|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> If guns are no threat /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1653687557 Message started by Serowbot on 05/27/22 at 14:39:17 |
|
Title: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 05/27/22 at 14:39:17 If guns are no threat, why are they banned at Trump’s NRA speech this weekend? Why is the NRA a gun free zone? Makes you wonder don't it? ;D |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 05/27/22 at 15:36:23 I think nobody will show up,... it can't be safe if it's a gun free zone. ;D |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 05/27/22 at 18:52:35 3D2B3C21392C213A4E0 wrote:
Simple, to stop the possibility of, the mentally challenged, UL, DFI, FDS, Hillery/Obama/Biden lovers from being really stupid. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by oldNslow on 05/27/22 at 18:59:01 There will be plenty of guns at Trumps speech. He will be surrounded by Armed Secret Service Personnel, just like any other ex POTUS. Do you think it's unusual for guns to not be allowed in the audience at a speech given by an ex POTUS? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by WebsterMark on 05/28/22 at 05:25:45 3523342931242932460 wrote:
That’s a ridiculous argument and way beneath you. If we want to defund the police, why does my nearby joke of a congresswoman Cori Bush, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on armed security? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 05/28/22 at 06:22:37 Sure, they trust armed Secret Service... they don't trust you. Can't you see the irony? They don't trust the "good guys" with guns. I don't either. Can you believe I have something in common with the NRA? ;D |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/22 at 09:58:15 Guns ARE no threat. It's people who are unpredictable. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 05/28/22 at 10:36:32 3E2127203D3A0B3B0B33212D66540 wrote:
That's much like the adage There are no bad dogs only bad owners. It makes no difference to the person getting bit. ..but it's hard for dog to kill 22 people. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/22 at 11:22:56 And while he was outside shooting for ten minutes, nobody locked the door. A good guy with a shotgun stopped it. Got his scalp parted,didn't run. The cops with the tactical gear? Retreated. I'm willing to bet teachers there would carry if the geniuses would allow it. http://https://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/?attachment_id=55615 https://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/?attachment_id=55615 |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 05/28/22 at 13:31:48 7C6A7D60786D607B0F0 wrote:
Wow, you REALLY Hate Guns. (Get rid of the one you say you have yet ?) St. Valentines Day massacre, and the Assignation attempt of the POTUS. Was most likely the push that was used, for the very first, (1934, N.A.F.) “Gun Ban’. It disallowed a person, to buy over the counter, a fully Automatic firearm. It registered every single one, (Of the ones that people came forward with) And created rules and regulations, AND FEEs, for a civilian Citizen, to own a fully automatic firearm. So today, if one wants one to own/use a fully automatic firearm, they can. Basically, you buy one, $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 for a plain jane one. (a AR-16 sold to a police dept, is about $1,000.00) You can NOT take possession of it, until the Fed Gov ‘vet’s you. That ‘vetting will take a year, many times more. That ‘vetting’ will cost, (In 1934 the N.A.F. set $200.00 as the fee, in today's money that would be similar to $4,500.00) Also it must be in YOUR possession/control at all times. So you are at work, It MUST be locked up in a secure place/vault, where no one can get it. If two Federal Agents came to the door, Identified themselves, were verified, and asked the Wife to get that gun out of the locked safe for them, so they could just do a routine check, (The Husband is the one that, legally owns it) She would be IMMEDIATELY Arrested. So the HONEST Citizen, needs to jump through all sorts of hoops, Pay BIG money, wait a Year or more. To own one of the 630,000 that are deemed to be ‘own-able’ by the A.T.F. YET, Criminals, Non Citizens, Gang Bangers, Drug Lords, Bank Robbers, (as long as they don’t drive a Red Car), Street Thugs killing other Street Thugs, for wearing the wrong color hat in the wrong place. (Well the last one, is just cleaning the pool, the gene pool that is) Have the ability to buy one, out of a trunk ! Yep, totally restrict Freedom, so Bot will feel Safer ! Oh wait, Bot does have a means to protect himself, he has said so. (unless he got rid of it, which he has not said he has) Wonder if Bot had, but got rid of, Smoke Detector, Fire Extinguisher, CO monitor, Spare tire/jack/wrench, old rubber on a MC, Seat-belts, Leather jacket/chaps/boots, and all those other cumbersome objects? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 05/28/22 at 13:49:10 I live rent free in your head ;D |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/22 at 13:51:54 If lefties have food and water put back, that sounds wrong. Being able to stay alive without a government agent making it possible just seems like something that should not be allowed. Ohh! Lookie! Executive order to allow the government to come take your supplies! Only Slightly unconstitutional. But who needs a written document to validate what everyone knows, in their heart? Do YOU, as an individual, have a right to secure food,water,fuel,store it on YOUR property and prepare for hard times??? C'mon,, I Really wanna hear from you lefties here. That challenge continues to go unaccepted. Step up! Tell us how wrong it is. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/29/22 at 11:43:42 The gauntlet remains on the floor. Why does the idea of self sufficiency grate so on the left? It's as if helplessness is virtue. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/29/22 at 12:55:33 Do YOU, as an individual, have a right to secure food,water,fuel,store it on YOUR property and prepare for hard times??? If not, you need to ditch your spare tire. I'm preparing for that fishing trip. Looks like I'm gonna have plenty of crikkets |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 05/29/22 at 19:56:55 56494F4855526353635B49450E3C0 wrote:
I believe it is because they are lazy. They have learned, (just like the Buffalo at Yellowstone Park) Just put your hand out. Cry GIMMMIMMMIEEE And you will get food ! |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by WebsterMark on 05/30/22 at 04:44:34 5B444245585F6E5E6E56444803310 wrote:
That’s a very good question. It deserves a deeper look. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/30/22 at 12:05:52 6B747275686F5E6E5E66747833010 wrote:
That is my question. Do you even have a Right to put back necessities just in case they become unavailable or unaffordable? Or, yeah, you have the Right, but only, heck,idk,paranoid people would do that? Just explain how it is,, Cuz I'm not getting it. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 05/30/22 at 12:29:56 I think the difference is extreme cases. Like people that coupon. There's using coupons and there's buying 130 bottles of mustard so you can get one free. Nobody really cares until they start advertising how they got free mustard. "Do you even have a Right to put back necessities just in case they become unavailable or unaffordable?" I wouldn't say its a "right" as procurement and storage of goods isn't Constitutionally protected. There are however laws and amendments that disallow illegal seizure of personal property. Paranoid is a matter of opinion, so that depends entirely on who you are talking to. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/30/22 at 13:11:05 wouldn't say its a "right" as procurement and storage of goods isn't Constitutionally protected. So, you're saying No? You believe that everything that is Not stated and enumerated in the constitution is just a privilege, subject to change? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 05/30/22 at 14:58:30 "So, you're saying No?" Yes, I am saying I am unaware of anything in the US Constitution that specifically guarantees we can obtain items. I feel that instead of writing in protections for all things we can have they instead limited the ability for the Government to take things away. Thus the Due Process Clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments. These due process doctrines were most recognized when enforced in Lochner v. New York in 1905. It's like the difference between having laws that show every item you can ever haul in your truck, updating it annually for every new thing that could ever be in a truck, versus just making a law that the authorities can't just take your personal property for no reason. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/31/22 at 15:03:13 It's scary that you seem to have connections in government. We are not under Napoleonic law. Our constitution is not designed to limit the people. It's limitation on government. How can anyone believe that a free citizen does Not have the Right to purchase From the grocery store? Come on,, tell us exactly how the government has a right to take my store of food. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 05/31/22 at 17:34:22 47585E5944437242724A58541F2D0 wrote:
One form is called 'eminent domain', it is usually used to, 'widen a road', 'increase the town size', 'put in a water-tower', etc/.etc/etc. The owner is offered a compromise for the property at issue. YET it can be used for ANYTHING ! How much that property is worth depends on many factors. And the Government authority will Hugely, 'LO BALL' the value. While the owner will Hugely, 'HI BALL', the value. Now comes the FUN. The GOVERNMENT will Lie, Threaten, and just plain make $hit up. MOST people, will succumb, and the, 'government entity', wins their, 'Low Ball'. In A few cases, the 'government', is told, in no uncertain terms, they can NOT do what they are doing, and then the settlement is for a FAIR price. That is how the, 'government' can take anything they want., It is MOSTLY, Land, or rights. Yet it Can Be, anything ! Golly gee Wally, Can anyone say the 2nd Amendment ? Oh Yea, that right, they were not slapped on a Airplane. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/31/22 at 18:53:09 Whatever Duude,, I hope they don't expect to see me help load my nuts on the truck. Actually, there are a few scenarios where I Would help them load. If our people were fighting For the American people, yeah,, but the odds of that sure look slim. America WAS energy independent,, but someone sure took care of That.. Our economy was okay,, and without the Horrific overblown response to covid, we would still be okay, not great, but okay. Well, had the America hating turd in DC not screwed us. America First got tossed out. And I am Glad I lived to see one president who actually did it right. Too bad he surrounded himself with the same kindsa creeps who have been ruining the country for decades. Just so I'm not misunderstood Screw lefties |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 05/31/22 at 20:53:02 How can anyone believe that a free citizen does Not have the Right to purchase From the grocery store? Point out to me where in the US Constitution the procurement of goods is actually a "right". Come on,, tell us exactly how the government has a right to take my store of food. I didn't say they had the right to take your food, I said the exact opposite of that. Instead of the Government creating a method to define all forms of personal property they instead limited their own ability to take it. What parts of the Constitution and case law that I referenced is incorrect? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/01/22 at 09:07:31 Point out to me where in the US Constitution the procurement of goods is actually a "right". Are you serious? You have so little grasp of reality that you would pretend that unless something is enumerated in the constitution it's NOT your Right? You know about Napoleonic law, right? That is how it works. You are TOLD you have a Right, or you Don't. If you think the constitution must State that you have a Right to engage in commerce and prepare yourself and family r you Don't have a right to do it, I want you as far from the levers of government as possible. You are dangerous. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/01/22 at 10:25:52 "Are you serious? You have so little grasp of reality that you would pretend that unless something is enumerated in the constitution it's NOT your Right?" What I am saying, using the actual US Constitution for reference - is that our "rights" to property are managed in the US Constitution by means of restricting the Governments ability to take it. "You know about Napoleonic law, right?" I know its called Napoleonic Code and is only directly used in Louisiana and that discrepancies in jurisprudence don’t amount to huge differences in implementation. It is a similar system to the more directly coded "Civil law" used in the rest of the US. "If you think the constitution must State that you have a Right to engage in commerce and prepare yourself and family r you Don't have a right to do it, I want you as far from the levers of government as possible. You are dangerous." I never said that. Thus is you over-reacting as usual to someone not directly agreeing with everything you say. I said the US Constitution addresses property rights from a different perspective. I use actual US Constitution as reference, not things I am TOLD by whoever already agrees with me. I said "obtain items" specific to having a "right". I don't see that in the Constitution as personal property is protected from another angle. MnSpring addresses this and you are cool with it, but if I say it you get all worked up. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/takings What parts of the Constitution and case law that I referenced is incorrect? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/01/22 at 12:57:53 And you actually Believe you are not creating a situation that limits open conversation. You are playing word games that create an inability to have a Normal Conversation. You are ALONE in your ability to understand the Topic. STOPPIT. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/01/22 at 13:06:25 "And you actually Believe you are not creating a situation that limits open conversation." I am not limiting a single thing you or anyone else says. What part of me thinking the US Constitution limits the Governments ability to take our personal property "limits" a conversation on that topic? If you don't agree then don't agree. I referenced the US Constitution and case law to support my opinion, so there's my opinion. No part of my opinion is personal, or limiting to any of you. You asked: "Do you even have a Right to put back necessities just in case they become unavailable or unaffordable?" I offered my opinion and now you want to complain about it. Don't ask if you don't want opinions. What it seems is you want people to agree and support, not offer their actual thoughts. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/01/22 at 13:16:12 Duude! You Totally Got me!! You are so correct! I'm never going to get over your lesson! Ohh,thank You!! |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/01/22 at 13:48:40 Here's how I came to my conclusion on property rights in the US. Why you take this personal I have no idea. First we have successfully stopped 3 attempts to take privately owned property in Colorado known as the Pinon canyon expansion. I have mentioned this multiple times on this forum. This required a lot of legal study involving but limited to Constitutional Law. https://www.westword.com/news/army-abandons-pinon-canyon-expansion-plans-5884608 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hr16-1007 I spent a few years attending things like the Global Constitutionalism Seminar (the mid 2000s ones) among Yale Law School programs with assistance from associates. I still work with one of the guys that runs the National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars. No YouTube, no Facebook, no GatewayPundit just actual law study with actual legal teams. We found the best way to stop eminent domain from applying to the Pentagon's national security arguments was to diminish the ability for the Government to fund an expansion. It took a long time, it took a ton of research into case law and how the US Constitution protects US property, and it worked. We won. So maybe there is substance to accurate interpretation of "rights" and how they apply to the 5th and other Amendments since that is after all what we used to win an actual legal battle against the US Government. Off the top of my head I can cite at least 9 cases where property "rights" were addressed by the Supreme Court. Real cases, not imaginary events. So you asked for my opinion and I can detail line by line each case and how those SCOTUS decisions influence my opinion - that you asked for. I would say we have the "freedom" to purchase goods, and the "right" to not have it taken away without due process of law. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 06/01/22 at 17:11:46 0D2D2F273A2D480 wrote:
It is Napoleonic LAW, is is, ALSO, called, (Recently) Napoleonic Code. Which is prevalent in the Australian Law Dictionary. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 06/01/22 at 17:16:16 5575777F6275100 wrote:
Please Refresh, when did you said: the government has no ‘right’ to take your food’ |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 06/01/22 at 17:21:02 6444464E5344210 wrote:
Perhaps it is because; I have never TOLD JOG, “…That is wrong...” I have never told JOG ‘what to think. I have never told JOG ‘how to think. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/01/22 at 18:02:19 "Please Refresh, when did you said: the government has no ‘right’ to take your food’" What do you mean? JoG claims I said the Government has the "right" to take your food. They do not, I never said they did. "Perhaps it is because; I have never TOLD JOG, “…That is wrong...” I have never told JOG ‘what to think. I have never told JOG ‘how to think." When JoG claims 10 percent of children are dying from heart attacks and millions of kids aren't dead, he is wrong. When he cites a court case that never existed, that is wrong. When he claims hydroxychloroquine is a "proven cure" he is wrong, people that take it can still get Covid. When he provides information he won't read and I read it and tell him what it says, he tells me I'm wrong. He's sending me PM's telling me to "SHUT UP", I wouldn't even think to send anyone messages like that. I could care less what or how he thinks. If anyone tells me that 2000 US Soldiers a day are being disabled, I'm not concerned how they think, I am concerned that that number is inaccurate. My issue is the number, not JoG. "It is Napoleonic LAW, is is, ALSO, called, (Recently) Napoleonic Code." Napoleonic Code: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Napoleonic-Code "enacted on March 21, 1804" Recent? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/02/22 at 00:53:09 JoG claims I said the Government has the "right" to take your food. They do not, I never said they did. I did not say that |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/02/22 at 07:31:43 "I did not say that" I never said to trust the CDC but you consistently claim I did. So using that action, what we actually say, historically, is not pertinent to what can be claim has been said. As for this conversation I must have misunderstood your comment and was wrong: "It's scary that you seem to have connections in government. We are not under Napoleonic law. Our constitution is not designed to limit the people. It's limitation on government. How can anyone believe that a free citizen does Not have the Right to purchase From the grocery store? Come on,, tell us exactly how the government has a right to take my store of food." |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/03/22 at 10:35:26 After trying several times to copy and paste the last sentence of your post, I give. All I can say is I'm having to rethink my opinion of you. I do wish you could say something about where you have been. You kinda disappeared for a while. Can you talk about it? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/03/22 at 11:41:23 I was in Bia[ch322]ystok Poland and then finished setting up an away-team at Katterbach Kaserne Germany. Nothing exciting, just some contract work. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 06/03/22 at 12:43:32 6747454D5047220 wrote:
