# Virginia to ban all forms of self defense



## Gweilo (Dec 15, 2019)

Just read this on FB, so dont know if its true, I thought the right to bear arms, and protect oneself and family was part of the American constitution?.
Can one of our American collegues confirm if this is true, or just a load of FB trash.
Virginia to Outlaw All forms of Self Defense - The Self Defense Company


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

I'm not American, but I can find proposed bills 

Virginia SB64 | 2020 | Regular Session


Individual states have the legal capacity to locally override federal law (marijuana is federally illegal, but decriminalised and legalised in some states - vaping is federally legal, but has varying degrees of local illegality in some states) so it stands to reason they can have local interpretation of the constitution.

Reading the proposed bill, they're not on about banning guns or even banning defending yourself - they're on about criminalising the training of such activities on potential paramilitary grounds.

So, you can still shoot, blow up, punch or kick someone in self defence, you're just not going to be allowed to practice doing it...


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> I'm not American, but I can find proposed bills
> 
> Virginia SB64 | 2020 | Regular Session
> 
> ...


 it doesn't say that, what it says is,, your not allowed to practice hurting people with the INTENT of using it in civil disorder, even then the paragraph needs to be read in the context of what goes before,, so,,, guns, bombs incendiary and (any similar) techniques  designed to hurt, 

so context is everything as to if a techniques is illegal.

id be more worried it outlaws airsoft to be honest, dressing up in camouflage and running around practising shooting people is impossible to tell apart from paramilitary training


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> it doesn't say that, what it says is,, your not allowed to practice hurting people with the INTENT of using it in civil disorder



I did see that, but there's the issue of interpretation.

How does one PROVE that they're NOT training with intent?

If it's deemed by the administration that this style of training has paramilitary or civil disorder applications, the onus shifts onto the practitioner to prove otherwise.

It's possible to draw a parallel with knife law here - if I'm carrying an 8" blade I have to be able to demonstrate I have good reason to carry it. If I can't prove such reason, then I'm breaking the law. The onus is on me to prove I'm not intending to stab someone.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> I did see that, but there's the issue of interpretation.
> 
> How does one PROVE that they're NOT training with intent?
> 
> ...


well so much as the american system is based on the english system, the burden of proof is with the accuser , not the accused, so the state have to prove the intent.

context is everything, boxing gym, ok making pipe bombs in your backyard doesn't seem to have any other elements but to hurt people and cause civil disorder, a jury could reasonably conclude intent from the complete absence of any peaceful justification at all for that.

the gun element is far more difficult, as there american all over the shop practising shooting people, dress up in camouflage and crawl around in the undergrowth practising ambushes and it seem potentially illegal


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> I did see that, but there's the issue of interpretation.
> 
> How does one PROVE that they're NOT training with intent?
> 
> ...


the last one isnt factual. big knives are banned outright unless you have a good reason to carry it, so yes the burden is on the accused, but there is no question of intent to be proved, mere possession is the offence, it matter not if you intend to stab someone or not

 walking about with a baseball bat is completely different, for that to be illegal the prosecution most certainly has to prove intent, as BBB are not specifically banned in public places


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> well so much as the american system is based on the english system, the burden of proof is with the accuser , not the accused, so the state have to prove the intent.



But the point is that they don't, if they word it right.

Again, knife law. Without good reason, carrying a knife is illegal. It's automatically taken that carrying a knife is "with intent" and it's up to the accused to give good reason. Then it's up to the state (or it's representatives) whether they accept any reason as "good".

A guy was arrested up the road from me for carrying a knife - the reason he gave was that it was something he'd always done since being in the boy scouts, that maybe his shoelaces might knot and he'd have to cut them or something. He was initially reported by an old woman who didn't recognise him and thought a stranger walking around in the village was suspicious, the knife was only discovered upon a search.

The arresting officer, the CPS, the court - none had to prove that he was carrying with intent, the jury didn't accept that his reason was good enough, so he was successfully prosecuted on the basis of not being able to prove lack of intent.

The mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies if the law is written as such - as it is, carrying a knife here makes you automatically guilty (because it's illegal) unless you can prove innocence.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> the last one isnt factual. big knives are banned outright unless you have a good reason to carry it, so yes the burden is on the accused, but there is no question of intent to be proved, mere possession is the offence, it matter not if you intend to stab someone or not
> 
> walking about with a baseball bat is completely different, for that to be illegal the prosecution most certainly has to prove intent, as BBB are not specifically banned in public places



So, the bill isn't the wording of the enacted law.

If they word the actual law to be that group fight training is paramilitary activity unless good reason can be shown to the contrary then the situation is parallel.

Oh, and try wandering around the city centre on a Saturday night carrying a baseball bat - it's perfectly legal to do so which means there's no reason for you to be questioned about it, right?


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

your mixing up legal concepts, there are some laws that have a reverse burden of proof, carrying a big knife is one of them. there called strict liability laws

Thing that include mens rea, guilty mind, ie intent put the burden squarely on the prosecution

I have had the BBB conversation a few times,

I started carrying one after my little dog was mauled by some devil dog, My intent as given to the police was to beat a killer dog to death with it if it attacked mine, which is perfectly legal reason for carry, but i didn't have to give any justification, i just didn't fancy spending the rest of the day down the police station, whilst a thick copper came to the realisation it wasn't illegal, in the end i replaced it with a telescopic walking pole, that when collapsed making an extremely effective batton, nobody ever asked me about that


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 15, 2019)

This is a excert from the handgunlaw.us site:
*Virginia* is a "*stand*-*your*-*ground*" *state*. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can *stand your ground* and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. This applies whether weaponized or empty handed.
There is a proposes bill (SB64) trying to outlaw teaching self defense, firearms training, and carrying concealed. 
Virginia has become a radical liberal state and it really reaching on this one. I doubt it even makes it to the floor. In typical fashion to most bills, I expect it will get modified a couple of times, waste a lot of time and money and quietly go away.


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> Individual states have the legal capacity to locally override federal law



Incorrect....states can add to federal law...they can not override it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Just read this on FB, so dont know if its true, I thought the right to bear arms, and protect oneself and family was part of the American constitution?.
> Can one of our American collegues confirm if this is true, or just a load of FB trash.
> Virginia to Outlaw All forms of Self Defense - The Self Defense Company


It's trash.  I literally don't have to read in order to know that it's trash.  One of the big issues in the U.S. is the "right to defend yourself".   If there was anything close to that then the news outlets would be all over this.  You would see gun right's protests and a bunch of other noise.  If if someone tried to pass a bill like this No one would agree to it.


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 15, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> doubt it even makes it to the floor.



If it does get passed it will be struck down in court


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 15, 2019)

for the record and to avoid politics and i am going to mainly joke from this point, the second amendment is as follows:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."      That was from the senates website that has the constitution posted on it.   its damn hard to find that as well. (apologies if someone else posted it, but i saw it be asked so i just copy pasted it word for word)

Now for the joke, if it did happen they would probably repeal it within a year as lots of people in Gi's protest in government buildings. and you would have a repeat of the gym bros vs TKD practitioners video from china.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Incorrect....states can add to federal law...they can not override it.



They can choose to locally ignore it though.


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> They can choose to locally ignore it though.



Typically Federal Agencies enforce federal law....state and local agencies enforce state law.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> for the record and to avoid politics and i am going to mainly joke from this point, the second amendment is as follows:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."      That was from the senates website that has the constitution posted on it.   its damn hard to find that as well. (apologies if someone else posted it, but i saw it be asked so i just copy pasted it word for word)
> 
> Now for the joke, if it did happen they would probably repeal it within a year as lots of people in Gi's protest in government buildings. and you would have a repeat of the gym bros vs TKD practitioners video from china.


 its long been argued that the right to bear arms, as defined in the constitution has been misapplied to include private citizens, when it clearly relates to the military or other official bodies.

ive alway found the argument that you cant alter the constitution particularly the 2nd AMENDMENT to the constitution rather contradictory

to p


pdg said:


> They can choose to locally ignore it though.


only to the extent they can fail to enforce a law or fail to assist in policing that law, they cant enforce a (federal) law that doesn't exist or create one that is indirect opersistion of federal law, and certainly not the constitution, that's what started the american civil war.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> only to the extent they can fail to enforce a law or fail to assist in policing that law, they cant enforce a (federal) law that doesn't exist or create one that is indirect opersistion of federal law,



That's not true though.

Federally, vaping, vape products etc. are fully legal.

Locally, there are laws that criminalise various aspects of that practice - from bans on the sale of flavours through to all out bans on possession.

So, federal can say "yes, it's legal" - a state can say "no, it's illegal and if you do it we can put you in jail and confiscate your house".

How is that not in opposition?


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> as defined in the constitution has been misapplied to include private citizens, when it clearly relates to the military or other official bodies.



Disagree...militias were composed of armed citizens that could be called up to fight and are separate from military or official bodies. Historically, militias were self armed.


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> That's not true though.
> 
> Federally, vaping, vape products etc. are fully legal.
> 
> ...



Because their is no federal law that legalizes vaping for the state law to oppose.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree...militias are composed of armed citizens that can be called up to fight and are separate from military or official bodies. Historically, militias were self armed.


 are they citizen that can be called up to fight and be armed or armed citizens. as the citizen who are armed don't take their own guns when volunteering or being conscripted to the army, it seem the first.

who is going to call them if not a government of some description, armed militia called by a private citizens to fight is likely to lead to you being gunned down by the state or its agents 

have you another example since the war of independence of them being required to take their own muskets ?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> This is a excert from the handgunlaw.us site:
> *Virginia* is a "*stand*-*your*-*ground*" *state*. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can *stand your ground* and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. This applies whether weaponized or empty handed.
> There is a proposes bill (SB64) trying to outlaw teaching self defense, firearms training, and carrying concealed.
> Virginia has become a radical liberal state and it really reaching on this one. I doubt it even makes it to the floor. In typical fashion to most bills, I expect it will get modified a couple of times, waste a lot of time and money and quietly go away.


lol.. Nothing like that is ever going to get passed. This isn't a liberal issue and I always chuckle when  someone says "anti-gun, anti-weapon" laws is a liberal thing.  If people think democrats don't own guns or won't shot anyone, then they are sadly mistaken  There could be numerous reasons for having bills that are crazy sounding like this.  I may be for political reasons as in.  "I supported a bill that...."  and the politician knows very well that it won't go anywhere,  but the bill gives them a talking point and that's all they need.  

The US. is so focused on "us vs them" mentality that people can't see straight. Too many people listening to toxic radio and news talk shows.  If the radio or news station spends most of it's time complaining about stuff, every single day.  Then you are probably being systematically brain washed.  I had a Republican co-worker call say that democrats are evil.  So I asked him if I was evil.  lol.  All this time he must have thought I was republican because he didn't have an answer for it.  The reason he didn't have an answer for it is because we get along well. So I don't match the image he's made in his mind.

When you see stuff like this, then the best thing to do is to step back, not react and take a few moments to think and asking some simple questions like.

Does this make sense?
Is it real? Can I find this on an official government website?
Who is presenting, shared, or created the information?  What is their agenda?
Has the news outlets gone crazy or do they not mention it?  I'm talking about Real News and not Talk News.   Talk News is toxic.
What are the facts? vs What are the Talking Points
So to help with this.  Let's take a look at the bill as it's posted on a U.S. government website.  Because it's definitely not what was posted on that martial arts website
Bill Tracking - 2020 session > Legislation

Because I know some of you won't go there and read it. 
* SENATE BILL NO. 64 * Offered January 8, 2020 Prefiled November 21, 2019 _A BILL to amend and reenact § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to paramilitary activities; penalty._ ---------- Patron-- Lucas ---------- Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice ----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited; penalty.

