As you can all observe - A member of the idiocrasyWalker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:17 amFolks have the right to bear arms, but not only for hunting foxes with the hounds, which is a rather bloodthirsty pastime from jolly old England, and hardly sporting.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:23 pm The men that wrote that were British intellectuals. The people that read it now are morons from the world's foremost idiocracy.
You can't expect them do understand subtlety.
Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Powers which limit both reasoning and communication to the extent of name-calling, like a child.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:47 amAs you can all observe - A member of the idiocrasyWalker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:17 amFolks have the right to bear arms, but not only for hunting foxes with the hounds, which is a rather bloodthirsty pastime from jolly old England, and hardly sporting.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:23 pm The men that wrote that were British intellectuals. The people that read it now are morons from the world's foremost idiocracy.
You can't expect them do understand subtlety.
Any theories as to why he bothered to haul up so many guns?
Or is all you have, variations of "no."
Probably that's all you've got, no question mark required.
Some would even say, pathetic.
Wait for the official word. Wait for it. Then you'll know what to think.
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Walker wrote:
You are really a Folksy person at heart.
You give yourself away by the use of "Folks". Responsible legislators are not biased by what "Folks" believe they have a right to do.Folks have the right to bear arms,
You are really a Folksy person at heart.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"Responsible legislators are not biased by what "Folks" believe they have a right to do."
As employees they damn well better take into account the reasonings of their employers, and -- at the same time -- they damn well better adhere to their job descriptions.
Ignoring the employers (or, catering to a small vocal subset) and ranging far a'field from what they were hired to do is a sure recipe for termination (or dictatorship, if the employers don't reign 'em in).
As employees they damn well better take into account the reasonings of their employers, and -- at the same time -- they damn well better adhere to their job descriptions.
Ignoring the employers (or, catering to a small vocal subset) and ranging far a'field from what they were hired to do is a sure recipe for termination (or dictatorship, if the employers don't reign 'em in).
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
from up-thread, cuz it bears repeating...
"Fishing, Flying, Hunting, Driving. All require licences in the USA."
Okay. Let's license/register guns/gun ownership.
Now, by current accounts, Paddock was a law abider with no history of mental illness who acquired all his guns legally.
If gun owners were required to license/register firearms (let's say a national registry had been set up, oh, ten years back) this means Paddock woulda lugged his registered weapons up to the 32nd and killed nearly sixty people and injuried over 500 others.
Licensing/registering guns/gun ownership would stop some crime, but it wouldn't have stopped Paddock (or other mass killers who were law abiders with legally acquired guns).
#
"Along with licensing there needs to be some regulation on what guns private citizens can own."
A good idea...about thirty years ago.
Today: there are more than 300 million people living in America, and there are enough guns (and attendant ammo) in the private sphere to arm each man, woman, and child several times over. Heavily regulate or out-right ban certain firearms and you'll have done nuthin' about all the examples of those regulated or banned weapons that are already out-and-about.
#
"Along with licensing and regulation/bans there can be gun buy-backs and severe penalties for those who won't give up the restricted weapons."
That might work. Some folks are quick to abide. They'll register when told to, sell back or hand in when told to. Some won't. Some folks reject the notion they should be restricted because of the bad acts of others. They won't register or license themselves or their firearms, they won't sell back or hand in. Quietly, they'll secure (hide) their guns and hunker down.
And, of course, criminals (Good Morning, Chicago!) won't abide either.
#
"Well, then there should be confiscations. Just outlaw all guns and take them".
Ah, now we get to the real goal, the true end-point. No doubt a great many law abiding gun owners will abide but then these good-intentioned folks were never the problem for the gun abolitionists. No, the problem for the abolitionists are the atavists, the self-relying, -directing types who aren't exactly criminals but might as well be.