Nothing exciting?... I'm excited when I go to Arby's... ;D |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/03/22 at 13:00:48 You wouldn't keep stuff kinda to yourself, would you? If I Ever find myself at Arbys, I'm having a coffee flavored malt. They have one in Tyler, but it's been YEEERZ since wve been there. What we do have is a place called Andy's. EauxMuGaawd,,, a strawberry malt? Yeah, a dude could suffer with Not doing what his heart wants.. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 06/04/22 at 12:55:51 Interesting bit of trivia... In the past 100 days, 262 children have been killed in the Ukraine. We in the US average 1500 children per year killed by guns. Ukraine is at war. :-? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/22 at 13:18:28 Duude, tragic as that is, and Yes, that is heartbreaking levels of tragic, context is still important. How many of those Children are gang bangers? How many of them were armed and trying to kill the people who killed them? We simply can not allow ourselves to fall victim to the feelings that such tragedy would create. It's important that we understand the whole of it. Who Are these Children and where were they and what were they doing? Were they in any of those cities where guns are illegal? It's gonna take more than raw numbers to understand the whole of the situation. It's Ten O'clock, do you know where your children are? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 06/04/22 at 13:44:37 To me, the "who what where why's" don't matter,... that's just circumstance. Urban environments, poverty, congestion,... at home, at school, in public. All these things happen in all countries, yet we have all these killings where other countries don't. Think about it,... statistically, American children would almost be safer under attack by Russians in the Ukraine than living here. Admittedly,.. Ukraine is 50M people compared to our 300M, but still... It's mind numbing. We are more comparable to a nation at war than to any other civilized nation. The right-wing trope is Chicago and it's murder rate despite gun laws. But,... when you can take a 10 minute bus ride out of town to buy any gun you want, that law has no teeth. A national problem needs a national solution. This is why the "Chicago" argument doesn't hold water. Would a gun ban in Uvalde make any difference? Of course not. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/22 at 14:03:34 Okay.. I get that. So, what is the answer? Some people would agree that the perfect solution is No guns. Just as hardening school would send homicidal maniacs toward softer targets, and eliminating certain guns would send them toward different tools to accomplish their twisted goal, eliminating guns would send them toward a different method of murder. Explosive devices are deadly, too. It's not, IMO, the equipment to murder. It's the twisted heart. A person bent on killing can use a red car and drive through innocent people. Our society has been goin downhill for decades. The Concept of Right and Wrong has been eroded. The sanctity of Life has been diminished. Actual consequences for bad behaviour has been seriously diminished in school. Any teaching that there is such a thing as Right and Wrong has been attacked. It seems like it has all become so subjective.. And standing For Good has come under attack. And, Row,seriously, the Where were these Children? A 17 year old Child, with his buddies, engaged in a gang fight, is tragic, but it's not exactly the death of an Innocent Child. Without All the facts, it feels like a statistical attempt to convince people of something that just isn't As Advertised. I'm not happy about what you shared, but I'm not about to allow myself to feel the kind of pain that I would if I knew those dead Children were Innocent Children. It's without seriously important context. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/22 at 04:34:36 4157405D45505D46320 wrote:
This is why we have that saying that statistics are like a lamp post to a drunk, it’s used more for support than illumination. I’m sure we’ve had several of those child murders in St. Louis already in the month of June. A 17-year-old killed in the middle of a gang gun battle over drug territory is not the same as a child shot sitting in a school room by a deranged mental case. That’s a fact. You have to look at it that way. Mass school shootings are rare, they don’t happen often. That doesn’t excuse anything but it’s reality. Look at the news about what happened in Philadelphia last night. And tell me gun laws is going to change any of that. Again, there are 3 to 400,000,000 guns in United States. Use some common sense. It used to be of use the gun in a commission of a crime you were totally screwed. Serious prison time. I don’t think we do that anymore. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 06/05/22 at 16:15:54 Quote:
And Hillery said VERY OFTEN: “… Anybody can buy a gun off the internet just like a tea cup off e-bay …” Very interesting that Eegore Condemns/Scorn’s/School’s, people for using a word, to say something. Yet when Bot & Hillery, use A WORD, which implies/suggests/infers, that 'ANYBODY' can get a gun. WHICH is totally untrue. Not a word is said !!!!!!!!!! Wonder why that would be ? Before the information is SPUN, here is the TRUTH. If a person, 'buys' a gun, (off the internet/store outside Chicago's 'gun ban' places) they cannot, have it, use it, or posses it, UNTIL, They fill out a 4473, been vetted by the FFL licensed person, passed the required 'Background Check'. But hey, Hillery says some guns should not exist, (yet she is surrounded by Body Guards using those same guns) And Bot says some guns should not exist, (Yet keeps one himself, 'just because') |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/05/22 at 22:46:03 "Very interesting that Eegore Condemns/Scorn’s/School’s, people for using a word, to say something. Yet when Bot & Hillery, use A WORD, which implies/suggests/infers, that 'ANYBODY' can get a gun. WHICH is totally untrue. Not a word is said !!!!!!!!!!" I must have missed it, can you point out where Serowbot said this? I don't care what Hillary said anymore than I care what Trump said. If Serowbot is actually claiming, not quoting, claiming that all humans can get guns in the US then yes this is wrong. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 06/06/22 at 10:20:49 0A2A28203D2A4F0 wrote:
Definition & Citations: "... France’s Law. Rather than legal theories and principles, it is based largely on common sense rules. Five major codes comprise it: (1) Civil code, (2) Civil procedure Code, (3) Penal code, (4) Criminal procedure Code, and (5) Commercial code. In 1804 the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) instituted it, distinguished by its religious tolerance and land emancipation. It is derived from Roman law. Also known as Napoleonic code. ..." I didn't go hopping around looking to, PROVE, someone wrong. I just typed in, "Napoleonic Law' in the browser search engine, and this was the first thing that came up: https://thelawdictionary.org/napoleonic-law/ Being a LAW, Dictionary, and first thing that came up. Figured they had it covered. But that's OK, used to you saying, ' incorrect ' |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/06/22 at 17:10:55 I was referencing Napoleonic Code because it is literally specifically called "Code" in 1804 in France. In my reference if you bothered to look, shows the "Code Civil des Français" or "Civil Code of the French". You state it is "Recently" called "Code": It is Napoleonic LAW, is is, ALSO, called, (Recently) Napoleonic Code." Incorrect. It was Originally called "Code" upon its inception in 1804 France. So is 1804 recent to you? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/09/22 at 00:31:16 Ohh,Lookie! Teacher makes a distinction that doesn't change nuts. You just have to be a pedantic jakkass, don't you? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/09/22 at 05:19:28 "Ohh,Lookie! Teacher makes a distinction that doesn't change nuts. You just have to be a pedantic jakkass, don't you?" I am only addressing MnSprings continued debate on the matter. I mentioned the subject only once, and not in a capacity to challenge you, but to clarify how I agree with you. I agreed with you. MnSpring wants to keep bringing up Napoleonic "Law" vs "Code". I would have never said anything more about it. I am the jakkass? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 06/09/22 at 07:08:27 1B3B39312C3B5E0 wrote:
Incorrect I explained, how I found the information, then used the phrase/s, they used. "...Definition & Citations, France’s Law, derived from Roman law. Also known as Napoleonic code. ..." A suggestion, contact; https://thelawdictionary.org/napoleonic-law/ then do your whining to them. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/09/22 at 10:11:36 "I explained, how I found the information, then used the phrase/s, they used. "...Definition & Citations, France’s Law, derived from Roman law. Also known as Napoleonic code. ..."" Got it. And I explained where I got my information. The point is I stated Code, while agreeing with JoG, and you want to keep talking about Code Vs Law, and none of that changes that I agree with JoG. I brought it up once, and didn't do so as a way to argue against the point because Law or Code it means the same thing in this post. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/09/22 at 12:30:22 Just to be clear, you are the only person who was agreeing with me who made me feel like I was being attacked. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 06/09/22 at 12:54:25 1434363E2334510 wrote:
Incorrect, Once again. I simply explained where my information came from. I simply explained I used the words of that page. I simply used the first reference I found. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/09/22 at 13:20:20 "Just to be clear, you are the only person who was agreeing with me who made me feel like I was being attacked." Like when I said: "You are dangerous." or when I sent you personal messages specifically to tell you to "SHUT UP"? Was it when I called you a pedantic jakkass maybe? Is that the kinds of things I said that made you feel attacked? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 06/09/22 at 13:40:39 Guys?... let's stop arguing about arguing. ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/09/22 at 13:53:52 But then what would we talk about? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by MnSpring on 06/09/22 at 14:03:00 7761766B73666B70040 wrote:
So when you say: "... you can take a 10 minute bus ride out of town to buy any gun you want, ..." I, and others are NOT suppose to, Argue about it ? Just accept the total, absolute, BS Lies ? |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Serowbot on 06/09/22 at 14:09:06 Was it the 10 minutes?,... the bus?... Look how long this has gone on. 5474767E6374110 wrote:
