2nd amendment
-
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.
-
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
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Any civilized society will have something a neighboring less civilized society will want... And try to take by force.
I have no idea of your point here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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.This is stupid. 1 - if societal armament has anything to do with safety at all, as you claimed, then the data I am suggesting would follow 2 - of course most people with guns in the US are law abiding. But, the saturation of guns means that nuts can get guns. Which is why you have mass shootings and we almost never do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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?
That depends on if the rednecks with guns would break the law and keep them. Either way, what it proves is that the lack of guns does not create a lack of safety.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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're saying that if I ever shoplifted as a teen ( I did ), I was bound to become a murderer and drug dealer ( I have not ). That is stupid. The fact is, most mass killers are not part of the criminal world, and thus would not have access to guns if they were not legal.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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?
I think the war on drugs is stupid. But it's not really the same thing. Most of the harm done to people by drugs, is done by their being illegal. Guns are made for killing. They harm others.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Any civilized society will have something a neighboring less civilized society will want... And try to take by force.
I have no idea of your point here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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.This is stupid. 1 - if societal armament has anything to do with safety at all, as you claimed, then the data I am suggesting would follow 2 - of course most people with guns in the US are law abiding. But, the saturation of guns means that nuts can get guns. Which is why you have mass shootings and we almost never do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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?
That depends on if the rednecks with guns would break the law and keep them. Either way, what it proves is that the lack of guns does not create a lack of safety.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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're saying that if I ever shoplifted as a teen ( I did ), I was bound to become a murderer and drug dealer ( I have not ). That is stupid. The fact is, most mass killers are not part of the criminal world, and thus would not have access to guns if they were not legal.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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?
I think the war on drugs is stupid. But it's not really the same thing. Most of the harm done to people by drugs, is done by their being illegal. Guns are made for killing. They harm others.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no idea of your point here.
Do you think wars or oppressive societies start because of name calling and bullying? They start because someone or group arms up to take what some other person or group has and is less armed.
Christian Graus wrote:
This is stupid.
1 - if societal armament has anything to do with safety at all, as you claimed, then the data I am suggesting would follow
2 - of course most people with guns in the US are law abiding. But, the saturation of guns means that nuts can get guns. Which is why you have mass shootings and we almost never do.Now I am wondering if you read the post. Or have ever done any research. Yes you have data. But there is plenty of data out there showing non armed cultures have "shootings" as well. In some cases they are worse. I use quotes on "shootings" because really it is not about the shooting (even though there are plenty of cases where it literally is a shooting). It is really about some nut job deciding to kill people. How they do it is irrelevant. If they decide to kill, they will kill.
Christian Graus wrote:
That depends on if the rednecks with guns would break the law and keep them. Either way, what it proves is that the lack of guns does not create a lack of safety.
I never said a lack of guns is a lack of society. I said IMO armament is a sign of a civilized society. That does not at all mean non armed societies are not civilized. If A then B is true one can not conclude If NOT A then Not B. [Edit] Misread what you wrote. But I do not think I have said lack of guns is lack of safety. Lack of guns means one can not individual protect themselves from an oppressive force. You can claim your government or police will protect you. Our judicial system has ruled they need not to (again read the post). This means it is up to you as the individual to protect yourself.
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that if I ever shoplifted as a teen ( I did ), I was bound to become a murderer and drug dealer ( I have not ). That is stupid. The fact is, most mass killers are not part of the criminal world, and thus would not have access to guns if they were not legal.
Not at all. I am saying you are forcing a culture on a large scale to
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no idea of your point here.
Do you think wars or oppressive societies start because of name calling and bullying? They start because someone or group arms up to take what some other person or group has and is less armed.
Christian Graus wrote:
This is stupid.
1 - if societal armament has anything to do with safety at all, as you claimed, then the data I am suggesting would follow
2 - of course most people with guns in the US are law abiding. But, the saturation of guns means that nuts can get guns. Which is why you have mass shootings and we almost never do.Now I am wondering if you read the post. Or have ever done any research. Yes you have data. But there is plenty of data out there showing non armed cultures have "shootings" as well. In some cases they are worse. I use quotes on "shootings" because really it is not about the shooting (even though there are plenty of cases where it literally is a shooting). It is really about some nut job deciding to kill people. How they do it is irrelevant. If they decide to kill, they will kill.
