Las Vegas

.

If others have i also wish to have... those "sheepling off" .. i dont need a weapon
and a World will be just great plays only to a moment you are confronted
with gun or some bad person that wish to harm you...

i wish a normal human right for selfdefense...EU emasculation is not good cause crooks
and hard criminals have guns inside EU.. also wish guns for our wifes and sisters
so no body can rape them and they can walk in a dark night a bit more secure..

with guns you are not safe but there is a possibility that you could become from
pray a hunter... its good to be secure and safe in a country you livin and think
to get old and even sees your grandchildren playin safe cause there is a Grandpa
dangerous and armed protecting his flock....

targets are always soft... so dont become softy..

Having lived state-side for 5 years of my life, S.E.Asia for around 15 years on and off, having widely traveled this world thru some 53 countries in my time on 5 continents, I think that my global perspective is some what intact. Many countries I have lived in enable citizens to easily own firearms.

Now I'm back in the country I was born in (England), and I must say that I feel safest here, where guns are not so readily available for anyone to buy, and no one I know has a gun.

It only takes a few nut-jobs with guns to screw up your sense of security, and so make you feel that you too might need a gun to defend yourself. But I don't feel that way in the UK because I don't know any English people that have been shot, and I have never been threatened with a gun in my own society.....you just don't see them in the hands of the average citizen, and only rarely in the hands of the police.

During the 5 years I lived in the USA, I got shot and chopped with a machete, and saw more violence in those 5 years than I have ever seen anywhere else, in any other country throughout my travels. Perhaps it was my age at the time 17-22 years old, and the company I kept?....I don't know.

Overall my feelings were that the USA was a much more dangerous and feudal society than England, a society that you might need a gun to feel safer, but weren't really safe due to all the other guns in the hands of those that were using them in a bad way.

But what if you live in America where everybody have it or Croatia that was affected by War in 90ies??

Weapons all around and some bad people have it... then they see you that dont have weapons of any kind,peacefull stoner that dont wish to hurt but have nice buds and they can take it... would you then will love that you dont have anything for protection of self and your buds..?? LOL

Very possible situation....

In Germany, as ordinary citizen, you´ve got no contact to guns. In my whole life I, had a real gun in the hand for 15 seconds. But interesting, every 2nd people which is killed, is killed by a gun.

LOL Herman... that a true,lot of deaths from weapons in EU.. and like EU is against weapons.. hypocrites..

people here after action Oluja 95 when Croatians liberated some teritory bringed to houses all kind of weapons,i remember few friends haved full rucksacks of M-75 hand granades and one friend haved for months this arsenal under bed where he sleeped.. even today when police found some weapons from peasants here they found so huge caches that you could armed a brigade of people..

sometimes they found cannons and hand granade launchers,hand granade launchers mafia here use it for atentates on other mafia.. so even with a guns you are not safe cause bad boys have harder weapons..

Lot of weapon from that war circulating around EU...

Well guys, I don't live in Germany or Croatia, on mainland Europe, but if I did then most probably I would feel like I needed a gun for security.

I have in the past been a gun owner in the USA, Philippines and when in S.America because of what I perceived as a need to do so.

Perhaps one day in England I will feel the need to own a gun?......but not today, and if that day ever comes, it will be a VERY sad day for me. I would much rather live in a society where guns are not everyday present in the hands of nearly everyone and needed for basic safety and security.

If I really wanted to get hold of a firearm in the UK, then that is possible....I just don't feel the need, and I like it that way.

Me too.. i wish society whithouth guns but that is not a case..

for mine "mental unicorns and butterflys" bad boyz dont give a damn...

reality is harsh when she slaps you right in your face here..

but i wish a society in future gets that guns in a hands of violent people are
not good news and somehow that we progress to non-violent society..

i understand that violence is very bad but it still exist and if you need to think
on these things and it take your energy and resources that you could spend
on some better things.. go with wife on dinner or bring kids in Zoo..

while you spend your money on security...to be on safer side..

I guess that when all is said and done it comes down to what you perceive as a threat to your home and family, and what you have to do to counter that threat, to feel a comfortable sense of security.

Who here has a 1500 foot bedroom?
In a nation where houses are made of wood, one miss means your bullet can leave your house, travel down the block and kill some neighbours kid in their bed. How many rounds a minute do these things shoot?
If you need a small hand gun I pitty you, but so be it, but who the hell needs these army assault rifles in their home. I really just don't understand.

GMT said:

Who here has a 1500 foot bedroom?
In a nation where houses are made of wood, one miss means your bullet can leave your house, travel down the block and kill some neighbours kid in their bed. How many rounds a minute do these things shoot?
If you need a small hand gun I pitty you, but so be it, but who the hell needs these army assault rifles in their home. I really just don't understand.

Click to expand...

I think that many Americans like to have these 'long guns' around for hunting, and also in case they have to form a militia to oust their own government and/or some foreign invasion GMT.