I see your point ;D |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by Eegore on 06/09/22 at 14:10:48 "I, and others are NOT suppose to, Argue about it ? Just accept the total, absolute, BS Lies ?" Why not, supposedly and without any evidence - CDC provisional coding says to classify car wreck deaths as dying "From" Covid. That total BS lie is supposed to be ignored. All kinds of BS is ignored here. I think what Serow is talking about is the nonproductive pointing of fingers we are all doing. |
|
Title: Re: If guns are no threat Post by WebsterMark on 06/12/22 at 03:55:54 Here, what this guy said: Another senseless mass shooting, another national wave of mourning and anger, another presidential visit to a grief-stricken community. But as President Biden faces the cameras in Uvalde, Texas, this weekend, as he and other leaders offer their prescriptions for easing the public’s fears, let me suggest a more practical and immediate way for Americans to cope with this tragedy: turn off the television. Politicians and journalists cannot resist exploiting the deaths of schoolchildren, but the ghoulish wall-to-wall coverage serves no purpose except to terrify adults and kids. Contrary to what you’ve heard from Biden and the media, school massacres like the one in Uvalde are exceptionally rare events. They actually occurred more often in the 1990s than recently—but back then, there wasn’t an army of satellite trucks competing around the clock to chronicle the horror. “There is not an epidemic of mass shootings,” says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University who has been tracking these events for decades and helps keep the AP/USA Today/Northeastern Mass Killing database. “What’s increasing and is out of control is the epidemic of fear.” As Fox notes, the annual odds that an American child will die in a mass shooting at school are nearly 10 million to 1, about the odds of being killed by lightning or of dying in an earthquake. Those are also about the same odds that any American will die in a mass public shooting like the recent one in Buffalo. Such numbers, of course, are no consolation to the grieving parents and families in Uvalde and Buffalo, but neither is the frenzy to manipulate these tragedies for ratings and political gain. There are legitimate issues to debate about criminal violence in America, which has indeed been increasing, but we’re not going to identify the causes or remedies by focusing on a few isolated crimes and traumatizing Americans in the process. Surveys show that half of Americans worry about being the victim of a mass shooting, and a third of them avoid going to certain places and events because of this fear. More than 60 percent of parents worry that their child will be killed in a mass shooting at school. Children do need to be better protected from criminals, and there might be ways to make schools safer, but students don’t need the active-shooter drills now conducted in over 95 percent of the nation’s schools, and which are associated with higher levels of depression, stress and anxiety. Nor do children and parents need to hear the deceptive statistics promoted by the press and the White House’s fearmonger-in-chief. “Why are we willing to live with this carnage?” Biden asked in his speech after the Uvalde killings, portraying them as the continuation of a decade of ceaseless slaughter by citing the “900 incidents of gunfire” on school grounds since 2012. But few students died in these incidents, which typically occurred outside the school building and often involved non-students going there after school hours. When Fox totals the number of students killed by any sort of gunfire at school in the past decade, including the victims in Uvalde, it works out to 10 deaths per year—among more than 50 million students. “Hundreds of children die every year in drowning accidents,” he says. “We need lifeguards at pools more than armed guards at schools.” Journalists are similarly deceptive when they call Uvalde the 27th “school shooting” of this year, or classify the spree in Buffalo as one of the hundreds of “mass shootings” in America annually. But these “mass shootings” typically don’t result in more than one death, if that, and the ones with multiple fatalities typically involve family disputes at home, gang conflict, or other criminal activity like drug dealing or robbery. They’re not random attacks like that in Buffalo, which meets Fox’s criteria for a “mass public shooting”: one in a public place with at least four fatalities and not related to domestic violence, gang conflict, or other crimes. On average, a half dozen of these occur annually. Mass public shootings at schools are much rarer: a total of 12 in the past 34 years. We can all agree that even one of these massacres is too many. But wallowing in the gruesome details will not prevent another, and neither will blaming the senseless murders on political enemies. We should be looking for ways to protect children and adults from all the dangers they face—including the recent homicide surge claiming nearly 100 additional lives every week. That carnage continues, and a presidential visit to Texas will do nothing to stop it. John Tierney is a contributing editor of City Journal and coauthor of The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |