I can remember a sad day for me, when I had to surrender my shotgun due to pleading guilty to a felony. Having a police officer come to my car and remove it from my trunk, while I carried the ammunition. He even commented on how nice it was ( a Beretta 12-gauge semi-auto). Sucks man.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I know everyone is emotional over the Connecticut shooting, but do people realize that 8000 murders happen per year by guns ?
There are 315 Million people in the country, this is a very small number. There are more than 4 times as many killed with cars.[/quote]
Yes when talking about gun control that 8000 murders is probably a bigger factor than the Connecticut shooting. It’s just that the Connecticut shooting reminds everyone about the 8000 other shootings and brings up the gun control issue again. It’s pretty easy to sweep the issue under the rug when a non-white person is shot in some big city, even when it happens several times a day.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can remember a sad day for me, when I had to surrender my shotgun due to pleading guilty to a felony. Having a police officer come to my car and remove it from my trunk, while I carried the ammunition. He even commented on how nice it was ( a Beretta 12-gauge semi-auto). Sucks man. [/quote]
Oh yes this is another thing I wanted to ask to the most anti-gun control people in this thread… What items do you disagree with on the FOPA list of prohibited persons for purchasing a gun?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I know everyone is emotional over the Connecticut shooting, but do people realize that 8000 murders happen per year by guns ?
There are 315 Million people in the country, this is a very small number. There are more than 4 times as many killed with cars.[/quote]
Yes when talking about gun control that 8000 murders is probably a bigger factor than the Connecticut shooting. It’s just that the Connecticut shooting reminds everyone about the 8000 other shootings and brings up the gun control issue again. It’s pretty easy to sweep the issue under the rug when a non-white person is shot in some big city, even when it happens several times a day.[/quote]
Funny you play the race card, because I’ve been thinking about this, and read about it this morning:
What if, it isn’t actually everybody’s favorite fall back reason, race? What if the race card is used to explain why they don’t talk about it, because the real reason they don’t talk about it is something like a 2/3rds of those “8000” happen in cities. And cities typically have the toughest gun laws in the nation? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011/05/CDC-US-murder-toll-from-guns-highest-in-big-cities/47159990/1
What if? What if the State refuses to admit it isn’t the answer, and more laws are the solution? What then? Who would people rely on if not the government?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can remember a sad day for me, when I had to surrender my shotgun due to pleading guilty to a felony. Having a police officer come to my car and remove it from my trunk, while I carried the ammunition. He even commented on how nice it was ( a Beretta 12-gauge semi-auto). Sucks man. [/quote]
Oh yes this is another thing I wanted to ask to the most anti-gun control people in this thread… What items do you disagree with on the FOPA list of prohibited persons for purchasing a gun? [/quote]
Given full due process, if a jury of your peers determines that you have broken the law, it means you don’t respect the law, and the law can limit your natural rights.
So based on the list from wiki the one that is bullshit here are:
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Court order or not, you aren’t convicted of any crimes. How hard is it to get a RO?
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
This is half okay. Unlawful meaning you were convicted of a drug crime? Fine. “addicted”? Who determines that? This one is dangerous and could be abused.
This is bullshit too, a felony is a felony: excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices
I’m certainly okay with this one: Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution but it has the potential to be abused as well.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I know everyone is emotional over the Connecticut shooting, but do people realize that 8000 murders happen per year by guns ?
There are 315 Million people in the country, this is a very small number. There are more than 4 times as many killed with cars.[/quote]
Yes when talking about gun control that 8000 murders is probably a bigger factor than the Connecticut shooting. It’s just that the Connecticut shooting reminds everyone about the 8000 other shootings and brings up the gun control issue again. It’s pretty easy to sweep the issue under the rug when a non-white person is shot in some big city, even when it happens several times a day.[/quote]
Funny you play the race card, because I’ve been thinking about this, and read about it this morning:
What if, it isn’t actually everybody’s favorite fall back reason, race? What if the race card is used to explain why they don’t talk about it, because the real reason they don’t talk about it is something like a 2/3rds of those “8000” happen in cities. And cities typically have the toughest gun laws in the nation? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011/05/CDC-US-murder-toll-from-guns-highest-in-big-cities/47159990/1
What if? What if the State refuses to admit it isn’t the answer, and more laws are the solution? What then? Who would people rely on if not the government?[/quote]
I think more of these issues are really more “low income” rather than race. Stereotyping people by that is just as un-PC as race.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I think more of these issues are really more “low income” rather than race. [/quote]
100% agree. I would say race has just about 0% to do with inner-city violence. And say economic issues are a vast majority of the problem, with government policy playing a part as well.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can remember a sad day for me, when I had to surrender my shotgun due to pleading guilty to a felony. Having a police officer come to my car and remove it from my trunk, while I carried the ammunition. He even commented on how nice it was ( a Beretta 12-gauge semi-auto). Sucks man. [/quote]
Oh yes this is another thing I wanted to ask to the most anti-gun control people in this thread… What items do you disagree with on the FOPA list of prohibited persons for purchasing a gun? [/quote]
Given full due process, if a jury of your peers determines that you have broken the law, it means you don’t respect the law, and the law can limit your natural rights.
