T1B

Mikey wrote:In your apparently ideal world whether or not you think somebody has any business owning a gun is not going to make a bit of difference in whether they do or not.

No, the 2nd Amendment dictates that.


Don't like it? Have fun in whatever country you choose to move to.

Here in Oregon, they corrected the unconstitutional concealed handgun license laws about 20 years ago.

Since then, of the thousands and thousands of permits take a big guess how many of those people are guilty of violent crimes, or have been accused of shooting any innocent people?


Go ahead and take a big ol' guess.

You already know the answer. BUT, those people have saved quite a few lives since then, a couple in very dramatic fashion.

Mikey wrote: It sure as fuck is, whether you like it or not.

Second Amendmentsayswhat?


It certainly isn't, whether you like it or not.


Matter of fact, I kinda doubt that when issuing carry permits, San Diego County gets Mikey on the phone to see if he deems the applicant trustworthy or not. Matter of fact, I'm quite sure of that.


Laughing my balls off that you think it's your business, since every scrap of evidence in any way related to the subject says you're full of shit.

As long as there are laws dictating what firearms can be carried and where they can be carried it's everybody's business. And I'm pretty sure it's going to stay that way for a long time to come.

Too bad for Dinsdale (but good for most of the rest of us) that the Supreme Court has more say in interpreting the Constitution than he does. Even in the U&L.

Mikey wrote:You mean as opposed to all those states that do allow guns on school campuses?

BTW-perfectly legal in Oregon if one has a CHL.

Some schools have attempted to overrule state law, but their wishes are meaningless.

Although most school districts do have strict policies against employees carrying weapons (dumb), and obviously minors aren't allowed to carry concealed handguns under any circumstanes. But anyone with a CHL who is lawfully on school grounds certainly can carry their concealed handgun.


And take a big guess how many problems this has caused? Yup, you guessed it.

mvscal wrote:My right to self-defense is not defined by the Constitution or subject to intrepretation by the Supreme Court.

Your right to carry a weapon certainly is.

Mikey wrote:As long as there are laws dictating what firearms can be carried and where they can be carried it's everybody's business.

Uhm... no.

Although there are restictions on which weapons can be carried concealed (which may eventually be challenged and struck down, although it would hardly be worth anyone's while to fight for their right to carry a weapon that essentially isn't concealable, such as a short barrelled rifle), there aren't any restrictions whatsoever on what type of guns an Oregonian can have, or where they can carry them, so long as non-CHL holders don't have them concealed, outside of courtrooms and whatsuch. Other than that, your machine gun or silenced weapon isn't an issue, as long as it's not concealed.


And again, guess how many problems this causes statewide? Yup, you guessed right again.

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:My right to self-defense is not defined by the Constitution or subject to intrepretation by the Supreme Court.

Your right to carry a weapon certainly is.

No, it certainly isn't.


Here, I'll help you out...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dinsdale wrote:

Mikey wrote:As long as there are laws dictating what firearms can be carried and where they can be carried it's everybody's business.

Uhm... no.

Although there are restictions on which weapons can be carried concealed (which may eventually be challenged and struck down, although it would hardly be worth anyone's while to fight for their right to carry a weapon that essentially isn't concealable, such as a short barrelled rifle), there aren't any restrictions whatsoever on what type of guns an Oregonian can have, or where they can carry them, so long as non-CHL holders don't have them concealed, outside of courtrooms and whatsuch. Other than that, your machine gun or silenced weapon isn't an issue, as long as it's not concealed.


And again, guess how many problems this causes statewide? Yup, you guessed right again.

Nice job making a statement and contradicting yourself, all in one run-on sentence.

Remember those idiots who tried to come out with the "Smart Gun". It was the gun that would only fire if the owner's fingerprints were on the trigger and handle. Fucking idiots. May favorite response to that shit idea was some congressman who said, "The only 'Smart Gun' anyone could come up with that would insure the safety of the general public is a gun that knows the intentions of its user."

$$$

Dinsdale wrote:

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:My right to self-defense is not defined by the Constitution or subject to intrepretation by the Supreme Court.

Your right to carry a weapon certainly is.

No, it certainly isn't.


Here, I'll help you out...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And exactly where does the word "inalienable" show up in the Second Amendment, or the entire Constitution for that matter?

