China Calls for "No Delay" in US Gun Control (1 Viewer)

[Federalist]

I"m glad you oppose China's anti-union laws and lack of environmental regulation. Wait, you're a conservative. You don't!

I oppose the Chinese government's initiation of interpersonal violence, just as I oppose the US government's initiation of interpersonal violence.

 

[Master PO]

It's rather sad when a communist regime that oversaw the starvation of millions of is own citizens has more common sense on gun control than the Tea Party Occupied Congress. Sad and telling just how freakish conservatives in America have become.

when you believe in the communist ideology, it very easy to say that isn't it?

 

[jamesrage]

Sure it does. That's why you support it. Be honest..

If that was true then Right to Work states wouldn't have any unions.

. None except a single "official" union that doesn't represent the interests of the workers, but rather the interest of the government in selling worker labor cheap to foreign capital.

The same could be said about closed shops that the unions only represent the interests of the union bosses and not the workers.

I do, but you're quibbling.

You are just a partisan hack,so of course you do.

It's funny how when you point out the confluence of ideology between conservatives and totalitarian regimes, conservatives always suddenly deny their own policies. Conservatives are for deregulation, busting unions, and shipping capital to low wage countries. So is the Chinese communist regime. Well, well

Unions and environmental regulations have nothing to do with how totalitarian a government is, nor do those things enable a government to oppress its people.A disarmed population on the other hand does allow for a government to oppress its people.

 

[Jerry]

Meh, they jail less of their people per capita than we do.

Lets talk about abortion busses now....

 

[jamesrage]

It's rather sad when a communist regime that oversaw the starvation of millions of is own citizens has more common sense on gun control than the Tea Party Occupied Congress. Sad and telling just how freakish conservatives in America have become.

You consider this common sense gun control?

Firearm ownership law in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Firearm ownership law in the People's Republic of China heavily regulates the ownership of firearms. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns.

Guns can be used by law enforcement, the military and paramilitary, and security personnel protecting property of state importance (including the arms industry, financial institutions, storage of resources, and scientific research institutions).

Civilian ownership of guns is largely restricted to authorised, non-individual entities, including sporting organisations, authorised hunting reserves and wild life protection, management and research organizations. The chief exception to the general ban for individual gun ownership is for the purpose of hunting.[1]

Individuals who hold hunting permits can apply to purchase and hold firearms for the purpose of hunting.[2] Illegal possession or sale of firearms may result in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, with the maximum being the death penalty.[3]

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I"m glad you oppose China's anti-union laws and lack of environmental regulation. Wait, you're a conservative. You don't!

I see the LSD hasn't worn off yet.

An expected statement by a no personal responsibility, government ownership of property worshiping, nanny state liberal. Progressives and CHICOMS: a match made in a Chinese sweatshop.

是性交

 

[Surtr]

Today's top story: Nobody cares about China's opinion of us.

 

[Black Dog]

Absurd blanket response without rebutting the specifics of my post. Typical.

Because they are absurd blanket statements. Nothing to rebut.

 

[DDD]

I'll explain a concept a bit further down but for all intents and purposes nothing is guaranteed, not even with firearms. What happen with China is what happened with many twentieth century regimes, there was a "people's movement" that allowed a powerful centralized government to lock in, once entrenched they could rule their subjects at will. China as many other statist countries often do took the guns away, it's one more guarantee of monopoly of force, once force is owned theory and diplomacy are irrelevant should the holder of it so decide.

Yo It's not about the guns themselves but rather what rights represent. I love my firearms, shooting is fun and a great stress reliever, it has another benefit of enhancing focus, discipline, and self control. All of those benefits though still don't trump the right of defense of self, others, and country but beyond even that is precedence. Once the precedent has been set that a government may violate one right, even those it's specifically prohibited from violating then it is given permission and even encouragement to violate all the rest. The biggest price of being free is fighting to maintain that status.

Yes, because of the liberties guaranteed by protecting any right, rights fall like dominos once the process starts so it's essential to protect them all. To protect guns is to protect speech, privacy, search and seizure law, and everything else in between. Absolutely, allowing the least capable the ability to defend themselves is the very core of why weapons exist historically, firearms put the strong and weak on equal footing.

Ironically origins of guns come from China since they invented gun powder.

Anyway, getting back to this point. So you are all hands on defending your rights with fire arms from various parties including the government, blocking any slightest attempt to negotiate their disuse, and thus enforce freedom. This is your position by most.

