Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.

[darrellduaner]

well because crimes by definition have certain elements to them. bureaucrats will arrest you under the belief that you possessions constitute a crime (without explain how) and then take them from you and sentence you to jail! this is the only part of the deprivation of property that i am concerned about. If I run you over and break your legs and you take me to court and its ruled that i have to pay your hospital bills and some extra money for you not being able to work, and the only way i can do that is by selling my lexus and getting a buick, or selling my rolex, then thats fine. but dont pretend to be a legitimate government and take things from innocent, peaceful individuals. to put it simply: no corpus delecti no crime. no crime, no punishment.

 

[cannabineer]

If I remember correctly "One cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Deprived of life" sounds like a death sentence. "Deprived of liberty" a jail term. "deprived of property, well we know what that means. I was wondering why property, which seems better than death or jail, is the hot button?

The three principal modalities of tyranny?
1) kill you
2) jail you
3) rob you

What's missing is

4) silence you
jmo.

 

[abandonconflict]

murder rate went up when guns were banned

This is a fact, and yet is not a relevant reply to the fact he cited. The following statements are both facts:

More guns equals more shootings.

Bans do not solve the problem.

After so many pages of this thread we have now danced around this several times and nobody has made any valuable remark because instead of accepting the facts, they are pushing agendas. Instead of doing that, accept those thorny facts and realize it is not just some simple matter to be guided by rhetoric. It can only be guided by logic when the facts are plain. Rhetoric is the problem.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

democratic

You keep saying that word.

 

[budlover13]

This is a fact, and yet is not a relevant reply to the fact he cited. The following statements are both facts:

More guns equals more shootings.

Bans do not solve the problem.

After so many pages of this thread we have now danced around this several times and nobody has made any valuable remark because instead of accepting the facts, they are pushing agendas. Instead of doing that, accept those thorny facts and realize it is not just some simple matter to be guided by rhetoric. It can only be guided by logic when the facts are plain. Rhetoric is the problem.

So, I will agree that more guns lead to more shootings. The question in my mind is who gets shot? More guns in criminal hands equal more criminal shootings and more guns in non-criminal hands leads to more justified shootings/self-defense. That is my theory anyhow.

 

[Dr Kynes]

This is in the constitution, it is punishment. Don't ask me why? But to be fair the right protects these from being imposed without a trial process.....I get it. Can I ask why property is the one you seem most passionate about?

ORLY???

where are these criminal statutes in the constitution?

Imma save you the trouble, the US constitution addresses only ONE CRIME, and thats treason.

all other criminal statutes are in the US Code and the various State Codes.

the Constitution provides protection against people like you who wish to tresspass on or rights for your own ends.

thats why youre so damned wrong.

 

[Dr Kynes]

If I remember correctly "One cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Deprived of life" sounds like a death sentence. "Deprived of liberty" a jail term. "deprived of property, well we know what that means. I was wondering why property, which seems better than death or jail, is the hot button?

Protperty was the thing the biritish crown infringed on the most.

without property protections against government seizures our nation would have long since become a socialist state and we would all be mere peasants serving their goals.

nobody builds a damned thing if the next bullyboy who wants your shit can just come take it, whether that ass hole s The Humungous or Barrack Hussein Obama.

protecting property is key to protecting our republic.

most importantly the constitution does not protect our life liberty and property from each other, but from the government.

 

[burgertime2010]

Protperty was the thing the biritish crown infringed on the most.

without property protections against government seizures our nation would have long since become a socialist state and we would all be mere peasants serving their goals.

nobody builds a damned thing if the next bullyboy who wants your shit can just come take it, whether that ass hole s The Humungous or Barrack Hussein Obama.

protecting property is key to protecting our republic.

most importantly the constitution does not protect our life liberty and property from each other, but from the government.

You are not understanding this question I asked within the context of our dialogue. Darrell and I were discussing another issue and kept ending up talking about property and I wanted to ask him why HE was interested in property rights. There is nothing more to it. Please differentiate between a question and a statement.

 

[burgertime2010]

ORLY???

where are these criminal statutes in the constitution?

