Poll

What is your opinion on the United States' gun laws at present?

They are far too restrictive.
8 (44.4%)
They are a little restrictive.
1 (5.6%)
They are fine as it is.
2 (11.1%)
They are a little relaxed.
1 (5.6%)
They are far too relaxed.
5 (27.8%)
None of the above (please specify)
1 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 18

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14   Go Down

Gun Violence in the United States

  • 407 Replies
  • 63198 Views
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #150 on: November 23, 2015, 03:24:30 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 01, 2015, 02:51:24 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?
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 honest 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 as they do now  political parties,greedy banks  & coperations
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 03:31:47 PM by charles bloomington »
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #151 on: November 23, 2015, 03:27:38 PM »
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 23, 2015, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 01, 2015, 02:51:24 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?
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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #152 on: November 23, 2015, 03:41:07 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 23, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 23, 2015, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 01, 2015, 02:51:24 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?
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.
I will advocate for gun controls , when we get back to a lawful system of public constitution referendums & no one being above the law . A system of what is written in plain understandable English & grammar returning & not the bastard  legalese system of dishonest sly deception & manipulation, that is opperating now.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 03:45:59 PM by charles bloomington »
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #153 on: November 23, 2015, 03:55:43 PM »
No one should be made to give up their inalienable right to own a gun & defended their life . If acting lawfuly
No one should have to put up with privet courts that provide no guarantee of fair imparcial  justice . That means courts that operate  as privet star chambers. 
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #154 on: November 23, 2015, 05:26:25 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 23, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 23, 2015, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 01, 2015, 02:51:24 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?
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?
Logged
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #155 on: November 23, 2015, 06:08:08 PM »
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 23, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 23, 2015, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 01, 2015, 02:51:24 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?
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?
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #156 on: November 23, 2015, 07:42:09 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 01, 2015, 02:51:24 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?
With people under 16, if the kid is trained and not threatening anyone then why put a limit?
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...
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.
As for the aged, I think you punish them if they actually get clumsy and accidentally discharge the weapon and it indangered someone else's property and/or life.
And lastly any form of ID can be used by a tyrannical government. Watch the 80s version of "red dawn".
Logged
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.
*

29silhouette

  • 3347
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #157 on: November 23, 2015, 10:57:45 PM »

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM

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?
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.
Logged
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #158 on: November 24, 2015, 12:50:26 AM »
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
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?

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 23, 2015, 10:57:45 PM
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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #159 on: November 24, 2015, 03:24:09 AM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 12:50:26 AM
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
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?

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 23, 2015, 10:57:45 PM
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.
Summary offence. Is an invitation to attend the court . You dont have to attend if you dont want to. It is a summary of disputed debit for breached contract.Usual an infringment of contract or licence agreement. If you dont attend the court.The court will  order for a warrant to be issued for arest (which is a statute "warranty") Commerce. This is when the fraud & deception starts . They are not sworn officers of your constitutional company. They are private officers & agents for the banks & political parties, a privet corperation, their corperation.  The statutes only apply to shareholders & employees of that company or the fool hood winked in to contracting with them .Hence the undertaking .In commerce your a fictional dead person ,you have no rights period.
Summary courts will tell you they deal in factual law. That fact is your a fiction ,dead & was  lost at sea.In the eyes of the court .You are also a born bankrupt if born after 1933 . So you have lost the moment you walked in their door , its their court not the publics & just if you think you have managed to of sweet talked  pulling a rabbit out of your hat. Geuss again There is no hearing , the only hearing is that of confirming the victoms name , you the dead bankrupt found at sea . The pirates simply divy up the salvage reward.
Summary courts are star chambers.  You dont attend if you want a half pie chance of keeping the shirt on your back . You correspond by afadavits. Your facts not theirs.
Old Scrotum is just sprooking for fools. Dont be sucker punched in to give up your guns by theses lying barth scum.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 03:46:57 AM by charles bloomington »
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #160 on: November 24, 2015, 02:39:55 PM »
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #161 on: November 24, 2015, 02:51:47 PM »
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.
Logged
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #162 on: November 24, 2015, 03:04:45 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 02:39:55 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.
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #163 on: November 24, 2015, 03:30:59 PM »
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 24, 2015, 03:04:45 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 02:39:55 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?

Quote from: Frank Lee on November 24, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #164 on: November 24, 2015, 04:19:46 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 24, 2015, 03:04:45 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 02:39:55 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?

Quote from: Frank Lee on November 24, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
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.

Forgive me if I seem brash...but are you crazy Sir or madam?
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 am a man of peace. 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.
When the law says it is illegal to have an assault rifle, I will turn mine in.
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.
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. Let's not forget, They work for us, right?
Peace on earth and good will toward man. Happy Holidays.
Logged
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #165 on: November 24, 2015, 11:56:30 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 24, 2015, 03:04:45 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 02:39:55 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?

