Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LoudmouthMormon

Any Violence in Your Neck of the Woods?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Was not" - correct. 

"Is not" - incorrect. 

The Second Amendment became part of the constitution, by definition - long before D&C 101 was written, so yes it does apply.

The actual wording of Article V is:

 

I'm not an idiot.  I don't think God endorses the ownership of guns.    But, Jesus entered the Garden of Gethsemane with an armed retinue, so there is that.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No I wasn't.  Stop misrepresenting me with your false representations of me.  Something about bearing false witness comes to my mind now.  Probably from something I read somewhere,

What I meant is that there must needs be a learning curve, even for Police officers intent on stopping unrighteous behavior they see routinely while doing their jobs.  They often get in some highly emotional situations and even if they are trying to be as perfect as others have taught them they should be they are still going to make some mistakes, sometimes, and others will let them know that when they see them make those mistakes.  And speaking about people finding fault with others, there probably aren't very many more situations when the stakes are as high as when legal peace officers come into conflict with rioting mobs or just your every day average violent criminal.  It ain't easy, I'm sure, and there will always be people who will want to gripe and complain when they see or hear about someone trying to stop others from doing what they think those others have the freedom to do, but even though those legal peace officers will sometimes make some mistakes I am someone who will always be thankful that they, collectively, are trying to do their jobs as well as they can.  From the foot patrolmen to the detectives all the way up to internal affairs and the police commissioners.

You say that you weren't, but you seem to keep doing it.  You seem to be downplaying police brutality by claiming that they have a hard job.  Why can't you just admit that there are bad cops that do bad things and they need to be called out.  You seem to think that calling out bad cop behavior is somehow speaking negatively about cops in general.  Yes, they have hard jobs, that doesn't give them a pass.  They are not "collectively" doing their jobs as well as they can.  There are bad cops out there, like it or not. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Time to defund the cops entirely.  Rely on Christian good behavior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

By comparison there is more evidence that he considers his children who are slaves as 3/5ths of a person. Even support for that is weak. God endorsed constitutional law generally but not specifically. It would not be heresy to propose a constitutional amendment or to think something is imperfect. I am looking at YOU electoral college.

Which part of the Constitution do you understand the least?  This part, on the evidence.

The 3/5ths argument is trotted out all the time as some kind of evidence that the Constitution is evil or really bad. But it's a false point. The Constitution does not consider ANYONE only 3/5ths of a person. That fraction occurred only as a compromise between pro- and anti-slavery factions in figuring how much representation each state would get in Congress. The slaveholders wanted to count slaves towards their share of representation, but the abolitionists didn't want them counted towards that at all, because how can you count those who were considered property and not men as part of your power?  There had to be a compromise if the Constitution was going to be agreed upon.  And that was the figure finally agreed upon. To assign it any other meaning is to promote a lie.

Do you think that God would rather have let the southern states be permitted to count their slaves in computing their representation?  

You're right it is an imperfect document. But it's far less imperfect than many people think.

As for the electoral college, I am not so sure I agree it should be abolished in favor of popular vote -- unless there was some sort of instant run-off system so that prevent a president being elected with 35% of the vote. This could happen if there were three popular candidates. For example, in 1992 Clinton won the presidency with only 43% of the popular vote. This was a plurality, not a majority, and it happened because billionaire looney-tunes Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the popular vote (his support came from the full spectrum of voters, so no use claiming that he kept Bush from winning that time). I don't think I heard the Democrats complaining about the electoral college that time, at least.

I found this video on the problem of the electoral college to be an interesting take on the matter, and quite logical. Spoiler alert: it doesn't support the electoral college.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm not an idiot.  I don't think God endorses the ownership of guns.    But, Jesus entered the Garden of Gethsemane with an armed retinue, so there is that.

Why don't you believe D&C 101 applies to the Second Amendment of the Constitution?

I wonder if God would have endorsed the Nephites in gun ownership had they been invented.

God endorses defending one's life, liberties, and freedoms with swords but not guns.  That makes sense?

