|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 27 2014 09:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 08:03 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2014 05:58 zlefin wrote:
That can happen in US too; in small towns typically. Maybe in quiet neighborhoods too; but mostly in small towns.
Canadian just has so much land and so few people it's all small towns. Most small town Americans I've spoken to say that if they hear anyone near their house at night it's gun time. Guns for defense of home and family. I see no problem checking out possible intruder in the yard or house while armed. I doubt these small down residents are brandishing their firearms at people walking down the sidewalk.
No but they seem more likely to shoot a family member or drunken neighbor/friend than they are an intruder. Don't get me wrong I own several and would like if gun safety was a mandatory course in each school age group (pre-school, elementry, junior high, and high school). The guns are not going any where and idiots are born every second. So while I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do about the violence in the streets places like Chicago or the rash of Sucides (gun law wise) a LOT of the preventable gun deaths are just from people being ignorant about guns.
But seeing as even police go around pointing their loaded guns at innocent people and telling them to 'go fuck themselves' (seems more like a scene from a movie than real life USA) I suppose requiring training still wouldn't help some of the most moronic among us.
|
On August 27 2014 07:50 Wolfstan wrote:
The officer stands trial next year, accountable for his actions.
The treating of coloured folk found to be acceptable, inquiry and reforms about how to deal with mentally ill on deck. Changes should happen like this, working as intended.
I just recently listened to a neato NPR program on police interactions with autistic people. Many parents in these communities are super scared because their adult children may not understand an order to raise their hands or get down. It is also likely that the forceful attitude many police officers use to increase compliance could have the opposite effect on those with cognitive disabilities.
These disabilities in varying degrees of severity are so common that it is pretty shameful we are just now starting to see community outreach programs that educate both communities together. Every officer is pretty much guaranteed to find the training useful at some point in their career.
|
On August 27 2014 04:03 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 12:14 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2014 12:02 aksfjh wrote:On August 26 2014 10:25 Introvert wrote:
Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this. I think you meant to say: Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA is Obama automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this. DACA has nothing to do with the border, but has everything to do with people that have already been here (illegally) for years. The border is secured, and that's your complaint. If you want to change your complaint to "Mexicans aren't being shipped back to Mexico in large enough numbers," by all means, do so. DACA is an excellent example of the fact that Obama really doesn't want to send anyone home. I've gone over the numbers on deportations and the like before with GreenHorizons, but the gist is that fun spins of language make things more difficult to discern. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=1142#22833Additionally: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-DeportationsI have to admit, Obama's played quite the game. Immigrant groups whine he deports too much, conservatives complain it's too little. So again, you're not angry with his border security, but with the fact that he isn't deporting enough. It's not a matter about the border, it's a matter on immigrants already here.
No, I was just taking you up on your "not sending enough Mexicans back to Mexico" line. Due partly to the issues mentioned in the previous post (including those involving the word games being played) the fact that there are more agents than ever is not nearly as useful as you seem to think.
I mean, you did read the article you linked, right?
Expert analysis
We sent Wasserman Schultz’s claim to immigration experts. No one disputed the border patrol numbers, but they also pointed to other factors when examining changes in border security that provide a more complex picture.
"Yes, the number of Border Patrol agents is at an all-time high," said Rey Koslowski, an expert on the border and an associate professor of political science and public policy at the University at Albany. "Whether that equates to ‘border security’ is another question. As to who should get more credit for border security, the fence was a bipartisan project."
Christopher Wilson, an associate with the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute and an expert on border management, noted that border patrol agents don’t precisely equal border security.
"In the end, though, you can’t deploy border security, it must be something that is achieved. This gets into one of the major problems with the whole border security debate—the lack of an accepted definition of the term."
But I will concede that there are more boots on the ground than ever before. (Not that I ever disputed that aspect in the first place.)
let's just agree that "it's complicated" 
|
On August 27 2014 09:31 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 07:50 Wolfstan wrote:
The officer stands trial next year, accountable for his actions.
