Upload
Login or register

davidispissed

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:7/11/2011
Last Login:7/22/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#20321
Highest Content Rank:#8868
Highest Comment Rank:#1796
Content Thumbs: 281 total,  443 ,  162
Comment Thumbs: 4598 total,  6452 ,  1854
Content Level Progress: 60% (6/10)
Level 27 Content: Peasant → Level 28 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 8% (8/100)
Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 244 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:1
Content Views:28617
Times Content Favorited:16 times
Total Comments Made:2157
FJ Points:4593

latest user's comments

#9 - It wouldn't surprise me. 02/26/2016 on homo 0
#384 - That's just it. A list of people is not a law against them. Wh…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/26/2016 on Shall Not Be Infringed 0
User avatar
#387 - policexplain (02/26/2016) [-]
Gun registries have historically been used to craft laws against gun owners and to facilitate disarming people, especially prior to and during the rise of tyranny. A federal gun registry tells the government which of its citizens is armed, so yes, you would lose a right if your name was on a list. You'd lose your right to privacy from the federal government. The potential for an abuse of this type of registry is the reason that there is such opposition to it.

On top of that, most people who use a gun to break the law do it with a gun that does not belong to them and would not be registered to them. And currently, if somebody gets caught using a gun to break the law, we search their property and confiscate any guns we find anyway.

The potential for abuse of a gun registry outweighs the potential benefits of one, which is why, after 200+ years of firearm ownership in the US, there is still no federal registry.

You can assume what you want about me.
#382 - The point is, regardless of whether or not you are a governmen…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/26/2016 on Shall Not Be Infringed 0
User avatar
#383 - policexplain (02/26/2016) [-]
So, I was right about your point from the start.

You still don't seem to grasp the concept that it's okay for private citizens to do something, but not okay for the government to do the same thing. You could keep a registry of all the guns you and your family own and it would not be hypocritical to oppose a government registry. A privately owned range could keep a registry of all the guns it owns and of the people who use the range and it would not be hypocritical for the owner to oppose a government registry. And the NRA can keep a registry, too, and still oppose a government registry without being hypocritical. Those private entities have no power to arrest and prosecute people, no power to craft laws against people and no power to confiscate the property of people. But the government does.
User avatar
#384 - davidispissed (02/26/2016) [-]
That's just it. A list of people is not a law against them. Why is this so hard to grasp? A list doesn't mean you lost a right. That's why it's a right. Also, the 5th Amendment backs it up. The government isn't taking your guns, unless you use them to break the law. And to be honest, if you're out misusing a weapon, you probably shouldn't have it. But for a law abiding citizen, there is no reason to protest against a gun registry. So from now on, I' just going to assume you are a gun toting murderer of puppies and children.
User avatar
#387 - policexplain (02/26/2016) [-]
Gun registries have historically been used to craft laws against gun owners and to facilitate disarming people, especially prior to and during the rise of tyranny. A federal gun registry tells the government which of its citizens is armed, so yes, you would lose a right if your name was on a list. You'd lose your right to privacy from the federal government. The potential for an abuse of this type of registry is the reason that there is such opposition to it.

On top of that, most people who use a gun to break the law do it with a gun that does not belong to them and would not be registered to them. And currently, if somebody gets caught using a gun to break the law, we search their property and confiscate any guns we find anyway.

The potential for abuse of a gun registry outweighs the potential benefits of one, which is why, after 200+ years of firearm ownership in the US, there is still no federal registry.

You can assume what you want about me.
#6 - As a MArine, I feel that all of the fallen should be honored. …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/25/2016 on Well... +2
User avatar
#8 - thedepressedman (02/26/2016) [-]
Personally I think statues are a bad way to teach history, since they usually only include a few people. Case in point: Iwo Jima. Nobody cares about all the people who died assaulting it, but they DO remember the few people who raised the flag.
#1 - Climbing the ladder. 02/25/2016 on Genius +44
#36 - meh. I have 3 more 02/25/2016 on Admin at the gay bar 0
#378 - never said it was. If you were any slower, you'd be moving backwards.  [+] (5 new replies) 02/25/2016 on Shall Not Be Infringed 0
User avatar
#381 - policexplain (02/25/2016) [-]
So what's your point, then? You sounded like you were trying to point out the hypocrisy of the NRA opposing gun registries while keeping one of their own.

Maybe it's less about me being slow and more about you not knowing how to efficiently convey information. There are classes you can take to fix that.
User avatar
#382 - davidispissed (02/26/2016) [-]
The point is, regardless of whether or not you are a government agency, it's still hypocritical to oppose one doing the same thing you are. There was nothing I said that implied the NRA was anything other than the right wing lobby organization they are. My information was not inefficient, your grasp of it was. Maybe find a class that keeps you from drawing conclusions from information that does not imply the conclusion you have reached.
User avatar
#383 - policexplain (02/26/2016) [-]
So, I was right about your point from the start.