A person shall be_ is_ guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive_,_ or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive_,_ or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder_; or_

_3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof_.

2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.


#1.  You can only be guilty if you knowingly trained someone that you knew was was going to to harm someone.  For example,  I can't teach Jow Ga double daggers to someone that I know intends to use that skill set to intentionally cause harm in others as in an attack.  If I know that a person wants to go shoot up a building then I can't and shouldn't be selling a gun to that person.   

#2  I can't start a hate group and have the hate group meet with the purpose and intent to use the firearm training specifically against the group that I hate.  So if my group is called "The He-Man Woman Haters Club" and we specifically train to do violence on Women, then I would be in legal trouble for doing so, as the training of violence isn't for protection.

#3.  Assembles with one or more person with the intent of intimidating any person.   Ole time favorite.  KKK gathering together to burn a cross on someone's yard.  Or a group of people getting together to intimidate anti-gun rights supporters.  Such as being all for guns, then have a group of you and your friends go to the protest with your gun your back and in your holster.  Protests usually get heated so as a safety concern it's better if no one is packing at this event.  Because once that genie comes out of the bottle it's going to be a mess. 

This doesn't make Law enforcement feel safer.  So what happens if one or more person figure that they are going to "solve the problem today".  Just saying, If gun right supporters can carry guns then so can everyone else.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 15, 2019)

Considering that then cited source it the Natural News, run by known crank Mike Adams, I would think that it is likely to be complete BS. It is a site that considers Chemotherapy to be a 'crime against humanity' so it is not likely to be particularly credible. If that were in fact the law then it would be the stupidest law to come out since it would give criminals complete freedom to attack anyone they want without the victim being able to legally defend themselves.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


  This is outdated.  This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause.   Different time and place and totally irrelevant in the days of a professionally trained military with helicopters, tanks, and plans and advanced infrastructure.  The concept that a Militia will "protect against government" is just nuts.  Citizens would get better results from voting, so long as they take their voting seriously.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.. Nothing like that is ever going to get passed. This isn't a liberal issue and I always chuckle when  someone says "anti-gun, anti-weapon" laws is a liberal thing.  If people think democrats don't own guns or won't shot anyone, then they are sadly mistaken  There could be numerous reasons for having bills that are crazy sounding like this.  I may be for political reasons as in.  "I supported a bill that...."  and the politician knows very well that it won't go anywhere,  but the bill gives them a talking point and that's all they need.
> 
> The US. is so focused on "us vs them" mentality that people can't see straight. Too many people listening to toxic radio and news talk shows.  If the radio or news station spends most of it's time complaining about stuff, every single day.  Then you are probably being systematically brain washed.  I had a Republican co-worker call say that democrats are evil.  So I asked him if I was evil.  lol.  All this time he must have thought I was republican because he didn't have an answer for it.  The reason he didn't have an answer for it is because we get along well. So I don't match the image he's made in his mind.
> 
> ...



So here's a question.

Aren't all those kinds of activities already illegal?


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> are they citizen that can be called up to fight and be armed or armed citizens. as the citizen who are armed don't take their own guns when volunteering or being conscripted to the army, it seem the first.
> 
> who is going to call them if not a government of some description, armed militia called by a private citizens to fight is likely to lead to you being gunned down by the state or its agents
> 
> have you another example since the war of independence of them being required to take their own muskets ?



When the constitution was written most militias were self armed and composed of volunteers...to balance having a large standing federal army the framers created a checks and balance of power with the 2nd amendment.  

The War of 1812 was fought using a large portion of voluntary militia that was self and privately armed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> So here's a question.
> 
> Aren't all those kinds of activities already illegal?


They may be otherwise protected under freedom of assembly and freedom of speech laws.  So passing a law specifically against the activity gives law enforcement something to grip onto if they need to prosecute.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is outdated.  This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause.   Different time and place and totally irrelevant in the days of a professionally trained military with helicopters, tanks, and plans and advanced infrastructure.  The concept that a Militia will "protect against government" is just nuts.  Citizens would get better results from voting, so long as they take their voting seriously.


And I believe the original language defined what it meant to keep and bear arms.  It was something like “a musket and fifty lead balls and sufficient powder.”


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 15, 2019)

that would be the job of the supreme court to determine what is and is not correct interpretation.    and congress has the power to alter the constitution.      As stated i was keeping that A-political and just posting the constitutions for what is written in it.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> When the constitution was written most militias were self armed and composed of volunteers...to balance having a large standing federal army the framers created a checks and balance of power with the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The War of 1812 was fought using a large portion of voluntary militia that was self and privately armed.


 yes but you started that war, by trying to invade canada, so not really in defence of the state, it was just naked aggression and opportunism whilst we were busy dealing with the threat to world peace that was napoleon and whilst is hard to say you lost, you mostly lost, in that you didn't get canada

so clearly they decided to have a professional army rather than rag tag of farmers with shot guns and yet still they were called up and/or operating with the authority of the  the state, so an official army abet a rather badly trained one

im surprised you didn't go for the alamo, yet another disaster

have you any examples since the invention of the steam train ?
 and do you belive it still necessary when you have the largest standing army on earth ?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> Aren't all those kinds of activities already illegal?


I think some of them can generally fall under certain laws but not specifically.  If it's specifically then all you have to do is show how it breaks a specific law.  If the action generally fits under a different law then you will have to show how the action can be interpreted under various other laws.  These amendments seem to make it more specific.  By saying that "These specific actions" fall under this "specific law". The effects of this is that it would close any loop holes that may have existed in the other laws that didn't specifically address this issue.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Because their is no federal law that legalizes vaping for the state law to oppose.



Generally, if something isn't legislated as illegal, it's taken that it's status is one of being legal.

Otherwise it would be on the statute that you're allowed to eat carrots.

So a state can oppose the unspoken (but very literal) legality of something and make it illegal. A person can do something perfectly legal, but be prosecuted for it if they cross the street.

I'm quite sure that with a little digging I can find specific examples of something being declared legal (and hence effectively passed into law) that a state has deemed to be illegal within it's bounds.

Probably something to do with the 21st amendment 

Conversely, an individual state can take something that is federally illegal and decide to legalise it locally, introduce taxes on said things, legislate and license as it sees fit and allow it's citizens to indulge in these activities. That's far more involved than simply choosing not to enforce a federal law.


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause



If you are giving to take historical context then....

After the Revolutionary War and the writing of the constitution, many of the leaders were opposed to allowing the federal government to have a large standing army.

To balance the power of the federal govt the 2nd amendment was put in place.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

So anyway, following my previous post I'm going to bow out before this thread strays into the zone that I would consider political.

 (I have to use my own boundaries here, because despite asking multiple mods on multiple occasions I've never received clarification of where the site boundary lies)

Have fun all


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> If you are giving to take historical context then....
> 
> After the Revolutionary War and the writing of the constitution, many of the leaders were opposed to allowing the federal government to have a large standing army.
> 
> To balance the power of the federal govt the 2nd amendment was put in place.


That's still outdated and based on a time of musket guns.  Many of the problems that they had in the revolutionary war was due to not having a large standing army.  Ironically colonies and territories don't get the same treatment as states of the government   So it only makes sense for that perception to exist.    But this is not the same reality of states of the Government, because the states actually make the Federal or Ruling national government.   The same isn't true for colonies and territories. So much of what was written in the Constitution is based on the perception of being a Colony or Territory of a larger government and not actually from the perception of being the make up of the larger government.  This is Hong Kong is going through the issues that they are going through now.

So to base U.S. statehood and Citizenship from the perspective of being a colony or territory is just not accurate.  There is no federal government without State Government.  The collection of State Government is the federal government.  State Government technically make Federal Law.  This was not the case with the colonies and Britain


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> Generally, if something isn't legislated as illegal, it's taken that it's status is one of being legal.
> 
> Otherwise it would be on the statute that you're allowed to eat carrots.
> 
> ...


your still mixing things up,

it is indeed a tenant of english common law( and by extension american law) that everything that isn't specifically banned is legal, the continent is subtly different, where everything is illegal unless passed into law ( well not exactly but in that vein as it large based on napoleonic civil law and neopian wasn't big on civil liberties, just as innocent till proved guilty isn't a big thing in europe

if your talking about cannabis law, the individual states were given '' permission'' to legalise it by the attorney general, in telling them that the federal govement would make no attempts to enforce the law, except for special circumstances, so not at all a contradiction between state and federal law.

England has lot and lots of laws it doesn't enforce, if its not being enforce is only a law in the strictest interpretation of the word


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> So anyway, following my previous post I'm going to bow out before this thread strays into the zone that I would consider political.
> 
> (I have to use my own boundaries here, because despite asking multiple mods on multiple occasions I've never received clarification of where the site boundary lies)
> 
> Have fun all


I could be wrong but I think the safe zone is anything but politically bashing the mess out of each other.  For me personally, I like to get things to the historical root as fast as possible, lol.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I could be wrong but I think the safe zone is anything but politically bashing the mess out of each other.  For me personally, I like to get things to the historical root as fast as possible, lol.


 i've found the safe zone to be not saying anything bad about america its laws, foreign policy or history.

as long as everyone agrees that america is the best country on earth, everyone should have a gun and just forget about historical facts and use Hollywood history the thread will keep going


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> i've found the safe zone to be not saying anything bad about america its laws, foreign policy or history.
> 
> as long as everyone agrees that america is the best country on earth, everyone should have a gun and just forget about historical facts and use Hollywood history the thread will keep going


 lol.. Don't worry..  I have some choice words to say about my country lol.   Never been a fan of the "Perfect Country" or even the "Best Country" attitude of my fellow Americans.    It's just not the Worst Place to live  lol.


----------



## Buka (Dec 15, 2019)

The latest, breaking news....






Wow. Who knew?


----------



## geezer (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> i've found the safe zone to be not saying anything bad about america its laws, foreign policy or history. ...as long as everyone agrees that america is the best country on earth, everyone should have a gun and just forget about historical facts and use Hollywood history the thread will keep going



Jobo, you are generalizing again. 

Honestly, I would guess that, in fact, only a minority of educated Americans believe in that nationalistic "American Exceptionalism" baloney. I'm _not_ especially well educated or widely traveled ...since I'm rather poor. I haven't been to the UK or Europe since my student days. But years ago I did bother to read about the Mexican American war from the Mexican perspective (in Spanish, using Mexican sources) and watched a fascinating documentary on the myth of the Alamo by the Mexican author Paco Ignacio Taibo II. Informative.

You know that nationalistic "American Exceptionalism" stuff is no different than nationalistic propaganda you can find being exploited for political gain in just about every nation on earth. Yeah. It is a real thing that some buy into, it's dumb, and really annoying. I get that. But don't paint all us Yanks with a broad brush.

Oh, and BTW 'm always amused that you, and a lot of other people i run across from the UK, Canada and down under, actually have a better grip on how the US political and legal system works than a lot of my countrymen do. And please don't go asking Americans to explain your parliamentary system . Now that's something we Yanks should think about!