Aside from the enormous public cost of organizing law enforcement (and mebbe the military) into a coordinated tool to search every residence, every business, every building, every person, for guns, I'm wonderin'' how the U.S. will absorb the enormous cost of what will be, practically, a civil war. East and west coasts will watch in horror as the whole of America's middle, from Canadian border clear down to the Gulf and Mexican border tears itself apart.
A war between folks who believe they own themselves and folks who believe that ownership can be safely nullified.
If you're in the states, pick your side now...shit will hit the fan sooner than you think.
If you're not in the states, sit back and watch the (upcoming) show...gonna be damned entertaining for you.
Okay. Let's license/register guns/gun ownership.
Now, by current accounts, Paddock was a law abider with no history of mental illness who acquired all his guns legally.
If gun owners were required to license/register firearms (let's say a national registry had been set up, oh, ten years back) this means Paddock woulda lugged his registered weapons up to the 32nd and killed nearly sixty people and injuried over 500 others.
Licensing/registering guns/gun ownership would stop some crime, but it wouldn't have stopped Paddock (or other mass killers who were law abiders with legally acquired guns).
#
"Along with licensing there needs to be some regulation on what guns private citizens can own."
A good idea...about thirty years ago.
Today: there are more than 300 million people living in America, and there are enough guns (and attendant ammo) in the private sphere to arm each man, woman, and child several times over. Heavily regulate or out-right ban certain firearms and you'll have done nuthin' about all the examples of those regulated or banned weapons that are already out-and-about.
#
"Along with licensing and regulation/bans there can be gun buy-backs and severe penalties for those who won't give up the restricted weapons."
That might work. Some folks are quick to abide. They'll register when told to, sell back or hand in when told to. Some won't. Some folks reject the notion they should be restricted because of the bad acts of others. They won't register or license themselves or their firearms, they won't sell back or hand in. Quietly, they'll secure (hide) their guns and hunker down.
And, of course, criminals (Good Morning, Chicago!) won't abide either.
#
"Well, then there should be confiscations. Just outlaw all guns and take them".
Ah, now we get to the real goal, the true end-point. No doubt a great many law abiding gun owners will abide but then these good-intentioned folks were never the problem for the gun abolitionists. No, the problem for the abolitionists are the atavists, the self-relying, -directing types who aren't exactly criminals but might as well be.
Aside from the enormous public cost of organizing law enforcement (and mebbe the military) into a coordinated tool to search every residence, every business, every building, every person, for guns, I'm wonderin'' how the U.S. will absorb the enormous cost of what will be, practically, a civil war. East and west coasts will watch in horror as the whole of America's middle, from Canadian border clear down to the Gulf and Mexican border tears itself apart.
A war between folks who believe they own themselves and folks who believe that ownership can be safely nullified.
If you're in the states, pick your side now...shit will hit the fan sooner than you think.
If you're not in the states, sit back and watch the (upcoming) show...gonna be damned entertaining for you.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Well apart from being a gun-nut I guess it'd be quicker than having to reload.Walker wrote:...
Why did the murderer take so many guns up to the suite?
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Mr Trump calls Las Vegas shooting 'an act of pure evil'
Mr Trump Threatens To 'Totally Destroy' North Korea In U.N. Speech
Source: Youtube.
Mr Trump Threatens To 'Totally Destroy' North Korea In U.N. Speech
Source: Youtube.
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
So, you see no difference between words and action?DAM wrote:...
President Trump was merely putting the fat kid in his place by talking his lingo.
It's called, exercising power.
Re:
I said "responsible legislators" not populists or cynics.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:29 pm "Responsible legislators are not biased by what "Folks" believe they have a right to do."
As employees they damn well better take into account the reasonings of their employers, and -- at the same time -- they damn well better adhere to their job descriptions.
Ignoring the employers (or, catering to a small vocal subset) and ranging far a'field from what they were hired to do is a sure recipe for termination (or dictatorship, if the employers don't reign 'em in).
Last edited by Belinda on Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Supposing the uniformed people do attack and annihilate North Korea off the face of the earth.