The treating of coloured folk found to be acceptable, inquiry and reforms about how to deal with mentally ill on deck. Changes should happen like this, working as intended. I just recently listened to a neato NPR program on police interactions with autistic people. Many parents in these communities are super scared because their adult children may not understand an order to raise their hands or get down. It is also likely that the forceful attitude many police officers use to increase compliance could have the opposite effect on those with cognitive disabilities. These disabilities in varying degrees of severity are so common that it is pretty shameful we are just now starting to see community outreach programs that educate both communities together. Every officer is pretty much guaranteed to find the training useful at some point in their career.
Speaking of autism and cops, there was a vice piece about some kid in high school being befriended by an undercover cop posing as a high schooler. The other kids figured he was a cop but this autistic boy didn't understand and thought he had actually made a friend. Undercover cop hounds the autistic kid to get him weed repeatedly until the kid, trying to help his only friend, manages to get a hold of some. At which point the cop busts the autistic kid.
Now thankfully there was no violence involved in that situation. Running an undercover weed bust operation in a high school is messed up to begin with. But preying on an autistic child as adult police officers for a drug bust is horrifyingly fucked up. If they would choose to bust this kid who they've grown to know personally, and know for a fact is autistic I do shudder to think what might happen in a more heated situation where both parties are strangers.
|
On August 27 2014 08:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 05:58 zlefin wrote:
That can happen in US too; in small towns typically. Maybe in quiet neighborhoods too; but mostly in small towns.
Canadian just has so much land and so few people it's all small towns. Most small town Americans I've spoken to say that if they hear anyone near their house at night it's gun time.
Depends on where you are, culturallly. In Texas, sure. In Vermont, probably not. Other states between those two extremes. But really, outside of some states with pretty crazy gun culture (read: the former Confederacy and some border states, and, for some reason, Oklahoma), the whole "shoot the tresspassers" thing is pretty overstated.
It's also a little bizarre when people compare the US to Germany, Britain, or France. (And even moreso the Netherlands, etc.) The US is not really on their scale. We're closer to the scale of, say, Europe. Several of our states border Mexico, which is basically a war zone, and one basically borders a Communist military dictatorship. The level of heterogeneity in Western Europe also undeniably reduces crime (see: Japan or the Nordics). Being so close to the world's main drug-production areas increases crime as well.
Now this is not to undersell our problems. Our incarceration rate is too high, our police are too violent, and our lack of gun-control means that they have good reason to be jumpy. Psychologically, it's not a question of whether logging is more dangerous. It's a question of what the worst case scenario is the officer is always worried about. In Britain, the worst case scenario is the guy attacks you with a knife. In America, the worst case scenario is a multiple shooting by assault-rifle-armed madmen. There's a reason US police freak the fuck out in cases of suspected armed violence, and why they are trained to respond so forcefully. But it sucks and it is unacceptable how many people cops kill and how much mistrust there is of police in some communities.
All police should obviously wear cameras. This is a good first step, and I certainly hope we can bulldoze the unions on this one. But it will only get you so far with our current drug and gun laws. Immigration reform would help too, but obviously it's less important.
|
An innocent woman inside an Orlando bar was struck and killed by a police officer's stray bullet early Tuesday morning, Orlando Police Chief John Mina said.
Police said Roach was taken to the hospital with several gunshot wounds and was listed in stable condition. He is charged with carrying a concealed firearm, and other charges including felony murder are pending.
Another officer, Frank Nunez, a 19-year veteran, was hit in the knee and taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center. He is recovering at home. It is not known who shot him.
Source
Yeah that's right the guy who never fired a shot (but was definitely a cretin) is being charged with killing the woman the cop shot...And no one knows who shot the cop...
|
On August 27 2014 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 09:05 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2014 08:03 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2014 05:58 zlefin wrote:
That can happen in US too; in small towns typically. Maybe in quiet neighborhoods too; but mostly in small towns.
