Quote:We already have concealed carry license are you talking about a license to simply own a firearm? They would compromise of a list of gun owners which is essentially the same thing as a registration.
If this derails the topic than just PM me but, in your opinion, what's the difference between a gun license and any other form of license such as a DL or license to practice medicine etc?
Quote:If this derails the topic than just PM me but, in your opinion, what's the difference between a gun license and any other form of license such as a DL or license to practice medicine etc?
Don't you also have to have a license to hunt and fish?
Quote:If this derails the topic than just PM me but, in your opinion, what's the difference between a gun license and any other form of license such as a DL or license to practice medicine etc?
A Gun License is a License being issued by the state to participate in a constitutional right. Imagine a free speech license for example?
A Drivers License, A Medicine License, even the Voting Licenses you've seen me argue for are all licenses qualifying an individual to participate in a privilege. The state doesn't have the authority to revoke natural rights, those rights are above their authority. That's not to say they haven't hindered those rights already but I'm not going to support them further restricting those rights.
Natural rights trump everything else or the entire system we've built crumbles.
Quote:Don't you also have to have a license to hunt and fish?
Sure hunting and fishing are privileges not rights, and those licenses are only to fish or hunt on public property. I don't have to have a license to hunt on my private property.
Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JagNGeorgia" data-cid="482053" data-time="1430598813">
<div>
I'm always for better training, but I don't know how / why that's the default go-to for people that don't know how / where to improve the training. It's like people say because they don't know how to improve training. If you don't know how to improve the training, then I don't know how you can say it needs to be improved.
I think the point here is it needs to start happening. It needs to be developed. I won't pretend to know the answer, but can we do better? If we can then lets do it. It'll either happen by foresight or it'll be forced to happen. As I said though, it will happen one way or another. I do think body cameras are a huge step in that direction. Think about this. In Rialto, California, after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%.
So if cops are doing the right thing in general as we speak and we really don't need better training or change within law enforcement, why would body cameras have that big of an impact? Use of force dropped by 60%! Wow. You really think most cops are doing the right thing? I can't imagine a few bad apples would make that big of an impact on the numbers.
As for your second comment, it's irrelevant to the point at hand. I've personally witnessed a black Sergeant violate policy and state / federal law, threatened to sue the county, and was then promoted into a position he didn't deserve. I've seen inferior minority candidates promoted over extremely qualified candidates for nothing more than threatening their supervision with lawsuits should they not be promoted. Three examples come to mind. In these examples, are the minority officers valid in their concerns? No. They have a misconceived nothing that they're being overlooked because of their race when it's actually their skillset. On the slip side, I'm not naive enough to think a bad white candidate wasn't promoted over a better black candidate.
How is black people serving longer sentences compared to white people who commit similar crimes irrelevant? Really? You think it is just a fluke? 20% longer. I don't think it is irrelevant for the people serving longer sentences for the same crime.
Having said all that, my point is that police officer or not, people aren't immune from making absurd claims of racism. I think what you're talking about goes more into the cultural problem. People don't want to be the problem. They can't admit that THEY did something wrong, so they excuse it by saying something no one can disprove--racism. I believe, however, that's a different conversation for another day.
<b>I think the body cameras Rialto, California showed it is as much a police issue as it is a cultural issue within neighborhoods/communities.</b>
</div>
</blockquote>
Is it not also probable that the citizens on the lens side of those those body cameras act differently knowing they are being tapes as well?
Quote:If this derails the topic than just PM me but, in your opinion, what's the difference between a gun license and any other form of license such as a DL or license to practice medicine etc?
Quote:Don't you also have to have a license to hunt and fish?
The difference is, a license to hunt and fish actually serves a purpose, that being to maintain the resources associated with the sports.
As an example, money from a fishing license is used to run hatcheries, maintain lock systems and dams, etc.
Quote:The difference is, a license to hunt and fish actually serves a purpose, that being to maintain the resources associated with the sports.
As an example, money from a fishing license is used to run hatcheries, maintain lock systems and dams, etc.
It's even simpler than that, those licenses are to participate in a voluntary activity that is a privliage to participate in. You can't have licenses for things that are constitutional rights, the State doesn't have the authority to restrict them in that manor.
Quote:I disagree it's not the lack of individualism that has lead to our crisis of culture if anything it is the focus on the collective.
Focusing on the collective has let generations of families ignore the reality they are ultimately responsible for their well being and that of the generations to follow. focusing on the collective good of society has lead to the erosion of individual responsibility, accountability and ultimatum initiative to better ourselves. I love how everyone (not focusing this at you just ranting here) wants to point at how well things are done somewhere else, and yet this is the only place in the WORLD that has been free of tyrannical rule since it's founding.
We need a revival of radical individualism we don't have an excess of it, individualism requires ownership of ones decisions. There is no ownership in our society today, it's someone else fault, someone else built it, and someone else owns it. Give me individualism over collectivism all day every day. To hell with the collective.
Okay maybe I can respond to this now that I'm not quite so doped up on meds. When I say radical individualism I mean the culture of, "It's all about ME" that has permeated this country with the added lack of personal responsibility on top of that. I'm talking just people, not government at all. The government certainly has it's part to play in how society has turned, but a lot of it has to do with what I mentioned in my original post.