So based on the list from wiki the one that is bullshit here are:
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Court order or not, you aren’t convicted of any crimes. How hard is it to get a RO?
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
This is half okay. Unlawful meaning you were convicted of a drug crime? Fine. “addicted”? Who determines that? This one is dangerous and could be abused.
This is bullshit too, a felony is a felony: excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices
I’m certainly okay with this one: Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution but it has the potential to be abused as well.[/quote]
I think I’m okay with the harassing/stalking one as long as they are temporary circumstances.
OK with the addiction one, unless they start saying everyone who lifts weights is addicted to steroids. I think “addicted” is just as vague as the mental illness one so they kind of go together.
For anybody who questions why we are so adamant that the 2nd Amendment be upheld at all costs:
I’ll say it 'til I die:
There are two types of people who would seek to disarm you; those who wish to enslave you, and those who wish to kill you.
One type would see you exercise your right to decide whether to arm yourself or not; that one will fight with you or for you. Your choice.
Just how much evil is our leadership capable of?
Kevin Krim; VP of MSNBC. Despite threats, he ran the follow-up on the Benghazi attack. What did he get for it?
http://www.people.com/people/news/category/0,,personsTax:KevinKrim,00.html
Just found out that Robert Holmes helped write the computer program that tracked the money in the LIBOR scandal. That still doesn’t confirm that he was subpoenaed, but I think that would qualify him as an expert witness.
EDIT: As far as Peter Lanza is concerned, three of his former employees (from GE Capital) were the first to be convicted and sentenced in the LIBOR scandal for wire fraud and defrauding the U.S. government: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/gecapital-bidrigging-sentencing-idUSL1E8LI9D820121018
Also, the late Mrs. Lanza apparently wasn’t exactly who the press made her out to be:
http://financial-advisors.findthebest.com/l/381613/Nancy-Lanza
So no, I can’t confirm that either man was subpoenaed to testify, but they are both tied in to it.
One reason I am a conservative is that I have lived long enough to have read enough news in my lifetime to know things that liberals rail against and claim will end in a horrific catastrophe “Guns to Global Warming” never come to pass 99% of the time.
In the past they have stoked fear over every thing guns. Tell me where are all those militias “the stuff of liberal newsletters & massive fundraisers” that we had to be so fearful taking over and murdering so many? Your one percent is a slim tie to Timothy McVeigh.
How about all the oceans rising in a horrific catastrophe and the liberal Jacques Cousteau type fear mongers telling us in 35-40 years sea life would be gone. Cousteau said that back in the 1960’s. Even the BP oil spill didn’t do all the damage they swore it would and how it would take 50 years to clean it up. The ocean is home to many groups of bacteria that can break down the chemicals found in crude oil.
In the 1970’s Time magazine told us because of “man” we would be entering a new ice age. Look at old newspapers and read the naysayer headlines.
The ridiculous claims about the reason we invaded Iraq. For oil! Every liberal I knew in the early 90’s said Bush invaded Iraq so that the U.S. could steal Iraq’s oil. Yeah that came to pass didn’t it??? EVIL Haliburton ehhhh scary Haliburton & evil Dick Cheney owning stock in it. Well guess what, George Soros, Micheal Moore, John Kerry and so many other liberals owned Haliburton stock.
The things that have come to pass are what the conservatives warned against: living in an Orwellian state. Losing our freedoms, the dumbing down of America, the southwest being invaded and losing the country from within.
Lies about who the one percenters are. All of them evil Republicans?? John Kerry’s worth in 2011 was $198 million. Tell me if you think the secretary of state had any in the Cayman Islands? Of course.
The one percenters HAVE TO BE STOPPED. This is why Barack Hussein Obammy issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.
Lies so many lies. But don’t listen to any of it because you might lose your friends if they found out.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Also, the late Mrs. Lanza apparently wasn’t exactly who the press made her out to be:
http://financial-advisors.findthebest.com/l/381613/Nancy-Lanza
[/quote]
What do you mean, J?
I thought they did say she was a broker?
Gun Control? How about information control?
Start copying posts and forum information in whatever you are passionate about because it may not always be here. Imagine not being able to access T-Nation.com information or whatever other sources you rely on. Start copying and backing up information. Print it, copy it to DVD or cd but make sure you can access it.
China has tightened internet controls, legalizing the deletion of posts or pages which are deemed to contain “illegal” information.
The new laws also require service providers to hand over such information to the authorities for punishment.
The move signals that the new leadership headed by Communist Party chief Xi Jinping will continue to muzzle the often scathing online chatter in a country where the internet offers a rare opportunity for debate.
It will eventually reach America so start saving information important to you.
http://news.sky.com/story/1030993/internet-users-face-new-restrictions-in-china
http://news.yahoo.com/china-requires-internet-users-register-names-141101231--finance.html
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Also, the late Mrs. Lanza apparently wasn’t exactly who the press made her out to be:
http://financial-advisors.findthebest.com/l/381613/Nancy-Lanza
[/quote]
What do you mean, J?
