Gun Control

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

ren wrote: Gun regulation at state level makes no sense when there is frictionless movement across state borders.

I think gun insurance is a good idea.

Ammunition control could be practical, as well.
There's a country in Europe (I forget which, I'm sorry) where 2nd amendment pushers like to point out the extremely low crime rate, attempting to link that to the very high number of citizens owning fire arms- ignoring several other factors, most relevant being that nobody owns enough ammunition to do serious harm against groups. They specially issue ammunition at shooting ranges, what isn't used is confiscated before you leave, and there are regular inspections to ensure that citizens are in compliance with volume and storage regulations.

I think that would be impractical in the states. Can't get rid of that amendment. But if citizens were forced to have insurance, with penalties to suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as well as owners, people would then be forced to use, store, stockpile etc weapons and ammo in a sensible manner, preserving their 2nd amendment right to form a well trained militia to protect their freedom, while also reducing crime and accidents. How? Insurance companies hate paying out victims, and what they can do is refuse to insure potential victim makers. ( Who could range from messy people whose gun could be found by their little kid, to people with a history of violence or short temper)

ren wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

ren wrote: Gun regulation at state level makes no sense when there is frictionless movement across state borders.

I think gun insurance is a good idea.

Ammunition control could be practical, as well.
There's a country in Europe (I forget which, I'm sorry) where 2nd amendment pushers like to point out the extremely low crime rate, attempting to link that to the very high number of citizens owning fire arms- ignoring several other factors, most relevant being that nobody owns enough ammunition to do serious harm against groups. They specially issue ammunition at shooting ranges, what isn't used is confiscated before you leave, and there are regular inspections to ensure that citizens are in compliance with volume and storage regulations.

I think that would be impractical in the states. Can't get rid of that amendment. But if citizens were forced to have insurance, with penalties to suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as well as owners, people would then be forced to use, store, stockpile etc weapons and ammo in a sensible manner, preserving their 2nd amendment right to form a well trained militia to protect their freedom, while also reducing crime and accidents. How? Insurance companies hate paying out victims, and what they can do is refuse to insure potential victim makers. ( Who could range from messy people whose gun could be found by their little kid, to people with a history of violence or short temper)

Mandated gun insurance is just as tyrannical as mandated car insurance. It also impairs those of lower income. It's also an end around way to limit the right to bare arms. Which is violating human rights..

You are meant to control yourself. Government's job is to make sure you're held accountable for your injuries against others. Not control behavior.. any excuse to do so is just that, an excuse..

Uzima Moto wrote: if you want to make sure cars are completely safe from "human error". Make them drive themselves.. but how much freedom does that leave you?

I'm not really looking for the freedom to kill people; especially not over property. If it's between someone stealing my car and me killing them I'd rather they steal my car. It's a thing. That's a person. It's a thing. Things can obviously be replaced. Things have value. People "should be" but aren't considered priceless. Based on the fact that scarcity creates value, the fact that there is only one of you means that your life cannot be replaced and is therefore more precious than your weight in gold. We don't see this because we choose not to see each other's value. We can see our own value just fine, enough to kill others. But everyone else has that same value.

I believe in balance. But when it comes to gun safety we pretend that either everyone gets to have gun or no one does. It's a battle over extremes and we're preventing the middle ground discourse from the edges. For example... fearing for your life? Get a restraining order. If you have a license to use a gun then temporarily I would have the local police station provide you with one during the duration of the order. Why? Because you should be able to feel safe and secure in your own home and if there's a known threat you should have that option.

On the other hand, the bias involved in determining what and who is a threat is often what creates multiple threats and an escalator of threats and violence. We're a society that lives by the sword. Because people have guns they run to them as an option to handle problems that were never life and death problems UNTIL they went for a gun.

I'm 40. I remember the days when dudes used to have fist fights. Now they run for their guns, why? Because they're scared of the other guy doing the exact same thing. A lot of the things we do to protect ourselves, seem good to do on the surface, but it actually makes us less safe. I remember when metal detectors were brought into schools and when people put bars on their doors and windows. They felt safer but their communities started looking more like prisons people reacted to that too. There is action and reaction and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In theory.