Christian Graus wrote:
That depends on if the rednecks with guns would break the law and keep them. Either way, what it proves is that the lack of guns does not create a lack of safety.
I never said a lack of guns is a lack of society. I said IMO armament is a sign of a civilized society. That does not at all mean non armed societies are not civilized. If A then B is true one can not conclude If NOT A then Not B. [Edit] Misread what you wrote. But I do not think I have said lack of guns is lack of safety. Lack of guns means one can not individual protect themselves from an oppressive force. You can claim your government or police will protect you. Our judicial system has ruled they need not to (again read the post). This means it is up to you as the individual to protect yourself.
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that if I ever shoplifted as a teen ( I did ), I was bound to become a murderer and drug dealer ( I have not ). That is stupid. The fact is, most mass killers are not part of the criminal world, and thus would not have access to guns if they were not legal.
Not at all. I am saying you are forcing a culture on a large scale to
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Do you think wars or oppressive societies start because of name calling and bullying? They start because someone or group arms up to take what some other person or group has and is less armed.
This is a broad statement, and makes no real point. Oppressive societies start for a lot of reasons. If one were to start in the US, your army would not be deterred by the pop guns in your gun cabinet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But there is plenty of data out there showing non armed cultures have "shootings" as well. In some cases they are worse.
Tasmania, my home state, had the worst shooting of all time, for a while. But the point is simply that there's nuts everywhere, but a nut in the US finds it far easier to get a gun. Who knows how many Australian citizens were nuts, but could never shoot anyone due to lack of access to guns ?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is really about some nut job deciding to kill people. How they do it is irrelevant. If they decide to kill, they will kill.
I'd rather deal with a nut with a knife, than one with a gun, though. Your claim is that the US just has a TON more nut jobs per capita ?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You can claim your government or police will protect you
No, I've not said that. I've said that I would prefer to know that the odds are low that someone who tries to oppress me, has a gun, than carry a gun and have a Dirty Harry fantasy.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Guns are made for many reasons. Sport, hunting, protection, and even simply put a deterrent. One can say all of these purposes root from the "ability" of them to kill. But that does not mean that is their actual purpose.
They can be used for other things, but they are all designed with one goal - being better at shooting, and the core reason to shoot, is to kill. I don't care if you have a gun. I just think it's insane to pretend that there's no correlation between a society full of guns, and the risk of someone shooting at you.
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:
Do you think wars or oppressive societies start because of name calling and bullying? They start because someone or group arms up to take what some other person or group has and is less armed.
This is a broad statement, and makes no real point. Oppressive societies start for a lot of reasons. If one were to start in the US, your army would not be deterred by the pop guns in your gun cabinet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But there is plenty of data out there showing non armed cultures have "shootings" as well. In some cases they are worse.
Tasmania, my home state, had the worst shooting of all time, for a while. But the point is simply that there's nuts everywhere, but a nut in the US finds it far easier to get a gun. Who knows how many Australian citizens were nuts, but could never shoot anyone due to lack of access to guns ?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is really about some nut job deciding to kill people. How they do it is irrelevant. If they decide to kill, they will kill.
I'd rather deal with a nut with a knife, than one with a gun, though. Your claim is that the US just has a TON more nut jobs per capita ?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You can claim your government or police will protect you
No, I've not said that. I've said that I would prefer to know that the odds are low that someone who tries to oppress me, has a gun, than carry a gun and have a Dirty Harry fantasy.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Guns are made for many reasons. Sport, hunting, protection, and even simply put a deterrent. One can say all of these purposes root from the "ability" of them to kill. But that does not mean that is their actual purpose.
They can be used for other things, but they are all designed with one goal - being better at shooting, and the core reason to shoot, is to kill. I don't care if you have a gun. I just think it's insane to pretend that there's no correlation between a society full of guns, and the risk of someone shooting at you.
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:
This is a broad statement, and makes no real point. Oppressive societies start for a lot of reasons. If one were to start in the US, your army would not be deterred by the pop guns in your gun cabinet.
No I would not be able to "deter" them personally (and I actually have no gun cabinet nor gun ;P I am happy that many do though). Its actually more about guerrilla warfare anyways. If a society is being oppressed it is no longer about determent but strategic and tactical assaults. Having a few guns makes that easier than having no guns.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd rather deal with a nut with a knife, than one with a gun, though.
Guns and knifes are not the only ways to kill. And that is actually the driving point of why "banning" guns does nothing. Oklahoma city bombing was done with a fertilizer bomb. 9/11 was accomplished with box cutters. Again, if someone or a group of people decide to kill access to "guns" is not needed. In fact the larger atrocities are often done with non traditional guns but use IEDs.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I've not said that. I've said that I would prefer to know that the odds are low that someone who tries to oppress me, has a gun, than carry a gun and have a Dirty Harry fantasy.
Maybe you should read the 2nd amendment more carefully. The reason for it is to protect the people against those they have put faith in to protect them. I.e. they are likely the ones with the guns already. If you give up yours then its 'game over'.
Christian Graus wrote:
They can be used for other things, but they are all designed with one goal - being better at shooting, and the core reason to shoot, is to kill.
I don't care if you have a gun. I just think it's insane to pretend that there's no correlation between a society full of guns, and the risk of someone shooting at you.Now you are getting to a point. Sure their is likely a correlation there. But thats a silly point honestly. I am more likely to get into a car accident because I drive to work versus tele-commute. A doctor is more likely to get exposed to a virus because they treat the sick daily. My favorite silly stat: You are most likely to get into an accident with in 2 miles from your home. Duh! That's where I drive mostly! Obviously if there ARE
-
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:
guns protect people has nothing to do with being civiliszed
It has everything to do with being civilized. An individual's ability to exercise force on another with an equalizer makes civilization possible. Without that ability, civilization would be impossible. By the way, how are you enjoying those carbon taxes?
-
but you do need a license for the car regardless of size or speed, maybe you should be licensed for a gun too? and required to attended and pass training before ownership, no pass = no gun. as for the Car analogy, fine you can can have any gun but introduce a tax of $100 x ROF, at least that would pay for cleaning up afterwards To me arming untrained people is asking for trouble, think what would have happened at BAtman if the crowd was armed, the death toll would have been far worse as most people cannot hit a barn door in a zero stress situation let alone underfire, even trained police officers who are required to be profficent often cannot hit a gunman in these situations as for the disarming of a population causing terrible tragedies, surely these are happening monthly already in the uncontrol gun culture. The UK has pretty much disarmed its population and we are still here. The Idea that guns make you safe is wrong, fine have your guns but the argument that it is to prevent Govenment/some other Govenment from taking over is pure rubbish
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:
but you do need a license for the car regardless of size or speed, maybe you should be licensed for a gun too? and required to attended and pass training before ownership, no pass = no gun.
Simple. Because the Constitution mentions nothing at all about cars. Nor horse drawn carriages for that matter.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
as for the Car analogy, fine you can can have any gun but introduce a tax of $100 x ROF, at least that would pay for cleaning up afterwards
The car analogy is nonsense of course. Similar analogy is that one should introduce a tax and license to attend a church.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
To me arming untrained people is asking for trouble,
And what about letting "untrained" people raise children? That is certainly asking for "trouble". Not to mention of course that the Constitution says nothing at all about that so one could certainly insist on it.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
The UK has pretty much disarmed its population and we are still here.
China is still around too and has been so for a lot longer than the UK so based on that statement the UK should model itself after China right?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
The Idea that guns make you safe is wrong
So why do the UK special forces and military use guns? They must be idiots right? Maybe if they were trained better they could talk the armed assailants into putting themselves into jail?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
fine have your guns but the argument that it is to prevent Govenment/some other Govenment from taking over is pure rubbish
And yet that is specifically why it was added to the Constitution and specifically added because that is exactly what the British government attempted to do - take away the arms of the colonies. And in part because free expression was also being restricted and that could not be enforced when basically all citizens were armed.
