A terrible epidemic
-
I would like to see drivers re-licensed every 5 years. I would certainly be prepared to pay for it as it would also assure me that my driving is still of a good standard. But more to the point it would deter some of the morons out there from developing the dangerously bad driving habits they seem to nurture. Plus it would be good income for the government.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
As if the government needs any more money. They have proven it impossible to manage the money they get now without corruption draining copious amounts of tax dollars right out the bottom of the treasury: A.K.A. legalized theft via government.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
And yet Presidents sign Executive Orders and live.
I am not a fan of the "executive order". In my opinion, it's a violation of the separation of powers in that it allows the President to legislate, which should not be within his sphere of influence. Even the DOJ should not be allow to *make* law, but look at the unconstitutional free reign to do so given to the EPA, TSA, and BATFE. The government, as a whole has strayed far from the intent and design of the framers. "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes." Madison "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Hamilton "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Webster "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Tucker If you think the nature of governments has changed since 1796, you are as stupid as they come.
I'm not arguing against any of the points you raised but I would like to expand on one, if I may.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson
I would like to say the a majority of gun owners are lacking in the discipline department. This in conjuncture with:
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This can be interpreted that the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves from any enemy and that they best way they could do that is if the states maintained militias that could be called up in case of emergency. In recent times, that responsibility has been shifted to the National Guard. At that point, the militia, comprised of various members of the community, was rendered obsolete. To get to my point, since state and local militias were replaced by the national guard, there are limited options for individuals to obtain the necessary training to handle firearms correctly. Also, the natural consequence of having militias is that most members of the community will own similar weapons with similar ammunition which makes supplying the militia in times of war a little bit simpler than having each member supply their own ammunition. They could easily run out of their special ammo rendering them ineffective on the battlefield. I do believe that militia training and structure was the discipline Jefferson was getting at.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, a nonsense-argument;
That's because you're ignorant of the reasons. Check out the video I mentioned above. It explains everything. Of course, you have to be willing to hear the truth.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government
A bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan have proven this idea invalid. Besides that, 100 million gun owners in this country would present a sizable force.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned
Which is why the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify restrictions on the types of arms you can keep/bear. The founders knew that in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the citizens would be required to have access to battlefield-capable weapons of the day.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Is that why the US is "spreading democracy" all over the world? To rid us from our tyrannical governments?
Again, the government does not necessarily represent the will of the people they govern. The US isn't a democracy - it's (supposed to be) a constitutional republic. Look it up. Beyond that, the US government is not interested in spreading democracy, and anyone with any self-awareness at all readily recognizes that fact.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Eddy is a craptastic troller and he is kicking your ass 3 ways to sundown on this. Ignore the bugger. Just saying...
-
You are right, you are boring. ;P
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Storm trooper'
Wrong. It was George Lucas. ;P
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Now come on, dont tell me he wasnt inspired by the Nazis!!! Look at the damn helmets man!! :)
-
I'm not arguing against any of the points you raised but I would like to expand on one, if I may.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson
I would like to say the a majority of gun owners are lacking in the discipline department. This in conjuncture with:
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This can be interpreted that the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves from any enemy and that they best way they could do that is if the states maintained militias that could be called up in case of emergency. In recent times, that responsibility has been shifted to the National Guard. At that point, the militia, comprised of various members of the community, was rendered obsolete. To get to my point, since state and local militias were replaced by the national guard, there are limited options for individuals to obtain the necessary training to handle firearms correctly. Also, the natural consequence of having militias is that most members of the community will own similar weapons with similar ammunition which makes supplying the militia in times of war a little bit simpler than having each member supply their own ammunition. They could easily run out of their special ammo rendering them ineffective on the battlefield. I do believe that militia training and structure was the discipline Jefferson was getting at.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson
I would like to say the a majority of gun owners are lacking in the discipline department. This in conjuncture with:
That's what the first clause of the 2nd Amendment means - "A well regulated militia": Back when the framers wrote that, a standing army was comprised of what they called "regulars". "Regulars were men that were well trained, disciplined, and provisioned, as opposed to militias which were generally NOT as well trained or provisioned.
Foothill wrote:
This can be interpreted that the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves from any enemy and that they best way they could do that is if the states maintained militias that could be called up in case of emergency. In recent times, that responsibility has been shifted to the National Guard. At that point, the militia, comprised of various members of the community, was rendered obsolete.
No, the National Guard is comprised of military members. Why else would they be deployed overseas? The founding fathers never expected nor specified that the states maintain militias. The intent of the 2nd was to instill in all citizens that they are responsible for their own freedoms, and that they be willing/able to fight alone or as part of an organized militia. The 2nd Amendment is as necessary today as it was when it was enumerated, and for the same reasons.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
NoNotThatBob wrote:
And yet Presidents sign Executive Orders and live.
I am not a fan of the "executive order". In my opinion, it's a violation of the separation of powers in that it allows the President to legislate, which should not be within his sphere of influence. Even the DOJ should not be allow to *make* law, but look at the unconstitutional free reign to do so given to the EPA, TSA, and BATFE. The government, as a whole has strayed far from the intent and design of the framers. "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes." Madison "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Hamilton "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Webster "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Tucker If you think the nature of governments has changed since 1796, you are as stupid as they come.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
In my opinion, it's a violation of the separation of powers in that it allows the President to legislate
Precisely. Tyranny!! Hence: "And yet Presidents sign Executive Orders and live. :-D " How do you construe that as my thinking: the nature of governments hasn't changed since 1796, rather than: the citizens appear to happily leave their tyrants unshot?
-
How about a more 'proactive' approach? HOw do you stop the massacre before it happens?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
HOw do you stop the massacre before it happens?
Maybe solitary confinement for everyone? :laugh:
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
HOw do you stop the massacre before it happens?
Maybe solitary confinement for everyone? :laugh:
WiganLatics wrote:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
How do you stop the massacre before it happens?
Maybe solitary confinement for everyone? :laugh:
Too expensive. Kill everyone; let God sort them out! :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
WiganLatics wrote:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
How do you stop the massacre before it happens?
Maybe solitary confinement for everyone? :laugh:
Too expensive. Kill everyone; let God sort them out! :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
So we're curing the Cancer by killing the patient? :laugh:
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
the car is a useful tool.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
a rifle is a useful tool
Yes, cars are a tool. And because cars are very dangerous in the hands of idiots, drunks, the drugged out, the untrained, and the proven-too-stupid-to-allow-to-drive-anymore every country in the world requires you be tested, licensed (and generally insured), and that the car is kept and maintained to a specified standard. There are people who should not be allowed near the keys to a car! And guns, now ... Just sayin'.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
In others assault rifles are banned.
there is no such thing as an "assault rifle".
Munchies_Matt wrote:
But why would inspection and testing reduce gun violence?
It won't.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
there is no such thing as an "assault rifle".
That is semantics and nothing more. Following all use "assault rifle" and except for the first are all about buying guns. So apparently those that sell guns are quite willing to sell "assault rifle" just as car dealers are willing to sell a "sports car" (and everyone knows what that means as well.) Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress[^] Kalashnikov AK-47 Assault Rifle[^] Assault Rifles for Sale – Buy Assault Rifles Online at GunBroker.com[^] | Sportsman's Guide[^]
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Yes, cars are a tool.
But, unlike guns, they are not in the US Constitution.
Indeed. And when the constitution was written, neither did bump stocks, automatic weapons, or guns that cost less than several months wages... The technology has moved on, society has moved on. The world now is not the one the constitution's authors lived in, or wrote for.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
icensing for people? Inspection and testing of weapons and how they are stored? Compulsory training and testing? Restrictions on what you can use immediately, just like most countries restrict car drivers either by licence conditions or by cost of insurance?
Unfortunately none of this would help because, generally speaking, it is criminals that do most of the killing and they'll get guns illegally.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
SerenityNowDev wrote:
Unfortunately none of this would help because, generally speaking, it is criminals that do most of the killing and they'll get guns illegally.
Not sure what that is supposed to mean, since almost every single death in the US becomes criminal, even suicide. But per the following most deaths are from suicide. And others are certain to be crimes of passion. Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia[^]
-
SerenityNowDev wrote:
Unfortunately none of this would help because, generally speaking, it is criminals that do most of the killing and they'll get guns illegally.
Not sure what that is supposed to mean, since almost every single death in the US becomes criminal, even suicide. But per the following most deaths are from suicide. And others are certain to be crimes of passion. Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia[^]
jschell wrote:
Not sure what that is supposed to mean
I'm sure you don't. ;) :rolleyes:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Again, a nonsense-argument; you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government, and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned. Is that why the US is "spreading democracy" all over the world? To rid us from our tyrannical governments? :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, a nonsense-argument; you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government, and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned.
That is simplistic. For starters the military is composed of US citizens and there is no assurance that they would fight against other citizens nor even that they themselves would not be fighting against the government. Secondly, guerilla tactics are a tried and true military strategy that has proven very effective for centuries if not longer.
