Author Topic: More Than a Quarter-Million Refugees on Food Stamps - 74.2 percent in 2013  (Read 12406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
I think it is obvious why a cop would not carry a gun, and that is because they do not think they have a need for it.

I think I just said that already. Glad you agree with me    ::)   of course, at this point, its still just your say so, vs actual factual back-up


Of course, sirs HAS to have LOTS of guns because the Constitution spoke to him and told him so.

The Constitution gives me the right.  It didn't speak to me, any more than it spoke to me about the right to free speech.  And I only have 3.  I don't think that gets anywhere close to the notion of "lots".  then again, a liberal's dictionary is pretty mutated, where anything greater than 1 is probably "lots"
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
You have at most two hands.  I agree that many people have more than that.  But three is more than you can use at once.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
From a safety standpoint, you would never use more than 1 at any time, regardless of 2 hands or 20 hands    ::)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
...and before the obligatory response comes in proclaiming how if that's the case, why the hell do I have 3, if I only need one?.......because it has nothing to do with "need".  You aren't limited to set limit on words, when exercising your free speech.  You aren't limited to how many religions you can practice, under the 1st amendment.  Nor is this advocating that anyone should have access to an infinate # of firearms either.  Only those lawfully able to have a firearm should posess them. 

That said, a responsible gun owner can have as many as they can safely manage, as far as I'm concerned.  It's about "rights", not need
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
What is the maximum number you can "safely manage"?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
What is the maximum number you can "safely manage"?

That is a good question.

Someone who wants a collection should consider this.

I have met a collector who would have needed a week to inventory, and he didn't know me.

Working in his house his eyes never left me.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
What is the maximum number you can "safely manage"?

If you take the appropriate safety measures, there is no "max number".  What's the max number of religions you can practice?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Each of the Big Three Sand people religions claim that you can have but ONE religion.

If you pick Judaism or Islam, you cannot  pick Christianity, because of the bit about the Trinity.
If you pick Judaism or Christianity,  Mohammad is not recognized as a prophet.
If you pick Christianity or Islam, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as a Messiah or a Messiah as a son of God.

Each claims to be the one true religion. If you are a follower of one of them, you cannot follow any other.

You can be a Taoist and a Buddhist, and there are people who follow Shinto and Buddhism.
Buddhism does not address the afterlife at all. Taoism and Shinto and Confucianism deal with reverence for the ancestors, and may recognize the presence of spirits, but do not advocate the worship of spirits, certainly not all of them.

There are many fewer religions than guns. I don't see any relationship. If you are worshiping firearms, you are some sort of wacko.
It is not like you could kill someone or defend yourself with a religion, or even hunt with one.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Each of the Big Three Sand people religions claim that you can have but ONE religion.

Didn't ask that, now did I.  I asked, that in this country, are you limited by how many religions you can practice.  The answer  is NO.  You are also not limited to how many words you can express when criticizing the Government, under the 1st amendment.  That concept applies to EVERY ONE of our rights, as American citizens


"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
  There are two questions implied.

  What should be the legal limit?
   What is the practical limit?

    For religions and guns the limits need to be infinite else we allow the government to be in the business of mind control and have no fear of the population.

    Practical limits are very different.

     There are a lot of religions that make bad parings, but it should not be a matter of law else we invite the government to evaluate and regulate religion.

       Having a lot of guns can bust a poor mans budget, and no one should have even one gun that is carelessly handled or kept vulnerable to theft.  But allowing the government to call this number tempts the government to make itself safe from the people.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
       Having a lot of guns can bust a poor mans budget, and no one should have even one gun that is carelessly handled or kept vulnerable to theft.  But allowing the government to call this number tempts the government to make itself safe from the people.

BINGO....which is why I prefaced my comments, that as long as the gun owner is acting responsibly and safely, they can have as many as they wish, as far as I'm concerned.  Rights should have no limits, until someone acts recklessly, or worse, criminally.  That's when rights are revoked.  But not until then.  Nor do you punish the law abiding for the acts of those set on killing by trying to limit, if not ban various firearms.  The Constitution is specifically designed to LIMIT government intervention --> oppression.  Especially the 1st 10.  Not the other way around
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The government at the time the Constitution was written did not have the power to take away anyone's guns.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
That makes no sense...especially if you're inferring that when they do have the power.....they can/should??  Seriously?  If that's not what you're inferring, why write into the Constitution, of all things, that which they couldn't do in the 1st place??
« Last Edit: May 04, 2015, 07:52:25 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
As I said before, the historic basis of the US was expansion of White settlements to the West, onto land occupied by Indians, who often took umbrage at the palefaces taking their land and preventing them from hunting on it, and slavery, which tended to result in slaves escaping and not willing to return to the degree that they attacked the patrolers whose job it was to bring them back, and rebellions. Both required the citizens to have access to firearms, which gave them an advantage over the Indians and the escaped slaves.

I think it is pretty clear from European history that disarming the populace was a common thing for governments to do. The Spanish painter Goya, in his "Disastres de Guerra" etchings show men garroted with a knife tied around his neck with a cord and a sign saying "he had a knife" The French removed Fernando of Spain and put Napoleon's brother Joseph upon the throne. The English did not like this and invaded Spain and there was a very bloody campaign in which the British soldiers, who were few, taught the techniques of guerrilla warfare to the Spanish. These were the techniques the same British officers had learned from the American patriots, who, in turn, learned them from the Indians.

So your Cherished Holy Amendment was written into the Constitution because the Founding Fathers knew that weapons in the home were essential in giving an advantage over the White settlers over their red and black potential enemies. They also anticipated a time in which the government would have the power to disarm the populace. There were Abolitionists in this country from before its founding. John Adams and his son, to name two.


 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The government at the time the Constitution was written did not have the power to take away anyone's guns.

  When the British occupied Boston they confiscated a lot of arms , the inventory of captured arms is one of the best evidences we have of the number of guns percapata in the pre revolution population.

    I would make the exact opposite connection between abolition and guns than you do.

     Justice Taney wrote of the Dred Scott case that it was impossible to recognize the citizenship of a black person without also recognizing his right to own a gun , which he considered ridiculous.
     There was a lot of gun control intended to prevent non-citizens, like Indians and Black people ,from having any relief from vulnerability.

        After the Civil War there was no longer any legal force in rules that would prevent the rights of citizenship to Black people , but there was a defacto extralegal set of rules that often amounted to the same thing. In a few instances armed Black persons defended themselves successfully, where this could not be done vulnerability was still the rule.

         I don't know whether Indians have ever gotten relief from gun control , I better look that up before further comment.