I think having a handgun holstered is fine. Having an AR-15 strapped to your back looks odd and is usually done to "make a point".Originally Posted by BabyPeterzz
I think having a handgun holstered is fine. Having an AR-15 strapped to your back looks odd and is usually done to "make a point".
^^ ThisThe historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.
€¥€
And this should never be updated? I mean at the time it was written duels were still a pretty common thing.
I saw a funny statement that touches on your comment.
Along the lines of:
Some say the second ammedment does not apply to assault rifles since the were not arround when the second ammendment was created.
Well the first ammendment does not apply to CCN, Fox, MSNBC, Redstate, NPR, Huffington Post...since they were not around when the first ammendment was created.
On a serious note. If it should be updated is worth a discussion but until it is then that is the law.
In my opinion it should be updated. However, I still think the right of an individual to defend their self and to have access to effective means of self defense still makes sense. I also think an armed populace is an effective deterrence to tyranny.
Beyond that I see the right to keep and bear arms as one of the greatest tangible indications that this is a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Armed citizens can only happen when the interests of the government and the people are the same. It is an indication that we are all on the same team and we're all in this together.
"Normal people" having access to firearms shows that we are all equal under the law. We are all effectively "normal people" when we are on the same playing field and all have the right to arms.
Pay particular attention to the last nine words of the quote.
€¥€
So if a tyrant is using a flamethrower, or fully automatic weapon people should have access to shoot back with the same thing?
If a tyrant is using them on his populace then you bet your ass they should. Do I want to see a bunch of people owning flamethrowers? No. But you took it to the level of tyrants and not a government trying to represent the people.
If people could buy a flame thrower would you expect them to become common amongst criminals?
So what would you be afraid of? Why would someone having a flame thrower be a problem?
What I recall is that they were reported to be perceived as threatening, an entirely different thing from actively threatening people. As for the badges, many people take going around armed as a sign of hate.
I'm not particularly upset about the guy in JC Penney's. I'm in giggles over your attempt to say he's less threatening that a couple of guys that don't even have guns.
Yes. Criminals will use whatever they can to gain an edge. For many people, being set on fire is scarier than being shot.
If you don't let law-abiding citizens own flame-throwers, than only criminals will own flame-throwers.
That would absolutely be true if flame throwers had been legal and common for hundreds of years and then suddenly outlawed.
It would also be true today if criminals cared about flame throwers.
I recall them actively trying to intimidate people.
The problem with that scenario is that there is a much more plentiful, cheaper and more effecient weapon. The handgun.
I do like how you tried to turn that around though.
So, criminals in England and Germany don't care about guns? Because both countries went from a period where gun controls were more lax to one where they were less lax. It's almost as if criminals only care about using whatever is handy to get an edge, which in a country where knives are legal and plentiful, while guns are scarce and therefore expensive, means a knife for most of them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote