/ammo, common citizens get screwed" - despite any points made to the contrary - our drug laws, or laws, our police, etc, etc, etc - it's all their fault, it's not the fact that just about any schmuck can buy a gun and sell it to whomever he pleases.

Meanwhile, another 25-50 people were killed this weekend across the country at the hands of a gun - but it's no big deal, put your heads back in the sand

This is the epitomy of stupidity of the gun control idiots.

Nah, your response is the epitome of the stupidity of your side of the argument. You don't want to even abide by the 2nd Amendment, you just want Guns.

I know you are but what am I?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: NeoV
you are wasting your time

ANY suggestion EVER made on this forum to even remotely slow or reduce the availability of any gun or ammo to any American is met with nothing but "great, criminals will still have all of their guns/ammo, common citizens get screwed" - despite any points made to the contrary - our drug laws, or laws, our police, etc, etc, etc - it's all their fault, it's not the fact that just about any schmuck can buy a gun and sell it to whomever he pleases.

Meanwhile, another 25-50 people were killed this weekend across the country at the hands of a gun - but it's no big deal, put your heads back in the sand

This is the epitomy of stupidity of the gun control idiots.

Nah, your response is the epitome of the stupidity of your side of the argument. You don't want to even abide by the 2nd Amendment, you just want Guns.

I know you are but what am I?

He's literally sunken to that level of debate. It's like arguing with a child. He's never going to look at this in a rational matter and realize the real world implications of such a policy. It's sad.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: NeoV
you are wasting your time

ANY suggestion EVER made on this forum to even remotely slow or reduce the availability of any gun or ammo to any American is met with nothing but "great, criminals will still have all of their guns/ammo, common citizens get screwed" - despite any points made to the contrary - our drug laws, or laws, our police, etc, etc, etc - it's all their fault, it's not the fact that just about any schmuck can buy a gun and sell it to whomever he pleases.

Meanwhile, another 25-50 people were killed this weekend across the country at the hands of a gun - but it's no big deal, put your heads back in the sand

This is the epitomy of stupidity of the gun control idiots.

Nah, your response is the epitome of the stupidity of your side of the argument. You don't want to even abide by the 2nd Amendment, you just want Guns.

Abide by the second amendment? What the fuck does that mean?

I don't have to abide by the constitution. The constitution does not apply to me. Nor does it apply to you or any other human being. The constitution is an agreement between we the people and our government that places limitations on what the government can and cannot do. The government is the only organization that must abide by the second amendment. And, in that regard, the second amendment is clear as day.

 

[QuantumPion]

Why not just make murder illegal, then they'll be no more murders, regardless of the weapon.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: NeoV
you are wasting your time

ANY suggestion EVER made on this forum to even remotely slow or reduce the availability of any gun or ammo to any American is met with nothing but "great, criminals will still have all of their guns/ammo, common citizens get screwed" - despite any points made to the contrary - our drug laws, or laws, our police, etc, etc, etc - it's all their fault, it's not the fact that just about any schmuck can buy a gun and sell it to whomever he pleases.

Meanwhile, another 25-50 people were killed this weekend across the country at the hands of a gun - but it's no big deal, put your heads back in the sand

This is the epitomy of stupidity of the gun control idiots.

Nah, your response is the epitome of the stupidity of your side of the argument. You don't want to even abide by the 2nd Amendment, you just want Guns.

I know you are but what am I?

He's literally sunken to that level of debate. It's like arguing with a child. He's never going to look at this in a rational matter and realize the real world implications of such a policy. It's sad.

Not at all. I've provided many Rational posts, but when irrationality is used, I'll argue on that level.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: NeoV
you are wasting your time

ANY suggestion EVER made on this forum to even remotely slow or reduce the availability of any gun or ammo to any American is met with nothing but "great, criminals will still have all of their guns/ammo, common citizens get screwed" - despite any points made to the contrary - our drug laws, or laws, our police, etc, etc, etc - it's all their fault, it's not the fact that just about any schmuck can buy a gun and sell it to whomever he pleases.

Meanwhile, another 25-50 people were killed this weekend across the country at the hands of a gun - but it's no big deal, put your heads back in the sand

This is the epitomy of stupidity of the gun control idiots.

Nah, your response is the epitome of the stupidity of your side of the argument. You don't want to even abide by the 2nd Amendment, you just want Guns.

Abide by the second amendment? What the fuck does that mean?

I don't have to abide by the constitution. The constitution does not apply to me. Nor does it apply to you or any other human being. The constitution is an agreement between we the people and our government that places limitations on what the government can and cannot do. The government is the only organization that must abide by the second amendment. And, in that regard, the second amendment is clear as day.

Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

Way to deflect. You still haven't addressed my point. Citizens do not have to abide by the constitution, as you seem to believe. Our only job is to ensure that government representatives abide by the constitution.

