Guns, Guns Guns

PeterZ wrote:HB,

It comes down to the difference in our understandings ot sovereignty. In those nations where sovereignty is held by individual citizens, the state's reach into the lives of citizens is limited. Where sovereignty does not reside with INDIVIDUAL citizens as is the case in most of Europe, the state MUST act to protect the citizenry. Since sovereignty is a collective concept in those nations, protecting individual liberty nonsensical.

So this is not a failing to understand the other POV, but each side using their societies' paradigms to support why the other society is faulty. To paraphrase Ringo, foreigners are foreign.

I don't know, if I had to choose between a country in which multiple mass shootings happen each week and one in which I cannot own guns easily, I know what I prefer.

To each their own though. If you guys think that your country is superior because you're free to make human sacrifices to the gun god, go right ahead. Just don't expect anyone to agree with you, or take your claims of greater freedom at face value.

Sorry to be a bit abrupt, but the whole citizen sovereignty concept is semantic bull sh*t. The real life actuality is that all modern free democratic countries citizens face the same legal situation. Technically Betty Windsor is my sovereign but I would never consider obeying any command from her, and she would wisely not issue any command anyway. The US and the rest of the democracies elect politicians to represent them and make decisions on their behalf. If we don't like those decisions we sack them next election.
It could be argued actually that US citizens are actually less free than the rest of us, because we others have enacted laws to restrict big business from doing "bad things", and have laws to protect citizens from exploitation.
Our gun laws are such that I still own a number of legal firearms, but am reassured that the immature and insane have great difficulty in getting access to such as them. The current statistics are that a US citizen is 29 times more likely to be shot to death than an Australian citizen. Not twice or four times, but 29 times! The rest of the world shakes its collective head and wonders if you lot are thick or insane to not recognise that.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:HB,

It comes down to the difference in our understandings ot sovereignty. In those nations where sovereignty is held by individual citizens, the state's reach into the lives of citizens is limited. Where sovereignty does not reside with INDIVIDUAL citizens as is the case in most of Europe, the state MUST act to protect the citizenry. Since sovereignty is a collective concept in those nations, protecting individual liberty nonsensical.

So this is not a failing to understand the other POV, but each side using their societies' paradigms to support why the other society is faulty. To paraphrase Ringo, foreigners are foreign.

I don't know, if I had to choose between a country in which multiple mass shootings happen each week and one in which I cannot own guns easily, I know what I prefer.

To each their own though. If you guys think that your country is superior because you're free to make human sacrifices to the gun god, go right ahead. Just don't expect anyone to agree with you, or take your claims of greater freedom at face value.

Bruno Behrends wrote:

HB of CJ wrote:Three quick accurate points. The campus was a free kill zone. Everybody except some security people were prohibited from carrying firearms for their own protection.

Second naggy point. The Second Amendment was ignored by the School Board or perhaps the State of Oregon. They commited Treason. We see the results of their folly. Mass murder.

Third point. Why treason? By knowingly failing to enforce the supreme law of the land, 10 people are dead. They have aided and encouraged criminal enemies of the Nation.

Because the Powers That Be who decided to trash our US Constitution (the 2nd amendment) KNOWINGLY created a perfect killing field, they are quilty of premediated murder?

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting. We have it here in the USA to prevent this very horrible thing from happening, which in this case was about 120 miles North of us. Respectfully.

For my European eyes this post is surreal.

From my Australian eyes it's rediculous.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

So The E, what country do you live in! This information gives a context to the reader about the political system that colors a person's thinking. I will assume a no reply or refusal to answer the question means that as an individual he or she has a political agenda to promote or is ashamed of his or her origins!

I get the fact that you believe it's the government's right to ban weapons. Now in Baltimore and Ferguson, why was no small business burned with someone guarding the premise with a legal firearm????!!!! What would you do if the government fails to prevent anarchy and people threaten to destroy your business and threaten to harm a person's family because they feel like that is their right! In both instances the state governments were prevented from deploying their troops by the national government (Obama administration).

Take the case of the rancher in Nevada, the BLM was seizing his cattle illegally and they threatened to shoot the local families that gathered together to stop the slaughter of the cattle. CNN said that the militia had snipers their to shoot the federal agents. Why is their no video evidence of snipers or militiamen shown? That's because their was none and if you need proof about what happened go look up the links within this gun topic because I posted it.

If the legal guns are banned, the Constitution does not need to be followed. Hence the US falls into Fascist or Socialist government type. The Elites can then do what they want without regard to the will of the people. Currently, their agenda is largely going through when Supreme Court ruled that capping the amount an individual or corporation can spend on political campaigns was illegal. So what we have now is the elites most control both parties through large campaign donations! The politicians most ignore the will of the people and only look to their political patrons unless the people are squawking loud enough!

With the Oregon shooting, the mainstream media neglects the mention that this is the 2nd domestic home grown Muslim terrorist within a year. This evil man chose a gun free zone to attack innocent law abiding citizens and murder Christians. Take the evil man from the SC shooting, he chose the church because the church had no armed security to stop him rather than the local college!

