We all need licenses and insurance for a car, not firearms?

1. 76

   Castlepalomaposted 11 years ago

   We all need licenses and insurance for a car, or home, even our dog and many of our jobs needs license and none were design to kill.
   
   About 80% of Americans own guns, but that's not enough. Do we really need more guns in circulation to stop mass shootings.There is 10 States firearm kill more than cars.
   
   Today economic slavery between the elite militarily and public guns could turn into a new Civil War.  Relationship between policing the unruly working classes, fueling the military and economic needs of the capitalist class.
   
   In modern mechanized societies, there is less need for sheer massive manpower; mechanical labor has most of the economic properties of slave labor, though ... it does not involve the direct demoralizing effects of human cruelty.The cure- "Make love, not debt"
   
   The last Civil war in the mid-1880s -over Slavery –
   Two decade of firearm deaths in America equals the Civil War deaths
   
   Is America building up to a new Civil War?

   replyreport
   1. 55

      whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Driving in America=Privilege
      
      Owning firearm in America=Constitutional right.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I'm sure when the Constitution was passed, people didn't need a licence to own a horse or a buggy either.  Society changes.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, things change.

            replyreport
         2. 55

            whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Constitution has not changed.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Whoisit wrote:
               “Constitution has not changed.”
               Fact: The Constitution has changed 27 times.
               

               replyreport
               1. 55

                  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The constitution as it pertains to the second amendment has not changed.

                  replyreport
               2. 74

                  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Hello Quill.
                  
                  Ten Amendments were one action, and seventeen others followed.  The United States Constitution has been altered eighteen times.
                  
                  
                  Have a good day. 

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Hey RB. How have you been? Doing well, I hope.
                     
                     Technically, the US Constitution has been amended, or as you say altered, 27 times. What would later become know as The Bill of Rights, was a joint resolution of congress containing 12 articles (17 in the original house version) being proposed simultaneously to the state legislatures for individual ratification as amendments to the Constitution. {1}
                     
                     “RESOLVED …that the following Articles…all, or any of which Articles, when ratified…to be valid…as part of the Constitution.” {2}
                     
                     They were not submitted to the states to be ratified up or down as one legislative action. Each proposed amendment (article) was considered and ratified individually, not as one action, by the states as established by the fact only ten of the original twelve proposed amendments made it into the Constitution by 1791.
                     
                     “By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the ‘Bill of Rights.’" {3}
                     
                     
                     The Constitution was literally, legally, and automatically altered when Virginia became the last of the required number of states needed to ratify 10 individual amendments of the original 12, with no additional congressional action required. Even though their official ratification was simultaneous, they were 10 separate constitutional actions and not one. The second of the 12 original proposed amendments was finally ratified and became the 27th Amendment in 1992 and the first is considered as still in the process of being ratified.   
                     
                     Thank you, RB, for providing the incentive to dig into this rather insignificant matter. For now, I will stick with the Constitution has changed 27 times and you can hold on to 18.
                     
                     {1} http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_St … _of_Rights
                     {2} http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … cript.html
                     {3} http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … story.html

                     replyreport
                     1. 74

                        Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        There has been 27 changes. The document itself has been changed 18 times.  You will not find a Constitution printed without the first ten either present or not.  Perhaps insignificant but definitely historical trivia.
                        
                        
                        
                        1.The first ten amendments, commonly known as a group as the Bill of Rights, were all ratified at once. The amendments were proposed on September 25, 1789.
                        
                        2.The 11th Amendment, which limits Supreme Court jurisdiction, was proposed on March 4, 1794.
                        
                        3.  The 12th Amendment, which reworks the presidential selection process, was proposed on December 9, 1803.
                        
                        4  The 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery, was proposed on January 31, 1865.
                        
                        5.  The 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of citizens and other persons, was proposed on June 13, 1866.
                        
                        6.  The 15th Amendment, which ensures the right of black men to vote, was proposed on February 26, 1869.
                        
                        7  .The 16th Amendment, which specifically authorizes the income tax, was proposed on July 12, 1909.
                        
                        8.  The 17th Amendment, which required Senators be elected by the people, was proposed on May 13, 1912.
                        
                        9.  The 18th Amendment, which prohibited alcohol, was proposed on December 18, 1917.
                        
                        10.  The 19th Amendment, which ensures women the right to vote, was proposed on June 4, 1919.
                        
                        11.  The 20th Amendment, which sets the dates for the beginning of congressional and presidential terms, was proposed on March 2, 1932.
                        
                        12.  The 21st Amendment, which repealed Amendment 18, was proposed on February 20, 1933.
                        
                        13.  The 22nd Amendment, which sets the presidential two-term limit, was proposed on March 21, 1947.
                        
                        14.   The 23rd Amendment, which grants Washington D.C. electoral votes, was proposed on June 17, 1960.
                        
                        15.  The 24th Amendment, which ensures the vote cannot be taken away for failing to pay a poll tax, was proposed on August 27, 1962.
                        
                        16.  The 25th Amendment, which details presidential disability procedures, was proposed on July 6, 1965.
                        
                        17.  The 26th Amendment, which ensures the vote to all citizens over the age of 18, was proposed on March
                        23,1971.
                        
                        18.  The 27th Amendment, which restricts raises in congressional pay, was proposed on September 25, 1789.
                        
                        
                        http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html
                        
                        
                        I ever tell you about touring the John Adams house and seeing one of the Original copies hanging on the wall?  Truly an awesome experience.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Interesting,

                           replyreport
      2. 76

         Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         whoisit
         Driving in America=Privilege
         Whoist might be right about this one,
         
         Almost everything has turn from being a Right to a Privilege. Who needs the Constitution when rich are most likely to own your home, your job and most of the good land. Too bad most of us don't belong to their club.

         replyreport
         1. 55

            whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Driving has never been a right.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Never
               
               1910, North America's first driver's licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs. In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.

               replyreport
               1. 55

                  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Thats right, never!

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     1893, the Duryea brothers' first automobile was constructed and successfully tested on the public streets of Springfield, Massachusetts.
                     
                     Give or take 16 years

                     replyreport
                     1. 55

                        whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Thats nice, driving has never been a right, never.

                        replyreport
                        1. 74

                           Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           What is a legal definition of a driver?
                           
                           What is DRIVER?
                           One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not astreet railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
                           
                           
                           
                           Read more: What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black's Law Dictionary)
                           
                           
                           
                           The Right To Travel
                           
                           As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
                           
                           http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel
                           
                           
                           Are you sure?
                           
                           Do not believe it!
                           
                           Is it illegal to drive?

                           replyreport
                           1. 55

                              whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Never had a right to drive.

                              replyreport
                              1. 74

                                 Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Is there  a right to elimination by defecation or urination?
                                 
                                 Breathing?
                                 
                                 
                                 Is driving illegal?
                                 
                                 The means does not need to be defined, traveling is a right!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 55

                                    whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Travel on, but there is no right to drive. And yes driving is illegal without a drivers license, suspended drivers license. And you cannot go to the DMV and demand a drivers license.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 74

                                       Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Why would you need permission to engage in a legal activity, cuz that is what you have been told?   Could you show me a LAW that states this?  Not a statute, a law!
                                       
                                       
                                       AND a legal definition of driving?