Quote from: Frank Lee on November 24, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
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.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2015, 12:04:24 AM by charles bloomington »
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
?

Soulblood

  • 301
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #166 on: November 25, 2015, 12:09:34 AM »
Ah, freeman bullshit ... this forum really does have everything ...
Logged
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #167 on: November 25, 2015, 12:28:44 AM »
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 24, 2015, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 24, 2015, 03:04:45 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 02:39:55 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?

Quote from: Frank Lee on November 24, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
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.

Quote from: Frank Lee on November 24, 2015, 04:19:46 PM
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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #168 on: November 25, 2015, 02:01:56 AM »
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]

EVERYTIME i holster my weapon, i consider the gravity of the situation you describe. I pray every time,
that i never need to use it. After all, the righteous law i hold to says, "Thou shalt not kill" Nothing unclear about that. But as a man, should someone wish to do me great harm (Or others), he (or she), should be
well aware, that here, there is a real possibility they may need to pay with their life.
I am certain that just this awareness has the potential if dissuading much crime and violence.
I must also be aware of the potential consequences, as every responsible gun owner knows,
the moment you pull your weapon, your life will change. I like my life as imperfect as it may be.
The citizens are the militia, may we be a society of wise, strong, peaceful people.
May love abound.
Logged
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #169 on: November 25, 2015, 03:01:57 AM »
Quote from: Soulblood on November 25, 2015, 12:09:34 AM
Ah, freeman bullshit ... this forum really does have everything ...
So you condone servatude & slavery do you.?
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #170 on: November 25, 2015, 03:28:11 AM »
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 25, 2015, 03:01:57 AM
Quote from: Soulblood on November 25, 2015, 12:09:34 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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #171 on: November 25, 2015, 04:26:35 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 25, 2015, 03:28:11 AM
Quote from: charles bloomington on November 25, 2015, 03:01:57 AM
Quote from: Soulblood on November 25, 2015, 12:09:34 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.

Division 270—Slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting
270.1  Definition of slavery
                   For the purposes of this Division, slavery is the condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, including where such a condition results from a debt or contract made by the person.
Care to tell me scrotum Gaggins why people are still being force by threats of seizure & sale of there fee simple titlied land by the courts , if they dont keep  paying unlawful council rates on there home . Even after they have discharged their morgage.
So who owns the firearm once its registered.? It seems you dont own proprietary of your home or hold it in fee simple title once the title is registered. Even though the state guarantee its held in fee simple.
So who owns the firearm if its registered. ?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2015, 04:39:31 PM by charles bloomington »
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #172 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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
?

charles bloomington

  • 2476
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #173 on: November 27, 2015, 04:37:28 AM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins 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.
Its a simple question ,who owns the gun once its been registered by the purchaser. ?
Logged
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:
*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #174 on: November 27, 2015, 04:43:07 AM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 27, 2015, 12:24:15 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.
Logged
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #175 on: November 27, 2015, 05:02:13 AM »
Quote from: Frank Lee on November 27, 2015, 04:43:07 AM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 27, 2015, 12:24:15 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?
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #176 on: November 27, 2015, 05:39:07 AM »

But bearing in mind that it is both a choice and luxury to have a firearm, isn't registration of it reasonable?
[/quote]

No, in fact, it truly is not.     It is a choice. A very important and very personal choice.
But a luxury it is not. A $50,000 car is a luxury. A spare bedroom is a luxury. Gold necklace.. etc.
A gun should be a matter of rights, both for personal defense, and the well being of community.
To register it and give ownership of it to the government would be a grave mistake.
As a licensed owner, who has been scrutinized by law enforcement authorities, should not that be adequate?
I do not believe that the license is by any means needed, but, as a good citizen, and for the right to carry
concealed, I comply.
Either way, whatever rules are passed, they should be passed by the states, not the federal government.
This way if a gun free zone is enacted, a person who would feel comfortable there, could move.
States made clear, the federal government, may not infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
Leave it to the Sheriffs to enforce state laws. Sheriff is the only constitutional law enforcement authority.
To them the utmost respect should be offered. As they have all my respect, no person will ever hurt a LEO
on my watch. We are all in this together. Lets all watch each others backs. I only hope if  i am badly hurt,
there will be a responsible person to come to my aid. And yours, good sir.
Gun registration is a very serious mistake. They will be removed in short order once it takes place.
Logged
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.
*

29silhouette

  • 3347
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #177 on: November 27, 2015, 10:11:41 AM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 12:50:26 AM
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.
Logged
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #178 on: November 27, 2015, 03:17:45 PM »
Quote from: 29silhouette on November 27, 2015, 10:11:41 AM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 12:50:26 AM
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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #179 on: November 28, 2015, 02:51:39 AM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on November 27, 2015, 03:17:45 PM

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.

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.

No arguments here. Just working thru ideas.

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.

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.
Logged
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14   Go Up
« previous next »