Will Congress act now?

[PCXV]

Not in America.

Cop training, gun licensing, or both?

 

[PCXV]

Free markets aren't fair, that much has been proven well enough in the last half century.

Regulations exist to outlaw bad behavior and should encourage a level playing field- though of course today's regulations don't do this worth a damn.

That's what I mean by fair. Kind of like fair share of taxes doesn't mean a flat tax. Fair means logically regulated to keep the playing field level.

 

[PCXV]

Who's going to make fair trade? The government controls your free trade it's not exactly free trade which is why big business is paying off Congress.

The government by the people, of the people, for the people. Reverse CU, let the people have a just as much or a bigger voice than big business. I believe in democracy.

 

[PCXV]

That's an obtuse and less than complete point. The point is, do you have a right to affirm your "citizenship" or is it something others do whether you consent or not ?

If the state as an organization and it's just "the people" how can it have any more right than any single person ? It is impossible to aggregate a bunch of zeros into a positive sum isn't it?

Others aren't affirming it, you are. My point stands. Your are born into a society of laws, or maybe you are born on a remote island. That is your circumstance. Your parents decided for you, but once you turn 18 the state should allow you, and does in the US I believe, to revoke your citizenship if you don't want to be part of their system. The state isn't affirming anything, it gives you the choice.

 

[PCXV]

Not just college kids professors too along with old timer Communist groups back from the beginning of the Cold War like the guy who killed Kennedy.

So Putin is Antifa?

 

[PCXV]

I'm afraid you are confused. I don't think you know what a free market is and proceed from there to draw erroneous conclusions, assigning the ills of centralization and cronyism to "free market". .

Regulations often exist to consolidate power in the hands of the few and further they PREVENT a level playing field.

You are right. Some regulations purposefully make the field unlevel. Utilitarian arguments sometimes make sense, though.

 

[schuylaar]

At a minimum, it is the goal of socialists like Obama and neocons like Hillary to turn a right to possess guns into a revocable privilege for peasants, since they both know an outright ban will be resisted... so they work the slippery slope and keep inching towards it. Would you deny that ?

there are as many guns as people in the US. any press, positive or negative is a win for the NRA and gun manufacturers. guns are not going away.

las vegas is fake news and really didn't happen.

gun owners really didn't start purchasing equipment they never heard of until the thought of its access being limited made it the hottest, flying off shelves.

white hats are available for $40, paper towels extra at the concession stand on your way out folks.

 

[PCXV]

How does passing a law which consolidates gun ownersh



Actually the equation goes more like 0 + 0 + 0 etc. = 0

Even if I allowed you to avoid the certainty of my logic and the mathematical proof you still can't escape the fact you are believing in two opposing things at once.

On the one hand you would agree that a person has no right to enslave another person or force somebody into an association using or threatening offensive force for failure to comply... but then you flip and advocate that a neutral person somehow MUST associate with somebody else, not because the neutral person consents to it, instead because another party or parties has insisted on it.. That is the definition of slavery. Claiming the right to create a force association with an unwilling neutral party.

Your argument is internal and your beliefs are inconsistent.

I think you are portraying a false dichotomy. Not having absolute freedom and anarchy does not equate to slavery.

When you voluntarily agree to stay in a society of democratic law, you are agreeing to obey its democratically decided laws. You also have the freedom and power to try and change those laws. You sacrifice some freedom for the benefits that society offers, while you retain most freedoms that allow you to enjoy your life.

 

[dagwood45431]

...do you have a right to affirm your "citizenship" or is it something others do whether you consent or not ?

It's bestowed upon you by birth. In other words, your ancestors decided for you, as you have decided for your undoubtably fucked up kids. That's how it works. Of course, you're free to denounce your citizenship and go somewhere else, so the choice really is up to you in the end. You appear to have made it. Now shut the fuck up.

 

[UncleBuck]

Not just college kids professors too along with old timer Communist groups back from the beginning of the Cold War like the guy who killed Kennedy.

you're afraid of college kids.

LOL

how is your scumbag thief brother doing? did he dodge those pedophilia charges?

 

[ttystikk]

Cop training, gun licensing, or both?

Both. Cops are not held to a higher standard of conduct- fuck, they get paid vacation to shoot unarmed black people. And a special set of laws that ensure they never get convicted. So much for a higher standard.

As far as citizens needing licensed, it's already a requirement for concealed carry permits in many states.

 

[Rob Roy]

Admittedly, I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but this strikes me as a strawman. Has anyone here (specifically SneekyNinja) unequivocally agreed with the statement you've made above?

It was a rhetorical utterance.

 

[Rob Roy]

Well, that was convenient to “be asleep then” and take advantage of tax payer funded education for your kids, and then suddenly awaken when you no longer have a use for publicly funded education!

Merely a coincidence?

Your statement draws conclusions that aren't relevant to my intended point.

My point is, what is "normal" (not necessarily good either) is people accept an institution existing which is funded via force. Can you deny that government schools derive funding in a different way than say a grocery store ?

 

[Rob Roy]

It's bestowed upon you by birth. In other words, your ancestors decided for you, as you have decided for your undoubtably fucked up kids. That's how it works. Of course, you're free to denounce your citizenship and go somewhere else, so the choice really is up to you in the end. You appear to have made it. Now shut the fuck up.

Like if a slave was born on a given plantation, that master owns them ?

 

[Rob Roy]

You are right. Some regulations purposefully make the field unlevel. Utilitarian arguments sometimes make sense, though.

If a utilitarian argument deprives another person of their right to peaceful self determination, would you endorse it as the best choice ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Are you asleep when you file taxes each year ? Do tell how you file and who do you claim ? Are you proud when you have to write those SS numbers, that were assigned to you by the United States government ? You are a very good slave. You might try to kick up a little ruckus every now and then, but for the most part you are very obedient.

 

[SunnyJim]

It was a rhetorical utterance.

Since you can't seem to provide examples of SneekyNinja agreeing with your rhetoric, I'm sticking with straw man.

 

[Rob Roy]

Since you can't seem to provide examples of SneekyNinja agreeing with your rhetoric, I'm sticking with straw man.

It is possible that he might disagree and think people do have a right to enslave others.

Ironically though, your assertion points out something different, your point rests on the idea that Sneeky Ninja has to AGREE with my point, for it to be accurate. By that, you imply that none of us have the right to form others opinions for them / "enslave" them. Which verifies my original point. Thanks for proving my point for me.

 

[SunnyJim]

It is possible that he might disagree and think people do have a right to enslave others.

Ironically though, your assertion points out something different, your point rests on the idea that Sneeky Ninja has to AGREE with my point, for it to be accurate. By that, you imply that none of us have the right to form others opinions for them / "enslave" them. Which verifies my original point. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Another straw man, bro. I didn't assert nor imply anything, you did:

On the one hand you would agree that a person has no right to enslave another person or force somebody into an association using or threatening offensive force for failure to comply... but then you flip and advocate that a neutral person somehow MUST associate with somebody else, not because the neutral person consents to it, instead because another party or parties has insisted on it.. That is the definition of slavery. Claiming the right to create a force association with an unwilling neutral party.

Your argument is internal and your beliefs are inconsistent.

Admittedly, I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but this strikes me as a strawman. Has anyone here (specifically SneekyNinja) unequivocally agreed with the statement you've made above?

It was a rhetorical utterance.

Since you can't seem to provide examples of SneekyNinja agreeing with your rhetoric, I'm sticking with straw man.

I simply asked you for citations to support your own assertions. You can't provide them. No biggie. Straw man, though.

 

[Rob Roy]

Another straw man, bro. I didn't assert nor imply anything, you did:



I simply asked you for citations to support your own assertions. You can't provide them. No biggie. Straw man, though.

Okay, then I'll ask you directly if you think people have the right to enslave others ?