BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 May 18 - 02:45 AM

Hmmmm, I'm afraid 'quaint' isn't the word I have in mind, Joe, although phonically it's not that far away! ;-)

I understand what you're saying about 'real-World' personality - I know one of the guys who used to be a very aggressively combative poster, but who has gone from here now. I bump into him most Mondays and he's a very likeable, popular guy.

I could go on, but I've promised myself I won't involve myself in arguing with defenders of the indefensible any more, especially those who obfuscate, wriggle, ignore facts, deny the realities of other countries' experience, and bombard with links and cut-and-pastes of meaningless, or skewed, statistics. At my age, time is limited, and I still have a lot of far more important things to do.

I absolutely agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns make it very easy indeed. Effectively control the means, and you're on the road to controlling the effect. My final word.

McG - you're right (of course!), but you rashly assume that I have some 'be nice' muscles in the first place! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 18 - 12:54 AM

Backwoodsman, We prefer to think of Bruce as "quaint." It's much easier to put up with him that way. He works really, really hard to defend the losing side.
"It isn't very pretty what a town without pity can do....."

And actually, he's quite a likeable fellow in person.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 May 18 - 08:58 PM

People who make it very difficult to be nice provide you with a chance to be nice anyway, Backwoodsman. Toughens up your "be nice" muscles.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Thompson
Date: 13 May 18 - 05:05 AM

Lots of horrid stories, here, lots of anger. May I jump in with one foreigner's thoughts?

1) The Second Amendment of the US Constitution talks about "a well-regulated militia", not about individuals owning many deadly guns. I would personally take that as a requirement for America to have some kind of National Service, of the kind Switzerland and Israel have or had (not sure which), where every citizen is taught how to defend their government if it is attacked. But using it to allow people to own AK-47s etc seems batty.

2) The same Amendment clearly relates to self-defence of the national territory, then under threat from its former ruler, the most powerful empire then on the face of the earth; and other empires that might try to take over the fledgling republic. Not to invading other countries for spurious reasons of supposed self-defence. Like 9/11: a group of Saudis attack a commercial centre, killing themselves in the process - what does the American government do? Go and attack a different, completely unconnected nation, Iraq! Very bizarre!

3) Nuking Japanese cities saved American lives. Umm… maybe. I have read that the Japanese military and government were already making overtures for an honourable surrender. America had slaughtered Japanese civilians by other atrocities already, like the firebombing of Tokyo… if you want to know about that, hunt out an excellent DVD, The Fog of War, a film about the life of Robert S McNamara, US Secretary of Defence. If you want to know a little about people in Japan during this war, there's a cartoon based on an autobiographical short story by Akiyuki Nosaka about children starving to death.

4) In the Republic of Ireland, we are having our own experience of laws, truth, lies, mercy and mercilessness. The 8th Amendment to our own Constitution, brought into law by a referendum in 1983, gives equal rights to women and foetuses. As a result of this Amendment, a woman who deliberately aborts a pregnancy can be sentenced to 14 years in jail. However, this law is routinely ignored, and an estimated 12 women a day travel abroad for abortions. Unknown numbers of women buy the "morning-after pill" online and take it without help or consultation from a doctor - because doctors could lose their licence to practise if they gave help in such a case.

But the law has also caused the deaths of women in Ireland - women refused treatment for cancer because they are pregnant and the treatment could kill or damage the foetus; a pregnant dentist refused an abortion, the refusal of which caused her to die of sepsis due to infection; a dead woman whose body was kept "alive" by life support machinery and massive antibiotic doses because her foetus had a heartbeat; a refugee child refused permission to travel abroad for an abortion after she was raped during her journey to "safety"; a child raped by a neighbour who was effectively imprisoned so that her parents could not bring her abroad; parents who have been given a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality - the scans showing that the foetus has life-ending problems (most commonly, a brain formed outside the skull and similar) - and who must take the plane or boat abroad, have the abortion then return, the woman still ill and both deep in sorrow…

For Ireland, a soft lie has long seemed better than a hard truth. We're voting on 25 May 2018 on whether we prefer to keep the soft lies or face truth honestly. It will be an interesting result.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 May 18 - 04:36 AM

I speak only the truth Joe.

