Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CFster
Originally posted by: Dissipate
The Supreme court justices are picked by whom?
The President. Who is elected into office by the people. What's your point.
Public choice theory and empirical results have shown that voting is a very poor check against government power.
And so the 'killing' continues with cars every day as well.
That's moronic. The difference is one's an accident. And a mode of transportation. A gun has only one purpose.
A gun and a car are both tools and can both be used for destructive purposes. That doesn't mean we should ban them. A gun can have a multitude of purposes. Sport/hobby and protection are the main 2 that come to mind.
We try to make cars safe, by instituting speed limits, and safety features. We also try to make guns safe, by having safety locks and waiting periods at purchase.
Waiting periods make guns safe? You really are deluded. LMAO.
The difference is nobody is opposed to putting airbags in cars.
Consumers want airbags in their cars, and I would say the vast majority of gun owners have locks on their guns (of some sort). Legislating locks for guns won't make a damn bit of difference if a gun owner doesn't want a lock on their gun.
Yes, it is 'legal,' if you define 'legal' to be what the politicians have 'legislated.' I don't need a license, because I don't carry it concealed. Like I said, it is almost always locked away in my closet.
And if you did carry it concealed, would you get a license? Why?
No, I probably wouldn't. My dad carried a handgun concealed 'illegally' for awhile because he got death threats from one of his clients. Unlike wealthy gun grabbing politicians, he couldn't afford 'licensed' body guards or the time to go through bureaucratic bullsh!t. The cops sure as hell weren't going to protect him either.
Regardless of what legal system he thinks we should have, the point is that 'laws' are whatever the government, or 'lawmakers'/judges want them to be. This renders them the opposite of what a 'law' is supposed to be. In the end it always just comes down to the law enforcer's opinion. The 'rule of law' is a myth, a fairy tale or a fable if you will. 'The rule of law' simply does not exist and never has. Hence, all this talk about the Constitution and this law and that law is meaningless babble. You can find laws and interpretations of laws that support any claim imaginable because a number of them contradict each other entirely.
Any law is open to interpretation by a judge or jury, or risks being overthrown. It's even up to the police officer to decide if you were really speeding before he pulls you over. There are no absolutes.
You are catching on.
Thinking I'm going to perform an illegal act on the assumption that I might not get busted is a dangerous way of living.
Suit yourself.
You should take your own advice. Look at the real world, nowhere will you find 'the rule of law.
I have no idea what that means.
And I have no idea what this 'rule of law' you keep babbling about means.
What allows or disallows people to own handguns has nothing to do with the 'law' or the Constitution. It simply has to do with whether or not the public wants people to be allowed to own or disallowed to own firearms. If the public wants to outlaw firearms, the government will make sure it finds a way to interpret the 'law' so that people are not allowed to own firearms, and vice-versa. Or actually a better way to put it would be to say that if the public was willing (but not necessarily support) to give up its firearms to the government, the government would definately find a way to interpret the 'law' to allow it to do so.
You just have a concept of government that suits you. That's fine.
IMO, if there wasn't the threat of legal recourse under any government, a lot more sh1t would go down.
Right, because civilized society is some artificial construct enforced by the politicians. Without our beloved social engineers everything would just go to sh!t. :roll:
Interpret it any way you want - there are consequences for any action.
Do you believe people should own assault weapons?
Yep. If the military can own it, good willed citizens should be allowed to own it (when it comes to firearms).
Well then the hell with government huh. Every man for himself.
BTW, how do you determine which of the citizens are "good willed".
I don't like where this is going so /end thread I guess.
Nice arguement.
Originally posted by: CFster
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CFster
Originally posted by: Dissipate
The Supreme court justices are picked by whom?
The President. Who is elected into office by the people. What's your point.
Public choice theory and empirical results have shown that voting is a very poor check against government power.
And so the 'killing' continues with cars every day as well.
That's moronic. The difference is one's an accident. And a mode of transportation. A gun has only one purpose.
A gun and a car are both tools and can both be used for destructive purposes. That doesn't mean we should ban them. A gun can have a multitude of purposes. Sport/hobby and protection are the main 2 that come to mind.
We try to make cars safe, by instituting speed limits, and safety features. We also try to make guns safe, by having safety locks and waiting periods at purchase.
Waiting periods make guns safe? You really are deluded. LMAO.
The difference is nobody is opposed to putting airbags in cars.
Consumers want airbags in their cars, and I would say the vast majority of gun owners have locks on their guns (of some sort). Legislating locks for guns won't make a damn bit of difference if a gun owner doesn't want a lock on their gun.
