Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Simple Question


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Simple Question Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 10:33:36 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		Actually, Music, my point about liberals is quite true.

Liberals are saying that owning guns or the ability to purchase guns is the problem, and it is a major point on MSNBC that is being made constantly about gun ownership.

Take away the guns and you solve the problem.

That is the biggest line of bullshit that anyone has ever come up with. The Swiss are required by law to own assault weapons, yet they do not have the problem.

Syria has laws against private gun ownership, and gee, I guess ISIS is using sling shots.

The same is true for Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia etc. They have laws against private gun ownership....

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 10:37:59 AM   
MasterG2kTR


Posts: 6677
Joined: 8/7/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, Music, my point about liberals is quite true.

Liberals are saying that owning guns or the ability to purchase guns is the problem, and it is a major point on MSNBC that is being made constantly about gun ownership.

Take away the guns and you solve the problem.

That is the biggest line of bullshit that anyone has ever come up with. The Swiss are required by law to own assault weapons, yet they do not have the problem.

Syria has laws against private gun ownership, and gee, I guess ISIS is using sling shots.

The same is true for Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia etc. They have laws against private gun ownership....


Yeah, but that also makes it easy for them to identify the criminals!!

_____________________________

Did you know.....
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
....think about it

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 10:56:18 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The Swiss are required by law to own assault weapons...

Not true jlf.

"Switzerland has a comprehensive gun-control regime that is governed by federal law and implemented by the cantons. This regime may be somewhat less restrictive than that of other European countries, yet since 2008 it has complied with European Union requirements. The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned.

Swiss militiamen may keep their issued personal weapon in their home."
Source: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 11:10:34 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1613
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961




Lets forget the fact that the Swiss actually REQUIRE people to own guns and do not have the same problem, and I would hold up the much lower population of the country and a damn good reason.



You forgot the (important) fact that the Swiss army IS a militia army. You forgot to mention the important facts that while every Swiss militia man has an army weapon at home he is not allowed ammunition, he has to prove that his weapon is kept safely under lock and key with nobody able and permitted to access it but himself and his army superiors, and he is not permitted to carry his weapon unless when called to army service - and the penalties are severe if he breaks these regulations.

What a Swiss army man is permitted to do with his weapon is safe storing, cleaning, and maintenance - only.

Gun laws in Switzerland are very restrictive, because the Swiss army is a militia.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 11:14:51 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961




Lets forget the fact that the Swiss actually REQUIRE people to own guns and do not have the same problem, and I would hold up the much lower population of the country and a damn good reason.



You forgot the (important) fact that the Swiss army IS a militia army. You forgot to mention the important facts that while every Swiss militia man has an army weapon at home he is not allowed ammunition, he has to prove that his weapon is kept safely under lock and key with nobody able and permitted to access it but himself and his army superiors, and he is not permitted to carry his weapon unless when called to army service - and the penalties are severe if he breaks these regulations.

What a Swiss army man is permitted to do with his weapon is safe storing, cleaning, and maintenance - only.

Gun laws in Switzerland are very restrictive, because the Swiss army is a militia.

Are you implying that ammunition would be difficult to obtain and everyone in that country only does what they are authorized to?

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 11:32:58 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, Music, my point about liberals is quite true.

Liberals are saying that owning guns or the ability to purchase guns is the problem


No, "liberals" aren't saying gun ownership is the problem, nor are "liberals" as a group calling for an end to gun ownership.

Now, quite a few might be in favor of background checks at gun shows, responsible securing of guns by owners, things like that. But you're simply framing things in a context that doesn't exist in reality.

So again -- if there's an actual point you'd like to discuss, that would be great.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 11:33:13 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1613
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline 		well breaking laws happens everywhere - but the sale of ammunition is regulated and army ammo restricted so you might compare it to illegal drugs trade and it gets you a jail sentence

Swiss army is considered to carry responsibility for the safekeeping of weapons so every misuse (and that starts with loading with ammonition without explicit army order) means a severe break of army regulations - so whatever happens if an army weapon has been involved it adds to the penalty - can be a few years of jail sentence


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 11:39:39 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Are you implying that ammunition would be difficult to obtain and everyone in that country only does what they are authorized to?

That's pretty much the upshot of it, yes.

Switzerland, like most of Europe, don't have a gun and ammo store on virtually every street corner.
And, as has been pointed out, they (as private citizens) generally don't go carrying their weapons in public (open or concealed).

As for everyone only doing as they are told, most people obey the laws.
So what does that say about the general sense of "law abiding" Americans??
Not so 'law abiding' as one might like to think.


