Connecticut (et al)

[Seth]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

You don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear pets. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That trumps bylaws.

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

Since the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, it is an inherent, natural and unalienable right, any repeal of the 2nd Amendment combined with attempts to debar me the possession and use of arms I deem necessary or desirable for my safety and the national defense would be a lawless violation of my rights and I would not acknowledge it nor would I obey any purported law requiring me to surrender my arms. Instead, I'd likely take the course of my forefathers and replace the form of government that did such a thing with another that better protects my rights, such as the one guided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which I'm sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

Despotism and tyranny have no legitimacy and may be put down like one would dispose of a rabid dog, and with no more regret.

[Seth]

I'm not sure what Sam or Coito are getting at, but there seems to be a valid point hidden away in there: gun violence is primarily a sociological problem endemic to regions of high population density.

Perhaps that's because as a rule, the dependent class live in regions of high population density because a) the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas; and b) they choose to live in and near other members of the dependent class for sociological reasons.

The cure for the individual suffering from a high crime rate in an urban slum seems perfectly obvious to me: move out of the slum.

Another great Seth contradiction. You don't think it might be difficult to move out of a slum because, as you say "the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas"?

They got feet don't they? That sufficed for millions of people who were TRULY destitute during the Great Depression. They packed up and went to where the jobs were rather than sitting on their lazy asses in places where there are no jobs all the while lamenting their condition and demanding largess from the public treasury.

Tell you what, I'll pay for one one-way bus ticket from Detroit to Dallas for one dependent-class drone. Consider that my full and final obligation to the dependent class. Not another fucking dime.

[pErvinalia]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

You don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear pets. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That trumps bylaws.

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

Since the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, it is an inherent, natural and unalienable right, any repeal of the 2nd Amendment combined with attempts to debar me the possession and use of arms I deem necessary or desirable for my safety and the national defense would be a lawless violation of my rights and I would not acknowledge it nor would I obey any purported law requiring me to surrender my arms. Instead, I'd likely take the course of my forefathers and replace the form of government that did such a thing with another that better protects my rights, such as the one guided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which I'm sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

Despotism and tyranny have no legitimacy and may be put down like one would dispose of a rabid dog, and with no more regret.

As I said...

[pErvinalia]

I'm not sure what Sam or Coito are getting at, but there seems to be a valid point hidden away in there: gun violence is primarily a sociological problem endemic to regions of high population density.

Perhaps that's because as a rule, the dependent class live in regions of high population density because a) the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas; and b) they choose to live in and near other members of the dependent class for sociological reasons.

The cure for the individual suffering from a high crime rate in an urban slum seems perfectly obvious to me: move out of the slum.

Another great Seth contradiction. You don't think it might be difficult to move out of a slum because, as you say "the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas"?

They got feet don't they? That sufficed for millions of people who were TRULY destitute during the Great Depression. They packed up and went to where the jobs were rather than sitting on their lazy asses in places where there are no jobs all the while lamenting their condition and demanding largess from the public treasury.

Tell you what, I'll pay for one one-way bus ticket from Detroit to Dallas for one dependent-class drone. Consider that my full and final obligation to the dependent class. Not another fucking dime.

Have you seen your unemployment rate, lately?

[Seth]

I'm not sure what Sam or Coito are getting at, but there seems to be a valid point hidden away in there: gun violence is primarily a sociological problem endemic to regions of high population density.

Perhaps that's because as a rule, the dependent class live in regions of high population density because a) the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas; and b) they choose to live in and near other members of the dependent class for sociological reasons.

The cure for the individual suffering from a high crime rate in an urban slum seems perfectly obvious to me: move out of the slum.

Another great Seth contradiction. You don't think it might be difficult to move out of a slum because, as you say "the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas"?

They got feet don't they? That sufficed for millions of people who were TRULY destitute during the Great Depression. They packed up and went to where the jobs were rather than sitting on their lazy asses in places where there are no jobs all the while lamenting their condition and demanding largess from the public treasury.

Tell you what, I'll pay for one one-way bus ticket from Detroit to Dallas for one dependent-class drone. Consider that my full and final obligation to the dependent class. Not another fucking dime.

Have you seen your unemployment rate, lately?

Not my problem. I've paid all the income taxes I'm ever going to pay. Not one more dime, ever. Fuck the dependent class, they can go displace the 12 million illegal aliens currently working at picking onions and changing sheets if they want to eat.