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No I wasn't.  Stop misrepresenting me with your false representations of me.  Something about bearing false witness comes to my mind now.  Probably from something I read somewhere,

What I meant is that there must needs be a learning curve, even for Police officers intent on stopping unrighteous behavior they see routinely while doing their jobs.  They often get in some highly emotional situations and even if they are trying to be as perfect as others have taught them they should be they are still going to make some mistakes, sometimes, and others will let them know that when they see them make those mistakes.  And speaking about people finding fault with others, there probably aren't very many more situations when the stakes are as high as when legal peace officers come into conflict with rioting mobs or just your every day average violent criminal.  It ain't easy, I'm sure, and there will always be people who will want to gripe and complain when they see or hear about someone trying to stop others from doing what they think those others have the freedom to do, but even though those legal peace officers will sometimes make some mistakes I am someone who will always be thankful that they, collectively, are trying to do their jobs as well as they can.  From the foot patrolmen to the detectives all the way up to internal affairs and the police commissioners.

And there we completely disagree. I insist that they are, speaking collectively, not doing their job well enough at all and it is not a learning curve issue where they are slowly getting better. Listening to the n word and casual racism getting tossed around on the police scanner when they think no one is listening, their hair-trigger attacks, and their deceptions calculated to protect themselves and each other from the consequences their actions makes me fully in favor of defunding the police and coming up with a new solution to law enforcement. This one isn't working very well. Listening to the police and some of the threats not to do their job that have been bandied about and with their whimpering "you will be sorry when we are gone" just makes me even more eager to get rid of the current institution. If you are willing to not do your job because people aren't being nice to you I can totally see you hurting and killing people for kicks.

I also would prefer a smarter version of law enforcement. Just south of me down in Austin the police tried to improve their image by showing a big collection of thank you cards from the community. It took all of five minutes for people to look at the photo and realize the writing on several of the cards were all in the same handwriting and that none of the envelopes had postage on them. If you are going to lie to people to try to make them like you at least have the dignity to put a little effort into it. They doubled down claiming the cards were dropped off (plausible) and that a volunteer wrote messages on all the outsides of the envelopes (stupid) so that they would know it was something happy. They could have substantiated this story by opening the cards and showing the interiors which were purportedly done by kindergartners and shut the whole thing down if their story were true but........nah. It was just pathetic. If you are incline to give them the benefit of the doubt you can look at their categorical denial that they used tear gas on a certain date until video evidence was shown and their creative descriptions of several other encounters before and during the protest that do not stand up to scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Time to defund the cops entirely.  Rely on Christian good behavior.

Now you are starting to sound like a true libertarian! 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

From a scriptural perspective, yes, I don't think Joseph Smith was referring to amendments,

He didn't need to be referring to amendments.  At the time, the right to keep and bear arms, just as the right to free speech, assembly, and religion were not questioned.  And why should he make particular mention of the Second Amendment when it was a universal assumption?  Firearms ownership was almost literally an unquestioned feature of life in the colonies, and later in the Republic.  Just because they didn't make a particular point of it doesn't mean it was unimportant.

Quote

nor did the founding fathers discuss guns during ratification. 

Are you kidding me?  I guess you've never studied the Federalist Papers, then.  As you should know (but now I have some doubts), the FP were the prima inter pares when it came to writings advocating ratification. And "arms," meaning weapons/firearms, were mentioned 25 times. Even in the Anti-Federalist Papers (opposing the Constitution) arms were mentioned.  Among many mentions discussing the subject of firearms, we have Hamilton writing in Federalist 29:

“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

Madison wrote (Federalist 46):

“To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands…fighting for their common liberties…It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.”

Now, these quotes are not advocating the private ownership of firearms, because private ownership of firearms was assumed to be the norm, and this ownership was being used as an argument in favor of the Constitution -- well before the Bill of Rights was even conceived!  They were arguing that the Constitution was a good form of government because the people could be depended upon to keep the country free from tyranny -- through use of private arms -- and thus the opponents of the Constitution arguing that it was too strong a government and endangered public liberty were exaggerating the danger.