As for your specific purpose, I'm going to assume you are talking about the militia. However, that argument has been destroyed on countless occasions that I'm not even going to entertain it. You really have no ground to stand on, logically or historically.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

umm, its purpose is to put a limit on what the govt can do... the action part being "shall not be infringed"

Please explain to me what specific purpose you think it has, cuz this has gotta be good.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

umm, its purpose is to put a limit on what the govt can do... the action part being "shall not be infringed"

Please explain to me what specific purpose you think it has, cuz this has gotta be good.

"well regulated militia..., that is the part that's pertinent.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

umm, its purpose is to put a limit on what the govt can do... the action part being "shall not be infringed"

Please explain to me what specific purpose you think it has, cuz this has gotta be good.

"well regulated militia..., that is the part that's pertinent.

well regulated militia is an adjevtive in that sentence, not the action verb. aka "the part thats pertinent"

If it were it would read "The militia will be well regulated" Not, "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

 

[ZeGermans]

so this will make it harder for cowards to have wet dreams about shooting brown people while sleeping with their guns? I'm down.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

umm, its purpose is to put a limit on what the govt can do... the action part being "shall not be infringed"

Please explain to me what specific purpose you think it has, cuz this has gotta be good.

"well regulated militia..., that is the part that's pertinent.

well regulated militia is an adjevtive in that sentence, not the action verb. aka "the part thats pertinent"

If it were it would read "The militia will be well regulated" Not, "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

What? Come on now, it is quite plain that a "well regulated militia" is the pertinent part. Without it, there's no need for the "shall not be infringed". "Shall not be infringed" exists so that there can be a "well regulated militia". You can't pick and choose what you want, it's the whole thing or nothing.

 

[Train]

The whole thing or nothing it is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

commas can be translated as "and", in case you didnt know. Overall It actually reads as a list, sort of like:

The following items shall not be infringed
1) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there ya go.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train
The whole thing or nothing it is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

commas can be translated as "and", in case you didnt know. Overall It actually reads as a list, sort of like:

The following items shall not be infringed
1) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there ya go.

No. 1 is correct, those 2 phrases support each other directly as you put them with "A well regulated militia" being the Subject and "being necessary to the security...State" being a clarification for the "regulated militia".

2, as you have it, is incorrect. It is not another part or second subject. It explains the "right" afforded to the People, so that a "well regulated militia" can exist. 2 as you put it is dependent on 1. It is not separate or a whole by itself. Without 1 there is no reason for 2.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
The whole thing or nothing it is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

commas can be translated as "and", in case you didnt know. Overall It actually reads as a list, sort of like:

The following items shall not be infringed
1) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there ya go.

No. 1 is correct, those 2 phrases support each other directly as you put them with "A well regulated militia" being the Subject and "being necessary to the security...State" being a clarification for the "regulated militia".

2, as you have it, is incorrect. It is not another part or second subject. It explains the "right" afforded to the People, so that a "well regulated militia" can exist. 2 as you put it is dependent on 1. It is not separate or a whole by itself. Without 1 there is no reason for 2.

way to pull that out of your ass.

The reast of the educated world disagrees with you. Heres a good read on the entire history of the concept going back even way before the US was formed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ed_States_Constitution

Heres a more recent snippet

In commentary written by Justice Cummings in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[47]

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
The whole thing or nothing it is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

commas can be translated as "and", in case you didnt know. Overall It actually reads as a list, sort of like:

The following items shall not be infringed
1) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there ya go.

No. 1 is correct, those 2 phrases support each other directly as you put them with "A well regulated militia" being the Subject and "being necessary to the security...State" being a clarification for the "regulated militia".

2, as you have it, is incorrect. It is not another part or second subject. It explains the "right" afforded to the People, so that a "well regulated militia" can exist. 2 as you put it is dependent on 1. It is not separate or a whole by itself. Without 1 there is no reason for 2.

way to pull that out of your ass.

The reast of the educated world disagrees with you. Heres a good read on the entire history of the concept going back even way before the US was formed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ed_States_Constitution

Heres a more recent snippet

In commentary written by Justice Cummings in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[47]

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

That quote is meaningless to the subject at hand. It's context is unknown.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
...

In commentary written by Justice Cummings in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[47]

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

That quote is meaningless to the subject at hand. It's context is unknown.

Barney style:

He's a supreme court justice, his job is to interpret the constitution. Its pretty clear he is doing just that, clarifying the exact argument you are trying to make. The subject at hand (how is it not clear?!!?) is the 2nd ammendment itself.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
...

In commentary written by Justice Cummings in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[47]

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

That quote is meaningless to the subject at hand. It's context is unknown.

Barney style:

He's a supreme court justice, his job is to interpret the constitution. Its pretty clear he is doing just that, clarifying the exact argument you are trying to make. The subject at hand (how is it not clear?!!?) is the 2nd ammendment itself.

Ah ok, I'll take your word for it. That said, I'd be interested what other Judges have to say on the subject. I certainly wouldn't come to the same conclusion he has.