Guns anyone?

[Old Seer]

I understand your concept of "stealing". If I didn't I wouldn't be able to post on the subject. In order to understand your concept I need to know the difference between natural person and artificial person, I do. Blacks Law Dictionary is about your law, if you say it's wrong, you're saying Blacks are wrong. Blacks law people understand civil law compared to natural law.  In order for law to be effective there must be a distinction between natural and man made (contrived). Without that distinction a law system would break down.  Civil law still allows you to be like the lion mentally, but not do as the lion does in all respects physically. 

Addition. The civil overseers of the system doesn't want you to know about natural law.

If you think you need to understand the difference between a natural person and an artificial person, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you keep bringing a separate concept like laws into it, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you think "my" concept of stealing requires civil overseers, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing.

Furthermore, Black's Law Dictionary is simply a reference, it's like an old version of wikipedia. It's OK as a starting point, but don't use it as a primary source. And certainly don't act like its definitions are definitive,

Having been around for 80 years and being born into the present system I am very well aware of your concept of stealing. I existed in your system all this time. There's more in the universe to consider then someones preferred system of thought. 

[Davin]

I have no intention of defending anything.[...]

So you're preaching. Which is against the forum rules.

[Davin]

I understand your concept of "stealing". If I didn't I wouldn't be able to post on the subject. In order to understand your concept I need to know the difference between natural person and artificial person, I do. Blacks Law Dictionary is about your law, if you say it's wrong, you're saying Blacks are wrong. Blacks law people understand civil law compared to natural law.  In order for law to be effective there must be a distinction between natural and man made (contrived). Without that distinction a law system would break down.  Civil law still allows you to be like the lion mentally, but not do as the lion does in all respects physically. 

Addition. The civil overseers of the system doesn't want you to know about natural law.

If you think you need to understand the difference between a natural person and an artificial person, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you keep bringing a separate concept like laws into it, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you think "my" concept of stealing requires civil overseers, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing.

Furthermore, Black's Law Dictionary is simply a reference, it's like an old version of wikipedia. It's OK as a starting point, but don't use it as a primary source. And certainly don't act like its definitions are definitive,

Having been around for 80 years and being born into the present system I am very well aware of your concept of stealing.

Then why do you keep being wrong about it? If you're well aware of my concept of stealing, then define for me what my concept of stealing is. It should be easy, because I've expressed it and you have the freedom to back and look at my posts.

I existed in your system all this time. There's more in the universe to consider then someones preferred system of thought. 

Then why are you not considering my concepts? Take your own advice.

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't get you, Old Seer. It's like you're not on the same plane of existence.

[Old Seer]

I don't get you, Old Seer. It's like you're not on the same plane of existence.

Correct.  I'm trying to put things in a context one can reason things to the end on their own. Getting back to the OP. I needed to know how people see their social system before I make a statement on possession of firearms. I understand the gun nut accusations and trying to avoid causing disharmony on the site. I know about gun nuts as I used to be one. A gun nut is not necessarily a dangerous person, and I'm sure we all understand that. When I was a gun nut I was only dangerous to an adversary wanting to do me harm. Presently not being a gun nut I'm still dangerous to said adversary. Being a US Marine I'm very well versed on the use of weapons as each Marine is a basic rifleman, even the commandant. At the age of 11 I owned my first .22 cal Mossberg.  I haven't shot anyone yet and hope not to. I have 3 occasions in my time to use the pistol that "may" have saved me from harm. Just having having the firearm was enough as long as the attacker was made aware of me having it. Living in Minneapolis I determined from observation that this could be a very dangerous place. Actually it turned out that it's mainly certain places that are dangerous. Living downtown one could hear gun shots quite often at night.
Today it is several times over what it was back in the 60s.  If there is a weapons confiscation the weak are left vulnerable to the strong much more so now then before. You are no longer in a world that can give up firearms, you're trapped just as all civilizations previous. That option is no longer available. To remove firearms from the public will allow the strong and the harmful the opportunity to expand into areas that aren't accessible to them now, because the main deterrent is ---those people there are armed.
The strong and harmful don't need firearms or blades, they need to be 3 against one. If you're in the wrong place which many harmless are you loose your wallet and are very likely to undergo serious harm.