                                       report
                                       1. 55

                                          whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          What legal activity do you refer to?

                                          report
                                          1. 74

                                             Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             I added it above.
                                             
                                             
                                             Define driving?

                                             report
                                             1. 55

                                                whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                Why? Every state in the union has a law, pick a state and read.

                                                report
                                                1. 74

                                                   Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Not a statute, a law!
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   Define driving?

                                                   report
                                                   1. 55

                                                      whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                      A statute is a law.
                                                      
                                                      https://www.google.com/search?q=definit … =firefox-a
                                                      
                                                      stat·ute 
                                                      /ˈstaCHo͞ot/
                                                      Noun
                                                      
                                                          A written law passed by a legislative body: "violation of the hate crimes statute".
                                                          A rule of an organization or institution: "the appointment will be subject to the statutes of the university".

                                                      report
                                                      1. 74

                                                         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                         A statute has the power of law, it is not a law.  They are rules you may consent to abide by however.  You are free to consent to waive your rights, your choice.
                                                         
                                                         
                                                         I am a Freeman living under common law, I do not need another human being's permission to engage in lawful activities.

                                                         report
                                                         1. 55

                                                            whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                            Think what you will but if you have a drivers license you consented. If not you are in violation of the law/statute.
                                                            
                                                            You lose!

                                                            report
                                                            1. 74

                                                               Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                               How could  I lose?  I have not been to court?
                                                               
                                                               Around seven years ago, my commercial strawman did register for a license, but it was engaged in commercial activity.  Since I, the human being, am no longer traveling the roads for commercial reasons, and I have broken no laws, why would I need permission from another human being to engage in traveling?  It makes no sense.

                                                               report
                                                               1. 55

                                                                  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                                  Have a nice day.

                                                                  report
                                                            2. 65

                                                               Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                               A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county.[1] Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.[1] The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies.[1] Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or "black letter law." As a source of law, statutes are considered primary authority (as opposed to secondary authority).
                                                               
                                                               Ideally all statutes must be in harmony with the fundamental law of the land (constitutional).

                                                               report
                                                               1. 55

                                                                  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                                  Yes, statutes are laws!

                                                                  report
   2. 60

      logic,commonsenseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      500 people killed in Chicago, they have some of the strictest gun laws.
      I know it's trite to say guns do not kill people, people kill people, but it's true.  A gun laying on a table will not kill someone.  It takes someone to pick it up and using it, to kill.
      It's time to hold people responsible for their actions.  If they kill and it is positive that they are guilty, then they need to be treated in the same fashion as they treated their victims.
      If  a person is mentally ill, they need to be prevented from obtaining any kind of weapon.
      Movies and video games have numbed our morals and have made fantasy reality.
      Parents need to take responsibility for their childrens actions and work to make their children aware of their moral responsibilities to society.

      replyreport
      1. 55

         ftclickposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Guns don't kill people people do. Well, the same for a car. 
         A  car will not kill people by itself either unless turned on.
         A gun with the right props (booby trapped like in those stupid gorey movies) can kill without someone pulling the trigger.
         A license to carry a firearm is a law and a license to drive a car are mandatory. 
         I'd buy some insurance stocks big time if you are going to require people to get insurance for a firearm.  wrongful & accidental death lawsuits by firearm will go through the roof.
         logic commonsense, I agree with everything else you say though.

         replyreport
      2. 76

         Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You guys left out some two other details
         
         1. Chicago has two other nearby boarder States they can easily buy their firearms from.
         
         2. 500 murders have occurred here this year. 87% percent of these murders, or 435 of them, were committed with guns. Chicago, which has racked up more murders than any other American city this year, has been called “the murder capital of America”

         replyreport
         1. 55

            whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Were the weapons bought in those other states?

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               According to news report,
               Where would find lower cost weapons and nearby?

               replyreport
               1. 55

                  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What?

                  replyreport
         2. 77

            Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "Good people don't need laws to make them act responsibly, and bad people will find a way around those laws." —Plato, circa 300 BCE
            
            If they can't get them from the state nearby, they will get them from the black market. Drugs are illegal in this country too. We insist on banning them. So the black market has funded the flourishing growth of an enormous and brutally militarized drug cartel in Mexico (they even have submarines now!). Think how much bigger and more powerful they will come if we legislate a whole new line of products for them to sell us. When is this country going to learn the lesson of Prohibition? How stupid can we possibly be? I mean, if you want to stop violence, why do it by outlawing one weapon at a time. Why not just make all violence illegal, period?
            
            Oh wait, it is.
            
            Plato was right. Everyone clamoring for more laws are blind. The problems won't stop, but freedom will have been eroded anyway. It's the inevitable repetition of history. Our country is absolutely doomed to the slow but inevitable movement towards a police state (you know, the kind of place that has traffic cameras, phone taps, mandatory vaccinations, pat downs and body scans at airports, and only the government is armed ... yeah, that kind of stuff). Every time something bad happens, everyone gets scared, and angry, and sad, and they use those EMOTIONS to justify giving up more freedoms in the name of safety.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               secularist10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Since prohibition is a waste of time, we should allow the free trade of rocket launchers, land mines and nuclear warheads, right?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, we should absolutely rush right to the far end of absurdity and forgo having anything like genuine conversations.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     After we kill a hunred million or so people, abuse will change their minds for sure, as it has done through out mankind history.
                     
                     Too bad, for narrow minded, short sighted leaders, leading us on with guns.
                     Such a waste.

                     replyreport
                     1. 55

                        whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Once again, they are our leaders not yours!

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           It's my concern when the multi media brainwashes my countrymen.
                           Or when most of my family members live in the USA
                           OR when half my business work permits are cancel just because I won't entertain a warproject for a warlord President

                           replyreport
                           1. 55

                              whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Whatever.

                              replyreport
                  2. 59

                     secularist10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Shades:
                     
                     It's a simple question. If you're interested in a genuine conversation then you should be able to clarify your position.
                     
                     You posited that prohibition doesn't work. Evidently it works for some things but not for others?

                     replyreport
2. 66

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   Simply by being on the road, drivers are putting each other in danger. Gun ownership in and of itself does not put any individual in danger.
   
   Both of these things, though, in a free market can be up to the discretion of the individual or group who owns them. If the government didn't exercise a violent monopoly over the roads, the question wouldn't fit.

   replyreport
3. 61

   Paul Wingertposted 11 years ago

   In this day and age, gun ownership should be a privilage and individual guns (manufactured after 1898 - replica muzzleloaders don't count) should be registered every year like a car. 
   There are a couple renegade states like Missisippi and Texas that talk seceeding and passing laws to ignore upcoming federal laws. This won't be the first time that the feds had to go down to Missisippi to tell them what's up. I think we should give Texas back to Mexico.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Bigger guns won the West. Now it's the brown people in the Middle East
      