But what of the consequences to using guns? I mean guns can be equalizers, but instead of using the "right" example of providing the weak a chance to defend themselves from evil, there is also another example of it providing the evil a chance to kill the weak at greater liberty (hey the government lets them buy guns).

I am beginning to think that these means of resorting to guns to equalize society resembles the feudal society back when the guns were introduced in Europe in 14th century and onwards. Social constructs such as "blood feud" were invented to impose the severe consequences of what may happen if one relies majorly on weapons to fight for it's rights.

In time I think we got to learn of consequences from using firearms. Thus there is less violence and gun related death here.

You are a new country, perhaps you may also learn of consequences of using firearms one day. Thus your what I like to call "USA feudal era" may also come to and end with a solution of enforcing your rights with other less deadly to you all means.

It remains to be seen. But for now you can call me overly optimistic if you wish.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Ironically origins of guns come from China since they invented gun powder.

Anyway, getting back to this point. So you are all hands on defending your rights with fire arms from various parties including the government, blocking any slightest attempt to negotiate their disuse, and thus enforce freedom. This is your position by most.

It's debatable who invented gun powder but most likely the Chinese as it's in the history books. The problem is that lawmakers globally don't address disuse, but rather ownership. If you want to stop misuse it's best to ask those of us who are familiar with the topics of crime, guns, and other related matters, but instead we get attempts at prohibition of ownership which is where the problem arises. Yes, punish misuse harshly, no to debarring ownership.

But what of the consequences to using guns?

Everything has consequences both negative and positive. Not learning that ammonia and bleach cause a toxic chemical reaction has fatal consequences, not fully learning how a personal vehicle handles can have consequences under the right conditions, choosing not to help someone in need has consequences which means there is nothing especially dangerous with firearms, like anything else it requires a mindset to learn it and not abuse it. Personally I'd rather place my bets on liberty.

I mean guns can be equalizers, but instead of using the "right" example of providing the weak a chance to defend themselves from evil, there is also another example of it providing the evil a chance to kill the weak at greater liberty (hey the government lets them buy guns).

Honestly, if you take guns from the innocent then you are only putting them at a disadvantage. For instance I can handle myself pretty well if forced to, but my odds decrease when a person has a weapon of any type, not just a firearm. You put a firearm in an honest person's hands during a shooting spree and the spree ends much more quickly(this has come to bear recently in U.S. shootings). The reality is you aren't going to take guns away from professional criminals under any country's legal system which means only those that follow said law will be disarmed, tactically it's a nightmare scenario.

I am beginning to think that these means of resorting to guns to equalize society resembles the feudal society back when the guns were introduced in Europe in 14th century and onwards. Social constructs such as "blood feud" were invented to impose the severe consequences of what may happen if one relies majorly on weapons to fight for it's rights.

In time I think we got to learn of consequences from using firearms. Thus there is less violence and gun related death here.

You are a new country, perhaps you may also learn of consequences of using firearms one day. Thus your what I like to call "USA feudal era" may also come to and end with a solution of enforcing your rights with other less deadly to you all means.

It remains to be seen. But for now you can call me overly optimistic if you wish.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I guess after the tremendous thrashing your anti gun posts have taken on this forum, you have been relegated to making statements that are completely wrong now?

When has he ever done otherwise? I must have missed it.

 

[DDD]

It's debatable who invented gun powder but most likely the Chinese as it's in the history books. The problem is that lawmakers globally don't address disuse, but rather ownership. If you want to stop misuse it's best to ask those of us who are familiar with the topics of crime, guns, and other related matters, but instead we get attempts at prohibition of ownership which is where the problem arises. Yes, punish misuse harshly, no to debarring ownership.

Everything has consequences both negative and positive. Not learning that ammonia and bleach cause a toxic chemical reaction has fatal consequences, not fully learning how a personal vehicle handles can have consequences under the right conditions, choosing not to help someone in need has consequences which means there is nothing especially dangerous with firearms, like anything else it requires a mindset to learn it and not abuse it. Personally I'd rather place my bets on liberty. Honestly, if you take guns from the innocent then you are only putting them at a disadvantage. For instance I can handle myself pretty well if forced to, but my odds decrease when a person has a weapon of any type, not just a firearm. You put a firearm in an honest person's hands during a shooting spree and the spree ends much more quickly(this has come to bear recently in U.S. shootings). The reality is you aren't going to take guns away from professional criminals under any country's legal system which means only those that follow said law will be disarmed, tactically it's a nightmare scenario.

