Gun Violence Facts for 2012

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

if the feds can't limit who gets the attack helicopters, neither can the state or city governments... and no one beleives that that is a good idea.

Government can have no rights except those given it by the individuals that compose it. No citizen can give government a right he does not possess. If an individual citizen has no right to an attack helicopter he cannot give it to government. You can't have it both ways. Either the individual has the right to it or no one does.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So you're saying that you, as an individual, have the right to drive to a distant city in a different state and tell a shop owner in that City that their sign is too large, and force them to take it down? Because that City does have the power to do so, but you, as an individual do not, but the City government did not get that power from you, a citizen of a different city in a different state.

I'm saying unless there is an individual who does have the right to limit the size of your sign (possible if you signed an HOA) then nobody has the right to limit the size of your sign.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Most shops are not in HOAs, but City ordinances limit shop signs all the time, what right did the citizens of the City have to limit the shop sign in the first place? Before there was a United States, did people get together and take down bigger shop signs than were needed? No. Your argument is weak. - It doesn't work with shop signs it doesn’t work with military weapons, it doesn't make sense.

Having a huge shop sign is not a God-given right that shall not be infringed. Therefore, we the people have made laws about how big specific signs can be in certain places. We have the power as the citizenry to do so, and we do.

Just like individual citizens can and should travel to foreign countries and negotiate treaties with other governments.

Schmoe wrote:
Having a huge shop sign is not a God-given right that shall not be infringed. Therefore, we the people have made laws about how big specific signs can be in certain places. We have the power as the citizenry to do so, and we do.

So get the freaking ute sign down off I 15 please....

BoiseBYU wrote:

Having a huge shop sign is not a God-given right that shall not be infringed. Therefore, we the people have made laws about how big specific signs can be in certain places. We have the power as the citizenry to do so, and we do.

So get the freaking ute sign down off I 15 please....

I would just love to declare a blue paintball war on that thing.



But of course if it does end up with blue paint all over it, I know nothing about it. 8)

tww wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
Having a huge shop sign is not a God-given right that shall not be infringed. Therefore, we the people have made laws about how big specific signs can be in certain places. We have the power as the citizenry to do so, and we do.

So get the freaking ute sign down off I 15 please....

I would just love to declare a blue paintball war on that thing.



But of course if it does end up with blue paint all over it, I know nothing about it. 8)

Suhweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!! Brilliant!!!! :lol:

The reason a government wields more power is because citizens give up some liberty and freedom in order to enjoy the benefits of society. Individuals do have these rights but they relinquish them in order to coexist peacefully and advantageously with their neighbors. Lots of examples of this:



We subject ourselves to speed limits set for the common good so we can enjoy national standards on signs, road accessibility and general road quality. We restrict our travel ability with stoplights and wait our turn in turn lanes. We allow ourselves to become licensed by the state even if we can drive without it. We limit our cars with license plates for easy government tracking and auto standards so we can participate In Commerce and mobility.



We give up the ability to shoot anyone who offends us in order to live peacefully with our neighbors.



We give up the liberty of inventing our own currencies in exchange for a widely used and more efficient currency system. Love or hate the usd, it's infinitely better than the barter system.



We give up the ability to steal, lie, cheat, plunder, in Exchange for a justice system and laws that provide for our common welfare. And yes, we also give up the right to privately own nuclear weapons and tanks for the good of society.



Whatever benefit you feel granting nuclear weapons to any wacko in this country is far outweighed by the societal damage that individual could do. It brings a whole new interpretation to the phrase, dig a pit for thy neighbor. In a world where shooting small children is an acceptable way to commit suicide, I refuse to believe those individuals should have access to force amplifying weapons like grenades, rockets, and missiles. There is a line, and society can debate where it is, but you can feel free to leave all the benefits of society and have these weapon rights restored to you on some private island. Good luck with that



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

CougarClaw wrote:
The reason a government wields more power is because citizens give up some liberty and freedom in order to enjoy the benefits of society. Individuals do have these rights but they relinquish them in order to coexist peacefully and advantageously with their neighbors.

