Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Scroto Gaggins

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20
61
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 29, 2015, 12:42:36 AM »
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.

62
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 28, 2015, 04:01:19 PM »

To the contrary, protection is a luxury, and should only be used if needed.


Here I must say nay.
It can only be a luxury if you rely on someone else for your full protection.
To defend myself is a right. A lion in captivity needs no teeth. But not being a prisoner, it's teeth are no luxury. Example "There is never a cop around when you need one"
As people are not animals (for the most part). People will only protect themselves when endangered. (Or one of his own). Or am I a prisoner and slave?
If a human is an animal, (Probably a result of a society that foments unrest and insecurity), I will also ask
for the right to protect myself from such an one.
Sure, in my model, if you pass the evaluations and are properly trained, then you can protect yourself all you like.

Quote
'Tis fun conversing with you!
My feelings exactly, good sir.

Quote
I wonder why you referred to the "damn gun" in this rant though?

"Also to the contrary, lots of my friends who grew up on farms used rifles all the damn time.
For pests, etc."
No, I think you'll find that i referred to guns being used "all the damn time"
Pardon my mannerisms, being the colonial frontiersmen that we Australians are, it is inevitable that a certain rough quality permeates into our writing.

63
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 28, 2015, 04:58:31 AM »

Basically, though, in response to Mr. Lee's post also, the ownership of a gun is a luxury.
It is non-essential (if it was essential, then explain places like Japan).



I understand how one could say it is a luxury to own a gun. In the strictest sense, perhaps it is.
I will be forced to add that locks on your car and house, ignition keys to start a vehicle, security cameras,
alarm systems are all luxury's.
Perhaps this is true in a sense, but, with the world being less than perfect, I do hold it to be a form of
protection, and quite a bit more than a luxury.
To the contrary, protection is a luxury, and should only be used if needed.
i.e. if you live in the middle of nowhere, then you don't need locks on your door.


Quote
If one were to live in a very rural area, where few people are, it would be much more of a luxury perhaps,
but then, you would need to take into account, that it could be used as a tool to hunt food, if eating
flesh is your thing.
Also to the contrary, lots of my friends who grew up on farms used rifles all the damn time.
For pests, etc.

Quote
I can not wait till swords and spears are beat into plows and pruning hooks. That is the only realistic
model you could offer that I believe will be possible.
I cannot wait until that day as well, my friend.
But in the meantime, there should be restrictions on weapons being available to the public.

Quote
About Japan. Many differences, and things are changing.
Just a snip it. (From NationMaster Blog)

What are most disturbing are however arguments that the low crime is partially a result of a police culture that are obsessed with keeping crime statistics low. Former detectives claim that police is unwilling to investigate homicides unless there is a clear suspects and frequently labels unnatural deaths as suicides without performing autopsies. Coincidentally, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
The United States's suicide rate is 2/3 of Japan's.
Not as high, but still fairly high.
Meanwhile, the United States's murder rate is ten times as high as that of Japan.
Just saying.

64
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 27, 2015, 03:17:45 PM »
Racist? Maybe unconstitutional, but racist?
And I used bolt-action rifles as an example.
Yes pretty much, racist.  You see, the left-wingers here in the U.S. often imply that requiring an ID to exercise a constitutional right is racist.  Getting an ID requires proof of citizenship, SS card, birth certificate, etc, and to do this requires fees, driving someplace (what if they don't have a car) and therefore transportation costs, etc, etc, etc. 

Now, according to these same people, it's a burden for poor people to meet these requirements, and it's 'racist' because (also according to them) poor people lacking ID are predominately black, hispanic, or other minority.  This is all regarding voter ID laws and the prevention of voter fraud. 

So, if it's racist to require identification to vote (a constitutional right) because of the processes, transportation, and associated fees, then it must also be racist to require an ID in addition to firearm insurance, training classes, evaluations, etc, to own a firearm (also a constitutional right) because of the processes, transportation, and associated fees for meeting those requirements.
It's at this point that i'm not sure if you are being left-wing, or playing devil's advocate.
But what I'm getting from you is that gun control should only be implemented in the upper-middle class community.
If it is indeed racist to demand ID from those who may lack financial stability, should we just let anyone buy a gun, as demanding ID from someone could be racist?
Basically, though, in response to Mr. Lee's post also, the ownership of a gun is a luxury.
It is non-essential (if it was essential, then explain places like Japan).
Guns are, in most cases, owned by people who also have more guns.
If one is able to buy multiple firearms, and ammunition thereof, from a firearm dealer, then it is not that much of a burden to provide ID.