I thought they did say she was a broker?
[/quote]
Yeah, but they didn’t tell you she was a broker that was managing over 300 billion dollars worth of assets at Morgan Stanley.
They made her out to be a gun-nut prepper, but she was no dummy. People don’t put you in charge of that much money if you’re an idiot or crazy. There are also no records, that I’ve found, that she ever worked at Sandy Hook school.
What broker, in charge of hundreds of billions of dollars, has time to volunteer at an elementary school anyway?
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]someone pages ago wrote:
The government does have the right to…
The government does not have the right to…
[/quote]
Just had to say that Govt’s don’t have rights
People are endowed certain unalienable rights from their Creator
If you believe that then the concept of further gun control is ridiculous - unless you somehow believe it, but disbelieve that self defense is a right
Again. Rights don’t come from govt’s. Not the Constitution. Not the Bill of Rights. It’s just a part of being human. The only way you can take them away is by tricking people that they don’t have them. This concept of even more gun control is ridiculous. It’s evil.[/quote]
The “tricking” only works on those that have replaced “their Creator” for “their government” which is, as you said, evil.
[/quote]
Lifti is an atheist, and I think he represents this part more ferociously than anyone here
You might be right, but I don’t think anybody does this on an intentional / conscious level. It’s a trick where people act like that without REALLY having a basis in belief, more likely being driven by emotion / political ties
imo (except maybe ANYbody was a bit to strong - but oh well…)
Funny how the Clackamas shooting got very little attention, perhaps because a citizen who had a gun helped thwart the further violence, and made the shooter turn his gun on himself.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]someone pages ago wrote:
The government does have the right to…
The government does not have the right to…
[/quote]
Just had to say that Govt’s don’t have rights
People are endowed certain unalienable rights from their Creator
If you believe that then the concept of further gun control is ridiculous - unless you somehow believe it, but disbelieve that self defense is a right
Again. Rights don’t come from govt’s. Not the Constitution. Not the Bill of Rights. It’s just a part of being human. The only way you can take them away is by tricking people that they don’t have them. This concept of even more gun control is ridiculous. It’s evil.[/quote]
The “tricking” only works on those that have replaced “their Creator” for “their government” which is, as you said, evil.
[/quote]
Lifti is an atheist, and I think he represents this part more ferociously than anyone here
You might be right, but I don’t think anybody does this on an intentional / conscious level. It’s a trick where people act like that without REALLY having a basis in belief, more likely being driven by emotion / political ties
imo (except maybe ANYbody was a bit to strong - but oh well…)
[/quote]
I agree it is not intentional.
Even proclaimed religious people have substituted God for government and don’t know it.
People can go about life with their rituals without realizing who or what really they have made as their authority.
As for atheist libertarians: yes, I agree it is our human right. Whether that right is an inheritance from a Creator or from a Gorilla, that is where we differ.
If his beliefs and my beliefs still respect each other’s boundaries and allows for independence and growth, I don’t have a problem: to each his own.
But co-dependency and the strong carrying the weak without a plan to make the weak strong and stand up on their own two feet again and become independent and grow…
No.
The government issue here masquerading as gun control and/or information control is mass control.
And nothing like a mass killing to scare the living day light of the masses.
( I am not saying Gov did it; all they have to “do” is capitalize on natural occurrence )
Fear opens the gates for manipulation whether is through guilt, shame or loss ( in the case of mass shootings ).
What I like about libertarianism is that unlike religion and all the other political systems, it does seem to be the only system that encourages personal responsibility.
Or in other words: it encourages people to grow up.
I don’t know enough about it to comment otherwise, or how it would or would not be feasible as a system long term. Short term as we are now might be very beneficial as an antidote to the entitlement and co-dependent state we are living in.
Just a hunch.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Funny how the Clackamas shooting got very little attention, perhaps because a citizen who had a gun helped thwart the further violence, and made the shooter turn his gun on himself. [/quote]
I agree with this completely.
Perhaps it falls into that umbrella of “information control”.
Playing on the masses fear like an orchestra. Some sounds are louder others are barely perceptible…
Maestros of manipulation.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Also, the late Mrs. Lanza apparently wasn’t exactly who the press made her out to be:
http://financial-advisors.findthebest.com/l/381613/Nancy-Lanza
[/quote]
What do you mean, J?
I thought they did say she was a broker?
[/quote]
Yeah, but they didn’t tell you she was a broker that was managing over 300 billion dollars worth of assets at Morgan Stanley.
They made her out to be a gun-nut prepper, but she was no dummy. People don’t put you in charge of that much money if you’re an idiot or crazy. There are also no records, that I’ve found, that she ever worked at Sandy Hook school.
What broker, in charge of hundreds of billions of dollars, has time to volunteer at an elementary school anyway?[/quote]
Makes sense. I see it.
Thank you.