[pErvinalia]

You do this backtracking every time you suggest some unemployed person should just magically get a job. I don't care whether it is or isn't "your problem" in the context of this debating point. You made a stupid statement, and I pointed out the hole in it. Frothing about marxists and theft isn't going to change that point.

[laklak]

Put another way, if the same number of guns (appx 270,000,000) existed in New Zealand that would work out to about 68 firearms for every man, woman and child.

My children only have 7 guns each..

Jesus Christ, rEv, how the hell can they hold their heads up at school? Bet they don't have 3 iPads either, you cheapskate.

[pErvinalia]

I have to keep them sufficiently disarmed else they will overthrow my tyrannical rule.

[laklak]

You monarchists are all alike.

[Seth]

You do this backtracking every time you suggest some unemployed person should just magically get a job. I don't care whether it is or isn't "your problem" in the context of this debating point. You made a stupid statement, and I pointed out the hole in it. Frothing about marxists and theft isn't going to change that point.

No you didn't, you evaded the question again, as you always do.

Some vague reference to a "social contract" doesn't even begin to answer the question of how you morally justify forcing Person A to pay for the needs of Person B against Person A's will.

So answer the question for once.

[Jason]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

You don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear pets. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That trumps bylaws.

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

Since the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, it is an inherent, natural and unalienable right, any repeal of the 2nd Amendment combined with attempts to debar me the possession and use of arms I deem necessary or desirable for my safety and the national defense would be a lawless violation of my rights and I would not acknowledge it nor would I obey any purported law requiring me to surrender my arms. Instead, I'd likely take the course of my forefathers and replace the form of government that did such a thing with another that better protects my rights, such as the one guided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which I'm sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

Despotism and tyranny have no legitimacy and may be put down like one would dispose of a rabid dog, and with no more regret.

So the 2nd amendment and the constitution is really just a wash over your personal gun philosophy. Which is what you're really defending. Got it.

[pErvinalia]

You do this backtracking every time you suggest some unemployed person should just magically get a job. I don't care whether it is or isn't "your problem" in the context of this debating point. You made a stupid statement, and I pointed out the hole in it. Frothing about marxists and theft isn't going to change that point.

No you didn't, you evaded the question again, as you always do.

Some vague reference to a "social contract" doesn't even begin to answer the question of how you morally justify forcing Person A to pay for the needs of Person B against Person A's will.

So answer the question for once.

What question? We weren't even talking about the social contract you boob. I was pointing out the stupidness of your comment that unemployed people can just magically get a job. Well, no, they can't just do that with a real unemployment level up around 20%.

[Seth]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

You don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear pets. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That trumps bylaws.

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

Since the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, it is an inherent, natural and unalienable right, any repeal of the 2nd Amendment combined with attempts to debar me the possession and use of arms I deem necessary or desirable for my safety and the national defense would be a lawless violation of my rights and I would not acknowledge it nor would I obey any purported law requiring me to surrender my arms. Instead, I'd likely take the course of my forefathers and replace the form of government that did such a thing with another that better protects my rights, such as the one guided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which I'm sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

Despotism and tyranny have no legitimacy and may be put down like one would dispose of a rabid dog, and with no more regret.

So the 2nd amendment and the constitution is really just a wash over your personal gun philosophy. Which is what you're really defending. Got it.

No, not my "personal gun philosophy," the right to keep and bear arms that accrues to every individual on the planet by virtue of their existence.

[Seth]

You do this backtracking every time you suggest some unemployed person should just magically get a job. I don't care whether it is or isn't "your problem" in the context of this debating point. You made a stupid statement, and I pointed out the hole in it. Frothing about marxists and theft isn't going to change that point.

No you didn't, you evaded the question again, as you always do.

Some vague reference to a "social contract" doesn't even begin to answer the question of how you morally justify forcing Person A to pay for the needs of Person B against Person A's will.

So answer the question for once.

What question? We weren't even talking about the social contract you boob. I was pointing out the stupidness of your comment that unemployed people can just magically get a job. Well, no, they can't just do that with a real unemployment level up around 20%.

Evasive pettifoggery yet again. Here's the question I've been asking you for years now: How do you morally justify forcing Person A to pay for the needs of Person B against Person A's will?

You ever going to answer it or just continue to pettifog and obfuscate?

[pErvinalia]

Hey, what's that over there? ------------------------------>