Your point does stand that in the current system, gun control can discriminate based on income.
My model is an ideal society, and in an ideal society, the government takes care of it's citizens.
If it is financially stressful for some to provide ID, attend classes, etc. then the government must make those things cheaper.

65
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 27, 2015, 05:02:13 AM »

What is Mr. Bloomington talking about.

I pray Mr. Bloomington's point is properly reflected here, so i shall try. What he say's is true, it is law.
(A preface), Sovereign = Human (You, Mr. Scroto Gaggins)  Straw man = Legal fiction (MR. SCROTO GAGGINS)
2 concepts are put forth, 1, Ownership (Slavery)     2, Contracts (Permissions)
Registration is  a certificate of ownership. For people it is their birth certificate. (Notice all CAPs)
For property (As we would call it)  it is the registration. (It will be in all CAP's)
(Sidebar- A license is permission to do something that is, in fact, illegal.) (It will be in all CAP's)
These are all contracts, in the eyes of the law. You are asking for permission to have and use them.
You think you are a man, you are in fact, in the eyes of the law "A human resource"
As soon as you register, in this case, your gun, you are entering into a contract, that gives you the "right" to use it (Possess it), at the governments discretion.
Citizens are forced, (by threat of violence) to pay taxes. We pay license fees, registration fees, property taxes, sales taxes etc. Failure to pay will revoke any rights you think you have.
Question is are you really free? What do you really own?
Don't pay your taxes and you will find your self destitute, with not so much as the shirt on your back.
Perhaps even in a cage.
(Money is a whole other concept we shan't touch on.)
Be prudent and take care when entering into a contract, which most don't understand.
I pray Charles correct me where I am wrong.
But bearing in mind that it is both a choice and luxury to have a firearm, isn't registration of it reasonable?

66
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 27, 2015, 12:24:15 AM »
Well, Charles, since I really can't comprehend what you are trying to say, I'm gonna have to ask someone else to explain your comments.
Anyone?
What is Mr. Bloomington talking about.

67
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 25, 2015, 03:28:11 AM »
Ah, freeman bullshit ... this forum really does have everything ...
So you condone servatude & slavery do you.?
If we were slaves, then the expression of said slavery would be a crime.
It isn't.

68
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 25, 2015, 12:28:44 AM »
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
No !! I dont consent . Care to explain how , summary  minor infringments can be listed as criminal offences & carry a crimminal conviction.
When there is no complainants  damage or victom. ? Only a informent.  Who doesn't have to appear at the mention hearing.
What does the discussion of legal minutiae have to do with the gun control debate?

Charles refers to the U.C.C. Law as described by Blacks law dictionary. (Example is "do you understand"?  means "Do you stand under our authority?"
Basically we don't have a chance, so, keep your guns. It is our only hope of liberty.
Are you expressing your desire to fight the government?
The government has a military and an economy, both a lot more powerful then your own.
So if the police want to summon you to court, you'll scream "No!" and shoot them down?
These police officers who may have done nothing wrong personally?
And then what?
You get all your similarly repressed citizens together and revolt against the government?
You somehow think that you could survive against the largest and best equipped military in the world?
Unless this is the course of action which you want to take, then sure, keep your guns.
It has everything to do with it. A convicted criminal can be some one who forgot to buckle up their seat belt,  or didn't pay their dog registration on time .  Convicted criminals can't possess or own a firearm under your scam .oh & I dont want to fight your fiat Governments.  I want to see them brought before a Grand jury & tried for treason ,servitude & slavery . And  if found guilty by a jury of 12 ,sentenced to be hung from the neck till dead.
By all means, discuss the nuances of my model.
But please, do so in a coherent manner.