      Why do I fell like an Indain rather than a Cowboy?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         In reality, the late 19th century cowboys never battled the Indians and not stupid enough to do so. It was a common practice for the cowboys to give a cow to the Indian trip in exchange for safe passage through tribal lands. Indians weren't the cowboy's concern, it was other whites. There was some gun control in the wild west towns. Unlike the western movies, guys didn't walk into a saloon armed. Most towns required everyone to check their guns in at the sheriff's office. But the wild west days have ended a 100 years ago and we need to change with the times. No longer is the long rifle a needed tool to provide food for the family and defenece again wild animals and bandits in the vast prairie being settled. Home defence and sport shooting is still a valid point for owning a gun (no inlcuding the collection of antique guns), but not an assault rifle with a 30 round banana clip.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Man, it's just mind blowing how everyone is so willing to ignore the evidence of history. It's just ... insane. They wrote the 2nd amendment because they were smart enough, and well read enough, and recent victims of the endless cycle of how tyranny comes about. And yet, despite this modern age where books are far more accessible and affordable than they were back then ... no longer a privileged for only the rich, so many will happily throw off all that was learned at the height of the Enlightenment in favor of laziness, not just to read and think critically (and in the absence of mindless emotions, including fear) but a total unwillingness to address the real problems, whatever those may be. Fear and paranoia are the tools of tyranny, and nobody wants to read any more than what they can see pasted on that funny picture on Facebook that totally works with  their opinion, even though the claim so implied is totally fallacious once any logic is applied. Nobody cares. Death is scary. And so let's keep pretending we can legislate it away.  If we get enough mandatory health care laws and helmet laws and gun laws and what you can eat laws and what you can smoke/drink laws, etc., pretty soon NOBODY WILL EVER DIE AGAIN! OMG, THE UNICORNS WILL FINALLY COME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            
            Unfortunately, the unicorns are tyrants.

            replyreport
         2. 76

            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I’ve build many North American history displays
            
            When Columbus returned to the Hispaniola, he quickly implemented policies of slavery and mass extermination of the Taino population of the Caribbean. Within three years, five million were dead. The God rush, Christianity and piracy were born. Mass killing did not cease, however, after Columbus departed.
            
            One of the foundations of the U.S. imperialist strategy was to replace traditional leadership of the various indigenous nations, in order to expedite compliance with U.S. goals and expansion.
            
            The American native Genocide was considered to be the most ever in Mankind History. Even Hitler was impressed how the new World American contact reduced the Early American Native count population by 95%.
            
            Expansion of the European colonies led to similar genocides. "Trail of Tears" "Indian Removal" policy was put into action to clear the land for white settlers. High death rates resulted from forced marches to relocate the Indians. Probably one of the most ruinous acts to the Indians was the disappearance and killing of the buffalo.
            As a result, bigotry and racial discrimination and it still exist
            
            Genocide entered international law for the first time in 1948; the international community took notice when Europeans (Jews, Poles, and other victims of Nazi Germany) faced cultural extinction. The "Holocaust" of World War II came to be the model of genocide.
            
            What ‘s Next in the Guns and Gods World.
            The main problem with Guns is not the Death toll, It’s about power and control and the fearing threat of them, a big part of the cause of worldwide poverty. Much like the thread of nuclear war, the Americans are the only country that has actually used Nuclear weapons. Who is insane enought to use them in a world war 3, it there for threat and fear for control again and so are the guns in American for bullies
            
            The good news is most of the Global economic are not so afraid anymore and can advance their own economic growth faster than American can so, it will work out better for over all in the long run.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               So you are saying that all the empires that grew in Africa, Asia, the middle east, all the old South American empires over the last ten thousand years... all of those pale in comparison to the expansion of Europeans across North America, and after the revolution, the expansion of the U.S.? You are saying in the totality of human history around the globe, all continents, all epochs, the U.S. expansion was THE most brutal and methodical of them all throughout all of human history? 
               
               lol
               
               Uh, you got anything to back that up? I mean, yes, this is the Internet, so you can just run off any ideas you like and call them true, but, just, you know, for the sake of curiosity, I'd love to hear how you came up with that little tidbit of history there.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Country    Total firearm-related death rate    Homicides                   
                  Firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year.
                  El Salvador    50.36    50.36           
                  Jamaica          47.44    47.44   
                  Honduras       46.70    46.70           
                  Guatemala    38.52    38.52           
                  Swaziland      37.16    37.16           
                  Mexico           25.14    14.00           
                  Colombia        11.10    10.00           
                  Brazil               11.01    18.10           
                  Panama           10.92    9.92       
                  United States   10.2    3.6           
                  Philippines       9.46    9.46           
                  South Africa      9.41    NA
                  Montenegro      8.55    2.06           
                  Paraguay          7.35    7.35           
                  Nicaragua         7.14    7.14           
                  Argentina         5.65        3.00
                  firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year.
                                     
                  Recent History is more likely to repent it'sself
                  Most homicide in the world are in the Americans and the USA has the highest firearm homicide and suicide in the industrial Nations .
                  About 12 of the top 16 homicides countries are within the Americas
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  Pin point what area of history your interested in, my  extensive studies comes from  Native American building sculpture displays in museum and themes parks in North and South America for over 30 years

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Heres your gun control in action.
                     
                     http://www.wral.com/chicago-reaches-40- … /12035363/

                     replyreport
            2. 55

               whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               LOL

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  LIOL=very persuasive argument.

                  replyreport
4. 93

   peeplesposted 11 years ago

   I agree with you to a certain extent. I own guns, I have a CWP, and I have business insurance that I believe covers "damages" if I am forced to shoot someone while working. However for law abiding people who's guns are locked in their home I think a license should be required.

   replyreport
5. 60

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   This idea of American people taking over the American government just sounds so ludicrous to me.
   
   As a Vietnam vet. I am a little behind the times when it comes to weapons of today which are far more advanced than during the Vietnam era.
   
   If there is to be an uprising to take over the American government even by the American people then the military does not have to consider this a civil disobedience meaning they do not have to restrain themselves.
   
   Consider what a well trained platoon-(I said platoon = smaller numbers)
   
   If it were I commanding this platoon I would have 2 or 3 people dressed in civilian attire and infiltrate those factions who have set themselves up to fight against the government. Should people begin to pour into the streets mustard gas (not teargas) could be deployed, how many people have gas mask, not for themselves only but for every member of their family? Some people may have assault rifles but do they have armored vehicles? I suspect some of the people will probably be veterans and so they will have a few military Arsenals but the military is well supplied with more of these military arsenals. I suspect American civilians have never seen the effects of a Claymore mine, I'm guessing a lots of civilian haven't seen the effects of phosphorescent grenade. The horror of this fight is not simply going to remain in the streets but it will pour into the homes of Americans. With parents and children suffering and dying this will bring a whole new dimension to terror. And there those who really think that they can win against American military who have been at war for as long as one can remember. It's so many American men women and children dead or dying industry all because you would let me have an assault rifle... I don't know about you but it sounds crazy to me.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's pretty much exactly how it works in the Middle East each time a new tyrant pops up and the people try to throw them off. The problem with tyrants is they like to do the whole dissapearance thing, the labor camp thing, the torture political dissidents thing, and, even if people would just roll over and let democracy fail here in America so that no babies would suffer, in the end, babies suffer anyway, because tyranny only gets worse, not gentler and kinder. So, at some point, the people always fight back. And while I agree that a well trained platoon is going to be hard core against civilians, the example of Vietnam does show that civilians are not completely easy to run over. The same can be said in the Middle East now against our guys, thirty years ago against the Soviets, hell, fifteen hundred years ago against the might of Europe. George Washington was a "terrorist" and a "guerrilla" fighter against His Majesty's finest. It's always the "little guy" with less stuff that stands up to a tyrant, because tyrants are always the big a-hole pushing everyone around. That starts by taking away the ability of the people to push back, a.k.a. disarming them. Nobody wants to see babies getting mustard-gassed. But it is the fear of that very thing that gives tyrants their power. Babies don't want to grow up safe only to live in a world of oppression, death camps, labor camps, ethnic cleansing, mandatory submission to bodily invasions (brands, tattoos, vaccinations, etc.), and all the other stuff that goes on every single day on this planet all over the place, but not here. At least not yet. It will get there if we keep letting fear be the excuse for unraveling the Constitution, one thread at a time. You would trade safety for freedom, and in the end, you will have neither. (I think that's actually something Franklin said, but I'm not sure. Sounded familiar right after I typed it.)

