2nd amendment
-
Quote:
I feel that armament is a sign of civilized. It means your civilized society is not foolish enough to think that another group of civilized folks will not take whats yours at first sign of their armament being stronger. One can not rely on the government to protect you from you neighbor. Their are plenty of records of crazy folks using armament to mass slaughter countless people in non-armed societies. This shows that the commonality between such incidents has nothing to do with gun regulation.
but this is your argument that guns will prevent this, yet your own country clearly shows that access to guns does not prevent this, and having a populus with access to guns has never prevented invasion by a such a force
Quote:
Removal is irrelevant. Usage is not for what you are speaking. One should be able to transport to anywhere. So long as there is no regulations on said area (e.g. many places "Ban" guns on the premises)
ok then as long as its transported by accepted means then i dont see a problem, carried around a public place tuncked in your sock I would say was not an acceptable manner oh and you cannot move a car arround without restriction, you need to be licensed or it needs be transported right?
Quote:
Not allowed out but they can certainly go purchase a car with out any supervision. Same is true for firearms actually. I think there are state regulations (at least in my state) that adolescents must go through training. In fact I seem to remember someone a slight loop hole in that the training was required for 12 to 17 year olds. Meaning an 11 year old did not need it. Had to get the training once they turned 12 though (even if they had already been using said weapon for years).
so why cannot the same rules apply for guns? you can buy one but it cannot be outside a designated place without license, and why an age limit? surely a 30yo untrained is as bad as a 17yo untrained? you wouldnt allow an untrained xdriver on a freway regardless of how old they were would you?
Quote:
Illegal but as was pointed out in the post (and many agree with it), that is unconstitutional. There is no way around that. One can argue why a person should not be allowed to have it (terrorist etc.), but the fact is that restraint is unconstitutional.
then the consistution is wrong
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but this is your argument that guns will prevent this, yet your own country clearly shows that access to guns does not prevent this, and having a populus with access to guns has never prevented invasion by a such a force
I never claimed it will prevent it. I have given a counter argument that shows saying removal of the guns prevents it. Not the same thing. Also, even if it were claimed that everyone having a gun does indeed prevent it one would likely be assuming under how the 2nd amendment was formed. Currently such restrictions prevent or keep many from wanting to purchase armament (infringement on the 4th amendment is why I do not arm myself).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ok then as long as its transported by accepted means then i dont see a problem, carried around a public place tuncked in your sock I would say was not an acceptable manner
oh and you cannot move a car arround without restriction, you need to be licensed or it needs be transported right?You are mixing up the 2 ideas. Comparing cars to guns a car moves (requires lic) and a gun shoots (that would be where 'your' proposed lic makes sense).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
so why cannot the same rules apply for guns? you can buy one but it cannot be outside a designated place without license, and why an age limit? surely a 30yo untrained is as bad as a 17yo untrained?
you wouldnt allow an untrained xdriver on a freway regardless of how old they were would you?Same here. You are mixing up cars being made and licensed for transportation. A gun is made to shoot. Transportation and movement of it is irrelevant. If you make it relevant it infringes on my right to bear arms.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
then the consistution is wrong, and only a fool would think that unrestricted access to such things was acceptable, just because a bad guy can do something does not make it sensible to let everyone.
do you think that the founding fathers would countenance nukes in private hands? seriously?That is your opinion. Fact is armament is the individual's right. If they make a nuke they make a nuke. Granted we have federal laws in place that make it illegal, but technically they are unconstitutional. For the mean time do to how messed up society is
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but this is your argument that guns will prevent this, yet your own country clearly shows that access to guns does not prevent this, and having a populus with access to guns has never prevented invasion by a such a force
I never claimed it will prevent it. I have given a counter argument that shows saying removal of the guns prevents it. Not the same thing. Also, even if it were claimed that everyone having a gun does indeed prevent it one would likely be assuming under how the 2nd amendment was formed. Currently such restrictions prevent or keep many from wanting to purchase armament (infringement on the 4th amendment is why I do not arm myself).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ok then as long as its transported by accepted means then i dont see a problem, carried around a public place tuncked in your sock I would say was not an acceptable manner
oh and you cannot move a car arround without restriction, you need to be licensed or it needs be transported right?You are mixing up the 2 ideas. Comparing cars to guns a car moves (requires lic) and a gun shoots (that would be where 'your' proposed lic makes sense).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
so why cannot the same rules apply for guns? you can buy one but it cannot be outside a designated place without license, and why an age limit? surely a 30yo untrained is as bad as a 17yo untrained?