Another nice job proving what an ignorant dick polisher you are.

mvscal wrote:The Constitution does not grant rights. It establishes limitations on the government's authority to interfere with my natural rights.

Bingo.


The basis of the Constitution is to tell the government what powers THE PEOPLE have granted to it.

The government doesn't grant ANYONE ANY rights... the People grant the government rights.


There's no greater kicking of one's own ass than to try and cite a document as restricting gun rights, when the people who wrote said document used their firearm ownership to pave the way for writing said document, and were adamant that others should hold onto their guns just like they did.


Classic.

Hmmm.... I've got some spare time this afternoon, and will be in the southeastern burbs, which means I might have to wet a line and try to nab some fish from the Clack.


And check it out, Mikey -- since I will be in transport to fish, it means I may legally carry a concealed handgun (although I'll be in a city with anti open-carry laws, so open carry is out, which I wouldn't be doing anyway), no license required besides a fishing license.


And whether I do bring one or not, guess what? It's none of your fucking business. Matter of fact, it's none of the police's business, either, assuming I don't use said gun in the commision of a crime, and I'm under no legal obligation to inform any cop I encounter that I have one.


The law says one thing, Mikey says another... tough call there.

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote:The Constitution does not grant rights. It establishes limitations on the government's authority to interfere with my natural rights.

Bingo.


The basis of the Constitution is to tell the government what powers THE PEOPLE have granted to it.

The government doesn't grant ANYONE ANY rights... the People grant the government rights.


There's no greater kicking of one's own ass than to try and cite a document as restricting gun rights, when the people who wrote said document used their firearm ownership to pave the way for writing said document, and were adamant that others should hold onto their guns just like they did.


Classic.

There you go again you stupid fucking poser.

Nobody cited the Constitution as restricting gun rights. There are, however, laws that restrict firearm ownership. I assume you knew that, but decided to try and lie your way out of a losing argument. Par for the course, I guess. You really do look pretty fucking stupid trying to claim that firearm ownership is not restricted in the US because you say the Constitution doesn't allow for it.

Keep lying and beating your head against the wall though. It's really pretty funny to watch.

BTW...I'm still waiting for the "inalienable" citation.

But I assume you'll just ignore that bit of ignorance you so eloquently demonstrated and move on, as is your normal MO when shown to be the poser that you really are.

Mikey wrote:You really do look pretty fucking stupid trying to claim that firearm ownership is not restricted in the US because you say the Constitution doesn't allow for it.

I guess I'll have to go ahead and ask you to link that one up.

Wait... don't bother. I already noted certain restrictions.


BTW- Just because I didn't adress it specifically, firearms ownership isn't restricted by the US government -- it's restricted by states... just so's you know.


But if you'll excuse me, I've got to lock-and-load my perfectly legal firearm, and legally conceal it in the interest of my self defense. Or maybe I won't. Regardless, it's none of your business whether I do or not. Nor is it anyone else's.


Welcome to Reality, bud. It's a wonderful place to live.

glock glock

must be legal to shoot fish in a barrel in the u&l

bbqjones wrote:glock glock

must be legal to shoot fish in a barrel in the u&l

Cue the 7,000 word Dinsdale post on the size and plentiful nature of U&L fish.

BSmack wrote:

bbqjones wrote:glock glock

must be legal to shoot fish in a barrel in the u&l

Cue the 7,000 word Dinsdale post on the size and plentiful nature of U&L fish.

I'm pretty sure that's where the barrel was invented.

I suppose you're going to link up where I said felons and whatnot were allowed to own firearms in any way, shape or form?

Uhm, that would fall under the whole "responsible citizen" thingy.


And I could have saved you the trouble of looking up which firearms need to be cleared with the ATF. All you had to do was ask. Hell, chances are I could have told you which Act regulated them.


I'll save you some further research -- if a state's laws are anything like Oregon, you need to have the top-ranking cop in your county/municipality sign off on it, too.


Of course, what your googlerific "research" didn't tell you, that besides the obvious background check, the only thing they give a shit about is making sure you greased the wheels at the IRS properly.


Oh, you didn't know that? Google harder next time, wannabe. Or did you really think it was about "public safety" and not money?

Really? PLEASE say "yes"... please?

As usual, Dins is talking out of his ass and feels that being half-assed informed is the same as being an expert.

I thought that was one of the perks of message boards?

Dinsdale wrote:Here in Oregon, they corrected the unconstitutional concealed handgun license laws about 20 years ago.

Since then, of the thousands and thousands of permits take a big guess how many of those people are guilty of violent crimes, or have been accused of shooting any innocent people?


Go ahead and take a big ol' guess.

The same thing has pretty much happened here in the red dirt state since a conceal-and-carry law was passed in the early '90s.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

As usual, Dins is talking out of his ass and feels that being half-assed informed is the same as being an expert.

I thought that was one of the perks of message boards?

chortle snort rack

RadioFan wrote: The same thing has pretty much happened here in the red dirt state since a conceal-and-carry law was passed in the early '90s.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b.... but I didn't approve of this!!!! NO ONE ASKED ME MY OPINION FIRST!!!!!


Sin,
Mikey the Nanny-Stater and opponent of the US Constitution

Not much use arguing with Dins, Mace. He'll change the subject, twist what you post until it's 180 degrees from what you actually said, put words in your mouth that have absolutely no bearing on anything you've posted, contradict himself and then deny it, completely ignore anything you bring to the table that conclusively proves him wrong, and still think he's getting over.

It's really OK to let him have his little fantasies, though, as long as they keep him from leaving the U&L.

Some sincere advice, Mace -- eject.

Mace wrote:

I'll save you some further research -- if a state's laws are anything like Oregon, you need to have the top-ranking cop in your county/municipality sign off on it, too.

That's for your concealed gun permit, not registering offensive weapons with the ATF. In Iowa, the County Sheriff issues concealed weapon permits after the applicant has successfully completed a gun safety class.

I'll type slowly -- you need to fill out paperwork and get approval, THEN the head of the jurisdiction's law enforcement has to sign off on it. The ATF just wants to make sure you're not a terrrrrist or whatsuch, and that the IRS gets their $200. The local police chief/sheriff is probably going to look into the security of the property it will be stored in, non-movable safe for when the resident isn't home, etc.

Define "greased the wheels of the IRS", dumbass, and what that might have to do with getting a machine gun registered with the ATF.

OK, I'll type double-secret slowly this time.

To register a machine gun or a silenced gun, you need to get permission from the ATF. Before the permits are issued, the applicant needs to cut the IRS a check for $200. Last I checked, those history books weren't keeping the Gun Control Act of 1934 a secret.


Since you really are this fucking ignorant, I'll even try and educate you -- the reason was that Thompsons (aka Tommy Gun) were readily available at that time. At ~$75 a whack, they were considered a novelty, and an expensive one at that. But couple a rapid-fire .45 with Prohibition (aka "government begging for organized crime"), and add a heaping dose of Al Capone (Thompson's best customer at the time, who was outfitting a small army with Thompsons at the time), and you've got a lot of dead cops and people getting dead standing up to the mob. But during the Depression, cops coming up with $75 a hit in the gangster arms race was cost-prohibitive. Hence, a $200 tax on the sale of machine guns, which enabled law enforcement to buy two for every one the mob purchased. That law is still on the books today.

Get it? Greasing the wheels of the IRS has EVERYTHING to do with legally obtaining a machine gun. It was the entire fucking purpose of registering full-autos with the feds at the time. Although your willingness to look fucking stupid for that odd chance you might be able to finally get over on Dinsdale is pretty fucking funny, in a rather sad way.


And again, if one takes care of the paperwork, there's no restrictions where I live outside of said paperwork. That paperwork must accompany the gun at all times.


Tard -- I've shot legally registered machine guns (none of them mine. Major freaking testosterone blast-btw). I've shot silenced pistols, also perfectly legal. But if it makes you feel better, there's even cops around here as ignorant as you, including one who tried to confiscate a friends full-auto and arrest him... didn't end well for the cop.


You've fully clowned yourself, dude.

Mikey wrote:Not much use arguing with Dins, Mace. He'll change the subject

You mean like asking to cite Constitutional stuff outside of the Second Amendment?


Priceless. The tards are out in force this morning.

Mikey wrote:Not much use arguing with Dins, Mace. He'll change the subject, twist what you post until it's 180 degrees from what you actually said, put words in your mouth that have absolutely no bearing on anything you've posted, contradict himself and then deny it, completely ignore anything you bring to the table that conclusively proves him wrong, and still think he's getting over.

Mace, see what I mean?

I'm still waiting for Dins' citation of where it mentions anything about "inalienable" in the Second Amendment, or anywhere in the Constitution.

I could cite multiple other examples, but it's time to hit the road and go see my boy tear up Rancho Buena Vista HS in their Academic Team meet.

Mikey wrote:Not much use arguing with Dins, Mace. He'll change the subject, twist what you post until it's 180 degrees from what you actually said, put words in your mouth that have absolutely no bearing on anything you've posted, contradict himself and then deny it, completely ignore anything you bring to the table that conclusively proves him wrong, and still think he's getting over.

Very well put.

Mister Bushice wrote: Very well put.

Careful, this will undoubtedly pull dins out of thread shame, get him to return and start dropping f-bombs, scatterbomb tard "blasts" (watch out for shrapnel) and the ever predictable claims of bode.

You know, him claiming bode again at this point is almost adorable. You know, the same kind of adorable like when you let a 5 y/o sock you in the gut and pretend to fall over in pain while he stands over you victoriously? That kind of adorable...'cept it's not.

We call them Brain Bowl teams in Iowa and my son has been on team since his freshman year. They hold their contests during the school day and I've never been able to watch one.


Mace

Hereabouts the freshmen start at 6:30, followed by the JV and then the varsity. We try go to every match 'cause it's a whole lot of fun.

My daughter, who graduated last year, was on the team and they lost 4 straight years to the team we played last night. And they went on the win the league each year (at least at the level my kid was in). My boy's freshman team last year (he was captain) was the first team at any level from our school to beat them, in a close game, since we've been going. Our freshman team was undefeated last year until they lost by 1 point at the county championships.

Now he's one of three sophs on the JV team, and one of two who answer the most questions. We were all a little nervous going in. I told him before they started "don't take any prisoners". We won 90-29 in their crib. Revenge is sweet.

So, your BODENESS is dependent on some semantics involving the word "restrictions"?


OK, I'll clarify -- those "restrictions" are filling out some paperwork any buckying up $200 to the IRS. And making sure the local sheriff doesn't think you're a menace to society.


That's some huge "restrictions" there.

Mikey wrote:Not much use arguing with Dins, Mace. He'll change the subject

Oh, is that some standard that grants other posters BODE?

Mace wrote:One of my favorites was the "Boise State linemen are undersized". LOL.

LOL, and several other gayassed text-message abbreviations, indeed.



You guys' desperation is a LOLer, alright.

Mace wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: LOL, and several other gayassed text-message abbreviations, indeed.

"Gayasses" are your specialty, dimwit, not mine. Maybe you prefer the "STFU" text instead.

I see you found an acronym you like even better...


The venerable "IKYABWAI."


But hey, as long as you think you're doing well here, I guess that's all that matters.


"You'll just change the subject... hey, do you remember what Dinsdale said about Boise State?"

"I'm not gayassed... YOU'RE gayassed!"


Tell you what, bro -- I'll save you the trouble of typing your next post...

Mace wrote:You work at McDonalds!

WAR -- The Inevitable

So, since I preempted your next epic "blast," you went for the next best thing -- the dreaded "Quote something the other person didn't really say, but make sure it's completely devoid of any and all humor"?

Figured you'd complete the trifecta one way or another.

And then you decided an emoticon would be the icing on the cake?


Outfuckingstanding.

I suppose when you base your arguments on what you wish the other person said, it gets easier.


Which has long been your MO.


I'm well aware of which firearms need to be registered with the ATF. Since long before this board came to be.

Let's review your brilliance...

Mace wrote:I could be wrong, but anyone dumb enough to think that there are no restrictions on what kind of guns an Oregonian can have....including a machine gun and/or silencer

For the severalth time, ownership of these isn't restricted. Just requires the tax stamp from the IRS, which is given after filing the ATF papers and ponying up 200 bones.

you must have conveniently misremembered that list of firearms, dipshit, and also failed to remember that the weapons on that list had to be registered with the ATF, if you get their approval, when you said.......

it would hardly be worth anyone's while to fight for their right to carry a weapon that essentially isn't concealable, such as a short barrelled rifle), there aren't any restrictions whatsoever on what type of guns an Oregonian can have, or where they can carry them, so long as non-CHL holders don't have them concealed, outside of courtrooms and whatsuch. Other than that, your machine gun or silenced weapon isn't an issue, as long as it's not concealed.