I'd much rather go back to those days when you might get jumped. Now people are so scared of getting punched that they think its better to kill. No.... it's not. Either take the beating like a man or fight back. But running to get a gun only shows weakness in my eyes; weakness that is scared to hit back because its scared to hit, scared that somehow the other person is going to kill them with their bare hands and for some crazy reason this person who is fighting you wont stop until you're dead. That's fear. That's fear that makes us think the worst of people. And that same fear is what makes some people turn into the threats that others fear.

ren wrote: I think that would be impractical in the states. Can't get rid of that amendment. But if citizens were forced to have insurance, with penalties to suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as well as owners, people would then be forced to use, store, stockpile etc weapons and ammo in a sensible manner, preserving their 2nd amendment right to form a well trained militia to protect their freedom, while also reducing crime and accidents. How? Insurance companies hate paying out victims, and what they can do is refuse to insure potential victim makers. ( Who could range from messy people whose gun could be found by their little kid, to people with a history of violence or short temper)

That's exactly why I like this idea so much. It actually uses capitalism in a clever way.

Uzima Moto wrote:

ren wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

ren wrote: Gun regulation at state level makes no sense when there is frictionless movement across state borders.

I think gun insurance is a good idea.

Ammunition control could be practical, as well.
There's a country in Europe (I forget which, I'm sorry) where 2nd amendment pushers like to point out the extremely low crime rate, attempting to link that to the very high number of citizens owning fire arms- ignoring several other factors, most relevant being that nobody owns enough ammunition to do serious harm against groups. They specially issue ammunition at shooting ranges, what isn't used is confiscated before you leave, and there are regular inspections to ensure that citizens are in compliance with volume and storage regulations.

I think that would be impractical in the states. Can't get rid of that amendment. But if citizens were forced to have insurance, with penalties to suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as well as owners, people would then be forced to use, store, stockpile etc weapons and ammo in a sensible manner, preserving their 2nd amendment right to form a well trained militia to protect their freedom, while also reducing crime and accidents. How? Insurance companies hate paying out victims, and what they can do is refuse to insure potential victim makers. ( Who could range from messy people whose gun could be found by their little kid, to people with a history of violence or short temper)

Mandated gun insurance is just as tyrannical as mandated car insurance. It also impairs those of lower income. It's also an end around way to limit the right to bare arms. Which is violating human rights..

You are meant to control yourself. Government's job is to make sure you're held accountable for your injuries against others. Not control behavior.. any excuse to do so is just that, an excuse..

if you're overseas during the election you have a right to vote but you have to go through a different process. You may need a provisional ballot. If you don't do your part to follow the rules and regulations concerning your right to vote then you yourself nullify that right. The same thing goes for freedom of speech. Not all speech is protected. No matter what rights a person has there are still laws that limit those rights. You have the right to pursue happiness but not order up sex slaves from Amazon because you think that'll make you happy. Rights are not unlimited nor should they be. You should be able to control yourself but the government exists for the inevitable reality when someone doesn't just like they exist for potential conflicts involving other countries that should also be governing themselves. Not every human being can control themselves. Not every human being is mentally or emotionally unstable. And more are becoming unstable trying to adapt to a world in which violence and death are immediate answers to life's problems

ZealotX wrote: If you're overseas during the election you have a right to vote but you have to go through a different process. You may need a provisional ballot. If you don't do your part to follow the rules and regulations concerning your right to vote then you yourself nullify that right. The same thing goes for freedom of speech. Not all speech is protected. No matter what rights a person has there are still laws that limit those rights. You have the right to pursue happiness but not order up sex slaves from Amazon because you think that'll make you happy. Rights are not unlimited nor should they be. You should be able to control yourself but the government exists for the inevitable reality when someone doesn't just like they exist for potential conflicts involving other countries that should also be governing themselves. Not every human being can control themselves. Not every human being is mentally or emotionally unstable. And more are becoming unstable trying to adapt to a world in which violence and death are immediate answers to life's problems

Voting is a civil right. Different from a natural right. One key difference is source of limitation. Since voting is a artificial societal construct. Its limitations are also artificial constructs..

The right to speech is natural and its limits are natural. Slander and fraud are misuse of speech that often naturally brings about retaliation. In a society, courts function as the vehicle to remedy any grievance or violation of right. Retaliation is given up as a sovereign individual right in a society of law.

As for sex-slaves, I don't have the right to own another's body or mind. Govermnent is meant to enforce that protection of person. It doesn't mean I can't voluntarily order women who voluntarily sell their bodies..

