|
wizardzz wrote:
However, I'm sure his security does not contain
an arsenal that is illegal for citizens to have though, as Farrakhan's
does.
I would guess that
1. It is possible to hire armed guards in Chicago - legally.
2. It is possible to own certain arms in Chicago - legally.
So other than that one must in fact show that the ancedotal quote was based on illegal acts in light of both of the above.
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm sure his security does not contain
an arsenal that is illegal for citizens to have though, as Farrakhan's
does."
citizens is the key word here, armed guards are the equivalent of a private militia.
at the time it was illegal for private citizens to own handguns.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz wrote: at the time it was illegal for private citizens to own handguns.
I would guess that is a false statement. I would suppose that "at the time" it was still possible to have armed guards at a bank and hire a body guard. Both of who were armed and both were essentially private citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court would disagree with you, that's why it was overturned. Private citizens could not own handguns. They hired off duty police officers to be security. Private Detectives were the only loophole, which explains other types of armed guards, but you couldn't just be one. You had to be sponsored through training by your licensed and insured employer, and could only have the gun in operating condition for paid job duties. So technically no, private citizens couldn't own handguns, but rich people could pay people to have guns for them- that was the reason I made the original statement.
I'm done responding to your claims, assumptions, and guesses that my statements are false. Do the research yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz wrote: The Supreme Court would disagree with you, that's why it was overturned. Private citizens could not own handguns.
They could however own rifles.
wizardzz wrote: You had to be sponsored through training by your licensed and insured employer, and could only have the gun in operating condition for paid job duties.
Pretty sure that a armed security detail would find it easy to prove the last part of that.
wizardzz wrote: So technically no, private citizens couldn't own handguns, but rich people could pay people to have guns for them
And my point was that the original comment was about an armed security force at a religious leaders house and whether that was legal. I wasn't commenting gun laws in general.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: They could however own rifles.
Bolt action, and/or shotgun only, under 10 round capacity, no pistol grip, no collapsible stock, as is the current law still.
jschell wrote: And my point was that the original comment was about an armed security force at a religious leaders house and whether that was legal. I wasn't commenting gun laws in general.
You missed the entire point of my comment. I was stating that he had, and was allowed to have, an armed private security force while on the whole, private citizens themselves were not allowed to be armed. The only people allowed to defend themselves were the ones rich enough / politically to pay people to be armed for them. These wealthy and influential guarded by armed private security detail were, and still are, the ones fighting to keep citizens unarmed. That's what was f***ed up about it, and that's why I mentioned it.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz wrote: Bolt action, and/or shotgun only, under 10 round capacity, no pistol grip, no collapsible stock, as is the current law still.
Again...the point is not about gun laws and their impact on the general population.
The point is about whether some very specific individuals at a very specific time and with a very specific job were legal or not.
wizardzz wrote: You missed the entire point of my comment.
Could be. So your statement...
"However, I'm sure his security does not contain an arsenal that is illegal for citizens to have though, as Farrakhan's does."
I took that to mean, with emphasis on what I underlined to suggest that you were stating that Farrakhan's force (and at least implicitly at the personal antecedent related earlier) was illegal.
wizardzz wrote: I was stating that he had, and was allowed to have,...
I see. That certainly was not clear to me in the comment that I quoted and responded to.
|
|
|
|
|
You still seem to be struggling with this for a reason I can't understand.
I never said his force was illegal, or implied it, I said they were armed with guns illegal for civilians to own. I have never known security forces to be considered civilians.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz wrote: You still seem to be struggling with this for a reason I can't understand.
I believe I explained how I read your comment.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose it is OK for the FBI to use tanks to blast into someone's home as they did at the Branch Davidians' compound in Waco, Texas.
JSOP would tell you that NO weapon should be exempted from the Second Amendment right to carry weapons! 
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Give out a free phone and win.
In India, the government is promising cell phones to below-poverty-level people!
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the first world!
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Mormons don't baptize holocaust victims - that would be extremist. That is, dig
up some dead guy, against relatives wishes, and baptize the corpse. Yeah, I'd
be opposed to that. However, what they really do is proxy baptisms which is no
more or less silly than a ton of other religious practices.
Wrong.
If I choose to participate in a religious ceremony than that by itself is not extreme.
Engaging others without choice is extremism.
MehGerbil wrote: This is a terrorist act these days?
Terrorism != extremism.
MehGerbil wrote: I'm sure I don't give an elephant on how they waste their
Your life is your life. Your disinterest however is not a mandate on the rest of society.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Wrong.
If I choose to participate in a religious ceremony than that
by itself is not extreme.
Engaging others without choice is extremism.
Those getting the proxy baptism aren't present.
They've been dead for 60 years.
To say they've been 'engaged' is ridiculous.
You cannot 'engage' someone who no longer exists.
You hate Romney - I get that - but find a real issue.
Seriously.
BTW, I proxy baptized you last night about 8 times.
Did it hurt?
modified 8-Nov-12 21:36pm.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Those getting the proxy baptism aren't present.
Those related to them either explicitly or emotionally are however impacted.
MehGerbil wrote: You hate Romney - I get that - but find a real issue.
Your are incorrect. I would vote republican if they would stay out of my personal life. They make a big deal about not mandating how businesses work and yet wish to make many life choices for individuals.
MehGerbil wrote: BTW, I proxy baptized you last night about 8 times.
First I doubt that.
Second it isn't a matter of whether I take offense at such religious ceremonies but rather that individuals could take offense. The same fervor that pushes those people to engage in such ceremonies is the same sort of fervor with which others take offense.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Those related to them either explicitly or emotionally are however impacted.
Please, explain to me how these people are 'impacted'.
Let's say I proxy baptize you in a Mormon Temple tonight.
I whisper your name while someone else is baptized in your place.
Show me how this damages your family.
I think what shocks me the most about the USA is the rampaging hoard of the perpetually offended. I've never seen so many weak, brittle, people - people who have the best of everything on earth and yet cannot handle the smallest emotional challenge. It's boggling.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Please, explain to me how these people are 'impacted'.
Are you claiming that no one takes offense?
MehGerbil wrote:
I think what shocks me the most about the USA is the rampaging hoard of the perpetually offended. I've never seen so many weak, brittle, people - people who have the best of everything on earth and yet cannot handle the smallest emotional challenge. It's boggling.
Your conclusion is wrong.
Your assumption ignores that fact that that is exactly what freedom means - people can be offended and can speak out about it.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Your assumption ignores that fact that that is exactly what freedom means - people can be offended and can speak out about it.
Your post has convinced me that we're talking past each other.
If you feel the need to assert free speech rights then we aren't even on the same topic.
My bad.
Take care.
|
|
|
|
|
Having no spinal chord makes it difficult to separate oneself from extremism.
Nihil obstat
|
|
|
|
|
I have not found the mormans to be extremists. However there is definately an undeserved bias against them. I am not a Morman, but if there is any group that I have found to consist of good people, it has been the Mormans.
|
|
|
|
|
I find that self righteous and good people tend to be mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
There is something to what you say, my 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting link. I did not know that.
|
|
|
|
|
By in large the American people:
1: Don't save money.
2: Run up credit card debt.
3: Refuse to take responsibility for actions.
4: Expect others to carry the load.
5: Blame others for personal failure.
6: Handle jealousy by destroying those who succeed.
The American people have elected the best representative of their chosen life-style.
We got exactly what we deserve.
I couldn't be more pleased with the results.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
