....
I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well.
What other types of centralized Federal new laws and power do you advocate? So far it's pretty clear that (unlike the OP) it's not "assault weapons", it's all guns. Let's hear the whole platform. What else would improve society and reconstruct it more to your liking? Do you not recall your own recent comments? I see no need to explain it all again. I guess you've got some reading to do. I'll quote your recent comments for reference below: The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
I've read and fully understood your statist, totalitarian rants. No, I am asking what stands you'd like to see outside of the matter of firearms. From the federal level. Carbon controls? If so, how? Tracking of individuals 24/7? That could be used to deduce almost all crime. But what would you control at the federal level? What would you do with Exxon? With shale oil? What kinds of vehicles should we drive? How about a mandate on max carbon emissions per human? How about birth control? Max of one child? You name it. We're discussing guns. I have some threads on the environment, if you want to wade into that territory, go find them. No problem, I was just curious. Generally, liberal controller personality types do not want to just control one item or one type of behavior. Often, it doesn't seem to matter what they control - as long as it's something. I suspect that you're one of those types who uses political ideologies to decide what you believe about scientific findings. Personally, I use scientific findings to motivate my political ideologies. I think it's more complex than that, but I was just trying to get an idea of what this better and more utopian world with no guns would look like - from your point of view. Sort of trying to see the vision. Did not mean to derail into other subjects. This isn't new with guns, by the way. There's been societies with sword and spear control plans in the past. |
|
|
|
....
I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well.
What other types of centralized Federal new laws and power do you advocate? So far it's pretty clear that (unlike the OP) it's not "assault weapons", it's all guns. Let's hear the whole platform. What else would improve society and reconstruct it more to your liking? Do you not recall your own recent comments? I see no need to explain it all again. I guess you've got some reading to do. I'll quote your recent comments for reference below: The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
I've read and fully understood your statist, totalitarian rants. No, I am asking what stands you'd like to see outside of the matter of firearms. From the federal level. Carbon controls? If so, how? Tracking of individuals 24/7? That could be used to deduce almost all crime. But what would you control at the federal level? What would you do with Exxon? With shale oil? What kinds of vehicles should we drive? How about a mandate on max carbon emissions per human? How about birth control? Max of one child? You name it. We're discussing guns. I have some threads on the environment, if you want to wade into that territory, go find them. No problem, I was just curious. Generally, liberal controller personality types do not want to just control one item or one type of behavior. Marx would never have thought of stopping at just say, one industry. |
|
|
|
No, the only thing you have proved is that you don't understand banking or economics and that your reading comprehension sucks.
Why you think that overdrawn checking accounts (which, by the way, are not illegal) owned by government officials has anything to do with taxes (which is what we were actually talking about at that time) or how the laws are applied to the rich is beyond me.
As for the OP, it was about bitcoiners thinking they are above the law. I know this because I wrote it, and included the statement "still think BTC makes you immune to the law?"
I'm not attacking you, I am stating the truth; based on your posting, I'd have to conclude that you aren't very bright (or at the very least, have a shitty grasp of logic). Get mad all you like, you are still very very wrong, and you should probably quit while you are behind.
Hot checks are not illegal? |
|
|
|
....
I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well.
What other types of centralized Federal new laws and power do you advocate? So far it's pretty clear that (unlike the OP) it's not "assault weapons", it's all guns. Let's hear the whole platform. What else would improve society and reconstruct it more to your liking? Do you not recall your own recent comments? I see no need to explain it all again. I guess you've got some reading to do. I'll quote your recent comments for reference below: The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
I've read and fully understood your statist, totalitarian rants. No, I am asking what stands you'd like to see outside of the matter of firearms. From the federal level. Carbon controls? If so, how? Tracking of individuals 24/7? That could be used to deduce almost all crime. But what would you control at the federal level? What would you do with Exxon? With shale oil? What kinds of vehicles should we drive? How about a mandate on max carbon emissions per human? How about birth control? Max of one child? You name it. |
|
|
|
....
I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well.
What other types of centralized Federal new laws and power do you advocate? So far it's pretty clear that (unlike the OP) it's not "assault weapons", it's all guns. Let's hear the whole platform. What else would improve society and reconstruct it more to your liking? |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus; 42; 23.1; 19LmQApGB5j3XRBXUTGSvGYz9Xv1rBmPZ4
|
|
|
|
The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
I've read and fully understood your statist, totalitarian rants. |
|
|
|
So it had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, you are just trying to make some tenuous connection because of your severe brain damage. Got it.
What has nothing to do with the OP, is your derail into straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and general trolling. The OP had to do with a criminal. But what you really want to do is attack "bitcoiners". And lecture about paying taxes, as if you had a moral high ground. But you don't, not as if a moral high ground exists on that subject, anyway. You've claimed that the law applies to the rich and poor equally, and I've just proved conclusively that they don't, if they are well connected. Go right ahead, asshat, with the ad hominem arguments. That's what losers always resort to. |
|
|
|
The House banking scandal ultimately involved more than 450 representatives, most of whom did not break any laws. Twenty-two congressmen and -women were singled out by the House Ethics Committee for leaving their checking accounts overdrawn for at least eight months out of a sample of 39 months.[2] Wow. None of that has anything to do with corporations and rich people paying their taxes. Good job on not following the conversation, though.
I think it does, since Congressmen are on the average, millionaires.
It's very easy to show that if you are politically connected and rich, you get treated special. Yes, with respect to taxes.
Geithner.
|
|
|
|
|
you don't need to practice what you preach?
Cuz you be preaching a lot, dude.
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the laughter is just a fake front.
No, that's just what you people tell yourselves to lessen the blow of being laughingstocks. You are really a very angry and unhappy person. Well, it's easy to act superior to a bunch of people posting anonymously on the Internet isn't it?
GE and Apple operate inside the law and use legal tax write-offs and legal loopholes. They pay all of the taxes they are legally required to pay. If a person is caught not paying all of their due taxes, they go to jail rich or not. Even fame doesn't preclude you from this...just ask Wesley Snipes.
You are not special. Pay your taxes like everyone else. If you aren't intelligent enough to find write offs and legal loopholes, that's your fault...don't get mad at corporations and rich people because they are smarter than you.
Liar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_banking_scandal |
|
|
|
Who even cares if someone doesn't pay taxes on their bitcoin? The government doesn't care when apple or GE doesn't pay their taxes so why should I have to. The government rarely does anything about rich people having overseas bank account and avoiding taxes. Not only that they give the rich cheaper taxes via capital gains. Our government could get rid of the income tax if it really wanted to. Just stop trillions of war spending. So no I will not pay my taxes. This country was founded on people just like me not on people like you who happily bend over for their government
Because you are one of the little people. |
|
|
|
.....
Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening.
Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances.
I agree with your concept of banning guns. For you. I don't want you to have guns. It's perfectly fine for me to have them. |
|
|
|
|
Well, you've definitely carved out a rather unique spot for your self. I'm certain that after you decisively research these issues and discover the missing keys, that you'll have to decide whether to reveal the truth to the world. You found me out, that you did. It was probably that slip up where I asserted that ISP had a gravitic component, or perhaps where I mistakenly stated that momentum was proportional to the square of velocity. Maybe it was the Twinkie wrapper at the moon landing stage set, or that McDonald's bag that we later saw in the crater.
You see, there was no way we could use the regular unionized stage crews. We had to bring in Ethiopian and Ugandans straight from the bush, and they were always fighting with each other. I mean, like trying to actual kill each other. It was crazy. But what else were we to do? We brought them in on the CIA planes, and paid them in McDonalds Happy Meals. They really liked those. And we dumped them back off the same way. Their respective governments slaughtered those tribes by pre arrangement with the CIA of course so there wasn't any evidence left.
