I would not think of it. Thus the recommendation, someone else help you with your query. Thank you for the complement on the Boat.
Well I do believe @stampedehero probably came close to what is driving the whole issue. Perhaps @UncleCliffy'sDaddy, in his way added weight to the possibility. The old Liberalism is now perhaps, giving way to modern way, Globalism. No doubt this movement inspired a majority to elected Trump and a conservative Congress too. It does remain mind boggling to me though that disarming the people has been given such high priority in the agenda. My goodness, some of these folks ( @Cippy91 ) should be required to meet some pirates. See how you like it! They live off the unarmed.
With an M-1 Garand, you scare the pirate bastards and feel confident when you shoot em in the skull. I have to look for one.
Ha! The first time I got one of those weapons in my hands, I thought Wow! This is the finest weapon I have ever held. Well hell, it was!
Wow...SlyPokerDog is...so smart...this is not... grammatically correct.... but keep doing it....smart old dog....unless you pause...after most things you say.... you must....speak weird...woof...woof...
SlyPokerDog. “I’m too good to comment on anything you have to say. I’m right and you’re wrong so I’m not even gonna comment, bye now. ” Lol
What is even more astounding here, is the contribution to understanding what is happening, did not come from liberals. Or at least I don't think they answer to that call. Nothing was offered by the liberals as to the main question, but yet they support the end apparently without and over all understanding. Well perhaps too harsh, but simply pushing the question off to, just my being an old man, is like having the insight to, a Cat has a tail! But seriously, why no cogent explanations? Is it because they do not know? Or because they do not want everyone to know?
This is why debating with gun enthusiasts is like pissing into the wind. Few if any in this forum have advocated disarming gun owners or otherwise banning firearms. But that is ALL you guys tend to hear. Maybe it’s time to clean the shit out of your ears.....?
Ah a Locke scholar! A man after my own heart! I have read the Second Treatise many times. Please direct me to the part of that where Locke talks about guns, because I believe I missed it. Also, since you're a scholar of the social contract theorists, you might want to read your Rousseau. Here's what he says about "the law of nature" (i.e. "Natural Law"): "And how shall man hope to see himself as nature made him, across all the changes which the succession of place and time must have produced in his original constitution? How can he distinguish what is fundamental in his nature from the changes and additions which his circumstances and the advances he has made have introduced to modify his primitive condition? Like the statue of Glaucus, which was so disfigured by time, seas and tempests, that it looked more like a wild beast than a god, the human soul, altered in society by a thousand causes perpetually recurring, by the acquisition of a multitude of truths and errors, by the changes happening to the constitution of the body, and by the continual jarring of the passions, has, so to speak, changed in appearance, so as to be hardly recognisable. Instead of a being, acting constantly from fixed and invariable principles, instead of that celestial and majestic simplicity, impressed on it by its divine Author, we find in it only the frightful contrast of passion mistaking itself for reason, and of understanding grown delirious. It is still more cruel that, as every advance made by the human species removes it still farther from its primitive state, the more discoveries we make, the more we deprive ourselves of the means of making the most important of all. Thus it is, in one sense, by our very study of man, that the knowledge of him is put out of our power. It is easy to perceive that it is in these successive changes in the constitution of man that we must look for the origin of those differences which now distinguish men, who, it is allowed, are as equal among themselves as were the animals of every kind, before physical causes had introduced those varieties which are now observable among some of them. It is, in fact, not to be conceived that these primary changes, however they may have arisen, could have altered, all at once and in the same manner, every individual of the species. It is natural to think that, while the condition of some of them grew better or worse, and they were acquiring various good or bad qualities not inherent in their nature, there were others who continued a longer time in their original condition... Let not my readers therefore imagine that I flatter myself with having seen what it appears to me so difficult to discover. I have here entered upon certain arguments, and risked some conjectures, less in the hope of solving the difficulty, than with a view to throwing some light upon it, and reducing the question to its proper form. Others may easily proceed farther on the same road, and yet no one find it very easy to get to the end. For it is by no means a light undertaking to distinguish properly between what is original and what is artificial in the actual nature of man, or to form a true idea of a state which no longer exists, perhaps never did exist, and probably never will exist; and of which, it is, nevertheless, necessary to have true ideas, in order to form a proper judgment of our present state. It requires, indeed, more philosophy than can be imagined to enable any one to determine exactlywhat precautions he ought to take, in order to make solid observations on this subject; and it appears to me that a good solution of the following problem would be not unworthy of the Aristotles and Plinys of the present age. What experiments would have to be made, to discover the natural man? And how are those experiments to be made in a state of society? So far am I from undertaking to solve this problem, that I think I have sufficiently considered the subject, to venture to declare beforehand that our greatest philosophers would not be too good to direct such experiments, and our most powerful sovereigns to make them. Such a combination we have very little reason to expect, especially attended with the perseverance, or rather