We are a country that allows frivolous lawsuits, lets Hollywood and sports stars set the values for our kids and encourages parents to be friends to their kids and not the disciplinarians they should be. As a country, the idea of the USA is a great one, but make no mistake that most foreigners think we as a people are arrogant and foolish and it's really hard to argue with that when you see what this country has fallen to in the past couple of decades.
Quote:Okay maybe I can respond to this now that I'm not quite so doped up on meds. When I say radical individualism I mean the culture of, "It's all about ME" that has permeated this country with the added lack of personal responsibility on top of that. I'm talking just people, not government at all. The government certainly has it's part to play in how society has turned, but a lot of it has to do with what I mentioned in my original post.
We are a country that allows frivolous lawsuits, lets Hollywood and sports stars set the values for our kids and encourages parents to be friends to their kids and not the disciplinarians they should be. As a country, the idea of the USA is a great one, but make no mistake that most foreigners think we as a people are arrogant and foolish and it's really hard to argue with that when you see what this country has fallen to in the past couple of decades.
Perhaps, I don't see it that way, but my perspective is still from the outside looking in a lot of times. I think if the world really viewed America as the land of the arrogant, selfish, fat and lazy we wouldn't be the magnet for immigration we are. I think that might be the view of some European countries, but certainly not in South America.
Sure we have problems and our fair share of knuckleheads but I think there's more good then bad here. There's more opportunity than oppression, there's more morality than immorality. I don't think the majority of people let Hollywood set the standard for their kids, I certainly don't and can't think of anyone that does.
People are quick to say where a selfish society, the "me" culture if you will, yet America is the world leader in charity and humanitarian aid. That's not even considering what our government throws around, that's just people (Americans) helping strangers. We practically fund the Red Cross which gives aid to the world that's not a nation of me firsts.
All else fails hell we gave the world Football isn't that enough? :teehee: Before us they only had Soccer :blink:
Quote:Is it not also probable that the citizens on the lens side of those those body cameras act differently knowing they are being tapes as well?
I already addressed this point.
Man after reading some of these politcal forums Ive realized im just gonna keep my mouth shut when I move to Florida. Im not tryna die.
Quote:A Gun License is a License being issued by the state to participate in a constitutional right. Imagine a free speech license for example?
A Drivers License, A Medicine License, even the Voting Licenses you've seen me argue for are all licenses qualifying an individual to participate in a privilege. The state doesn't have the authority to revoke natural rights, those rights are above their authority. That's not to say they haven't hindered those rights already but I'm not going to support them further restricting those rights.
Natural rights trump everything else or the entire system we've built crumbles.
This only applies to guns? Not any other kind of weapon?
Quote:The difference is, a license to hunt and fish actually serves a purpose, that being to maintain the resources associated with the sports.
As an example, money from a fishing license is used to run hatcheries, maintain lock systems and dams, etc.
Serious question, do permits for concealed carry and various other types not go to things like that? I thought in an older thread someone mentioned they did.
Quote:This only applies to guns? Not any other kind of weapon?
No, it shouldn't but they took other weapons rights away years ago to our detriment. Freddy Gray died over a knife, and I've always looked rather dashing wearing a sword.
Quote:This only applies to guns? Not any other kind of weapon?
the right to bear arms, an argument can be made for any type of self defense but I was speaking specifically about guns yes. Like I said earlier I avoid discussing if we have the right to own tanks, bombs, laser guided rockets, and jets it gets off into fantasy land to fast.
Quote:the right to bear arms, an argument can be made for any type of self defense but I was speaking specifically about guns yes. Like I said earlier I avoid discussing if we have the right to own tanks, bombs, laser guided rockets, and jets it gets off into fantasy land to fast.
Does it though? I mean sure most people would just have guns due to cost and availability but should someone be denied the right own a tank or mortars or rockets or basicly anything they want that could cause large amount of destruction? The 2nd amendment says arms not guns.
Quote:Does it though? I mean sure most people would just have guns due to cost and availability but should someone be denied the right own a tank or mortars or rockets or basicly anything they want that could cause large amount of destruction? The 2nd amendment says arms not guns.
Well if we're going into fantasy land you have to realize that simply owning explosives such as rockets, bombs, mortars requires very specific storing conditions or they become unstable. So on that grounds ANY community could say sure you have the right to own those weapons but you can't keep them in your home or business as it would endanger the lives of your neighbors.
So now where down to a hypothetical individual that lives outside of any community in the middle of the woods that could possible own a rocket, bomb, mortars or various explosive. Now if we look past the cost of acquiring such materials and the reality they to don't want to be blown up so yes the cost of properly storing the materials and explosive hypothetically yes they can own these weapons.
As for Tanks and Jets not even in fantasy land is there any suggestion the public has the right to military vehicles. However if someone purchases one and has it stored on their private property I don't have a problem with it, but it's not a constitutionally protected right in my mind.
Quote:I did earlier. It's 293.
293 people died in Northern Ireland as a result of UK police actions?
I've seen a number that's at least 10 fold higher than that. Where did you get that number? Google "Northern Ireland Troubles" and you'll see multiple sites claiming more than 3,500 deaths.