Canadian just has so much land and so few people it's all small towns. Most small town Americans I've spoken to say that if they hear anyone near their house at night it's gun time. Guns for defense of home and family. I see no problem checking out possible intruder in the yard or house while armed. I doubt these small down residents are brandishing their firearms at people walking down the sidewalk. No but they seem more likely to shoot a family member or drunken neighbor/friend than they are an intruder. Don't get me wrong I own several and would like if gun safety was a mandatory course in each school age group (pre-school, elementry, junior high, and high school). The guns are not going any where and idiots are born every second. So while I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do about the violence in the streets places like Chicago or the rash of Sucides (gun law wise) a LOT of the preventable gun deaths are just from people being ignorant about guns. But seeing as even police go around pointing their loaded guns at innocent people and telling them to 'go fuck themselves' (seems more like a scene from a movie than real life USA) I suppose requiring training still wouldn't help some of the most moronic among us. I'd rather trust the individual to use his/her good judgement than take away the guns in the offchance someone makes an idiotic decision. I'm not even opposed to requiring a certification or gun safety class in tandem with the purchase & registration. Criminals and would-be criminals must know they risk an armed homeowner that is within his rights to shoot. I assume you own guns knowing there might come a day (however unlikely) where you might need to use them in defense of your own person or family & friends.
|
On August 27 2014 14:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2014 09:05 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2014 08:03 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2014 05:58 zlefin wrote:
That can happen in US too; in small towns typically. Maybe in quiet neighborhoods too; but mostly in small towns.
Canadian just has so much land and so few people it's all small towns. Most small town Americans I've spoken to say that if they hear anyone near their house at night it's gun time. Guns for defense of home and family. I see no problem checking out possible intruder in the yard or house while armed. I doubt these small down residents are brandishing their firearms at people walking down the sidewalk. No but they seem more likely to shoot a family member or drunken neighbor/friend than they are an intruder. Don't get me wrong I own several and would like if gun safety was a mandatory course in each school age group (pre-school, elementry, junior high, and high school). The guns are not going any where and idiots are born every second. So while I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do about the violence in the streets places like Chicago or the rash of Sucides (gun law wise) a LOT of the preventable gun deaths are just from people being ignorant about guns. But seeing as even police go around pointing their loaded guns at innocent people and telling them to 'go fuck themselves' (seems more like a scene from a movie than real life USA) I suppose requiring training still wouldn't help some of the most moronic among us. I'd rather trust the individual to use his/her good judgement than take away the guns in the offchance someone makes an idiotic decision. I'm not even opposed to requiring a certification or gun safety class in tandem with the purchase & registration. Criminals and would-be criminals must know they risk an armed homeowner that is within his rights to shoot. I assume you own guns knowing there might come a day (however unlikely) where you might need to use them in defense of your own person or family & friends.
Yeah I shoot as a hobby/practical survival skill (hunting/target primarily). I would use a firearm if I had to, but I'm not the type of person who would want to shoot first and ask questions later.
I suppose it depends situation to situation. If I lived in a particularly shady part of town I might feel otherwise. But where I am even if it was a 'criminal' it would either be a tweaker or a teenager and neither of them tend to carry firearms (tweakers can be scared away by an alarm clock).
Considering I shoot fairly often I talk to a fair amount of other people about this general topic. Despite what many people say in court, many people plan on shooting to kill an intruder, regardless of whether it is necessary or not. I am not that kind of person. Now if I hear a bump in the night don't get me wrong, I am grabbing my glock (and an edged weapon). But I am not like many who are itching for a reason to pull the trigger. The idea of taking a human life doesn't appeal to me at all (I feel like a dumbass when I hunt because eating what I kill and appreciating it dying for me is a much bigger deal to me than it is most of the people I hunt with/around.)
I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I killed someone (I may or may not have had a right to) but didn't have to. When the reality is that if someone is breaking into a home (with someone in it) they are desperate and stupid. I'm also not like the cops in that second St Louis shooting video who could do what they did and feel like "I had to".
I also have a friend with a similar story of drunkenly walking into the wrong house after a long party. He didn't have any nefarious plans, just sat down and watched tv drunk in the wrong house. Thank god the stranger didn't just see my friend sitting in the dark on the couch adjacent to the chair his girl/wife was sleeping in and blow his head off. He just asked him some questions and gave him a ride home (in case anything was missing when he got back).
I know there are plenty of houses where the outcome would not have been so peaceful...
Of course if I saw a gun I wouldn't be testing my quick-draw skills (as much as I might be tempted... I mean come on now..? how often do you get to have a legally/morally sanctioned dual?!)
|
Until the private federal reserve bank in the US is ended, the world is in danger. I don't have problems with private money, but not when they have a government granted monopoly and not when they commit fraud and pretend to be a government bank.
You can be a private bank and issue currency, but don't claim to be part of the government and being a monopoly on the issuance of currency.
In fact according to the constitution only gold and silver printed by the federal mint is legal tender in the USA, all other forms of money are illegal and everyone involved in it is literally committing treason.
|
On August 27 2014 15:47 BillGates wrote:
Until the private federal reserve bank in the US is ended, the world is in danger. I don't have problems with private money, but not when they have a government granted monopoly and not when they commit fraud and pretend to be a government bank.
You can be a private bank and issue currency, but don't claim to be part of the government and being a monopoly on the issuance of currency.
In fact according to the constitution only gold and silver printed by the federal mint is legal tender in the USA, all other forms of money are illegal and everyone involved in it is literally committing treason.
No, it isn't literally committing treason; it isn't even figurative treason. Just because you want something to be defined in a certain way does not make it so.
|
On August 27 2014 14:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2014 09:05 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2014 08:03 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2014 05:58 zlefin wrote:
That can happen in US too; in small towns typically. Maybe in quiet neighborhoods too; but mostly in small towns.
Canadian just has so much land and so few people it's all small towns. Most small town Americans I've spoken to say that if they hear anyone near their house at night it's gun time. Guns for defense of home and family. I see no problem checking out possible intruder in the yard or house while armed. I doubt these small down residents are brandishing their firearms at people walking down the sidewalk. No but they seem more likely to shoot a family member or drunken neighbor/friend than they are an intruder. Don't get me wrong I own several and would like if gun safety was a mandatory course in each school age group (pre-school, elementry, junior high, and high school). The guns are not going any where and idiots are born every second. So while I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do about the violence in the streets places like Chicago or the rash of Sucides (gun law wise) a LOT of the preventable gun deaths are just from people being ignorant about guns. But seeing as even police go around pointing their loaded guns at innocent people and telling them to 'go fuck themselves' (seems more like a scene from a movie than real life USA) I suppose requiring training still wouldn't help some of the most moronic among us. I'd rather trust the individual to use his/her good judgement than take away the guns in the offchance someone makes an idiotic decision. I'm not even opposed to requiring a certification or gun safety class in tandem with the purchase & registration. Criminals and would-be criminals must know they risk an armed homeowner that is within his rights to shoot. I assume you own guns knowing there might come a day (however unlikely) where you might need to use them in defense of your own person or family & friends.
100% agree with certification/gun safety class as a requirement to purchase and registration. I was taught by my friends* at the range and there was a hell lot more to learn than I ever imagined.
*friends - one being a army vet, another being someone who grew up with guns his entire life (and had a very strict father about these things).
|
On August 27 2014 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 09:05 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2014 08:03 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2014 05:58 zlefin wrote:
That can happen in US too; in small towns typically. Maybe in quiet neighborhoods too; but mostly in small towns.
Canadian just has so much land and so few people it's all small towns. Most small town Americans I've spoken to say that if they hear anyone near their house at night it's gun time. Guns for defense of home and family. I see no problem checking out possible intruder in the yard or house while armed. I doubt these small down residents are brandishing their firearms at people walking down the sidewalk. No but they seem more likely to shoot a family member or drunken neighbor/friend than they are an intruder. Don't get me wrong I own several and would like if gun safety was a mandatory course in each school age group (pre-school, elementry, junior high, and high school). The guns are not going any where and idiots are born every second. So while I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do about the violence in the streets places like Chicago or the rash of Sucides (gun law wise) a LOT of the preventable gun deaths are just from people being ignorant about guns. But seeing as even police go around pointing their loaded guns at innocent people and telling them to 'go fuck themselves' (seems more like a scene from a movie than real life USA) I suppose requiring training still wouldn't help some of the most moronic among us.
I'm ok with training as part of the education system. You learn how to exercise your right to vote, why not your right to bear arms?
I'm not ok with training as part of a requirement to own a gun. You don't have to prove you can read to vote, you shouldn't have to prove anything to own a gun either.
I think states should have the right to decide if you need training to carry a gun in public, though I'd prefer that they chose not to require it. Basically I can't see a reason why that shouldn't be up to the state, but I have a preference for which way they go.
But also, accidental gun deaths are pretty much a non-issue, and are actually decreasing.
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf
1,441 accidental gun deaths in 1991, ~600 in 2010.
On August 28 2014 00:16 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 14:08 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2014 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2014 09:05 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2014 08:03 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2014 05:58 zlefin wrote:
That can happen in US too; in small towns typically. Maybe in quiet neighborhoods too; but mostly in small towns.
Canadian just has so much land and so few people it's all small towns. Most small town Americans I've spoken to say that if they hear anyone near their house at night it's gun time. Guns for defense of home and family. I see no problem checking out possible intruder in the yard or house while armed. I doubt these small down residents are brandishing their firearms at people walking down the sidewalk. No but they seem more likely to shoot a family member or drunken neighbor/friend than they are an intruder. Don't get me wrong I own several and would like if gun safety was a mandatory course in each school age group (pre-school, elementry, junior high, and high school). The guns are not going any where and idiots are born every second. So while I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do about the violence in the streets places like Chicago or the rash of Sucides (gun law wise) a LOT of the preventable gun deaths are just from people being ignorant about guns. But seeing as even police go around pointing their loaded guns at innocent people and telling them to 'go fuck themselves' (seems more like a scene from a movie than real life USA) I suppose requiring training still wouldn't help some of the most moronic among us. I'd rather trust the individual to use his/her good judgement than take away the guns in the offchance someone makes an idiotic decision. I'm not even opposed to requiring a certification or gun safety class in tandem with the purchase & registration. Criminals and would-be criminals must know they risk an armed homeowner that is within his rights to shoot. I assume you own guns knowing there might come a day (however unlikely) where you might need to use them in defense of your own person or family & friends. 100% agree with certification/gun safety class as a requirement to purchase and registration. I was taught by my friends* at the range and there was a hell lot more to learn than I ever imagined. *friends - one being a army vet, another being someone who grew up with guns his entire life (and had a very strict father about these things).
Do you also agree with certification and government classes for voting? How about for speaking?
Voting, speaking, and owning guns are all rights, you should be VERY careful when you try to regulate them. In my opinion, voting and speaking are both more dangerous than guns. The biggest mass shooting in history killed ~80 people. Speaking and voting though, got the United States into every war we've ever fought, including the ones that weren't so smart. 116,000 Americans died in WW1. 58,220 died in Vietnam.
|
Voting, speaking, and owning guns being rights does not necessitate a further equivocation. Even if we are to grant you the pedantic notion that speaking and voting are more dangerous, their place in daily life relative to the necessities of "living" warrant a significantly different consideration than that we would hold over gun ownership.
|
On August 28 2014 00:49 farvacola wrote:
Voting, speaking, and owning guns being rights does not necessitate a further equivocation. Even if we are to grant you the pedantic notion that speaking and voting are more dangerous, their place in daily life relative to the necessities of "living" warrant a significantly different consideration than that we would hold over gun ownership.
Voting being too easy skews the balance of power among political demographics. If absolutely everyone can vote, only populists have a chance, and populists are practically synonymous with lynch mob members. Jim Crowe laws had populist support. The Spanish-American War had populist support. After the sinking of the USS Maine (which turned out to not be Spain's fault), the public was thirsty for Spanish blood. Every communist revolution that turned violent had populist support.
Populism is rule by emotion.
I don't think you realize how threatening the vote can be.
|
Like I already said, even if we are to defer to your pedantic classification of voting as "more dangerous" than gun ownership, there are numerous other variables that distinguish voting and speaking from gun ownership insofar as the standards of normal life and "living" are concerned. Potential for danger is not the only tenant of an argument against broad 2nd amendment rights.
|
On August 28 2014 01:12 farvacola wrote:
Like I already said, even if we are to defer to your pedantic classification of voting as "more dangerous" than gun ownership, there are numerous other variables that distinguish voting and speaking from gun ownership insofar as the standards of normal life and "living" are concerned. Potential for danger is not the only tenant of an argument against broad 2nd amendment rights.
And what are the other arguments then?
|
I did not suggest that there are other arguments; please read a bit more carefully. Danger potential is invariably going to come into play when discussing the merits of narrowing 2nd amendment rights, but a good argument will do so in concert with considerations related to the propiety and utility of gun ownership relative to other enumerated rights and the general scope of law as it pertains to the fabric of society life. 2nd amendment hawks will oftentimes attempt to demonstrate the fundamental necessity of gun ownership through historical anecdote, an assurance that gun ownership serves as an effective "check" of government power, and a focus on "provincial" attitudes of standard conduct (home on the range living).
In my opinion, and likely the opinion of many others, it can be reasonably demonstrated that both voting and speaking freely require a greater consideration than gun ownership when it comes to their importance in daily life and the process of a functioning society. One needn't assert that everyone needs to be able to vote in order to suggest that voting takes up a place of greater civic importance than owning a firearm; it is also demonstrable that pervasive freedom to vote and populism are not inextricably linked in a linear manner (voting may be universal, but representation and electoral systems buffer voting's direct power), so while the pitfalls of populist rule are certainly worth a discussion, that discussion isn't really here.
|
On August 27 2014 14:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2014 09:05 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2014 08:03 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2014 05:58 zlefin wrote:
That can happen in US too; in small towns typically. Maybe in quiet neighborhoods too; but mostly in small towns.
Canadian just has so much land and so few people it's all small towns. Most small town Americans I've spoken to say that if they hear anyone near their house at night it's gun time. Guns for defense of home and family. I see no problem checking out possible intruder in the yard or house while armed. I doubt these small down residents are brandishing their firearms at people walking down the sidewalk. No but they seem more likely to shoot a family member or drunken neighbor/friend than they are an intruder. Don't get me wrong I own several and would like if gun safety was a mandatory course in each school age group (pre-school, elementry, junior high, and high school). The guns are not going any where and idiots are born every second. So while I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do about the violence in the streets places like Chicago or the rash of Sucides (gun law wise) a LOT of the preventable gun deaths are just from people being ignorant about guns. But seeing as even police go around pointing their loaded guns at innocent people and telling them to 'go fuck themselves' (seems more like a scene from a movie than real life USA) I suppose requiring training still wouldn't help some of the most moronic among us. I'd rather trust the individual to use his/her good judgement than take away the guns in the offchance someone makes an idiotic decision. I'm not even opposed to requiring a certification or gun safety class in tandem with the purchase & registration. Criminals and would-be criminals must know they risk an armed homeowner that is within his rights to shoot. I assume you own guns knowing there might come a day (however unlikely) where you might need to use them in defense of your own person or family & friends.
I'd offer the home invader a beer. Americans seem to embrace a culture of fear. Citizens fear of criminals or would-be criminals, wanting criminals to fear armed homeowners, police fearing armed citizens, black citizens fearing white militarized police.
Reminds me of the 20 year police veteran who feared 2 people making small talk in a park without being armed.
Quit being so scared all the time, get to know strangers without threatening them with death and maybe you'll find out they aren't so bad.
|
Wolfstan sounding like quite the progressive :D It's nice to see your Canada bleed through every now and then.
|
On August 27 2014 23:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 15:47 BillGates wrote:
Until the private federal reserve bank in the US is ended, the world is in danger. I don't have problems with private money, but not when they have a government granted monopoly and not when they commit fraud and pretend to be a government bank.
You can be a private bank and issue currency, but don't claim to be part of the government and being a monopoly on the issuance of currency.
In fact according to the constitution only gold and silver printed by the federal mint is legal tender in the USA, all other forms of money are illegal and everyone involved in it is literally committing treason. No, it isn't literally committing treason; it isn't even figurative treason. Just because you want something to be defined in a certain way does not make it so.
Close your dirty statist mouth, you whore of world capital new world order. Didnt you see that hidden clause in the constitution that clearly and explicitly and completely and unambiguously makes it treason to have currency that isnt gold or silver.
The thing is, monetary policy and economics is complicated enough that if you wanted to articulate a coherent anti-establishment message you actually can, but instead people dont even bother to even read the constitution they try to cite.
*Head shake*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