Some people make it very difficult to 'be nice', when they wilfully turn your own words back on you, ignore points you make, refuse to answer simple questions, yadda yadda.

I'd already made the decision to bale out of this nonsense - now confirmed. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 May 18 - 01:54 AM

Backwoodsman, be nice...

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 18 - 03:25 PM

In the USA, like ancient Rome, we can not bring the Army to attack US citizens within our borders. We have the FBI, Local&State police, ICE, BTAFA and National Guard as our domestic armed forces.

Politics by violent means has succeeded in America in the long run by lone dissenters like John Brown but usually the activist is killed. There are eco activists who have sacrificed their lives for a eco cause that is not yet fully mainstream. Maybe someday they will be honored and remembered.

If someone wants to sacrifice their life for AR 15s and bump stock rights they should do so alone without killing others.

but they don't.
sometimes they take 60 music lovers with them.


repost as you will because I do not hunt and peck past posts.

Keb is the master of reviving past posts.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 18 - 02:41 PM

I read as much of your imaginary, cock-a-Mamie, fear-driven, theoretical bullshit as you read of my facts from my personal experience of 71 years of life in a country that, being well-regulated and with strong gun-laws, is relatively gun-free and has a very low number of shooting-deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 18 - 02:32 PM

So you can’t read, either?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 18 - 02:21 PM

"Bruce is actually alluding to talk within private militias in the US.
If those gun enthusiast 3% alt Nazis believe they can defeat the Federal Government with terrorism, civil war and murder, indeed many will die but it is 'doubtful' they will win."

Personally, I can't wait to see the faces of Ol' Beardy and his gun-maniac buddies when the real Hard-Men of the US Army and USAF come along and set their redneck arses on fire.

Squeal like a pig, boy!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 18 - 02:15 PM

I wouldn’t rely too much on that, Tunesmith. You get a way with stuff, and then all of a sudden it goes wrong, and your licence is at risk.

You're indulging him. It's not a debate. He needs you to keep this going and it got nothing to do with wanting a reasonable conversation. Something wrong here..

I can't see what's the problem in indulging him. Anyway, posts can be read by anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 18 - 01:05 PM

Donual

Look at my post of 7may 12:19 pm.

READ IT.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Tunesmith
Date: 12 May 18 - 09:29 AM

Well, in the UK MILLIONS of vehicle drivers break the law everyday and don't think twice about it. Speeding, parking near junctions etc.
And, of course, our wonderful police and local councils are happy to ignore such law breaking.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 18 - 09:25 AM

-but Russia would love you to start a civil war and would help you all they can- :^/

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 18 - 09:20 AM

There is no fine line. For the most part Joe is correct.
At first it was a minority of abolitionists who advanced a cause based on a moral judgment. Others saw the value of the moral argument and joined in. Anti Slavery is now the law of the land.

Seceding from Federal law will be judged by the quality and morality of ( in this case ) the Gun Argument. If in the meantime there are those who defy, ignore or attack Federalism, it is a declaration of war against the United States.

Bruce is actually alluding to talk within private militias in the US.
If those gun enthusiast 3% alt Nazis believe they can defeat the Federal Government with terrorism, civil war and murder, indeed many will die but it is 'doubtful' they will win.

If you think that ignoring the law is OK over a gun argument, you are not OK.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 18 - 05:43 AM

Precisely, Steve. And it's why he never answers the questions, why he picks up an expression his opponent uses and changes a couple of words to turn it back on him, introduces completely unrelated stuff like how far it is from Phoenix and how big the US is compared to anywhere else, he obfuscates, he waffles, he talks bollocks - simply because he's living in utter terror, he loves bang-bangs, and he regards his 'right' to have guns as taking precedence over others' right to life.

BTW, Australia is bigger than the US, and they managed to bring in strong gun controls and reduce shootings by, according to some sources, as much as 80%.

But don't worry, he'll be along shortly to tell us that Australia and the U.K. have it completely wrong.

You can't educate pork.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 18 - 04:56 AM

"If you mean, Steve, 'you're never going to convince Bruce' that’s obviously the case. But you don't ever expect to change the minds of people your arguing with, that's not the point."