Govermnent is meant to remedy. If you want to prevent injury. You're either going to have to educate people or bring them to heel..

Uzima Moto wrote: Voting is a civil right. Different from a natural right. One key difference is source of limitation. Since voting is a artificial societal construct. Its limitations are also artificial constructs..

The right to speech is natural and its limits are natural. Slander and fraud are misuse of speech that often naturally brings about retaliation. In a society, courts function as the vehicle to remedy any grievance or violation of right. Retaliation is given up as a sovereign individual right in a society of law.

...

Okay, I get what you're saying now. Before I didn't understand you were speaking of natural rights vs civil rights or what the government says you can do. So, if I understand correctly, your argument is that you should have the natural right to protect yourself and therefore, by extension, own a gun. Is that correct?

How far do natural rights go in your opinion? Because it kind of reminds me of growing up around a more "law of the jungle" type of mentality. People were afraid of each other. People had to fight to show people they were tough. And in my opinion all we've done is added guns to that equation. And the more scared people are the more they tend to over react to perceived threats which then become perceived slights. It's a slippery slope where the prey becomes the predator.

I see freedom of speech like freedom to breathe. It isn't the same as a right to communicate, or right to collect fresh air.

Freedom of speech should have no restrictions, that being said, publications and mass media are not speech, megaphones are not speech. Making a noise of your choosing with your mouth, To me, is a natural right.

ZealotX wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Voting is a civil right. Different from a natural right. One key difference is source of limitation. Since voting is a artificial societal construct. Its limitations are also artificial constructs..

The right to speech is natural and its limits are natural. Slander and fraud are misuse of speech that often naturally brings about retaliation. In a society, courts function as the vehicle to remedy any grievance or violation of right. Retaliation is given up as a sovereign individual right in a society of law.

...

Okay, I get what you're saying now. Before I didn't understand you were speaking of natural rights vs civil rights or what the government says you can do. So, if I understand correctly, your argument is that you should have the natural right to protect yourself and therefore, by extension, own a gun. Is that correct?

How far do natural rights go in your opinion? Because it kind of reminds me of growing up around a more "law of the jungle" type of mentality. People were afraid of each other. People had to fight to show people they were tough. And in my opinion all we've done is added guns to that equation. And the more scared people are the more they tend to over react to perceived threats which then become perceived slights. It's a slippery slope where the prey becomes the predator.

The key difference I see between a Free-society and the type of lawlessness you might be thinking of is Retaliation. Without any social agreement of order amongst a large body of people. Folks will retaliate against each other. Either in defense of self or as an imposition of one's own will upon others.. creating the kind of "survival of the fittest" environment you describe.

In a social order designed around natural rights. You would still have a central mechanism where violations could be remedied. Instead of taking justice into your own hands. You retaliate through a neutral court. Prove your case, and your grievance will be rectified..

You could essentially have no rulers, yet still have rules. This is the basis behind modern anarchy.. except most wouldn't see the "state" as necessary as I do..

Uzima Moto wrote: The key difference I see between a Free-society and the type of lawlessness you might be thinking of is Retaliation. Without any social agreement of order amongst a large body of people. Folks will retaliate against each other. Either in defense of self or as an imposition of one's own will upon others.. creating the kind of "survival of the fittest" environment you describe.

In a social order designed around natural rights. You would still have a central mechanism where violations could be remedied. Instead of taking justice into your own hands. You retaliate through a neutral court. Prove your case, and your grievance will be rectified..

You could essentially have no rulers, yet still have rules. This is the basis behind modern anarchy.. except most wouldn't see the "state" as necessary as I do..

What if the offender decides not to go to court? What if they decide to not to participate or cooperate in this system? What if they shoot you or the magistrate before the court date? What if you can't prove your case without anyone collecting evidence in an official capacity? What if the person kills you without any witnesses? Rulers have a tendency to enforce rules. Without rulers how would the rules be enforced? And if there is inadequate enforcement how does this not encourage more lawlessness? People take advantage of the rules we already have. Imagine if they did so knowing they could avoid penalty.

ZealotX wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: The key difference I see between a Free-society and the type of lawlessness you might be thinking of is Retaliation. Without any social agreement of order amongst a large body of people. Folks will retaliate against each other. Either in defense of self or as an imposition of one's own will upon others.. creating the kind of "survival of the fittest" environment you describe.

