Kennedy

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say. Te estate can pass it to inheritor, and inheritor can receive it, but MD won't actually let you register it, so while you received it legally, if law enforcement ever takes notice that you possess it, you'll be charged and have to prove your innocence since you're not on the list. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Are you racist? Do you hate poor people? Why do school shootings matter to you, but the vast majority of shooting deaths, those that aren't white kids in school or privileged ones at university, don't matter to you? (Boy, progressive tactics are impressive; devoid of merit or logic, and leave you feeling a bit unclean, but they sure make a lot of sensational noise and influence the weak minded) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Good impression. You left out the vitriol, but well done otherwise. Don't forget: Va Tech was done with just two pistols. Obviously you need to ban semiauto handguns along with scary looking rifles. Or just register them all, because registration has never led to confiscation, except in NY, CA, MA, and pretty much anywhere else it's been enacted... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

...with the "something/anything must be done" crowd? As opposed to the, "Fuck it. Just let people die" crowd? Even the "good man with a gun" is saying something must be done. OK, so two people were injured by a third with a firearm. Excuse me but so fucking what? Should I care more that it was at a school? I don't. Should I care more that the weapon was I firearm? I don't. It's as terrible as any other assault with a deadly weapon. I'm sorry for them women that were attacked and injured. But that happens every day all over the world. Why get your panties in a wad over this one crime? All I see is a biased source trying to make more in advertising by sensationalizing a story to generate hits. Whoop-di-friggin-doo. I'm sure plenty are just salivating at the thought that he was a felon, using a black rifle, with a history of mental illness. If not, what exactly are you suggesting be done? Face it: with liberty and freedom comes the possibility that someone may abuse it to do something terrible. With other mediums you are comfortable criminalizing only the abuse, the harm to others. You don't want censorship or prior restraint to press or speech do you? No, you give them the freedom and then punish them if they've done wrong. You don't want to ban computers, or force every user to register with the govt before accessing the internet, do you? No, you support free access and use, until something is hacked or a virus is set loose. You don't even support voter ID laws, but you want a gargantuan bureaucracy between a citizen and the exercise of their second amendment rights. Why? All the harms that can be done with firearms are already against the law. Why do you want to so tightly monitor and control possession, the merely possibility that something horrible MIGHT be done some time in the future? What is so different on this one topic? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The difference is that there was no law in place preventing the estate from transferring the vehicle to any inheritor listed into will, or to you as spouse if not listed. In the case of MD and black rifles, there is no provision for transferring legal ownership to an inheritor, next of kin, or anyone else. When the owner dies, the rifle must be surrendered to the state for destruction (or confiscation for public use by LEO, but I doubt that'll be done). Otherwise anyone taking possession is in violation if the ridiculous state "assault weapons ban". witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

do they have omelets? I like pancakes. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

tell you what, get in a rocket and go straight in one direction (avoiding obstacles, etc) let me know when you hit the end - order me an omelet Start walking/swimming in straight line around the equator and tell me when you get to the end of the world. The world is finite and bounded, as is the universe (until God tells me otherwise). The original statement is just stupid. Infinity is an idea, just like, zero. Some cultures didn't have a concept of zero. Same with negative numbers. Don't even get me started or irrationals. Just because some putz doesn't understand a concept, that has no bearing on whether the concept is true or accurate. One person's failure to understand does not invalidate knowledge. If it did, all math, science, psychology, etc would be invalid. For your point, yes, the earth is a sphere of limited size and scope. That has no impact on how far one can travel on the globe. One can travel an infinite distance by merely continuing to circle the globe. And unless God has already personally told you everything you know about the physical universe, don't expect him to pop in and settle this one for you. So unless you have access to information that scientists do not, how have you so firmly decided that it is finite? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Difference bin that there is well established and documented civil law concerning what happens to the property of the deceased. Here we're dealing with criminal law and little to no legend. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

They seem to get it, and I haven't even discussed it with them. Read this next part slowly and carefully: when SCOTUS mentions felons, they don't mean anyone you believe has committed a felony; they mean convicted felons. By that same token, when the mention mentally ill, they are discussing those whom are legally "mentally ill", as defined by law. It doesn't mean anyone you believe is "nutters" or a threat to themself or others, it means involuntarily committed or adjudicated deficient/ defective in court. Feel free to read that more than once. It'd be nice if you let it sink in, maybe come up with a new response rather than repeating false information. It makes you look like either a fool or a liar. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