You're indulging him. It's not a debate. He needs you to keep this going and it got nothing to do with wanting a reasonable conversation. Something wrong here.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 18 - 03:13 AM

Spot on McG.

'Wild West Mentality' still drives many Americans' attitudes, BB being a perfect example - the idea that "My life is permanently in mortal danger if I don't have a gun" is perfectly 'logical' in his mind because, from birth, it's what his mind has been trained to believe. To a British citizen, that idea sounds ludicrous, because (a) we haven't been subjected to that kind of psychological conditioning - precisely the reverse, in fact, (b) we don't have an immensely powerful organisation like the NRA, in the pocket of the arms-manufacturers, reinforcing that mindset by their propaganda and rewarding politicians financially for their support.

Until there's a radical change in their mindset, I see little or no chance of the American Cull ever ending, the 'right' to own guns apparently taking precedence over the right to life.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 18 - 09:49 PM

If you mean, Steve, "you're never going to convince Bruce" that’s obviously the case. But you don't ever expect to change the minds of people your arguing with, that's not the point. But there are always ways of putting things you haven't tried before, and it's a chance to try them out.
...............
It occurs to me there's a sense in which the focus on gun ownership as such is a mistake. In one way the slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. You do indeed get societies where a high degree of gun ownership isn't accompanied by a high degree of killings. Societies where the culture is such that people can be trusted. But the US isn't a society like that.

It's like the difference between allowing a safe person to get a gun, and allowing an unbalanced person to get a gun. Norway and Canada are the safe person who can be trusted, writ large - the US is the unbalanced person who can’t be.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 18 - 08:33 PM

And the person who carries out the massacre, in a school or church or wherever, is more than likely a law-abiding citizen up to that point. Or the child of a law-abiding citizen, whose first illegal action in his life was to borrow his father's gun.

Have any of those massacres been carried out by career criminals using an illegally obtained weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 18 - 07:00 PM

Can anyone of sane mind tell me why anyone is bothering with this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 05:55 PM

Not what I said. I never said legal guns are never used illegally

Almost all legal guns are never involved in illegal activities. If they are stolen or transferred illegally, THEN they are illegal. But no law is going to keep people from breaking the law. tHAT is what the people who propose laws that ONLY affect legal gun owners don’t seem to realize .

The ACT of a mass killing IS ILLEGAL already- does passing a law saying you can’ t own a 20 or 30 round clip do anything to stop a criminal (one who intends to commit a crime) from making one with his 3D printer? ONLY the law abiding citizen is impacted.

Is the intent to reduce killings, or to reduce legal gun ownership? Not the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 18 - 04:32 PM

I think you'd find that very few domestic killings involve self-defence.

So do I understand you as saying that, if you buy a gun legally, and you go off your head, that means that your possession of it when you go and carry out a massacre, so the massacre wasn't committed by someone in legal possession of a gun.   That's pretty ingenious logic.

And I suppose anyone who uses a gun they obtained legally to kill someone who doesn’t deserve to die, that means they are criminals by virtue of that act, and therefore not legally in possession of that gun.

So no legally owned gun is ever used to kill anyone improperly. Apart from accidents of course. Brilliant.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 18 - 03:48 PM

Well, actually, the term Sanctuary law is a misnomer. The California law requires state and local law enforcement officers not to participate or assist in federal immigration enforcement - but also not to impede Federal officers. This law means that immigrants can trust local law enforcement not to arrest them for violation of immigration laws. This means that immigrants can go to the police for help without fear.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 02:39 PM

So, Joe, what particular threats to Sanctuary do you experience where you live, that you insist the state not cooperate with the Federal authorities? Be specific. If the people seeking sanctuary are not felons, why are the Federals looking for them? I had not noticed that there were Federal raids to pick up people accused of misdemeanors.


So, since YOU state:"And though I see sanctuary for refugees as sacred, I know that harboring felons is a crime. The California sanctuary law does not allow harboring of felons."

What are the sanctuary seekers being protected from? Violation of what laws that are considered reasonable by the legislatures We the People have elected?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 02:30 PM

Now, Joe, please answer my question:

YOU state:"And though I see sanctuary for refugees as sacred, I know that harboring felons is a crime. The California sanctuary law does not allow harboring of felons."

