Another shooting, close to

[Andrey]

the ones you keep highlighting as containing all of the subliminal messages that support your argument?

When you understand that all the shows, music videos and movies you watch are produced by the same people who brainwash into believing everything you believe and you realize that these ppl do not really care about well-being, it is only logical to minimize your exposure to it.

Who are these ppl?
The elite? Maybe Kennedy can help you understand who they are:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8"]Kennedy Speech Conspiracy Secret Societies - YouTube[/ame]

These ppl are in all fields of our lives. From science to politics. These ppl control all natural resources. All money supply. They create booms and busts of the economy. Recessions and depressions. They control education systems of most countries in the world. They put chemicals in your water, so you are not as smart and have more medical problems. Then they produce medications to treat you. They spray your skies to control weather. They make treating cancer with natural means illegal. They are parasites. Who are they? They are not peasants that's for sure.

 

[dchuk]

You are still skipping over the details. If you want to use that firearm once you leave the store you will need some kind of safety training. It's different everywhere but they exist. It could be in the form of a hunters safety course (mandatory to hunt in most states). Or a training class for a concealed carry permit. That 10 day wait you mentioned (Cali is known for excessive red tape) is meant to serve 2 purposes. 1 to verify your background. 2 as a cooling off period incase you want to kill someone (usually works).

So I get a federal background check I have gotten a minimum of 2 government issued id's stating I can have a gun and can use it. How many more pieces of paper should I get from the government? Do you think bubba got his paperwork for his Uzi? Should the government create a safety course for the bloods and crips ? That way they can use te guns they got from the cartel (supplied by oboma) in a safe manor? Does your plan include an enforcement program to go out and confiscate the bad guys guns?

if you're buying a gun for self defense, don't you think you should be required to be thoroughly tested on how to safely use the gun in the first place? How could requiring safety training for guns ever be a bad thing?

Also, I'm not talking about confiscation of guns from bad guys, however if we moved to a license system then I would support the idea that if you are found with a weapon without having a gun license, you should have them confiscated and be forced to go get said gun licenses. I think this is reasonable.

 

[IceToEskimos]

I think this is reasonable.

What is reasonable about requiring people to have a license to own property?

 

[dchuk]

If you feel that training and education are the solution, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with people needing to undergo alcohol education classes, submit to background checks (to look for violent tendencies), and thumbprinting (to assist in identification in the event the alcohol user does commit a crime while under the influence) in order to be licensed to purchase and consume alcohol.

I'll ask you again.

If guns are so harmful and dangerous to the public that they need this sort of regulation, why do we not require people who are going to choose to lower their inhibitions, reaction speed, and judgement capabilities by imbibing alcohol to undergo the same scrutiny?

Alcohol is more dangerous and it's sales are less regulated than firearms, yet you do not have a problem with that. So you can't be arguing for public health, I want to know what you are arguing for?

Why guns?

Is it the way they look?

The fact that they are more apparently violent?

Perhaps it's the fact that people sometimes intentionally use guns to hurt others, while users of alcohol manage to do all of their killing without motive.

I think that's it, I think you have a problem with the idea that some people want to hurt other people sometimes.

Good luck legislating your way out of that.

You're posing a good argument here and I have to admit it's tricky for me at this point. However, I stand by my statement that alcohol is a consumable where a gun is a weapon and I think the regulation for each should be different as they are fundamentally different

A gun's first purpose is to harm, whether that's for murder, self defense, or even just hunting. Alcohol is responsibly consumed by massive amounts of people. Yes, alcohol abuse is a problem, and yes, drunk driving is a problem.

Do I think we should require testing and licensing for alcohol? I'm not rooting for the idea, no, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it if it came to be. Any responsible adult should be able to pass such tests with flying colors, just as I said when arguing for a gun test. If you're responsible and educated then you should have no problems at all.

We can all agree that there exists a problem in America with responsibility and education, as can be seen with America's inability to not be obese, falling education rankings, and excessive drug and alcohol abuse. I honestly support licensing, training, and education programs as long term solutions to such problems.

Currently, we do have provisions in place to limit the ability of risky alcohol drinkers from causing harm to others. In the case of drunk driving, if you get a DUI, you get yourself a breathalyzer in your car for a year. Second DUI, jail time and full license revocation. Third, you're fucked.

Does that stop the initial drunk driving? Nope. Should we require an alcohol education course and testing every few years? Possibly? I don't know if studies show that an alcohol education course would actually make a difference to abusers in much the same way DARE didn't actually help with limiting drug use. I had to take an alcohol education course in college and we all laughed at it because we were a bunch of college kids. No one is surprised by the effects of alcohol so I don't think there's much we can really educate about booze that can change people's behaviors with it. With guns, there are tangible lessons to learn regarding how to properly handle and use them.

My argument is that consumable products are fundamentally different than weaponry. Weapons are made to harm. Consumables can be abused. I think weapons should require extensive training and licensing before being allowed to purchase them.

Do you support that idea?

 

[dchuk]

What is reasonable about requiring people to have a license to own property?