-
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
Based on that argument no one should buy life insurance because they haven't died yet.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
rights? no such thing, these are things that by general acceptance are allowed, by a stroke of a pen can be removed
From this and your other comments it seems likely that you have no idea how the Constitution works.
-
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.
-
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
Based on that argument no one should buy life insurance because they haven't died yet.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
rights? no such thing, these are things that by general acceptance are allowed, by a stroke of a pen can be removed
From this and your other comments it seems likely that you have no idea how the Constitution works.
jschell wrote:
Based on that argument no one should buy life insurance because they haven't died yet.
no its like you buying life insurance from a company that has never paid out on a policy - they may pay but history says they wont
jschell wrote:
From this and your other comments it seems likely that you have no idea how the Constitution works.
from comments here and other sites it could be argued that it doesnt
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:
but you do need a license for the car regardless of size or speed, maybe you should be licensed for a gun too? and required to attended and pass training before ownership, no pass = no gun.
Simple. Because the Constitution mentions nothing at all about cars. Nor horse drawn carriages for that matter.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
as for the Car analogy, fine you can can have any gun but introduce a tax of $100 x ROF, at least that would pay for cleaning up afterwards
The car analogy is nonsense of course. Similar analogy is that one should introduce a tax and license to attend a church.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
To me arming untrained people is asking for trouble,
And what about letting "untrained" people raise children? That is certainly asking for "trouble". Not to mention of course that the Constitution says nothing at all about that so one could certainly insist on it.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
The UK has pretty much disarmed its population and we are still here.
China is still around too and has been so for a lot longer than the UK so based on that statement the UK should model itself after China right?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
The Idea that guns make you safe is wrong
So why do the UK special forces and military use guns? They must be idiots right? Maybe if they were trained better they could talk the armed assailants into putting themselves into jail?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
fine have your guns but the argument that it is to prevent Govenment/some other Govenment from taking over is pure rubbish
And yet that is specifically why it was added to the Constitution and specifically added because that is exactly what the British government attempted to do - take away the arms of the colonies. And in part because free expression was also being restricted and that could not be enforced when basically all citizens were armed.
Quote:
Simple. Because the Constitution mentions nothing at all about cars. Nor horse drawn carriages for that matter. The car analogy is nonsense of course.
of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine
Quote:
Similar analogy is that one should introduce a tax and license to attend a church.
similar as in silly and pointless? do i need to progress this silly analogy too? why is the restriction ,license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept? or is it a worry that so many of these "gun owners" would find themselves short of the requirement?
Quote:
And what about letting "untrained" people raise children? That is certainly asking for "trouble". Not to mention of course that the Constitution says nothing at all about that so one could certainly insist on it.
why would it by like this? or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour? a better one would be doctors, here you have something with the potential to injure and/or kill. but it is acceptable to require the training and license of this profession but somehow not of guns!
Quote:
China is still around too and has been so for a lot longer than the UK so based on that statement the UK should model itself after China right?
no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement for a society as was being sugested thier aare no restriction on gun ownership in Nigeria should we adopt thier govenment?
Quote:
So why do the UK special forces and military use guns? They must be idiots right? Maybe if they were trained better they could talk the armed assailants into putting themselves into jail?
why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers! why do you think that the miltary are spending so much on non leathal weapon developement? why do you think that the police are trained to di just that? this sounds like the argument of a 5 y/o
Quote:
And yet that is specifically why it was added to the Constitution and specifically added because that is exactly what the British government attempted to do - take away the arms of the colonies. And in part because free expression was also being restricted and that
-
djj55 wrote:
With the way things are going only two groups will be armed.
By choice perhaps but not by law. Recent suits make it apparent that private gun ownership is a right.