Call us sheeple if you like, but we don't wake every day to a media bulletin of a gun death or a massacre and our kids don't need armed guards at schools or malls.
We don't need to declare a "gun free zone" because all of our streets are gun free.


< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 10/4/2015 11:45:11 AM >

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 12:47:29 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

But have you stopped to think about who the majority of people are that commit violence with a gun??

I can think of mainly two sets of people -
Americans - where they have the highest number of guns per capita than anywhere else on the planet and have regular massacres;
And those at war, which appear to be some faction or other of the Islamic faith fighting another faction just because they follow a different version of the Qoran or holy book.

If you removed those two groups, the world would be a more peaceful place... generally speaking.

Yeah, things would be ever so much better if we could "remove" Americans.

K.




well them and those radical religious folk who pick guns as their weapon of choice. I guess all the bombers get a pass. funny no one mentions how many people in the world get blown up every day.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 1:12:51 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		Perhaps we can all chip in on a funeral wreath saying, "Hey, they could have been blown up!"

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 1:28:11 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline 		Dude, not right. Not even close.

I know you're a better man than that.


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 1:30:21 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

But have you stopped to think about who the majority of people are that commit violence with a gun??

I can think of mainly two sets of people -
Americans - where they have the highest number of guns per capita than anywhere else on the planet and have regular massacres;
And those at war, which appear to be some faction or other of the Islamic faith fighting another faction just because they follow a different version of the Qoran or holy book.

If you removed those two groups, the world would be a more peaceful place... generally speaking.

Yeah, things would be ever so much better if we could "remove" Americans.

K.




well them and those radical religious folk who pick guns as their weapon of choice. I guess all the bombers get a pass. funny no one mentions how many people in the world get blown up every day.

Perhaps because there aren't bizarre subsets of the populace proclaiming that owning bombs free from regulation is protected by the Constitution and that any attempt to decrease bombings by regulation bombs is liberal nonsense.

It's bullshit "arguments" like "I guess all the bombers get a pass" that make me roll my eyes at you "reasonable" folk.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 2:46:43 PM   
MariaB


Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline 		Jif, why do you want guns? Is it so you can hunt and feed your family? Is it so you can protect yourself and your family? Is it because you see it as American tradition? or your constitutional right?

What exactly did Thomas Jefferson say in the 2nd amendment ? You don't need to answer that because I know exactly what was written in 1791 "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How should we interpret that? Surely it means only those citizens who are part of a "well-regulated militia" have the right to bear arms and not just anyone? What it didn't mean is, any unregulated Tom, Dick or Harry has the right to carry a whole arsenal of weapons and shoot some poor fucker who just wandered onto his property because he wanted to tell the owner his dog had just got over the fence.



_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 3:07:09 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline 		Personally, I think it was very much written in exactly the way that you and I (and many Americans) read it - in the context of "A well-regulated militia" and 'being necessary to the security of a free state'. I treat the remainder of the statement (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) to be a qualifier of that same context and should not be used verbatim as a stand-alone statement.

Unfortunately Maria, the US Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd and has actually ruled that it applies to every free American and stands on its own as a statement rather than a qualifier of a much bigger sentence.


As for jlf, I'm going to hazard a guess that it's partly traditional and partly his constitutional right to do so - so he will.



_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 3:34:25 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		The US Supreme Court also thinks a corporation is a person for political purposes.

They have have the ability to make the legal call, but they certainly aren't on a roll of accurate interpretations.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 3:40:59 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		Jif I would say it is to feed and protect my family. I will say I don't hunt much. Can't any loonger. Having to move to an elec wheelchair in the near future. Can't chase after the wounded animals any longer. Protecting my family, I keep one under my pillow camping because we have had mountain lions come into our camp. I also keep one around the house in case of home invasion/robbery. Not gonna let someone hurt my family and police response time depends on where in the county (because I don't live in the city) they are. And our little county covers both sides of the Grand Canyon. Sometimes takes a while.

And yes, I encountered an armed robber in my home. And when they (a male and a female) met Mr High Powered Lever Action Rifle, they left. No I didn't shoot them. Was prepared to tho. I had 4 kids in the house to protect.

< Message edited by KenDckey -- 10/4/2015 4:00:28 PM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 3:44:11 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
Jif, why do you want guns? Is it so you can hunt and feed your family? Is it so you can protect yourself and your family? Is it because you see it as American tradition? or your constitutional right?

What exactly did Thomas Jefferson say in the 2nd amendment ? You don't need to answer that because I know exactly what was written in 1791 "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How should we interpret that? Surely it means only those citizens who are part of a "well-regulated militia" have the right to bear arms and not just anyone? What it didn't mean is, any unregulated Tom, Dick or Harry has the right to carry a whole arsenal of weapons and shoot some poor fucker who just wandered onto his property because he wanted to tell the owner his dog had just got over the fence.

