Jump to content

San Francisco Voters Pass Gun Ban

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Given that he's european I was guessing a translator got the verb tense wrong when it is also a noun. I don't suppose it makes a whole lot of difference either way, however, the find would fund the fund but the fund wouldn't find the find.

What are the recent motions on said gun ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aapem post is referring to a oil fund/mutual fund. A certain percentage of the income from oil production (actually most of it), are placed in a fund. The fund is actually one of the biggest in the world.

This is done for three main reasons:

1. To secure that future generations will have the same welfare as we enjoy today.

2. The percentage of elders are increasing drastically in Norway, and the taxes that the population pay don't cover their pensions. The fund will therefore partly cover this

3. To secure that the exchange rate doesn't get to high/to lower the pressure on the market.

Of course... You do only need a stock market crash for the money to have zero value... But as far as I am concerned, it is better to try to do something to secure future generations wellfare than to waste all the recourses now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Orignally posted by Jaguar

France has this same system, and guess what? It's STILL burning....

What your implying is a bad reason not to have the system. That's like saying a politician who also happened to increase economic growth is like Hitler.


Orginally posted by Chavik

the find would fund the fund but the fund wouldn't find the find.

That hurt my brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...


Originally posted by Grizzle:

Let's just be honest about original intent and what is feasible in modern society.

If the government chose to come down on the public, no amount of arms would be a defense. Your handgun or rifle is no match for military hardware. So while the intent of the right to bear arms is true and should be upheld, it would not make much of a difference if the government chooses to defend itself against a public uprising with the full brunt of our own armed forces.

To keep on topic, a delayed response to an earlier post that does not seem to have been explicitly stated.

In combination with the previously stated point that people in the military would have to make personal choices of what to do, here's some more food for thought:

Yes, if the government turned on the people, they would have tanks and planes and lots of equipment that the "right to bear arms" does not give the common citizen.

Don't forget, however, that a country populated by no one to work, which is what would probably happen if the government indiscriminately attacked people, would be a poor country to govern (there would be no production and no food)

Therefore, the government could not just kill random civilians till they knew they were a threat (think terrorism). Additionally, people still need to get into and out of those tanks, and planes, and to control the UAVs. Guns can be concealed. Bullets can kill those people effectively. Thus, owning guns would still help out a whole lot in the very unlikely and remote chance that our government ever tried to turn against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, more likely when the people have had enough and decide it's time to throw off such an opressive government. As is stated in our own Declaration of Independence.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. "

That is the reason for laws to dissarm the population of the country. To make it impotent to counter any opression the government devices against it's population. And to make said population more dependant on such government for protection against the common thugs and criminals. That completes the circle of: Unable to defend yourself against the criminals, therefore we need the government, no matter how opressive to give us at least some form of comfort, in return for ever increasing regulations, infringement on your freedoms, destruction of you unalienable rights, and financial enslavement in form of ever increasing taxation or otherwise the penalty for non compliance is jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...