If you have not noticed, our "rights" depend on what the government say they are. If the government says we cannot carry guns then that is what is our right. :sigh:
-
Quote:
Simple. Because the Constitution mentions nothing at all about cars. Nor horse drawn carriages for that matter. The car analogy is nonsense of course.
of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine
Quote:
Similar analogy is that one should introduce a tax and license to attend a church.
similar as in silly and pointless? do i need to progress this silly analogy too? why is the restriction ,license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept? or is it a worry that so many of these "gun owners" would find themselves short of the requirement?
Quote:
And what about letting "untrained" people raise children? That is certainly asking for "trouble". Not to mention of course that the Constitution says nothing at all about that so one could certainly insist on it.
why would it by like this? or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour? a better one would be doctors, here you have something with the potential to injure and/or kill. but it is acceptable to require the training and license of this profession but somehow not of guns!
Quote:
China is still around too and has been so for a lot longer than the UK so based on that statement the UK should model itself after China right?
no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement for a society as was being sugested thier aare no restriction on gun ownership in Nigeria should we adopt thier govenment?
Quote:
So why do the UK special forces and military use guns? They must be idiots right? Maybe if they were trained better they could talk the armed assailants into putting themselves into jail?
why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers! why do you think that the miltary are spending so much on non leathal weapon developement? why do you think that the police are trained to di just that? this sounds like the argument of a 5 y/o
Quote:
And yet that is specifically why it was added to the Constitution and specifically added because that is exactly what the British government attempted to do - take away the arms of the colonies. And in part because free expression was also being restricted and that
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
milita are not a good way of providing a defensive/offensive miltary, in fact they tend to be worse than recruiting from scratch (or conscription as is the usual case with the US)
Is that why the Swiss have been conquered so many times :doh: Yeah... You should really do some fact checking before you make a claim about something. A milita has shown effectiveness in providing defense. In the past the US was to not get involved in international affairs and used them exclusively. That was the way the founding fathers wanted it. Getting involved created the military complex now before us. This does not make it right. However, just because the US has a military complex does not mean it should not also have militias. More importantly it does not take the right of smaller groups (or individuals) to arm and organize for militias.
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.
-
If you have not noticed, our "rights" depend on what the government say they are. If the government says we cannot carry guns then that is what is our right. :sigh:
djj55 wrote:
If you have not noticed, our "rights" depend on what the government say they are. If the government says we cannot carry guns then that is what is our right.
Basically all I can say is to that is that it nonsense because it is based on an illogical assumption. Because people live in groups there WILL be some consensus methodology applied to reach social agreements. That is standard philosophoy 101 and socialogy 101. And anything that is a "right" is conferred and regulated by the methodology. There is no other option when onr lives in groups. The alternative to a "government" is individual enforcement and history makes it clear with a vast number of examples that the outcome there is most often based on might makes right (where 'might' is based the available personal skills.) Thus per my comment because the US Supreme Court has made a significant recent ruling that upholds personal ownership the right that is only conferred anyways by the US government stands.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
milita are not a good way of providing a defensive/offensive miltary, in fact they tend to be worse than recruiting from scratch (or conscription as is the usual case with the US)
Is that why the Swiss have been conquered so many times :doh: Yeah... You should really do some fact checking before you make a claim about something. A milita has shown effectiveness in providing defense. In the past the US was to not get involved in international affairs and used them exclusively. That was the way the founding fathers wanted it. Getting involved created the military complex now before us. This does not make it right. However, just because the US has a military complex does not mean it should not also have militias. More importantly it does not take the right of smaller groups (or individuals) to arm and organize for militias.
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.
and exactly how many times has the swiss militia been called to defend switzerland? and the fact that the keep all the ill gotton gains of so many world powers has nothing to do with it? please give examples of militia beeing successfull in defending a country? and as the US militia has invaded Canada twice I dissagree that it has stopped the US being involved in world affairs it also meant that when the US was called to stand against agression it had no force to do it with and was forced to conscript one can you provide a source of this right? you have a consistution that says you can but how is this a right?, as pointrd out before your consistution has only recently been applied to all your populus so how can anything in it be a right?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.