Not Jeff, obviously, but I'd like to throw my hat in the ring.

That first paragraph? It's kind of a combination of all of those things. Where I'm from in PA, a significant amount of folks supplement the food budget. Venison was a staple and most folks ate it at least once or twice a week in some form. Even a small deer will yield ~ 50 lbs of meat. A larger buck might be twice that much. Bag a doe, too, and your family eats for the winter.

That's the human side. I'm going to say something for the wildlife side as well.

Without hunting the deer, they overpopulate. To be quite frank, they starve. The numbers outpace the vegetation and they suffer. When natural predators (us) don't reduce those numbers, there's just not enough food to go around. I'd rather eat bambi than watch him starve to death.

Is it tradition? Yes. Learning to live off of the land is something people do here. It's a part of our heritage. Those amber waves of grain? They showed up way later. Until then, we hunted and fished.

Protection? Bears, mountain lions, wild boars and such WILL KILL YOU. They aren't these cute, cuddly things that Disney draws up. They were given sharp teeth and claws for a reason and you're it.



_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 3:53:13 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961




Lets forget the fact that the Swiss actually REQUIRE people to own guns and do not have the same problem, and I would hold up the much lower population of the country and a damn good reason.



You forgot the (important) fact that the Swiss army IS a militia army. You forgot to mention the important facts that while every Swiss militia man has an army weapon at home he is not allowed ammunition, he has to prove that his weapon is kept safely under lock and key with nobody able and permitted to access it but himself and his army superiors, and he is not permitted to carry his weapon unless when called to army service - and the penalties are severe if he breaks these regulations.

What a Swiss army man is permitted to do with his weapon is safe storing, cleaning, and maintenance - only.

Gun laws in Switzerland are very restrictive, because the Swiss army is a militia.



Miss, I suggest you read what a militia is under the US Law, and contrary to popular belief, it is not now, nor ever has been the national guard, since the national guard can be federalized.

A militia is subject only to the State Governor, and he has the legal authority to call up every able bodied citizen if he so desires, there are a number of states where there are State Defense Forces, which are considered a standing militia.

Just saying, the argument about what is and is not a militia has been decided by the supreme court and the laws of the US. There fore, it would be unconstitutional to pass laws that would, unless the second amendment is repealed, ban private ownership of firearms.

One more point, the US Supreme Court has also, in two court cases, stated what is and is not a legal fire arm for use in the militias of the United States, those being any firearm that has a legitimate and issued equivalent in the US Military. The cases involved the ownership of sawed off shotguns with barrels of less than 18 inches.

As one anti gun lobbyist put it "The NRA either has the smartest or the most stupid lawyers on retainer, under SCOTUS rulings, most of the firearm legislation in the country could be overturned."

Now since the US military no longer issues muskets or single shot rifles, anyone want to think again on the idea the 2nd amendment meant only those types of weapons?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 3:57:31 PM   
Alice20


Posts: 2
Joined: 10/1/2015
Status: offline 		Hi, I'm the local transsexual waiting for a fascist like you to come and murder me, seeing as directly because of people like you the average life expectancy for people like me is about the age of 30. Sincerely, fuck you, not arsed if I get banned, why the fuck is this rampant racebaiting bullshit even allowed. Seriously it's 2015 fucking get with it.

My apologies, it says this post is in reply to freedomdwarf, when it is infact directed at jlf1961, and all you other militarist nationalist wankers

< Message edited by Alice20 -- 10/4/2015 3:59:52 PM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Simple Question - 10/4/2015 3:58:27 PM   
igor2003


Posts: 1718
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

Jif, why do you want guns? Is it so you can hunt and feed your family? Is it so you can protect yourself and your family? Is it because you see it as American tradition? or your constitutional right?

What exactly did Thomas Jefferson say in the 2nd amendment ? You don't need to answer that because I know exactly what was written in 1791 "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How should we interpret that? Surely it means only those citizens who are part of a "well-regulated militia" have the right to bear arms and not just anyone? What it didn't mean is, any unregulated Tom, Dick or Harry has the right to carry a whole arsenal of weapons and shoot some poor fucker who just wandered onto his property because he wanted to tell the owner his dog had just got over the fence.




It's funny how people pick and choose what parts they want to pay attention to. If you keep reading beyond that part that you highlighted, you will also read, ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does NOT say that the right of the militia shall not be infringed. The last time I checked, I was part of the people, so my right should not be infringed.

_____________________________

If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy. - Red Green

At my age erections are like cops...there's never one around when you need it!

Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers


(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Simple Question Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.113