OK, for explanation sake. Corporations designated persons. Why and what for. Without artificial designation corporations may not exist. A corporation is comprised of material assets in product and money. The designation decrees that the material assets are a person. That is to protect the officers from being sued and paying from their personal assets. It's not likely that anyone will set up a corporation that can be sued on a personal basis. Corporations are business that can make big mistakes and the cost will be to the corporate officers with out the corporation designated as a person the officers pay the damages, and loose their personal assets if they are the corporation.    Being the government decides the legal criteria that a corporation operates under the corporation must exist under the rules that the government allows it to exist. To break those rules the government can fine or remove the corporate status. The rules are made for the safety and well being of the public. Now corporations are buying up the government. So, what is actually the case today may have changed.
   Problem: The material assets of a corporation is deemed a man made person. That has tentacles that go off toward many other things, such as, a grocery product that is "real" or man made (artificial), which the label  must specify as such.
  A rock is a rock is a rock, until you tamper with it. A rock that has been formed into a grave stone is an artificial structure---if they decide it that way.  Some rocks get designated a structure and some not. There's no law that say government has to amount to common sense, it becomes what they say it is when they say it is. 

[Dark Lightning]

I bought my pistol in '74 when I was in the Navy so I could go to the range and kill paper with my buddies. At that time I considered that it could be a defense in the home. I bought a .22 caliber target rifle in '02. Paper's the only things that I have ever used them for. I'm not enamored at all of trying to defend myself with them, haven't been for a long time. I have no intention of using the pistol as concealed carry. My hands are lethal weapons. How many times has anyone heard that!? Also, it's an "N" frame Smith & Wesson .357 that weighs almost 3 pounds. My firearms are locked in a safe when not en route to/from the range. I wouldn't be able to get them out fast, but neither would a burglar or intruder. I have other means at my disposal; they will not be discussed on an internet forum.

[Old Seer]

Excellent. I'm fairly the same today. I gave up on pistols when my son got to about 11 years old. I didn't want him handling it. and got to thinking that hiding it would be useless. According to my boyhood days I would search and keep going till I found it. I traded it for a rifle as pistols are to easy to pointing around. Rifles by design are normally carried muzzle up or down. Pistols get carried in all directions. A high school buddy shot himself in the leg playing John Wesley Harden. It was the days of the cowboy movie during my younger days. I was overly fascinated with the Mountain men of the1800s. I was totally enamored by the sight of the Colt peace maker and the Ruger Blackhawk. In high school it was off to the library for study hall, haw, the hell with that. I would spend the hour going through Sports Afield looking at the western gun adds. I still hold to some of the philosophy of the day, one you may be familiar with----God didn't create all men equal, Samuel Colt did. When it comes to fire arms there's no better one then that. But today, eh, I don't give a hoot. I haven't fired a weapon in several years.
Some one posted an insight I find quite true at the beginning of this tread. , that one is more likely to shoot them self with a pistol---agree. A grandson in his 20s bought a 9mm, shot himself in the hand---and ----and--- I warned him bout that---- ahh well so it goes.
I do appreciate long range shooting but can' get involved right now---to much family to deal with. Firearms can be a sporting hobby also. I think most floks against fire arms have never been around them and have always been distant from them, and don't realize that to some a firearms is equivalent the a billionaires expensive wall paintings. 

[Dark Lightning]

Many years ago, I was an NRA-Certified Firearms Instructor, as I volunteered for the BSA. Don't do that anymore, either. Anyway, I would run the gun range, and if people didn't want their sons to shoot, I understood. After watching the strict discipline and safety education, they pretty much allowed their sons to shoot. The only person ever "ejected" by me from a gun range was one Cub Scout's mother who just couldn't understand why I kept grabbing the BB gun when she cocked it by aiming back at the spectators.  I never had a problem with the Boy Scout shooters, though. Some of the people I tried to train as range officers didn't make the cut, either. It's hard to believe that people can't follow simple instructions. No, I take that back. 

