Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

who woulda thunk it lol

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Just Jim, Sep 12, 2014.

  1. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
  2. balaperdida

    balaperdida eastern idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    295
    The downside to the data is that most firearms homicides involve handguns. The logical conclusion is ....
     
  3. Sam Kinard

    Sam Kinard Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    162
    The logical conclusion is that anyone thinking that firearms homicides involving handguns allows illegal infringements upon unalienable rights had better not ever operate a motor vehicle. Do you know how many people those horrible things kill every year? The downside to the data is that since some people get into car accidents and others drive drunk, the rest of us have no right to something so heinous. I know how absurd that sounds, but the people that keep acting as though they need to answer for the crimes of others should move to a Socialist nation where such insanity is actually the way it works. Here, our Constitution protects us from insane things like mob rule, folks that are scared of tools and the idea that we are not individuals.
     
  4. Riot

    Riot Benton County, Washington Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,047
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Definition of Homicide (there's a reason why they say "Homicide" and not "Murder"):

    The killing of one person by another, whether intended or not. Not all homicide is unlawful; killing in self-defense, for example, is not a crime.

    dictionary.com

    You should all see the actual legal explanation of Homicide...
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

    Basically it's whenever a person kills another person...like intentionally hitting someone with your car (Criminal Homicide [aka Manslaughter]) or while driving drunk (Negligent Homicide). Or shooting someone breaking into your house (Justifiable Homicide [aka Justifiable Manslaughter]).

    Liberals will include suicide, defensive shootings, police shootings and even someone beating someone to death with a firearm to justify those stats.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2014
    IronMonster likes this.
  5. donaldc

    donaldc Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    124
    BAN MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!
     
    3MTA3 likes this.
  6. balaperdida

    balaperdida eastern idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    295
    Sam Kinard: Your message is valid, with which I agree in principle. However, it is unfortunately futile. Autos are widely, if not universally, accepted as a necessary evil. Handguns do not enjoy that enviable status.
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  7. Sam Kinard

    Sam Kinard Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    162
    Well, that insanity is only valid if we keep on validating it. In other words, the next time you are met with the insanity of handguns being "unnecessary", stand for reality instead of coddling the warped mind of those that wish to be controlled and wish for your control. I'm tired of the implication that since my neighbor is craven, that my independence should be sacrificed to "level the playing field". We already have a way to level the playing field, and it is called gun ownership. If an armed man is the equal to another armed man, what does that make the unarmed fella'? Those looking to trample our unalienable rights are the ones that should be put in prison. There is no room for anyone to decide that my rights are invalid because of their own insane fears. If people balk at the idea of applying to own a bible or apply to speak their mind, why are they OK with applying for ANY other right? We are either free or we are not. Those arguing the existence of some mythical middle ground are already in shackles, whether they like it or not.
     
    Just Jim likes this.
  8. JRuby

    JRuby St. Helens Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    822
    Any right that you can give me - I can give you an equivalent restriction on that right. According to the laws today you can even lose that right. So when we get right down to it are those really rights or simply called rights to pacify those that think they are standing up for something. I don't like it either but when we talk about rights we need to be realistic about our society today or do something about it.
     
    Michael Js likes this.
  9. Sam Kinard

    Sam Kinard Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    162
    You are absolutely correct. If you choose to answer for your craven neighbor or are craven yourself, you will then need to be "realistic" about the restrictions that YOU have allowed to be put upon YOUR rights. I completely understand your point and you have every right to it. However, where the line is crossed is when others think that the forfeiture of their own rights requires the forfeiture of another's. I have never had anyone make an attempt to take away or restrict a right that I hold dearly. For example, the day "they" come to take away mine or your firearms, you or I will either give up our rights or we will not. I know where I stand and I am sure you know where you stand as well. We all are allowed to give up any right we choose. We don't become evil until we demand the rights of others to be taken. Try putting in place a BGC for abortions and see what happens, even though the Bill Of Rights never promised that protection.
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  10. JRuby

    JRuby St. Helens Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    822
    Just be aware that for every decision / action there is a consequence. If it is deemed someday that speaking ones mind or opinion is punishable I will probably yell what I think instead of politely conversing. This country was created as a Republic however due to how politicians are elected it has become a democracy and in my opinion a corrupt one for I don't know of a politician that wont throw the public under the bus for their own gain. I don't think that there is such thing as a poor politician ( Republican or Democrat). Our leaders will follow the population not because it is the right thing but the way to preserve the politicians own existence. That goes for the 2A as well - so when we start seeing hard core 2A in my mind it is doing as much damage to our rights as hard core anti's. We need the people in the middle to join our team via logical thought and removing the fear of something many don't understand. Most people don't like radicals - I sure don't.
     