So, if the person seeking sanctuary is a felon, they will be turned over to the Federal law enforcement?

YES OR NO?

Is illegal immigration a felony? How about falsifying government documents?

Well?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 02:27 PM

In MD, the buying, selling, or making of a significant list of firearms and ANY magazine of over 10 round is prohibited. As a collector, it is illegal for me to get an number of models of WWII weapons to use to display bayonets ( my specialty in collecting is US edged weapons.

From a MORAL standpoint, I object to it being illegal for ME to get a clip for a rifle, for display, while a criminal can make all he needs by 3d printer. What purpose does this law, THAT ONLY AFFECTS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, serve?

I HAVE argued that the laws being proposed

1. Do not remove guns from criminals
2. Do not prevent criminals from getting guns
3. Would result in a net increase in killings,
4. Prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves when the government has stated "( D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying) that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." "

Point number three alone would make it a moral obligation to fight against such laws- otherwise, I am helping the politicians increase the number of people killed for their political gain.

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 18 - 02:12 PM

So, Bruce, what particular threats to gun ownership do you experience where you live? Be specific. Your buckshot approach confuses us.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 08:43 AM

McGrath,


"80% of guns used in mass killings were obtained legally."

But NOT possessed legally- the various mental conditions, per the law, are to be reported, and they were NOT acted upon- in violation of the law- So, are those guns "legally obtained"?


" The same goes for domestic killings, accidental or intended."

And are those killings legal or illegal? IF used for self-defense, or to prevent a crime, I would HOPE that they had been obtained legally.

What percentage of the guns USED IN ILLEGAL ACTS were obtained legally? THAT is the figure that you might use for this discussion.

MOST guns are legal, and NEVER used for an illegal act- yet the anti-gun nuts lump them all together

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 08:12 AM

"So do these "sanctuaries" accept those, or is it anything- goes? "

Unknown- since they would be modeled on the "sanctuary" rules, I guess you have to ask Joe.


"And though I see sanctuary for refugees as sacred, I know that harboring felons is a crime. The California sanctuary law does not allow harboring of felons."

So, if the person seeking sanctuary is a felon, they will be turned over to the Federal law enforcement?

Is illegal immigration a felony? How about falsifying government documents?


"roommate rape/killings, the victims most likely had a legal right to keep guns in their residence and to use them for personal protection. "

Nope. Warren v. District of Columbia At the time, it was NOT permitted for private citizen to have a gun.

At the time ( after that law was passed, and until the case where the SC overthrew the law (Heller), the murder rate in DC was at record levels, even exceeding Chicago ( which had very strict laws as well.)

Since the Heller ruling, DC has just blocked firearm ownership by making it impossible for a FFL to function in the District, meaning that one cannot buy a gun ( gun purchases MUST go through FFL, but FFLs MUST have a place of business, which DC does not allow. It is ILLEGAL to buy a gun in another jurisdiction,and bring it into the District. FFLs can ONLY sell to residents of the state OR transfer through a FFL in the state of residence ( in this case, DC is acting as a state)- no FFLs, NO GUN TRANSFERS.)

" but was it illegal for the victims to possess guns?"
Actually, it was illegal for the victims to GET a gun, or be given one. (IF they had had one before the anti-gun law was passed,[ I am not sure if they would have had to turn it in or not.] -IF they were older than 21 at the time the law was passed.)


"anyone may request closure. Request for closure denied. "

I thought I had made a request. And your decision is fine- but I will not be abused here by a bunch of people who

Are ignorant of the topic they post on
Are more interested in abuse than discussion
Attack me rather than discuss the topic

WITHOUT pushing back at least as hard.



Backwoodsman,

The US is not the UK.

Include the rest of Europe, if you want a comparison. And Norway has far MORE guns per person ( as does MOST of Europe) than the UK, and a low murder rate. So my point about distance ands size of US is more significant than your making it UK vs US, and ignoring all of the countries in Europe that have more guns per person, and low crime.


Maybe all the people with cojones left Europe and came to the US back a few hundred years ago? Could be why we have a different culture. You want us all to come back?
Maybe it is the tea- does the government put something into it to make UKers malleable and compliant??? Just asking...

