Interesting
-
Goodness sakes Matt - that does not refute my statement. Where did you not learn logical thinking?
Yes it does, by refuting the opposite. If you want what you wrote directly refuted consider ireland: Ireland, lower guns per capita than the UK[^] An Independent.ie analysis of homicide rates over the last decade reveals that you are almost six times more likely to be shot and killed in the 26 counties as you are in England/Wales.[^] You do make a habit of being completely wrong dont you? :)
-
I found this in a comment to a news story relating to the call to repeal of the 2nd Amendment. My only editing was to provide white space between paragraphs. ------------------ There are NO LAWFUL CIRCUMSTANCES under which any governmental entity in America can take weapons of military utility from the American people. All regulation of arms in effect in America are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government has NOT been enumerated any power to regulate our "arms" and are, in fact, specifically ENJOINED from infringing upon our RIGHT TO ARMS or even a small part of it, in any way whatsoever. Any "sworn officer" enforcing unconstitutional legislation upon their fellow Americans are "UNLAWFUL ACTORS" and are, in fact, committing Federal Felonies that are punishable by death pursuant to their own "code." Re. 18 USC 241, 242. Background Checks are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they violate numerous provisions of our Supreme Law. It's not even arguable, to wit: FIRST AMENDMENT Right to a Presumption against the Imposition of PRIOR RESTRAINTS on the exercise of guaranteed rights/liberties/immunities which actually withstood the government's claim of a NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST! 2ND AMENDMENT Rights - "Arms" are "weapons of military utility" and the government is ENJOINED from "infringing" our right to arms in any way as: ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO VIOLATE. "Penumbra" rights (see 9th below) guarantee us access to attachments, ammo, appurtenances, accessories we desire. FOURTH AMENDMENT Right to be secure in our “effects”. Rights are “effects”. FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights to Due Process BEFORE being deprived of unalienable rights, to remain silent (Do we have to fill out a questionnaire before we can vote, or write a letter to the newspaper? Should we have to?), to not self-incriminate (just answer any of those questions wrong!)! NINTH AMENDMENT - numerous "Penumbra Rights” related to the Amendments mentioned and possibly other related fundamental, individual rights retained! And, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibition on states passing and enforcing laws which abridge the rights (“immunities”) of citizens and the right to Due Process – again! To name a few! And, a public vote of the ignorant people in NO WAY diminishes our fundamental, inherent, creator endowed, unalienable RIGHTS! No political entity has any lawful power to disparage or deny such RIGHTS. It's NOT the "Bill of NEEDS" and every "sworn officer", state or federal, in America is required to execute a sacred Oath of Office pledging to "su
-
Yes it does, by refuting the opposite. If you want what you wrote directly refuted consider ireland: Ireland, lower guns per capita than the UK[^] An Independent.ie analysis of homicide rates over the last decade reveals that you are almost six times more likely to be shot and killed in the 26 counties as you are in England/Wales.[^] You do make a habit of being completely wrong dont you? :)
Oh ffs Matt grow up. OF course it isn't a simple linear correlation between gun ownership and crimes using them, but the trend is obvious. If you don't have guns you can't use them. But of course in countries with particular social or political problems there will still be violence. I said all along, that t it's the causes of this that needs to be addresses, not gun control per se.
-
Oh ffs Matt grow up. OF course it isn't a simple linear correlation between gun ownership and crimes using them, but the trend is obvious. If you don't have guns you can't use them. But of course in countries with particular social or political problems there will still be violence. I said all along, that t it's the causes of this that needs to be addresses, not gun control per se.
A_Griffin wrote:
OF course it isn't a simple linear correlation between gun ownership and crimes using them, but the trend is obvious
3/4 ths the guns, 26 times the gun crime. Ireland VS the UK. No, there is no correlation, no trend. Why can't you admit that what you imagine is not the reality?
-
There's a common trend among people who bang on about their rights...they rarely understand their responsibilities.
Have I demonstrated that I don't understand my responsibilities?
".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 -
Have I demonstrated that I don't understand my responsibilities?
