Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[frigidweirdo]

LOL. I'm in the Netherlands right now. I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.

They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently. And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.

Sound familiar? Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive

Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.

I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.

The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.

You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.

You didn't read my post. I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently. And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it. You are naive, wow

I read it. I just disagree with you.

I've met European politicians who actually gave a hell of a damn. I've also met ones that didn't. However I've also been to countries where things work, and I've been in the US where things don't work so well. I've also been in countries where the dictator, democratically elected in totally fair bought elections, buys his ministers Mercedes, while poor people starve to death. You know, I've see it all.

 

[kaz]

LOL. I'm in the Netherlands right now. I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.

They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently. And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.

Sound familiar? Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive

Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.

I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.

The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.

You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.

You didn't read my post. I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently. And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it. You are naive, wow

I read it. I just disagree with you.

I've met European politicians who actually gave a hell of a damn. I've also met ones that didn't. However I've also been to countries where things work, and I've been in the US where things don't work so well. I've also been in countries where the dictator, democratically elected in totally fair bought elections, buys his ministers Mercedes, while poor people starve to death. You know, I've see it all.

No, you didn't read it because you didn't just disagree with me, you misstated what I said.

And amazing how given you think that politicians make countries great that as crappy as our politicians are we've been such a great country. maybe it isn't about the politicians...

 

[frigidweirdo]

It makes them a threat if you understand what Putin's doing. If you don't, then you might make wrong interpretations.

The Balkans? Why? Serbia is a good friend of Russia, and none of the Balkans sits next to Russia. I'm confused.

Sorry, meant the Baltics[/QUOTE]

I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

 

[frigidweirdo]

LOL. I'm in the Netherlands right now. I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.

They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently. And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.

Sound familiar? Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive

Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.

I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.

The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.

You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.

You didn't read my post. I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently. And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it. You are naive, wow

I read it. I just disagree with you.

I've met European politicians who actually gave a hell of a damn. I've also met ones that didn't. However I've also been to countries where things work, and I've been in the US where things don't work so well. I've also been in countries where the dictator, democratically elected in totally fair bought elections, buys his ministers Mercedes, while poor people starve to death. You know, I've see it all.

No, you didn't read it because you didn't just disagree with me, you misstated what I said

Well this is getting... zzz..zzz.. exciting isn't it?

 

[kaz]

Sorry, meant the Baltics

I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.

So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh. Whew, that's a relief. Never mind then

 

[kaz]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

 

[kaz]

LOL. I'm in the Netherlands right now. I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.

They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently. And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.

Sound familiar? Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive

Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.

I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.

The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.

You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.

You didn't read my post. I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently. And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it. You are naive, wow

I read it. I just disagree with you.

I've met European politicians who actually gave a hell of a damn. I've also met ones that didn't. However I've also been to countries where things work, and I've been in the US where things don't work so well. I've also been in countries where the dictator, democratically elected in totally fair bought elections, buys his ministers Mercedes, while poor people starve to death. You know, I've see it all.

No, you didn't read it because you didn't just disagree with me, you misstated what I said

Well this is getting... zzz..zzz.. exciting isn't it?

yes, it's hard to have an interesting conversation when you stay at 50K feet and then keep failing to grasp the actual points being made. your misstating what I said doesn't help either

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

You would. The People are the Militia. Have you never read the propaganda and rhetoric of gun lovers.

 

[kaz]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

You would. The People are the Militia. Have you never read the propaganda and rhetoric of gun lovers.

Which people? All the people or just some of them?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion. I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.

 

[kaz]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion. I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.

Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people. Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed. That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.

Everyone is in the "militia." That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right. The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people. Government alone can't limit rights

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Government alone can't limit rights

Oh, but it can, and does. It both grants and limits rights. We have these funny documents that describe such things and the will of the people is not required as we are not a democracy...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion. I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.

Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people. Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed. That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.

Everyone is in the "militia." That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right. The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people. Government alone can't limit rights

You're wrong. Read the Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.

Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.

Want to test free speech? Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're wrong. Read the links, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think. Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.

Want to test free speech, get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.

Ah, but don't you remember all the elections we had to set the speed limits? Wait a minute, that's right, we never did that as this is not a democracy. My bad...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, meant the Baltics

I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.

So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh. Whew, that's a relief. Never mind then

What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.

Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.

Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

yes, it's hard to have an interesting conversation when you stay at 50K feet and then keep failing to grasp the actual points being made. your misstating what I said doesn't help either

Or you just decide that I don't understand the points, or you just don't make them very well. Then it's all my fault for not being able to mind read and guess which bits are supposed to change, huh?

 

[2aguy]

I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it. and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...

Yeah, European law enforcement saying European criminals are getting guns "easily".

So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".

Are you catching the drift here? Making basic sentences and expecting people to just accept something when it doesn't make much sense isn't going to help you.

Europe is less violent except Britain.

Have you even been to Britain, because you write like all you know is what you read, and what you read is done by just simply accepting what you read without actually thinking that there might be issues you need to think about before you decide they are actually true or not.

Again, for the third or fourth time, violent crime statistic vary from country to country, it depends what is in those statistics, that will determine what number you get out at the end, it depends how they're counted, it also matters how willing people are to come forward and report such statistics.

Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body. Okay, people die in different ways, it's not always murder or homicide or whatever, and sometimes it is and isn't counted so. However it's far more reliable than violent crimes statistics. Do you understand this? Are you going to carry on telling people stuff that simply isn't true?

From leftwing politifact...Britain is 2 times as violent as the U.S.


Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does PolitiFact


For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body.

Sorry, you are wrong...in Britain, the don't count a murder a murder till the criminal has been prosecuted for murder and has run their appeals.....we count murder as soon as the cause of death is determined to be murder......so no, you are wrong.

So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".

These countries have extreme gun control laws...as shown in my threads on how easy it is to get guns in Europe....they don't have gun stores like we have in the U.S., they have long processes for simple hunting shotguns, and you cannot own fully automatic rifles in Europe...and they get those easily...

So dodge, duck and weave, you are still wrong.

 

[2aguy]

and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%. vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.

And how often do good teachers choose to stay in poor areas?

Do you have any evidence at all that what you're suggesting has happened in any way shape or form?

Look, you want solutions....vouchers are the solution...then when we suggest vouchers you say, no, they won't work....you are the problem.......you don't really want to give poor parents a way out for their kids......vouchers give them that......and you are against them.....you want principals to share information...that and pixie dust will keep graduation rates at 50%......

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia.