@RexRed,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
RexRed wrote:
The Knight of Swords shows a young man in his armour riding a powerful white horse into the midst of a battle in the distance. The white colour of the horse symbolises the purity of the intellectual energy that motivates the rider. The sky behind him is filled with storm clouds and the trees are tossed wildly by the wind. The horse’s harness is decorated with images of butterflies and birds and the knight’s cape is also decorated with birds. He charges forward with great momentum and apparently without any regard to the dangers he may encounter.
http://www.biddytarot.com/tarot-card-meanings/minor-arcana/suit-of-swords/knight-of-swords/
Does your aversion to guns extrapolate to swords ??
Does
Rex demand sword control ???
David
RexRed wrote:I suppose you would also agree with arming crazies
with knives and swords too... (cynical)
Y do u write (cynical) there?
What do u have in mind?
I oppose arming them.
Thay have always been
able to get their own, as I did
before I had access to functional guns at age 8. I made my own knives
by scraping metal against the cement, altho I
already had commercially made knives.
Its not hard; fast n ez.
RexRed wrote:Again, just so I do not stutter.
Do u have that problem ?
RexRed wrote:I am not against guns, swords and knives in the population, yet,
I think guns are a privilege not a right... ["the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." US CONSTITUTION]
HOW can u logically support that belief??
From your posted anti-racism, we know that u oppose discrimination, yes???
The USSC has ruled that government cannot Constitutionally discriminate even
in so little a matter as seating on a bus because of the Constitutional necessity
of
"equal protection of the laws"; how then can government
discriminate in
who
can defend his life and
who must offer himself up for the
slaughter ????
Government
HAS competent authority to confine
A MAN
who acts with unlawful violence,
not to rob him of his weapons
pre-emptively.
If Elliot Rodger were attacked by a pack of dogs as he walks along the street,
he has an
EQUAL right to defend himself from the dogs with
his blood on their teeth. Do u
agree or
deny that ?
RexRed wrote:I will ask this again, do you trust a military that has sworn an oath
to our constitution or would you rather a militia that has sworn an oath
to private concerns that may omit our constitutions basic premises?
At the age of 11, I adopted the philosophy of
TRUSTING NO ONE,
when a kid betrayed my (mis-begotten) trust. He was one of the best teachers I ever had.
I 'm not trying to be
evasive nor rhetorically clever, just factual.
Militia are just armed citizenry.
I was in the Army,
Rex; do u trust me???? I don t think u do.
David
RexRed wrote:Apparently your parents did not supervise you
if you were able to get guns as a kid.
Yes. We owned some funiture stores in Arizona,
to whose administration thay attended 6 days a week,
getting home usually between 8 - 1O PM. I was OK.
I called my mother on the fone, if I felt like it.
I used taxi cabs to go where I wanted, including restaurants, movies. Plenty of cash; it was OK.
Guns were everywhere in the naborhood. The other kids were much better armed than I was.
We went target shooting. Some of them were amateur gunsmiths,
for the fun of it, some better than others. I was not too great at it.
My next door nabor was a captain in the National Guard.
He took his son (my age) and other kids in the naborhood
to his military post and we worked out with fully automatic weapons.
Submachineguns are tons of fun. I love them. We all did.
RexRed wrote:Also it is better for police to disarm someone who does no have a
permit for a gun rather than after the fact when people lie dead in the streets...
That woud make the policeman a
ROBBER,
the same as if he stole your Bible or your wallet, in addition to his raping the Constitution.
Such a police officer belongs in prison.
The United States Congress wrote:TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute . . . willfully subjects any person in any State . . . Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap . . . shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[All highlighting has been added by David.]
I 'd argue that if a policeman robbed a citizen of his gun, as u advocated,
then he 'd thereby
violate this federal law
and since
police use guns,
he 'd violate
that prohibition (up to ten years in prison)
and if he
un-Constitutionally arrested that citizen
that 'd constitute a
KIDNAP (up to
life in federal prison with no parole).
I addressed several questions to u,
Rex.
U did not answer most of them.
David
