11
   

Guns are your friend

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 04:26 pm
@BorisKitten,
BorisKitten wrote:

Quote:
The real Supreme Law of the Land is the law of supply and demand; 'twas ever thus.
Anyone who believes that Prohibitions WORK,
believes that no one can get marijuana in America, because it is illegal,
like it was illegal to get booze in the 1920s, so no one got any.

I have a bridge for sale, Ed . . . . U 'd like it. I 'll give u a special deal.

Funny, David, I don't see you campaigning for the legalization of marijuana.


David
I did not utter one word about taking away guns for self protection. Only the excessive ones no one needs. So, there, poo face.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 04:29 pm
@Intrepid,
Not that I've been diagnosed with.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 04:30 pm
@BorisKitten,
BorisKitten wrote:

Funny, David, I don't see you campaigning for the legalization of marijuana.


He's posted several times that he thinks that drugs should be legal.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 04:56 pm
I think we are making some progress here. David is for drugs. David is for guns. I suppose if we put the guns in the hands of those taking the drugs we will all be safe from the boogy man.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 05:08 pm
@Intrepid,
This is your answer to my questions?

I just want to be clear.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 06:36 pm
@maporsche,
You asked me questions? I am clearly not aware of any. Otherwise, I would have answered them.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 06:42 pm
@Intrepid,
They are identified by the "?."

maporsche wrote:

Or was your paraphrasing used to make some point that I may be missing?
Well if he didn't mean worship, what do you think he meant?
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 07:52 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

They are identified by the "?."

maporsche wrote:

Or was your paraphrasing used to make some point that I may be missing?
Well if he didn't mean worship, what do you think he meant?



My paraphrasing was to see if I, in fact, I understood what you wrote. I did note that you have more than target shooting behind yiour purchase which is what I originally thought your purpose for ownership of the assault type weapon was.

I think that he meant a unusual and out of the ordinary affection for the weapon of choice. Actually, we could ask him what he meant because I am only assuming.

Have I answered all of your questions?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 08:02 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Taking away the guns should take care of it. Yeah, that's the ticket. Take away the guns.

Oh, sorry, can't help you. Here in this country we have a Bill of Rights enumerating guaranteed freedoms.


We have freedoms in this country too. We just don't think that having all of our citizens running around with guns is a particularly good thing to do.

We get along just fine without that particular bit of nonsense. We can, however, own guns but find no need for assault weapons and the like.

Perhaps that is why Canada ranked number 1 in the human development index for ten years while the U.S. was at number 3. Just perhaps.

Norway is now number one. And, surprise, they have gun laws too.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 08:10 pm
For accuracy, I should post the current information for 2009/10


Norway enjoys the world's highest quality of life, while Niger suffers the lowest, a United Nations agency said Monday, as it released a ranking that highlights the wide disparities in well-being between rich and poor countries.

Canada was listed fourth, well ahead of the United States which was in 13th place.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 08:19 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Canada was listed fourth, well ahead of the United States which was in 13th place. [/i]


Do you think our gun laws are a significant factor in this ranking?
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 09:00 pm
@maporsche,
I have no idea. Could be since it is not as safe in the U.S. as in many other countries.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 10:50 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

BorisKitten wrote:

Quote:
The real Supreme Law of the Land is the law of supply and demand; 'twas ever thus.
Anyone who believes that Prohibitions WORK,
believes that no one can get marijuana in America, because it is illegal,
like it was illegal to get booze in the 1920s, so no one got any.

I have a bridge for sale, Ed . . . . U 'd like it. I 'll give u a special deal.

Funny, David, I don't see you campaigning for the legalization of marijuana.


David
I did not utter one word about taking away guns for self protection.
Only the excessive ones no one needs. So, there, poo face.
My security concerns have been satisfied for well over half a century.
Now, when I add to my gun collection, it is out of interest
in esthetics or appreciation of history, the same way
that I acquire ancient gold or silver coins, going back to
the Roman Republic, c.150 years before Jesus was born.
I appreciate old Americana. (Call me sentimental; go ahead.)

I understand that it is your position that my gun collection
shoud be stolen from me, except for my immediate self defense needs.
In other words, I get to keep my .44 caliber revolvers,
but I get robbed of everything else? Did I get that correctly?





David
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 11:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Call it stealling, call it waht you will. It is time the culture of violence gets taken down a bit.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 11:13 pm
@BorisKitten,
David wrote:
Quote:
The real Supreme Law of the Land is the law of supply and demand; 'twas ever thus.
Anyone who believes that Prohibitions WORK,
believes that no one can get marijuana in America, because it is illegal,
like it was illegal to get booze in the 1920s, so no one got any.

I have a bridge for sale, Ed . . . . U 'd like it. I 'll give u a special deal.

BorisKitten wrote:
Quote:
Funny, David, I don't see you campaigning for the legalization of marijuana.
I don 't campaign for it, but I am cognizant
that prohibition laws against citizens' ingesting ANYTHING,
is very conspicuously unconstitutional and unAmerican.
The Founders woud be aghast at such a prohibition.
Even the King of England did not claim to have jurisdiction over what his subjects can ingest.

The basis for unlimited tyranny is the notion that government
has jurisdiction to protect u from yourself -- to substitute its judgment for yours
as to what u shoud DO and what u shoud restrain yourself
from doing
, for your own good.
That includes a decision to end your Earthly life, if such be your choice.

The function of government is to defend your rights from violation
BY OTHERS, not from waiving them yourself.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 03:57 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

I think we are making some progress here. David is for drugs. David is for guns.
I suppose if we put the guns in the hands of those taking the drugs we will all be safe from the boogy man.
Let me be clear on the point that I consider illegal narcotics to be poison,
and I never use them. I defend the right of any citizen
to ingest whatever he owns, including toxic substances.

I impugn and deny that government in America has any jurisdiction
to protect anyone from his own poor judgment; that 'd be a perversion
of the reason of its existence, which is to defend us
from violations of our rights by OTHERS.





David
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 04:09 am
David wrote:
I defend the right of any citizen to ingest whatever he owns, including toxic substances.


I suppose you will stay impermeable to the concept that at some point an individual taking drugs will become a burden to the whole society.

You probably won't accept that the government, as an expression of the society's will, will try to protect your rights against your own will.

The right to stay in good health, for example..
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 04:57 am
@Francis,
David wrote:
I defend the right of any citizen to ingest whatever he owns,
including toxic substances.

Francis wrote:
Quote:
I suppose you will stay impermeable to the concept
that at some point an individual taking drugs
will become a burden to the whole society.
I will; yes.
Interestingly, it has been the experience of the English
that lawful heroin addicts for many years have simply lost interest
in heroin and abandoned their prescriptions; did not get them refilled.
I do not know whether that also applies to other addictions.

It is another question,
whether society shoud support them.
People may have differing views.



Francis wrote:
Quote:
You probably won't accept that the government,
as an expression of the society's will,
will try to protect your rights against your own will.
That is correct.
We do not have a democracy.
Government has no more authority than it was granted
in the instrument by which it was brought into existence (as amended).
The will of society means nothing in extending the authority
of government beyond that point, unless its representatives
go thru several designated procedures to amend it.

Government was not granted authority to protect anyone
from his own poor judgment; this is supposed to be a FREE COUNTRY.


If government HAD jurisdiction to substitute its own judgment
for yours, as to what to do for your own good,
then this woud be a despotism.








Francis wrote:
Quote:

The right to stay in good health, for example..
If someone dies,
does he violate his "right to stay in good health" ?

What is the source of this right to stay in good health?
I was not aware of that right.

(U raise some interesting points, Francis.)





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 05:07 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Government was not granted authority to protect anyone
from his own poor judgment; this is supposed to be a FREE COUNTRY.


Government has the right as well as the duty to try to teach what is the consensus of what the best way to live is, however when it uses force to make individuals adhere to the consensus then it is guilty of abuse so long as it is not acting as the reasonable referee of rights conflicts.

We have gotten to the point where we ban smoking outdoors for the sham reason of second hand smoke (possibly valid grounds for indoor smoking bans, certainly not for outdoor), and want to tax sugar drinks and high fat foods. This is an abuse of the individual at the hand of his government.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 06:09 am
@hawkeye10,
David wrote:
Government was not granted authority to protect anyone
from his own poor judgment; this is supposed to be a FREE COUNTRY.


hawkeye10 wrote:

Government has the right as well as the duty
to try to teach what is the consensus of what the best way to live is
I challenge u on that.
According to U, WHERE exactly did government acquire:

1. "the right" to teach any consensus about anything
and specificly about "what the best way to live is"?
(The correct answer is NOWHERE and NO WHEN, except in the dreams of Hawkeye.)

and

2. "The duty" to teach anything to the citizens ?

This is only your fantasy, Hawkeye.

Then what happens when the citizens (the students)
tell their hireling, government to go to hell ? What then?




David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 09:44:24