In a social order designed around natural rights. You would still have a central mechanism where violations could be remedied. Instead of taking justice into your own hands. You retaliate through a neutral court. Prove your case, and your grievance will be rectified..

You could essentially have no rulers, yet still have rules. This is the basis behind modern anarchy.. except most wouldn't see the "state" as necessary as I do..

What if the offender decides not to go to court? What if they decide to not to participate or cooperate in this system? What if they shoot you or the magistrate before the court date? What if you can't prove your case without anyone collecting evidence in an official capacity? What if the person kills you without any witnesses? Rulers have a tendency to enforce rules. Without rulers how would the rules be enforced? And if there is inadequate enforcement how does this not encourage more lawlessness? People take advantage of the rules we already have. Imagine if they did so knowing they could avoid penalty.

Rulers aren't the ones who enforce the laws. They make the laws. Either the whole of the people rule themselves or a select elite does it for them. Rules are just agreements of conduct..

In a free society based on the common law of the People's Court. You would still have an enforcement mechanism. It would just be truly blind. Taking no account of color or prestige. Only the injury in question..

We are more than animals. We don't need zoo keepers..

As far as the "Cars are regulated, so why can't we regulate guns?" argument is concerned;

Motor vehicles are very much more difficult to construct in one's garage, than compared to a cartridge or shell based firearm. Guns are in essence, little more than two metal tubes which when pressed together; ignite the primer in a round which then sends a slug in the targeted direction.

Having a stock to rest against your shoulder is nice, but not critical to the function of a firearm. Having the capacity for repeated fire is again nice, but not critical to a firearm's function. That said, many people have already figured out how to convert off the shelf semi-automatics into fully functional, automatic firearms. You can also home produce your own gun powder, or use a readily available substitute in the form of match-head powder.

Lead slugs can be produced at ease within one's home as well, as all that's really required is a crucible to melt the lead; and then a mold to pour it into.

I would also draw attention to the multitude of nation-states which have outlawed firearms (to varying degrees); and in turn now have massive black-market industries of home based gun manufacturing.

History has shown, and will continue to show that those who truly desire possession of a firearm; will find a means of ownership.

Are Walmart shootings common? I heard in one week they had employees shooting each other at one store, and obviously that one where 20 customers were shot dead at another.

Do other gun retailers have shootings?

ren wrote: Are Walmart shootings common? I heard in one week they had employees shooting each other at one store, and obviously that one where 20 customers were shot dead at another.

Do other gun retailers have shootings?

Compared to a family owned gun store, yes. Walmart and any other corporate chain is going to have a higher incidence of gun crime due to the higher volume of gun sales they process.

I've worked in at least one gun store as well, and will offer the knowledge that many counter employees are not properly trained to look for signs which would give away someone mentally unsound, or otherwise criminally violent. The unfortunate reality with corporate chains as well, is at the end of the day; the stockholder is their first and primary concern. I was lucky that management at the chain I worked at, stood behind me with any and all decisions I made regarding no-sales for potential buyers.

They are in the business of selling guns and ammunition, not policing the public. There is also the unfortunate reality that the NICS check, which all buyers go through when purchasing a firearm; does fuck all if you don't already have a record.

Uzima Moto wrote:
Rulers aren't the ones who enforce the laws. They make the laws. Either the whole of the people rule themselves or a select elite does it for them. Rules are just agreements of conduct..

In a free society based on the common law of the People's Court. You would still have an enforcement mechanism. It would just be truly blind. Taking no account of color or prestige. Only the injury in question..

We are more than animals. We don't need zoo keepers..

I would argue:

1. seems like the people ruling themselves would elect representatives for the sake of efficiency
2. rules are agreements of conduct which no one is forced to agree to
3. many of us are more than animals but some resort to animalistic drives as a part of their survival and therefore the laws aren't all made for everyone but for those whose nature or circumstance invite temptation.

Therefore if we wouldn't need zoo keepers if we were all "tame" but rather we need zoo keepers for those who act like they're in the wild. I'm very interested in your counter argument to this.

As far as home made weapons are concerned...

and?

With all due respect, often "whataboutism" tries to argue against something by saying "What about this?" What about the price of tea in China? If gun control laws were so good that it forced criminals and potential terrorists to have to build their own...

then that's a good day! That's what winning looks like. Doctors don't retire because they can't cure every single illness or disease. You do what you can. If they have to go that far to kill that would mean lives were saved. Just because a dam doesn't stop 100% of the water doesn't make it useless, nor is a condom that is less than 100% effective useless.