      replyreport
      1. 60

         SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Perhaps sometime in the past your argument would be valid for but does anyone genuinely think that America's presidents are tyrants? Certainly the current president is faced with disrespect even from those old he is in charge of.
         If one is to go into battle presumably one believes they have the possibility of winning. Whoever these people are that believe they can win against the most powerful military on the earth makes me question their sanity.

         replyreport
         1. 55

            whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Who besides the military is Obama in charge of?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               It is the military I'm speaking-have we forgotten the general I think was his rank talking down about the president to the news media without even bring his concerns to the president first...

               replyreport
         2. 77

            Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Tyranny doesn't happen over night. The morons saying Obama is a tyrant are, well, morons. He is liberal, true, but not in some fanatic way. But he will allow some more chipping away at the strength of the nation, more freedoms will erode. And it's not just liberals that do it. Bush let us have our phones tapped and was perfectly happy to toss out due process of law.
            
            Nobody is saying "our presidents are tyrants." Well, okay, some people are, but you see how stupid that sounds, so ignore them. That doesn't mean you should write off anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view. The road to tyranny is a progression; it is a slow and sometimes meandering but distinct move away from personal freedom to authoritarianism. The ironic part is that it always SEEMS like a good idea to take away freedom. It SEEMS like a good idea to take guns away, or build and maintain a list of citizens who own guns so that the state can monitor them in the name of safety (or have them executed if there is a rebellion ... everyone knows about "lists" and tyranny). It SEEMS like a good idea to mandate vaccinations so that people will be healthy. It seems like a good idea to mandate lots of things. It's the old "road to hell is paved with good intentions" thing.
            
            As for your suggestion that somehow in the past my points might be more relevant. Dude! Google "Benjamin Franklin quotes" and you'll see at least twenty things he said that apply absolutely directly to America today. It's not about "in the past" his points were true, like those guys somehow lived in a more primitive world, but today we're all high and smarter now. Go read his stuff. Go read Washington's farewell address when he left office. Hell, go read Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, or Herodotus' histories. Go, actually do it, and you will see how insane and reckless your suggestion that "in the past" my arguments make sense. EVERY time is at one point a NOW, and later "in the past." But humanity hasn't changed one bit. If you think it has, you haven't studied it at all.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is one the most misunderstood and most widely discussed of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Debate over this amendment escalated in the late 20th century, when organizations lobbying for gun control in the United States found themselves debating pro-gun lobbies over its precise meaning
               
               Shadesbreath
               From listing all the pro's and con's from all of mankind history til now. It has actual changed over all for the better,  more oppertunities. Less wars per capita,yet as long as humanity exists, war will.
               
               If we look back at 100 years ago, we could see how well have come along in history.
               
               Today medicine has greatly increased our lifespan, and reduced the dangers of disease. refrigerators More conveniences, More knowledge. A person from the other side of the country can  contacting you in seconds (email), or in person in hours or days.
               
               
               People a hundred years ago  were probably more likely, to be hateful, unhealthy, stupid, closed-minded, uneducated, judgmental, unfriendly, or whatever negative largely to the modern world. Turning fantastic dreams into reality is more likely today, still can’t prove Unicorns yet.
               
               I think another Amendment is due again to take guns from away the warlords and public as I think we are more inteligent than our Biblical hard times or in American records of a 100 years ago

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL. Dude, yes, our technology is better than it was 100 years ago. But guess what, their technology was better than the generation before. So was that generations better than the one before. And so on. The Enlightenment sped things along for Europe for a few hundred years.
                  
                  I'm sure you've heard that "history repeats itself." It does. Every age, well, that whole dark ages thing aside, but every age is moving forward in technology, medicine, learning, etc. If not, we'd all be living in caves and throwing spears.
                  
                  Your decision to answer my point by pulling arbitrary statistics out of recent history only further proves that you have either no willingness to recognize that humanity is exactly as it always was, or that you can't recognize it. Which may be a product of having not studied history very carefully, or at best only very selectively.
                  
                  Furthermore, you have with that list of gun stats, completely evaded the issue I took with your asserting that somehow the US expansion across the continent was somehow the "most brutal" in all of history or whatever your words were. That is ludicrous, and once again reveals a grotesque lack of global and historical context. Now, I'm hardly trying to argue that the taking over of North America by the Europeans who became Americans was done in a polite and civil manner, but for Pete's sake man, have you never heard of the Mexica (Aztecs)? The Mongols? The Romans? The Ottoman Empire? I mean, dude, I could go on. There were Chinese dynasties, Egyptian conquests, Countless middle eastern and African kingdoms and empires, genocides (you see Hotel Rwanda?).  I mean, come on, man, I realize it's fun to argue in forums, but you are insane if you think the US expansion represented anything different than what happened everywhere else, always.
                  
                  Yes, we should try to be better than that. I get it. But the ONLY  way we can actually try to be better is not to pretend that we are somehow better. We're not. If you can't admit you have a problem, you ain't going to solve it.
                  
                  And the bottom line is, history has proven over and over and over again, any population that is disarmed, is ultimately going to be subject to tyranny. Democracies end in tyranny. They always do. It happens because once the people figure out they can vote themselves money for what they like, taken from other taxpayers who don't like it, the whole thing begins to slowly unravel. The republic meant to protect minorities from majorities will fail, and as people become afraid of losing whatever it is they value, they seek a strong protector, a party who will preserve what remains of the way they like it, or who will build it the way they want it. That protection comes at a cost of liberty. It is the way of it. All we can do it try to hold it off. And, ironically, that means people like you need to be arguing for liberty, not against it, even if the liberty you are arguing for scares you. The alternative is worse. It's cowardly to choose safety for yourself today and sell out liberty for your grand children. At least that's how I see it. (And, dude, you need to read more history. It's really great, especially if you don't get anything written recently, since that's all the currently popular versions that align perfectly with the agenda of the power structure we have in place. Go read the old Greek stuff so you can see how nothing today is new, at all, and in fact, rather than being new, it was actually all old back then too.)

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes technology is better now than ever and it’s just about a matter your prospective on life, like if your life is half empty cup or half full cup. The x or y generation now is more intelligent than, when I was their age and so on.  Not trying to make anyone too comfortable, there is always room for improvement though.
                     
