Again

[DoubleA]

Re: Again

Different states have different laws. I want to point out a common misconception though that people will go to a store, buy a gun legally, then go commit a crime. That's rarely the case. The majority of guns used in illegal activities are either stolen, straw purchased, or bought off the street. (Gun shows/auctions attribute something like 2%)

In Wisconsin you may purchase a firearm through private transaction without needing any check or whatnot. 18+ for anything but handguns, which are 21+ (This law needs to be removed too)

Firearms themselves cannot commit a crime, targeting guns is idiotic, that's like yelling at a pencil because of a spelling mistake.

 

[Skuzoid]

Re: Again

myself and 199 other employees lost our jobs because our boss president clinton said "there are to many old white men working for the forest service". over the next 9 months 200 of us lost our jobs localy because we were white male heterosexuals. all were replaced by minorities. when we tried to fight it the labor board stated that the EOE & EEOC provide no protection for white heterosexual males between the ages of 18 and 54, from age 55-62 there is extremely limited protection on a case by case basis based solely on age discrimination. its shit like this that drives people to kill their employer. taking a mans job away like that is no different then taking his life away. the only notice you get is "here is your final check, bye bye". your fucked which is why bosses get shot. they screw with you over bullshit and ruin your life. so why not end theirs!!



there were 620 local forest services employees, 200 were deemed guilty of being white, given a 1 week notice then replaced. 22% of all USDA Forest Services employees lost their jobs for being white.

a lot of people imagine offing their boss for one reason or another. the only thing keeping them from doing so is the consequence. if your life couldnt get any worse then the consequence doesnt matter.

 

[Phelon]

Re: Again

myself and 199 other employees lost our jobs because our boss president clinton said "there are to many old white men working for the forest service". over the next 9 months 200 of us lost our jobs localy because we were white male heterosexuals. all were replaced by minorities. when we tried to fight it the labor board stated that the EOE & EEOC provide no protection for white heterosexual males between the ages of 18 and 54, from age 55-62 there is extremely limited protection on a case by case basis based solely on age discrimination. its shit like this that drives people to kill their employer. taking a mans job away like that is no different then taking his life away. the only notice you get is "here is your final check, bye bye". your fucked which is why bosses get shot. they screw with you over bullshit and ruin your life. so why not end theirs!!



there were 620 local forest services employees, 200 were deemed guilty of being white, given a 1 week notice then replaced. 22% of all USDA Forest Services employees lost their jobs for being white.

a lot of people imagine offing their boss for one reason or another. the only thing keeping them from doing so is the consequence. if your life couldnt get any worse then the consequence doesnt matter.

Hi Here's a cupcake and remember that cupcake when you get all stabby and shooty there buttercup.

PS.. It's chocolate

 

[woodycook]

Re: Again

22% of all USDA Forest Services employees lost their jobs for being white.

That's ridiculous, but it doesn't surprise me.

The Fed gov. sued Arizona over an anti-Illegal immigration law.

 

[DoubleA]

Re: Again

because it is 1. unconstitutional and 2. interferes with federal immigration laws. People are forgetting the whole "ALL men are created equal" and 99.99% of them are hypocritical because theres only one true type of "native" american. (I dunno about that even, with -their- ancestors coming over the land bridge=p) If illegal immigrants start taking over the casinos, then we have a problem.

 

[Ageless Venomous]

Re: Again

Inb4 lichlord

<.<
>.>


>.<

No really, guns are cool. You can walk around and kill some people when you decide you're unhappy with your job.

Hurraaaaaay!

 

[Skuzoid]

Re: Again

1. unconstitutional and 2. interferes with federal immigration laws.

1. it is constitutional for an officer of the law to ask someone for their identification and to validate such document

2. it mirrors federal laws that the feds wont enforce.


we fought the indians and won, bought land from france and kicked some mexican ass. the land is ours so stop menstruating about how second place is the victim. might makes right. come to eureka ca for a free demonstration.

 

[brain-demise]

Re: Again

I don't know the reason. There are 90 guns to every 100 citizens in the United Stats. Maybe it's just too easy for crazy people to get guns with so many around. I don't think other countries have this kind of volume.