And yeah, you caught us on the cardboard and Christmas tree tinsel mockup of the Lunar Lander and Ascent Module. I admit we could have done better, but what between the whores, cash and the drugs floating around, who gave a shit? They kept us well supplied, dude.
|
|
|
|
I found the arguments here from Kleck to be rational and well levied, for what it's worth. This work would be something that lends itself to reasonable discussion. I also do not believe that defensive carry of firearms, or further legal or training requirements for public carry are anywhere close to the best approaches to reducing crime or violent crime; addressing the economic and cultural factors involved are far more important for an overall approach to crime reduction - this view is why I take the stance that referencing firearms in the context of crime is over-hyped and over-represented in most debate.
The part in bold is the point I try to make when I say the cause and core of the issue is immorality which stemless from Godlessness. I am not preaching one faith, doctrine, or organized religion over another, I am simply stating Godliness. God is good, regardless of the name you refer to him by. If he is not good, you have a false god. M This is all good, but you might want to reconsider something you posted earlier, along the lines of a "Godly government", if I recall correctly. These attributes you mention cannot exist in a collective, but only in the individual. The collective tends toward it's own motives and goes, regresses to the mean. And certainly it cannot have attributes which exist only within the human spirit, which is and always will be within the individual. |
|
|
|
I haven't been making fun of bitcoiners? Really?
You aren't very bright, are you?
I'm smart enough to know that all that is necessary for me to see people who think they are above the law (excluding those in the current administration) is go outside and walk down the street; therefore I would not find any particular pleasure in taking a diverse group on the Internet, attributing such attitude to them, and writing posts to that effect. And I'd wonder about the motives of anyone who would "take pleasure" in such things. Numerous historical antecedents, when one currency started to fail, substitute currencies naturally arose. Black markets, which no society has been without, vary as a percent of total market based on factors which are totally understandable. Currently, bitcoin is something of the former, and depending largely on how harsh and repressive this society becomes, it, along with other substitutes, may become something of the latter. You'll have no impact on those events, and neither will I, of course. |
|
|
|
Who's bitter? I'm actually an extremely happy guy. Making fun of delusional bitcoiners who think they are above the law makes me smile even more.
Except you have not done that...you've posted anonymously to an Internet forum in flame baiting mode. |
|
|
|
You again. Pointless logic, which is par for the course for you. How many times does one have to say it? Cars have a purpose other than to take aim at someone and threaten and kill. It boggles me no end that these meme repeaters think they're being clever.
But no one CARES if a gun's primary purpose is to kill people. Don't you understand that? You can't just control other people and force them to abandon a lifestyle you disagree with because you think they are savages in need of your political enlightenment. A gun's primary purpose is to fire a lead slug down-range. Guns don't have political agendas. Actually, the primary purpose of almost all guns is to stop crime without even having to be fired, as that is what all government statistics and non-debunked/retracted peer-reviewed research show happens most of the time. If FA wasn't a treacherous sociopath who will do and say anything to render innocents defenseless in order to enable our victimization with impunity, he'd admit that. Also, if he took away all our guns, what would we do if the zombies invaded? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGRp-lX_J0c |
|
|
|
No the government takes criminals who run ponzis seriously, not bitcoiners.
Why are you so bitter and angry? |
|
|
|
As for cryptoanarchist, here he shows that he does not understand the rocket equation. More basic than that, his error is in not understanding the relation between velocity and momentum. or gravitational potential energy, or Newton's laws of motion... Yeah...great explanation. I suppose you're gonna say the Easter bunny is real too? "CryptoAnarchist just doesn't understand the candy-giving bunny equation." Do you realize how pathetically stupid you sound? I guess you believe this too:  Yeah, totally looks real.  I'm not sure why you use words like "believe". They have no real place in science or engineering. There is a world of facts. You are in denial of a lot of those facts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