When the property is purposefully built to harm, I don't see how it's unreasonable to require a license for it. I suppose if you own non-functional or antique weapons for collecting reasons then you don't need a license, but if the gun works, what's wrong with having to take a safety and operating test to receive your gun license?

If you need a license in order to hunt and kill animals, why shouldn't you need a license (even for self-defense) in order to hurt/kill someone attacking you?

 

[dmnEPC]

if you're buying a gun for self defense, don't you think you should be required to be thoroughly tested on how to safely use the gun in the first place? How could requiring safety training for guns ever be a bad thing?

Also, I'm not talking about confiscation of guns from bad guys, however if we moved to a license system then I would support the idea that if you are found with a weapon without having a gun license, you should have them confiscated and be forced to go get said gun licenses. I think this is reasonable.

That's what I am trying to tell you. These safety course requirements already exist. Every state is different but I am telling you the government has already forced me to do take these (twice) safety courses. How many more should I take before your comfortable? What do we do about Bubba? He didn't take the course. And yet he still got an illegal Uzi in his trunk.

If you want to further gun control figure out away to take the guns from the criminals I will stand besides you and scream from the roof tops. But if you want to make it more difficult for honest tax paying citizens, forget it. These hoops you keep asking for already exist.

 

[IceToEskimos]

A gun's first purpose is to harm, whether that's for murder, self defense, or even just hunting. Alcohol is responsibly consumed by massive amounts of people.

Property has no purpose, it has uses, but no purpose. People have purpose, and they use property to fulfill their purpose, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad, but the fact remains that a gun by itself is no more dangerous than a bottle of vodka on the shelf. These items only gain the capacity to injure others when a human being employs them.

With guns, there are tangible lessons to learn regarding how to properly handle and use them.

There are tangible lessons to learn regarding responsible consumption of alcohol as well.

Weapons are made to harm. Consumables can be abused.

The argument is not about the potential for abuse, it's about the cost to a society and whether or not that cost can be effectively reduced via legislation. If you've determined that regulation cannot reduce the cost in human lives to an acceptable degree, I have to wonder what it is you hope to gain from regulating firearms.

 

[kingofsp]

this is one of the most fucked up images I've ever seen. Putting Obama in the same boat as the most prolific murderers in mankind's history (save for Genghis Khan) is just pandering bullshit.

The man might make mistakes but he is not a single bit evil, stop spreading shit like this it's just contributing to the ignorance of America.

I guess it's a somewhat extreme position to take, but don't you think the feverish supporters of those other three dudes (of which there were millions) would have reacted similarly to how you just did if someone tried to portray them as above (prior to their mass murdering and historical demonization)?

 

[IceToEskimos]

When the property is purposefully built to harm, I don't see how it's unreasonable to require a license for it. I suppose if you own non-functional or antique weapons for collecting reasons then you don't need a license, but if the gun works, what's wrong with having to take a safety and operating test to receive your gun license?

If you need a license in order to hunt and kill animals, why shouldn't you need a license (even for self-defense) in order to hurt/kill someone attacking you?

Hunting knives, and compound bows are built to harm, and we don't require special licenses to purchase those items.

The problem with licensing the right to own private property is that licenses can be revoked, and with them, the privilege of ownership as defined by the issuer.

With the stroke of a pen, someone can declare that the possession of property which you owned yesterday without issue, makes you a criminal today.

Additionally, they may seek to relieve you of that property. In other words, exactly what Locke is talking about when he speaks of the arbitrary disposal of the estates of the subjects as being beyond the power of the government.

By consenting to a license to own property, you are also consenting to the possibility of having that license revoked at some point in the future. If someone can arbitrarily decide that you aren't allowed to own a piece of property because your ownership license is invalid, it's hard to argue that you ever owned it in the first place.

I'll say it again.

An argument for gun control or gun regulation is an argument against property rights, and without property rights there can be no liberty on this earth.

 

[dchuk]

Hunting knives, and compound bows are built to harm, and we don't require special licenses to purchase those items.

The problem with licensing the right to own private property is that licenses can be revoked, and with them, the privilege of ownership as defined by the issuer.

With the stroke of a pen, someone can declare that the possession of property which you owned yesterday without issue, makes you a criminal today.

Additionally, they may seek to relieve you of that property. In other words, exactly what Locke is talking about when he speaks of the arbitrary disposal of the estates of the subjects as being beyond the power of the government.

By consenting to a license to own property, you are also consenting to the possibility of having that license revoked at some point in the future. If someone can arbitrarily decide that you aren't allowed to own a piece of property because your ownership license is invalid, it's hard to argue that you ever owned it in the first place.

I'll say it again.

An argument for gun control or gun regulation is an argument against property rights, and without property rights there can be no liberty on this earth.

Sure, in a society without checks and balances, you could just have a government arbitrarily revoking previously issued licenses. But with all licensing systems, there is a fully established set of rules, regulations, and laws that you must abide by in order to maintain the license, and if you violate any of those (which you agreed not to violate when applying for the license) then you're fair game for having it revoked.

This is true for drivers licenses, pilots licenses, medical doctors licenses, real estate broker licenses, and any other licenses the government offers.