 

[woodycook]

Re: Again

because it is 1. unconstitutional and 2. interferes with federal immigration laws. People are forgetting the whole "ALL men are created equal" and 99.99% of them are hypocritical because theres only one true type of "native" american. (I dunno about that even, with -their- ancestors coming over the land bridge=p) If illegal immigrants start taking over the casinos, then we have a problem.

Arizona has a constitutional right to defend it's borders.

 

[woodycook]

Re: Again

I don't know the reason. There are 90 guns to every 100 citizens in the United Stats. Maybe it's just too easy for crazy people to get guns with so many around. I don't think other countries have this kind of volume.

I shot a fully auto uzi by the age of 10. This is America.

 

[D-Nox]

Re: Again

@ Mister Dank please let me know wich word i didnt use right and ill try to correct myself.

Im pretty sure that the easy access to guns are a big factor but it cant be only that.
I also dont buy the idea of someone doing this just because he/she got fired.... this is just ridiculous. Taking a job away is the same that taking life away? cmon get real. Jobs are like women... they come and go and you can always get yourself a new one. speccially in the US.

I think this has more to do to the american filosophy of "be a winner" (have the best job, be the best at sports, date the most popular girl and be popular).
Of course that only a few individuals are able to reach the status of "winner" because if everybody were "winners" who would be the losers?
And because of, i dont know, maybe ignorance, some people who doesnt reach the "win" just blame the world around them for it not happening and decide to make a good damn mess. At least they will have their 5 minutes of fame.
What you guys think?

 

[New Deity]

Re: Again

you know what, tl;dr

 

[DoubleA]

Re: Again

1. it is constitutional for an officer of the law to ask someone for their identification and to validate such document

LEO may only ask for your identification during a traffic stop, when you must legally carry such an ID. However, during normal day to day activities, you are -not- required to present any identification, even if asked to by LEO. This is one thing the new law would allow, and is a violation of 4th amendment rights.

 

[Skuzoid]

Re: Again

LEO may only ask for your identification during a traffic stop, when you must legally carry such an ID. However, during normal day to day activities, you are -not- required to present any identification, even if asked to by LEO. This is one thing the new law would allow, and is a violation of 4th amendment rights.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

We need to remember that walking off the sidewalk down a street, crossing a street outside the pedestrian crossing area and so many many many things enacted as laws constitute a criminal act. If the officer asks for ID you have two choices. show it or be detained and possibly held in detention until your identity is determined. A law enforcement officer can charge you with numerous offenses including obstruction in a criminal investigation if you refuse to provide proper ID. The law also deems it lawful for the LEO to use lies and obfuscation in the course of his questioning/investigation. Just remember this magic sentence. "Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me or am I free to go?" If the officer says youre free to go leave immediately keeping your mouth shut! An officer can say you are being charged with a multitude of crimes most are bullshit just to detain you for questioning and verifying who you are since you refused to do so yourself. By not showing the officer your ID to begin with it is sending him a message that your trying to hide something.

I have no problem presenting my ID to an officer, answering any questions they ask. The only people who fear the police are criminals and barcode.


The 4th Amendment has been bastardized due to the war on drugs. It now allows people to be detained and searched for being in the wrong neighborhood because it is a "known" drug area. So if you walk down the wrong street or even live in that area you can and will be subject to the officers whim.

 

[D-Nox]

Re: Again

The only people who fear the police are criminals and barcode.

omg lol

 

[Feersum Endjinn]

Re: Again

People are forgetting the whole "ALL men are created equal" and 99.99% of them are hypocritical because theres only one true type of "native" american...

Absolutely. Either we are all illegal immigrants or none of us are, but you can't have it both ways...

I find it amusing that the most fervent supporters of closing borders and prohibiting entry into "their" (rich?) country are always people who can travel freely to almost any other country in the world...

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the whole of the rest of the world decided that to avoid perceived local job losses and cultural, moral and political contamination they would prohibit entry to any Brit, American or Italian (for example) citizen trying to leave their own country.

I want to point out a common misconception though that people will go to a store, buy a gun legally, then go commit a crime. That's rarely the case. The majority of guns used in illegal activities are either stolen, straw purchased, or bought off the street...

...Firearms themselves cannot commit a crime, targeting guns is idiotic, that's like yelling at a pencil because of a spelling mistake.

Two points:

1. All those firearms were originally legal. Very, very few guns are manufactured illegally or sold illegally in the first instance. After that, they may be stolen or resold etc, but I don't really see how that is relevant to the debate. If firearms were prohibited - full stop - they would gradually disappear from most sectors of society and the few that remained/were illegally imported/etc would be much, much easier to control.