"No restrictions whatsoever on the type of guns an Oregonian can have.....your machine gun or silenced weapon isn't an issue"??? Remember that?

Yup. Quite well.

And guess what? Those firearms are legal in Oregon (and a lot of other states, too). I guess ownership of those isn't restricted, eh?

But please, continue on with the little semantics glitch you've perceived, in your quest for the BODE that ain't coming.

I'll save you some further research -- if a state's laws are anything like Oregon, you need to have the top-ranking cop in your county/municipality sign off on it, too.

That's for your concealed gun permit, not registering offensive weapons with the ATF.

[/quote]


Oh, pretty familiar with Oregon's firearms laws, are you?


Wrong again, idiot -- that's also for registering full autos and silencers and whatnot. Said sheriff also needs to sign off for a CHL.

Define "greased the wheels of the IRS", dumbass, and what that might have to do with getting a machine gun registered with the ATF.

So, here you are expounding like an expert, and questioning what I know about Oregon/federal firearms laws, and you don't understand THE ENTIRE FUCKING REASON the ATF is involved (even though I told you which law covered it)?


Are you fucking kidding me?


You are a douche of the highest order.

Mace wrote:If I listened to a dumbfuck like you, I'd think that the Feds had absolutely NOTHING to do with restricting who can, or cannot, purchase or possess a firearm because THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID

Really? I said something about "who can, or cannot"? (Nice word-btw. Is that anything like a "cannon"?)


Here's EXACTLY WHAT I SAID...

Dinsdale wrote:there aren't any restrictions whatsoever on what type of guns an Oregonian can have

Here's EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID...

Mace wrote:Spin away, dipshit

Dyin' over here.


But that wasn't enough --

Mace wrote:because you made the claim that the Feds don't have any restrictions, only the states

This, after you posted a list of pretty much every firearm under the sun that THE FEDS ALLOW.

Papa Willie wrote:You can't outlaw guns and then tickle the pussies of those caught with them with a feather.

Exactly. Hell, I don't own any guns (at least as far as any of the tards here are concerned), but I sure as hell don't want the feds intervening in state law here, given that it's worked out pretty well -- except, of course for criminals who break into people's homes and get shot and killed by the homeowners here. Oh well.

Wierd dude, but I actually thought of that law, while reading this thread. There's a story about it in an issue of Penthouse I own, from like 1987 or something.

Of course, it's one thing to have a law like that in a small, homogeneous town, quite another to have it in a big city, full of freaks, from all sides. Especially with gangs, which hasn't come up directly in this thread.

But then again, the problem with gangs is that they are generally out on the streets, with both legal and illegal weapons, shooting each other and innocent people, not defending their homes, at least in most cases.

To: Dinsdale

From: Marcus Welby MD

The radiologists have informed me that your recent x-rays have resulted in an amazing discovery. Your initial self diagnosis that Mace's boots were firmly implanted in your rectum has proven to be an accurate diagnosis.....and that's the GOOD news. The bad news is that the x-ray discovered that your intestine looks like....well, how to I say this....it looks like a God Damn Foot Locker warehouse. A closer examination has further revealed that the shoes/boots found in your rectum come in a variety of sizes and styles and that, in fact, a great many of them seem to be your own. Kick your own ass much, Mr. Dinsdale? That would certainly appear to be the case. At any rate, Mr. Dinsdale, we're talking MAJOR surgery, and a lengthy retreat from T1B would be highly recommended by your entire medical team, as your rectum just can't take any more activity....that also means you must avoid contact with Rayduh James too.

I am...

Marcus Welby MD

Marcus Welby MD wrote:Uhhh, Velo.....I think it's time for you to stop by the office to have your meds adjusted.

I am...

Marcus Welby MD



Many Racks to velo.

Mace

Marcus Welby MD wrote:To: Dinsdale

From: Marcus Welby MD

The radiologists have informed me that your recent x-rays have resulted in an amazing discovery. Your initial self diagnosis that Mace's boots were firmly implanted in your rectum

I am...

Marcus Welby MD

Oh no you di'uhnt.

Nuh-uh.

That really didn't just happen, did it?