Please do not try to claim that the subject never came up.  It not only came up, it was used as an argument in favor of the ratification of the Constitution, because private ownership of arms was assumed to be a universal feature of the makeup of the country.  The authors of the Constitution, and those who argued in favor of its ratification, never ever assumed anything other than an absolute and unequivocal right of each citizen to keep and bear arms as their own private property.

If you want to change things, fine, go for it. I don't think you'll get much headway, though, in repealing the Second Amendment

 

Quote

And, yes, I know that an amendment becomes the constitution.

You had me worried there for a minute.

Quote

No, I do not believe the constitution was inspired.  I think it was advanced to protect the interest of slave holders.  

I guess I'm surprised. D&C 101 was a false revelation then?

It's clear that you've made a diligent study of the works of Howard Zinn and his fellow travelers. 

Abraham Lincoln once said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."

If slavery had not been protected in the Constitution, there would never have been a house divided against itself, because there would have been two (or even more) houses.

So, I will concede that you're right that the Constitution protected the interests of slaveholders.  But that was far from the purpose of the Constitution. Slavery was protected, because if it had not been, the southern states would have gone off on their own, and the United States of America would never have existed. Instead, we would have had the Northern and the Southern Republics, with the North forever free, and the South forever enslaved. And they would still be whipping, raping, buying and selling slaves to this day down there. So what we got was a country where the slave trade was eventually terminated (a provision of the Constitution, btw), and then finally the inevitable war occurred, during and after which slavery was abolished. The Constitution virtually guaranteed that slavery would eventually be abolished. And that is not a bad thing.

Quote

Guns aren't the answer here, or there. 

As long as men insist upon savaging each other in defiance of God's law, self-defense by whatever tool is available or needed will always be the answer.  During the Millennium this will not be so, of course, because the need will not exist. But we're not there yet.

But you still keep confusing the tool with its wielder.  There are millions of gun owners in the United States, and virtually all of them righteously wield them.  But because a very few wield them unlawfully, they must be taken from all?  

 

 

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

It would forbid the keeping arms in private and brandishing arms in public.

Sometimes arms need to be brandished.

Sometimes you need to stand in front of your house so they know you're watching, even if they don't see you brandishing arms.

Sometimes you might be outnumbered by those who are willing and able to violate your person and property.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Time to defund the cops entirely.  Rely on Christian good behavior.z

I'm sure that will work swimmingly. And we may soon have some "police-free" communities to prove just how well it works. Such as that part of Seattle that declared it to be a "cop-free" zone a few weeks ago.  CHAZ, I believe it called itself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I am not going to post further here in this thread. It's not because I can't answer any objections to my arguments, so don't assume that. I just have better things to do with my time, and it's getting too political now. And it's partly my fault. Have a great day!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nothing I know of in anything categorically proves that our Lord created the law of gravity, either. The scriptures are silent on the subject. Does this mean that the Lord didn't create it?

The Lord endorsed the Constitution, indeed claimed to have used his own instruments to create it. And did so well after the Second Amendment was a part of the Constitution. Do you claim that there's no proof the Lord supports the First Amendment?  Which one of the individual articles in the Bill of Rights does the Lord not support?  Any of them? None of them?  It's OK with the Lord if the government puts people in prison without due process?  Does the Lord feel that it is perfectly OK for the police to enter your house and confiscate everything you own, because there's no proof He supports the 4th Amendment?

The scripture says that the Lord redeemed the land by the shedding of blood, speaking of the American Revolution. That blood was shed by firearms, mostly, and at the beginning virtually all of those firearms were privately owned by the revolutionaries/patriots. The Lord doesn't seem to have a problem with the Second Amendment.  It's part of the Constitution, as it existed at the time the Lord claimed it as his.

 

So what: that is a fallacy of false equivalency.  We are not talking about the nature of proofs, only whether the Lord has categorically supported the 2d Amendment.  He has not categorically done so.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

The funny thing is, you are likely going to get up-votes from opposing perspectives with that comment.

I was referring to the 61 nights of lawlessness and senseless violence of the so-called "protesters."  In watching what they perpetrate, yes, my heart is greatly troubled...  And I couldn't care less who opposes my perspective.

GG

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Nothing I know of in Restoration literature categorically proves that our Lord is a second amendment supporter.

I disagree, nothing in God’s commandments would wish that anyone could not protect their lives and property. Were it not for the ownership of private weapons, the U.S. would still be under some form of British rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Duncan said:

your country not mine

True, but Canada does not have cities burning, and under siege. Thankfully. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Duncan said:

your country not mine

Coming your way some day soon. Ever been in certain areas of downtown Vancouver?

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Which part of the Constitution do you understand the least?  This part, on the evidence.

The 3/5ths argument is trotted out all the time as some kind of evidence that the Constitution is evil or really bad. But it's a false point. The Constitution does not consider ANYONE only 3/5ths of a person. That fraction occurred only as a compromise between pro- and anti-slavery factions in figuring how much representation each state would get in Congress. The slaveholders wanted to count slaves towards their share of representation, but the abolitionists didn't want them counted towards that at all, because how can you count those who were considered property and not men as part of your power?  There had to be a compromise if the Constitution was going to be agreed upon.  And that was the figure finally agreed upon. To assign it any other meaning is to promote a lie.

Do you think that God would rather have let the southern states be permitted to count their slaves in computing their representation?  

I would have been happier not counting them at all for purposes of representation but if you want to assign divine approval to the Constitution in its particulars it is unfair to throw in caveats about the bad stuff.

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're right it is an imperfect document. But it's far less imperfect than many people think.

I am not sure if you are including me in "many people" but I love the Constitution. That said I have a slew of amendments that I strongly believe need passing. Most are pretty boring stuff but I think the line of succession to the Presidency needs to be rewritten to exclude Congress as it massively confuses who is in charge. I also think some successors should be secretly chosen by the President to maintain continuity of government in the event of a disaster, preferably selecting people with executive experience like governors. I think they should be in the line after the Vice President and before the cabinet (again, getting rid of Congress in the line). We also need some kind of provisions for emergencies if Congress cannot form a quorum. I would also like to see the Supreme Court restructured to acknowledge its politicization. I would set a term limit of 36 years (9 justices multiplied by four year terms) and have each presidential term nominate one Supreme Court Justice in the middle of their term. This would mitigate the silliness of the last few decades of justices holding on until some President they favor is in office or of the Senate running out a President's term to move an appointment to the next President. Give the senate the same oversight but if they reject three consecutive candidates the President gets to pick any of them to take the seat. I would like to see national emergency powers laid out in the Constitution instead of legislation where the Supreme Court cannot mess around with them and stick with the intent of the legislation that congress can end an emergency if they consider it unnecessary (the legislation said that but the Court struck congressional oversight down). I go back and forth on whether a six year presidential term with no reelection would be a good thing. I like the idea of no President in office having to campaign but it may be a bit much. I would also change the 14th amendment to take out the confusing wording targeting states specifically that led to weird enforcement and some confusing court decisions. If I could I would rewrite the 2nd Amendment to make it more clear and get rid of the anachronistic stuff about militias and ensure that keeping reasonable firearms is protected even if you are not part of a "well regulated militia". Oh, and put senator selection back under the state government's control. I would probably also even go a bit further and make it one senator per state. Ideally I would want the position unelected by popular vote and just have it done by state legislature or by the governor or both. Oh, and some language that would radically reform elections for the House. The House is supposed to specifically be beholden to the people (the senate to the elite/state) and there should be a strict curtailment of their ability to be bought or funded by interests other than the people. And get rid of the electoral college and make the Presidency selected by popular vote with each state reporting their election totals to the federal government. Another pet peeve of mine is that the President is, in my opinion, far too involved in the legislative process. The President comes in with a legislative agenda. Shouldn't this be the job of Congress? I would like to see the same kind of separation set up between Congress and the President as there is between the President and the Supreme Court. The President does not have a lot of interaction with the Court unless requesting an opinion on a legal matter. This is to avoid the worry of the President interfering with cases the Supreme Court selects. Have the President maybe submit a funding request before a budget saying which agencies under the President's purview need additional costs and, in cases where the President needs congressional approval (war, needing funding for a military campaign, dealing with a disaster, etc.) the President's office can request it. Leave the legislative agendas to Congress and have the President confined to those bills concerned with the Executive branch and his specific roles and whether the President signs or breaks out the veto stamp.