I am beginning to think that these means of resorting to guns to equalize society resembles the feudal society back when the guns were introduced in Europe in 14th century and onwards. Social constructs such as "blood feud" were invented to impose the severe consequences of what may happen if one relies majorly on weapons to fight for it's rights.

In time I think we got to learn of consequences from using firearms. Thus there is less violence and gun related death here.

You are a new country, perhaps you may also learn of consequences of using firearms one day. Thus your what I like to call "USA feudal era" may also come to and end with a solution of enforcing your rights with other less deadly to you all means.

It remains to be seen. But for now you can call me overly optimistic if you wish.

[/QUOTE]

Instead of trivializing consequences what I think would be in order is to at least put some regulation so as the paranoid violent schizophrenics, mass murderers, previous inmates, etc., would not have such easy access to legal guns. They are a minority, let organized crime benefit from gun sales to them, and let your government have a cleaner conscious from allowing guns to most likely would be murderers.

This is contrary to taking guns from the innocent, it is taking guns from freaks! Evolve from the semi establishment into something better. Or must this be linked to slippery slope chain of events that would strip away one right after the other like a domino effect?

 

[blaxshep]

Instead of trivializing consequences what I think would be in order is to at least put some regulation so as the paranoid violent schizophrenics, mass murderers, previous inmates, etc., would not have such easy access to legal guns. They are a minority, let organized crime benefit from gun sales to them, and let your government have a cleaner conscious from allowing guns to most likely would be murderers.

This is contrary to taking guns from the innocent, it is taking guns from freaks! Evolve from the semi establishment into something better. Or must this be linked to slippery slope chain of events that would strip away one right after the other like a domino effect?

So apparently you believe that there are not already laws against paranoid violent schizophrenics, mass murderers, previous inmates, etc., owning guns.

 

[DDD]

So apparently you believe that there are not already laws against paranoid violent schizophrenics, mass murderers, previous inmates, etc., owning guns.

Unless the violent paranoid schizophrenic has not committed violence yet, yes I believe that there are no laws put in place yet so as to stop them owning legally obtained guns and taking American lives. Same goes for someone who is a mass murderer but has not killed yet.

Good thing about inmates though! You at least got that right!

 

[blaxshep]

Unless the violent paranoid schizophrenic has not committed violence yet, yes I believe that there are no laws put in place yet so as to stop them owning legally obtained guns and taking American lives. Same goes for someone who is a mass murderer but has not killed yet.

Good thing about inmates though! You at least got that right!

So we should just lock up everyone because they might commit murder.

Last guy in throw the key out the window.

 

[DDD]

So we should just lock up everyone because they might commit murder.

Last guy in throw the key out the window.

Now because you are adding words into my statement you are lowering the quality of this communication. For one there was no mention of locking up potentials but I spoke of regulations if you cannot keep up. Don't bother responding in the same non listening and non reading manner with me in the following post for I will not be replying back (or ignoring you) because of it.

Why I put up with you as long is because I think I know you from previous forums. There was one that used that avatar there. But he was way more fun to talk to than you. You barely read 50% do you?

Where did you get that avatar?

 

[Black Dog]

So we should just lock up everyone because they might commit murder.

Last guy in throw the key out the window.

Looks like the thought police are ready to roll!

 

[blaxshep]

Now because you are adding words into my statement you are lowering the quality of this communication. For one there was no mention of locking up potentials but I spoke of regulations if you cannot keep up. Don't bother responding in the same non listening and non reading manner with me in the following post for I will not be replying back (or ignoring you) because of it.

Why I put up with you as long is because I think I know you from previous forums. There was one that used that avatar there. But he was way more fun to talk to than you. You barely read 50% do you?

Where did you get that avatar?

You said: Unless the violent paranoid schizophrenic has not committed violence yet,

Did you not mean to infer that these people that might commit a crime should have their rights taken away?

 

[DDD]

You said: Unless the violent paranoid schizophrenic has not committed violence yet,

Did you not mean to infer that these people that might commit a crime should have their rights taken away?

But not lock them up! We spoke of regulations to control access to weapons to these minorities that are most likely to commit crime. The locking up (with details of keys out of the window!) were entirely added for not good reason.

 

[blaxshep]

But not lock them up! We spoke of regulations to control access to weapons to these minorities that are most likely to commit crime. The locking up (with details of keys out of the window!) were entirely added for not good reason.

