GUN CONTROL........ hahaha





To your second point, if it became illegal to have guns, would you then stop owning guns or stop being a law abiding citizen?
No.
Because if you're willing to do something illegal simply because you don't like the law, any law anyone doesn't like then becomes irrelevant.
To quote Thomas Jefferson, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
And the constitution seems clear to me.

I, personally, don't give too much weight or legitimacy to victimless crimes.
 
That's an either/or question. If owning guns became illegal (and I don't think it will, or should for that matter) a person could not both own guns and remain a law abiding citizen.

To quote Thomas Jefferson, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
And the constitution seems clear to me.

I, personally, don't give too much weight or legitimacy to victimless crimes.
There's no evidence Jefferson ever said that, but like many other things, it sounds like something he may have said. Jefferson Foundation Quote Check
Whether you, I, or any other individual give weight to a victimless crime isn't the point. The point is that laws change, and law abiding citizens by definition obey them. The Constitution doesn't allow people to ignore the laws they don't like.....
 
That's an either/or question. If owning guns became illegal (and I don't think it will, or should for that matter) a person could not both own guns and remain a law abiding citizen.


There's no evidence Jefferson ever said that, but like many other things, it sounds like something he may have said. Jefferson Foundation Quote Check
Whether you, I, or any other individual give weight to a victimless crime isn't the point. The point is that laws change, and law abiding citizens by definition obey them. The Constitution doesn't allow people to ignore the laws they don't like.....
right... but banning certain types of guns WILL HAVE unintended consequences and OPEN THE DOOR to dearming citizens completely.... live in NY.... ull see how screwed up things get...… then ban any and everything they want to...
 
look... it doesn't even affect me... I walk around NYC with a 380 in my pocket legally.... my weapons are on my badge, BUT it will effect the general citizenry....... heed my warning, progressives and modern day liberals are after allllllll the power and influence they can possibly grab, and are extremely restrictive, but by the time their supporters see it... ITS TOOOO LATE.... they are already in power... screwing us over.
 
That's an either/or question. If owning guns became illegal (and I don't think it will, or should for that matter) a person could not both own guns and remain a law abiding citizen.
I would continue on my path and rightly ignore unjust laws. I would feel obligated.

With enough laws, we can turn everyone into a criminal. Right?
 
You said a mouthful right there my friend....
alllllll these laws and prohibitions are really starting to make certain folks(like me) take a hard line now... and the worst part about this is that most people don't see the effects of certain laws/prohibitions until it hits close to home... or they visit ny… it has to be about a month though until u reallllly start to see how restrictive it gets.
 
alllllll these laws and prohibitions are really starting to make certain folks(like me) take a hard line now... and the worst part about this is that most people don't see the effects of certain laws/prohibitions until it hits close to home... or they visit ny… it has to be about a month though until u reallllly start to see how restrictive it gets.
Hi. It is like the
is pushing the GAY thing as the way to go, but if everyone is GAY we will not be around for long. I do not think trans men belong in the ladies room or on girls sports teams. Now I believe Stalin said SHOW ME THE MAN AND I WILL FIND HIE CRIME. It is what Robert Mueller was doing. If they they ever ban semi auto guns start looking for cap and ball guns unless they think they are semi auto too.​
 
I'm glad it ended well, but the potential for disaster is very high in that particular scenario. Good job supporting the fact that guns can be and are used to defend.
Not only that guns are often needed for self defense, but this is also a valid argument for two other high profile points:

1) Higher capacity magazines. Thankfully the law allowed this Texas resident to own one. With 5 aggressors, I doubt he would have fared as well with New York's restrictive 7-rd law (that only hurts a law-abiding person's means of self defense).

2) Gun ownership under 21 years old. Some states are pushing for legal ownership to be moved to 21 years old, as if younger adults (like this Texas resident) don't ever need t defend themselves as well.
 
Not only that guns are often needed for self defense, but this is also a valid argument for two other high profile points:

1) Higher capacity magazines. Thankfully the law allowed this Texas resident to own one. With 5 aggressors, I doubt he would have fared as well with New York's restrictive 7-rd law (that only hurts a law-abiding person's means of self defense)..
One representation doesn't create the validity of any argument, nor does it have any significant effect on the statistical probability that any particular gun owned by any individual is far more likely to be used to kill or injure a person other than an intruder. What this does do however, is provide evidence that one of the major talking points on the liberal side is in fact false, guns can, and in this example do provide security and safety for owners. That popular narrative, that guns (particularly certain types of guns) have no redeeming qualities or legitimate uses outside of a military setting is patently untrue, and should be called into question whenever it is applied. This example shows exactly how such a weapon can be used effectively. The person felt threatened by the armed intruders, responded appropriately, and protected his own and his loved ones' lives.

2) Gun ownership under 21 years old. Some states are pushing for legal ownership to be moved to 21 years old, as if younger adults (like this Texas resident) don't ever need t defend themselves as well.
The argument isn't that those under 21 don't need to defend themselves, it's whether or not a person under 21 can make sound decisions. This is hugely problematic for me from a logical perspective. If we as a society deem a person not old enough to make important decisions until age 21 (a position which is not inconsistent with psychological research incidentally), then we should not deem them eligible for military service either. Currently a person can voluntarily sign up to serve, or be required to do so (drafted), either of which arguably can require death or killing, at age 18. Either a person is an adult at 18, can presumably make good decisions, and we then extend to them all the rights and responsibilities of society, i.e. voting, alcohol, guns, driving, military service, tobacco, or they are not, cannot be trusted to make these decisions for themselves, and these milestones are put off until age 21. We can't have it both ways.
 

fallenarch

THE SLOW RIDER
Registered
One representation doesn't create the validity of any argument, nor does it have any significant effect on the statistical probability that any particular gun owned by any individual is far more likely to be used to kill or injure a person other than an intruder. What this does do however, is provide evidence that one of the major talking points on the liberal side is in fact false, guns can, and in this example do provide security and safety for owners. That popular narrative, that guns (particularly certain types of guns) have no redeeming qualities or legitimate uses outside of a military setting is patently untrue, and should be called into question whenever it is applied. This example shows exactly how such a weapon can be used effectively. The person felt threatened by the armed intruders, responded appropriately, and protected his own and his loved ones' lives.


The argument isn't that those under 21 don't need to defend themselves, it's whether or not a person under 21 can make sound decisions. This is hugely problematic for me from a logical perspective. If we as a society deem a person not old enough to make important decisions until age 21 (a position which is not inconsistent with psychological research incidentally), then we should not deem them eligible for military service either. Currently a person can voluntarily sign up to serve, or be required to do so (drafted), either of which arguably can require death or killing, at age 18. Either a person is an adult at 18, can presumably make good decisions, and we then extend to them all the rights and responsibilities of society, i.e. voting, alcohol, guns, driving, military service, tobacco, or they are not, cannot be trusted to make these decisions for themselves, and these milestones are put off until age 21. We can't have it both ways.
brilliant analysis Mr. Brown, as usual and very well stated. One thing I would say is 18 year olds in the services are under extreme supervision. Still how do you deny someone the privileges of citizenship then ask them to make the maximum sacrifice?
 
brilliant analysis Mr. Brown, as usual and very well stated. One thing I would say is 18 year olds in the services are under extreme supervision. Still how do you deny someone the privileges of citizenship then ask them to make the maximum sacrifice?
Agreed that they are under supervision once the decision (or demand) is made, but the decision itself requires no assistance or supervision at all.
 

Similar threads





Most likes - Past 7 days

Latest Bikes

Forum statistics

Threads
171,612
Messages
3,065,162
Members
47,181
Latest member
CarlT
Top