Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Secruss]

Nice strawman.

It's not OK to regulate any aspect of our lives.

emphasis mine

Nice partial quote.

The government regulates our lives with money stolen from us and relieves the regulation that they caused so that they can play the hero.

Example of latter: Gay marriage. Government implements marriage licenses to artificially limit interaction. Without marriage licenses (Why do we need marriage licenses?), there would be no politician to play hero.

EDIT:

Poke some holes in some thieves, unless what they're stealing is less valuable than the lives of the bandit(s).

[Secruss]

it is for those three countries japan, switzerland and america. unless america has a massive cocaine growing industry we can probably rule out colombia as a fair basis for comparison. the US does have a history of massive racial inequality so I guess we could leave in south africa but given how long ago the civil war was I thought it best to leave it out.

Just a few massive gangs that sell that coke.

And that racial nonsense goes on all the time. I see that stupid shit on campus and used to at work regularly. Racial strife and inequality are products of government policy and favoritism used to buy votes and campaign funds.

[Secruss]

You don't want to pay taxes you can move.

Can't, unless I revoke my citizenship.

http://www.taxmeless.com/page4.html

They tax abroad, too.

[Des-Bal]

Can't, unless I revoke my citizenship.

http://www.taxmeless.com/page4.html

They tax abroad, too.

That was my point, if you don't want to honor the social contract then you don't need to be part of this country.

[The UK in Exile]

it is for those three countries japan, switzerland and america. unless america has a massive cocaine growing industry we can probably rule out colombia as a fair basis for comparison. the US does have a history of massive racial inequality so I guess we could leave in south africa but given how long ago the civil war was I thought it best to leave it out.

That's not what constant means. The point is the rate of death per guns is very variable, it's not as simple as fewer guns means fewer deaths by gun. If it was as simple as guns=death there would be a proportional increase based on how many guns are in the country.

not in the rate of deaths per gun.

hes taken the number of firearms related deaths and the number of guns and proved that ratio is the same for those three countries. regardless of wether its in japan or america a gun will kill 0.00011 people. yet japans rate of firearms related deaths is much lower, because it has less guns. japan has less guns and less gun deaths. despite the fact if you do pick up a gun in japan you as likely to end up shooting someone as in america.

[Secruss]

Can't, unless I revoke my citizenship.

http://www.taxmeless.com/page4.html

They tax abroad, too.

That was my point, if you don't want to honor the social contract then you don't need to be part of this country.

I signed no social contract.

[Des-Bal]

I signed no social contract.

You don't have to, by being part of this society you consent to everything that entails. If you don't like it don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

That was my point, if you don't want to honor the social contract then you don't need to be part of this country.

I signed no social contract.

[United Dependencies]

Nice partial quote.

The government regulates our lives with money stolen from us and relieves the regulation that they caused so that they can play the hero.

Example of latter: Gay marriage. Government implements marriage licenses to artificially limit interaction. Without marriage licenses (Why do we need marriage licenses?), there would be no politician to play hero.

You said:

It's not OK to regulate any aspect of our lives.

A slave mentality wants regulation and equality by oppression.

A free mentality wants equality by unfetterment.

I do not see any references to government stealing our tax money. If fact, all I do see is a moral judgement about regulation and a judgement on the mentality of those who do want regulations and those who do not want regulations.

Since you did not specify any particular type of regulation(quite the opposite considering you said any regulation), I am free to use one type of regulation we all face (laws against stealing) and (correctly) show that you are against it.

Finally, I don't have to start a new thread about taxation because I haven't even breathed a word about it until this very post. I'm talking about regulation in the broad sense. If you're not, then it's up to you to specify as such.

[Secruss]

That's not what constant means. The point is the rate of death per guns is very variable, it's not as simple as fewer guns means fewer deaths by gun. If it was as simple as guns=death there would be a proportional increase based on how many guns are in the country.

not in the rate of deaths per gun.

hes taken the number of firearms related deaths and the number of guns and proved that ratio is the same for those three countries. regardless of wether its in japan or america a gun will kill 0.00011 people. yet japans rate of firearms related deaths is much lower, because it has less guns. japan has less guns and less gun deaths. despite the fact if you do pick up a gun in japan you as likely to end up shooting someone as in america.

Japan also has less people and doesn't border Mexico.

Japan also has fewer cars, but I'll bet it isn't because they drive less.



Your posit was that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ecade.html

In the decade that the handgun ban has gone into effect in the UK, gun crime has doubled.

Between consideration of the statistics of the ratio of deaths per gun or the availability of legal guns, there is no correlation between legal limitation on guns and lowered gun violence.