I'd like to put a massive condom on people's ability to commit terrorist acts and hate crimes involving mass shootings which is only really possible with consumer semi-automatic weapons. We act like this is too inconvenient and yet when 9/11 happened suddenly everyone grudgingly went along with massive and sweeping changes that affect every single person who gets on an airplane. And that was ONE coordinated attack.

We're not responding with the same level of vigor because these are domestic terrorists and because the gun lobby, as was told to Trump, "is powerful". They produce most of the "what abouts" and slogans and misdirection (video games? really?) all in an effort to sell more guns. Period. The bottom line is that the human cost, to them, isn't worth the dip in sales.

ZealotX wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote:
Rulers aren't the ones who enforce the laws. They make the laws. Either the whole of the people rule themselves or a select elite does it for them. Rules are just agreements of conduct..

In a free society based on the common law of the People's Court. You would still have an enforcement mechanism. It would just be truly blind. Taking no account of color or prestige. Only the injury in question..

We are more than animals. We don't need zoo keepers..

I would argue:

1. seems like the people ruling themselves would elect representatives for the sake of efficiency
2. rules are agreements of conduct which no one is forced to agree to
3. many of us are more than animals but some resort to animalistic drives as a part of their survival and therefore the laws aren't all made for everyone but for those whose nature or circumstance invite temptation.

Therefore if we wouldn't need zoo keepers if we were all "tame" but rather we need zoo keepers for those who act like they're in the wild. I'm very interested in your counter argument to this.

Having Zoo Keepers assumes you have a Zoo. If there's a Zoo, then that would assume we're all animals, right? Since it isn't selectively applied. That's almost the same as being guilty until proven innocent. It's saying that because of the few, we deserve to be treated less than what we are..

However, it comes to my mind that there are people who prefer the Zoo because they get to be the zoo keepers. Not that they're any better. They just took advantage of the situation..

So, as many know already, I live in Dayton, OH. At least, that's where my house is (I'm temporarily staying in Northern Cincinnati), where just a few months ago a tornado took my roof off like a can opener.

Funny thing.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/04/ohio-politicians-respond-to-dayton-shooting-in-oregon-district/1914751001/

U.S. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Dayton, said his daughter and a family friend were at a bar across the street from the shooting.

"As they ran home, I followed their progress and prayed for them and our community. Thank you to Dayton Police for their bravery in stopping this evil."

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/07/748827083/signs-of-republican-movement-to-support-gun-bills-with-new-restrictions

GOP Rep. Mike Turner, who represents Dayton, Ohio, where a gunman used an assault-style weapon to kill nine people and injure at least 27, announced on Twitter on Tuesday that he now backs proposals to enact new limits on firearms.

"I will support legislation that prevents the sale of military-style weapons to civilians, a magazine limit, and red-flag legislation," he said. "The carnage these military-style weapons are able to produce when available to the wrong people is intolerable."

He added that he also backs so-called red-flag bills that make it so that it's easier to identify people who could harm others. "Too often after mass shootings," he said, "we hear there were early warning signs that were ignored."

Turner's statement is stunning, considering the National Rifle Association endorsed him ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

So... its fun to be pro guns and lie and cry about how the Dems want to steal all your guns away. But it's not so fun when it's your own children who are in danger. That is literally the only difference between Mike Turner today and Mike Turner a few months ago. NOW.... you're willing to listen. NOW... you're willing to support legislation. NOW.... you want to act. Am I supposed to applaud this? Or does this change now simply underscore the fact that something... I dunno... maybe the money from the NRA... was making you not use common sense before. Now that it's your kid you see the problem. Suddenly, you aren't making excuses for guns or saying guns don't kill people and all that other rhetoric that has protected the gun lobby for years. Because suddenly its personal.

But it was personal before... just not for you.