2. No one blames the pencil for the spelling mistake. But when a child dies after o/d-ing on some bright coloured, sweet tasting pills he found in a flip-top box we do blame the manufacturer for not taking adequate precautions and create legislation prohibiting flip-top containers for dangerous medicines. When someone blows up a building using C4 explosives we do prohibit the sale of this dangerous product to the public and punish those responsible for not adequately protecting it.

These are items which do actually have alternative and legitimate uses, yet most governments prohibit their sale to the general public to make society a safer place for everyone. Most (yes, I know we can exclude a few weapons designed for hunting) types of firearm are made for killing people, and only for killing people. They serve no other purpose. Why does the idea of prohibiting their sale to the general public in order to save lives often provoke such an emotional and irrational response?

we fought the indians and won, bought land from france and kicked some mexican ass. the land is ours so stop menstruating about how second place is the victim. might makes right. come to eureka ca for a free demonstration.

myself and 199 other employees lost our jobs because our boss president clinton...

If second place just makes you a loser and might makes right...

Why are you whining about being victimized?

finally we see where he is coming from, the wacko left. has anyone noticed he refuses to accept anything contrary to his view.

"finally we see where he is coming from, the wacko right . has anyone noticed he refuses to accept anything contrary to his view."

For most normal, friendly, big hearted, generous Americans (and believe it or not, those adjectives are the ones I'd use to describe most of my own experiences in the US) - this polarization is probably what is making the USA such a schizophrenic nation to live in right now.

FE

 

[D-Nox]

Re: Again

Absolutely. Either we are all illegal immigrants or none of us are, but you can't have it both ways...

I find it amusing that the most fervent supporters of closing borders and prohibiting entry into "their" (rich?) country are always people who can travel freely to almost any other country in the world...

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the whole of the rest of the world decided that to avoid perceived local job losses and cultural, moral and political contamination they would prohibit entry to any Brit, American or Italian (for example) citizen trying to leave their own country.



Two points:

1. All those firearms were originally legal. Very, very few guns are manufactured illegally or sold illegally in the first instance. After that, they may be stolen or resold etc, but I don't really see how that is relevant to the debate. If firearms were prohibited - full stop - they would gradually disappear from most sectors of society and the few that remained/were illegally imported/etc would be much, much easier to control.

2. No one blames the pencil for the spelling mistake. But when a child dies after o/d-ing on some bright coloured, sweet tasting pills he found in a flip-top box we do blame the manufacturer for not taking adequate precautions and create legislation prohibiting flip-top containers for dangerous medicines. When someone blows up a building using C4 explosives we do prohibit the sale of this dangerous product to the public and punish those responsible for not adequately protecting it.

These are items which do actually have alternative and legitimate uses, yet most governments prohibit their sale to the general public to make society a safer place for everyone. Most (yes, I know we can exclude a few weapons designed for hunting) types of firearm are made for killing people, and only for killing people. They serve no other purpose. Why does the idea of prohibiting their sale to the general public in order to save lives often provoke such an emotional and irrational response?









If second place just makes you a loser and might makes right...

Why are you whining about being victimized?




"finally we see where he is coming from, the wacko right . has anyone noticed he refuses to accept anything contrary to his view."

For most normal, friendly, big hearted, generous Americans (and believe it or not, those adjectives are the ones I'd use to describe most of my own experiences in the US) - this polarization is probably what is making the USA such a schizophrenic nation to live in right now.

FE

finally some brains around here.
i agree with every single line of your post.

 

[Skuzoid]

Re: Again

lets go with the first one. we are not FREELY able to travel into other nations, we are able to LEGALY travel to other nations.

if your pro open borders then why do you lock your doors at night and windows? why are your personal borders closed off?

 

[Feersum Endjinn]

Re: Again

if your pro open borders then why do you lock your door at night and windows?

I don't.

You would be surprised at the number of places around the world where no one feels frightened enough of losing their life or their possessions to have to lock themselves up inside their own house.

FE

 

[Skuzoid]

Re: Again

I don't.

You would be surprised at the number of places around the world where no one feels frightened enough of losing their life or their possessions to have to lock themselves up inside their own house.

FE

do you knock on a person door before entering their home?