My money's on joe bloe

[JD Barleycorn]

I would like to hear the gun grabbers here (who would have believed that they existed on this board) tell me what laws they would like to have in place that would;
A. Not infringe on our rights and
B. Prevent what happened Friday morning

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Except for their isolationist foreign policy views, I am pretty much a Libertarian. Unfortunately, I don't think the Libertarian party can ever be the majority party, because they would end the redistribution of wealth, that the Democrats and Republicans both practice.

The sad truth is, that once you govern outside the Constitution, which we have been doing since FDR, the majority of the people will vote to loot the treasury. I vote Republican as a lesser of two evils choice.

Harry Browne, who ran for president twice on the Libertarian party ticket, once said that when you vote Republican instead of Democrat, you're just voting to go to Hell more slowly. Once the Constitution no longer limits the size and scope of the federal government, our only choice is between the fast lane to Hell or the slow lane.

Hell doesn't exist, it's just a fabrication of religious people to scare you.
If you die, you're dead, that's it. You no longer exist.
Religious people try to scape the world as they see it. Nonsense like you can't fuck until you're married. Bullshit!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're right, Doofie. Why would we want to disarm a population? Just think, had there been just one person in the theater with a concealed carry permit and a firearm, the attack could have ended much sooner, and with much less injury and loss of life.

I think we should use Switzerland as an example. Very little gun violence there. Why? Because everyone has a gun.

Unfortunately your conclusion that the lack of gun violence in Switzerland is due to how many people own guns is not supported by facts.

There is also very little gun violence in Japan, a country with VERY strict gun control laws. A country's demographics have more of an affect on gun violence than the number of guns owned by the people.

As written by Stephen Holbrook in "Guns, Crime, and the Swiss":

"The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, generally do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Switzerland fits this mold. But the United States does not. As H. Rap Brown declared in the 1960s, "Violence is as American as apple pie.""

As written by Kevin Sullivan in an article titled "An Armory in Gun-Shy Europe" in the Washington Post:

"According to Swiss police, there were 204 homicides in Switzerland in 2005, including 48 that involved guns. That is about the same number of gun-related killings as took place last year in England and Wales, which have strict gun control and a population seven times the size of Switzerland's.

According to a 25-nation survey by the International Action Network on Small Arms, a British-based organization against gun violence, Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in 2005 was 6.2 per 100,000 citizens, which was second only to the U.S. rate of 9.42 per 100,000. Switzerland's rate of gun deaths was more than double that of 18 of the countries surveyed, including neighbors Germany and Italy."

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

Hell doesn't exist, it's just a fabrication of religious people to scare you.
If you die, you're dead, that's it. You no longer exist.
Religious people try to scape the world as they see it. Nonsense like you can't fuck until you're married. Bullshit!

It's a metaphor.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

It's a metaphor.

he knows no more that it doesnt exist than that it does

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I would like to hear the gun grabbers here (who would have believed that they existed on this board) tell me what laws they would like to have in place that would;
A. Not infringe on our rights and
B. Prevent what happened Friday morning

Very little could have been done to prevent the tragedy in Aurora, just as, IMHO, little could have been done at Ft. Hood, Columbine, or Virginia Tech to prevent those tragedies. It's so easy to say that stricter gun laws might have prevented the tragedy, or less strict gun laws (giving CHLs to younger individuals, for example) might have prevented the tragedy. Either opinion could be 100% correct in a given case, but we can only speculate.

FYI, I do not own a gun because I see no need for me to own a gun, but I fully support a person's decision to legally own and/or carry a gun.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

he knows no more that it doesnt exist than that it does

This is a complete thread hijack. Having said that, I have no idea if there's an afterlife or not, but I do believe there is a God. Assuming he's perfect, as most religions teach, then I think it follows, there is no Hell. Hell is essentially infinite punishment for finite sin; that can't be justice. If God is perfect, then he must be perfectly just.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

This is a complete thread hijack. Having said that, I have no idea if there's an afterlife or not, but I do believe there is a God. Assuming he's perfect, as most religions teach, then I think it follows, there is no Hell. Hell is essentially infinite punishment for finite sin; that can't be justice. If God is perfect, then he must be perfectly just.

look up the word justice sometime..it isnt mercy, it is "an equal application of the law"

[CuteOldGuy]

Ok, maybe it would be easier to understand if instead of saying "going to hell" we said "going to California" in an economic sense.

California really is hell, in a manner of speaking. It's beautiful, the weather is nice, but inside it is crumbling due to lies, greed and corruption, and will likely be the first state to declare bankruptcy.

California is a beautiful facade on a corrupt, miserable system. In short. Hell.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

look up the word justice sometime..it isnt mercy, it is "an equal application of the law"

The Bible requires an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This sets the standard, for proper punishment, that it should be based on the severity of the crime. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime, or sin. We don't give people the death penalty for littering. Eternal punishment (Hell) violates the principal of proportionality, and is consequently, not consistant with the concept of a perfect God.

This definition of justice (the first one that came up on a Google search, honest!) defines it as having the quality of righeousness and equitableness. It doesn't list "equal application of the law" as primary.

jus·tice
   /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Show Spelled[juhs-tis] Show IPA
noun 1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

The Bible requires an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This sets the standard for proper punishment being based on the severity of the crime. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime, or sin. We don't give people the death penalty for littering. Eternal punishment (Hell) violates the principal of proportionality, and is in my opinion, not consistant with the concept of a perfect God.

This definition of justice (the first one that came up on a Google search, honest!) defines it as having the quality of righeousness and equitableness. It doesn't list "equal application of the law" as primary.

jus·tice
   /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Show Spelled[juhs-tis] Show IPA
noun 1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice

what does the word equitable mean but equal?...equitable is "equal" but as my name goes...nevermind

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

what does the word equitable mean but equal?...equitable is "equal" but as my name goes...nevermind

I always thought equitable meant fair. I don't think it's fair to punish anyone for eternity, not even Doove, well ok maybe Doove.

equitable [ˈɛkwɪtəbəl]
adj 1. impartial or reasonable; fair; just an equitable decision

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equitable

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I always thought equitable meant fair. I don't think it's fair to punish anyone for eternity, not even Doove, well ok maybe Doove.

equitable [ˈɛkwɪtəbəl]
adj 1. impartial or reasonable; fair; just an equitable decision

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equitable

legally "impartial" is an equal application of the law...you keep posting defnitions we will run out of words..as one word is defined by another and it begins to get circular...

justice means dispensing something that is "just", just means being fair, being fair means applying things equally...legally its an equal application of the law...its quite simple

[CuteOldGuy]

The Bible also requires stoning disobedient children to death, as well as fornicators. I'm not sure we want to use Biblical standards for punishment. Just sayin'.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Bible also requires stoning disobedient children to death, as well as fornicators. I'm not sure we want to use Biblical standards for punishment. Just sayin'.

My only point was regarding the valid concept of proportionality. For better or worse, our culture is Judeo-Christian and our system of justice is grounded in Biblical principals, one of which is that punishment be proportionate to the crime.

Justice is more than just equal application of the law. If we gave everyone the death penalty for littering and enforced it with perfect consistancy, it still wouldn't be just, because it isn't reasonable, fair or proportionate to the offense.