Newtown - the case for seeing the photos

tekkychick said:
OH I WISH WE COULD DO THAT!
Click to expand...

Why can't we? At 18 every citizen takes a parental test, and then again every 5 years. If you want to have a child you have to take another test. If you have a child without a permit, the child is taken by the state and you and sterilized. Also failure on any test results in sterilization.
 
007 is a BOG MAN said:
Why can't we? At 18 every citizen takes a parental test, and then again every 5 years. If you want to have a child you have to take another test. If you have a child without a permit, the child is taken by the state and you and sterilized. Also failure on any test results in sterilization.
Click to expand...

Permanent or reversible?
 
Rune said:
Permanent or reversible?
Click to expand...

I prefer what a friend once proposed: a valve inserted into all males when they turn 12 or 13. The valve blocks the flow of sperm.

Once the male proves he's in a committed relationship and able to provide for any kids generated within it - the valve is turned and the sperm can flow.

Unfortunately, it won't pass constitutional muster, but other than that a lovely idea.
 
tekkychick said:
I prefer what a friend once proposed: a valve inserted into all males when they turn 12 or 13. The valve blocks the flow of sperm.

Once the male proves he's in a committed relationship and able to provide for any kids generated within it - the valve is turned and the sperm can flow.

Unfortunately, it won't pass constitutional muster, but other than that a lovely idea.
Click to expand...

How about we just collect and store all the sperm the typical boy ejaculates from the onset of puberty until he starts dating girls. Then we give them all a vasectomy. No certificate of a vasectomy - no dating my daughter. I figure they would have enough sperm to last the rest of their lives and parenthood really could be planned. Sort of like your valve idea but less of a chance of a plumbing failure.

Note: I gave up on the idea of following the thread. :)
 
Last edited:
tekkychick said:
I prefer what a friend once proposed: a valve inserted into all males when they turn 12 or 13. The valve blocks the flow of sperm.

Once the male proves he's in a committed relationship and able to provide for any kids generated within it - the valve is turned and the sperm can flow.

Unfortunately, it won't pass constitutional muster, but other than that a lovely idea.
Click to expand...

Ah,so one of the boots is a fascist. Good to know.
 
Red Mule said:
How about we just collect and store all the sperm the typical boy ejaculates from the onset of puberty until he starts dating girls. Then we give them all a vasectomy. No certificate of a vasectomy - no dating my daughter. I figure they would have enough sperm to last the rest of their lives and parenthood really could be planned. Sort of like your value idea but less of a chance of a plumbing failure.

Note: I gave up on the idea of following the thread. :)
Click to expand...

Make that TWO fascist boots.
 
007 is a BOG MAN said:
Interrpeted that way by whom? Certainly not the courts...
Yes, see this is one of those examples I mentioned earlier. Sometimes, to a authoritarian leftist, the words "right of the people" means just that. But sometimes, as in this case with the 2A it apparently means "rights of the state, not the people'.

Norway also has a much smaller population distributed over a large area and is almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, as well as having a very relaxed social attitude about drugs. In short it is not a accurate comparison to America in any way, shape, or form. You wouldn't compare their drug crimes rates to ours would you? No, because of a long list of reasons. So to compare any of their other laws to ours is equally wrong

For starters, I'm Billy. I know you're new and haven't ever actually seen me use such a name, but that's my accepted moniker. And yes the government would CERTAINLY make attempts to violate gun rights just as they have with any other. Hence the rabid, and growing, support of groups like the NRA (who are, as far as gun rights groups go, very moderate and conciliatory)


Woah there, who said anything about overthrowing anything? My point was that it is ridiculous beyond pale to pretend that the government would never violate such rights when it has in the past.

Are these the same courts that once said black people aren't people, that holding thousands of people indefinite prisoners without trial is A-OK? I wouldn't put too much faith into them, at least not as a final measure of protection.
Oh? And how might that be? Would that be the campaign financing laws that the court you just pledged support for upheld? Hmmm....

Yes, indeed we have.
How, I must ask, is the right to arms archaic? And you'll note that even though you said we've changed the Constitution, no one in Congress has proposed changing it at this time. THAT is my biggest problem. If you wish to make such great limitations to men and their arms, then you must use an amendment, but none has ever (to my knowledge) been proposed.

Well yes, it's implicitly stated in the Constitution. Read Article 1, Section 8.
You already do. Such arms are beyond the financial means of but a few already.

Then you should find a congressmen that proposes an Amendment
Within the decade there are going to be a lot of striking down laws in CA. Well, a decade to 15 years.
You mean violence as a whole right? Otherwise you're being deluded into blaming a tool. It'd be akin to saying hammers cause carpentry.
Like institutionalization?
Free firearms training for all citizens? Sure. Just so long as it's free and available to all.
Safe is a relative term. I have no children. I keep guns loaded and within arms reach. That is 'safe' by the circumstances of my own experience and situation.
So if I want to sell it I can't? Or if my wife needs to use the gun when I'm not home? Yeah, that's a dumb idea.
FTFY
You wanna know what would make the single greatest reduction in gun deaths (or violent deaths over all)? Ending the drug war.
Click to expand...

:hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand:
 
Rune said:
:hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand:
Click to expand...

I see you continue to use a bogus Washington quote as your signature. Why is that Rune?

First Annual Message to Congress

George Washington

January 08, 1790


"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies."
 
Bfgrn said:
I see you continue to use a bogus Washington quote as your signature. Why is that Rune?

First Annual Message to Congress

George Washington

January 08, 1790


"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies."
Click to expand...

This from someone continuing to use a bogus persona.
 
Darla said:
This from someone continuing to use a bogus persona.
Click to expand...

That is a lie Darla. I have never used a different screen name, but go ahead, turn yourself into a slime ball like Superfreak just to get back at me if it gives you satisfaction. How low will you go Darla? You still refuse to admit you went way overboard with you obsession about that guy's temperature and bod.

And no matter how low you go to get back at me, it does not change the fact that Rune's signature is bogus.
 
Bfgrn said:
That is a lie Darla. I have never used a different screen name, but go ahead, turn yourself into a slime ball like Superfreak just to get back at me if it gives you satisfaction. How low will you go Darla? You still refuse to admit you went way overboard with you obsession about that guy's temperature and bod.

And no matter how low you go to get back at me, it does not change the fact that Rune's signature is bogus.
Click to expand...

LOL Irony.
 
Darla said:
LOL Irony.
Click to expand...

There is no irony Darla. I probably should have kept my comments to myself. And I admit my comment was crude. But it still doesn't change the fact you went overboard. It was obvious. I surmise others had the same thought, but I doubt anyone else here will admit it. Especially the people who are now the ones sending you 'Thanks' that always sent you 'Groans'.
 
Bfgrn said:
There is no irony Darla. I probably should have kept my comments to myself. And I admit my comment was crude. But it still doesn't change the fact you went overboard. It was obvious. I surmise others had the same thought, but I doubt anyone else here will admit it. Especially the people who are now the ones sending you 'Thanks' that always sent you 'Groans'.
Click to expand...

Nope. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that you were the one that went overboard. She said she knew him and that he was hot. Big friggin deal. You are just a little whiny vagina who thinks he is superior when in reality you are one of the lowest forms of scum to walk the earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top