It states that right within the 2nd Amendment, if you care to read it.

I really don't. Just as I don't read the bible Koran or any other bullshit that results in man a killing man b. If an argument has no internal logical consistency, then its bullshit pure and simple. Now if you were recommending a decent book on theoretical physics or something, if I hadn't read it I'd give it a read, but when you refer to a document that talks about protecting someone from tyrany, and it refers to a country which recognises no laws, except the right of the richest to do what they like to the poorest, then it becomes farcical.
Besides, a militia isn't some gun nut in his own home, its an organised group of volunteers. Those long guns as they get called, can be stored locally without them being in private homes.
Besides, are you really saying that you think the Feds want people to have the right to storm the Whitehouse with assault rifles?

AT 4:05 your clearly can hear 1 gun being fired and then another overlapping, being fired from different location.

https://youtu.be/HCIHXi4RdaQ

GMT said:

I really don't. Just as I don't read the bible Koran or any other bullshit that results in man a killing man b. If an argument has no internal logical consistency, then its bullshit pure and simple. Now if you were recommending a decent book on theoretical physics or something, if I hadn't read it I'd give it a read, but when you refer to a document that talks about protecting someone from tyrany, and it refers to a country which recognises no laws, except the right of the richest to do what they like to the poorest, then it becomes farcical.
Besides, a militia isn't some gun nut in his own home, its an organised group of volunteers. Those long guns as they get called, can be stored locally without them being in private homes.
Besides, are you really saying that you think the Feds want people to have the right to storm the Whitehouse with assault rifles?

Click to expand...

I think it is important to read these books, and this constitution from the past to achieve a greater understanding of why things are happening in the present. True the books are not based on any science that can be easily quantified and to most scientists are completely full of holes, so considered archaic pieces of history that have no place in the modern world. But they are here, and billions of people actually believe them to be the word of god and so unquestionable......to most of the educated they delay or impair humanities advancement/evolution.

Whats in the US constitution cannot just be thrown aside. It can be amended, and has been much to the chagrin of many Americans over the years, and this has caused much dissent amongst the American people, and continues to do so to this day.

If the 2nd amendment was quashed/deleted and thrown away as an unalienable right in the USA, I am pretty darn sure that this would trigger another civil war that would be 20x (or more) as bloody as the last, and the Feds/US Government must be afraid that this will happen. Because they most probably will not be able to stop it.

There are already many well formed militias in the USA....Gun clubs, political/religious groups, para-military organizations that train regularly for what they think is to come.

Locum parentis needs to be applied when dealing with those whose IQ is insufficient for rational thought.

In Loco Parentis

In Loco Parentis

[Latin, in the place of a parent.] The legal doctrine under which an individual assumes parental rights, duties, and obligations without going through the formalities of legal Adoption.

In loco parentis is a legal doctrine describing a relationship similar to that of a parent to a child. It refers to an individual who assumes parental status and responsibilities for another individual, usually a young person, without formally adopting that person. For example, legal guardians are said to stand in loco parentis with respect to their wards, creating a relationship that has special implications for insurance and Workers' Compensation law.

By far the most common usage of in loco parentis relates to teachers and students. For hundreds of years, the English common-law concept shaped the rights and responsibilities of public school teachers: until the late nineteenth century, their legal authority over students was as broad as that of parents. Changes in U.S. education, concurrent with a broader reading by courts of the rights of students, began bringing the concept into disrepute by the 1960s. Cultural changes, however, brought a resurgence of the doctrine in the twenty-first century.

Taking root in colonial American schools, in loco parentis was an idea derived from English Common Law. The colonists borrowed it from the English ideal of schools having not only educational but also moral responsibility for students. The idea especially suited the puritanical values of the colonists, and after the American Revolution, it persisted in elementary and high schools, colleges, and universities. The judiciary respected it: like their English counterparts, U.S. courts in the nineteenth century were unwilling to interfere when students brought grievances, particularly in the area of rules, discipline, and expulsion.

In 1866, for instance, one court stated, "A discretionary power has been given, … [and] we have no more authority to interfere than we have to control the domestic discipline of a father in his family" (People ex rel. Pratt v. Wheaton College, 40 Ill. 186). Well into the twentieth century, courts permitted broad authority to schools and showed hostility to the claims of student plaintiffs. In dismissing a claim by a restaurant owner against a college, the Kentucky Supreme Court found that a college's duties under in loco parentis gave it the power to forbid students to patronize the restaurant (Gott v. Berea College, 156 Ky. 376, 161 S.W. 204 [1913]).

Two important shifts in society and law diminished the effect of the doctrine. One was the evolution of educational standards. Beginning in the late 1800s and advancing rapidly during the mid-1900s, the increasing secularization of schools brought an emphasis on practical education over moral instruction. At a slower rate, courts adapted to this change, according greater rights to students than were previously recognized.