That would be my modest, fairly dry and banal, overhaul.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for the electoral college, I am not so sure I agree it should be abolished in favor of popular vote -- unless there was some sort of instant run-off system so that prevent a president being elected with 35% of the vote. This could happen if there were three popular candidates. For example, in 1992 Clinton won the presidency with only 43% of the popular vote. This was a plurality, not a majority, and it happened because billionaire looney-tunes Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the popular vote (his support came from the full spectrum of voters, so no use claiming that he kept Bush from winning that time). I don't think I heard the Democrats complaining about the electoral college that time, at least.

No one complains about the Electoral College until it throws them a gut punch. Then there is a complaint about it that is quickly forgotten. I do not see removing the Electoral College as a partisan issue. Although it has lately favored one side that could easily shift. The Electoral College does not do what it was designed to do. Some of the founders assumed that the electors would all pick locals and the House and Senate would always pick the President and VP unless the candidate was really popular. Then you have the original weirdness where the President and VP were essentially running against each other and the other two candidates. The other purpose was to inflate the voting power of the south under the 3/5ths compromise's allotments.

Admittedly the Founders feared the people having the power to elect the President directly for fear of a popular tyrant (some bits on this in the Federalist Papers) but the mechanisms designed to prevent it do not work and have never worked. I would not be opposed to another form of selecting a President. Putting in a quasi-parliamentary system where the majority party in the House selects a President has some merit but there is understandably concern about separation of powers when the President to be has to wheel and deal directly with members of Congress to get appointed. I think we are stuck with an election and a popular one is probably the best option.

I watched the video and while it is correct about the states you need, the reality is some states trend one way or the other so the states that get the attention are always the swing states. These shift over time but it means you have oversized power given to the agenda of certain states. Part of me thinks the primaries should all happen at the same time for the same reason but that is really not a government concern really. A party could select their candidate by who has the longest hair or by drawing a name out of a hat if they wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Coming your way some day soon. Ever been in certain areas of downtown Vancouver?

I have not. I have family in BC but in the Okanagan

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

He didn't need to be referring to amendments.  At the time, the right to keep and bear arms, just as the right to free speech, assembly, and religion were not questioned.  And why should he make particular mention of the Second Amendment when it was a universal assumption?  Firearms ownership was almost literally an unquestioned feature of life in the colonies, and later in the Republic.  Just because they didn't make a particular point of it doesn't mean it was unimportant.

Are you kidding me?  I guess you've never studied the Federalist Papers, then.  As you should know (but now I have some doubts), the FP were the prima inter pares when it came to writings advocating ratification. And "arms," meaning weapons/firearms, were mentioned 25 times. Even in the Anti-Federalist Papers (opposing the Constitution) arms were mentioned.  Among many mentions discussing the subject of firearms, we have Hamilton writing in Federalist 29:

“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

Madison wrote (Federalist 46):

“To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands…fighting for their common liberties…It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.”

Now, these quotes are not advocating the private ownership of firearms, because private ownership of firearms was assumed to be the norm, and this ownership was being used as an argument in favor of the Constitution -- well before the Bill of Rights was even conceived!  They were arguing that the Constitution was a good form of government because the people could be depended upon to keep the country free from tyranny -- through use of private arms -- and thus the opponents of the Constitution arguing that it was too strong a government and endangered public liberty were exaggerating the danger.