All I needed to read. This is a slippery slope, one that reeks of "nanny state", Stalinism, and Communism. Ask the 7 million Ukrainians who were starved to death under Stalin because they were forced to give up their liberty and freedom in order to enjoy the benefits of society.

CougarClaw wrote:



Whatever benefit you feel granting nuclear weapons to any wacko in this country is far outweighed by the societal damage that individual could do.

I read your entire post. You make some good points. But I don't understand the above comment. What private citizen wants to own, or has tried to own nuclear weapons? I don't know of any. I guess your just trying to make a point by exaggerating and over reaching.



There is a fine line that you address - the "relinquishing" of liberty to the govt. I would ask a question: Have we relinquished so much liberty, and as a result, allowed our govt. to become so powerful that we have ceased being citizens, and are now subjects?



IMHO, we are now at that tipping point. We are on a precipice. As a nation of citizens, we must be very careful and watchful of a presidency that sees it ultimate purpose as expanding federal power, growing the size of federal govt., increasing federal regulations exponentially, and wanting more and more of our personal wealth for their use. We are nearly subjects. These are very dangerous times for citizens - but the greatest danger is coming from the expanding power of the federal govt.

I have read claw's post a couple of times and it bothers me. I agree with Dawg and Bot. It sounds like creeping socalism to me.



Where would one get a nuclear devise in the first place? I haven't seen any at Walmart. As far as whoever this mystry person is, why is he any worse or better than some government person? I would trust a benevolent government but I'd also trust a benevolent citizen with a gun or all these other things that have crept into the discussion. I thought we were talking about the right to keep and bear arms, which I thought we had the constitutional right to. It appears now that some are going way past the rifles and pistols some might have and saying that may and may not be ok but gee, what about missles and nuclear devices.



Again, it is not the weapons that are the problem, it's the person or persons with the weapons. If Captain Moroni would have had better woapons that war would have ended sooner with less bloodshed. If the other side would've had them the Book of Mormon would be closer to the size of the Pearl of Great price. If the people of Russia would have had better weapons perhaps Stalin would have been stopped and the cold war would have been shorter and may not have happened at all.



By the way, Colorado has all but passed thier anti 2nd ammendment bill. It is waiting the Democrat governor's signature. Magpul said they'd leave if it passed. I hope they come to Idaho.

Ddawg wrote:

What private citizen wants to own, or has tried to own nuclear weapons? I don't know of any.

Huh. I can think of multiple individuals and groups that would love to get their hands on one.

It is still the individual that is the problem (or solution) not the weapon.

Sammich wrote:

What private citizen wants to own, or has tried to own nuclear weapons? I don't know of any.

Huh. I can think of multiple individuals and groups that would love to get their hands on one.

Sure, like our government. It's been viewed as the ultimate trump card. I'm with JVquarterback on this one, if I can't own one, the government shouldn't be allowed to have one. And I would be fine with that.



Cougarclaw, I read your entire post, but that first paragraph was enough to put the socialism/communism flag up and the rest of the post followed the same thought process. Just want you to know I DID read your entire post.

Sammich wrote:

What private citizen wants to own, or has tried to own nuclear weapons? I don't know of any.

Huh. I can think of multiple individuals and groups that would love to get their hands on one.

Terrorist groups from the Middle East? Can you think of any American group, or individual that not only would want one and can afford it? Wanting to have one, and being able to afford a nuclear weapons program are 2 different things.



Look at Iran. They have been working on developing nuclear weapons since the 1950's. They stopped in 1979 after their revolution per the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini (he considered nuclear weapons against the Muslim faith).