                     Married an Aztecs, own a home in Belize studied North and South Native American history for the last 30 years. Been studying about history since age 8. Traveled worldwide many times over. Traveled about 94 countries either as a tourist, athlete or Artist/builder program and made part of my living studying history everywhere.  Many cultures, races and nations throughout history have had there turn at world domination, it’s just The USA turn to try own the world and they will fail all the same, like all the rest. No one like the USA occupies militarily base 150 countries, have half the worlds war budget and 25% of the world’s prison.  My job as an artist is to make people aware, the world will solves itself.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, at least you're backing away from that insupportable claim about how it was such a widely held truth that somehow what happened in North America was somehow different than anywhere else.
                        
                        But, you'd think that given all that travel and learning about world history you have that, you'd see the bases we have right now, and the level of control we have (assuming we have anywhere even marginally as much as you are insinuating we do, and assuming as well that the leaders of those nations are all mindless automatons who don't willingly seek us out and make sweetheart deals for themselves or roll right over when we come knocking ... if we assume that they are all helpless saints who sit with their puppies and kittens stroking the soft fur and dreaming of how one day there will be peace on Earth and then we storm in with the Navy SEALS and force our money and aid on them ... ) all of that doesn't even touch the level of imperial imposition of the Romans, the Persians, the Egyptians or the Aztecs. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even the same sport. Not even a sport really, more like a really soft-handed computer game version of the real sport those empires played.
                        
                        And Gen X and Gen Y are NOT smarter. They have the advantage of information that was built layer upon layer by people who were JUST as smart that came before them. Could you make a bronze axe? Weave shoes out of Mammoth tendons? Could you even preserve the meat from the mammoth you killed long enough to eat it for a week, much less a year back when there were mammoths? They could.
                        
                        Yeah, they weren't stupid. You mistake the accumulation of knowledge for some kind of genetic transmutation of the species. It's not. It has nothing to do with glass half empty or glass half full. That's a lovely metaphor, but it means nothing in the context of evaluation the intellectual capacity of the human animal. We are exactly the same thing we have been for thousands of years. Maybe longer, but I'm not going to go dig out my anthropology books to refresh on where cro-magnon kicks in and all that rot.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           In the near future, we may have enough plans to ‘create’ a Neanderthal baby within his lab, I don’t known enough about cro-magnon.
                           
                           A group of like-minded patriots, bound together by pride in American exceptionalism, plan on building an armed community to protect their liberty.I will not accept living in a synthetic world controlled by guns rather than controlled by the heart. The natural world laws and the true leaders throughout mankind history has been the collective consciousness of 80% of the People. People know it’s a negative to have wars terror, or guns. The people know the positive that penetrate their heart is by kindness and love. Guns are useless and will be losing the their power in the future because guns do not have mural benefits like your home, car or dog.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, I know. They already did it. They called it the United States of America. And now a bunch of short-sighted and terrified-but-well-meaning citizens are working with a grotesque lack of historical context to subvert that incredible and unique accomplishment from which they all, ironically, have benefited so greatly. It is bewildering to say the least.
                              
                              
                              Well, I hear you can purchase seats on privately owned spaceships now. It's pretty expensive, but you don't have to stay. See if they will sell you a one-way flight, I guess.
                              
                              
                              I am mainly with you here, and won't even point out how far off (and pessimistically so) your number there is. I'm assuming you made that up for the point of pointmaking, which is fine. The rest, spot on in my opinion. This part of your post made me think you might actually be starting to see at least part of how it works. And for that reason, and in hopes that this time it will make sense to you, I will, yet again, share what Plato, who agreed with you also, said 2500 years ago about this sort of thing:
                              
                              Good people do not need laws to act responsibly, and bad people will find ways around those laws.
                              
                              And, sadly, this is where you lost it again and went all ...
                              

                              replyreport
                              1. 65

                                 Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 "Good people do not need laws to act responsibly, and bad people will find ways around those laws."
                                 
                                 Your reasoning fails because, as in the case of automobile speed limits and the prohibition against drunk driving, fair weight and measure laws, antitrust laws, etc.,  gun control laws help reduce, not eliminate, antisocial behavior. Proponents of gun control aren't claiming that additional laws and better enforcement will eliminate gun deaths but that they will bring about reductions in gun deaths of all kinds.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 76

                                    Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Good thing, that many don't think of me as flaming ass goodie two shoes
                                    
                                    so true ."Good people do not need laws to act responsibly, and bad people will find ways around those laws."

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 77

                                    Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    You can take away everything if you want, and then everyone will be safe.
                                    
                                    The desire—well-intended but completely blind to human nature and history as it is—to legislate all risk out of a free society is what is going to ultimately destroy the free part, leaving only "society," and one based entirely on authoritarian edict. Freedom has risk. The only way to remove all risk is to remove all freedom. The extreme example being lock everyone in a tiny glass box, hook them up to feeding tubes and never let them interact. That is the pinnacle of safety, nobody can possibly hurt anyone else. It is also the antithesis of freedom (much less of life or society). The more interaction you allow people and the more freedoms they have, the more dangers are introduced.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 65

                                       Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       "The only way to remove all risk is to remove all freedom. "
                                       
                                       I haven't heard anyone suggesting that we attempt to "remove all risk." That's obviously impossible. Reducing risk IS POSSIBLE if we set our minds to it.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Yet, most of the things we try don't work, and bring about unintended consequences worse than the original problem.

                                          report
                                    2. 76

                                       Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Land of the Free, God we trust (All others pay cash)
                                       I know countries that give every citizen free land, not the greatest piratcy bail out of all times
                                       
                                       Where do you draw the line?
                                       
                                       My line is drawn when anyone harms, steals too much and lack a great deal of honesty and that dose not matter what country you come from. Other words, there are too many laws that make very little sense, or out dated.  The excuse for American Hunting game has turn to Iraq X times 80 American deaths.
                                       
                                       Do anything you want, as long has it dose harm others and nature with a good degree of honesty.

                                       report
                                    3. 76

                                       Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Edison took a 1000 tries to get the light bulb right
                                       Then the light bulb conspiracy of throw away products came along, and then throws away relationships

                                       report
6. 61

   Disappearingheadposted 11 years ago

   How much of this gun ownership is attributed to self defence from the armed robber and pedophile, versus an unsubstantiated paranoid fear that the government is going to:
   1. turn into a neo-communist socialist regime?
   2. ask the United Nations to come and take over the country?
   3. hand power over to the Rockafellers?
   4. enforce the mark of the beast?
   Delete as applicable.

   replyreport
   1. 55

      whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Who cares? Its our constitutional right to own them.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It's our constitutional right to own arms, but arms can be regulated and certain arms can be banned which it also constitutional.

         replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      From what I can see, all the above plus assassination of abortion doctors and members of U.S. Congress.

      replyreport
7. 60

   Superkevposted 11 years ago

   Chicago, Ill 2012 - 506 Homicides
   
   Austin, TX 2012 - 35 Homicides
   
   Chicago is a heavily gun restricted city, Austin, not so much.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's not a convincing argument is it. I may not be an American, but even I can see that Chicago and Austin have completely different demographics, economies, and cultures. Enough differences to blur any so called effects of gun restrictions.

      replyreport
8. 60

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   From my perspective apparently human life in America amounts to very little. As  there are those of us who stand concrete in our rhetoric that we are safe with an endless amount of guns in our society.
   