".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, 2013My comment was aimed at the author of that (undoubtedly inaccurate) article and anyone who agrees with it or supports it. So if that hat fits, then wear it :)
-
I found this in a comment to a news story relating to the call to repeal of the 2nd Amendment. My only editing was to provide white space between paragraphs. ------------------ There are NO LAWFUL CIRCUMSTANCES under which any governmental entity in America can take weapons of military utility from the American people. All regulation of arms in effect in America are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government has NOT been enumerated any power to regulate our "arms" and are, in fact, specifically ENJOINED from infringing upon our RIGHT TO ARMS or even a small part of it, in any way whatsoever. Any "sworn officer" enforcing unconstitutional legislation upon their fellow Americans are "UNLAWFUL ACTORS" and are, in fact, committing Federal Felonies that are punishable by death pursuant to their own "code." Re. 18 USC 241, 242. Background Checks are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they violate numerous provisions of our Supreme Law. It's not even arguable, to wit: FIRST AMENDMENT Right to a Presumption against the Imposition of PRIOR RESTRAINTS on the exercise of guaranteed rights/liberties/immunities which actually withstood the government's claim of a NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST! 2ND AMENDMENT Rights - "Arms" are "weapons of military utility" and the government is ENJOINED from "infringing" our right to arms in any way as: ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO VIOLATE. "Penumbra" rights (see 9th below) guarantee us access to attachments, ammo, appurtenances, accessories we desire. FOURTH AMENDMENT Right to be secure in our “effects”. Rights are “effects”. FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights to Due Process BEFORE being deprived of unalienable rights, to remain silent (Do we have to fill out a questionnaire before we can vote, or write a letter to the newspaper? Should we have to?), to not self-incriminate (just answer any of those questions wrong!)! NINTH AMENDMENT - numerous "Penumbra Rights” related to the Amendments mentioned and possibly other related fundamental, individual rights retained! And, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibition on states passing and enforcing laws which abridge the rights (“immunities”) of citizens and the right to Due Process – again! To name a few! And, a public vote of the ignorant people in NO WAY diminishes our fundamental, inherent, creator endowed, unalienable RIGHTS! No political entity has any lawful power to disparage or deny such RIGHTS. It's NOT the "Bill of NEEDS" and every "sworn officer", state or federal, in America is required to execute a sacred Oath of Office pledging to "su
-
First of all, I want to make it clear that what I'm going to say is in support of what John Simmons posted but what we are taking about ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! The American Declaration of Independence predated the US Constitution by many years. The US Constitution is not about granting rights to citizens, it is about citizens delegating powers to a government, those powers being the power to defend and maintain rights predating the US Constitution. That is important because what government grants it can deny. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that these rights are "unalienable", they can't be alienated from us. They are not something that we have, they are what we are. It is not correct to say "I have a right to arm myself". It is correct to say "I AM right to arm myself". I AM right to defend myself and my property. I AM right to speak freely. I AM right to worship how I chose. I AM right to not allow unreasonable searches and seizures of my things. I AM right to not answer your questions. Now this is important because people say "well, we can change that law - we can repeal that amendment". Yes, you can. But that would be tyranny. Because even if you repeal the entire bill of rights, or for that matter, the entire US Constitution, it does not change that I AM right to arm myself. I AM right to defend myself and my property. I AM right to speak freely. I AM right to worship how I chose. I AM right to not allow unreasonable searches and seizures of my things. I AM right to not answer your questions. HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATED ANY GOVERNMENT - THEY ARE UNALIENABLE. And this is the dirty little secret that leftist liberals just don't like.
dlhale wrote:
HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATED ANY GOVERNMENT - THEY ARE UNALIENABLE.
No, they don't. You have as much rights as any other living being, including bacon. All your examples are privileges, and all of them were non-existent at the start. Your Miranda-rights aren't something that predated government, as without government that idea is nonsense.
dlhale wrote:
And this is the dirty little secret that leftist liberals just don't like.
Any realist would have trouble with the concept of "unalienable" rights.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
dlhale wrote:
HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATED ANY GOVERNMENT - THEY ARE UNALIENABLE.