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.. Don't worry..  I have some choice words to say about my country lol.   Never been a fan of the "Perfect Country" or even the "Best Country" attitude of my fellow Americans.    It's just not the Worst Place to live  lol.


i've found a marked contradiction in my own country that takes some thinking about.

as a general rule, the less educated, the more disadvantaged a person is the more patriotic they are, the more blind they are to how badly they and their ancestor have been treated by this country and the more convinced that they live in the greatest country on earth they are.

our recent upheaval over brexit has generally been the disadvantaged blaming the EU for there miss fortune and pinning for the days of the british empire, whilst ignoring the fact that's its only the EU and their laws which stop them from being more neglected/ exploited more than they currently are


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

geezer said:


> Jobo, you are generalizing again.
> 
> Honestly, I would guess that, in fact, only a minority of educated Americans believe in that nationalistic "American Exceptionalism" baloney. I'm _not_ especially well educated or widely traveled ...since I'm rather poor. I haven't been to the UK or Europe since my student days. But years ago I did bother to read about the Mexican American war from the Mexican perspective (in Spanish, using Mexican sources) and watched a fascinating documentary on the myth of the Alamo by the Mexican author Paco Ignacio Taibo II. Informative.
> 
> ...


well there's 300,000,000 of you, i have to generalise a bit, ` just done a post about how nationalism is the preserve of the poor and poorly educated  IN THIS COUNTRY, unfortunately there's an awful lot of them 17,2 million at the last count.

Nor is america alone in having only hollywood history, that unfortunately what we get as well, most people know far more about the american civil war than the english one, in the fact they know that you had one and it was vaguely about slavery, the intricacies of the mason dixon line seem to have past them by


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> most people know far more about the american civil war than the english one



Which English one?

We've had a few...

I do remember once being corrected when I mentioned the wars of the roses - "don't you mean war of the ring mate, that film with the wizard and stuff?"

I honestly had no answer on either a historical or literary level.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> Which English one?
> 
> We've had a few...
> 
> ...


 


pdg said:


> Which English one?
> 
> We've had a few...
> 
> ...


the one that's called '' the english civil war in the history book, the others have been wars between royal houses, for the throne, which don't really fit the definition of a citizens war, royalty are not citizen or subjects by definition, but yea sort of we've had dozens

it was interesting with game of thrones to see how much was lifted straight from english history. if you watch that you have a good idea what happened though not at all in the correct order and no dragons

so next time someone says '' war of the roses'' WHAT just say '' game of thrones mate'' but don't tell them there were no dragons


----------



## geezer (Dec 15, 2019)

pdg said:


> Which English one? We've had a few....



...er I think he means that series of conflicts in the mid 17 Century between the Cavaliers and the roundheads?

Kinda important you know, what with with Charles I losing his head and all. If I remember vaguely back to my school days I think it was a pretty big step in increasing the powers of Parliament and in limiting the powers of the monarchy. Pretty important for us too, since we were still subjects of the Crown back then!


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

geezer said:


> ...er I think he means that series of conflicts in the mid 17 Century between the Cavaliers and the roundheads?
> 
> Kinda important you know, what with with Charles I losing his head and all. If I remember vaguely back to my school days I think it was a pretty big step in increasing the powers of Parliament and in limiting the powers of the monarchy. Pretty important for us too, since we were still subjects of the Crown back then!


` yea, but it work out so badly they decided to have a king back, after oliver cromwell named himself lord protector ( king in all but name) and banned christmas along with invading ireland and general being worse than the king they got rid of, a bit of a stuttering step on the road to democracy and one we still haven't recovered from


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

geezer said:


> Honestly, I would guess that, in fact, only a minority of educated Americans believe in that nationalistic "American Exceptionalism" baloney


In all my life, I don't think I've personally met someone like this. The only time I hear this seems to come from people who become overly defensive about their country and it's almost always in the context of someone who has migrated from another country that expresses their opinion about the new country they live in, ".

Ironically those who actually say stuff like that are almost  doing so that they will believe that nonsense.  The only reason I'm saying this, because it's that same group who often have TONS of negative stuff to complain about when it comes to the government.  So on one breath they say "American Exceptionalism" and then in the other "the complain about the government, taxes, regulations, education, health care, and a whole bunch of other things.  If a country was truly Exceptional, then their wouldn't be much to complain about. 

I definitely hear politicians say it more than every day Americans. 


geezer said:


> Oh, and BTW 'm always amused that you, and a lot of other people i run across from the UK, Canada and down under, actually have a better grip on how the US political and legal system works than a lot of my countrymen do


  Funny you say this.  Whenever I get into a debate about "the leaders that American's pick reflect the majority American View."   I respond with,  that's not a realistic view of the U.S. some people don't vote and most people don't know anything about politics other than Present and maybe Governor.  State Reps and how our government actually works is not common knowledge with most Americans.

Too many Americans are afraid to talk about government, then the other half doesn't pay attention to anything the government does, until it's time to vote for a president,  There is also that group who doesn't believe that their vote counts.  Oh and then there's the conspiracy people.   With all of the lack of government knowledge and the misinformation, it's amazing the US has a government at all.  

Not sure if this happens anywhere else.lol


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> as a general rule, the less educated, the more disadvantaged a person is the more patriotic they are, the more blind they are to how badly they and their ancestor have been treated by this country and the more convinced that they live in the greatest country on earth they are.


  This is correct and accurate for human leadership.  Most harmful leaders want their voters to be uneducated, because it's easier to fool uneducated people.  And by educated, I don't mean college vs no college education.  By educated I mean people who do seek seek knowledge to help improve their understanding of the world or the society that they live in.  A person can be a college graduate and still say and to the most ignorant things.   Uneducated people are easy to mislead and get into line.   You can just keep feeding them trash, they'll eat it, and will never question.   Look at countries with dictators and you'll see the same pattern. 

For me culturally, with the history of Slavery, my family told me stories, when I was a kid, about how slaves weren't allowed to read or learn anything beyond the task they had to do.  An uneducated N-----r is and obedient N----r.  So by default any politician that's not for educating people or make anti-education comments tend to raise my alarm flags.  

Another good example is how the Taliban didn't want people to learn anything that wasn't taught specifically by the governing group.  I tell people all the time,  don't let anyone talk you (general) out of your education.  Don't let them say (oh it's ok if you can't go to college, you don't need it.). Yet those same people who say that make sure their kids go to college.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> most people know far more about the american civil war


 yeah... you would think, but unfortunately there's a lot of misinterpretation about the U.S. Civil war and probably Civil war in general

For example: I've heard some outlandish stuff when it comes to US Civil War history.  It's really scary.  There's people here who say that slavery never happened and that  some black people back then owned white slaves.  Where I used to work, a Civil War actor said that the southern states where actually separate countries.  So I was like WTF.... separate countries who voted for the same President and lived under the same national constitution.  The sad part is that he was telling this to kids.

History and Geography are not American strong points. lol.   If you ever get into a debate with an American in person.  Just have that person name all 50 states. lol.  One day someone told me there were 51 states and I almost thought I blacked out and missed some time.  How in the world would I miss the 51st state joining the union of states. lol.  Amercians..  We are a special breed.  lol.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is correct and accurate for human leadership.  Most harmful leaders want their voters to be uneducated, because it's easier to fool uneducated people.  And by educated, I don't mean college vs no college education.  By educated I mean people who do seek seek knowledge to help improve their understanding of the world or the society that they live in.  A person can be a college graduate and still say and to the most ignorant things.   Uneducated people are easy to mislead and get into line.   You can just keep feeding them trash, they'll eat it, and will never question.   Look at countries with dictators and you'll see the same pattern.
> 
> For me culturally, with the history of Slavery, my family told me stories, when I was a kid, about how slaves weren't allowed to read or learn anything beyond the task they had to do.  An uneducated N-----r is and obedient N----r.  So by default any politician that's not for educating people or make anti-education comments tend to raise my alarm flags.
> 
> Another good example is how the Taliban didn't want people to learn anything that wasn't taught specifically by the governing group.  I tell people all the time,  don't let anyone talk you (general) out of your education.  Don't let them say (oh it's ok if you can't go to college, you don't need it.). Yet those same people who say that make sure their kids go to college.


people see things through there own prism, the poor people in this country were treated dreadfully including being denied even a basic education, up until 1870 it was made compulsory in 1876 to try and stop child labour, which it didn't, this was only to the age of 10, after that you were on your own, unsurprisingly the literacy rates were abismal, meaning the poor stay poor and obviously the rich stayed rich, talk about gaming the system


----------



## Buka (Dec 15, 2019)

Different countries teaching different versions of history....

Who would have ever thought dat?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> the rich stayed rich, talk about gaming the system


ha ha ha..do you live in the US?  This sounds soooooo familiar.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2019)

Buka said:


> Different countries teaching different versions of history....
> 
> Who would have ever thought dat?


That's why I like history..  There are always different takes on it depending on which side is telling it.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.. Nothing like that is ever going to get passed. This isn't a liberal issue and I always chuckle when  someone says "anti-gun, anti-weapon" laws is a liberal thing.  If people think democrats don't own guns or won't shot anyone, then they are sadly mistaken  There could be numerous reasons for having bills that are crazy sounding like this.  I may be for political reasons as in.  "I supported a bill that...."  and the politician knows very well that it won't go anywhere,  but the bill gives them a talking point and that's all they need.
> 
> The US. is so focused on "us vs them" mentality that people can't see straight. Too many people listening to toxic radio and news talk shows.  If the radio or news station spends most of it's time complaining about stuff, every single day.  Then you are probably being systematically brain washed.  I had a Republican co-worker call say that democrats are evil.  So I asked him if I was evil.  lol.  All this time he must have thought I was republican because he didn't have an answer for it.  The reason he didn't have an answer for it is because we get along well. So I don't match the image he's made in his mind.
> 
> ...


Good post.
It is the very reason I said radical liberal(s). I can be quoted several times stating that I fully believe there are many good and fine democrats, just like I know there are mis-guided conservatives. The (D) party is so fractured and errantly guided right now, factually more than any other time in history.

It is the wording of the bill and ensuing intent that is concerning. It is typical legalese that can be manipulated, misconstrued, and used in other writings to weaken other laws and fundamental beliefs and freedoms.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> well there's 300,000,000 of you, i have to generalise a bit, ` just done a post about how nationalism is the preserve of the poor and poorly educated  IN THIS COUNTRY, unfortunately there's an awful lot of them 17,2 million at the last count.
> 
> Nor is america alone in having only hollywood history, that unfortunately what we get as well, most people know far more about the american civil war than the english one, in the fact they know that you had one and it was vaguely about slavery, the intricacies of the mason dixon line seem to have past them by


Ok, but the error in this comment is in your naming the Revolutionary war our Civil war. Very, very different wars. 
Especially since both countries have a war known as the Civil war, I would encourage correcting this naming convention anytime the error surfaces to avoid the confusion.


----------



## Gweilo (Dec 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> our recent upheaval over brexit has generally been the disadvantaged blaming the EU for there miss fortune and pinning for the days of the british empire, whilst ignoring the fact that's its only the EU and their laws which stop them from being more neglected/ exploited more than they currently are



Maybe thats how you see it, but many others see it as a gradual strangling of true independance, nothing to do with our own glamourised historical past, I did history as an exam at school, many moons ago, only to find that most of it was biased from the British veiw, pushed into the education system by the so called elite of the time.and I am sure this happens in every country in the world, the only real similarities we have is amongst the political elite, commonsense is not common anymore.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Ok, but the error in this comment is in your naming the Revolutionary war our Civil war. Very, very different wars.
> Especially since both countries have a war known as the Civil war, I would encourage correcting this naming convention anytime the error surfaces to avoid the confusion.


ive reference three seperate american wars on three separate occasions in three separate contexts im not mixing anything up

i do call it the war of independence, where you call it the revolutionary war, perhaps that's whats confusing you /?