   Doctor shot dead in exam room; man in custody
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/doctor-shot-dead- … 50156.html
   
   Number of gun deaths since the Newtown, shooting-700 Gun Deaths
   
   http://bobbiblogger.wordpress.com/2013/ … -shooting/
   
   This website says gun deaths exceed 1,000
   
   http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/284169.html

   replyreport
9. 65

   Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

   From last week's gun news: Joe Nocera in today's NY Times
   
   Eleaquin Temblador had plans. He was working to earn his high school diploma and wanted to join the U.S. Marine Corps and marry his girlfriend. ... Instead, family members are planning Temblador’s funeral. For reasons no one can explain, gunmen in a light-colored, older-model vehicle gunned down the 18-year-old ... as he rode his bicycle home from his girlfriend’s house.
   
   — Dailybreeze.com, Los Angeles
   
   Relatives of a teen who was shot while playing basketball at a local park said the 16-year-old is now paralyzed from the waist down. ... Police said the shooter, a 17-year-old boy, had a gun stuck in his waistband. While he was playing basketball, someone bumped into him and the gun went off. ...
   
   — Click Orlando.com
   
   Tuesday, Jan. 22:
   
   A Baton Rouge man who authorities said was playing with a gun was booked ... in the accidental shooting of his 2-year-old brother. ... [The man’s uncle] said the teen had armed himself due to “environmental pressure” from neighborhood friends.
   
   — The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La.
   
   The New Mexico teenager who used an assault rifle to kill his mother, father and younger siblings told police he hoped to shoot up a Walmart after the family rampage and cause “mass destruction.” ... Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old son of an Albuquerque pastor ... “stated he wanted to shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement,” the [police] report said.
   
   — ABC News
   
   Wednesday, Jan. 23:
   
   Kansas City police arrested a 16-year-old Ruskin High School student accused of shooting at a school bus after the driver refused to allow him to board on Wednesday.
   
   — The Kansas City Star
   
   A 4-year-old boy has died after being shot in the head Wednesday. ... The deputy [sheriff] located the child’s body inside of a Ford Taurus. There was a bullet hole in the roof of the car. ... “Jamarcus loved Batman, Spider-Man and football and was looking forward to starting kindergarten,” [his mother] said.
   
   — Newsnet5.com, Akron, Ohio
   
   Thursday, Jan. 24:
   
   The estranged husband of a woman found dead in her Madison apartment Thursday was found dead in his home ... of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. ... “We can’t really believe it; I mean, these things happen on TV, they don’t happen to us,” [her stepmother] said. “We’re middle class, normal Americans, and she was a nice girl.”
   
   — WISC-TV, Madison, Wis.
   
   Police said an 11-year-old girl is in critical condition after being shot in the face by her father in a New Jersey home on Thursday night. Investigators said 27-year-old Byaer Johnson apparently entered the home to visit his young daughter. ... He was asked to leave, then picked up a handgun and shot his daughter.
   
   — CBS News
   
   Friday, Jan. 25:
   
   An Oakland police officer was shot and wounded Friday evening, the second officer in the city to be injured by gunfire this week. ... The shooting happened after a man in a car ran a stop sign, crashed into another car ... and ran off. Shortly thereafter, an uncle and his nephew reported that they were shot a block away by a man who tried to steal the uncle’s bicycle.
   
   — SFGate.com
   
   A man has been charged with murder for fatally shooting his brother during a “domestic” dispute outside a South Side Englewood home Friday afternoon. ...
   
   — Chicago.CBSlocal.com
   
   Saturday, Jan. 26:
   
   A party in Salem that spilled outdoors ended in drive-by gunfire that hit at least two people and riddled a car and nearby homes. ...
   
   — KOINlocal6, Salem, Ore.
   
   A 55-year-old man has been released from custody after allegedly shooting and killing his own dog. Police say Gordon Lagstrom was drunk Saturday night when he pulled a .38 caliber handgun and shot to death his 4-year-old Australian terrier, Lena.
   
   — Boston.CBSlocal.com
   
   The city broke a nine-day murder-free streak last night when a man was found dead in the basement of a Queens apartment complex, police said. The 20-year-old victim, whose name was not released, had been shot in the head.
   
   — New York Post
   
   Among those killed Saturday was a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings. Police say Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother’s youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a car. Police say two separate double-homicide shootings also occurred Saturday about 12 hours apart. ... Chicago’s homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008.
   
   — CBS News
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opini … n&_r=0

   replyreport
   1. 60

      SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph,
      
      You have made it clear at least to me that assault rifles are not the only threat to animal and human life when it comes to guns.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That's true. Handguns are a bigger problem statistically. Assault weapons produce more horrific multiple killings.

         replyreport
         1. 97

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You have heard that Newtown was done with handguns, not a rifle at all, let alone an assault rifle?

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               No, I hadn't. It was widely reported that Lanza used a Bushmaster.
               
               "But the AR-15 style rifle — the most popular rifle in America, according to gun dealers — was also the weapon of choice for Adam Lanza, who the police said used one made by Bushmaster on Friday to kill 20 young children and six adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in a massacre that has horrified the nation."
               
               http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/la … wanted=all
               
               It doesn't matter. Pistols with big magazines can kill a lot of people also. You agree that handguns are a bigger problem than assault weapons?
               
               As I recall the guy who shot Gabby Gifford and several others in Tucson used a handgun with a big magazine.
               
               From what I read in the newspaper nearly every morning handguns are used more than any other weapon in bank robberies, drug wars, accidents, etc.
               
               Here's a more recent report (January 21) which says Lanza used more than one gun:
               
               http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/31221-u … shootings/
               
               Here's Wikipedia's report, the most complete I've seen. It says Lanza used a Bushmaster, and two handguns--a Glock and a  9mm Sig Sauer handgun.
               
               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook … l_shooting

               replyreport
               1. 97

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The latest police report I saw said that there was a rifle left outside, that the only guns found inside were pistols.  Didn't pay a lot of attention because, as you are aware, I'm not real concerned with the tool used.  Just thought that it was ironic when it has caused so much furor about banning assault weapons and there wasn't even one used.
                  
                  As you say, it doesn't matter - whether a killer uses pistols, assault rifles or tubs of hot oil is immaterial.  That they are there to kill and need either to be stopped or proactive intervention to help prevent even the very thought of a mass murder to "make a point" or some other inane and insane reason is what does matter.

                  replyreport
   2. 61

      Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      For the life of me I just cannot understand the mentality of those who turn a blind eye to the daily gun tragedies in your country and insist that there should be no increase in gun control. Just how does the right to carry a gun outweigh all these senseless deaths?
      
      After the Dunblane shooting in Scotland where a man armed with two handguns entered a primary school and killed several children, handguns were immediately outlawed. There were no concessions, and mandatory 5 years in prison is now given to anyone in possession of one. The government received full backing from the people for this action.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You don't have the Crips, Bloods or MS-13 knocking on your doors and carjacking your people, that's why you don't understand.
         
         Law Abiding gun owners are not the issue. One almost uniquely American attribute is, mostly, we refuse to be victims.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            1. In 2008, 2,947 children and teens died from guns in the United States and 2,793 died in 2009
            for a total of 5,740
            
            2.Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.
            
            3.The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.
            
            Uniquely American and refuse to be victims ? almost Lol

            replyreport
            1. 55

               whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               All those deaths by guns and its still the 15th leading cause of death, you are not American so why do you care?