you wouldnt allow an untrained xdriver on a freway regardless of how old they were would you?Same here. You are mixing up cars being made and licensed for transportation. A gun is made to shoot. Transportation and movement of it is irrelevant. If you make it relevant it infringes on my right to bear arms.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
then the consistution is wrong, and only a fool would think that unrestricted access to such things was acceptable, just because a bad guy can do something does not make it sensible to let everyone.
do you think that the founding fathers would countenance nukes in private hands? seriously?That is your opinion. Fact is armament is the individual's right. If they make a nuke they make a nuke. Granted we have federal laws in place that make it illegal, but technically they are unconstitutional. For the mean time do to how messed up society is
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: actually no, other than america there has been few miltary led translations The british empire lost control because we went broke fighting miltary agression (much to the benift of the US)
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? The British empire could not afford to control its colonies anymore due to rebellions.
But thats not true, it wasnt rebellions it was unable to subsidise them and the falling out of fashion of "empire" - would you like to inform me of the countries we lost to rebellion? (other than the US) oh and by the way how many wars of expansion* has the US fought since independance and how many wars of expansion has Britian fought in the same period? *Wars fought for the gaining of land where victory led to increased land ownership for the victor. It is not supprising that the US is not trusted by so many abroad, how the hell can they be trusted when it seems so many of its own people have such a distrust in govenemnt
Quote:
Moreover just because it is written and can be unwritten does not make it not a right. Do you have a right to live in your home? A right to own property? A right to vote? A right to walk down the street? All of these things either are written or can be written or can be unwritten to take away your supposed right. We have a written under an agreement of A government of the people by the people for the people. If the government deems that our contract shall be breached then we the people will not support the government. Checks and balances. Its why we have them.
what is a right? a right to live in your home, er no, you have a agreement that a home is yours, just ask your native indians exactly how much that is worth! no right to own property again ask the Indians, right to walk down the street, er no, you may have been given permission but you cannot walk down every street - this would contradict your right to own property. Your vote is even conditional, when your precious constitution was written only white male land owners could vote (so much for of the people by the people by the way) so how can voting be a right when for a large proportion of your history you have prevented this right to so many? you have no rights in this world other than what society has deemed to be acceptable and what it deems acceptable now may not be the sa
-
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: actually no, other than america there has been few miltary led translations The british empire lost control because we went broke fighting miltary agression (much to the benift of the US)
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? The British empire could not afford to control its colonies anymore due to rebellions.
But thats not true, it wasnt rebellions it was unable to subsidise them and the falling out of fashion of "empire" - would you like to inform me of the countries we lost to rebellion? (other than the US) oh and by the way how many wars of expansion* has the US fought since independance and how many wars of expansion has Britian fought in the same period? *Wars fought for the gaining of land where victory led to increased land ownership for the victor. It is not supprising that the US is not trusted by so many abroad, how the hell can they be trusted when it seems so many of its own people have such a distrust in govenemnt
Quote:
Moreover just because it is written and can be unwritten does not make it not a right. Do you have a right to live in your home? A right to own property? A right to vote? A right to walk down the street? All of these things either are written or can be written or can be unwritten to take away your supposed right. We have a written under an agreement of A government of the people by the people for the people. If the government deems that our contract shall be breached then we the people will not support the government. Checks and balances. Its why we have them.
what is a right? a right to live in your home, er no, you have a agreement that a home is yours, just ask your native indians exactly how much that is worth! no right to own property again ask the Indians, right to walk down the street, er no, you may have been given permission but you cannot walk down every street - this would contradict your right to own property. Your vote is even conditional, when your precious constitution was written only white male land owners could vote (so much for of the people by the people by the way) so how can voting be a right when for a large proportion of your history you have prevented this right to so many? you have no rights in this world other than what society has deemed to be acceptable and what it deems acceptable now may not be the sa
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
But thats not true, it wasnt rebellions it was unable to subsidise them and the falling out of fashion of "empire"
I really don't think you read what I wrote. The British empire new it could no longer control its colonies. Just because it worked with them in those cases doesn't change the fact they were broke do to war. Anyways it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Including your blip about US expansion. Has nothing to do with the price of melons in Alaska.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
what is a right? a right to live in your home, er no, you have a agreement that a home is yours, just ask your native indians exactly how much that is worth!
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
you have no rights in this world other than what society has deemed to be acceptable and what it deems acceptable now may not be the same as what is deemm acceptable in a another time.