You still don't seem to grasp the concept that it's okay for private citizens to do something, but not okay for the government to do the same thing. You could keep a registry of all the guns you and your family own and it would not be hypocritical to oppose a government registry. A privately owned range could keep a registry of all the guns it owns and of the people who use the range and it would not be hypocritical for the owner to oppose a government registry. And the NRA can keep a registry, too, and still oppose a government registry without being hypocritical. Those private entities have no power to arrest and prosecute people, no power to craft laws against people and no power to confiscate the property of people. But the government does.
User avatar
#384 - davidispissed (02/26/2016) [-]
That's just it. A list of people is not a law against them. Why is this so hard to grasp? A list doesn't mean you lost a right. That's why it's a right. Also, the 5th Amendment backs it up. The government isn't taking your guns, unless you use them to break the law. And to be honest, if you're out misusing a weapon, you probably shouldn't have it. But for a law abiding citizen, there is no reason to protest against a gun registry. So from now on, I' just going to assume you are a gun toting murderer of puppies and children.
User avatar
#387 - policexplain (02/26/2016) [-]
Gun registries have historically been used to craft laws against gun owners and to facilitate disarming people, especially prior to and during the rise of tyranny. A federal gun registry tells the government which of its citizens is armed, so yes, you would lose a right if your name was on a list. You'd lose your right to privacy from the federal government. The potential for an abuse of this type of registry is the reason that there is such opposition to it.

On top of that, most people who use a gun to break the law do it with a gun that does not belong to them and would not be registered to them. And currently, if somebody gets caught using a gun to break the law, we search their property and confiscate any guns we find anyway.

The potential for abuse of a gun registry outweighs the potential benefits of one, which is why, after 200+ years of firearm ownership in the US, there is still no federal registry.

You can assume what you want about me.
#375 - how does having a registry prevent the sale of firearms? … 02/25/2016 on Shall Not Be Infringed 0
#374 - to regulate, by ******* definition, means to govern or direct …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/25/2016 on Shall Not Be Infringed -1
User avatar
#414 - lean (02/26/2016) [-]
Whose rule? Yes, the framers wanted a standing militia at all times as insurance to the federally governed military. Isn't it odd that they used the term "militia" not "standing army"? It's almost as if they wished citizens to remain armed in case a government began to impose its will by force again.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The definition of well regulated isn't even an arguing point among constitutional scholars, but you are going to argue it with a brand spanking new dictionary and no context? please.
#373 - The NRA is the largest opponent of gun registry  [+] (7 new replies) 02/25/2016 on Shall Not Be Infringed 0
User avatar
#377 - policexplain (02/25/2016) [-]
The NRA is an opponent of a govenrment gun registry, particularly at the federal level.
The NRA is not part of the government.
User avatar
#378 - davidispissed (02/25/2016) [-]
never said it was. If you were any slower, you'd be moving backwards.
User avatar
#381 - policexplain (02/25/2016) [-]
So what's your point, then? You sounded like you were trying to point out the hypocrisy of the NRA opposing gun registries while keeping one of their own.

Maybe it's less about me being slow and more about you not knowing how to efficiently convey information. There are classes you can take to fix that.
User avatar
#382 - davidispissed (02/26/2016) [-]
The point is, regardless of whether or not you are a government agency, it's still hypocritical to oppose one doing the same thing you are. There was nothing I said that implied the NRA was anything other than the right wing lobby organization they are. My information was not inefficient, your grasp of it was. Maybe find a class that keeps you from drawing conclusions from information that does not imply the conclusion you have reached.
User avatar
#383 - policexplain (02/26/2016) [-]
So, I was right about your point from the start.

You still don't seem to grasp the concept that it's okay for private citizens to do something, but not okay for the government to do the same thing. You could keep a registry of all the guns you and your family own and it would not be hypocritical to oppose a government registry. A privately owned range could keep a registry of all the guns it owns and of the people who use the range and it would not be hypocritical for the owner to oppose a government registry. And the NRA can keep a registry, too, and still oppose a government registry without being hypocritical. Those private entities have no power to arrest and prosecute people, no power to craft laws against people and no power to confiscate the property of people. But the government does.
User avatar
#384 - davidispissed (02/26/2016) [-]
That's just it. A list of people is not a law against them. Why is this so hard to grasp? A list doesn't mean you lost a right. That's why it's a right. Also, the 5th Amendment backs it up. The government isn't taking your guns, unless you use them to break the law. And to be honest, if you're out misusing a weapon, you probably shouldn't have it. But for a law abiding citizen, there is no reason to protest against a gun registry. So from now on, I' just going to assume you are a gun toting murderer of puppies and children.
User avatar
#387 - policexplain (02/26/2016) [-]
Gun registries have historically been used to craft laws against gun owners and to facilitate disarming people, especially prior to and during the rise of tyranny. A federal gun registry tells the government which of its citizens is armed, so yes, you would lose a right if your name was on a list. You'd lose your right to privacy from the federal government. The potential for an abuse of this type of registry is the reason that there is such opposition to it.

On top of that, most people who use a gun to break the law do it with a gun that does not belong to them and would not be registered to them. And currently, if somebody gets caught using a gun to break the law, we search their property and confiscate any guns we find anyway.

The potential for abuse of a gun registry outweighs the potential benefits of one, which is why, after 200+ years of firearm ownership in the US, there is still no federal registry.

You can assume what you want about me.