succession of intelligence and goodwill necessary on both sides to success.... It is this ignorance of the nature of man, which casts so much uncertainty and obscurity on the true definition of natural right: for, the idea of right, says Burlamaqui, and more particularly thatof natural right, are ideas manifestly relative to the nature of man. It is then from this very nature itself, he goeson, from the constitution and state of man, that we must deduce the first principles of this science.We cannot see without surprise and disgust how little agreement there is between the different authors who have treated this great subject. Among the more important writers there are scarcely two of the same mind about it. Not to speak of the ancient philosophers, who seem to have done their best purposely to contradict one another on the most fundamental principles, the Roman jurists subjected man and the other animals indiscriminately to the same natural law, because they considered, under that name, rather the law which nature imposes on herself than that which she prescribes to others; or rather because of the particular acceptation of the term law among those jurists; who seem on this occasion to have understood nothing more by it than the general relations established by nature between all animated beings, for their common preservation. The moderns, understanding, by the term law, merely a rule prescribed to a moral being, that is to say intelligent, free and considered in his relations to other beings, consequently confine the jurisdiction of natural law to man, as the only animal endowed with reason. But, defining this law, each after his own fashion, they have established it on such metaphysical principles, that there are very few persons among us capable of comprehending them, much less of discovering them for themselves. So that the definitions of these learned men, all differing in everything else, agree only in this, that it is impossible to comprehend the law of nature, and consequently to obey it, without being a very subtle casuist and a profound metaphysician. All which is as much as to say that mankind must have employed, in the establishment of society, a capacity which is acquired only with great difficulty, and by very few persons, even in a state of society. Knowing so little of nature, and agreeing so ill about the meaning of the word law, it would be difficult for us to fix on a good definition of natural law. Thus all the definitions we meet with in books, setting aside their defect in point of uniformity, have yet another fault, in that they are derived from many kinds of knowledge, which men do not possess naturally, and from advantages of which they can have no idea until they have already departed from that state. Modern writers begin by inquiring what rules it would be expedient for men to agree on for their common interest, and then give the name of natural law to a collection of these rules, without any other proof than the good that would result from their being universally practised. This is undoubtedly a simple way of making definitions, and of explaining the nature of things by almost arbitrary conveniences. But as long as we are ignorant of the natural man, it is in vain for us to attempt to determine either the law originally prescribed to him, or that which is best adapted to his constitution. All we can know with any certainty respecting this law is that, if it is to be a law, not only the wills of those it obliges must be sensible of their submission to it; but also, to be natural, it must come directly from the voice of nature.
Well shit first you said he didn’t go to school at all, now you’re saying he is missing his special education classes?!?! Fuck we gotta get him out of here!
Please do. He's belonged to the forum long enough now. It’s time he actually added something coherent and valid to the discussions, rather than snark and ridicule.
Rasta! Well that is an interesting contribution. A counter to the validity of Natural law. Probably worthy of a chat, but I do not know what the voice of Nature is Nor I suspect does the fellow you quote. But no worry, the fact remains, Natural law was a factor in the construction of the Constitution and including the 2nd amendment, and interpreted by the courts as such. Read Scalia's opinion DC vs Heller. Thanks for joining in, but I do not see a contribution to clarity as to why the Liberal of the day has morphed to the liberal of today going where, or why.
Who needs high drama shows like The Jerry Springer Show or Big Brother. Grab the popcorn along with the soda and laugh my ass off!
Valid and coherent such as telling somebody they need to go to special ed classes or implying they are dumb and didn’t go to school? Hmmmm man you are such a morally superior person.
I hear these word often UCD but then I see the results. Ouch! "Few if any in this forum have advocated disarming gun owners or otherwise banning firearms." Many have propose Banning the AR-15, and guns like it. You can find those, you do not need me to point you to them While I would prefer an M60 onboard, One ranch rifle is a rather huge step down for a single handed sailor but it better than colonial powers left the indigenous peoples Africa as their only legal protection. They were left with the muzzle loaders. Now if we take the AR-15 out? What do I use to confront a boat load of assholes? And make no mistake, there are boat loads of assholes out there. Forget it, I don't want to hear the answer. Then we see the result of hand gun laws we have today. What does a 20 year old woman of perhaps 120 pound use? She is not permitted to buy a handgun. Someone sure as hell infringed on her right. No one here in this forum objects. WTF? If anyone ought to have a handgun, it would be her in my view. I saw on the news just last evening where the age limit might go to 25. Geez I just can not fathom this logic. You can vote but you can not protect yourself!!! That is first order stupid! When I was young I enjoyed reading he yearly release of Stoger's Shooter Bible. In the back, was a section of the legal arms the could be sold to the peoples of Africa. Even as a 10 year old, I got the WTF feeling. Someone told me, this is why We have the 2nd amendment. But if you can chisel away at it, history can show you, the course it will take.