[Secruss]

I do not see any references to government stealing our tax money. If fact, all I do see is a moral judgement about regulation and a judgement on the mentality of those who do want regulations and those who do not want regulations.

Since you did not specify any particular type of regulation(quite the opposite considering you said any regulation), I am free to use one type of regulation we all face (laws against stealing) and (correctly) show that you are against it.

Finally, I don't have to start a new thread about taxation because I haven't even breathed a word about it until this very post. I'm talking about regulation in the broad sense. If you're not, then it's up to you to specify as such.

Shall we merely agree to disagree for the sake of thread continuity? I do not support any regulations, you support some. You don't mind taxation, I find it abominable.

[United Dependencies]

Fine with me.

I just want it to be clear: I haven't said a single thing about taxation(in this thread).

[Secruss]

Fine with me.

I just want it to be clear: I haven't said a single thing about taxation(in this thread).

That you did not. I did.

EDIT:

Affirmative.

[The UK in Exile]

not in the rate of deaths per gun.

hes taken the number of firearms related deaths and the number of guns and proved that ratio is the same for those three countries. regardless of wether its in japan or america a gun will kill 0.00011 people. yet japans rate of firearms related deaths is much lower, because it has less guns. japan has less guns and less gun deaths. despite the fact if you do pick up a gun in japan you as likely to end up shooting someone as in america.

Japan also has less people and doesn't border Mexico.

Japan also has fewer cars, but I'll bet it isn't because they drive less.



Your posit was that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ecade.html

In the decade that the handgun ban has gone into effect in the UK, gun crime has doubled.

Between consideration of the statistics of the ratio of deaths per gun or the availability of legal guns, there is no correlation between legal limitation on guns and lowered gun violence.

duh. gun crime has increased since HAVING A GUN BECAME A CRIME.

Japan also has fewer cars, but I'll bet it isn't because they drive less.

this is the point!

Japan has fewer cars, people don't drive less. less people get driven on.
Japan has fewer guns. people don't shoot less. but less people get shot.

[Wikkiwallana]

Another good one:



Why is it okay to regulate every aspect of our lives EXCEPT bullets and guns?

It's not OK to regulate any aspect of our lives.

A slave mentality wants regulation and equality by oppression.

A free mentality wants equality by unfetterment.

Yes, insulting people sure will get them to agree with you.

[Secruss]

duh. gun crime has increased since HAVING A GUN BECAME A CRIME.

this is the point!

Japan has fewer cars, people don't drive less. less people get driven on.
Japan has fewer guns. people don't shoot less. but less people get shot.

I suppose that the steady change should be shown, then.

"* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by40% in the two yearsafter it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.156"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34066535/Gun- ... of-America

The gun crime is constantly climbing in the UK. It means that the ban isn't working.

And Japan has denser cities and fewer people.

[Wikkiwallana]

The purpose of a pistol for defense is to offer a deterrent to assailants and to protect you from attacks, not for you to kill them.

If that's the purpose of a pistol then you can just replace it with a taser or pepper spray or anything else. Guns are intended to be lethal.

Gonna be devil's advocate here for a minute: You could argue that the lethality is a necessary part of the deterrence. By making them worry about the possibility of their own death, you keep them from committing whatever crime, without actually using said lethality.


Again, just devil's advocate, and I personally disagree with such a position, but if that is a person's reasoning, they logically cannot expect a taser or pepper spray to do the same job.

[Lucantis]

What about the freedom of people to go about their daily business without having to fear getting shot by a nutcase?

Shot by a nutcase with a gun that is most likely illegally attained, as has been sourced earlier in the thread. Besides, if guns are legal, then they should have a gun to defend themselves anyway.

Exactly... And repealling the 2nd, like some people said, will increase, not lower, the USA crime rates.

[Jassysworth 1]

duh. gun crime has increased since HAVING A GUN BECAME A CRIME.

this is the point!

Japan has fewer cars, people don't drive less. less people get driven on.
Japan has fewer guns. people don't shoot less. but less people get shot.

I suppose that the steady change should be shown, then.

"* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by40% in the two yearsafter it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.156"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34066535/Gun- ... of-America

The gun crime is constantly climbing in the UK. It means that the ban isn't working.

And Japan has denser cities and fewer people.

UK did a brave and noble thing with the gun ban. They are willing to take a risk... in a few decades, the gun crime will drop and they will be like Japan and Singapore.

Applause...

America, you should learn a few things from your Mom (the UK).

[Wikkiwallana]

You should open a new topic for this. "Are taxes stealing?"

NO!! GOD!!! PLEASE GOD NOOOO!!!!

We had a thread like that before and it was awful and was locked at least 4 times for flaming.

But it provided such a nice chance for snarkery…

[Gun Manufacturers]

Not being American, I have a hard time understanding the national fascination with guns. I'm sure that American history has much to do with it but it is still hard for me to comprehend. Having said that, I have no issue with the ownership of hunting and target weapons or even a gun kept handy for home defense.

I truly do not understand why one would want to own military-grade weapons such as the AR 15, it’s full-auto version M-16 (or whatever the designation is now) or Barrett .50 sniper rifles, full automatics like the MP 7 etc. etc. These are made only for killing people in large numbers.

I do understand people who like to collect historical pieces like Thompson .45 "Tommy Guns" or Stens, M3's and such, probably because I am a student of the history of the 20th. Century. Such collectors’ guns should be securely stored of course.

However, if I did live in the US and in a state that had conceal carry laws, I would go armed. It would be stupid not to.

I know that terrible things like the movie murders take place in other countries too. It's not just an American phenomenon. I have read that the first such incident actually took place in Germany c. 1910 or so.

I do grieve for those innocents so cruelly murdered and those close to them. The courage shown by many, particularly the young people who died while protecting others, is tragically inspiring in a horrible way.

I wish Americans would re-think how the 2nd. Amendment is interpreted. There is obviously a huge difference between a muzzle-loading piece and a modern military weapon. I think that America's Founding Fathers would have framed the Amendment in a very different way had they the power of foreseeing the future of personal weaponry. Does it not fall to today’s’ law makers to interpret the law with this in mind?

The AR15 is an accurate rifle, great for both the amateur and professional target shooter. It's why I have one.

[Jassysworth 1]

Not being American, I have a hard time understanding the national fascination with guns. I'm sure that American history has much to do with it but it is still hard for me to comprehend. Having said that, I have no issue with the ownership of hunting and target weapons or even a gun kept handy for home defense.

I truly do not understand why one would want to own military-grade weapons such as the AR 15, it’s full-auto version M-16 (or whatever the designation is now) or Barrett .50 sniper rifles, full automatics like the MP 7 etc. etc. These are made only for killing people in large numbers.

I do understand people who like to collect historical pieces like Thompson .45 "Tommy Guns" or Stens, M3's and such, probably because I am a student of the history of the 20th. Century. Such collectors’ guns should be securely stored of course.

However, if I did live in the US and in a state that had conceal carry laws, I would go armed. It would be stupid not to.

I know that terrible things like the movie murders take place in other countries too. It's not just an American phenomenon. I have read that the first such incident actually took place in Germany c. 1910 or so.

I do grieve for those innocents so cruelly murdered and those close to them. The courage shown by many, particularly the young people who died while protecting others, is tragically inspiring in a horrible way.

I wish Americans would re-think how the 2nd. Amendment is interpreted. There is obviously a huge difference between a muzzle-loading piece and a modern military weapon. I think that America's Founding Fathers would have framed the Amendment in a very different way had they the power of foreseeing the future of personal weaponry. Does it not fall to today’s’ law makers to interpret the law with this in mind?

The AR15 is an accurate rifle, great for both the amateur and professional target shooter. It's why I have one.

You should get rid of it. It's too dangerous. You'll be tempted someday to shoot up the neighborhood... or someone else might grab it and go do it.

[Spreewerke]

The AR15 is an accurate rifle, great for both the amateur and professional target shooter. It's why I have one.

You should get rid of it. It's too dangerous. You'll be tempted someday to shoot up the neighborhood... or someone else might grab it and go do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HoaFWI5S0Q

[Wikkiwallana]

it is for those three countries japan, switzerland and america. unless america has a massive cocaine growing industry we can probably rule out colombia as a fair basis for comparison. the US does have a history of massive racial inequality so I guess we could leave in south africa but given how long ago the civil war was I thought it best to leave it out.

That's not what constant means. The point is the rate of death per guns is very variable, it's not as simple as fewer guns means fewer deaths by gun. If it was as simple as guns=death there would be a proportional increase based on how many guns are in the country.

I think a far more useful statistic would be deaths per gun owner or deaths per gun owning household. And since Switzerland is inevitable included in these things, I'd like a comparison of deaths per public carry license.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The AR15 is an accurate rifle, great for both the amateur and professional target shooter. It's why I have one.

You should get rid of it. It's too dangerous. You'll be tempted someday to shoot up the neighborhood... or someone else might grab it and go do it.

1) It's not too dangerous.
2) He, nor any other responsible gun owner is going to be tempted to shoot up anything but targets and/or animals.
3) He's already apparently very worried about someone else grabbing them. And if they did, the fault is the thief's, not his.

That just...I just...wow...