- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,531
This sounds fake. Where do you live, England?
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Knife discrimination
- Thread starter Yo Mama
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 14,799
(He says, from the comfort of his tank)
To me this kind of attitude speaks volumes about how that person would behave and interact with others, if they had access to anything they percieved as a weapon. IMO learn to identify and avoid these people, they are dangerous, unpredictable and to be avoided whenever possible.
Oklahoma Outlaw
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2021
- Messages
- 1,920
If you like it you should have put a ring on it - Los Angeles, CA - 2008
Last edited:
Yo Mama
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6,233
Nope, USA
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2017
- Messages
- 296
Ok, this is the part where I lose the people who were agreeing with me but, HOPEFULLY, make at least on consider a different perspective.
I used to say the one gun law I would support is - if you have been convicted of a VIOLENT felony, involving a WEAPON, you can not own any more deadly weapons. Now..... no, I don't even support that idea.
A few reasons:
(1) While I understand conditions for early release like house arrest, no weapons, no alcohol, etc, once you are not on any form of community contro (probation, parole)l, it's over. Either your debt to society has been paid or it hasn't. If people do not feel sentences are long enough, then that is a problem to itself and should not be corrected through letting convicted felons be almost or kinda free. Either I am free or I am not.
(2) if a person is too dangerous to own a gun, they're also too dangerous to own a hammer, a vehicle, and gasoline. Before anyone jumps on the "yea you can kill people with those things but it is not as common" bit, ask yourself what the biggest mass murder was. The news always called the Vegas shooter the largest mass SHOOTING because they had to. (Not counting McVeigh) The largest mass murder, committed by a single person, was the "Happy Land Murders" in which a man killed more people than the Vegas shooter without ever using a gun..... he used a can of gas. In fact, I have a friend who (LONG AGO) did a year in state prison over a TRAFFICK crime (no, I didn't forget the "ing"). He uses an air rifle to hunt. They are not considered FIREarms and are capable of dropping deer.
(3) There is no asterisk, in the 2nd Amendment that says "except for THESE guys". Some will say that is because guys like "that" didn't live long and, again, I'd say address the actual problem.
I will say - Freedom comes with ADULTHOOD. So, I guess I kind of support ONE gun law. No, I do not think a child should be able to buy a gun.
I will also concede that "laws don't prevent crime" was an over statement. I do support laws that involve an actual VICTIM and YES some people are only alive because it isn't legal to kill them
However, possession laws do not prevent crime, they simply prevent possessing (for the compliant). Any nefarious act that was going to be committed with said possession already has a law against it AND anyone planning on breaking that law (the actual act of violence) is not concerned about the possession law.
- Joined
- May 5, 2017
- Messages
- 288
This is the best response I’ve read in this entire thread. Thank you.
- Joined
- May 5, 2017
- Messages
- 288
“You can’t walk down the street if you’re ugly” is probably my favorite
ferider
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Messages
- 15,144
San Francisco also has other weird laws that are clearly not enforced. Just not family friendly enough to mention here
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,520
Look s like the Political Arena is back in GKD again.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2015
- Messages
- 17,899
This is a good conversation.
I might have a different take on some of it.
I don't consider it to be a question of debt, but of trust. Pay the debt, right, but that in itself is no guarantee that the person is now trustworthy. You lost the right to be considered trustworthy when you committed a violent crime, and that has to be earned back. How exactly, I don't know, but incarceration alone doesn't seems to be the answer.
It's a plausible sounding point on its face, but the proposed objection of "yea you can kill people with those things but it is not as common" misses the mark. The fact that a firearm is inherently a weapon, and about as efficient a one as the average person can get his or her hands on seems to be more of a relevant factor here.
Inalienable rights are subject to forfeiture. The very essence of justice is the "rendering of what is due", and if a person violates the rights of another, he forfeits his own. I steal 10 bucks I owe ten bucks plus compensation for any hardship my actions imposed, whether physical, psychological, or economical. If I murder, then I owe my own life, and some jurisdictions will be merciful and only put me in jail for 10, 20, or life, but some will execute me. If I can't afford the price, don't take the goods.
Criminals are children, in the sense of responsibility. They have forfeited their own rights and autonomy by violating those of others.
Understood, and quite a plausible hypothesis. As I said I don't know what all the laws should be, but I will never be on the side of "ban the tool", even though that is basically already the law in this country (Canada).
I might have a different take on some of it.
I don't consider it to be a question of debt, but of trust. Pay the debt, right, but that in itself is no guarantee that the person is now trustworthy. You lost the right to be considered trustworthy when you committed a violent crime, and that has to be earned back. How exactly, I don't know, but incarceration alone doesn't seems to be the answer.
It's a plausible sounding point on its face, but the proposed objection of "yea you can kill people with those things but it is not as common" misses the mark. The fact that a firearm is inherently a weapon, and about as efficient a one as the average person can get his or her hands on seems to be more of a relevant factor here.
Inalienable rights are subject to forfeiture. The very essence of justice is the "rendering of what is due", and if a person violates the rights of another, he forfeits his own. I steal 10 bucks I owe ten bucks plus compensation for any hardship my actions imposed, whether physical, psychological, or economical. If I murder, then I owe my own life, and some jurisdictions will be merciful and only put me in jail for 10, 20, or life, but some will execute me. If I can't afford the price, don't take the goods.
Criminals are children, in the sense of responsibility. They have forfeited their own rights and autonomy by violating those of others.
I will also concede that "laws don't prevent crime" was an over statement. I do support laws that involve an actual VICTIM and YES some people are only alive because it isn't legal to kill them
Understood, and quite a plausible hypothesis. As I said I don't know what all the laws should be, but I will never be on the side of "ban the tool", even though that is basically already the law in this country (Canada).
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2021
- Messages
- 9,931
w
What if I shouted, "Nick to the rescue!"
What if I shouted, "Nick to the rescue!"
Last edited:
Oh my god you can't possibly think that is how the world works, can you?
Ok, let me preface this by saying - I am not a liberal, not by a long shot. I think the race card gets played way too much and that it is typically a "B" move. However, while laws DO apply equally to every race, they do not IMPACT every race equally and the people who write them know this.
Imagine black reps writing a bill against any militia membership. While we DO have a black guy on our group, it would be fairly obvious who this law was directed at.
Stereotypes originate from actual habits or practices. Which is why I (jokingly) said Imagine a law against cheese. That would be obviously aimed at white folks.
Opium laws were anti Chinese in origins.
Legislation can also be used to target specific religions. For example, if this country was fairly equally divided between Jews, Christians, and Muslims and legislation was proposed, banning pork products, PURELY for public health concerns...... come on, that wouldn't be obvious? The courts can be used as weapons, just the way it is
They can only apply equally to every race if they're applied equally against every race, which they are not, and never have been, and which we have no reason to believe ever will be.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 46,599
I personally don't plan on reading 170+ posts in this thread. If someone has issues with a given post, please report through normal channels.
None of us mods have the luxury of time, nor the will to wade and comb through every thread looking for potential issues.
Thanks. Now...go and sin no more...all of youse.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2015
- Messages
- 17,899
Of course, great point. Thank you.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2021
- Messages
- 9,931
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 46,599
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2015
- Messages
- 17,899
- Status