Ok, I'll admit that. Sill you are advocating punishing people for crimes they MIGHT commit.

Now there is one hell of a slippery slope!

 

[DDD]

Ok, I'll admit that. Sill you are advocating punishing people for crimes they MIGHT commit.

Now there is one hell of a slippery slope!

So where do you come up with these "punishments" and "locking people up?" How is regulation to control access to guns for mass murderers, psychopaths, and paranoid schizophrenics related to "punishments" and "locking them up?"

It is interesting how I say "apple" and you state "orange!" Wonder what goes on with your associations where an "apple" gets in and you see and respond with "oranges" instead. But if I followed you correctly, you do not have a clue what I am talking about, do you?

 

[blackjack50]

So where do you come up with these "punishments" and "locking people up?" How is regulation to control access to guns for mass murderers, psychopaths, and paranoid schizophrenics related to "punishments" and "locking them up?"

It is interesting how I say "apple" and you state "orange!" Wonder what goes on with your associations where an "apple" gets in and you see and respond with "oranges" instead. But if I followed you correctly, you do not have a clue what I am talking about, do you?

Because you are advocating extra legislation on people who have otherwise done nothing wrong. Maybe we should do the same to poor people and blacks, Latinos, and working class whites? Hey. If they aren't breaking the law then they won't mind. Never mind that it is the equivalent of an illegal search. No probable cause is no probable cause.

What happens when you start restricting those who go to a psychiatrist/psychologist for fear of commitment or other non violent mental health aspects. Hell when do you start restriction of epileptics because they take medication that has potential suicidal side effects? Or allergy medications? Or stomach medication?

Slippery slope means you are setting a precedent to restrict access or make legislative action to make ban like conditions,but not actually banned, out of legislation.

 

[DDD]

Because you are advocating extra legislation on people who have otherwise done nothing wrong. Maybe we should do the same to poor people and blacks, Latinos, and working class whites? Hey. If they aren't breaking the law then they won't mind. Never mind that it is the equivalent of an illegal search. No probable cause is no probable cause.

What happens when you start restricting those who go to a psychiatrist/psychologist for fear of commitment or other non violent mental health aspects. Hell when do you start restriction of epileptics because they take medication that has potential suicidal side effects? Or allergy medications? Or stomach medication?

Slippery slope means you are setting a precedent to restrict access or make legislative action to make ban like conditions,but not actually banned, out of legislation.

Yes but, "punishment" and "locking?"

Appeal to slippery slope is a tactic. Things go bad I do not think you are stupid enough to let it slide. You can try and go back and go forth from there. Why must this be Pandora's box?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Instead of trivializing consequences what I think would be in order is to at least put some regulation so as the paranoid violent schizophrenics, mass murderers, previous inmates, etc., would not have such easy access to legal guns. They are a minority, let organized crime benefit from gun sales to them, and let your government have a cleaner conscious from allowing guns to most likely would be murderers.

Actually, I'm treating the consequences appropriately by putting it in the proper catagory. The problem is that the consequences have been over stated for so long that many people view firearms as "particularly dangerous" when the fact is that the other things I mentioned kill far more people in the U.S. and globally. More people die from food poisoning or mixing chemicals into a toxic gas in individual statistics than all gun violnce sub-catagories combined. That would lead to saying that either the consequences for gun violence ARE trivial, or the object of the arguments isn't an honest discussion of consequences but focused on a particular object that politicians don't like.

This is contrary to taking guns from the innocent, it is taking guns from freaks!

Every country, even those with the harshest penalties proves this doesn't work. The opposite is true, these laws disarm the honest and the "freaks" get them anyway.

Evolve from the semi establishment into something better.

The "establishment" is the side that wants the guns, they cannot have them.

Or must this be linked to slippery slope chain of events that would strip away one right after the other like a domino effect?

It always starts with "just one right", the answer is a firm no, no negotiations, no more compromise.

 

[DDD]

Every country, even those with the harshest penalties proves this doesn't work. The opposite is true, these laws disarm the honest and the "freaks" get them anyway.

My position is regulating access to guns to the most likely to murder civilians. Again, not to take it away from innocent people. Let the most probable to kill take them illegally. The government would not be involved then as it is now for it allows access to all.

The "establishment" is the side that wants the guns, they cannot have them.

It always starts with "just one right", the answer is a firm no, no negotiations, no more compromise.

No more? From which position were compromises made?