RE: britain wants guns back

RE: britain wants guns back (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

RCdc -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:01:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 how am I denying anyone a right? denying a right is prohibiting an individual from excersizing an action. how am I doing that? and I think the bugatti is an excellent theme for this as it's extraordinary price puts this in perspective. I say that any individual should be able to own any property he desires. this goes from heroin to fully automatic weapons to cars that drive over the speed limit. I don't see there being a difference between 'guns for those that want them' and 'guns for those that can afford them'. I am, of course, ignoring your emotional suffix added to the relevent point. The thread is about arms, we are not discussing cars. There is a huge difference when you decided to use the emotional response of 'caring for my property'. I suggest you don't go down making accusations of people taking the emotional route when you are the poster fluffing up your posts on why something is acceptable with a reponse aimed at pricking on peoples emotions instead of sticking to the fundementals. Right to arms means the right to defend and having the ability to defend. That goes both ways - and on whatever social 'level' you may be in. To deny the right to arms because of the caveat 'tough, you are poor and cannot afford it' is bourgeois. the.dark.

variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:03:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Have you found away around death by dehydration? what about starvation? yes. it's called drinking water and eating food.

GreedyTop -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:05:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 We* have chosen to require clothes in public. the second, we have not. ask a nudist. Um, the nudists tend to do so on PRIVATE PROPERTY.. aside from certain events (Folsom, for instance), someone walking around in public risks being arrested. The laws in every place I've ever lived in (or visited) require that people be clothed when in public areas.

variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:07:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: susie Interesting idea! So how do you walk from one place to another? Who owns the roads you drive on? Maybe I can put in a bid for the Grand Canyone or I always fancied owning Lake Powell. yes well...anyone who buys gas should own the roads they drive on...as those roads are paid for through tax payer dollar (gas tax and sometimes supplimented by other taxes). are you suggesting that no one would be able to build and maintain roads if it were not for a government? really? and why should you not be able to own the grand canyon or lake powell?

RCdc -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: susie Well I see we have all been shocked by the stampede of those in the UK wanting to own guns!!! UM NOT I know!!!! I certainly see my local gunstore packed or with queues down the street on a regular basis...[;)] the.dark.

variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop Um, the nudists tend to do so on PRIVATE PROPERTY.. aside from certain events (Folsom, for instance), someone walking around in public risks being arrested. The laws in every place I've ever lived in (or visited) require that people be clothed when in public areas. just being on you rprivate property isn't enough. don't believe me? go swimming in your pool naked. depending on your state and the size of your fence...you could be arrested (despite being on private property). and the point was that something as simple as wearing clothes isn't something that 'we' all have agreed upon...as there are plenty of nudists who would rather walk around in the buff.

DomKen -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Have you found away around death by dehydration? what about starvation? yes. it's called drinking water and eating food. And how do you plan to acquire those without any public property?

kittinSol -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:14:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: susie Well I see we have all been shocked by the stampede of those in the UK wanting to own guns!!! UM NOT I know!!!! I certainly see my local gunstore packed or with queues down the street on a regular basis...[;)] the.dark. Come to think of it... are there even gun stores in Britain? I don't think I've ever even seen one. See, Variation... when there's no market for it, there's no need for it. It's simple: why complicate your life with bugattis and nudist swimming pools [&:] ?

RCdc -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 well...anyone who buys gas should own the roads they drive on...as those roads are paid for through tax payer dollar (gas tax and sometimes supplimented by other taxes). are you suggesting that no one would be able to build and maintain roads if it were not for a government? really? Ok. Your flaw. People would be able to do that, however they would have to organise themselves into a form of government to get the job done, and then you would need some form of government or policing to make sure that those who hadn't paid the taxes didn't get to use them or were not allowed to use them....[8\|] the.dark.

variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:16:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark The thread is about arms, we are not discussing cars. There is a huge difference when you decided to use the emotional response of 'caring for my property'. I suggest you don't go down making accusations of people taking the emotional route when you are the poster fluffing up your posts on why something is acceptable with a reponse aimed at pricking on peoples emotions instead of sticking to the fundementals. Right to arms means the right to defend and having the ability to defend. That goes both ways - and on whatever social 'level' you may be in. To deny the right to arms because of the caveat 'tough, you are poor and cannot afford it' is bourgeois. the.dark. cars and arms are both property. there is nothing magical about either of these objects that puts them into a special category. in the end, this is a debate about whether or not a government (or any other group of individuals) has a right to tell another individual what he can or cannot own. the response 'caring for my property' is no more emotional than responding to a question about why I bought a humidor by saying 'to care for my cigars'. the right to arms does mean that you have the right to own arms and defend yourself...and yes, not everyone can afford an l1a1 or m14...so what? is the right to free press "bourgeois" because not everyone can afford a media outlet?

Marc2b -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:16:08 PM)
quote: If you hadn't gotten the irony, it would have meant that you were in the right country. I’m still not getting this. Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re saying: you get the irony, you must be perceptive – unlike your fellow Americans. While personally flattering I still find that somewhat insulting, not to mention bigoted.

variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And how do you plan to acquire those without any public property? well...if you don't produce it yourself, you can always trade for it. I mean, I'm drinking bottled water right now. I got it because I traded someone for it. I'm about to go eat...I'm going to do that by trading for it. so yeah...that's how you'd acquire it.

RCdc -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:17:27 PM)
That's the thing Kittin, I do have a local gunstore! However the opening times are few and far between because of the lack of custom. the.dark.

variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Come to think of it... are there even gun stores in Britain? I don't think I've ever even seen one. See, Variation... when there's no market for it, there's no need for it. It's simple: why complicate your life with bugattis and nudist swimming pools [&:] ? as they are so heavily regulated, the market would be a black market...you don't see those popping up on street corners. I don't see many marijuana stores in alabama. there must not be a market for it.

Raechard -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:23:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 ok. why not? do you disagree with self-defense? that is to say that violence is ok so long as you are defending against someone who aggressed against you. Self defence isn't classed as a pre-emptive strike by many sane people. If you are attacked you can defend yourself but fear of attack isn't being attacked. You feeling threatened isn't a good enough reason, we all feel threatened from time to time. If a group of teenagers walks towards you you'll feel threatened; should you be able to kill them before they’ve actually done anything to you though? quote: he might. I'm not claiming that birmingham's finest would be fooled by the forensic evidence. I'm saying that they may be decent enough men to turn a blind eye. Some people especially forensic science types have this thing known as professional credibility. You also seem to assume that they are all part of the same department and so share the gossip of the ins and outs of a case rather than just the evidence as it's observed. Any police officer no matter how corrupt would have to be quite a character to be able to convince everyone involved in the investigation to turn a blind eye because the guy was bad and got what he deserved. quote: no. you coudln't say iraq because iraq has a government wheras the wild west was mostly free of such things. Once again you have to realise the difference between historic accuracy and getting across an idea of something. It doesn't matter who has or doesn't have a government. The image I want to convey is: chaos due to there being virtually every man for himself type of law. You can quibble over historic facts but they are not the point. Out of interest though on this subject are you suggesting Iraq would be better without a Government? quote: yes, you are. one aggresses against another's body and property whereas another doesn't. Unless they 'feel threatened by the postman who is really an agent of the government on their land, to plant misinformation in their head.' I've seen too many criminals turn their life around to believe a dead petty thieve is a good outcome. As to your 'people should have what they want and can afford argument' this would mean you'd legalise all highly addictive drugs without thinking why drug addicts become thieves and prostitutes? You’re not really thinking what your hands off approach would really lead to are you? Your world sounds hypocritical, I'd rather live in a world where people were protected from exploitation. Not all criminals are fundamentally bad people some are just in a dire situation due to a path they once took or someone lead them down. If you've lived a life and never been touched by any of those problems then lucky you but some people are not as lucky or clever but they don’t deserve to die. If you have the gun they don’t need to die.

variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:24:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Ok. Your flaw. People would be able to do that, however they would have to organise themselves into a form of government to get the job done, and then you would need some form of government or policing to make sure that those who hadn't paid the taxes didn't get to use them or were not allowed to use them....[8\|] the.dark. no...they would not have to organize themselves into a goernment. do you know the difference between a government and a business? I shouldn't have asked that as I know you don't... a business and a government both provide services. they both require compensation for those services. the difference is that a business relies upon volunatry transactions whereas a government forces its citizens to pay for its services through taxes. are you suggesting that it would be impossible to build roads unless a company relied upon coercion to take money from the population as a whole (or atleast a large swath of the population)? could they not maintain these roads without relying upon coercive taxation? coudl they not police them without taxation? I would beg to differ. the private sector has undergone more strenuous activites than that. they've built and maintained and secured mines, trains, skyscrapers full of condos and offices. they've created all of this, maintained all of this, and secured all of this through voluntary assocation. comcast and router companies deal with the "free rider 'problem'" just as movie theatres make sure that no one is getting the service that didn't pay for it. just because you are unimaginative and unproductive and cannot imagine solutions to these problems does not meant that these solutions do not exist.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:26:27 PM)
quote: I don't work under the assumption that our government is full of enlightened ubermensch and the law reflects their perfection. the law is more than a little flawed, as are the people who protect it. looking at anything from seatbelt laws to laws against homosexual marriage to drug laws to castle doctrine restrictions...this should be obvious. sodomy is illegal in alabama. I would be inciting an individual to break the law if I said 'sure steve, I think adam's a great guy. go sleep with him.' and I think that's more than acceptable. Sodomy is not illegal in Alabama or any other state. The Supreme Court invalidated all sodomy laws in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas. quote: the first, I don't think there should be public property. Are you going to set up a toll booth on your private road, or post sentries on your parking lot? How exactly do people go from one place to another if there is no public thoroughfares? quote: we have not. legislators have. perhaps you were asked about what the speed limits and safety rules should have been...but no one has consulted me. and as I remember, there were quite a few people upset about things like helmet laws...I don't think they were consulted either. WE in effect have, because WE voted those legislators into office. If your particular candidate lost, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. quote: no...we have not...I chose to have all these things unregulated (by a government). and let's stop pretending these are done for altruistic means. the regulations of weapons through gun licenses hearkens back to jim crow laws where racists used the monopolistic power government has to strip liberties away from individuals. regulations on businesses and markets and drugs/booze and goods all are stained with rent seeking. this is true from the banning of child labor in textile mills to the banning of liquor to the granting of natural monopolies to the process of incorporating to tariffs etc. You'd choose to have all these things unregulated, huh? You wouldn't care if your neighbor set up a meth lab next door. How about your neighbor burning a huge pile of tires next door? No regulations on booze huh? You ever smelled a still before? I assure you that you wouldn't want someone setting up a huge still next door to you. You're just being ridiculous. Anarchy does not work. If you want the closest example of it, look no further than Somalia.

DomKen -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And how do you plan to acquire those without any public property? well...if you don't produce it yourself, you can always trade for it. I mean, I'm drinking bottled water right now. I got it because I traded someone for it. I'm about to go eat...I'm going to do that by trading for it. so yeah...that's how you'd acquire it. No you won't. We have a long history of this sort of thing and the result was always people being deprived necessary resources. Look into range wars of the 19th century. So without public property you would be at the mercy of others.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:29:46 PM)
One of my favorite comedy routines was when Robin Williams, in some grande theater in Britain, with the Queen up in some cordoned off area was sitting and he said....(something like).... "I don't understand your police....they have no guns....a bad guy comes along...and the Bobby says 'STOP!!!!!......or I'll say STOP!!!! again!!!!!'"....

Raechard -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:33:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Come to think of it... are there even gun stores in Britain? I don't think I've ever even seen one. There used to be a gun store down the road from me it had this spinning sign on one side it said 'guns' in red lettering and on the other 'guns' in green lettering. Quite a small outlet, never noticed anyone go in. I'm thinking back to the early nineties. Even air rifles make me nervous they always seem to be in the hands of the most sadistic people i.e. yoof.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125