Cars are responsible for more deaths than any gun.Hobbes' Choice wrote:You objection is not relevant. You just want to avoid thinking about the real issue.henry quirk wrote: "You register your car because it is a dangerous weapon, and means you can get it back if stolen. There is no downside to this unless you want to commit crime with your car, or steal cars."
Don't know how things run where you are, but cars are not registered in the U.S. because they're weapons.
The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Re:
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"You objection is not relevant"
Then it wasn't relevant, or accurate, for you to claim registration is about cars being dangerous weapons.
#
"Cars are responsible for more deaths than any gun."
I know this. Still doesn't make your claim as to why cars are registered, accurate.
As for the 'issue' (guns, gun ownership, gun violence): I am addressing it, as one person in the midst of some very public and conflicting agendas.
The issue is not simple, the solution will not be simple, no matter what either side says.
The problem is not really guns, but what drives some folks to do jackassery with guns (or pressure cooker bombs or knives or...).
Then it wasn't relevant, or accurate, for you to claim registration is about cars being dangerous weapons.
#
"Cars are responsible for more deaths than any gun."
I know this. Still doesn't make your claim as to why cars are registered, accurate.
As for the 'issue' (guns, gun ownership, gun violence): I am addressing it, as one person in the midst of some very public and conflicting agendas.
The issue is not simple, the solution will not be simple, no matter what either side says.
The problem is not really guns, but what drives some folks to do jackassery with guns (or pressure cooker bombs or knives or...).
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
From what I read you don't have to buy them illegally in the US to not be subject to checks, you just have to buy them privately which is not illegal. Now given there are 300,000,000 odd of them I guess finding assault rifles probably not such a chore.marjoram_blues wrote:...
I would say that the law certainly enabled the couple to 'bear arms' but even without this facilitative law, guns can be obtained illegally and there would be links to 'underground groups'. ...
-
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
Yeah, seems like it's a whole lot easier to get a gun than have access to health services for diagnosis and treatment of mental health issues such as paranoid schizophrenia.Arising_uk wrote:From what I read you don't have to buy them illegally in the US to not be subject to checks, you just have to buy them privately which is not illegal. Now given there are 300,000,000 odd of them I guess finding assault rifles probably not such a chore.marjoram_blues wrote:...
I would say that the law certainly enabled the couple to 'bear arms' but even without this facilitative law, guns can be obtained illegally and there would be links to 'underground groups'. ...
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re:
True jackasses who'd rather let morons have guns than face registration of their own guns is the problem you are right for once.henry quirk wrote: The problem is not really guns, but what drives some folks to do jackassery with guns (or pressure cooker bombs or knives or...).
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re:
I realise that reality is something you seem to struggle with... but...henry quirk wrote:Okay, I'm a jackass.
I can live with that.
Better a jackass, I think, than terminally niave.
Seems you believe rulers (elected, appointed, or inherited) can more noble than the ruled.
As you like...history disagrees with you, but, as you like.
Reality is on my side of the pond. It's really only idiot Americans that have this problem.
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
-
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
- Location: Australia
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
Henry. If you decide to keep a dog as a pet in the US is it necessary to register this animal with the local authorities? In Australia this is compulsory and I've never heard a dog-owner complain about it because it is universally accepted as being a feature of responsible citizenship. In fact there are a small number of people who are forbidden to keep a dog for various reasons and this is also seen as fair enough. Does your country have similar regulations?
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
Henry makes a lot of Philosophical Sense.
Thread title is wrong, not surprising.
Here is the Philosophical Position:
The right to defend what is God-given is the right.
What is given by God is precious, in your care.
Henry offers the position of responsibility.
Each human is responsible for what is precious to himself.
What is precious is given by God.
Not to be taken lightly.
Remember, none of this is faith, and dog registration (or cars), or paying an insurance fee to be a legal native-born citizen, is a distraction, Henry.
- CH Walker
Thread title is wrong, not surprising.
Here is the Philosophical Position:
The right to defend what is God-given is the right.
What is given by God is precious, in your care.
Henry offers the position of responsibility.
Each human is responsible for what is precious to himself.
What is precious is given by God.
Not to be taken lightly.
Remember, none of this is faith, and dog registration (or cars), or paying an insurance fee to be a legal native-born citizen, is a distraction, Henry.
- CH Walker
-
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
- Location: Australia
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
I was wondering how long it would take before somebody brought god into the conversation. In the US and the middle east god and guns go hand in hand.
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
Best to recognize reality, and build from there. Much more productive than butterflies.Obvious Leo wrote:I was wondering how long it would take before somebody brought god into the conversation. In the US and the middle east god and guns go hand in hand.
The U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, must be read in conjunction, for proper comprehension.
Sort of like the golden rule people like to quote.
That is the reality. And that's enough to work with.
-
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
- Location: Central Scandinavia
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
It's interesting that belief in a religion and the willingness to kill other people seem to go hand in hand. What's the explanation? This life is not something to care so much about?Walker wrote:Henry makes a lot of Philosophical Sense.
Thread title is wrong, not surprising.
Here is the Philosophical Position:
The right to defend what is God-given is the right.
What is given by God is precious, in your care.
Henry offers the position of responsibility.
Each human is responsible for what is precious to himself.
What is precious is given by God.
Not to be taken lightly.
Remember, none of this is faith, and dog registration (or cars), or paying an insurance fee to be a legal native-born citizen, is a distraction, Henry.
- CH Walker
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
I brought up philosophy.Ansiktsburk wrote:It's interesting that belief in a religion and the willingness to kill other people seem to go hand in hand. What's the explanation? This life is not something to care so much about?Walker wrote:Henry makes a lot of Philosophical Sense.
Thread title is wrong, not surprising.
Here is the Philosophical Position:
The right to defend what is God-given is the right.
What is given by God is precious, in your care.
Henry offers the position of responsibility.
Each human is responsible for what is precious to himself.
What is precious is given by God.
Not to be taken lightly.
Remember, none of this is faith, and dog registration (or cars), or paying an insurance fee to be a legal native-born citizen, is a distraction, Henry.
- CH Walker
You brought up religion. That's what is interesting, to you.
Your question pertains to your topic.
So, expound.
Make it interesting to me.
-
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
- Location: Australia
Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.
It was you that brought up the subject of god, not me. What the fuck has god got to do with philosophy?Walker wrote:I brought up philosophy.