Forgive me if I seem brash...but are you crazy Sir or madam?
Please, just Scroto will suffice.

Quote
I would lose if I fought the common cold. You really need to have a cup of coffee, a Pall Mall and calm down friend.
I'm probably more of a cup of tea, ramen noodles and Netflix kind of person.

Quote
I am a man of peace.
Likewise.

Quote
I pay my tickets and speak respectful to law enforcement officers, and when I feel I would need to defend someone, it would be the innocent. Yes especially LEO's.
Great.

Quote
When the law says it is illegal to have an assault rifle, I will turn mine in.
Great.

Quote
I can only pray that day never comes, until of course, the rightful and righteous King does appear.
He will come in the clouds with power and great glory. We won't miss HIM.
Great.

Quote
Until then, I ask for the right to defend myself, and yes, I feel, if the military and police have a weapon,
I should have the right to own that same weapon.
I thought you were a man of peace?
Why own a weapon if you are so adverse to bloodshed?
If you're using the weapon for self defence, then it follows that people will be killed, or wounded.
If you don't plan on ever using a weapon in the aforementioned way, then why own one?

Quote
Peace on earth and good will toward man. Happy Holidays.
And to you, good sir.
Happy holidays.

69
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 24, 2015, 03:30:59 PM »
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
No !! I dont consent . Care to explain how , summary  minor infringments can be listed as criminal offences & carry a crimminal conviction.
When there is no complainants  damage or victom. ? Only a informent.  Who doesn't have to appear at the mention hearing.
What does the discussion of legal minutiae have to do with the gun control debate?

Charles refers to the U.C.C. Law as described by Blacks law dictionary. (Example is "do you understand"?  means "Do you stand under our authority?"
Basically we don't have a chance, so, keep your guns. It is our only hope of liberty.
Are you expressing your desire to fight the government?
The government has a military and an economy, both a lot more powerful then your own.
So if the police want to summon you to court, you'll scream "No!" and shoot them down?
These police officers who may have done nothing wrong personally?
And then what?
You get all your similarly repressed citizens together and revolt against the government?
You somehow think that you could survive against the largest and best equipped military in the world?
Unless this is the course of action which you want to take, then sure, keep your guns.

70
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 24, 2015, 02:39:55 PM »
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.

71
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 24, 2015, 12:50:26 AM »
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
With people under 16, if the kid is trained and not threatening anyone then why put a limit?
Fair enough. What age limit would you propose, if any?
I merely picked 16 because that is when kids can drive, have sex etc.

Quote
With psychotic people that can be a slippery slope. Who decides who's crazy or not and why? Some are rather obvious but even then...
Again, what would you propose instead.
We can't really let psychotic people have firearms, so better to be on the safe side, no?

Quote
Felons, it depends in the crime. Here in the USA there are so many felonies on the books that pretty much all Americans will beconsidered felons if caught. What we should do is only have crimes that take away either life, liberty, or property or a combination of the three to be felonies and as punishment you either fine them, beat them, or execute them depending on the crime.
Notice I said summary offences.
Summary indicates the need for the accused to attend a hearing, usually indicative of the crime's seriousness.

Quote
As for the aged, I think you punish them if they actually get clumsy and accidentally discharge the weapon and it endangered someone else's property and/or life.
Or we err on the side of caution and prevent tragedy before it happens.

Quote
And lastly any form of ID can be used by a tyrannical government. Watch the 80s version of "red dawn".
Do you think that we should have drivers' licences then?

When required in order to exercise a constitutional right, the parts in bold are considered racist by our current administration and the left-wing in general.

Also, you forgot other types of rifles, so simply saying "rifles" would be best.
Racist? Maybe unconstitutional, but racist?
And I used bolt-action rifles as an example.

72
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:08:08 PM »
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Why is it that those that are always calling  for gun control.  All seem to have  guilty consciences.  Have  you wronged someone  scrotum Gaggins ? Are you living in fear of  reprisal.? When I was a boy police "men"  only carried a whisel & baton.  They where well respected members of the public  & the unwritten law was never ever harm a police man . Regardless of who you where good or bad . They served the public not political parties & coperations as they do now.
I have wronged people in the past, although that is not the reason why I advocate reasonable gun restrictions.
Again I ask, what type of restrictions are you proposing?
I posted my model a while back.
I re posted a few posts back.
The post that you quoted contained within it the model I'm proposing.
Can you not see it?