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Maybe thats how you see it, but many others see it as a gradual strangling of true independance, nothing to do with our own glamourised historical past, I did history as an exam at school, many moons ago, only to find that most of it was biased from the British veiw, pushed into the education system by the so called elite of the time.and I am sure this happens in every country in the world, the only real similarities we have is amongst the political elite, commonsense is not common anymore.


 TRUE independence, we have never had TRUE independence, we are controlled by the banks, who control the money supply and if you control the money supply you control the government

iin the 70s we were being run by the IMF,  before that we were being run as a satellite state of america, we had the power to make decisions, but only decision america agreed with

you need to go back to the thirties, as the last time this country was '' independent'' and then realize that democracy was suspended through most of the 1930s, that's right we used our independence to stop having an elected government, whilst criticizing the germans for doing much the same thing at much the same time for much the same reasons, that is democracy was dangerous to the state. there was a very good chance a communist government would be elected, so they just put a stop to that by canceling the whole concept of elected government

whilst noting we had only had ( true) democracy for twenty years or so, before they decided to cancel it.

The only way you can wish this country to be truly independent is if you have no idea of how it used its independence to abuse its own people last time it had it,,

we are( at least for the moment) still subject to the RULE of The ECHR, though i suspect that will soon become a point of contention to the nationalists, our government was frequently found to be breaching the human rights of its population before it was ''truly independent'' god knows what they will do now


----------



## Gweilo (Dec 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> whilst criticizing the germans for doing much the same thing



I dont remember us ethnically clensing millions of Jewish people, or perhaps in your opinion that was fake history too. I agree with you on how the British people where treated by the governments back then, and I agree Capitalism is not perfect, but you are incorrect on the independance quote, it was until a mr Tony lets shaft the electorate Blair, gave away too much power to the EU, which is controlled by big business. I am fully aware of what our ancestors did in the name of the empire, using our navy to make people comply, and its not domething I wish to happen again, what needs to happen is our parliment needs to decide on where our money goes, and not treat people like the miners as they did, once the backbone of the country, then basically dumped for cheaper imports, and nothing to replace the work apart from paper hat jobs (would you like fries with that), and no investment at all into these areas, left to rot basically, not just the miners though, look whats happened to our industries, steel, motors, shoe making,fishing, all put on hold for the better of other european countries, this is why most voted to leave.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I dont remember us ethnically clensing millions of Jewish people, or perhaps in your opinion that was fake history too. I agree with you on how the British people where treated by the governments back then, and I agree Capitalism is not perfect, but you are incorrect on the independance quote, it was until a mr Tony lets shaft the electorate Blair, gave away too much power to the EU, which is controlled by big business. I am fully aware of what our ancestors did in the name of the empire, using our navy to make people comply, and its not domething I wish to happen again, what needs to happen is our parliment needs to decide on where our money goes, and not treat people like the miners as they did, once the backbone of the country, then basically dumped for cheaper imports, and nothing to replace the work apart from paper hat jobs (would you like fries with that), and no investment at all into these areas, left to rot basically, not just the miners though, look whats happened to our industries, steel, motors, shoe making,fishing, all put on hold for the better of other european countries, this is why most voted to leave.


 were talking about two different things, im talking about independence and the treatment of UK subjects, the treatment of peoples of the empire is a separate issue for the purpose of this discussion

But there was an awful lot of sympathy for the nazis idea during the 1930 in this country, hell even our own king was a natsi sypatheriser.

There was a concerted campaign to start a eugenics program, that consisted at least at first of forced sterilisation of the poor and the mentally ill and the disabled , ( its difficult to know how far they would have taken it) supported by an awful lot of the british establishment including our much revered mr churchill. all of which has been somewhat airbrush from history

It came with in a few votes of being voted into law, So we were a mere fraction from following the germans down their aryan ideal of selective breeding. in fact we thought of it first

There was of course an unofficial Eugenics program running well into the 1970s., were poor women and the mentally ill and the disabled were having their tubes tied so they couldn't have ( or indeed any children) more children.


but then again the american were dragging hill billies of the streets and sterilizing them to remove the bad genes again into the 1970s so the ideas far from died with the end of the third reich


----------



## Buka (Dec 16, 2019)

This thread is really starting to piss me off.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> ive reference three seperate american wars on three separate occasions in three separate contexts im not mixing anything up
> 
> i do call it the war of independence, where you call it the revolutionary war, perhaps that's whats confusing you /?


In this context war FOR (not of) independence and revolutionary war are interchangeable terms.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> In this context war FOR (not of) independence and revolutionary war are interchangeable terms.





dvcochran said:


> In this context war FOR (not of) independence and revolutionary war are interchangeable terms.


well not here its not, its called the american war OF independence, and as it was half our war we can call it what we like


----------



## geezer (Dec 16, 2019)

Buka’s gettin’ pissed boys, and that takes some doin’ ... so let’s roll it back a bit and settle down. Like the sayin’ goes, “Beware the wrath of a patient man”.

BTW, call it the Revolutionary War, the War of/for Independence, The American Revolution
... heck I’ve heard all those and it’s the same thing. Any way you say it, those Colonists were revolting!


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2019)

geezer said:


> Buka’s gettin’ pissed boys, and that takes some doin’ ... so let’s roll it back a bit and settle down. Like the sayin’ goes, “Beware the wrath of a patient man”.
> 
> BTW, call it the Revolutionary War, the War of/for Independence, The American Revolution
> ... heck I’ve heard all those and it’s the same thing. Any way you say it, those Colonists were revolting!


i know the americans like to make a big thing out of defeating the british, hell its the only war they have ever won without outnumbering the enemy 2 to one.

but the subtext is a bit more interesting, mad king george who was quite mad, could see no good reason, to waste time, money, lots of money and effort to send reinforcements 2000 miles to fight for for a god forsaken wilderness on the edge of civilization that was not sending much revenue, when he already had or soon would have the rest of the globe at his finger tips. so didn't and of course you lot won, or rather we just gave up and went home.

if mad king george had not been quite as mad or penny pinching then we of course  have quelled the uprising and gone back to collecting taxes for king george.

its hard to find another episode of madness in the history of the world that changed the history of the world so much, not even napoleon invading russia in the winter comes close

though the french selling louisiana and the russians alaska deserve an honourable mention


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> well not here its not, its called the american war OF independence, and as it was half our war we can call it what we like





jobo said:


> i know the americans like to make a big thing out of defeating the british, hell its the only war they have ever won without outnumbering the enemy 2 to one.
> 
> but the subtext is a bit more interesting, mad king george who was quite mad, could see no good reason, to waste time, money, lots of money and effort to send reinforcements 2000 miles to fight for for a god forsaken wilderness on the edge of civilization that was not sending much revenue, when he already had or soon would have the rest of the globe at his finger tips. so didn't and of course you lot won, or rather we just gave up and went home.
> 
> ...


Let's be real, you got your assed kick because your next door neighbor saw the wisdom in helping us out. 
Your impression of what happened is a deluded. Well, that is true for most all your posts.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Let's be real, you got your assed kick because your next door neighbor saw the wisdom in helping us out.
> Your impression of what happened is a deluded. Well, that is true for most all your posts.


i didn't get my *** kicked i wasn't there and honestly care little, it rather the loss of americans that they were not ruled by the british, left to their own devices they went from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> i didn't get my *** kicked i wasn't there and honestly care little, it rather the loss of americans that they were not ruled by the british, left to their own devices they went from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization


I couldn't click two but, that was not funny, it was absolutely hilarious. I an needing the good laughs right now so keep them coming.


----------



## geezer (Dec 16, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I couldn't click two but, that was not funny, it was absolutely hilarious. I an needing the good laughs right now so keep them coming.



I find _Jobo_ hilarious too. But that doesn't make him wrong.

The Brits _didn't_ fight us all out when we revolted. Not with total brutality like Sherman's march to the sea in the Civil War. And they didn't feel like they had to. Story I got is they felt they could bide their time and settle this later... say around 1812. Trouble is that we got stronger, and world affairs (like Napoleon) kept the Brits busy until it was too late to hazard a war of reunification.

Another thing. Without dissing the founding fathers... they were indeed a pretty amazing bunch, but what if we had never fought the Revolutionary War? Would we have ended up like Canada. Would we BE Canada? Heck, I really like Canada. That doesn't seem so bad to me. And just imagine if Canada included us, it wouldn't even be that cold! Now that sounds even better. But what do I know? ....I'm just pondering aloud.


----------



## Mitlov (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> i didn't get my *** kicked i wasn't there and honestly care little, it rather the loss of americans that they were not ruled by the british, left to their own devices they went from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization



Ladies and gentlemen, this is what you get when you start your day with tea instead of coffee


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2019)

Buka said:


> This thread is really starting to piss me off.


Time to sit back and break open some pop corn.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 17, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Time to sit back and break open some pop corn.









You can have some of mine.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 17, 2019)

geezer said:


> Oh, and BTW 'm always amused that you, and a lot of other people i run across from the UK, Canada and down under, actually have a better grip on how the US political and legal system works than a lot of my countrymen do.


Movies and television have something to do with that.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2019)

RTKDCMB said:


> Movies and television have something to do with that.


 what and nothing to do with american average iq not being in the world's top 20 ? 

to be fair it is higher than sierra leone and to be even fairer massachuits on its own would be in the top ten, perhaps they should consider ditching the rest of you


----------



## Buka (Dec 17, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> You can have some of mine.



You guys are right, there is a rather large and glorious popcorn factor to this whole thing.


----------



## Buka (Dec 17, 2019)

And, yeah, massachuits is high because they had to spell massachuits growing up.

(I have a Holiday themed rim shot in my had right now.  Silver bells...and by cracky, I think I hear an oboe).


----------



## geezer (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> what and nothing to do with american average iq not being in the world's top 20 ?



Do you mean IQ ...or_ level of education_. A lot of old ideas about IQ testing have been discredited. So I don't think we (the people of the USA) are a nation of retards. Ignorant, sure, but retards?

Of course if you are right, I'll be the last to know!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2019)

geezer said:


> Do you mean IQ ...or_ level of education_. A lot of old ideas about IQ testing have been discredited. So I don't think we (the people of the USA) are a nation of retards. Ignorant, sure, but retards?
> 
> Of course if you are right, I'll be the last to know!


Lol not quite sure at how to take being called stupid  American.  I don't know if I should be angry or sad that other countries follow the US lol.  If Americans have A low IQ then that doesn't say much about the rest of t he world..