Now you just contradicted yourself. I will agree it is what society deems, and by society I mean those that you even group with. The beauty of the US society is we do give power to minorities. With that small groups do provide the rest of the society with rights, whether they choose to use them or not is up to them. Right to bear arms however is not being supported by a small minority in this case. It is a in fact a majority of people. You will be hard pressed to find a majority of people that wish to ban guns (that are US citizens). You will find a decent population that is OK with the regulations, and about a similar size that is not OK with any regulations. If you don't get this you really don't understand our society. Take a look at the active presidents stance "AFTER" the shooting. He being a Liberal even stated "No new regulations".
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
But thats not true, it wasnt rebellions it was unable to subsidise them and the falling out of fashion of "empire"
I really don't think you read what I wrote. The British empire new it could no longer control its colonies. Just because it worked with them in those cases doesn't change the fact they were broke do to war. Anyways it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Including your blip about US expansion. Has nothing to do with the price of melons in Alaska.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
what is a right? a right to live in your home, er no, you have a agreement that a home is yours, just ask your native indians exactly how much that is worth!
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
you have no rights in this world other than what society has deemed to be acceptable and what it deems acceptable now may not be the same as what is deemm acceptable in a another time.
Now you just contradicted yourself. I will agree it is what society deems, and by society I mean those that you even group with. The beauty of the US society is we do give power to minorities. With that small groups do provide the rest of the society with rights, whether they choose to use them or not is up to them. Right to bear arms however is not being supported by a small minority in this case. It is a in fact a majority of people. You will be hard pressed to find a majority of people that wish to ban guns (that are US citizens). You will find a decent population that is OK with the regulations, and about a similar size that is not OK with any regulations. If you don't get this you really don't understand our society. Take a look at the active presidents stance "AFTER" the shooting. He being a Liberal even stated "No new regulations".
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Quote:
I really don't think you read what I wrote. The British empire new it could no longer control its colonies. Just because it worked with them in those cases doesn't change the fact they were broke do to war. Anyways it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Including your blip about US expansion. Has nothing to do with the price of melons in Alaska.
firstly it was you that introduced the topic, secondly I did read your post, you said it
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? The British empire could not afford to control its colonies anymore due to rebellions.
and I pointed it out that it WASNT due to rebellions, but due to two world wars in which the US bled us dry. if there is a majority who support the right to bear arms then where is your problem? or do you not have control over your elected officials?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Quote:
I really don't think you read what I wrote. The British empire new it could no longer control its colonies. Just because it worked with them in those cases doesn't change the fact they were broke do to war. Anyways it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Including your blip about US expansion. Has nothing to do with the price of melons in Alaska.
firstly it was you that introduced the topic, secondly I did read your post, you said it
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? The British empire could not afford to control its colonies anymore due to rebellions.
and I pointed it out that it WASNT due to rebellions, but due to two world wars in which the US bled us dry. if there is a majority who support the right to bear arms then where is your problem? or do you not have control over your elected officials?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
When I brought it up there was relevance. With out proper armament the US would never have succeeded in its revolution. You are now turning this into a debate of why the British Empire colapsed. Move on.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
When I brought it up there was relevance. With out proper armament the US would never have succeeded in its revolution. You are now turning this into a debate of why the British Empire colapsed. Move on.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
no you brought it up as a cheep jibe at the British. most of the armament that defeated the british was supplied by the french and frankly I dont realy care wether you have guns or not as it has no effect on me (other than the horrible culture of Gangsta that seems to being exported) but why should I buy into your ideals of guns making things safer when it is obvious that its not true, and as for cover fire rubbish thats the biggest joke on codeproject this week
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
no you brought it up as a cheep jibe at the British. most of the armament that defeated the british was supplied by the french and frankly I dont realy care wether you have guns or not as it has no effect on me (other than the horrible culture of Gangsta that seems to being exported) but why should I buy into your ideals of guns making things safer when it is obvious that its not true, and as for cover fire rubbish thats the biggest joke on codeproject this week
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
most of the armament that defeated the british was supplied by the french
The war would have ended before it even started with out a base supply. The French supplied AFTER the war started and was considered a turning point. Read your history.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and frankly I dont realy care wether you have guns or not as it has no effect on me (other than the horrible culture of Gangsta that seems to being exported)