What's the difference between civilian clothed people killing the innocent and uniformed people killing the innocent?
If it's okay to call civilian killings an act of pure evil - would that make uniformed people killing an act of pure evil too?
.
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Random killings are even more evil when they are permitted by an institution. The lone killer might have been a psychopath. An institution such as the police, or some religion ,or some government, randomly killing people is not the work of some lone sicko but is evidence of institutionalised evil.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pmSupposing the uniformed people do attack and annihilate North Korea off the face of the earth.
What's the difference between civilian clothed people killing the innocent and uniformed people killing the innocent?
If it's okay to call civilian killings an act of pure evil - would that make uniformed people killing an act of pure evil too?
.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
'Psychopaths' are indulged in the military and called 'heroes'.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: from up-thread, cuz it bears repeating...
I have to agree with you for once. It wouldn't make an iota of difference, and as far as 'conspiracies' go there would no doubt be a 'mysterious' marked increase in mass shootings (gosh, I wonder why). Funny how the pro-gun morons always assume these shootings are a 'Progressive' anti-gun conspiracy, so obviously that's the way their 'minds' work. Hmm. Come to think of it restrictions might not be such a bad ideahenry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:32 pm "Fishing, Flying, Hunting, Driving. All require licences in the USA."
Okay. Let's license/register guns/gun ownership.
Now, by current accounts, Paddock was a law abider with no history of mental illness who acquired all his guns legally.
If gun owners were required to license/register firearms (let's say a national registry had been set up, oh, ten years back) this means Paddock woulda lugged his registered weapons up to the 32nd and killed nearly sixty people and injuried over 500 others.
Licensing/registering guns/gun ownership would stop some crime, but it wouldn't have stopped Paddock (or other mass killers who were law abiders with legally acquired guns).
#
"Along with licensing there needs to be some regulation on what guns private citizens can own."
A good idea...about thirty years ago.
Today: there are more than 300 million people living in America, and there are enough guns (and attendant ammo) in the private sphere to arm each man, woman, and child several times over. Heavily regulate or out-right ban certain firearms and you'll have done nuthin' about all the examples of those regulated or banned weapons that are already out-and-about.
#
"Along with licensing and regulation/bans there can be gun buy-backs and severe penalties for those who won't give up the restricted weapons."
That might work. Some folks are quick to abide. They'll register when told to, sell back or hand in when told to. Some won't. Some folks reject the notion they should be restricted because of the bad acts of others. They won't register or license themselves or their firearms, they won't sell back or hand in. Quietly, they'll secure (hide) their guns and hunker down.
And, of course, criminals (Good Morning, Chicago!) won't abide either.
#
"Well, then there should be confiscations. Just outlaw all guns and take them".
Ah, now we get to the real goal, the true end-point. No doubt a great many law abiding gun owners will abide but then these good-intentioned folks were never the problem for the gun abolitionists. No, the problem for the abolitionists are the atavists, the self-relying, -directing types who aren't exactly criminals but might as well be.
Aside from the enormous public cost of organizing law enforcement (and mebbe the military) into a coordinated tool to search every residence, every business, every building, every person, for guns, I'm wonderin'' how the U.S. will absorb the enormous cost of what will be, practically, a civil war. East and west coasts will watch in horror as the whole of America's middle, from Canadian border clear down to the Gulf and Mexican border tears itself apart.
A war between folks who believe they own themselves and folks who believe that ownership can be safely nullified.
If you're in the states, pick your side now...shit will hit the fan sooner than you think.
If you're not in the states, sit back and watch the (upcoming) show...gonna be damned entertaining for you.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re:
I was rather puzzled by "employees". I concluded that the people who employ legislators are the electorate who pay the legislators' salaries.So the legislators would be the employees. Is this not what you meant?henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:06 pm "I said "responsible legislators" not populists or cynics."
And I said 'employees'.
#
"I have to agree with you for once."
Hell just froze over.