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2019)

geezer said:


> Do you mean IQ ...or_ level of education_. A lot of old ideas about IQ testing have been discredited. So I don't think we (the people of the USA) are a nation of retards. Ignorant, sure, but retards?
> 
> Of course if you are right, I'll be the last to know!


a lot of it in its infancy was social darwinism, just manipulated to give the results they wanted, i remember I read of one test in sub saharan africa, where the participants were instructed to pick up their pencil, but they have never seen or heard of a pencil before ( they used chalk and boards) they did quite badly in the test, so there can be cultural or social or gender bias in them, unless you work very hard to remove them

there after there a strong correlation between IQ and education level, A higher IQ allows you to progress further, a good education increase your problem solving skill and thus you effective IQ

Places like sierra leone have a low IQ, not because there inherently less able, just its a god forsaken place with little formal education and even at its most basic taking iq tests if you cant read or do basic maths is quite difficult. So one way or another its a commentary on a country

you could take it to show how clever the people of your country are? or conversely you could use it to indicate how many people are being failed by the education system


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2019)

geezer said:


> I find _Jobo_ hilarious too. But that doesn't make him wrong.
> 
> The Brits _didn't_ fight us all out when we revolted. Not with total brutality like Sherman's march to the sea in the Civil War. And they didn't feel like they had to. Story I got is they felt they could bide their time and settle this later... say around 1812. Trouble is that we got stronger, and world affairs (like Napoleon) kept the Brits busy until it was too late to hazard a war of reunification.
> 
> Another thing. Without dissing the founding fathers... they were indeed a pretty amazing bunch, but what if we had never fought the Revolutionary War? Would we have ended up like Canada. Would we BE Canada? Heck, I really like Canada. That doesn't seem so bad to me. And just imagine if Canada included us, it wouldn't even be that cold! Now that sounds even better. But what do I know? ....I'm just pondering aloud.


 i know you like alternative history, ive been mussing on what aspects of america would have been improved/ worsened if you had stayed under the guiding hand of the british.

on the plus side
slavery would have ended half a century sooner, saving half a century of untold misery, then clearly there would have been no need for the civil war, millions of lives and untold suffering,

 though we were quite big on putting down native uprising we didn't generally follow that up with the genocide of entire nations( that was the Germans and the Belgians) or indeed renege on our word and take back land we had promised to honour. so that's millions of more lives and untold suffering removed from your history.

 even allowing that apartheid was never practised in the UK or empire, if it happened at all we can take at least 50 years off rosey parks and the civil right movement, the Vietnam war wouldn't have happen, more lives less suffering, no mccarthyism, our reds were well and truly in the bed with the rest of us, and you wouldn't have been two years late to both world wars, .

of course no presidents and though you would clearly,  have missed out on washington lincoln and jfk, that seems a small price to pay to have avoided the mad and bad ones. and you would still have had elvis and harleys

on the minus side

Bad films, and we almost certainly wouldn't have gone to the moon , that's it ? cant think of anything else

what about you?


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> its long been argued that the right to bear arms, as defined in the constitution has been misapplied to include private citizens, when it clearly relates to the military or other official bodies.


It was argued so and many still, foolishly, still try to argue thus.  The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Heller vs. D.C. that the 2nd Amendment is, indeed, an individual right.

It's settled law and arguing that is isn't is much like people wanting to overturn Roe V. Wade: an exercise in wasted time and fantasy.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2019)

lklawson said:


> It was argued so and many still, foolishly, still try to argue thus.  The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Heller vs. D.C. that the 2nd Amendment is, indeed, an individual right.
> 
> It's settled law and arguing that is isn't is much like people wanting to overturn Roe V. Wade: an exercise in wasted time and fantasy.


they can change their mind, cant they /?

  Not having a politically appointed court and therefore no judicial independence , is one of the things i should have included in my list above


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause.


That's not true at all.  There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control.  The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> if your talking about cannabis law, the individual states were given '' permission'' to legalise it by the attorney general, in telling them that the federal govement would make no attempts to enforce the law, except for special circumstances, so not at all a contradiction between state and federal law.


Nope.  Just because some AG says, "we're not going to prosecute you" doesn't mean that it's legal.  It's still on the Federal Schedule.  And there are prosecutions based on MJ.  It's illegal for someone in the U.S. to buy a gun if they use MJ.  Period.  There are prosecutions based on people with "medical marijuana cards" being prosecuted for buying/attempting to buy a gun.  What that boils down to is uneven prosecution.  It was actually pretty slick of the anti-freedom folks to slip it in that way.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> they can change their mind, cant they /?


About as often as the Pope changes _ex cathedra._


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Nope.  Just because some AG says, "we're not going to prosecute you" doesn't mean that it's legal.  It's still on the Federal Schedule.  And there are prosecutions based on MJ.  It's illegal for someone in the U.S. to buy a gun if they use MJ.  Period.  There are prosecutions based on people with "medical marijuana cards" being prosecuted for buying/attempting to buy a gun.  What that boils down to is uneven prosecution.  It was actually pretty slick of the anti-freedom folks to slip it in that way.


 not being prosecuted for doing something is the very definition of legal, take your( and ours) ''illegal war'' was GWB prosecuted ? no so legal then, it seems, at least in the US, i'm not sure he will be seen sightseeing in the Hague anytime soon

the rest appears to be gun law not drugs law


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2019)

lklawson said:


> About as often as the Pope changes _ex cathedra._


 so theres hope ?


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> For example: I've heard some outlandish stuff when it comes to US Civil War history.  It's really scary.  There's people here who say that slavery never happened and that  some black people back then owned white slaves.


It was technically possible and may have possibly happened.  We know that there were blacks who owned slaves.  While not exceptionally common, it was not unheard of.  We also know that Thomas Jefferson had slaves which were his illegitimate children with a slave woman who was, herself mixed (1/2 black).  There are letters we've found which indicates the surprise which visitors to Jefferson had that he had "white slaves."  Further, Indentured Servitude was pretty common, particularly in the early days of colonization.  Indentured Servitude is, basically, "slavery with an expiration date."  I suspect there may have been opportunity for Black freemen to purchase White indentured servants, though I haven't looked for it.

Was it possible for a "Black" man to own "White slaves?"  Maybe sorta.  Did it happen for sure?  Who cares?  Slavery sucks, regardless of who's owning who.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> so theres hope ?


No.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> TRUE independence, we have never had TRUE independence, we are controlled by the banks, who control the money supply and if you control the money supply you control the government


Well, now you can use bitcoin.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> i know the americans like to make a big thing out of defeating the british, hell its the only war they have ever won without outnumbering the enemy 2 to one.
> 
> but the subtext is a bit more interesting,


God saved General George Washington from certain defeat at least 3 times, often by strange weather.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Let's be real, you got your assed kick because your next door neighbor saw the wisdom in helping us out.


What?  You mean that one of the 2 Super Powers of the time was aiding an upstart thorn-in-the-side of the other Super Power in order to advance their position against the first?  Shocking!


----------



## lklawson (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> not being prosecuted for doing something is the very definition of legal,


No.  It actually isn't.



> the rest appears to be gun law not drugs law


No.  It's an application of the Drug Laws to an activity which is, _ceteris paribus_, legal.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2019)

lklawson said:


> No.  It actually isn't.
> 
> No.  It's an application of the Drug Laws to an activity which is, _ceteris paribus_, legal.




If the authorities choose not to prosecute you, then you can be sure it isn't. people do use the phrase ''technically illegal'', which means that practically speaking it isn't, and as being convicted is a practical rather than a technical problem , your safe to run with that


----------



## W.Bridges (Dec 17, 2019)

Virginia sheriff says he’ll deputize residents if gun laws pass


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2019)

lklawson said:


> That's not true at all.  There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control.  The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes.


  My friend majored in history in college and loves history more than I do.  She was the one who told me about the issue that existed and the problems that existed but aren't highlighted in the history books in schools.  One of it being that the states had their own military force and didn't work as a single unit with other states like today's military.  If the state felt like it was better to protect the state then those soldiers wouldn't be sent to other states.  Below is an example, which sheds a little light that there were definitely some organizational issues.  I highlighted in read the issue.

Source: United States Army | History, Generals, Battles, & Structure
As the Revolution drew to a close, the Continental Congress asked Washington for his recommendations for a peacetime military force. In response, he prepared _Sentiments on a Peace Establishment_ (May 1, 1783), a sweeping assessment of the strategic situation facing the new country. Washington believed that the United States needed only a small regular army to deal with Indian threats and to provide a nucleus for expansion by “a well-organized militia” in time of foreign war. *Instead of the independent and diverse militia forces of the individual states, which had proved so unreliable during the Revolution*

Different source:
Source:Continental Army
"When Washington assumed command, the Continental Army truly was not even an army. *Rather, it was a loosely and poorly coordinated band of militias and citizen-soldiers under control of the individual states.* There were no established protocols for exercising coordinated authority, for supplying and feeding the troops, for transportation, or any other of the myriad tasks necessary for a field army."

Think of how our state representatives fight among each other and then think about how they get very little done.  Now give each state an army to control and try to have them come together and put their differences aside, without fighting about what's best for the country.  It was pretty much like that.  Which is why Washington wasn't fond of the Individual Militias controlled by the stated.  Half of the states would be saying go to war, the other half will be saying no and as a result won't send men to fight.

Quote from Washington in Red  Source: A Common American Soldier
"Washington was never enamored of the militia, once writing that "*to place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.*""
"Toward the end of summer in 1775, he noticed that farmers serving in the militia vacated the field of battle as harvest time approached. Militia units dissolved when hostilities moved away from their home locales. Discipline was all but nonexistent in many units because most elected their officers and command authority was thus compromised."


----------



## Buka (Dec 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> i know you like alternative history, ive been mussing on what aspects of america would have been improved/ worsened if you had stayed under the guiding hand of the british.
> 
> on the plus side
> slavery would have ended half a century sooner, saving half a century of untold misery, then clearly there would have been no need for the civil war, millions of lives and untold suffering,
> ...



I would miss the food, Martial Arts, the movie Braveheart and the island of Maui.

Dare I say that would really suck.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Slavery sucks, regardless of who's owning who


 True words.  Definitely the one thing that no one wakes up an strives to be.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2019)

W.Bridges said:


> Virginia sheriff says he’ll deputize residents if gun laws pass


I say go for it. I'm always amused when people try to implement silly things.  Lets see how many residents he'll be able to deputize lol.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 18, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I say go for it. I'm always amused when people try to implement silly things.  Lets see how many residents he'll be able to deputize lol.


This is a very good "tip of the iceberg" event. People should not and will not stand for this type attempted government control. 
Regardless of it's success, people will organize. The Sheriff using his appointed powers to help organize is simply fighting fire with fire. 
There is a thread (this one maybe?)that has been talking about how 'loosely' organized the members of the continental army was. None the less, they got the job done.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 18, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> My friend majored in history in college and loves history more than I do.  She was the one who told me about the issue that existed and the problems that existed but aren't highlighted in the history books in schools.  One of it being that the states had their own military force and didn't work as a single unit with other states like today's military.  If the state felt like it was better to protect the state then those soldiers wouldn't be sent to other states.  Below is an example, which sheds a little light that there were definitely some organizational issues.  I highlighted in read the issue.
> 
> Source: United States Army | History, Generals, Battles, & Structure
> As the Revolution drew to a close, the Continental Congress asked Washington for his recommendations for a peacetime military force. In response, he prepared _Sentiments on a Peace Establishment_ (May 1, 1783), a sweeping assessment of the strategic situation facing the new country. Washington believed that the United States needed only a small regular army to deal with Indian threats and to provide a nucleus for expansion by “a well-organized militia” in time of foreign war. *Instead of the independent and diverse militia forces of the individual states, which had proved so unreliable during the Revolution*
> ...


None of that disagrees with my statement: "There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control. The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes."


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 18, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Just read this on FB, so dont know if its true, I thought the right to bear arms, and protect oneself and family was part of the American constitution?.
> Can one of our American collegues confirm if this is true, or just a load of FB trash.
> Virginia to Outlaw All forms of Self Defense - The Self Defense Company



This article just totally reeks of RWNJ paranoia.


----------



## Gweilo (Dec 18, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> This article just totally reeks of RWNJ paranoia.