So then why debate it?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but why should I buy into your ideals of guns making things safer when it is obvious that its not true
Again you have missed the point of the 2nd Ammendment. It has NOTHING to do with YOU being safer. It is about an individuals right. One could claim that everyone is safer if the federal government put tracking devices and listening devices on everyone. However that is an invasion of privacy and against the 4th Ammendment. You really do not understand the Bill of Rights if you think the 2nd Ammendment has to do with safety. The argument of safety is simply a counter to why those that think the 2nd Ammendment should be nulled. By showing there is that argument (i.e. it is debatable), the point is moot as that is not why we have the Amendment. If there existed no argument the nay sayers would use that logic to null it out although that is not why it exists. For example, say the government says sugar is illegal because it is bad for you. Sugar is not added to food etc. because it is claimed to be good for you. It is added because people enjoy the flavor. Therefore it is irrelevant that sugar is bad for you. Maybe not the best comparison, but that is roughly what it sounds like to people that understand the point of the 2nd amendment.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and as for cover fire rubbish thats the biggest joke on codeproject this week
Sure sure. You clearly don't understand what an armed populace means. Or what gun fire even causes. A guy in body armor is not a freaking terminator. He is still a person that if he gets hit with a bullet will have natural reflexes partially stunning (maybe for only mili seconds). When bullets come from multiple angles they can not see or predict where the next will come from. Again, this is not the debate.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
most of the armament that defeated the british was supplied by the french
The war would have ended before it even started with out a base supply. The French supplied AFTER the war started and was considered a turning point. Read your history.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and frankly I dont realy care wether you have guns or not as it has no effect on me (other than the horrible culture of Gangsta that seems to being exported)
So then why debate it?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but why should I buy into your ideals of guns making things safer when it is obvious that its not true
Again you have missed the point of the 2nd Ammendment. It has NOTHING to do with YOU being safer. It is about an individuals right. One could claim that everyone is safer if the federal government put tracking devices and listening devices on everyone. However that is an invasion of privacy and against the 4th Ammendment. You really do not understand the Bill of Rights if you think the 2nd Ammendment has to do with safety. The argument of safety is simply a counter to why those that think the 2nd Ammendment should be nulled. By showing there is that argument (i.e. it is debatable), the point is moot as that is not why we have the Amendment. If there existed no argument the nay sayers would use that logic to null it out although that is not why it exists. For example, say the government says sugar is illegal because it is bad for you. Sugar is not added to food etc. because it is claimed to be good for you. It is added because people enjoy the flavor. Therefore it is irrelevant that sugar is bad for you. Maybe not the best comparison, but that is roughly what it sounds like to people that understand the point of the 2nd amendment.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and as for cover fire rubbish thats the biggest joke on codeproject this week
Sure sure. You clearly don't understand what an armed populace means. Or what gun fire even causes. A guy in body armor is not a freaking terminator. He is still a person that if he gets hit with a bullet will have natural reflexes partially stunning (maybe for only mili seconds). When bullets come from multiple angles they can not see or predict where the next will come from. Again, this is not the debate.
fine, so you say your piece and I will shut up as obviously I know nothing moving on with life
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
fine, so you say your piece and I will shut up as obviously I know nothing moving on with life
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Eh don't be such a prude. Your input is valued, but a lot of what you have said has been said over and over and is not valid. E.g. 1. Country A disarmed and they have no problems (implying the government or some other private force did not start oppressing the people) Irrelevant because it uses the argument of hasn't happened yet so it therefore will not happen. 2. Country A has lower crime and they disarmed. Irrelevant as there are also numerous examples of countries with disarmament that have had even worse shootings or other maniacal incidents. 3. Times have changed and so have weapons. What does a person need with XYZ gun (where XYZ is not a traditional sport or hunting weapon) Irrelevant as the 2nd ammendment clearly states that the reason for armament is not for sport or hunting but to maintain the ability to create or actively have a local militia. 4. Having the populace armed would have made incident XYZ worse. Irrelevant as this is pure speculation and the 2nd amendment is not about making maniacal incidents better or worse. Did I miss something?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Eh don't be such a prude. Your input is valued, but a lot of what you have said has been said over and over and is not valid. E.g. 1. Country A disarmed and they have no problems (implying the government or some other private force did not start oppressing the people) Irrelevant because it uses the argument of hasn't happened yet so it therefore will not happen. 2. Country A has lower crime and they disarmed. Irrelevant as there are also numerous examples of countries with disarmament that have had even worse shootings or other maniacal incidents. 3. Times have changed and so have weapons. What does a person need with XYZ gun (where XYZ is not a traditional sport or hunting weapon) Irrelevant as the 2nd ammendment clearly states that the reason for armament is not for sport or hunting but to maintain the ability to create or actively have a local militia. 4. Having the populace armed would have made incident XYZ worse. Irrelevant as this is pure speculation and the 2nd amendment is not about making maniacal incidents better or worse. Did I miss something?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
