Guns, Guns Guns

But, at least from what I understand which from here is iffy, you are exceeding the legal minimums for storage aren't you?

pokermind wrote:Tenshinai IIRC if one is convicted of drunk Driving in Sweden one loses the privilege of driving for life. What are the statistics of before and after this law was passed of drunk driving rates?

Poker

No such law.

2012 raised the minimum time drivers license is lost if caught driving drunk, from 1 month to 1 year. (maximum 3 years)

Result? MAYBE a very slight decrease, but the change also continues a downward trend since the early 1990s and the deviation from the overall trend is well within the confines of yearly deviations in either direction.

namelessfly wrote:

"Mary Jane" is slang for Marijuanna.

Obama recently commented that he favors legalization of marijuanna, claiming that it is less harmful than alcohol. Given his membership in "The Chum Gang" at the Punaho school in Hawaii, he no doubt considers himself as proof that even heavy use of Marijuanna is not harmful.

I would argue that Obama is proof the heavy use of Marijuanna IS harmful.

Of course I also cite the BATF as proof that guns and booze should not mix.

Medically speaking, marijuana IS less harmful than alcohol.
Simple fact.

Most countries in Europe and Asia have suicide rates much higher than the US. Perhaps their angry and distraught are subtly encouraged to just kill themselves without taking anyone with them?

You just have to make everything a conspiracy...

Annachie wrote:I should say that I'm not actually anti-gun in any way. Just very pro gun control.

It just strikes me as the height of stupidity to allow some of the fire arms that are allowed, that they don't have to be locked up when not being used, not to mention laws that make it easier for legal guns to drop out of the system.

And a big +1 to that.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to. When a government passes a law the people don't believe in. "Assault weapon" ban passed then ignored by the general populace. Not a good practice.

http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-10/ ... ration-law

Saw it on the Baen's bar. Rather surprised no one posted it. Kept waiting but ...

T2M

viciokie wrote:…Now as for hunting there is no way you need the Barrets .50 to go hunting with it…

there is no mention of “hunting” in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, its about defending your freedom! Is so when some uppity Washington crony decides he doesn’t need your consent to be in charge & declares himself “president for life”, like the legislaturalist on Haven. You & ½ a billion other free Americans can grab your guns, march down to Washington & say “NO you ain’t!” and have something besides a pointing finger to back you up. Its about free men having the freedom to protect your self, your country and your children’s futures from both internal traitors and external invasions. There is NO such thing as a law that prevents criminals from breaking the law – that’s why they’re criminals. So no gun control law ever made will stop a criminal from going into a bank with a gun and robing it (like someone’s going to say: “awe! I was going to rob that bank, but its illegal for me to carry my gun into it, so I can’t, darn!” whatever). The only thing gun control laws prevent is the legal use of guns. Like for putting down an insurrection. That’s why the socialist liberals are so adamant about it. They can’t pull a “Haven” until they pull our guns away.
Anyone who’s against gun rights is against the 2nd amendment. Which is part of the bill of rights. That means they’re against the bill of rights so by default they’re against the 1st amendment’s free speech – so they should SHUT UP!

This well enunciated post sums up the difference between the US right and the rest of the developed world. You think it is obviously sensible, and the rest of us go "Is he winding us up or actually for real?". Your country, your rules but anywhere else this approach would lead to the nice men in the white coats being called.

MAD-4A wrote:

viciokie wrote:…Now as for hunting there is no way you need the Barrets .50 to go hunting with it…

there is no mention of “hunting” in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, its about defending your freedom! Is so when some uppity Washington crony decides he doesn’t need your consent to be in charge & declares himself “president for life”, like the legislaturalist on Haven. You & ½ a billion other free Americans can grab your guns, march down to Washington & say “NO you ain’t!” and have something besides a pointing finger to back you up. Its about free men having the freedom to protect your self, your country and your children’s futures from both internal traitors and external invasions. There is NO such thing as a law that prevents criminals from breaking the law – that’s why they’re criminals. So no gun control law ever made will stop a criminal from going into a bank with a gun and robing it (like someone’s going to say: “awe! I was going to rob that bank, but its illegal for me to carry my gun into it, so I can’t, darn!” whatever). The only thing gun control laws prevent is the legal use of guns. Like for putting down an insurrection. That’s why the socialist liberals are so adamant about it. They can’t pull a “Haven” until they pull our guns away.
Anyone who’s against gun rights is against the 2nd amendment. Which is part of the bill of rights. That means they’re against the bill of rights so by default they’re against the 1st amendment’s free speech – so they should SHUT UP!

Daryl wrote:This well enunciated post sums up the difference between the US right and the rest of the developed world. You think it is obviously sensible, and the rest of us go "Is he winding us up or actually for real?". Your country, your rules but anywhere else this approach would lead to the nice men in the white coats being called.

Which goes right to MAD-4A's underlying but unstated point. The rest of the world ultimately doesn't care if their oligarchs have an easy time concentrating control over their nations. Most of the US bridle at the thought. We have serious issues with the corporate cronyism and state control of the progressives/statists. Too much power resides in government and large corporations/organizations for the individual to have much liberty. Both have become almost extensions of the same group of oligarchs.

When the agents we have in government decide which laws to enforce and who to enforce them on, we no longer have the rule of law. What we have is the shredding of our social contract as defined by our constitution. The rest of the world might well find us crazy to insist that our social contract is worth defending. They might believe us crazy to insist that the legal means of protecting that contract be included as part of that contract.

Those that believe Americans are crazy in this way either don't believe they have any rights at all, only privileges, or they don't value the rights they believe they have. If they value the rights they have they would ensure the ability to protect those rights. If they believe their freedoms are simply privileges, then those privileges are not theirs to protect just gifts to be grateful for.

You and those of like mind might think we belong in an asylum. We Americans who value our social contract can only wonder how anyone can open their society so completely to power hungry oligarchs?

PeterZ wrote:Which goes right to MAD-4A's underlying but unstated point. The rest of the world ultimately doesn't care if their oligarchs have an easy time concentrating control over their nations. Most of the US bridle at the thought. We have serious issues with the corporate cronyism and state control of the progressives/statists. Too much power resides in government and large corporations/organizations for the individual to have much liberty. Both have become almost extensions of the same group of oligarchs.

When the agents we have in government decide which laws to enforce and who to enforce them on, we no longer have the rule of law. What we have is the shredding of our social contract as defined by our constitution. The rest of the world might well find us crazy to insist that our social contract is worth defending. They might believe us crazy to insist that the legal means of protecting that contract be included as part of that contract.

Those that believe Americans are crazy in this way either don't believe they have any rights at all, only privileges, or they don't value the rights they believe they have. If they value the rights they have they would ensure the ability to protect those rights. If they believe their freedoms are simply privileges, then those privileges are not theirs to protect just gifts to be grateful for.

You and those of like mind might think we belong in an asylum. We Americans who value our social contract can only wonder how anyone can open their society so completely to power hungry oligarchs?

Thank you!

By Americans having the right to have guns, we take some of that power (the power of the gun - which is the basis of ANY political power) away from the politicians and put it (literally) in the hands of the people! By taking away guns (like Hitler did to Germany in the 30's) you remove that power from the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the politicians. How can anybody be so blind (or two faced) to complain about corrupt government and then support that same corrupt government having control of the guns?

And Godwin's Law still holds true.

MAD-4A wrote:(like Hitler did to Germany in the 30's)