I agree, it would be ludicrous, especially, if memory serves me well, recently the ban on purchasing or owning nunchuks in new york state was quashed due to the right to bare arms, it would be silly to implement it, just to pay lawyers to fight it in court.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2019)

W.Bridges said:


> Virginia sheriff says he’ll deputize residents if gun laws pass


that links comes back as unavailable to members of the european economic area


lklawson said:


> None of that disagrees with my statement: "There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control. The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes."


 and non of that disagrees with his. at the time of the revolutionary war th


Gweilo said:


> I agree, it would be ludicrous, especially, if memory serves me well, recently the ban on purchasing or owning nunchuks in new york state was quashed due to the right to bare arms, it would be silly to implement it, just to pay lawyers to fight it in court.


its not my usual MO, to point out spelling mistakes, because DOH

but it's worth noting that that most of the world ( with the exception of some extremely religious countries)  , have the right to BARE arms, hell even this country doesn't have a problem with it.


----------



## Gweilo (Dec 18, 2019)

jobo said:


> that links comes back as unavailable to members of the european economic area
> 
> and non of that disagrees with his. at the time of the revolutionary war th
> 
> ...


----------



## Gweilo (Dec 18, 2019)

Lol, you have opened a can of worms with that swipe, if you wasnt from Manchester I would take you seriously.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2019)

lklawson said:


> None of that disagrees with my statement: "There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control. The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes."


What I was speaking on was about the Militia.  When I spoke about the organization it was about the Militia.  I didn't say anything about a standing army or navy.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> This is a very good "tip of the iceberg" event. People should not and will not stand for this type attempted government control.
> Regardless of it's success, people will organize. The Sheriff using his appointed powers to help organize is simply fighting fire with fire.
> There is a thread (this one maybe?)that has been talking about how 'loosely' organized the members of the continental army was. None the less, they got the job done.


  just because they got the Job done means that's the best way to get the job done.  D-day got the job done but no one believes that was the best way to get the job done.   A country that only has a Militia and a small Standing Military is not the best was.  Washington knew this in spite of having won the war.  

As for Government control over gun regulation.  There always has to be some sort of regulation.  That's just the natural flow of a functioning society.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 18, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> just because they got the Job done means that's the best way to get the job done.  D-day got the job done but no one believes that was the best way to get the job done.   A country that only has a Militia and a small Standing Military is not the best was.  Washington knew this in spite of having won the war.
> 
> As for Government control over gun regulation.  There always has to be some sort of regulation.  That's just the natural flow of a functioning society.


As far as the Revolutionary war and D-day, I believe the way things were done were thought to be the best, or only way to keep moving forward. 

I agree that a functioning government makes for a functioning society. But why would you want a government so in control that your human rights and freedoms are taken away? We are a highly educated and thinking country. It so rings of the old saying "if we don't learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it".
Some of this is the same government that approves late term abortions. With the exception of risk to the mother, how on any level is that right? A person, who should have already been in control of their actions, has had most of a year to make this Very big decision. Government services to aid in making the decision and navigate the process is reasonable. Government aid to commit literal murder it NOT. Government telling me I cannot learn how to, or to own items for personal protection is ridiculous. Look at Chicago's murder rate After banning weapons as an example. 
This is the kind of stuff in government that will cause people to rise up. Someone referenced the New York debacle. It is scary to think how many things like this which are Driven from Within government occur just so a lot of money can be made off of it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 18, 2019)

People believe hysterical rants and either cannot or will not simply read the text of the actual bill. Good grief, what a pack of ninnies.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> But why would you want a government so in control that your human rights and freedoms are taken away?


 The government is already in control.  That's how you have human rights in the first place.  The Government ensures that..  There's this assumption and false narrative that we just pop out of the womb and have rights and that everything the government does some how takes away from our rights.  The constitution is a government document.  The laws governing child labor, slavery, freedom of speech, equal rights, business law and criminal law are all government creations that protect you.  And the only reason those laws exist is because the government is so in control that your human rights and freedoms are protected.

If the government wasn't "so in control" then there is no way for them to ensure rights and freedoms.  If the government has no power to take away freedoms then murder would be legal.  Child abuse would be legal, rape would be legal, segregation would be legal.  All of those are freedoms, but not every freedom is beneficial to a society.  Some freedoms cause more harm than good because humans don't know how to act.  If humans didn't murder then there would be no need for laws against murder.  If humans didn't rape, then there would be no need for laws against rape.  If humans didn't shoot each other up with guns then there would be no need for laws to restrict gun use.


dvcochran said:


> We are a highly educated and thinking country


 I don't think so.  I think we are ignorant, arrogant, greedy and harmful to ourselves in each other without guidance and restrictions.  I don't think this only applies to the U.S.  I think this applies to humans in general.

My opinion and belief that a small percentage of us can actually control ourselves,  A much larger percentage are only willing to do so only because a law or restriction exists that controls and guides our behavior.  Then there's a small percentage of humans that do wrong simply because they can and because they want to.   Take a way the law controlling bribery and you'll see even more people doing it.  Take a way the law dealing with theft and you'll see more people doing.  I'm not impresses with the intelligence of humans in general.  Given the opportunity to do things without consequence, humans will be the worst.



dvcochran said:


> if we don't learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it"


 And some how we always tend to repeat the errors of the past. Which is why we also say "history repeats itself".  Which makes not have great confidence in the intelligence nor education of humans in general.  



dvcochran said:


> Some of this is the same government that approves late term abortions. With the exception of risk to the mother, how on any level is that right?


My thing about abortion is what programs, educations, and support are being provided to encourage people to keep a child vs having an abortion?  Not having abortion centers doesn't stop abortions.  We have already seen this in the past, abortion centers didn't just pop up, abortions have always been going on.  Is abortion right?  depends on the situation.  Your father rapes your sister and she becomes pregnant" Is that right?  Do you think you should have say over her and her pregnancy?   A criminal rapes your wife and she becomes pregnant?  What's your call going to be has the husband?  Do you want to take care of the child of the man who raped your wife?  Do you even get any say on that because you aren't the one who is pregnant?

I think people make abortion too much of a "black and white" issue.  People are going to have their own decisions to make and some are going to be more difficult than others.  Do I personally agree with abortion?  Nope, but that's just me that's my choice.  Would I agree with it if any of those scenarios above became true?  I probably wouldn't like, but I would probably not doing it as well.  There's not always an easy out. And people are going to have to make their own decisions about stuff like that.  But instead of trying to outlaw it, I would spend more effort trying to teach the value of family and providing support systems for Teenage pregnancies, and single parent pregnancies.  I would want social programs that would help make it feel less like a burden.  At least that way women may be less likely to feel like they need one unless it was in an extreme case.  The social program would also include men who were the cause of it except in the case of Rape or some other crime.



dvcochran said:


> Look at Chicago's murder rate After banning weapons as an example.


Guns are only part of the problem.  If you have people fighting over territory and street credit then you are going to have guns on the street.  Chicago's violence is a multiple cause and effect.  When you look at the gun violence in Chicago, you have to also look at why the violence is happening in the first place. Anyone who thinks that getting rid of the guns in Chicago will solve everything is fooling themselves.  There are some systematic issue in  Chicago that require a muti-solution approach.



dvcochran said:


> This is the kind of stuff in government that will cause people to rise up. Someone referenced the New York debacle. It is scary to think how many things like this which are Driven from Within government occur just so a lot of money can be made off of it.


Here's the thing. Teach people how to be better leaders and you'll have better leaders.  Teach people how to pick leaders based on real needs and not political arguments and you'll have better governments.  

Demand and expect more quality from your elected leaders and you'll get better quality leaders.  Everyone expects and assumes that politicians are no good and that the government is no good, and no one does anything to improve it.  So what do you expect will be the outcome.  Want a better government , then pick people who want to solve problems, people who are willing to listen, and people aren't all about Politics as some can of entertainment sport. IRONY people complain about those in government yet we are the ones who put them there and then blame the Government for who we choose.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> People believe hysterical rants and either cannot or will not simply read the text of the actual bill. Good grief, what a pack of ninnies.


So true.  5 alarm fire over small stuff that has nothing to do with "taking guns away" or taking freedoms away.    When tell me that the government is trying to take freedoms away, the first thing I ask is.  "What freedom did you have yesterday, that you no longer have today?"  To this day, I have never gotten an answer.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> The government is already in control. That's how you have human rights in the first place. The Government ensures that.. There's this assumption and false narrative that we just pop out of the womb and have rights and that everything the government does some how takes away from our rights. The constitution is a government document. The laws governing child labor, slavery, freedom of speech, equal rights, business law and criminal law are all government creations that protect you. And the only reason those laws exist is because the government is so in control that your human rights and freedoms are protected.
> 
> If the government wasn't "so in control" then there is no way for them to ensure rights and freedoms. If the government has no power to take away freedoms then murder would be legal. Child abuse would be legal, rape would be legal, segregation would be legal. All of those are freedoms, but not every freedom is beneficial to a society. Some freedoms cause more harm than good because humans don't know how to act. If humans didn't murder then there would be no need for laws against murder. If humans didn't rape, then there would be no need for laws against rape. If humans didn't shoot each other up with guns then there would be no need for laws to restrict gun use.



I do not believe that at all, and I feel this is true for a majority of people. I am not "good" because some government official says "be good". It is a part of human Nature. In the natural course of growing we each learn how to communicate, interact, give, accept, love, on and on; we are innately human but also learn how to be human from other humans as well as our elements and conditions. It is an incredible transformation a person goes through from the time of birth to adulthood. We are so very much cause and effect creatures.
In legal terms, human rights were/are?/should be written by the people, using government Only as a conduit to create laws decided upon by the people. Re: founding fathers stuff.



JowGaWolf said:


> don't think so. I think we are ignorant, arrogant, greedy and harmful to ourselves in each other without guidance and restrictions. I don't think this only applies to the U.S. I think this applies to humans in general.
> 
> My opinion and belief that a small percentage of us can actually control ourselves, A much larger percentage are only willing to do so only because a law or restriction exists that controls and guides our behavior. Then there's a small percentage of humans that do wrong simply because they can and because they want to. Take a way the law controlling bribery and you'll see even more people doing it. Take a way the law dealing with theft and you'll see more people doing. I'm not impresses with the intelligence of humans in general. Given the opportunity to do things without consequence, humans will be the worst.



Your opinion of humans is frankly, offensive and sad. Don't you think there is Much more good than bad in people? The mindset of creating law based Only on the exceptions is immoral and illegal.
The basis of most laws does very little. The action of a law is what can make it effective. Using your theft reference as an example; just yesterday I was in civil court regarding a tractor I had stolen 2 1/2 years ago. Long story short, the people involved had/have created a small theft ring in where they were able to deflect any claims made toward any one person. In other words they learned how to beat the system. If our government is so smart and all powerful, how do things like this happen? If Enforcement was given teeth the criminals would think much harder about their actions. In other words, if a murderer knew they would be executed for their actions, murder rates Would go down. Look at Singapore.