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 May 18 - 06:13 AM

Bruce, I said "No obfuscation'. Simply using my words as a response, but with key words replaced by words which suit your agenda, is not just obfuscation, it's childish obfuscation and a clear indication that you have no answer.

So, you still haven't answered the question about the huge disparity in shootings between your country with a citizenry armed to the teeth, and my country with relatively few gun-owners. Why? Because you know the answer is in the relative availability of guns, and the relatively strong, well enforced regulation of firearms in the U.K. in comparison with weak regulation in the US. But it doesn't align with your morbid obsession with, and devotion to, your 'toys', so you flounder around, waffling on about completely unrelated matters - the distance you flew from Phoenix, the relative sizes of our land-masses, yadda yadda. More obfuscation, more nonsense.

Grow some cojones and admit it - you're defending the indefensible, and making a fool of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 18 - 04:44 AM

Bruce, your logic is failing. I said there is a difference between morality and criminal law. Morality is a personal thing guiding personal conduct and values, enforced by conscience and social norms and taboos. Criminal law is societal, enforced by sanctions. I may not respect a criminal law that I think is unjust, but I'll still go to jail if I'm convicted of violating that law.

And yes, my personal opinion is that sanctuary for refugees is sacred, and that America's obsession with gun ownership is perverse. Sorry, Bruce, but I see no sanctity in guns. But you have the law on your side, Bruce. Americans can own guns, and they do so by the hundreds of millions. I am surrounded by armed neighbors who shoot bears and mountain lions and coyotes and rattlesnakes and people who go near their marijuana patches. Well, usually they only threaten the people.

And though I see sanctuary for refugees as sacred, I know that harboring felons is a crime. The California sanctuary law does not allow harboring of felons.

In your example of the roommate rape/killings, the victims most likely had a legal right to keep guns in their residence and to use them for personal protection. Perhaps it wasn't legal for them to have military weapons with 40-shot magazines, but there are few if any places in the U.S. where people are not allowed to keep weapons at home and to use them for personal protection. It's a dramatic example, I suppose, but was it illegal for the victims to possess guns?

Now, all those millions of people with guns don't make me feel safe at all, but the law gives them the right to bear arms - with restrictions that are considered reasonable by the legislatures We the People have elected.
So, Bruce, what's your point?

Joe

---

And by the way, the only right an original poster has at Mudcat, is to post the original post. The OP does not have the right to determine when the thread should be closed, although anyone may request closure. Request for closure denied.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 18 - 03:52 AM

80% of guns used in mass killings were obtained legally. The same goes for domestic killings, accidental or intended.

As for "gun law sanctuaries", given that in no state in the US is gun ownership banned, what are these on about anyway? You've indicated that it is right to have some rules about these things, bruce. So do these "sanctuaries" accept those, or is it anything- goes?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 02:36 PM

"However, I am afraid of people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but who are permitted to have them"

But they ARE NOT "permitted" to have them- and the laws being proposed do NOTHING to remove the guns from those who use them illegally. We can't even get the EXISTING laws that restrict gun ownership enforced- as witness the Florida shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 02:27 PM

Europe TOTAL Area: 10,180,000 km2 (3,930,000 SQ MI)
USA Area: 9,629,091 km2 (3,717,813 SQ MI)

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 02:12 PM

There's absolutely no point trying to discuss with you. You give us your strange, illogical 'theories', I give you actual, real-life experience of life in a country that, for better or worse HAS guns and a large criminal population, ( which Joe has a "Sacred" right to offer sanctuary to) which you, at best, ignore or, at worst, poo-poo.

I think the US has a larger diversity of cultures than the UK- I just flew back yesterday from Phoenix, AZ- it was a 4 hour flight and we flew over a distance of 1999 miles / 3217 kilometers. Go that distance in Europe, and tell me that the same laws will be valid as you have in the UK- and that people would accept them.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 01:20 PM

Now I'm outta here, BB. There's absolutely no point trying to discuss with you. You give us your strange, illogical 'theories', I give you actual, real-life experience of life in a relatively gun-free country which you, at best, ignore or, at worst, poo-poo. I ask you to explain the fact of huge disparities in shootings between our two countries, and you refuse to answer, preferring instead to tell me that I'm 'afraid of guns'.

I'm not 'afraid of guns', I have no reason to be 'afraid of guns' because there are so few people here with guns, the chances of coming up against anyone carrying a gun are virtually zero. However, I am afraid of people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but who are permitted to have them, and I'm afraid of people who are so psychologically conditioned that they cannot, or will not, contemplate a society in which guns are neither 'needed' nor wanted by the vast majority of the population.

So, have a good life in your dangerous, gun-mad country with its jaw-droppingly high level of shootings, but I'll take life here in the U.K. where we have far fewer guns, very few shootings, and where we aren't constantly living in fear of 'bad guys' coming round to shoot us.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 12:32 PM

Seek help for your paranoia and psychosis before it's too late.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 12:20 PM

IMO, you hate guns more than you hate killings.

I got only ONE honest answer to my question in the Gun thread:
"Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point."


I notice you NEVER answered this question.

PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE GUNS CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM CRIMINALS WHO DO HAVE THEM.

And the laws proposed do NOTHING to reduce the guns in the hands of CRIMINALS. And Joe considers it sacred to offer criminals Sanctuary, so even if the laws THAT ALREADY EXIST were enforced, they would not be disarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 12:14 PM

So you would have us pass laws that cannot be enforced, and would ONLY increase the illegal killings?



"I hate guns, so I will pass laws that let more people die from gun killings. That will show those people!

Arrest guns, not criminals!"

The Anti-gun Mantra

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 12:09 PM

Tell you what, as you can't, or won't, answer the two questions I asked, I'll answer them for you...

1) The reason why rate of gun deaths in the U.K. is a tiny fraction of the US rate is because there's a far lower rate of gun-ownership in the U.K., and PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE GUNS CAN'T SHOOT PEOPLE.

2) 'FUCKING MURDERERS' WITH GUNS killed those people, not people with pens, or whatever other idea you've got yourself fixated on.

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 11:56 AM

{{Sigh}}......you can't educate pork.

'Night all.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 11:53 AM

People killed them- both those who pulled the triggers, ad those who didn't enforce the existing laws. So, I guess the idea of being sacred to not enforce the existing laws is well established as a Liberal point.


The ones who pass laws that will kill more people are the murderers.

When laws were liberalized in DC, the murder rate went down. They had been rising when the laws to prohibit private ownership of guns were being enforced.

Some people kill you with a gun- some with a pen.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 11:11 AM

Who killed the kids at Columbine, and all the other school-and college-massacres? Who killed the music fans at the Country Music Festival? Who killed JFK? Who killed John Lennon? Was it people using their bare hands who did the killings? Or was it 'fucking murderers' with guns?

Answers on a postcard please.

@robomatic - good post, perfect sense, absolute undeniable truth.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 10:15 AM

Fine, lets just cme to a conclusion

If YOU think that protecting people who have broken the law from being held to account is sacred, and I feel that it is immoral to let people pass laws that will result in more illegal deaths, I am obviously wrong and YOUR decision is sacred while mine is silly.

So much for the Liberal Lie that you value human life.

End of thread- As OP, I request that it be closed and the fucking murderers here be allowed to post without any contrary opinions being considered.


Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.

THAT is what the most strict gun laws in the US provided for.

Guns have always been a means for the physically weak to keep from being forced by those who were stronger.


End of thread- As OP, I request that it be closed and the fucking murderers here be allowed to post without any contrary opinions being considered.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 May 18 - 09:27 PM

When it comes to guns, the truest Americanism is courtesy of author John Sandford:

Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
Guns just make it very very easy.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 May 18 - 04:47 PM

Kevin, you make a good point about county rights vs. states' rights, and up above you made an apt comparison between the Swiss confederation of cantons with the federal government of the United States. The Helvetian Confederation is looser than the U.S., but quite similar in many ways.
Counties and municipalities have varying degrees of autonomy within the states where they are located. New York City is largely independent from the government of the State of New York, but not completely independent. Most cities and counties are far more tightly bound to their states.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 18 - 04:22 PM

I doubt if any fugitive seeking sanctuary in a church in mediaeval times would have been allowed to have a weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 May 18 - 03:05 PM

Agreed, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 02:59 PM

When you start talking about a sanctuary being a place where you can have even more guns than you can outside it, well my mind boggles.