yes you have, let me know if you figure it out
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
yes you have, let me know if you figure it out
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
You don't like Americans because our guns intimidate you?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Nope try again ps I do like guns and I have good friends who are american and some of those are actually from the USA
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Nope try again ps I do like guns and I have good friends who are american and some of those are actually from the USA
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Well I do not see any other argument you made against the 2nd amendment (other than tangent debates that were not really related). You will have to be clear about your point.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/phil_labonte_of_all_that_remains_on_the_second_amendment_and_our_right_to_b[^] Great music and clearly has a good understanding of the way our constitution "Should" be interpreted. Unfortunately he is right and we have a police state going on. Granted its not total lock down, but our rights have been trampled to near nil over the last 100 years. I don't understand why most people don't understand this. I hear the classic "Its outdated. You can't fight an apache with a rifle" To which my response is "Good point. We should consider getting an Apache for the neighborhood watch" :D Last night on TV I heard a good one. The argument of "Why would you ever need to shoot that many bullets so fast?" Responce: "Do you need a car that can go 250mph? Should that be made illegal as well?"
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
What a pile of crap.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
If you feel that your country is as uncivilised as that, then I can see why you would want to be armed, however I would never have placed the US in the same catagory as the Middle east and Iraq etc but as most police states actually occur with the blessing of the population I would still dispute its worth
I feel that armament is a sign of civilized. It means your civilized society is not foolish enough to think that another group of civilized folks will not take whats yours at first sign of their armament being stronger. One can not rely on the government to protect you from you neighbor. Their are plenty of records of crazy folks using armament to mass slaughter countless people in non-armed societies. This shows that the commonality between such incidents has nothing to do with gun regulation.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ok dont see an issue with that, as long as its not removed from such a place without the proper license
Removal is irrelevant. Usage is not for what you are speaking. One should be able to transport to anywhere. So long as there is no regulations on said area (e.g. many places "Ban" guns on the premises)
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ome weapons are already illegal so this argument is moot, you cannot own chemical or biological weapons (as far as I know ) so there are already accepted exclusions it is purely where you draw the line
Illegal but as was pointed out in the post (and many agree with it), that is unconstitutional. There is no way around that. One can argue why a person should not be allowed to have it (terrorist etc.), but the fact is that restraint is unconstitutional.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but are said teenages allowed out unsupervised without any training? from what I understand the only restriction on buying a gun is age and a waiting period? would you feel safe on the road if said rteenager could buy a car wait three days and then drive onto the freeway having NO experiance of driving before?
Not allowed out but they can certainly go purchase a car with out any supervision. Same is true for firearms actually. I think there are state regulations (at least in my state) that adolescents must go through training. In fact I seem to remember someone a slight loop hole in that the training
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I feel that armament is a sign of civilized.
I assume the death penalty is also a sign of civilisation then ? Australia does not have the gun culture of the US. The odds of being shot in Australia, per capita, are 1/15th of the odds of being shot in the USA. More so, I can think of only three mass shootings by a civilian of strangers, ever.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I feel that armament is a sign of civilized.
I assume the death penalty is also a sign of civilisation then ? Australia does not have the gun culture of the US. The odds of being shot in Australia, per capita, are 1/15th of the odds of being shot in the USA. More so, I can think of only three mass shootings by a civilian of strangers, ever.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I assume the death penalty is also a sign of civilisation then ?
Protected your family and processions is not the same as deeming a person unfit to live. Not stating my belief on that issue either way. Just saying they are not at all related.
Christian Graus wrote:
Australia does not have the gun culture of the US. The odds of being shot in Australia, per capita, are 1/15th of the odds of being shot in the USA. More so, I can think of only three mass shootings by a civilian of strangers, ever.
So are we comparing apples to oranges now? While we're at it should we include Nigeria, Tibet, and Germany? I am sure we can come up with some "logical" comparison for these countries...
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I assume the death penalty is also a sign of civilisation then ?
Protected your family and processions is not the same as deeming a person unfit to live. Not stating my belief on that issue either way. Just saying they are not at all related.
Christian Graus wrote:
Australia does not have the gun culture of the US. The odds of being shot in Australia, per capita, are 1/15th of the odds of being shot in the USA. More so, I can think of only three mass shootings by a civilian of strangers, ever.