But, Iran started up again after the Ayatollah's death in 1989. With Khomeini gone, it's now A-Ok to develop nuclear weapons. Full speed ahead. Iran has been serious about developing nuclear weapons since the 1989. They still don't have one. That's about a 40 years of nuclear development total. Who knows how many hundreds of millions (probably billions) - Iran has spent and they still don't have a nuclear weapon. The latest estimation is that Iran is about 1 year away from having a functioning nuclear weapon.



I have read that at one site Iran has over 10,000 centrifuges spinning. At another location 2,000 are spinning away. There are inside reports that Iran is planning on doubling the # of centrifuges, but the IAEA cannot confirm it because their inspections have been blocked by the Iranian govt. Imagine that.



Do you really think there are groups, or individuals in the U.S. that have that kind of money, time, and know how to develop a nuclear weapon? Perhaps the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets could. But they have no interest. A very few number of people could afford a nuclear weapon. The cost is off the charts. Very few countries even have the resources to pull it off. This discussion is all academic anyway. The reality is, the kooks that would want a nuclear weapon can't afford it, and the U.S. citizens that could possibly afford it, aren't interested.



By the way, no one really knows how much the different countries nuclear countries spend on their programs. Israel won't even admit they have nuclear weapons. Iran won't admit they are developing them. It's estimated that the USA spends about $56 billion a year on it's nuclear weapons program. It's estimated because the Pentagon (and the White House) won't talk about how much they spend. Secret stuff. Over the next 10 years, the USA is projected to spend around $700 billion on their nuclear weapons program.



Anyway - the world keeps becoming a more dangerous place to live in.

BroncoBot wrote:

Sure, like our government. It's been viewed as the ultimate trump card. I'm with JVquarterback on this one, if I can't own one, the government shouldn't be allowed to have one. And I would be fine with that.

I would be totally fine with that too, thinking in a theoretical world where nobody had them yet. But our world is messy and hostile governments already have them, so what to do now? That is an honest question.

Sammich wrote:

Sure, like our government. It's been viewed as the ultimate trump card. I'm with JVquarterback on this one, if I can't own one, the government shouldn't be allowed to have one. And I would be fine with that.

I would be totally fine with that too, thinking in a theoretical world where nobody had them yet. But our world is messy and hostile governments already have them, so what to do now? That is an honest question.

We follow the concept promoted by Ronald Reagan: 'Peace through strength."



Ronald Reagan 1983: "We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. George Washington's words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. "To be prepared for war," he said, "is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." Well, to those who think strength provokes conflict, Will Rogers had his own answer. He said of the world heavyweight champion of his day: "I've never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey."

Ddawg wrote:

Terrorist groups from the Middle East? Can you think of any American group, or individual that not only would want one and can afford it? Wanting to have one, and being able to afford a nuclear weapons program are 2 different things.



Look at Iran. They have been working on developing nuclear weapons since the 1950's. They stopped in 1979 after their revolution per the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini (he considered nuclear weapons against the Muslim faith).



But, Iran started up again after the Ayatollah's death in 1989. With Khomeini gone, it's now A-Ok to develop nuclear weapons. Full speed ahead. Iran has been serious about developing nuclear weapons since the 1989. They still don't have one. That's about a 40 years of nuclear development total. Who knows how many hundreds of millions (probably billions) - Iran has spent and they still don't have a nuclear weapon. The latest estimation is that Iran is about 1 year away from having a functioning nuclear weapon.



I have read that at one site Iran has over 10,000 centrifuges spinning. At another location 2,000 are spinning away. There are inside reports that Iran is planning on doubling the # of centrifuges, but the IAEA cannot confirm it because their inspections have been blocked by the Iranian govt. Imagine that.

The time it takes to enrich uranium to a point where it is usable for weapons is constant. So the only reason to have more centrifuges is more weapons. You still do not get them any faster. There are more variables than the amount of enriched uranium though (fuse/ignition mechanism, atomic clock-based timers, etc.), so Iran's failure rate over that time period could be due to a number of things.



