Did The Feds just admit to having a gun registry?

#101
#101
Rasputin_Vol said:
Answer the question.

Part of the frustration with you is that you don't give a straight answer or routinely laugh off issues once you get cornered.
Click to expand...

There is no ****ING CORNERING in this thread! What possibly could I have been cornered with by asking a question and making a damned observation about parents these days?

If you're frustrated with me, how the **** do you think I am each and every time you ****ing make **** up, take entire portions of posts out of context and post that same ridiculous ****ing post about me joking?

You have no life if you have nothing better to do than follow me around an internet message board trying to provoke me each and every chance you can get.

Put me on ignore if you are that frustrated with my comments. That certainly would be best for you.
 
#102
#102
Grand Vol said:
It does present a quandary though. Being that a child is not property and is a person, would the parents getting into an accident that the child is injured or killed be considered "harm" to them?

Should the parents be charged with crime if a child is injured or killed and it could have been prevented?
Click to expand...

What crime? If this child is hurt, they'd have to pay to get the kid well again, so that is the punishment. Do you want them locked up for being terrible parents? The prisons are full as is. Then the kid will go into state care, which would be a burden on the tax payer.

If the kid is killed, the burden of dealing with a dead child as a parent would be enough i would say. Knowing that your inaction lead to the death of your own child would be hell.
 
#104
#104
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
What crime? If this child is hurt, they'd have to pay to get the kid well again, so that is the punishment. Do you want them locked up for being terrible parents? The prisons are full as it. Then the kid will go into state care, which would be a burden on the tax payer.

If the kid is killed, the burden of dealing with a dead child as a parent would be enough i would say. Knowing that your inaction lead to the death of your own child would be hell.
Click to expand...

What crime? The fact that safety devices are out there that could have prevented that injury/death that the parents ignored. The child didn't make that decision especially if it's a baby. But I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying the insurance companies wouldn't need to pay out for something like that? I get that idea with your first paragraph.

As for the second, I would hope so. But I just don't know these days.

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree overall since the child had no decision in the matter, but that's your opinion and I'm not going to change it.
 
#105
#105
Grand Vol said:
What crime? The fact that safety devices are out there that could have prevented that injury/death that the parents ignored. The child didn't make that decision especially if it's a baby. But I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying the insurance companies wouldn't need to pay out for something like that? I get that idea with your first paragraph.

As for the second, I would hope so. But I just don't know these days.

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree overall since the child had no decision in the matter, but that's your opinion and I'm not going to change it.
Click to expand...
No, the insurance company wouldn't pay in this instance. I'm sure if you look at the fine print of your policy it says as much.

I just fail to see what locking someone up or fining them gains. Hurt is hopefully healed, and dead is dead. I don't see how any of this is the governments business.
I guess it comes down to intent, they didn't intend to kill or hurt the child. Were they negligent? Sure. Still can't go with jail time for a traffic accident though.
 
Last edited:
#106
#106
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is not "against others". Maybe that is where we have a gap in our understanding of what The Constitution actually is. The Constitution was not a document to protect your life, liberty and property "against others". It was written to protect life, liberty and property from THE GOVERNMENT...
Click to expand...

Fine, commit violence against or deprive someone of their life or liberty, and see if you end up in a private court. Or the next time a WTC type bombing occurs, if a private army responds. Or if a state deprives a citizen of inalienable rights in violation of incorporation under the 14th amendment, whether private justice defends them.

That the constitutions of the federal and state governments delineates the powers of government and restrains them regarding the rights of man, does not mean the state stands idly by while "enemies foreign or domestic" savage you.
 
#107
#107
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
No, the insurance company wouldn't pay in this instance.

I just fail to see what locking someone up or fining them gains. Hurt is hopefully healed, and dead is dead. I don't see how any of this is the governments business.
I guess it comes down to intent, they didn't intend to kill or hurt the child. Were they negligent? Sure. Still can't go with jail time for a traffic accident though.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad you finally came out and said that. You beat around the bush long enough about how you truly feel so I'm glad you can finally let your feelings be heard.

:)
 
#108
#108
Grand Vol said:
Well, I'm glad you finally came out and said that. You beat around the bush long enough about how you truly feel so I'm glad you can finally let your feelings be heard.

:)
Click to expand...

I'm an anarchist/abolitionist, what do you expect. Lol


I slightly edited above.
 
#113
#113
Grand Vol said:
It does present a quandary though. Being that a child is not property and is a person, would the parents getting into an accident that the child is injured or killed be considered "harm" to them?

Should the parents be charged with crime if a child is injured or killed and it could have been prevented?
Click to expand...

A child isn't property? I'll send this to my Dad, he'll get a chuckle.
 
#115
#115
NCFisher said:
Please. explain. how you were bound to tax indenturement by the founders.
Click to expand...

To go a bit further, the only reason the articles of confederation were scrapped is because they didn't allow for the government to collect taxes. The constitution did, and they made it that way.
 
#116
#116
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
How about instead, you research shays rebellion and then the whisky rebellion.
Click to expand...

Don't need to, already familiar with them. I understand an argument between some taxes, no taxes, and illiberal and ill-spent taxation. I assume you enjoy some of the benefits of at least some taxation, which would be hard for a true anarchist to swallow.
 
#118
#118
NCFisher said:
Don't need to, already familiar with them. I understand an argument between some taxes, no taxes, and illiberal and ill-spent taxation. I assume you enjoy some of the benefits of at least some taxation, which would be hard for a true anarchist to swallow.
Click to expand...

A true anarchist? Wtf?

Taxation is theft period.

You're not about to pull out the old tired muh roads argument are you?
 
#121
#121
Grand Vol said:
What crime? The fact that safety devices are out there that could have prevented that injury/death that the parents ignored. The child didn't make that decision especially if it's a baby.
Click to expand...

How are we to interpret this line of thinking? You clearly and explicitly state here that you believe that not using existing safety equipment on your child is a crime.
 
#123
#123
Rasputin_Vol said:
How are we to interpret this line of thinking? You clearly and explicitly state here that you believe that not using existing safety equipment on your child is a crime.
Click to expand...

Of course, this post comes well after your little childish rant from earlier. And of course, it's DTH and I have a semi-reasonable discussion. Something you're entirely incapable of in regards to anything I say.

And it still doesn't support your earlier childish assumptions either. Because I still haven't stated I think they should be mandatory. It's called a reasonable discussion and a point-counterpoint with DTH where I play the devil's advocate and he defends his position.

Now go away.
 
#124
#124
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Nope. Not unless persons or property are injured.
Click to expand...

Okay, let me throw a hypothetical at you...

Say there's a car going down an interstate during rush hour traffic. Car has no headlights save one fog lamp and no taillights save the brakes. And it's a major metro area rush hour traffic going from 65-80 MPH with two interstates merging. Said vehicle is traveling around 75-80 MPH.

Are the police justified in pulling over said vehicle out of concern for safety of other drivers? Even without injury at the time.
 
#125
#125
Grand Vol said:
Okay, let me throw a hypothetical at you...

Say there's a car going down an interstate during rush hour traffic. Car has no headlights save one fog lamp and no taillights save the brakes. And it's a major metro area rush hour traffic going from 65-80 MPH with two interstates merging. Said vehicle is traveling around 75-80 MPH.

Are the police justified in pulling over said vehicle out of concern for safety of other drivers? Even without injury at the time.
Click to expand...

In his utopia, no.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top