The BLM who seized his cattle under court order to remove his cattle from federal land? the rancher who forced multiple previous attempts to be called off for violent threats against the BLM, and who owed more than $1 million in fines? the rancher who had his follwers plan to use women as targets to enrage the public:

they were "strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it's going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers".

? The man whose supporters were recorded as being willing to open fire first on the police?
Not exactly the best talking point for either side, that case....


I do not beleive that the partial restriction of the ownership of weapons will lead to olgiopolies leading the US. they are doing fine with it in place, as they have figured out its better to follow huxley rather than fascism. You should be more worried about the financial methods they can control you with, and the data they can use to manipulate you with, rather than the overt methods.

smr wrote:
Take the case of the rancher in Nevada, the BLM was seizing his cattle illegally and they threatened to shoot the local families that gathered together to stop the slaughter of the cattle. CNN said that the militia had snipers their to shoot the federal agents. Why is their no video evidence of snipers or militiamen shown? That's because their was none and if you need proof about what happened go look up the links within this gun topic because I posted it.

If the legal guns are banned, the Constitution does not need to be followed. Hence the US falls into Fascist or Socialist government type. The Elites can then do what they want without regard to the will of the people. Currently, their agenda is largely going through when Supreme Court ruled that capping the amount an individual or corporation can spend on political campaigns was illegal. So what we have now is the elites most control both parties through large campaign donations! The politicians most ignore the will of the people and only look to their political patrons unless the people are squawking loud enough!

smr wrote:So The E, what country do you live in! This information gives a context to the reader about the political system that colors a person's thinking.

Germany.

I will assume a no reply or refusal to answer the question means that as an individual he or she has a political agenda to promote or is ashamed of his or her origins!

Such assumptions. Of course I have a political agenda, as does everyone who engages in political discussions, including you.

And no, I am not ashamed of my origins (why would I be? It's not like I can change them, after all).

I get the fact that you believe it's the government's right to ban weapons.

No, I believe it is the government's duty to make policies that ensure a reasonable amount of public safety. While it is impossible to preempt all accidents or all crime, evidence shows that countries which do enact strong gun control laws have lesser incidence rates for mass shootings.

Now in Baltimore and Ferguson, why was no small business burned with someone guarding the premise with a legal firearm????!!!! What would you do if the government fails to prevent anarchy and people threaten to destroy your business and threaten to harm a person's family because they feel like that is their right!

If the Ferguson riots had come from nothing, I would be inclined to agree with you. They didn't, though. They were a result of a long history of institutionalized misconduct and racism by the agencies tasked with preventing just such a thing.
As it stands, all Ferguson showed was that once something very similar to a civil war actually breaks out, guns are somewhat handy.
Now, I don't know about the US. But such a thing doesn't happen around here. We're civilized, after all, and know that there are better ways to defuse situations before they boil over like this.

In both instances the state governments were prevented from deploying their troops by the national government (Obama administration).

Can you prove that deploying those troops would have helped?

Take the case of the rancher in Nevada, the BLM was seizing his cattle illegally and they threatened to shoot the local families that gathered together to stop the slaughter of the cattle. CNN said that the militia had snipers their to shoot the federal agents. Why is their no video evidence of snipers or militiamen shown? That's because their was none and if you need proof about what happened go look up the links within this gun topic because I posted it.

I gotta ask, what does this have to do with your society's tacit approval of a constant rate of mass shootings?

[quoet]If the legal guns are banned, the Constitution does not need to be followed.[/quote]

Why? The second amendment is not a cornerstone on which the entirety of the constitution rests. After all, it's an amendment.

Hence the US falls into Fascist or Socialist government type. The Elites can then do what they want without regard to the will of the people.

This is different from the current state of affairs how, exactly?

Latest mass shooting may be an Islamic Counter Attack see:

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/10/02/bombshell-oregon-gunmans-social-network-found-media-silent-because-of-this-huge-detail/

Poker

Daryl wrote:Sorry to be a bit abrupt, but the whole citizen sovereignty concept is semantic bull sh*t. The real life actuality is that all modern free democratic countries citizens face the same legal situation. Technically Betty Windsor is my sovereign but I would never consider obeying any command from her, and she would wisely not issue any command anyway. The US and the rest of the democracies elect politicians to represent them and make decisions on their behalf. If we don't like those decisions we sack them next election.
It could be argued actually that US citizens are actually less free than the rest of us, because we others have enacted laws to restrict big business from doing "bad things", and have laws to protect citizens from exploitation.
Our gun laws are such that I still own a number of legal firearms, but am reassured that the immature and insane have great difficulty in getting access to such as them. The current statistics are that a US citizen is 29 times more likely to be shot to death than an Australian citizen. Not twice or four times, but 29 times! The rest of the world shakes its collective head and wonders if you lot are thick or insane to not recognise that.

Likely we are both thick and insane by your standards. That doesn't change that we appreciate the rights and responsibilities of citizenship differently than you do. To a large extent gun crime is perpetrated by criminals and crime has been falling for decades. It had been falling prior to the 1960s for even more decades. Between the 1960s and 1990s the downward trend reversed. It has since declined again until the Fergusson and Baltimore fiascos.