Yes, it is 'legal,' if you define 'legal' to be what the politicians have 'legislated.' I don't need a license, because I don't carry it concealed. Like I said, it is almost always locked away in my closet.
And if you did carry it concealed, would you get a license? Why?
No, I probably wouldn't. My dad carried a handgun concealed 'illegally' for awhile because he got death threats from one of his clients. Unlike wealthy gun grabbing politicians, he couldn't afford 'licensed' body guards or the time to go through bureaucratic bullsh!t. The cops sure as hell weren't going to protect him either.
Regardless of what legal system he thinks we should have, the point is that 'laws' are whatever the government, or 'lawmakers'/judges want them to be. This renders them the opposite of what a 'law' is supposed to be. In the end it always just comes down to the law enforcer's opinion. The 'rule of law' is a myth, a fairy tale or a fable if you will. 'The rule of law' simply does not exist and never has. Hence, all this talk about the Constitution and this law and that law is meaningless babble. You can find laws and interpretations of laws that support any claim imaginable because a number of them contradict each other entirely.
Any law is open to interpretation by a judge or jury, or risks being overthrown. It's even up to the police officer to decide if you were really speeding before he pulls you over. There are no absolutes.
You are catching on.
Thinking I'm going to perform an illegal act on the assumption that I might not get busted is a dangerous way of living.
Suit yourself.
You should take your own advice. Look at the real world, nowhere will you find 'the rule of law.
I have no idea what that means.
And I have no idea what this 'rule of law' you keep babbling about means.
What allows or disallows people to own handguns has nothing to do with the 'law' or the Constitution. It simply has to do with whether or not the public wants people to be allowed to own or disallowed to own firearms. If the public wants to outlaw firearms, the government will make sure it finds a way to interpret the 'law' so that people are not allowed to own firearms, and vice-versa. Or actually a better way to put it would be to say that if the public was willing (but not necessarily support) to give up its firearms to the government, the government would definately find a way to interpret the 'law' to allow it to do so.
You just have a concept of government that suits you. That's fine.
IMO, if there wasn't the threat of legal recourse under any government, a lot more sh1t would go down.
Right, because civilized society is some artificial construct enforced by the politicians. Without our beloved social engineers everything would just go to sh!t. :roll:
Interpret it any way you want - there are consequences for any action.
Do you believe people should own assault weapons?
Yep. If the military can own it, good willed citizens should be allowed to own it (when it comes to firearms).
Well then the hell with government huh.
Pretty much, yeah. The government is founded on the 'rule of law' which is a myth. I believe in what is known as a polycentric legal order. You can read about that in a book called: The Structure of Liberty by Randy Barnett.
Every man for himself.
When has it ever been every man for himself even in times of no government i.e. caveman era? Caveman didn't have a 'government' did he? But he still banded together with other humans to hunt and survive.
BTW, how do you determine which of the citizens are "good willed".
I would say a rough test of how to determine this would be their reputation. If someone has a bad reputation and or has exhibited they cannot handle the responsibility of owning firearms, they should be disarmed.
I don't like where this is going so /end thread I guess.
Nice arguement.
Why thank you.
Originally posted by: bluestrobe
Wow, people trying to press their political agenda invaded the thread. Good wqay to ruin it for the rest. If you hate guns and think this will be a safer society without them, then go start your own thread.
Originally posted by: jonnyGURU
Originally posted by: bluestrobe
Wow, people trying to press their political agenda invaded the thread. Good wqay to ruin it for the rest. If you hate guns and think this will be a safer society without them, then go start your own thread.
No doubt... I thought this was OT.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I would just like to add that I've been trap and skeet shooting since I was a little kid and the people at every gun club I've ever been to are much more polite, open-minded, fun, and good-spirited than any "sophisticated model citizen" that can usually be found sipping on a 5 dollar cup of coffee at starbucks pretending to know what's wrong with the economy or maybe talking about the latest ben affleck movie.
Originally posted by: Sphexi
She's going to make some toothless hillbilly a great wife when she grows up.
Originally posted by: paulney
SFW
It's a video of a little girl and some rednecks reenacting Apocalypse Now :roll:
With real miniguns, explosives and other massive firepower
:roll:
Originally posted by: Cooler
wow is there an age limit on how young you have to be to use one of them.
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Cooler
wow is there an age limit on how young you have to be to use one of them.
Why? Should the government come in and tell her father not to teach her the proper method to shoot and use a gun and once, for all we know, allow her to handle a gun that no one normally gets to use?