No, they don't. You have as much rights as any other living being, including bacon. All your examples are privileges, and all of them were non-existent at the start. Your Miranda-rights aren't something that predated government, as without government that idea is nonsense.
dlhale wrote:
And this is the dirty little secret that leftist liberals just don't like.
Any realist would have trouble with the concept of "unalienable" rights.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Precisely: "your" (pardon my use of second person but I'm not as proficient in English as I would like to be) rights are unalienable as much as you're strong enough to defend them. Human rights are a fresh invention, quite useful to punish some obscene dictatorships but still a new and local invention, which is being turned to waste by the new wave of snoflakes who'd insert any sort of amenity in the human rights, bloating them to usefulness.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Precisely: "your" (pardon my use of second person but I'm not as proficient in English as I would like to be) rights are unalienable as much as you're strong enough to defend them. Human rights are a fresh invention, quite useful to punish some obscene dictatorships but still a new and local invention, which is being turned to waste by the new wave of snoflakes who'd insert any sort of amenity in the human rights, bloating them to usefulness.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If the government comes in force, you stand little chance of "defending" those ideas. Also, schools could do without guns, even for the paranoid that think that they have no rights without guns. It is quite common in the rest of the world to not go to school armed.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
If the government comes in force, you stand little chance of "defending" those ideas. Also, schools could do without guns, even for the paranoid that think that they have no rights without guns. It is quite common in the rest of the world to not go to school armed.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
If the government comes in force, you stand little chance of "defending" those ideas.
That's why people band together. What's government if not a band of armed people?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is quite common in the rest of the world to not go to school armed.
You're so right. Oh it was a gun free zone. Guess criminals don't pay attention to the laws. They should be jailed.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
If the government comes in force, you stand little chance of "defending" those ideas.
That's why people band together. What's government if not a band of armed people?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is quite common in the rest of the world to not go to school armed.
You're so right. Oh it was a gun free zone. Guess criminals don't pay attention to the laws. They should be jailed.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
den2k88 wrote:
What's government if not a band of armed people?
An army is not a government.
den2k88 wrote:
You're so right. Oh it was a gun free zone. Guess criminals don't pay attention to the laws. They should be jailed.
As soon as that zone is extended all over the country, the problem dissapears. Crazy Belgians, not going to school armed; crazy Bulgarians, doing the same. Even the Chinese leave their (semi) automatics home. Crazy, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
den2k88 wrote:
What's government if not a band of armed people?
An army is not a government.
den2k88 wrote:
You're so right. Oh it was a gun free zone. Guess criminals don't pay attention to the laws. They should be jailed.
As soon as that zone is extended all over the country, the problem dissapears. Crazy Belgians, not going to school armed; crazy Bulgarians, doing the same. Even the Chinese leave their (semi) automatics home. Crazy, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Quote:
As soon as that zone is extended all over the country, the problem dissapears.
Like in New York and Chicago? Citizens cannot bear arms legally... criminals don't give a :elephant: and guess which are two extremely dangerous cities to live in? Italy too has the same problems with only 30.000 people able to legally carry guns (all of them armed guards or magistrates). France? The same. It only helps aggressors to be able to subdue anyone without risks.
Quote:
An army is not a government.
But a government is its army (including police forces), otherwise it's nothing more than a circle of people chatting together. How could they enforce any law if not through the use of force? Without army and police who would be able to stop me, or a band of people which I'm part of, from bearing any kind of waepon, not paying taxes and robbing people?
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Quote:
As soon as that zone is extended all over the country, the problem dissapears.
Like in New York and Chicago? Citizens cannot bear arms legally... criminals don't give a :elephant: and guess which are two extremely dangerous cities to live in? Italy too has the same problems with only 30.000 people able to legally carry guns (all of them armed guards or magistrates). France? The same. It only helps aggressors to be able to subdue anyone without risks.
Quote:
An army is not a government.
But a government is its army (including police forces), otherwise it's nothing more than a circle of people chatting together. How could they enforce any law if not through the use of force? Without army and police who would be able to stop me, or a band of people which I'm part of, from bearing any kind of waepon, not paying taxes and robbing people?
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
den2k88 wrote:
guess which are two extremely dangerous cities to live in?