The first to benefit were students in higher education, through rulings such as the landmark Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961). In Dixon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit extended due process rights to students at tax-supported colleges, ruling that the Constitution "requires notice and some opportunity for hearing" before students can be expelled for misconduct. After Dixon, courts largely turned to contract law for adjudicating disputes between students and their institutions.

Other changes came as well. Partly in reaction to free speech movements, courts began to recognize that students at public Colleges and Universities, as well as public secondary schools, were entitled to full enjoyment of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. For example, in ruling that high school students could not be expelled for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in 1969, that students do not "shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate" (tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731). In 1975, the Court held in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725, that the suspension of high school students for alleged disruptive or disobedient conduct required some sort of notice of charges and a prior hearing.

But the underlying premise of in loco parentis did not disappear completely from public schools. For example, in 1977, the Supreme Court held that the disciplinary paddling of public school students was not a Cruel and Unusual Punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment (Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97 S. Ct. 1401, 51 L. Ed. 2d 711), and that students who were disciplined in a school setting were not denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since then, several cases have challenged this ruling, and U.S. district courts have attempted to clarify the rights of students regarding Corporal Punishment (Hall v. Tawney, 621 F. 2d 607, 613 [4th Cir. 1980]; Garcia v. Miera, 817 F. 2d 650, 653 [10th Cir. 1987]; Neal ex real. Neal v. Fulton County Board of Education 229 F. 3d 1069 [11th Cir. 2000]).

In the 1980s, new issues involving the in loco parentis doctrine arose at public schools, colleges, and universities. The Reagan administration's war on drugs led to the passage of the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Act of 1989 (Pub.L. 101-226, December 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1928). The act bans the unlawful use, possession, or distribution of drugs and alcohol by students and employees on school grounds and college campuses. As a result, most campuses began to enforce Zero Tolerance drug polices. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that high schools were permitted to conduct random drug testing of student athletes (Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564). According to the Court, such testing does not violate the reasonable Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment because students in school are under state supervision, and as such, the state (and the school) is responsible for their well-being. The Court extended permissable drug testing to any student who wishes to participate in extracurricular activities in Board of Education, Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U. S. 822, 122 S. Ct. 2559, 153 L. Ed. 2d 735 (2002).

By the 1990s, and into the 2000s, the loco parentis doctrine seemed to be in full force as schools attempted to safeguard students. Many institutions enacted controversial rules governing dress codes and so-called hate speech, all in the name of protecting students. Violence on campuses, however, became a very real threat. In 1994, Congress enacted a federal policy toward weapons on school grounds when it passed the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-382, Title I, § 101, October 20, 1994, 198 Stat. 3907). According to the act, schools are required to expel students who are found in possession of a gun. After the 1999 Columbine, Colorado, shootings, reinforcement of this act escalated, and schools enforced zero tolerance policies toward the possession of any article that may pose a potential threat. As a result, students have been expelled from school for having such items as nail files, plastic knives, and model rockets. Although many students and parents filed lawsuits in protest, most cases were denied since, according to the courts, school authorities have the right to maintain school safety.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/in+loco+parentis

So what qualifying IQ do you think is sufficient to be above Loco Parentis control GMT?

GMT said:

Locum parentis needs to be applied when dealing with those whose IQ is insufficient for rational thought.

Click to expand...

See above....

Habeas Corpus (more Latin)

was done away with in US after Bush signed the oddly named Patriot Act. That was of course, after the Towers were brought down.

Obama upped the Ante with the NDAA or National Detention Authorization Act which many have described as Patriot Act on steroids. This basically allows government to disappear people for as long as they desire with no notice to anyone of the incarceration.

What we have seen in US is that a problem(disaster) is presented, then a Solution to that problem is rolled out to public, that just happens to coincide with exact wishes of things like what outlined in PNAC or Project of New American Century.

Often these problems(disasters) are riddled with inconsistencies, discrepancies, and an overall unbealievable quality to them.

But as is well known in mind control technique, repetition is essential. Major media outlets are not good for much but their power of repeating things ad nauseam (more Latin)

Sometimes graphs tell the tale better than words--

From "Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialised Countries. Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47734799_Criminal_Victimization_in_Seventeen_Industrialised_Countries_Key_findings_from_the_2000_International_Crime_Victims_Survey

As you view these, ask yourself--Why is Aussie & UK listed as #1 & 2 in some?

And referring to the last graph--Does this mean citizens feel safer having access to a gun than not having a gun? (It appears the "gun friendly" countries are listed toward the bottom and "gun control" countries are toward the top...and about twice the "rate").

Interesting chart Doc...but it is from 17 years ago, so not exactly up-to-date, my bet would be that it's even worse for Europeans these days since this recent vast influx of mostly male 'migrants' from Arabia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Now lets see an international chart for murder/violent crime.