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Firearm Homicide is Raked 15th cause of death,
                  
                  What about firearms towards suicides, wars, and terror?
                  What about authorities’ firearms those who kill more people than the criminals firearms do?
                  What about negative oppression of people into poverty worldwide, because of ruling capitalist bigger Guns?
                  
                  What about all these firearms and their deaths?

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     That was all firearm deaths, thank you for understanding.

                     replyreport
            2. 60

               Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               It remains valid because it confirms your bias. I like to go with the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, which show a very different story.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Show some

                  replyreport
      2. 61

         Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         @Disappearinghead "For the life of me I just cannot understand the mentality of those who turn a blind eye to the daily gun tragedies in your country and insist that there should be no increase in gun control." You have to understand the there are a good portion of Americans that are poorly educated, unable to comprehend our 2nd Amendment and just plain idiots. And out of these, some get elected so they can spread their stupidity to the masses.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            So it would seem.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Your right, stupidity is the the number one killer

               replyreport
10. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    example:
    
    I am not engaged in any commercial activity.  My vehicle is road worthy.  I am traveling to my mate's flat, a few miles away.  In front of his house law enforcement pulls me over, I have broken no traffic safety laws.
    
    What law has been broken, and who is the injured party that I will be able to confront in a court, which is my right?
    
    
    Lies, oppression taught to us all our lives, and we blindly accept it and consent to live under the tyranny.  Watching the shadows on the cave wall and completely disregarding the light of truth behind us.

    replyreport
    1. 55

       whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The injured party is the state in which you are driving. You don't know much about this do you?

       replyreport
11. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    You are either a Freeman, or a slave!
    
    Do you consent to be property?

    replyreport
    1. 55

       whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       LOL, give up.

       replyreport
    2. 55

       whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Reality does bite, don't it?

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Ponder, research just a little deeper.  Understand your sovereign status in the United States, where the people are supreme!

          replyreport
12. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    Within a courtroom, it is case law that is cited. Precedent must be set.  Statutes are not laws if they were they would be law not statute.
    
    In order for a crime to have been committed, there must be an injured party.  Third party complaints are useless.
    
    Of course, you can plead to anything you want, but without understanding, the plea is in ignorance.

    replyreport
    1. 55

       whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Give it up. You are wrong.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No, I am not.
          
          
          You are believing falsehoods simply because an entity you think has supreme authority says so, I walk the walk!

          replyreport
          1. 55

             whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             You need to walk if you have no drivers license.

             replyreport
             1. 74

                Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                So when I go outside, get in my vehicle and proceed to travel, I am imagining it?
                
                
                
                
                You are being deceived.

                replyreport
                1. 55

                   whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   No, you are breaking the law, and you may get away with it.

                   replyreport
13. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    There is a constitutional right to face your accuser?  No accuser, no crime!

    replyreport
    1. 55

       whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       There is an accuser it is the officer who filed the charge. Weird how you don't know that.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If an officer has been harmed by an individual, it is their obligation to prove the loss. They will act as a witness, but as an accuser:
          
          Police Officer
          
          vs
          
          Your name
          
          Nope!
          
          No law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or district attorney is going to make the claim.  If questioned, the case will never see a trial court!
          
          Once again. you can consent to anything you want, without your consent, the charges will not stand.
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 55

             whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             You really are confused about how this all works. But its ok.

             replyreport
             1. 74

                Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                The confusion is not on my part.  I fully understand my status as a sovereign individual.  I am also aware of the difference between a common and admiralty jurisdiction.  But I do understand how you could be confused.  It is not as if the government system of indoctrination teaches this in their education curriculum.  It requires an individual capable of critical thinking,  and the ability to question authority.  It is alright if a person is content to be the property that the government believes they are, as a matter of fact, they depend on it to sustain their existence.
                
                
                sov·er·eign 
                
                Noun
                A supreme ruler
                
                Adjective
                Possessing supreme or ultimate power
                
                Synonyms
                noun.      monarch - ruler - king - lord - potentate
                adjective.      paramount - supreme - independent

                replyreport
                1. 76

                   Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   You know a lot about America

                   replyreport
                2. 55

                   whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   I guess murder isn't a crime if you decide it isn't?

                   replyreport
                   1. 74

                      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      DUGHHH!!!
                      
                      There would be an injured party!
                      
                      You really do not comprehend the difference?

                      replyreport
                      1. 55

                         whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         I'm afraid it is you who does not understand, better go check and see who the injured party is in any crime. It is always against the peace and dignity of (insert state). Based on what you have said all day the murder victim could not confront you in court, so the charges must be dropped.
                         
                         You do not know the law, you have failed again.

                         replyreport
                         1. 74

                            Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            Failed, how have I failed?
                            
                            Failed to convince an individual to contemplate their existence?  Failed to convince an individual of their bondage?
                            
                            If that is failure to you, it may not be to other readers, so your sense of failure is quite subjective!

                            replyreport
                3. 74

                   Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   Some legal rulings on the status of a resident of the United States!
                   
                   US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941):
                   
                   
                   "Since in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it.
                   
                   
                   
                   1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey:
                   
                   "... Our government is founded upon compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"
                   
                   
                   1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith:
                   
                   "People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative."
                   
                   
                   US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402:
                   
                   "The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ...  The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ..."
                   
                   
                   US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581:
                   
                   "... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure."
                   
                   
                   US Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, page 370:
                   
                   "While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people ..."
                   Yick Wo is a powerful anti-discrimination case. You might get the impression that the legislature can write perfectly legal laws, yet the laws cannot be enforced contrary to the intent of the people. It's as if servants do not make rules for their masters. It's as if the Citizens who created government were their masters. It's as if civil servants were to obey the higher authority. You are the higher authority of Romans 13:1. You as ruler are not a terror to good works per Romans 13:3. Imagine that! Isn't it a shame that your government was surrendered to those who are a terror to good works? Isn't it a shame that you enlisted to obey them?
                   
                   
                   US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421:
                   
                   "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld."
                   
                   http://www.usa-the-republic.com/mark%20 … endixD.htm

                   replyreport
14. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    The injured party is a human being.  Not a legal fiction.  Murder is an actual loss, while driving without a license harms no one or nothing!
    
    There is a requirement of standing.  If an individual steals from a store, there is enough standing to pursue a claim.  There is a loss/harm that can be proven.
    
    The only loss in driving without a license is loss of revenue to the state, that is a civil matter.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I wish most laws simplfied down to loss or Harm, guns are design or loss or harm for most part.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          True, firearms are weapons of destruction.  Why do the laws differentiate between persons?  If a person, such as Blackwater is allowed to own a specific type of firearm, why can't every person retain that right?  Why are human beings held to higher standards than corporate people?
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 55

             whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             

             replyreport
    2. 55

       whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You know, I agree with the sentiment but it makes no difference. The law says if you are operating a motor vehicle on public roads you must have a drivers license. Every state has the same law! Now, you are saying that it is unenforceable because there is no injured party. I am saying it is enforceable because I and every other citizen in the state is the injured party, we have given peace officers in that state the authority to act on our behalf to enforce the law!
       