So are we comparing apples to oranges now? While we're at it should we include Nigeria, Tibet, and Germany? I am sure we can come up with some "logical" comparison for these countries...
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Protected your family and processions is not the same as deeming a person unfit to live. Not stating my belief on that issue either way. Just saying they are not at all related.
The (wrong) idea that more guns protect people has nothing to do with being civilised. If society is so civilised, why do you think you need guns ? Where is the correlation ?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So are we comparing apples to oranges now?
We're comparing two Western civilisations full of humans. If having guns helps you protect yourself, then it follows that people without guns, are less protected.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
While we're at it should we include Nigeria, Tibet, and Germany?
You really think Australia is as different to the US as Tibet is ? Were you as unhappy with the comparison when the NRA was lying about gun crime in Australia, and trying to make comparisons to bolster it's case ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Protected your family and processions is not the same as deeming a person unfit to live. Not stating my belief on that issue either way. Just saying they are not at all related.
The (wrong) idea that more guns protect people has nothing to do with being civilised. If society is so civilised, why do you think you need guns ? Where is the correlation ?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So are we comparing apples to oranges now?
We're comparing two Western civilisations full of humans. If having guns helps you protect yourself, then it follows that people without guns, are less protected.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
While we're at it should we include Nigeria, Tibet, and Germany?
You really think Australia is as different to the US as Tibet is ? Were you as unhappy with the comparison when the NRA was lying about gun crime in Australia, and trying to make comparisons to bolster it's case ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The (wrong) idea that more guns protect people has nothing to do with being civilised. If society is so civilised, why do you think you need guns ? Where is the correlation ?
This is actually quite simple to explain. It has nothing to do with the society you live in being civilized but actually your neighboring society/people. Any civilized society will have something a neighboring less civilized society will want... And try to take by force.
Christian Graus wrote:
We're comparing two Western civilisations full of humans. If having guns helps you protect yourself, then it follows that people without guns, are less protected.
Being 'protected' has little to do with number of shootings. If a society with a large amount of suburban areas has an outbreak of serial killers targeting suburban families do we blame the suburban families? If instead the shooter of Aurora used an IED to blow up the entire building and then next year a similar event took place in a theater should we blame theaters as the problem. You are correlating data that should not be correlated. There are plenty of shootings (even more devastating than Aurora) in countries where guns are completely banned. This proves your correlation is irrelevant. You miaswell correlate the star alignment. People going crazy on killing sprees has nothing to do with societal armament.
Christian Graus wrote:
You really think Australia is as different to the US as Tibet is ? Were you as unhappy with the comparison when the NRA was lying about gun crime in Australia, and trying to make comparisons to bolster it's case ?
You said yourself that Australia is NOT a gun culture. Obviously the US is. This difference alone makes the comparison silly. If the laws were to change do you really think the culture would right along with it? After Aurora there was a surge in gun purchases in Colorado. What do you think would happen if laws were being put on the table? Not only that it simply opens the door for black market creating more crime and more "gray" lines for people to cross. Once they cross it they are willing to commit more crimes making things worse. You do know what Prohibition was/is right? Do you think the war on drugs is working? Do you think the Alcohol prohibition was effective?
Computers have been intelligent for a l
-
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/phil_labonte_of_all_that_remains_on_the_second_amendment_and_our_right_to_b[^] Great music and clearly has a good understanding of the way our constitution "Should" be interpreted. Unfortunately he is right and we have a police state going on. Granted its not total lock down, but our rights have been trampled to near nil over the last 100 years. I don't understand why most people don't understand this. I hear the classic "Its outdated. You can't fight an apache with a rifle" To which my response is "Good point. We should consider getting an Apache for the neighborhood watch" :D Last night on TV I heard a good one. The argument of "Why would you ever need to shoot that many bullets so fast?" Responce: "Do you need a car that can go 250mph? Should that be made illegal as well?"
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
With the way things are going only two groups will be armed. Military (police) and criminal. Thus average Joe will not be able to defend themselves in case of an uprising. Wait that might be what the government is afraid of.
-
With the way things are going only two groups will be armed. Military (police) and criminal. Thus average Joe will not be able to defend themselves in case of an uprising. Wait that might be what the government is afraid of.
Could be very likely. It really depends on your location though. Inner city, suburbs, and outskirts all have different sort of folks and different armament. If there is an uprising though the inner city will be exactly as you said... Controlled by criminals or a police state.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.