[billy rubin]

my kids have all been exposed to shooting a pistol since they were about five yearz old. kept a government model at tbe house with an empty magazine on it, locked up, loaded magazine in the case too. they were always supervized, but it wS important that they knew what it was

[Old Seer]

I bought my pistol in '74 when I was in the Navy so I could go to the range and kill paper with my buddies. At that time I considered that it could be a defense in the home. I bought a .22 caliber target rifle in '02. Paper's the only things that I have ever used them for. I'm not enamored at all of trying to defend myself with them, haven't been for a long time. I have no intention of using the pistol as concealed carry. My hands are lethal weapons. How many times has anyone heard that!? Also, it's an "N" frame Smith & Wesson .357 that weighs almost 3 pounds. My firearms are locked in a safe when not en route to/from the range. I wouldn't be able to get them out fast, but neither would a burglar or intruder. I have other means at my disposal; they will not be discussed on an internet forum.

I can understand the anti gunners and have no quarrels with them other then---use your head on this deal. But that's useless also because they little experience with forearms. It seems to them everyone with a firearm is a potential murderer. The use of and need for firearms to them in their circumstances aren't needed, and everyone killed with a firearm is what they hear. There are bears more passive then other bears, same with wolves, coyotes etc, and people. The Brits who don't have many weapons are more so passive then Americans, because of their history they have most of their differences settled, so do many Euro countries. Their less need for weapons is is influencing the anti gunner here in America. It's ridicules to me that at times Americans didn't have to worry about constitutional rights. But there we go unnecessarily whimpering about constitutional rights when not needed to. From the way it looks to me the idea is---"my constitutional rights are better then yours" (syndrome) We are highly adversarial and desire to "out rights" others. Everyone is a constitutional scholar.
Red flag laws: Here's your chance to be a psychiatrist. No experience, no schooling.  You go outside to turn off your lawn sprinkler. Across the street a neighbor is ranting and raving about something or another. He pick up a hatchet and throws it into the garage. We all are disturbed by temper fits. So, you're not particularly fond of the guy for one reason or another, you know he's got firearms. You call the police concerned that that fella over there is exhibiting dangerous behavior. The police are obligated by law and have no choice but to relieve him of his weapons. (when all he did was drop a hatchet on his foot.) Now he's taken in for evaluation (this has happened floks) by a qualified psychiatrist.
Now we have a problem: The government has a way of determining ---we have a nut ball here---or we don't. The psychiatrist is being paid for his services. You take it from here.

There is a way for citizens to remove their own right of keeping and bearing arms. Someone has got you removing fire arms from yourselves.  And, governments will always migrate ideas and procedure to other things.

[billy rubin]

i bought my first pistol for a simple reason: to kill people who were a threat to me.

i was coming home one night from work with my wife to our house in south san jose, in california. wqe lived in the barrio. rich culture, lots of gangs.. stopped at the light a block from our house and four or five men jumped out of a car ahead of us, ran to the car just ahead of them and began beating on it with crowbars. the car ran the red and drove into the neighborhood, and the men jumped back into their own car and chased them. i caled th epolice and left it there.

later tht night i was about to step out of my friont doorwhen i noticed that a car was parked in front of the neighbors driveway. five police cars with all the lights were surrounding it and every cop ws out with a weapon drawn and pointed at the car.

two men stepped out into the lights and stood there. eventually the cops found someone who spoke spanish and they raised their hands and were arrested.

turned out that the car chase i had witnessed had ended a block or two away with a 12 gauge shotgun poked into the window with the frnt seat passenger getting his head blown off.

so i went nd bought a .45 colt to keep with me should my experience turn out to be similar. nver happened again, but you never know.

i'm not concerned about the niceties of philosophy. i keep my weapons loaded and accessible.. i live in a dangerous world, and i prefer the option of self-protection. anybody who feels differently can live their own life as they think appropriate.

sold the colt to buy groceries when were down on money, but i  may get another. i can strip and reassemble a colt with my eyes closed. nice simple weapons.

[Drich]

The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting.

it must been hard growing up for you. As you Never have anything nice to say and everything you do say is super critical often stabbing at self worth.

The comment was about the topic, not about you, Drich. The rest of your projection and snivelling about your supposed poor treatment is irrelevant.

and the rebuttal covered the fact the op has spawned 10 pages of content which by the look of this website might not be a record, but it is not a common occurrence either. (I am not stabbing at you or your self worth as curator fot he website.) pointing out 10 pages of dialog show far more interest than you are giving credit for.

It's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point.

which is why i came at it from a different perspective. And, is probably why the subject has traction here.