       You can argue all day and night and you will be wrong all day and night.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Well put.

          replyreport
       2. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
          - Thomas Jefferson
          
          
          If engaged in commercial activity, I concede the people have a right to have their representatives regulate the actions.  Merely travelling and causing no harm is an unjust law, and the majority has no right to impose their will on the individual.  If it is simply for the revenue, it is not a criminal matter, it is civil and falls under a jurisdiction outside the authority of law enforcement agents.
          
          The right to travel can be infringed upon due process, but if no crime has been committed, driving without a license is irrelevant.

          replyreport
          1. 55

             whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Driving without a license is what we are talking about The thread is titled "We all need licenses and insurance for a car, not firearms?" Only you are talking about traveling!

             replyreport
             1. 74

                Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Same thing.  Requesting permission to engage in legal activities is unjust.  All persons are equal under law, I do not need another's permission or requirement of a license to involve myself in legal actions.
                
                What is the legal definition of driving?  That is what we are discussing

                replyreport
                1. 74

                   Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   Would you support the requirement of a permit to engage in coitus?
                   
                   Freemen do, slaves ask!

                   replyreport
                2. 55

                   whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   You refuse to accept reality, which is odd given your name.

                   replyreport
                   1. 74

                      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      It is not I, but you that is having difficulty with reality.
                      
                      You have been defending your own oppression, actually clamoring for more, which is your right.
                      
                      It is the worshipping of authority that is the stumbling block.  If da gub' a' ment says it, it has to be true.  Unquestioning obedience is a malady that has lowered the residents of the United States from sovereign individuals to chattel slaves.
                      
                      btw: I enjoy civil discussions. 

                      replyreport
                      1. 55

                         whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         No, I have been explaining to you to no avail that you by law must have a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. You have been railing against it because you don't like it, but in any case I am right and you are wrong.
                         
                         Now you can continue to fight the power.

                         replyreport
                         1. 74

                            Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            I know, you believe in blind obedience to your masters.  As a Freeman, I have no masters, but I will not oppose your right to do as you please.
                            
                            Where would you draw the line?  Would you willingly go to your local town hall to request a Coitus Permit if legislated to do so?
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            "Just victims of the in-house drive-by
                            They say jump, you say how high"
                            
                            RATM
                            
                            What is the legal definition of driving?

                            replyreport
                            1. 55

                               whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                               No I don't think I would do that, but I will keep my drivers license. It just makes life a little easier.

                               replyreport
                               1. 74

                                  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                  OK, I fully understand that.  It is easier to just submit to the oppression.  It does make life simper, but that does not mean you cannot be aware of whether the rule is just or unjust.
                                  
                                  When I am employed and need to get to work, I also get my strawman licensed as I am engaging in commercial pursuits, but to just roll over to my homie's pad, not so much.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 55

                                     whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                     I don't feel all that oppressed, plus its needed when I buy firearms.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 74

                                        Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                        And alcohol!
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        Whoop Whoop!
                                        
                                        

                                        report
15. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    I understand that the legal system enforces the statutes.  Why are they able to do this? Because people do not know better and plead guilty out of fear.  Yet, if everyone charged with unjust laws takes the opportunity to oppose the charge, the legal system would become so overwhelmed, they would have to cease the enforcement.
    
    We can use the system to our advantage if we just realized the actual authority we hold.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I get that it is really our right to have a car license within reason. I think the illusions that Whoist is taking about is that most people are enslaved by debt and much like the illusion of people owning  an American dream home.  Many places in Canada and the USA.  If a person cannot pay their financial obligation toward many kinds of Government debt situation. 
       
       For example filing bankruptcy may or may not  help you get your drivers license back if it was taken away due to unpaid tickets or an accident or without proper insurance. The license is taken away because people did not meet a financial obligation, and the state imposes loss of the license as a penalty for that.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          So you understand requesting permission to engage in legal activities,  and paying the extortion fees to do so is nothing more than a system of control?
          
          The truly sad part is, the debt is a lie as well.  An individual is allowed to borrow worthless computer code, and if unable to pay, the bank repossess actual property.  Think about it, the banks were bailed out when it was realized that a significant number of borrowers were going to default.  Their little fictionally backed securities were worthless.   The people's wealth rescued them out of their difficulties while human beings suffered.  The banks are now earning a profit, AND they own the properties that have actual value.  The people are now being oppressed by their ridiculously high usury fees due to the impact on their credit rating. The individual is having their available, revolving credit lines (cards)  revoked, causing their debt to income percentage to lower their credit scores, once the score reaches a predetermined number the interest rates skyrocket.
          
          The largest hoax ever perpetrated.  So nefarious that the majority of the people will never even begin to grasp the criminal activity engaged in by the world's supposed leaders.
          
          Yet the residents of the United States are sovereign, never in history has the common human being retained such authority, but because it is repressed knowledge, the people allow their servants to dictate almost every aspect of their lives.  Stupid Statute rules are not in place to prevent any particular activity.  They are used in full knowledge that they will be broken.  The government depends on these statute violation fees to sustain their existence.  But as long as the masses are entertained with bread and circuses, they consent to the multiple levels of deceit and oppression that exist, trading their supreme authority for beneficial breadcrumbs. They have no idea, every law has become so complex, the majority of people could never understand the American legal system, our prisons are constructed with legislative actions !
          
          "Not having knowledge of the law is no excuse, so we are going to make it so F'ing confusing, we cannot even understand it all ourselves!"  Da Gub' a' ment.
          
          Do you know there is no legal definition of a terrorist. The definition is, if the Corporation of the UNITED STATES says you are a terrorist, you are.  Bang bang your dead, no trial, no reason said...   Shhhh!,  state secrets?

          replyreport
          1. 76

             Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             By GW. Bush and gang,  I had my USA work permits taking away for refusing to do a War sculpture for them.
             Maybe I was lucky, because, “ if you’ll not for them, your a terrorist. “
             
             There is no forgiveness for people who owe the Government like for car insurances, student loans, fines, child and spouse support and etc. Seems like hell for them to be indebt forever and have their car license taken away to top it all off.

             replyreport
16. 65

    Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

    Did conservative talk radio wind Jimmy Lee Dykes up?
    
    "Descriptions of Jimmy Lee Dykes, who murdered a school bus driver, kidnapped a boy from the bus and is holding him hostage in a six by eight foot bunker in Alabama, may give evidence that conservative talk radio should join video games on the NRA's don't-blame-guns list of societal influences that cause people to use guns to kill."
    
    "Michael Creel said Dykes kept to himself and listened to a lot of conservative talk radio.
    
    “He was very into what’s going on with the nation and the politics and all the laws being made. The things he didn’t agree with, he would ventilate,” he said.
    
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/0 … -his-anger

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Who really knows where this angry man is really coming from?
       Dykes, a Vietnam vet who moved to hide away in Florida outleted by a radio is coming from. He may have killed a man in Vietnam that harmed his soul and by a lack of healing or mental help in the US. He may have taken it out on somewhere else, anywhere else.
       
       Yes killing is a mental illness, killing him by the death penalty to prove killing is wrong, only proves the authorities are wrong rather than making him work in prison for life and find ways to treat his mental illness. Beside death penalty cost more than life in prison and if the authorities make him work for every freedom like even reading a book, all the better for all of us
       
       Cause and effect- Killing only promote more killing in general. My hands are clean, I better make sure of that before I point my finger on any topic.

       replyreport