JowGaWolf said:


> My thing about abortion is what programs, educations, and support are being provided to encourage people to keep a child vs having an abortion? Not having abortion centers doesn't stop abortions. We have already seen this in the past, abortion centers didn't just pop up, abortions have always been going on. Is abortion right? depends on the situation. Your father rapes your sister and she becomes pregnant" Is that right? Do you think you should have say over her and her pregnancy? A criminal rapes your wife and she becomes pregnant? What's your call going to be has the husband? Do you want to take care of the child of the man who raped your wife? Do you even get any say on that because you aren't the one who is pregnant?
> 
> 
> I think people make abortion too much of a "black and white" issue. People are going to have their own decisions to make and some are going to be more difficult than others. Do I personally agree with abortion? Nope, but that's just me that's my choice. Would I agree with it if any of those scenarios above became true? I probably wouldn't like, but I would probably not doing it as well. There's not always an easy out. And people are going to have to make their own decisions about stuff like that. But instead of trying to outlaw it, I would spend more effort trying to teach the value of family and providing support systems for Teenage pregnancies, and single parent pregnancies. I would want social programs that would help make it feel less like a burden. At least that way women may be less likely to feel like they need one unless it was in an extreme case. The social program would also include men who were the cause of it except in the case of Rape or some other crime.



Not at all what I said. I said nothing about whether I think abortions are right or moral. I said why would someone wait until the child is borne or at the point of birth to kill it? And why does government think they should step in and enforce such actions? 
If there is a compelling reason for a person the have an abortion, they have had more than ample time to make the decision. Call it what it really is and it changes the dynamic of the conversation. Even the term abortion is used to shield the intenseness of what is really happening. Creating 'nice' words so that the conversation about something is 'nice or civil' does not make the reality of what is happening nice or civil at all. 
Yes, I fully agree there are conditions that merit the action but waiting until the point of birth to do it? No, never.​


JowGaWolf said:


> Guns are only part of the problem. If you have people fighting over territory and street credit then you are going to have guns on the street. Chicago's violence is a multiple cause and effect. When you look at the gun violence in Chicago, you have to also look at why the violence is happening in the first place. Anyone who thinks that getting rid of the guns in Chicago will solve everything is fooling themselves. There are some systematic issue in Chicago that require a muti-solution approach.





JowGaWolf said:


> Here's the thing. Teach people how to be better leaders and you'll have better leaders. Teach people how to pick leaders based on real needs and not political arguments and you'll have better governments.
> 
> Research the history of Chicago crime before and after gun restraints. Then do the same for say Massachusetts who repealed gun law. ​Clearly you are all in for Big government.
> 
> Demand and expect more quality from your elected leaders and you'll get better quality leaders. Everyone expects and assumes that politicians are no good and that the government is no good, and no one does anything to improve it. So what do you expect will be the outcome. Want a better government , then pick people who want to solve problems, people who are willing to listen, and people aren't all about Politics as some can of entertainment sport. IRONY people complain about those in government yet we are the ones who put them there and then blame the Government for who we choose.



How do you not understand that liberty has been taken away. There are no term limits for much of government. An action created and implemented from within government, for government, not the people.

I am sorry you have such a lowly view of mankind that we should have nose rings and be led around on a chain. Pun intended.

For decades we have continued to add layers of federal government and laws in an attempt to improve society. It has created a system that is so big and top heavy is it impossible for any  person to fully understand what is going on. Somewhere in all of it people saw that they could capitalize upon this mechanism financially and politically.
One agenda continues to push this envelope.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I do not believe that at all, and I feel this is true for a majority of people. I am not "good" because some government official says "be good". It is a part of human Nature. In the natural course of growing we each learn how to communicate, interact, give, accept, love, on and on; we are innately human but also learn how to be human from other humans as well as our elements and conditions. It is an incredible transformation a person goes through from the time of birth to adulthood. We are so very much cause and effect creatures.
> In legal terms, human rights were/are?/should be written by the people, using government Only as a conduit to create laws decided upon by the people. Re: founding fathers stuff.
> 
> 
> ...


 theres an inherent contradiction in what your saying, one one hand you want human rights( and who doesn't, the whole concept that humans have inalienable  rights was the biggest step forward this world has ever made)

on the other you seem to support the death penalty, of all the rights human have, the right to life is the most important. with out that the rest are meaningless

So it seems you only want your government to champion the human rights that fit your view

know i know your going to say something like '' if they take a life, they give up their own right to life'' but the very meaning of the term '' inallaible'' means that not possible

once you support a policy of a government choosing which human right you can have, you cant really complain if the same government also removes rights you think are important


----------



## lklawson (Dec 19, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> What I was speaking on was about the Militia.  When I spoke about the organization it was about the Militia.  I didn't say anything about a standing army or navy.


What you specifically wrote was: "This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause."

And that's just not correct.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2019)

lklawson said:


> What you specifically wrote was: "This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause."
> 
> And that's just not correct.
> 
> ...


well no, lets be clear. The united states did not have a well organised army in the '' revolutionary war, as there was no united states at the time


----------



## lklawson (Dec 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> well no, lets be clear. The united states did not have a well organised army in the '' revolutionary war, as there was no united states at the time


Stop trying to be a pedant.  It doesn't look good on anyone.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Stop trying to be a pedant.  It doesn't look good on anyone.


 your pedantic.aly pursuing a line of argument whilst making manifestly untrue statement and accusing the people who devote time and effort to point out your grossly incorrect statements of being pendants.

its not just a slip, you've made the same error repeatedly, whilst lecturing other on history


----------



## lklawson (Dec 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> your pedantic.aly pursuing a line of argument whilst making manifestly untrue statement and accusing the people who devote time and effort to point out your grossly incorrect statements of being pendants.
> 
> its not just a slip, you've made the same error repeatedly, whilst lecturing other on history


Incorrect.  There has always been a standing army NOT made of up Militia, starting from the Revolutionary War and going forward.  Indisputable fact.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Incorrect.  There has always been a standing army NOT made of up Militia, starting from the Revolutionary War and going forward.  Indisputable fact.


 its a bit late to start making factual statements when you've posted a load of incorrect ones.

but at least you've amended it, so it was worth my time to point out the actual history of your country


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> its a bit late to start making factual statements when you've posted a load of incorrect ones.
> 
> but at least you've amended it, so it was worth my time to point out the actual history of your country


but even then its still not technically correct, 

a standing army is one maintained by a nation during times of peace

as there wasn't as yet a '' nation''  and there wasn't peace till after the war had finished. it wasn't a standing army


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> theres an inherent contradiction in what your saying, one one hand you want human rights( and who doesn't, the whole concept that humans have inalienable  rights was the biggest step forward this world has ever made)
> 
> on the other you seem to support the death penalty, of all the rights human have, the right to life is the most important. with out that the rest are meaningless
> 
> ...


Wholeheartedly, 100% disagree.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I do not believe that at all, and I feel this is true for a majority of people


I know there are some good people.  I just don't think there are a lot of them.  The fact that you have laws for things that should be clear for any "Good Person" to undestand should tell give you a more realistic view of humans.  All of the cruel things humans do to each other if given the opportunity.  My view of humans is a curate which is why I'm no longer shocked when kids get shot at a school and for nothing to be done to address the issue.  That's why when you think "remarkable " when you see a video of someone doing acts of kindness.  If that type of kindness was the norm then people would view it as something that happens all the time. No one looks at those videos and. "That's the norm"

The Bible is full of lessons that people should try to be good.  Without guidance and restrictions we will always move to our worst selves.  If we were already good then there would be no need for laws.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Wholeheartedly, 100% disagree.



 I'm not at all surprised you disagree, you don't seem to have spent anymore than a few seconds considering it.

As witnessed by your admiration of the judicial system of singapore, singapore doesnt indeed have a very low murder rate, but its also in the bottom 10 of counties for the most blatant disregard for human rights, it does execute quite a lot of people, but its far from sure that the ones it executes are t5he ones who committed the murder, as it doesn't exactly have a fair and transparent judicial process, so its conviction rate is extremely high, it also has very strict controls on gun ownership, which may certainly be a factor in its low rate


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> . If our government is so smart and all powerful, how do things like this happen? I


 because the laws are not flawless. And because the human desire to do wrong is sometimes greater than the desire to do good.  Using your example, the law should be edited to specifically address how they got around the sytem.  

As for how powerful is the Government, ask yourself how many didn't get around the system.

I never said abortion was nice.  That's something that the individual has to live with. Just like killing someone out of self defense.  A life was taken and I don't assume abortion is easy for a woman once it's done.  That stays with her for the rest of her life.

For me I wouldn't recommend anyone wait until later to do an abortion and I've never advocated such a thing.  Just like I wouldn't suggest that one should let infection get to the point where the only option is to cut off your leg.  Some thing need to be taken care of as soon as possible vs waiting to the last minute.  To me that's just common sense.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2019)

lklawson said:


> What you specifically wrote was: "This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause."
> 
> And that's just not correct.
> 
> ...


And then I preceded to show links about the Militias who were part of that fighting force. The militias were part of that army .


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> How do you not understand that liberty has been taken away.


What liberty did you have you have yesterday that you no longer have today?  What liberty did you have that 5 years ago that you no longer have now?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> well no, lets be clear. The united states did not have a well organised army in the '' revolutionary war, as there was no united states at the time


I did some more research and the idea of an organized army did come to life until a few months after the revolution started.  It was created as a result of the start of the war.  It was put together using the Militias from the 13 colonies.  Then it goes and references how poorly trained and poorly prepared they were.  I'm on my phone but a Google search of when the standing army was created will she'd some light on this.

The Militias were used as a reason why a standing army was needed because the Militias performance was so unappealing.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> What liberty did you have you have yesterday that you no longer have today?  What liberty did you have that 5 years ago that you no longer have now?


That is Exactly the attitude many politicians want us to have. It is the innocuous change that I fear the most. Liberals are trying very hard to condition people to a certain standard and lower expectations. And many people have zero clue it is happening.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> because the laws are not flawless. And because the human desire to do wrong is sometimes greater than the desire to do good.  Using your example, the law should be edited to specifically address how they got around the sytem.
> 
> As for how powerful is the Government, ask yourself how many didn't get around the system.
> 
> ...


I did not click the button but much of what you said I have do disagree with my friend. I get that it at the state level that this is gun(?) law happening at but, for me, government cannot be looked at in pieces and judged as good or bad.
It must be held at a much higher standard. If they are truly our leadership why would we expect any less?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm not at all surprised you disagree, you don't seem to have spent anymore than a few seconds considering it.
> 
> As witnessed by your admiration of the judicial system of singapore, singapore doesnt indeed have a very low murder rate, but its also in the bottom 10 of counties for the most blatant disregard for human rights, it does execute quite a lot of people, but its far from sure that the ones it executes are t5he ones who committed the murder, as it doesn't exactly have a fair and transparent judicial process, so its conviction rate is extremely high, it also has very strict controls on gun ownership, which may certainly be a factor in its low rate


Well sure; it was very easy to disagree with when it is so wrong. I don't know a great deal about Singapore so admiration would be quite a stretch. 
It does not take a genius to Google statistics. Try it sometime.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I know there are some good people.  I just don't think there are a lot of them.  The fact that you have laws for things that should be clear for any "Good Person" to undestand should tell give you a more realistic view of humans.  All of the cruel things humans do to each other if given the opportunity.  My view of humans is a curate which is why I'm no longer shocked when kids get shot at a school and for nothing to be done to address the issue.  That's why when you think "remarkable " when you see a video of someone doing acts of kindness.  If that type of kindness was the norm then people would view it as something that happens all the time. No one looks at those videos and. "That's the norm"
> 
> The Bible is full of lessons that people should try to be good.  Without guidance and restrictions we will always move to our worst selves.  If we were already good then there would be no need for laws.


I am sorry your life is that jaded. No one should have to live in those surroundings. My life, and surroundings are not. I could give you a long list of things in my life which  could justify making that my surroundings, but I choose not to.
I get that a lot of it is the circumstances of our surroundings but a greater part of it is simply a choice.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That is Exactly the attitude many politicians want us to have. It is the innocuous change that I fear the most. Liberals are trying very hard to condition people to a certain standard and lower expectations. And many people have zero clue it is happening.