If guns are readily available outside the city and can be legally obtained, than you are a bloody idiot if you think people will tuck away those things because they enter a different zone. France and Italy do NOT have mass-shootings like in the US. Regular people do not carry guns in Europe.
den2k88 wrote:
It only helps aggressors to be able to subdue anyone without risks.
Having a gun doesn't mean that you walk about without risc. If we were to allow guns in the cities, then aggressors would be able to procure heavy armaments more easily; that's the big difference between the US and "the rest of the world". Doesn't mean we don't have criminals; but the kids that tried to rob me were not carrying a gun - because they're hard to get and any weapon visible on the street is a one-way ticket to the station.
den2k88 wrote:
But a government is its army (including police forces), otherwise it's nothing more than a circle of people chatting together. How could they enforce any law if not through the use of force?
Incorrect; many governments have been removed by their own army. Loyalty is something that can shift very quickly :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
I found this in a comment to a news story relating to the call to repeal of the 2nd Amendment. My only editing was to provide white space between paragraphs. ------------------ There are NO LAWFUL CIRCUMSTANCES under which any governmental entity in America can take weapons of military utility from the American people. All regulation of arms in effect in America are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government has NOT been enumerated any power to regulate our "arms" and are, in fact, specifically ENJOINED from infringing upon our RIGHT TO ARMS or even a small part of it, in any way whatsoever. Any "sworn officer" enforcing unconstitutional legislation upon their fellow Americans are "UNLAWFUL ACTORS" and are, in fact, committing Federal Felonies that are punishable by death pursuant to their own "code." Re. 18 USC 241, 242. Background Checks are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they violate numerous provisions of our Supreme Law. It's not even arguable, to wit: FIRST AMENDMENT Right to a Presumption against the Imposition of PRIOR RESTRAINTS on the exercise of guaranteed rights/liberties/immunities which actually withstood the government's claim of a NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST! 2ND AMENDMENT Rights - "Arms" are "weapons of military utility" and the government is ENJOINED from "infringing" our right to arms in any way as: ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO VIOLATE. "Penumbra" rights (see 9th below) guarantee us access to attachments, ammo, appurtenances, accessories we desire. FOURTH AMENDMENT Right to be secure in our “effects”. Rights are “effects”. FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights to Due Process BEFORE being deprived of unalienable rights, to remain silent (Do we have to fill out a questionnaire before we can vote, or write a letter to the newspaper? Should we have to?), to not self-incriminate (just answer any of those questions wrong!)! NINTH AMENDMENT - numerous "Penumbra Rights” related to the Amendments mentioned and possibly other related fundamental, individual rights retained! And, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibition on states passing and enforcing laws which abridge the rights (“immunities”) of citizens and the right to Due Process – again! To name a few! And, a public vote of the ignorant people in NO WAY diminishes our fundamental, inherent, creator endowed, unalienable RIGHTS! No political entity has any lawful power to disparage or deny such RIGHTS. It's NOT the "Bill of NEEDS" and every "sworn officer", state or federal, in America is required to execute a sacred Oath of Office pledging to "su
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I found this in a comment to a news story relating to the call to repeal of the 2nd Amendment
And there are people that claim that the US can't collect income tax nor can they enforce any law passed since 1920 or so. Most are nut jobs. The remainder are con-artists.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I can’t help feel that there is a deep-rooted element of the male American psyche that still sees themselves as the archetypal “cowboy”: the strong, independent man standing up against authority and forging his own way in the world, with his gun doing the talking. Yee haw.
And this is why your opinion is not appreciated on this subject. Because you have a bias that is so wrong.
A_Griffin wrote:
There is no good reason in this day and age for walking down the street with a gun strapped to your hip.
No one actually does walk with a gun out, at least not in the various states that I have lived in. I imagine people would freak out if someone were actually carrying a gun down the street. Which speaks more to how Americans see guns and also again shows why your opinion is not based on facts.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
011111100010 wrote:
No one actually does walk with a gun out, at least not in the various states that I have lived in.
Some people do in fact do exactly that. The fact that you haven't seen them speaks to how few of them do it most likely. Actually some must do that because concealed carry is not allowed or not allowed without a license.