Imma save you the trouble, the US constitution addresses only ONE CRIME, and thats treason.

all other criminal statutes are in the US Code and the various State Codes.

the Constitution provides protection against people like you who wish to tresspass on or rights for your own ends.

thats why youre so damned wrong.

14th amendment due process clause. How am I the insidious villain by having exercised my right to speak?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

You are not understanding this question I asked within the context of our dialogue. Darrell and I were discussing another issue and kept ending up talking about property and I wanted to ask him why HE was interested in property rights. There is nothing more to it. Please differentiate between a question and a statement.

Permission to speak freely, sir.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You are not understanding this question I asked within the context of our dialogue. Darrell and I were discussing another issue and kept ending up talking about property and I wanted to ask him why HE was interested in property rights. There is nothing more to it. Please differentiate between a question and a statement.

you only pretend to "Ask Questions". i dont give a shit if you put a question mark after each of your asinine comments.
you cannot re-write the constitution to suit your narrative, even if you end every assertion with a specious "?".

14th amendment due process clause. How am I the insidious villain by having exercised my right to speak?

you are not "exercising your right to speak" you are creating fallacies and specious arguments hidden behind question marks.

your "?" must be worn the fuck out, since you seem incapable of making a declarative statement, or defending your firmly established position.

you cannot ban guns by using "?". eventually you must either take a position and defend it or remain irrelevant.

 

[burgertime2010]

Answers do not come without questions. Know thy enemy and thy friend. You assaulting my curiosity is a new low. You cannot pretend to ask a question, only pretend to have the answer. The measure of intellect is a willingness to see beyond transitory in light of the eternal. Your only declarations are to address the faults of another. Try learning by asking once in awhile it is not a sin. I exercise my curiosity on a constant and you cannot relate. I studied at institutions that respect that through scholarship. Because your mechanics an inward focus keep you from growth don't attack the pursuit of knowledge. You challenge my motives on your faith not on the fact and that is a sad day I hope I never have to see. My declarative statement is you are an impostor and a hypocrite who finds solace in stasis or reduction. Pardon me, but you are time and time again evasive and even worse you lie constantly through misrepresentations and distractions. I see no balance, no inspiration, no example in your methods. I am flawed and I can only work to remedy that by understanding. A question helps me do that. Shame on you for trying to frame your self-righteous attacks on my shoulders...I won't tolerate it. Think about yourself not about me....you are really just a schoolyard bully. Your inner certainty motivates me towards me a personal change at this very moment. I value the binary even more. These are declarations!!! Try on a beginners mind for one hour.....I dare you. I see a dark cloak around you that will never take reflection and this is a greater lesson than I expected. I thank you for showing me what I do not want to ever become. Goodnight.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Answers do not come without questions. Know thy enemy and thy friend. You assaulting my curiosity is a new low. You cannot pretend to ask a question, only pretend to have the answer. The measure of intellect is a willingness to see beyond transitory in light of the eternal. Your only declarations are to address the faults of another. Try learning by asking once in awhile it is not a sin. I exercise my curiosity on a constant and you cannot relate. I studied at institutions that respect that through scholarship. Because your mechanics an inward focus keep you from growth don't attack the pursuit of knowledge. You challenge my motives on your faith not on the fact and that is a sad day I hope I never have to see. My declarative statement is you are an impostor and a hypocrite who finds solace in stasis or reduction. Pardon me, but you are time and time again evasive and even worse you lie constantly through misrepresentations and distractions. I see no balance, no inspiration, no example in your methods. I am flawed and I can only work to remedy that by understanding. A question helps me do that. Shame on you for trying to frame your self-righteous attacks on my shoulders...I won't tolerate it. Think about yourself not about me....you are really just a schoolyard bully. Your inner certainty motivates me towards me a personal change at this very moment. I value the binary even more. These are declarations!!! Try on a beginners mind for one hour.....I dare you. I see a dark cloak around you that will never take reflection and this is a greater lesson than I expected. I thank you for showing me what I do not want to ever become. Goodnight.

and the butthurt metastasizes, spreads to your brain, and you start screaming and crying.

your "questions" are all predicated on faulty assumptions, and each one is a poorly crafted attempt to set up your "finishing move" but nobody is falling for it, so now you throw a tantrum.

you must be a real shit at board games, demanding all the rules be re-interpreted to suit your desires.

even abandonconfilct doesnt act this childishly.

your perplexing word salad fails to make your position clear, just as your specious and subtext laden "questions" failed to conceal your agenda.

try coming out straight and saying what you mean rather than trying to dance around the issue.

you got two left feet, and no rhythm.

you just got served.