73
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 23, 2015, 03:27:38 PM »
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Why is it that those that are always calling  for gun control.  All seem to have  guilty consciences.  Have  you wronged someone  scrotum Gaggins ? Are you living in fear of  reprisal.? When I was a boy police "men"  only carried a whisel & baton.  They where well respected members of the public  & the unwritten law was never ever harm a police man . Regardless of who you where good or bad . They served the public not political parties & coperations as they do now.
I have wronged people in the past, although that is not the reason why I advocate reasonable gun restrictions.

74
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 23, 2015, 02:20:48 PM »
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?

75
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 23, 2015, 01:07:57 AM »
A screwdriver can be used to kill someone.  Should we have restrictions on screwdrivers as well?
When you show me the stats that show that the leading weapon in murders is a screwdriver, then yes, they should be restricted.
Also direct me to the mass screwdriverings that have occurred at schools.
When eight thousand American are killed by other Americans using screwdrivers, then there should be restrictions.
If eight thousand people die from something, then actions have to be taken to decrease the likelihood of more deaths occurring.
The leading weapon in murder in this day & age  is not fire arms . its the drug ice .
Yeah, no.
Unless someone force feeds you crystal meth, then it is not murder.
Ice can be a factor in someones choice to murder, but not the weapon itself.

76
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 22, 2015, 03:20:14 PM »
I also think we need to limit the sale of weapons truly meant for the military, like assault rifles or automatic/semi-automatic weapons. You get the idea.
Military small arms are automatic or burst.  These are tightly regulated.  A semi-auto that looks like a military rifle is nothing special, other than the increasingly indoctrinated mentality of "they look scary".  There are plenty of wood-stocked 'hunting' rifles that are semi-auto, and fire higher-powered ammo than a typical AR type rifle.

The 2nd amendment isn't about 'duck hunting'.
I think we can all agree that the gun regulations currently in practice are flawed.
However, that does not mean that regulations of any type, and the principals behind doing so, are flawed.

77
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 22, 2015, 05:30:37 AM »
A screwdriver can be used to kill someone.  Should we have restrictions on screwdrivers as well?
When you show me the stats that show that the leading weapon in murders is a screwdriver, then yes, they should be restricted.
Also direct me to the mass screwdriverings that have occurred at schools.
When eight thousand American are killed by other Americans using screwdrivers, then there should be restrictions.
If eight thousand people die from something, then actions have to be taken to decrease the likelihood of more deaths occurring.

78
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 20, 2015, 05:41:07 PM »
Then look at states who have more gun laws and compare them to states with less gun laws and see who has the worst crime.
The US has the first world's highest crime rate.
The US also has the highest gun ownership in the world.
If more guns equals less crime, then the Us should have the lowest crime in the world.
Please read the previous discussion over the last few pages and then post.

79
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution
« on: November 19, 2015, 05:12:09 AM »
Like the ball Earth another nutty theory with absolutely no proof.
Firstly, there is a lot of proof for the earth being round. You may dismiss this proof, but must not only provide proof that our proof is invalid, but also subsequent proof of your own theory's validity.
Secondly, the fact that an experiment was done that produced amino acids out of several non organic compounds counts as proof. Again, you can dispute this proof, but again have to provide reason for your disputation.

80
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 19, 2015, 05:06:08 AM »
Oregon shooting is a hoax like most school shootings. How can you keep falling for the same story over and over again?
But you don't deny that shootings happen a lot more regularly in America then any other first-world country?
And that the rather lax gun laws are a direct cause of this?

I live in Australia, where there was a pretty nasty massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania.
I think that 35 people were killed or something.
The government of the time then passed extreme gun legislation that basically stopped gun violence in Australia.