  Not the question I asked.  I want to know what freedoms you have lost.  In your entire life, what freedoms have you lost?



dvcochran said:


> It must be held at a much higher standard. If they are truly our leadership why would we expect any less?


Really?  You are saying this with who as the current president?  Higher Standards? lol..


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I am sorry your life is that jaded. No one should have to live in those surroundings


 Not sure how I'm so Jaded but it's you who is saying the Government is trying to take away your freedoms and yet you have not named one freedom that you lost.  This is the same government that you elect leaders to, and the same government in which you can run for office if you so wish.  Yet I'm the jaded one? When we can look across 90 years and see that we have gained freedoms.

All of this Anti-Government or Small-Government talk is what is Jaded as if there is some big Liberal Government conspiracy to take away rights and freedom and the paranoia that the Government is "always out to get you."   that's what's jaded.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2019)

NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS:

Political discussion is not allowed, per the user guidelines. Please take such discussions to a forum intended for such. 

*Gerry Seymour 
MartialTalk Moderator
@gpseymour*


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Well sure; it was very easy to disagree with when it is so wrong. I don't know a great deal about Singapore so admiration would be quite a stretch.
> It does not take a genius to Google statistics. Try it sometime.


note to mods, this is history, i have no political point to make

a lot of this miscommunication is to do with the transatlantic divided and how the same words are used completely differently in different cultures

what most of the world means by '' human rights'' is those rights enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, made in 1948.

americans tend to used the term to relate to the bill of right and the constitution of the US written in the mid 1700. which for its time was ground breaking and the main reason for the mass immigration from europe by ''oppressed'' minorities

As such there is always going to be a bone of contention.

now as a fact of history its fair to say that some counties have been slow, ( seventy odd years slow) in implementing the human rights declared in 1948 , america and the UK amongst them. my own country only put the right to life on the statue book around the turn of the century, though actual executions stopped in the early 60s , we retained the legal right to execute for high crimes( treason etc)

america to its credit does have the right to free speech, something that is being very quickly eroded in this country and around the world, but lacks significantly in some other area, such as the right to life and the right to a '' decent'' standard of living and recognising the jurisdiction of the international criminal court

i've copied a link to the universal declaration of human rights so that perhaps we can be conscious of the definitions being used by each other ?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2019)

Tha


gpseymour said:


> NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS:
> 
> Political discussion is not allowed, per the user guidelines. Please take such discussions to a forum intended for such.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reminder and the rule that controls and limits what can be said on MT for the benefit of the group.

Rules, laws, restrictions are used to control the natural tendencies of human behavior that has been determined to be detrimental to the governing body (MT operations) and its citizens or members.

Even on a small scale.  It played out similar to what we see in generally see  in  society in general.   Without rules, laws,and restriction, human nature would clearly cause more chaos than needed.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> note to mods, this is history, i have no political point to make
> 
> a lot of this miscommunication is to do with the transatlantic divided and how the same words are used completely differently in different cultures
> 
> ...


It was probably more me and dvcochran than you.  Things tend go south when political labels are thrown around


----------



## Buka (Dec 20, 2019)

Yes, the Mods are right, we should cease the talk of politics and go straight to a discussion of religion.

Because, my Dogma is better than your Dogma.....Dog damn it!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> note to mods, this is history, i have no political point to make
> 
> a lot of this miscommunication is to do with the transatlantic divided and how the same words are used completely differently in different cultures
> 
> ...


That's the difference between history and politics. Well stated, Jobo.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 28, 2019)

Regarding the OP, and I admit I'm showing up late, that proposed statute (which probably isn't going to clear committee by the way), has this interresting phrase scattered through it:  "intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder;"

So, if you're not intending to cause/create a "civil disorder," you won't be in violation of that law.

I still don't think it gets anywhere. I didn't do a google follow-up to see what the status is, did someone else?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

JP3 said:


> Regarding the OP, and I admit I'm showing up late, that proposed statute (which probably isn't going to clear committee by the way), has this interresting phrase scattered through it:  "intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder;"
> 
> So, if you're not intending to cause/create a "civil disorder," you won't be in violation of that law.
> 
> I still don't think it gets anywhere. I didn't do a google follow-up to see what the status is, did someone else?


It is so laced with legalese that it is wide open for interpretation. I feel at some point a court of law could/would use it in absence of the 'civil disorder caveat.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

JP3 said:


> Regarding the OP, and I admit I'm showing up late, that proposed statute (which probably isn't going to clear committee by the way), has this interresting phrase scattered through it:  "intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder;"
> 
> So, if you're not intending to cause/create a "civil disorder," you won't be in violation of that law.
> 
> I still don't think it gets anywhere. I didn't do a google follow-up to see what the status is, did someone else?


i did point out that very statement on the second or third post of the thread, that made no difference to the paranoia, that someone was going to take their guns away.

i've often wonder with  guns , if its paranoid people who  have guns or is it the possession of a gun that induces paranoia


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> if its paranoid people who have guns or is it the possession of a gun that induces paranoia


Most often neither.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is so laced with legalese that it is wide open for interpretation. I feel at some point a court of law could/would use it in absence of the 'civil disorder caveat.


The history of the American court system suggests they're more likely to be pretty restrictive on how it could be applied, because of that wording.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The history of the American court system suggests they're more likely to be pretty restrictive on how it could be applied, because of that wording.


I agree that 'civil disorder' is a hot phrase right now, but I have to respectfully disagree. Over 80% of our laws are written by defense attorneys. Being attorneys (my wife is one)they are insidious at twisting words, intent, and the very definition.
A lot of my mistrust comes from getting hammered in the courtroom when I was a LEO. Usually over the smallest of things that any other time would mean nothing. They are very good at it.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 30, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> And then I preceded to show links about the Militias who were part of that fighting force. The militias were part of that army .


Which is simply not the same.  Since the beginning there was a regular, well organized, army.  Just because there was often militia rolled in, doesn't mean there wasn't a regular army.  There was.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JP3 (Dec 30, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is so laced with legalese that it is wide open for interpretation. I feel at some point a court of law could/would use it in absence of the 'civil disorder caveat.


The "civil disorder" and the intent to create such  is a requirement, a mandated element of the offense.  If a court attempted to just "go around that," the defense attorney would have reversible error to hand, would point that out while "in" court, and the court (typically) wouldn't try to make and end run around it.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 30, 2019)

JP3 said:


> The "civil disorder" and the intent to create such  is a requirement, a mandated element of the offense.  If a court attempted to just "go around that," the defense attorney would have reversible error to hand, would point that out while "in" court, and the court (typically) wouldn't try to make and end run around it.


I am familiar with the need for intent to create. My bigger point is the vehicle that writes into creation most laws are from the defense attorney perspective. Not in civil disorder specifically but laws in general. Very much a self feeding wheel. 
It is a long running subject of debate around the card table at our home.


----------



## jobo (Dec 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I am familiar with the need for intent to create. My bigger point is the vehicle that writes into creation most laws are from the defense attorney perspective. Not in civil disorder specifically but laws in general. Very much a self feeding wheel.
> It is a long running subject of debate around the card table at our home.


if they are written from a defence attorneys point of view, which to be honest i doubt, then they are written from your defence attorneys point of view if your charge with this,


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 31, 2019)

jobo said:


> if they are written from a defence attorneys point of view, which to be honest i doubt, then they are written from your defence attorneys point of view if your charge with this,


That was exactly my point. As an arresting officer, you are at a disadvantage from jump.


----------



## jobo (Dec 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That was exactly my point. As an arresting officer, you are at a disadvantage from jump.


 i though your point was that this may get misused to wrongly charge gun owner and martial artiist, in which case the arresting officer being at a disadvantage is a good thing

people point of view tends to change on the make up of the law dependent if they are the victim or the victims sympathize or the accused or their sympathisers

watching the guilty go free is galling, if however you've ever been wrongly accused of a crime, you suddenly think the checks and balances that put a high burden of evidence on the prosecution is a very good idea indeed.

I've been on both sides of that and it is indeed a difficult balancing act for the law writers


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 31, 2019)

jobo said:


> i though your point was that this may get misused to wrongly charge gun owner and martial artiist, in which case the arresting officer being at a disadvantage is a good thing
> 
> people point of view tends to change on the make up of the law dependent if they are the victim or the victims sympathize or the accused or their sympathisers
> 
> ...


My original point is that the proposed bill is laced with wording allowing it to be interpreted multiple ways (legalese), increasing the risk that it would be used against something like teaching MA's. 
My experience in the courtroom was simply supporting my argument.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 31, 2019)

jobo said:


> if they are written from a defence attorneys point of view, which to be honest i doubt, then they are written from your defence attorneys point of view if your charge with this,


Look it up; it is easy to support this as fact. It is not a secret at all.


----------



## jobo (Dec 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Look it up; it is easy to support this as fact. It is not a secret at all.


well there written from the point of view of not convicting the innocent, not convicting the guilty is sometimes a side effect of that. that not the same as saying they are written for the express purpose of helping defence attorneys, which seems to be what your saying


----------



## jobo (Dec 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> My original point is that the proposed bill is laced with wording allowing it to be interpreted multiple ways (legalese), increasing the risk that it would be used against something like teaching MA's.
> My experience in the courtroom was simply supporting my argument.


I know that was your original point,, then you changed it to a different and  contary point


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 31, 2019)

jobo said:


> well there written from the point of view of not convicting the innocent, not convicting the guilty is sometimes a side effect of that. that not the same as saying they are written for the express purpose of helping defence attorneys, which seems to be what your saying


Just stating facts. Like I said, look it up.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 31, 2019)

jobo said:


> I know that was your original point,, then you changed it to a different and  contary point


Contrary; are you self reflecting?
 I explained my two ideas and how they related to each other. Nowhere was it contrary to the original line of thinking. 
Why do you do this to yourself?


----------



## jobo (Dec 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Just stating facts. Like I said, look it up.


if you look it up on one of those right wing everyone should have gun, execute them all, opinion sites then it probably is a '' fact'' if you a bit more liberal minded then i suspect not+


----------



## jobo (Dec 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Contrary; are you self reflecting?
> I explained my two ideas and how they related to each other. Nowhere was it contrary to the original line of thinking.
> Why do you do this to yourself?


 you explained to conflicting ideas, clearly a sane person can only have one


----------



## JP3 (Dec 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I am familiar with the need for intent to create. My bigger point is the vehicle that writes into creation most laws are from the defense attorney perspective. Not in civil disorder specifically but laws in general. Very much a self feeding wheel.
> It is a long running subject of debate around the card table at our home.


I don't know if I buy that, but if it works for the card game conversation, run with it.

I can actually sort of see where they were trying to go with the law, but as usual, the original thought most likely (I'm totally guessing, but it could easily fit the pattern of most legislative construction) added onto, built up, edited, altered, changed a bit, added onto again, etc. And this was all as it was just being submitted.

Has anyone found out what happened with the bill? I just popped in and noted the alert, didn't do any checking of my own.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 31, 2019)

Thread locked pending staff review. 


————-
Gerry Seymour 
MartialTalk Moderator 
@gpseymour


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 1, 2020)

Thread unlocked for now, however please remain apolitical while discussing this topic. If the political aspect must be discussed there are other forums in which you can do that.


————-
William H.
MartialTalk Moderator
@kempodisciple


----------