Please do not try to claim that the subject never came up.  It not only came up, it was used as an argument in favor of the ratification of the Constitution, because private ownership of arms was assumed to be a universal feature of the makeup of the country.  The authors of the Constitution, and those who argued in favor of its ratification, never ever assumed anything other than an absolute and unequivocal right of each citizen to keep and bear arms as their own private property.

If you want to change things, fine, go for it. I don't think you'll get much headway, though, in repealing the Second Amendment

While that was true then that is much less the case now. One thing reading military accounts has impressed on me is how vast the firepower of modern military weapons are. A well disciplined militia would not be able to face the US military in a conventional fight and win. That was possible back then. It is also worth remembering that the US Army in some periods of US history in the 1800s had less than 10,000 men on active duty. The modern full military came after World War II. When World War II broke out the US Army had less men on active duty than Greece. If a neighborhood rose up it could be wrecked with virtually no warning. A gathering army of liberation could be scattered with ease. Now the people's only hope for overthrow would be an assymetrical conflict (probably insurgency), perhaps a large-scale protest work stoppage situation that brought the government to its knees (very difficult), a military coup, or some kind of palace or broader political coup.

There is a reason the current crop of protesters (and the Civil Rights protesters) generally go unarmed. Picking a direct fight means you lose. I can speak from experience that the protest supporters in the current situation who sit at home waiting for things to get bad are seen as lazy people using their weapons as an excuse to not go out and join a protest now while leaving the gun at home. There are, of course, other reasons to have weapons. They are useful against some forms of crime in some situations, to protect yourself from localized government overreach (corrupt sheriff or police department or local government for example), could be used in an insurgency situation, and have recreational uses. I think the days when an armed populace alone is a check on government overreach are over and are unlikely to come back. The Civil War is likely the last time the tree of liberty will be watered with the blood of patriots fighting their own countrymen in a conventional war. There has been plenty spilt since in conventional wars overseas and in other conflicts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I disagree, nothing in God’s commandments would wish that anyone could not protect their lives and property. Were it not for the ownership of private weapons, the U.S. would still be under some form of British rule. 

I doubt it. Canada got out without a revolution. I am also sure the French would have smuggled us more guns if we needed some to deal with their arch-nemesis but yes, it certainly made it easier.

56 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

True, but Canada does not have cities burning, and under siege. Thankfully. 

That virus does have a bit of a siege going on in Canada though their mitigation has been more successful lately. They are also kept busy keeping US citizens from wandering in to get away from hotspots while saying they are "going to Alaska".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I have not. I have family in BC but in the Okanagan

Next time you are there, check out the druggie haven near Chinatown. I was taking photos of Chinatown and turned toward the Druggieville and a passer-by said if I valued my life I would not take a photo. This is the scene I saw:

https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/no-easy-fix-for-vancouver-s-addiction-crisis-but-swiss-model-worth-examining-1.23929016

I wouldn't want to ride on that bus route.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Next time you are there, check out the druggie haven near Chinatown. I was taking photos of Chinatown and turned toward the Druggieville and a passer-by said if I valued my life I would not take a photo. This is the scene I saw:

https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/no-easy-fix-for-vancouver-s-addiction-crisis-but-swiss-model-worth-examining-1.23929016

its well known that Vanc. is drug heaven

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt it. Canada got out without a revolution. I am also sure the French would have smuggled us more guns if we needed some to deal with their arch-nemesis but yes, it certainly made it easier.

They most emphatically did not get out. They still play cricket, for crying out loud. One of the greatest blessings of our Revolution, I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Bernard Gui said:

They most emphatically did not get out. They still play cricket, for crying out loud. One of the greatest blessings of our Revolution, I reckon.

Canadians play cricket? not that i've ever seen or heard!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

its well known that Vanc. is drug heaven

Yep. That's what Seattle and Portland have become. The lawlessness follows just as sure as night follows day. That's why I said it's coming your way. It's spreading from Seattle into the suburbs such as DesMoines, Kent, Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, and others. In the last 2 months there were three multiple victim shootings in Kent/Federal Way where my SIL lives. For a month FW businesses closed at 6pm in fear that the rioters would show up as they threatened to do. That's one town away from us.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...