While he has no idea what he's talking about, yours is not a great example. There's no law against owning an unregistered car in MD. Owning an unregistered AR is. Whatever, it's moot. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The professor seems to have serious problems with these concepts. Folks like him want some magical "them" to preemptively stop anyone from doing anything bad, and failure to do so means government needs more power and control. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS majority opinion, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. No. 07–290; Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 I'd like an apology now. You don't deserve one and won't be getting one. You may know all about physics, clearly don't know much about hour the law. Notice SCOTUS did not define or redefine mental illness. They didn't have to. Mental illness in relation losing rights is already clearly defined. Notice "longstanding prohibitions". That means things already in place. It doesn't mean you get to redefine mental illness or include whatever you like, and it certainly doesn't include denying rights without due process. It is what the law says it is. It is not what you want it to be just because you want it. "Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things." Suck it up, cupcake. Thank you for grudgingly and with bad grace actually admitting that I was correct when I wrote: "According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things." Attempting to recover from your mistake by trying to contradict stuff that I didn't write (strawman) just makes you look silly. Get over yourself, cupcake. Wow, could you be more full of it? You use Heller to support your contention that more steps can be taken to prevent your class of "nutters" from getting guns, but you can't define nutters and SCOTUS only gives support for longstanding prohibitions banning guns for clearly defined groups. I'll admit I was wrong and offer heartfelt apologies if you say you think current law is sufficient. I'll do the same if you'll finally define a "nutter", rather than offer examples using bad acts someone has committed. Otherwise, you're just plain full of it, because I know you're smarter than to think you've supported your views. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Require that every person who buys a gun gets checked to see if they are a criminal or a nutjob. Period. OK, gov has a list of prohibited buyers based on due process. Allow FFLs and private citizens to check the list. Govt does not need to know who checked the list or why. No BATFE involvement, no backdoor registration or citizen tracking. Sound good to you? Yep. So you're going to give them guns because "well, we just have to live with them?" Bad idea. How do you define "them"? You still haven't defined kallend's "nutters" better than those already prohibited by court order or involuntary commitment. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Much like that saw about chimpanzees, typewriters and Shakespeare. You'll get no argument from me. You could even have mentioned broken clocks and such. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS majority opinion, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. No. 07–290; Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 I'd like an apology now. You don't deserve one and won't be getting one. You may know all about physics, clearly don't know much about hour the law. Notice SCOTUS did not define or redefine mental illness. They didn't have to. Mental illness in relation losing rights is already clearly defined. Notice "longstanding prohibitions". That means things already in place. It doesn't mean you get to redefine mental illness or include whatever you like, and it certainly doesn't include denying rights without due process. It is what the law says it is. It is not what you want it to be just because you want it. "Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things." Suck it up, cupcake. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well, since Vulcans use(d) weapons and believe in both self defense and military strength, I'm guessing they'd view the lies, deception, projection, and irrational fear of particular inanimate objects as mental illness. Plenty of folks down here think so as well. One proposed title was hoplophobia. ps - yeah the op is embarassing and I'd happily disclaim him, but he reached the right conclusion here, even if he got to it the wrong way. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well, there was some serious research into this until the NRA lobbied the Congress to shut it down, and the GOP drones who tremble at the very mention of the NRA complied. The self-described "NRA Point Man in Congress" (Rep. Jay Dickey (R) of Arkansas) now regrets having done this. You mean at the CDC? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? The guys who know about pathogens, virus, bacteria, and plague epidemiology? The ones who went after guns because they had a predetermined outcome in mind and formed POS research to force that conclusion? The ones who don't know any more about the cause of violence than a lawyer or engineer? Yeah, no thanks. Leave it to people who actually study and specialize in that area. You don't want engineers dealing with outbreaks, or lawyers designing buildings or robots, do you? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Any reason this couldn't have gone into the thread that already exist for this very topic? The one on the front page. The one I think you already posted in. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Only because they don't have a serious chance of banning all guns right now. They are however trying to ban as many guns and gun related items as possible. What's your next BS dodge or circular argument? Also, professor, FYI: "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in" What part of "seriously" is it that you can't comprehend? They are seriously trying. They can't get the whole shebang just yet(even though that IS their stated goal), but that hasn't stopped them seriously trying to get every bit they can passed into law. They have their plans, they have their preparations, they have taken what steps they could unopposed, and they are fighting for more in the courts and the legislature. When exactly is it SERIOUS in your mind? When it is through two houses, over the injunctions, and waiting for a signature and press conference? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Shouldn't you have responded to kallend, rather than me? Also, professor, FYI: "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in" witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Congratulations, you are correct. So what's your point? Anyone who has general anesthetic administered should lose their gun rights? OK. So do you ha r anything to say, other than attempting to monkey wrench people who disapprove of the government's actions? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Only because they don't have a serious chance of banning all guns right now. They are however trying to ban as many guns and gun related items as possible. What's your next BS dodge or circular argument? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Can you name a single medicine that makes driving impossible? I can't. I can think of many that impair driving. However, consuming a sufficient quantity of some substance so as to appreciably impair your mental or physical faculties, or both, does not remove your right to own, buy, or possess a car. It is illegal to drive in that condition. Wouldn't that equate to barring carrying or shooting, not banning ownership? ETA: also, once the impairing substance is out of your system, you can go right back to operating a vehicle. You don't have to wait for a doctor, judge, or other arbitrator to retire your rights. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Lame. According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. Lame. SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights. Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things. So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK. I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me? Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*