And about all this being hoaxes.
Admittedly, this could be true.
But who faked it, and for what benefit?
And it is also possible that the figures are not exaggerated, that these massacres are happening.
And if thats the case, then something must be done to stop this problem.
Switzerland have pretty lax gun laws too. And Kennesaw, Georgia have mandatory gun ownership. Look at the crime rates to the two places I listed.
In Switzerland, to own a firearm, one must first serve in the Military.
I don't know about you, but I'd hardly call national service in the Army and subsequent licensing and governmental involvement etc. 'Lax'.

81
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution
« on: November 19, 2015, 01:25:16 AM »
How did the first life form evolved?
Abiogenesis.
See the Miller-Urey experiment for how organic matter can arise out of inorganic and random processes.

82
Don't you guys realise that sometimes the human eye perceives a curve as being straight?
Do I have to even give an example?

83
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 04, 2015, 03:59:39 PM »
Nobody has commented on my statement that my sons all had firearms before they were 10, yet they never shot anyone.  Perhaps this proves that children can be trained how to safely and responsibly handle firearms?
Yes, children can be trained to safely and responsibly handle firearms.
I don't think anyone doubts your effectiveness as a father.

You do realise that Mikeman and myself have already reached the consensus that gun control is inevitable?
It is not a question of should there be, it is a question of how much.

Although the amount of gun control I advocate is less then America has.
Do you see any problems with the model that I proposed?

84
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 04, 2015, 06:29:03 AM »
I used to be for gun control in the US until I got suspicious when obama got on board and started pushing for it, why would his party take such a risk when political parties are known for evasiveness and trying not to upset large, well established groups. I looked into it and many think he wants to disarm America so that when the shitstorm comes down no one will be able to defend themselves. Sounds plausible to me, considering what else I know. Now I'm not quite sure. Things are not always what they seem!
You do realise that Mikeman and myself have already reached the consensus that gun control is inevitable?
It is not a question of should there be, it is a question of how much.

85
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 03, 2015, 02:43:19 AM »
Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
No what discussion should be taking place first, is how to deal with the likes of you treacherous lying underhanded agenda 21 scum & your  deceptive legalese codes. Care  discussing that agenda first scrotum Gaggins. Before  you want people to give up their inalienable right to defended their life , their families life & there property.  I'm sure those involved in agenda 21 treason & espionage would like to see all guns removed from the public .so they can go about their treacherous methods , with out fear of ever being brought to justice for their actions.
Direct me to where I said that no guns should be allowed to the people.
And what is agenda 21?
Oh, that's right, it refers to sustainable development.
If you could kindly phrase your questions in coherent English, then maybe I'd respond to them.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« on: November 02, 2015, 03:08:11 PM »
Perspective means that, when a ship is far away from you, it appears to be very small.  Things that are smaller than the ship, but closer, will cover up part or all of the ship, like a 2 m swell.  Do you roundies not believe in perspective?
Isn't the FE wiki's explanation that if one was to sight a telescope on the ship, that it would come back into view?
How is this the case if the ship is being blocked by objects closer to the observer?

87
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM »
Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?

88
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 02, 2015, 05:39:50 AM »
Still, 15-20 percent of purchases being extralegal is a worrying statistic.
People selling their personal property worries you?
If that personal property could cause death or injury to others, then yes.

Quote
Quote
So the second amendment doesn't apply to everyone?
It does, until you have your rights removed by due process of law.  Felons can't own a firearm nor can they vote (in most cases)

Quote
Can gun control also be implemented by due process?
No law can be implemented if it is unconstitutional.
But gun control already exists in the US.
10 year-olds can't buy firearms, ergo, gun control.

Quote
Quote
I think that you would have to prove that not only was there an increase in crime, but that that increase was caused by this leak.
Why would I have to prove that?  The fact that it was done should be worrying to any gun owner.
Well, if there were no adverse and/or deadly consequences, then I don't see this issue as anything more than an invasion of privacy, which is a topic for another thread.

Quote
Quote
So the relatively minor differences between Canada, Australia and the UK and the US produce such a huge discrepancy?
Again, how do they affect violence in particular?
Oh, so you are just going to wave all the differences as 'relatively minor'?  That's one hell of a cop out if I've ever read one.
They all:
Are democracies
Have high GDP both nominally and per capita
Have ethnic and cultural diversity
Are developed both economically and socially
Don't have internal wars/strife
Are valued members of the international community
Etc.
There are more similarities than differences, and the differences that do exist seem hardly likely to cause a fourfold increase in murder rate.
Excepting in part, of course in my opinion, the high levels of gun ownership, and corresponding low levels of gun control.