So is it ok to license for professional services and vehicle operation and sales as there is no property ownership involved? Aren't doctors and lawyers at equal risk of arbitrary revocation of their licenses per your argument?

 

[dmnEPC]

Hunting knives, and compound bows are built to harm, and we don't require special licenses to purchase those items.

The problem with licensing the right to own private property is that licenses can be revoked, and with them, the privilege of ownership as defined by the issuer.

With the stroke of a pen, someone can declare that the possession of property which you owned yesterday without issue, makes you a criminal today.

Additionally, they may seek to relieve you of that property. In other words, exactly what Locke is talking about when he speaks of the arbitrary disposal of the estates of the subjects as being beyond the power of the government.

By consenting to a license to own property, you are also consenting to the possibility of having that license revoked at some point in the future. If someone can arbitrarily decide that you aren't allowed to own a piece of property because your ownership license is invalid, it's hard to argue that you ever owned it in the first place.

I'll say it again.

An argument for gun control or gun regulation is an argument against property rights, and without property rights there can be no liberty on this earth.

Check and fucking mate

+rep

Edit: you must spread some reputation around

 

[dchuk]

I guess it's a somewhat extreme position to take, but don't you think the feverish supporters of those other three dudes (of which there were millions) would have reacted similarly to how you just did if someone tried to portray them as above (prior to their mass murdering and historical demonization)?

I think it's offensive to the tens of millions killed by those men to compare our (or any US) president to them. I think it trivializes the atrocities each committed by attempting to put the actions of our president on the same plane as their forced eradication programs.

 

[IceToEskimos]

Sure, in a society without checks and balances, you could just have a government arbitrarily revoking previously issued licenses. But with all licensing systems, there is a fully established set of rules, regulations, and laws that you must abide by in order to maintain the license, and if you violate any of those (which you agreed not to violate when applying for the license) then you're fair game for having it revoked.

This is true for drivers licenses, pilots licenses, medical doctors licenses, real estate broker licenses, and any other licenses the government offers.

So is it ok to license for professional services and vehicle operation and sales as there is no property ownership involved? Aren't doctors and lawyers at equal risk of arbitrary revocation of their licenses per your argument?

I'm not talking about a license to pull out teeth, sell a condo to somebody.

I'm talking about the right of property ownership, which is one of the only tangible things that sets human beings apart from wild animals.

The concept of private property lies at the core of what human beings call "civilization" and "society" and to argue against it is to argue for savagery.




You are such a savage, dchuk.

My favorite savage.

 

[dchuk]

I'm not talking about a license to pull out teeth, sell a condo to somebody.

I'm talking about the right of property ownership, which is one of the only tangible things that sets human beings apart from wild animals.

The concept of private property lies at the core of what human beings call "civilization" and "society" and to argue against it is to argue for savagery.




You are such a savage, dchuk.

My favorite savage.

Again though, you're arguing that requiring licenses for guns is wrong because they are property and are at risk of having the license revoked arbitrarily. Doesn't that imply that risk also exists for occupations requiring licensure? How does that not make licensing for occupations also wrong and at danger of arbitrary revocation?

 

[IceToEskimos]

Again though, you're arguing that requiring licenses for guns is wrong because they are property and are at risk of having the license revoked arbitrarily. Doesn't that imply that risk also exists for occupations requiring licensure? How does that not make licensing for occupations also wrong and at danger of arbitrary revocation?

Private property is the core value of human civilization.

Fuck around with it enough, and you won't have to worry about whether or not some governing body has the right to interfere in the market by issuing professional licenses.

I'm talking about the cake, not the icing.

 

[kingofsp]

OMG will you fatasses plz stop making everything about cake

 

[dchuk]

Private property is the core value of human civilization.

Fuck around with it enough, and you won't have to worry about whether or not some governing body has the right to interfere in the market by issuing professional licenses.

I'm talking about the cake, not the icing.

I'm not arguing whether property is a core value or notwith my question, I'm asking you why you think it's acceptable for licensure of occupations if it's not acceptable for licensure of property?

 

[IceToEskimos]

I'm not arguing whether property is a core value or notwith my question, I'm asking you why you think it's acceptable for licensure of occupations if it's not acceptable for licensure of property?

I'm trying to keep this discussion about guns, and gun regulation/control.

Guns are pieces of property, not occupations, so talking about occupational licensing really isn't germane to this discussion.

If you agree that private property is a core value of human civilization, and then proceed to advocate for property ownership licensing, aren't you arguing for a less civilized society in that the line between what individuals own and do not own would be blurred and harder to understand?

 

[dchuk]

I'm trying to keep this discussion about guns, and gun regulation/control.

Guns are pieces of property, not occupations, so talking about occupational licensing really isn't germane to this discussion.

If you agree that private property is a core value of human civilization, and then proceed to advocate for property ownership licensing, aren't you arguing for a less civilized society in that the line between what individuals own and do not own would be blurred and harder to understand?

Why won't you answer my question? Is occupational licensure justifiable or not?

 

[dmnEPC]

Why won't you answer my question? Is occupational licensure justifiable or not?

It's nothing more than conjecture. What difference will it make?