And is this the reason why there are so many mass shootings in America? Because even though many people are dying, it's simply not personal for enough republicans. And if it's not personal then its business. And if there's no anti-gun lobby funding their campaigns then the gun lobby wins. And we can pretend that the debate is about values and rights but at the end of the day isn't it simply about money? YOU may think it's about rights because that's what people with MONEY are telling everyone. The gun industry has MONEY. The gun industry uses that MONEY to give MONEY to politicians (not you) so that those politicians will do something in return for that MONEY. Now they have MONEY and so they know they have to convince their constituents that they all need to support the gun industry so that the politicians can keep getting MONEY. Same thing with TV and radio. To protect their MONEY the politicians and others use their influence to make people think there is some actual debate about whether hunters need semi-automatics and rocket launchers against friggin deer; as if deer be hiding behind trees while coordinating pincer moves dressed like Rambo. Is there a real debate here? Or is it all about MONEY protecting MONEY and lying to the American people in order to do it? If you're going to disagree that's fine, but I ask you humbly and sincerely to really think about it before you do so.

Uzima Moto wrote: Having Zoo Keepers assumes you have a Zoo. If there's a Zoo, then that would assume we're all animals, right? Since it isn't selectively applied. That's almost the same as being guilty until proven innocent. It's saying that because of the few, we deserve to be treated less than what we are..

However, it comes to my mind that there are people who prefer the Zoo because they get to be the zoo keepers. Not that they're any better. They just took advantage of the situation..

But... we "are" animals.

And some pens are separated from others because the fear is that the animals would eat each other. Well guess what? Human prey on each other too. It's not always a physical thing where someone dies. People use others for money and money buys survival. Animals in the wild eat each other to buy another day.

But we police that. We have police officers. We have lawyers. We have doctors. We have judges. We have consumer protection (mainly thanks to Elizabeth Warren). We have regulations on businesses. We have HIPAA, Workers rights, unions, Affirmative Action, laws against slavery and human trafficking, rape, separate public restrooms, housing regulations, and the list goes on and on. We have all this because humans take advantage of other humans; preying on each other for their own benefit. We are far from that kind of Star Trek society where everyone seems to get along.

Of course, I believe Star Trek's society was built upon the principle that everyone had a right to survive and the distribution of money was centered around that. I could be wrong because I'm not a Trekkie.

It takes money to run a zoo. It takes money to separate cages. It takes money (and subsidies) to feed the animals so they don't have to hunt in the wild. So who said this wasn't a zoo? Or is it that our ego simply doesn't want to see us being that similar to animals?

The animals that feel safest in our zoo...? are the ones who live in "gated" communities. Think about that. Let that thought marinate.

respect.

The ability to reason separates us from the animals to such a degree that we might as well be entirely different beings. True to our composition however, we do have very animalistic tendencies. Especially our propensity to prey on and control others. This is done for various reasons however. The type of regulation you speak of falls in that category as well..

Do I need govermnent to tell the market to behave a certain way towards consumers or would it be better to teach consumers how to navigate the market? Because they have laws for food labels yet a lot of people are just now reading labels and paying attention to what's BEEN in their food.. and the market is adapting. I've seen companies use less High Fructose Corn Syrup recently.. which is a super-refined sugar compound that has been linked to diabetes. We have regulators like the FDA that allow UNLABELED genetically altered foods on the market. The same type of food that's linked to tumors in mice experiments.. because since more are more educated on GMOs. Manufacturers fear that the label will drive away customers. Which is a natural function of the market..

Education was seen as preferable to govermnent regulation for these observable facts. That when power is centralized it has more tendency to benefit the centralizers rather than the majority around them. Education allows individuals to avoid the traps others will lay out due to their ignorance of the facts..

The best governing body is the one that doesn't have to govern much. That inherent reason held by every person gives right for people to act freely in peace. Violence, coercion, or any other injury to that right brings retaliation. Yet in society, we organize that process of retaliation into a court of equity. Putting everyone, from the bum to the CEO on the same footing.. However, when power is amassed in this court. The connected will get "get out of jail free card".. as the rest get abused. When govermnent, who enforces the equity of the courts, undergoes the same process. You get even worse results as the controllers set up their own justice and export it to foreign lands..

A small govermnent and an educated society would be preferable to an ignorant and powerless crowd being governed by a small, well connected intellectual elite.. yet that isn't the state of the world these days..

While you're worried about NRA money. As if they're the only ones who oppose "Gun Reform". They've been almost successful in shoving Epstein's World Breaking case down the memory hole. Which would expose how imbedded pedophilia and sexual predation is in the higher ranks of our society's power structure.. but you're worried about me having an AR rifle.. priorities..

By the way, I don't support "gun reform" because it isn't common sense. It just assumes everyone is guilty until you prove to everyone that everyone is innocent..