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
And yet Presidents sign Executive Orders and live.
I am not a fan of the "executive order". In my opinion, it's a violation of the separation of powers in that it allows the President to legislate, which should not be within his sphere of influence. Even the DOJ should not be allow to *make* law, but look at the unconstitutional free reign to do so given to the EPA, TSA, and BATFE. The government, as a whole has strayed far from the intent and design of the framers. "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes." Madison "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Hamilton "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Webster "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Tucker If you think the nature of governments has changed since 1796, you are as stupid as they come.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I am not a fan of the "executive order". In my opinion, it's a violation of the separation of powers in that it allows the President to legislate, which should not be within his sphere of influence. Even the DOJ should not be allow to make law, but look at the unconstitutional free reign to do so given to the EPA, TSA, and BATFE.
Congress creates laws, not regulations. The US cannot exist solely on laws. Simply not possible. Even something as simple as "do not run a red light" requires regulations to define what that means.
-
I'm not arguing against any of the points you raised but I would like to expand on one, if I may.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson
I would like to say the a majority of gun owners are lacking in the discipline department. This in conjuncture with:
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This can be interpreted that the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves from any enemy and that they best way they could do that is if the states maintained militias that could be called up in case of emergency. In recent times, that responsibility has been shifted to the National Guard. At that point, the militia, comprised of various members of the community, was rendered obsolete. To get to my point, since state and local militias were replaced by the national guard, there are limited options for individuals to obtain the necessary training to handle firearms correctly. Also, the natural consequence of having militias is that most members of the community will own similar weapons with similar ammunition which makes supplying the militia in times of war a little bit simpler than having each member supply their own ammunition. They could easily run out of their special ammo rendering them ineffective on the battlefield. I do believe that militia training and structure was the discipline Jefferson was getting at.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
This can be interpreted that the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves from any enemy and that they best way they could do that is if the states maintained militias that could be called up in case of emergency. In recent times, that responsibility has been shifted to the National Guard. At that point, the militia, comprised of various members of the community, was rendered obsolete
It can be interpreted, incorrectly, to mean that. For starters, historically, there was no National Guard nor other 'state' militia. The militias referred to were rank and file citizenry that could be required, by the state, to participate in military actions. Second the Supreme Court has ruled that it applies to private citizens. [^]
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, a nonsense-argument; you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government, and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned.
That is simplistic. For starters the military is composed of US citizens and there is no assurance that they would fight against other citizens nor even that they themselves would not be fighting against the government. Secondly, guerilla tactics are a tried and true military strategy that has proven very effective for centuries if not longer.
jschell wrote:
That is simplistic. For starters the military is composed of US citizens and there is no assurance that they would fight against other citizens nor even that they themselves would not be fighting against the government.
..seriously? You expect some stranger to have doubts because of your nationality? If you do not agree with the government, then you're an extremist fanatic.
jschell wrote:
Secondly, guerilla tactics are a tried and true military strategy that has proven very effective for centuries if not longer.
So your "resistance" is largely symbolic, as Che's was?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, a nonsense-argument;
That's because you're ignorant of the reasons. Check out the video I mentioned above. It explains everything. Of course, you have to be willing to hear the truth.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government
A bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan have proven this idea invalid. Besides that, 100 million gun owners in this country would present a sizable force.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned
Which is why the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify restrictions on the types of arms you can keep/bear. The founders knew that in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the citizens would be required to have access to battlefield-capable weapons of the day.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Is that why the US is "spreading democracy" all over the world? To rid us from our tyrannical governments?
Again, the government does not necessarily represent the will of the people they govern. The US isn't a democracy - it's (supposed to be) a constitutional republic. Look it up. Beyond that, the US government is not interested in spreading democracy, and anyone with any self-awareness at all readily recognizes that fact.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
A bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan have proven this idea invalid. Besides that, 100 million gun owners in this country would present a sizable force.
With a "gun" being maximally some semi-automatic machine-gun, not a bazooka.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Which is why the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify restrictions on the types of arms you can keep/bear. The founders knew that in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the citizens would be required to have access to battlefield-capable weapons of the day.
So, where is your hydrogen-bomb? :)
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The US isn't a democracy - it's (supposed to be) a constitutional republic. Look it up. Beyond that, the US government is not interested in spreading democracy, and anyone with any self-awareness at all readily recognizes that fact.
That was more a jab at the American way of defending their economic interest :) ..which is something that any nation is expected to do; we just don't market it as "liberating people".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