Is it necessary to explain to you why that does not even begin to qualify as evidence?

if you had the data that backs your supposition then why not post it?

I don't know who the people are who've been buying guns and ammunition in the US, and I don't think you do, either.Perhaps they are moderates and slight left, or perhaps they're just the usual regular customers, who've spiked the sale of guns and ammunition in the past. 

hey smarty.. "we gun" owners know who are buying guns by the depletion of gun stock.
Home defense shot guns and pistols= high crime, obama era riots ect. AR-15 carbines and hi cap gun.. gun nuts when a "dim" is threatening a gun ban.. these are the typical gun buyers and their typical runs. now... there's nothing. the shelves are empty. the way you can tell lefies and non gun owners are truly buying, all the garbage guns and garbage calibers are also gone, with all the ammo.

One may own one or two shot guns a hand full of pistols several long guns, but no one is running to buy .32, 380, and .22's unless they feel a need and that is all there is. these are back up, or teach a child to shoot guns. last time the guns stores were completely bare like this was 9-11-01

The rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

and how many first generation or illegal somalis do you have in your neighborhood? Again it is easy to preach social collectives whe you all share the same pigment and back story.

I don't know, and I don't care.

then please stop wasting my time and make room for people who want to have this discussion.

I don't keep track of who lives near me who is also an immigrant.

no situational awareness even after you yourself identified that particular race as being known for violence. if this is what you think then your attitude of idc is negent at best.

Let me explain something about myself: I've lived the majority of my adult life in what in the past were described as ghettos--high crime areas where I as a white person was definitely in the minority.

Did you live in public provided/assisted housing? use to be they did not allow guns/evict you for gun ownership. So you did not have that option.

For those who lived NEAR the ghetto KNOWS public housing IS the Ghetto. People who live in the suburbs condemn a whole side of town as the ghetto when in fact and in practice a ghetto is limited to a specific neighborhood. Started with NAzi germany roping off jewish neighborhoods to contain and starve them out. (you story seems to be falling a part)

I grew up in a rural area and my family owns and uses guns. I own a couple myself, but never felt the need to own one for personal protection because I know that while in some rare cases they might prove useful for that, they're largely irrelevant.

so all of that and you owned guns...

[MadBomr101]

dangerous situations can occur withou you being an instigator. i've had guns in my house most of my life. i'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and i do.

i dont plan on killing someone, but i live in a society where i would rather choose not to use the gun i carry rather than be unable to use the one i dont. i dont see this as dangerous.

quite the contrary, i consider it reasonable and prudent

I believe in gun control and that sounds reasonable to me. I'm not against anyone carrying a gun for personal and family protection but there's no need for anyone to have an assault rifle or a big stash of guns in their home Carrying a small firearm for your own security is fine, the problem is these bulletheads that bring an AR-15 into Burger King just to order lunch.

[billy rubin]

I believe in gun control and that sounds reasonable to me. I'm not against anyone carrying a gun for personal and family protection but there's no need for anyone to have an assault rifle or a big stash of guns in their home Carrying a small firearm for your own security is fine, the problem is these bulletheads that bring an AR-15 into Burger King just to order lunch.

i don't see the logical process for making the distinctions you do, mad. what is a "small firearm?" what is an "assault rifle?" how many guns is a "big stash?"

the AR15 is the most popular rilfe in north america. people hunt with it, plink with it, compete with it, keep it for self defense, and yes, they do mass murders with it too. in semi auto form, it's not legally an assault rifle at all, so there are the usual problems with defining what we might want to restrict.

i almost bought a mac10 a while back. but it was the original .45, and that's way too expensive to shoot. there was an uzi next to it, same price, but it was in .22, and that's too small.

my sister used to live in islamabad. people would walkinto hotels and stand in the buffet line with AK47s over their shoulders. ive lived in open carry regions where people walked into my convenience store (i was a cashier) wearing guns every day of the week.

im in favor of restricting certain kinds of ownership forcertain kinds of guns. easy or not, i would regulate semi auto rifles in the same way we currently regulate full auto machine guns. that slowed the ownership of m16s and thompsons, and would eventually do the same for the AR15.

what would you propose we do?

[MadBomr101]

what would you propose we do?

If I had the answer to that, I'd put in for the Nobel and blow the prize money on lots of stupid stuff.