 

[burgertime2010]

What is my agenda?

 

[burgertime2010]

I invite you ask me questions...anything you want, any relevant topic. Please...make it fun.

 

[Doer]

Ok, get it all out every rotten name you wanna call me and then go waste your talent bullying someone who cares. Your shtick is boring. Move on.

Order giver.

 

[Doer]

This is a fact, and yet is not a relevant reply to the fact he cited. The following statements are both facts:

More guns equals more shootings.

Bans do not solve the problem.

After so many pages of this thread we have now danced around this several times and nobody has made any valuable remark because instead of accepting the facts, they are pushing agendas. Instead of doing that, accept those thorny facts and realize it is not just some simple matter to be guided by rhetoric. It can only be guided by logic when the facts are plain. Rhetoric is the problem.

That first is not a fact, it is the opposite of fact. It has no basis, but fear. It is the sophistry of agenda.

What that means to the Agenda is not what it even says. What is says is: If there were no guns no one would be shot.

And all the agenda clowns are nodding their heads, right now. They are still missing the point.

Let me try this....if there were no blades there would be no cutting. Same logic, right? So, we bash.

In countries, were there aren't guns, the crazy people grab blades.

What is wrong with this Agenda is it encourages people to lie. The lie is that less guns is less murder. Less shooting?

More guns, less MURDER via all weapons. And I have linked stacks of facts so I know what I speak.

I don't just make it up and toss it in....It is sick to me to see some say, "..everyone knows the USA has the most guns and most gun deaths."
"It goes without saying, more guns is more murder."

Those two things have been tried and the link fails. It is the opposite.

What I showed yesterday was not "statistics" like the shit heads shit on. It was a simple table of math and the formula was shown.

It revealed a big Lie. But, what does the big liar say? Statistics. The same statistically fouled data that began the Numb Nuts. But, this list has the LIE rolled out.

The LIE was that the criminals bring a GUN and kill a homeowner, but that, in the LIE, counted as a self inflicted gun death. A loaded gun in the home. The BIG LIE, shows they have nothing but fear for power.

The table shows what happens went you UN-foul the data from the Numb Nuts, When you reveal that LIE you also reveal why they lied.

Nothing but lies has ever show a hint of problems with this tool usage preserved in the Constitution.

 

[Doer]

What is my agenda?

To be a lying, tap dancing jerkoff?

 

[Doer]

14th amendment due process clause. How am I the insidious villain by having exercised my right to speak?

Now he calls himself the names. Those are your words, sophist. Too funny. Hey, you wanted the fight. I'm feisty every morning.

The right to speak, is also the right to be shouted down by other speakers. So...boo hoo....mean. This is why I am shockingly non-PC when it suites me and why I choose, regular Aggression over Passive Aggression.

I am just more honest.

 

[burgertime2010]

If I wrote the gun law I would take into account population density, fully automatic weapons might be kind of fun to fire so I would make them legal in designated ranges, like amusement parks for the hard core and the sky could be the limit. Carte blanche, people could rent anything they could imagine....the skys' the limit. Six Flags Saigon. For domestic protection a person living alone could have any handgun unlocked and functionally placed. The weapon could not be taken outdoors unless extraordinary circumstances could be shown perhaps. A person living with children or individuals like roommates would be required to take additional safety measures(not trigger locks) and be held responsible for accidental injuries or deaths without legal latitude. Full criminal penalties apply and are enforced. In the public domain no guns at all. The rights to protect ones home, hunt, and within confined spaces would be upheld. A training (similar to drivers ed) might be required. Penalties for criminal usage would result in a permanent revocation of that individuals right to own a gun. The basic tenor of my ideal situation would be to make realistic guidelnes that are earned. Just spitballing here. I don't have enough specific gun safety knowledge to go deeper. This is a rough draft.