  11. Sam Kinard

    Sam Kinard Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    162
    I was with you until you implied that people aware of and defending their rights as damaging to whatever cause it is you support. You nailed it on the politicians, though. What you seem to miss is that you nor I are responsible in any way for the insane fear of tools that people have. You are suggesting using logic to argue against those that have proven they are completely removed from logic and whether they are insane or not is not my concern. I am in fact a sovereign citizen. That is exactly what we were promised in the establishment of this country. As I said earlier, you have every right to hand over your unalienable right. You only cross a line when you even imply that anyone else is obligated to hand it over as well. Most people don't like radicals? Most Americans don't like those that suggest that an individual working within his rights, the ones explicitly set aside for us to defend ourselves with, whether in a court of law or darkened alley, is a radical. A radical is someone that goes against the rules of the country, not one that stands up for them. Our rules were set up at the end of the 18th century by wise men that knew what corruption would do to a "free" state. The new rules were put in place by the very men the original rules were set in place to stop. So, since you demand we follow the new rules in order to somehow magically get back to the old rules, is it fair to say you suffer from the same affliction as those that simply fear the inanimate object? The idea that appeasing the oppressor's is the way to get them to see it your way is absurd. I do not answer for crazy people who are so beyond decency that they put the safety and defense of their wives and children in the hands of a police force rather than act like what used to be known as a man. As long as people insist upon coddling the insane and apologizing for their rights, this hole just gets deeper.
     
  12. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Smart puppy there Sam:D Wish people could comprehend the wisdom you put forwardo_O
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  13. JRuby

    JRuby St. Helens Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    822
    Sam

    Good luck - I sincerely wish you a great deal of success in your desire to turn the clock back 200 years. I am not afraid of an inanimate object, if so I keep night mares in my safe and am adding news ones all the time. I am afraid of individuals such as yourself that feel so righteous that there is only one way to do something, and that by enforcing your beliefs that you are willing to put others in danger. You claim to be a " sovereign citizen" that tells me all I need to know. I am personally against them - for even in George Washington's day there was a need for government and taxation. Two things that your group is against. I am not happy with the direction we are going but I also feel that government is needed as our laws are. I don't know how much of this is true but this what Wikipedia has to say;

    The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of American litigants, commentators, tax protesters and financial scheme promoters. Self-described sovereign citizens take the position that they are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state, or municipal levels, or that they do not recognize U.S. currency and that they are "free of any legal constraints".[1][2][3] They especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate.[4] Participants in the movement argue this concept in opposition to "federal citizens" who, they say, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.[5]
    Many members of the sovereign citizen movement believe that the U.S. Government is illegitimate.[6] JJ MacNab, who writes for Forbes about anti-government extremism, describes the sovereign citizen movement as consisting of individuals who believe that the County Sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement officer in the country, with authority superior to that of any federal agent, elected official, or local law-enforcement.[7]
    The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies some sovereign citizens ("sovereign citizen extremists") as a domestic terrorist movement.[8] In 2010 the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimated that approximately 100,000 Americans were "hard-core sovereign believers" with another 200,000 "just starting out by testing sovereign techniques for resisting everything from speeding tickets to drug charges."[9]
    A 2014 report by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism stated that a survey of law enforcement officials and agencies across the United States concluded that this movement was the single greatest threat to their communities, now ranking above Islamic terrorists and jihadists

    When it comes to restoring the 2A rights you are going to have a hard job ahead convincing the average American to join the cause when your group is on the fringe itself. I see you as one the radicals I spoke of earlier. I will do things my way as I am certain you will do the same. My belief is that more people that see gun ownership in a positive light the more likely we the people will continue to own guns. I have always been impressed with those that live a religion and invite others into their flock by seeing how they live versus being preached to. To me gun ownership should be a peaceful way of life, not one of radicals trying to force onto others what they need to do, that goes for both sides.
     
  14. Sam Kinard

    Sam Kinard Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    162
    Your interpretation is strange. I state that I wish to be left alone and that our country promises that and you state that my being left alone is dangerous and radical and forced upon others. Wanting insane liberals and those that pander to them to leave us alone is normal, not a dangerous radical view that hurts your rights. I don't care if more people own guns, only that those of us still in possession of our faculties keep them. Spouting more insane stats and quotes from the left of lefties to back up your point only proves the level of your pandering. Good luck to you, JRuby. I already left it behind. I can see the Steens Mountains if I go past a hill or two, where we have no fear of being men. No one is scared of tools here and if they are, we surely don't give them warm milk and arrest the scary American. The only one here "forcing onto others what they need to do" is you. When the guy suggesting that suppressing rights lectures the guy suggesting freedom, no one is going to be dazzled by the BS. They will only know who the fascist is. Usually the fascist is the guy standing on the chair in any room pointing his finger, shouting "Fascist! Fascist!". How's the view from your chair?