Quote
Quote
So your precious freedom is impinged upon, yet again, by the tyrannical government, who will enforce this rule with the use of force.
You realize you look ridiculous when you make stupid statements like this, right?
I'm being consistent.
If you complain about the government potentially forcing you to surrender some of your gun rights, then it follows that you should be complaining about other restrictions that the government place on you.
i.e. the prohibition of murder.

Quote
Quote
Thirdly, if we still don't comply, or haven't given adequate reason for our absence, then police officers (usually armed but not always) will escort you to court.
No being led at gunpoint.
Those two statements are contradictory.  You also forgot to answer how hold you were.
Being led at gunpoint implies both an unholstered weapon and the using of that weapon directly for one's coercion.
Neither of those are present in being served a court summons to pay a speeding fine.

Quote
Quote
So you do dispute the studies that show that homicide, suicide and accidental death rates go up with firearm ownership?
I've shown the stats that show the gun murder rate is generally lower in states that have high gun ownership.
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3c-CMbmUHo46h0IS755z8eruXvQ=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4118836/gun%20ownership%20states.png
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4P8I10AEIFJTYH0Lhnz_scC4Hvw=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4002396/gun%20ownership%20countries.jpg
Two graphs.
Both with a positive gradient, as you can see.
Note- we are not just talking about gun murder, but gun deaths in general.

Quote
Quote
The availability of weapons only increases the likelihood of an attempt, and the potential lethality of that attempt.
Because you said before that I was more likely to commit suicide since I had a gun in my house.  But now I would have to be mentally unstable to commit suicide.  Please stick to one story.
People can develop a mental illness at any point in time.
A few misfiring neurons in your brain, and you might suddenly have suicidal impulses.
Bearing in mind the fact that suicide is usually more likely to occur, and is more likely to be fatal, where there are more guns, I think we can see that even if guns aren't the cause, that they are a significant factor.

89
Flat Earth Q&A / Teach me DET, please
« on: November 01, 2015, 03:15:34 PM »
JRowe, hi,
I was wondering if you could teach me the fundamental tenets and properties of the Dual Earth model.
I swear that I will approach this with an open mind, but might still ask questions.
Greatly appreciated if you do.

90
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 01, 2015, 02:51:24 PM »
Do you think 12 year olds should be allowed firearms?

With parental convent and supervision, yes.  I learned how to shoot before I was 12.
Should they be allowed to take them to school?

Quote
Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed firearms?

Yes, as long as they can be taught how to use a firearm and be responsible with it.
Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Quote
Do you think firearms should be carried on planes?

Yes.  Do you think anyone would be able to high jack a plane if the passengers could shoot them?  If firearms were allowed on planes then the 9/11 incident wouldn't have happened because the terrorists would have not been able to highball the planes in the first place.
But what if someone's gun goes off by accident?
I'm assuming that you've been on a plane, and that you know how tightly people are crammed in.

Quote
Do you think machine guns should be publicly available?

My brother owns two of them.  Yes, they should be publicly available.  Pistols can do just as much harm or help as a machine gun, with a pistol you just need to spend one second every so often reloading.
Your brother owns two machine guns?
Not sub-machine guns, but mounted machine guns?

Quote
Do you think rocket launchers should be publicly available?

Anyone rampaging with a rocket launcher would get a maximum of one shot before he/she could be rushed and taken down.  RPG's take a long time to reload and because of this they could not do much harm or good.  I cannot think of a single instance where an RPG was used by a criminal or terrorist to kill civilians.  Banning them is unnecessary, and if many civilians had guns with them then nobody would dare go out in public and start killing people.
I think that you gun advocates have already stressed that murderers-to-be disregard the law.
Why would they give any regard to the fact that they might be killed? Mass-murderers often kill themselves.
Again, accidents can always happen.
If there are explosives in your suburban house, then accidents are bound to happen.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20