Simply blaming guns is short sighted. Other factors are at play. Ignoring them to hack at a political bugaboo is counter productive.

Spacekiwi wrote:The BLM who seized his cattle under court order to remove his cattle from federal land? the rancher who forced multiple previous attempts to be called off for violent threats against the BLM, and who owed more than $1 million in fines? the rancher who had his follwers plan to use women as targets to enrage the public:

they were "strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it's going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers".

? The man whose supporters were recorded as being willing to open fire first on the police?
Not exactly the best talking point for either side, that case....




I do not beleive that the partial restriction of the ownership of weapons will lead to olgiopolies leading the US. they are doing fine with it in place, as they have figured out its better to follow huxley rather than fascism. You should be more worried about the financial methods they can control you with, and the data they can use to manipulate you with, rather than the overt methods.

smr wrote:
Take the case of the rancher in Nevada, the BLM was seizing his cattle illegally and they threatened to shoot the local families that gathered together to stop the slaughter of the cattle. CNN said that the militia had snipers their to shoot the federal agents. Why is their no video evidence of snipers or militiamen shown? That's because their was none and if you need proof about what happened go look up the links within this gun topic because I posted it.

If the legal guns are banned, the Constitution does not need to be followed. Hence the US falls into Fascist or Socialist government type. The Elites can then do what they want without regard to the will of the people. Currently, their agenda is largely going through when Supreme Court ruled that capping the amount an individual or corporation can spend on political campaigns was illegal. So what we have now is the elites most control both parties through large campaign donations! The politicians most ignore the will of the people and only look to their political patrons unless the people are squawking loud enough!

Listening to the propaganda rather than the actuality of what happened. The event was orchestrated by Henry Reed for a Chinese company to use that land for solar power plant. His son was being paid by the Chinese company to secure this deal....guess what he stands to make millions off the clean energy act.

http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2015-08-24-reid-remarks-at-national-clean-energy-summit


So Kiwi understand they increased his fees by 200% that are supposed to go to maintain the land as free range grazing lands. However, the fees were not applied equally to everyone but selectively. Second, the head of BLM was a political appointee of guess who...Henry Reed. Why did many of Deputy Sheriffs call in sick that day? Hmmm????? Third, the local sheriff is a local political ally of guess who...Henry Reed. Now Henry Reed called Mister Bundy a domestic terrorist on the floor of the Senate! The same Mister Bundy called for a peaceful resistance to the illegal seizure of his cattle. The BLM imported 200 agents from outside of Nevada because the locals refused to participate. Fourth, the court order was being disputed by the Nevada state government due to interpretations of a statute. The case was being appealed by Bundy and the state of Nevada. Methinks something is wrong in Denmark...I mean Nevada.

Hey Kiwi did you watch the video? Where is the militia? Where are the snipers? Sounds like political rhetoric. The sheriff said on the video over a megaphone that they will fire on them! The locals (men, women, and children) replied that they were unarmed. They formed into a line an preceded to back down the BLM!.

Our government has history of using force. Take Waco, they could have continued the beseize the Ranch. Hunger would eventually forced most Branch Davidian members to surrender. 76 people died needlessly in Waco. Just remember the elite write the history.

Facts about Ferguson, the young black man attacked a shop owner minutes before the incident between the cop and the youth. (It's on video.) The officer was cleared by evidence that a struggle took place and the first shot took place within the police car. The kid took off and came back with a minute. He was then killed. If the kid had just followed the officer's instructions to get out of the street and walk on the sidewalk. So he was not an innocent kid but a thug! That justifies burning Ferguson...I think not.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0LEV73dohJWOWMAAE4nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=ferguson+kid+robbing+store&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dferguson%2Bkid%2Brobbing%2Bstore%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&fr=%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-001&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.dp9bnowXSUZ386moLoIb9A%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMBUyhp2ZkC0&tit=%28VIDEO%29+Mike+Brown+Robbing+Store+Moments+Before+Ferguson+...&l=60&vid=0506bc3dce3f92f3b519c6c174cf9b3a&sigr=11b8a31c2&sigb=1366uk2rd&sigt=11s7v9p15&sigi=11vkiuph9&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

The E...please don't come with racism argument to justify anarchy and rioting. Hands up don't shoot....false narrative that created the riots.

The E...Germany was so civilized that they executed 8 million men, women, and children because they were Jewish. I was married to a German girl and grandparents talked about Hitler. They were teenagers during WW2. The grandmother contends that the holocaust would never had happened if the government had not seized all the guns. She claims that they had noway to resist the government.

The seizing of guns within the country equals a civil war for America! What good is security for loss of our liberties and freedoms.

HB of CJ wrote:PeterZ. Thank you. That was a very good explanation. HB

It was a horrible explanation that simply ignores the reality of how other nations governments and constitutions are formed in favor of his personal fantasy that the US is super special and the only place that recognizes individual sovereignty.

A fantasy he has had dismantled for him before. In this very thread.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3694&start=1020

The E completely deconstructed this exact argument barely 10 pages back... without apparently making a dent in Peter's utter certainty that no other nations recognize that political power derives from the people.