Upload
Login or register

davidispissed

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:7/11/2011
Last Login:8/20/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
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:28630
Times Content Favorited:16 times
Total Comments Made:2159
FJ Points:4593

latest user's comments

#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.
#117 - daytime 02/25/2016 on Go to bed or ban 0
#117 - Or the constitution apparently. Everyone loves the "Shall…  [+] (13 new replies) 02/25/2016 on Shall Not Be Infringed +3
User avatar
#187 - lean (02/25/2016) [-]
Well regulated means "free public assembly of proper function", not "controlled by government" Militia means all able bodied men who are not members of the armed services. That term was writ in order to render the government powerless to legislate arms and militia
User avatar
#374 - davidispissed (02/25/2016) [-]
to regulate, by fucking definition, means to govern or direct according to rule.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate
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.
#217 - mrpkmon has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#213 - mrpkmon (02/25/2016) [-]
Yeah it was also written during a time when the fledgling US had a tiny army and practically no navy compared to Britain and was surrounded bat shit crazy native Americans. So maybe it was in fact written for the purpose of bolsteri america's armed forces during the revolution.
User avatar
#246 - lean (02/25/2016) [-]
It had that result too, but the actual intent was because American citizens were forced to take up arms to overthrow the tyrannical British government, and the writers of the Bill of Rights understood intimately that the people are the last defense against tyranny. They were not about to enforce another one on the populace.
User avatar
#269 - mrpkmon (02/25/2016) [-]
No it was mainly because the British vastly over powered the Americans and it was easy for them to defend themselves against the natives. Wasn't a noble sentiment behind let's be honest here.
User avatar
#284 - lean (02/25/2016) [-]
Your argument might hold water if the amendment hadn't been written 6 years after the war ended.
User avatar
#301 - mrpkmon (02/25/2016) [-]
Yeah and they were still a pretty fucking weak country after the war. Not to mention it had an influence on them since the war just happened. So ya they probably thought oh hey those minutemen we're pretty useful we should probably keep those guys around in case the british come back or to deal with those natives. Use your brain or troll better.
User avatar
#324 - lean (02/25/2016) [-]
>trolls telling me to troll
So you think that militia is a government unit now? Oh boy.

(July 7,1788)
"That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made"

"Without these rights, liberty is not possible"

- James madison, author of the constitution
www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm
- James Madison, author of the bill of rights
User avatar
#136 - cockassunited (02/25/2016) [-]
Well regulated meant well armed at the time.
#118 - speedosnake (02/25/2016) [-]
Read some of the reply trains here. Everything you bring up is covered elsewhere, by me and others. It's late, I don't feel like going over everything again and you sound like you are balls-to-the-wall dedicated to your opinions, which you are entitle to have.

On that first point, the "shall not be infringed" part would potentially be threatened by a registry, hence the discussion on it. The 2nd amendment is not a good base for anti-gun arguments. Read into the history of it and you'll see what I mean. Well regulated does not mean that guns are to be "well regulated". They wrote that with the intent of providing the citizens a way to fight against future tyranny, and by extension, the federal government. At the time, a citizen could own and maintain anything and everything that the government could, up to and including, cannons, magazines of explosives, and war-ships.

Whether that thinking is valid today is a personal decision that you must make. That decision is the core or all gun debates. It is impossible for either of us to convince the other that we're right on these secondary issues if we disagree on that.
User avatar
#375 - davidispissed (02/25/2016) [-]
how does having a registry prevent the sale of firearms?