    P.S. Finding Wikipedia quotes or whatever from the very control freaks that Americans are against does not ever convince those of us that still care for our freedom to join your shackles. Your level of crap is astounding.
     
  15. JRuby

    JRuby St. Helens Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    822
    When laws are created, they are never pointed at individuals but rather a group of people, Ponzi scheme artists, tax payers, smokers, etc ... the point being that laws should be non personal. Now in this country , we have laws at many different levels, Federal, state, county and city amongst many others. Assuming you live in this country as based on your email, you are subject to many of the same laws I am. I don't decide by myself what is good or bad and make the law in my favor - I vote what I think and is right, many disagree. Gun laws are handled the same way - the populace gets their favorite politician to hear their voice and because that politician is on a gravy train he will do what is in his best interest. SO even though I support you being left alone, letting you live outside the law if you so desire, the country and our elected individuals will not for long. So if you wish to keep your gun rights, you are dependent upon others helping to support the 2A whether people like us gun owners like it or not. We need all the help on our side we can get and that is not by acting as a radical.
     
  16. Sam Kinard

    Sam Kinard Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    162
    You keep forgetting that The 2A is not something that can even be voted upon. It is beyond reproach and that is exactly why it is the only amendment worded so clearly. There is no room to "vote" on an unalienable right. Again, The Constitution protects us from mob rule, no matter how many times you shrug it off. Therefore, you are free to ask permission for your rights and I am free to simply be free. You allow your oppression, I allow none. I will be armed every day and will never ask permission, no matter how that offends anyone's collectivist ideals. All you have done is make excuses for Constitutional infringements. I in fact need no help on my side, as I was given all the room I need to act as a free man in the founding rules of the country.

    I should also mention that my declaration as a sovereign citizen does not group me into whatever Wikipedia article you quote. That insanity is akin to going to the Anarchist's meeting, isn't it? I am not free because I banded together with a militia or any other group. I am free because I was born American and will not hand it over as others will(and apparently, have). You can live in you liberal hole of a town and conform to all of their rules. It won't save you when it burns hotter than Hades.
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  17. JRuby

    JRuby St. Helens Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    822
    "You keep forgetting that The 2A is not something that can even be voted upon. It is beyond reproach and that is exactly why it is the only amendment worded so clearly." Ideally you are right in practice I am telling you it isn't so. Just get pulled over someday with a loaded firearm in your vehicle without a permit and tell me how that works for you. Cut a barrel on a rifle or shotgun down to 12" without the proper permits and see what happens when law enforcement sees it. If as you state their is no laws placed upon the 2A then OFF and the NRA would no longer be needed. I would love to not have rules and restrictions as you state but I am also not going to be stupid about it and lose what little rights I have left.
     
  18. Sam Kinard

    Sam Kinard Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    162
    You still think you "lose" rights. You give them away or you don't. Period. The reason that I never have to worry about your hypothetical confrontation is that I simply do not put myself in those situations and a loaded gun in a vehicle in my part of the world is like a steering wheel. I do concede that your hypothetical situation could in fact come to fruition and then I would be faced with either complying or not. I do in fact on occasion travel to bastions of Socialism such as Eugene and Portland. To go to either place unarmed is beyond foolish and in such places your example becomes more likely. I don't shorten gun barrels because I don't use shotguns to assassinate people in crowded places and find an 18" 870 to be perfectly adequate for home defense. In all fairness, if I deemed a short barreled shotgun or rifle necessary, I wouldn't ask permission. Do I face a potential "consequence" for my belief's and/or actions? Absolutely. Life is a calculated risk. I love my chances and every day the odds keep shifting in my favor. We established this great nation with a very low participation rate in fighting for our freedom. Some say as low as 5% actually took up arms and the rest were content to live under British oppression. While I doubt the number was as low as 5%, I know that a lot of people suddenly became proud Americans after the dying and killing was done for them, not unlike our current situation. I have no problem continuing the banter. If anything, folks seeing this may just become emboldened to stand for their rights and stop apologizing for them. Those that would have you unarmed in fact owe the apology. An armed man has tread upon no one until he uses the arm in the commission of a crime. Those disarming him have already committed the offense in the denial of what is without question an unalienable right, no matter the excuses he makes for his handlers. Hopefully when it comes to philosophy, more will put down Saul Alinsky and pick up Jeff Cooper.
     
  19. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,280
    Likes Received:
    8,997
    JRuby, I've had enough of your so called "pro 2A liberal" blather. Good bye chump!!!
     
  20. JRuby

    JRuby St. Helens Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    822
    Then dont read it
    And I really never asked.