But if you really believe in the power of capitalism, you should know that the cost to create something now is not a constant, and that such things become subject to the market and innovations driven by competition. I can't imagine that making something publicly available and legal for development by private parties wouldn't result in better efficiency than governments are managing now.



At any rate, you are absolutely right that letting governments have such destructive power is a terrible thing. But Pandora's box is open and I'm not convinced that greater distribution is not more terrible than the awful situation we are already in.

Ddawg wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

Sure, like our government. It's been viewed as the ultimate trump card. I'm with JVquarterback on this one, if I can't own one, the government shouldn't be allowed to have one. And I would be fine with that.

I would be totally fine with that too, thinking in a theoretical world where nobody had them yet. But our world is messy and hostile governments already have them, so what to do now? That is an honest question.

We follow the concept promoted by Ronald Reagan: 'Peace through strength."



Ronald Reagan 1983: "We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. George Washington's words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. "To be prepared for war," he said, "is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." Well, to those who think strength provokes conflict, Will Rogers had his own answer. He said of the world heavyweight champion of his day: "I've never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey."

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here that is different from what I was implying with my statement/question. I agree with the "Peace through strength" mantra and that's why I don't think it is possible to rescind them from government now that they exist in that sphere. Unless there was some way to banish the technology from the face of the earth. Negotiations between multiple countries to destroy existing supplies isn't enough to fix the problem and getting them all to agree is one of those things that is nice in theory but impossible in practice.

I say again, if anyone has the spirit of Cap. Moroni I have no qualms about any weapon he might have whether he is in the government or is a private citizen. The opposite is true. If anyone has the spirit of Stalin I have serious objections to that person having anything from a needle on up, whether he is in the governmet or is a private citizen.



By the way Dawg, since you brought up Dempsey, he was a Latter Day Saint. I don't think he was active and I believe he called himself a jack mormon. (Perhaps he saw the pun there.) Anyway he was called the Manassa Mauler because he was from Manassa Colorado which was an LDS colony.

Sammich wrote:

Terrorist groups from the Middle East? Can you think of any American group, or individual that not only would want one and can afford it? Wanting to have one, and being able to afford a nuclear weapons program are 2 different things.



Look at Iran. They have been working on developing nuclear weapons since the 1950's. They stopped in 1979 after their revolution per the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini (he considered nuclear weapons against the Muslim faith).



But, Iran started up again after the Ayatollah's death in 1989. With Khomeini gone, it's now A-Ok to develop nuclear weapons. Full speed ahead. Iran has been serious about developing nuclear weapons since the 1989. They still don't have one. That's about a 40 years of nuclear development total. Who knows how many hundreds of millions (probably billions) - Iran has spent and they still don't have a nuclear weapon. The latest estimation is that Iran is about 1 year away from having a functioning nuclear weapon.



I have read that at one site Iran has over 10,000 centrifuges spinning. At another location 2,000 are spinning away. There are inside reports that Iran is planning on doubling the # of centrifuges, but the IAEA cannot confirm it because their inspections have been blocked by the Iranian govt. Imagine that.

The time it takes to enrich uranium to a point where it is usable for weapons is constant. So the only reason to have more centrifuges is more weapons. You still do not get them any faster. There are more variables than the amount of enriched uranium though (fuse/ignition mechanism, atomic clock-based timers, etc.), so Iran's failure rate over that time period could be due to a number of things.



But if you really believe in the power of capitalism, you should know that the cost to create something now is not a constant, and that such things become subject to the market and innovations driven by competition. I can't imagine that making something publicly available and legal for development by private parties wouldn't result in better efficiency than governments are managing now.



At any rate, you are absolutely right that letting governments have such destructive power is a terrible thing. But Pandora's box is open and I'm not convinced that greater distribution is not more terrible than the awful situation we are already in.

Who's wishing for greater distribution of nuclear weapons?