I have a HUGE registry of porn, does taht mean you can't buy it?
#115 - Psst, The NRA keeps one too  [+] (24 new replies) 02/25/2016 on Shall Not Be Infringed +2
User avatar
#145 - policexplain (02/25/2016) [-]
The NRA is not part of the government.
User avatar
#373 - davidispissed (02/25/2016) [-]
The NRA is the largest opponent of gun registry
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.
#116 - speedosnake (02/25/2016) [-]
And I'm not going to defend it. I'm not super thrilled with the NRA either.
User avatar
#117 - davidispissed (02/25/2016) [-]
Or the constitution apparently. Everyone loves the "Shall not be infringed" part, but seem to gloss over there "Well Regulated" bit. The gun registry is a tool they try to use to match a gun and its ballistic evidence to a specific owner to know if that particular gun was used in a crime. It's not a big conspiracy, It's a government that is otherwise overwhelmed trying to find a way to resolve an actual national crisis.
User avatar
#187 - lean (02/25/2016) [-]
Well regulated means "free public assembly of proper function", not "controlled by government" Militia means all able bodied men who are not members of the armed services. That term was writ in order to render the government powerless to legislate arms and militia
User avatar
#374 - davidispissed (02/25/2016) [-]
to regulate, by fucking definition, means to govern or direct according to rule.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate
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.
#217 - mrpkmon has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#213 - mrpkmon (02/25/2016) [-]
Yeah it was also written during a time when the fledgling US had a tiny army and practically no navy compared to Britain and was surrounded bat shit crazy native Americans. So maybe it was in fact written for the purpose of bolsteri america's armed forces during the revolution.
User avatar
#246 - lean (02/25/2016) [-]
It had that result too, but the actual intent was because American citizens were forced to take up arms to overthrow the tyrannical British government, and the writers of the Bill of Rights understood intimately that the people are the last defense against tyranny. They were not about to enforce another one on the populace.
User avatar
#269 - mrpkmon (02/25/2016) [-]
No it was mainly because the British vastly over powered the Americans and it was easy for them to defend themselves against the natives. Wasn't a noble sentiment behind let's be honest here.
User avatar
#284 - lean (02/25/2016) [-]
Your argument might hold water if the amendment hadn't been written 6 years after the war ended.
User avatar
#301 - mrpkmon (02/25/2016) [-]
Yeah and they were still a pretty fucking weak country after the war. Not to mention it had an influence on them since the war just happened. So ya they probably thought oh hey those minutemen we're pretty useful we should probably keep those guys around in case the british come back or to deal with those natives. Use your brain or troll better.
User avatar
#324 - lean (02/25/2016) [-]
>trolls telling me to troll
So you think that militia is a government unit now? Oh boy.

(July 7,1788)
"That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made"

"Without these rights, liberty is not possible"

- James madison, author of the constitution
www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm
- James Madison, author of the bill of rights
User avatar
#136 - cockassunited (02/25/2016) [-]
Well regulated meant well armed at the time.
#118 - speedosnake (02/25/2016) [-]
Read some of the reply trains here. Everything you bring up is covered elsewhere, by me and others. It's late, I don't feel like going over everything again and you sound like you are balls-to-the-wall dedicated to your opinions, which you are entitle to have.

On that first point, the "shall not be infringed" part would potentially be threatened by a registry, hence the discussion on it. The 2nd amendment is not a good base for anti-gun arguments. Read into the history of it and you'll see what I mean. Well regulated does not mean that guns are to be "well regulated". They wrote that with the intent of providing the citizens a way to fight against future tyranny, and by extension, the federal government. At the time, a citizen could own and maintain anything and everything that the government could, up to and including, cannons, magazines of explosives, and war-ships.

Whether that thinking is valid today is a personal decision that you must make. That decision is the core or all gun debates. It is impossible for either of us to convince the other that we're right on these secondary issues if we disagree on that.
User avatar
#375 - davidispissed (02/25/2016) [-]
how does having a registry prevent the sale of firearms?

I have a HUGE registry of porn, does taht mean you can't buy it?
#10 - When I was there, I taught farmers how to grow other crops and… 02/20/2016 on leia passes the torch 0
#7 - Put in airplane mode, check the account online for a period. I… 02/19/2016 on Tech Question!! +1
#27 - no.  [+] (1 new reply) 02/11/2016 on Nigger ATTACKS girl... -1
#28 - Glitched (02/11/2016) [-]
** Idiot on FJ can barely read.**

Refuses to read because it is hard to comprehend big words.
#2 - Republican Governor 02/11/2016 on Michigan is fucked -2
#22 - ok. I thought he was just gonna break the laptop.  [+] (3 new replies) 02/11/2016 on Nigger ATTACKS girl... 0
#26 - Glitched (02/11/2016) [-]
Read more than the headline then.
User avatar
#27 - davidispissed (02/11/2016) [-]
no.
#28 - Glitched (02/11/2016) [-]
** Idiot on FJ can barely read.**

Refuses to read because it is hard to comprehend big words.