I mean why don't you stand for election on the basis that there should be no restriction on unstable or mentally ill people having the right to buy and carry guns?
Your position is clear though. Thank you. You do not believe that behaviour which demonstrates instability or a lack of normal self-control in personal behaviour be taken into account by the authorities when they decide whether to issue a license. As long as such behaviour is not criminal.
After being ruled by some little inbred dictator from across the sea our founding fathers developed a serious mistrust of governments and developed the constitution to restrict what the government can and can't do. THe people today should carry that same mistrust of the government. Uncle Sam should be seen as that creepy child molesting uncle instead of a friendly relative you can trust.This is a logical position for a libertarian to take. Why for example should the State have the right to restrict anyone else's right unless they have been convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers?
The problem is that people like Loughner, who were judged too unstable to join the army, are therefore permitted to carry guns, and in the state of Arizona, to conceal this. Libertarians consider dead nine year old girls a price worth paying for this "freedom".
Other regard people who demonstrate unstable or threatening behaviour, such as this Arlington jerk, to be at least worth investigating and checking out before letting him loose in the land with a lethal weapon.
It's a question of judgement. Of course all of us who live in countries which have proper control over those who can carry guns are struggling under the yoke of tyranny. That's the clincher I suppose.
So they take his concealed carry permit away from him. What's that going to accomplish? He's not going to commit murder, because he can't legally carry a concealed weapon?
I actually do see your point in his urging any potential shooters not to shoot others such as the 9 yr old girl.All the individual in Arlington did was plead with any future potential murderers to not shoot bystanders.
Did Laughner see a shrink. Was he declared to be mentally unfit to carry a weapon?
I think many people would agree with this, just like many people would want gang bangers to keep the violence to themselves.I actually do see your point in his urging any potential shooters not to shoot others such as the 9 yr old girl.
But am having a real hard time by his statement "1 down and 534 to go" . To me that means we have 534 other congresspersons to kill.
Maybe. If Blogger was a Muslim, perhaps positions would be reversed and many of us would be saying take his guns away. Sometimes the shoe has to be on our foot before we realize that something is wrong.If he had been Muslim do you think the reaction would be different here on this forum?
People saying that this guy is having his rights infringed upon are being silly. People get arrested all the time for inciting violence against others regardless of the fact that there is a 1st amendment. With rights come responsibilities. If he was arguing that politicians should be shot, hey, take his gun away and let him complain about the NWO Jared-style.
Not at all. We ALL know that if it is his motivation to actually commit murder he will find a way. What it will accomplish is preciesly what it should accomplish...the revocation of a privelege by someone demonstrating he is too stupid to be allowed to have said privelege. As a CCW permit holder assholes like that piss me off. It gives mindless morons out there a platform to attack ALL CCW holders and call for new rounds of gun control.
He didnt say "man...I sure understand peoples frustrations with our government and we should work to get them thrown out of office." He endorsed political assassination. I dont suggest they arrest him or throw him in jail. But as a consequence of his choices...I personally am FINE with them removing his right to carry concealed.
Maybe. If Blogger was a Muslim, perhaps positions would be reversed and many of us would be saying take his guns away. Sometimes the shoe has to be on our foot before we realize that something is wrong.
This is ridiculous in my opinion and possibly unconstitutional.
Are we going to search everyone's home who has made similar comments on the internet? Granted, I didn't see his words in context to form an opinion as to whether or not it was something to be taken seriously.
Is his blog out there somewhere?
That's the same reactionary thinking that causes people to want to pass more gun laws and ban assault rifles and ban high capacity magazines.
Just like all other reactionary laws, where does it end? And, who get's to interpret what our comments mean?
How many times have you been called a racist, because you disagree with a Liberal policy? Is that the level at which we want all our comments interpreted?
I disagree...I think it is more likely that if the pro-firearm ownership crowd had a higher expectation of legal firearm owners, then those that promote bans would be LESS likely to be successful.
This guy didnt just object to policies, nor did he state that he wanted to see those elected officials voted out. Worlds of difference.
You're usually right, but this is that .1% of the time that you're wrong.
I can accept that!
I am SO grateful we all dont agree all the time. Lord how BORING would that be. And in the great grand scheme of things...these are just opinions. I dont makle the rules in Boston.
Not go al Uncle Ben...but I do think firearm ownership while a constitutional right still requires responsiblity. The right to carry concealed is not a constitutional right...thats been decided as a State right issue. People like that jackass make it harder not easier. So...I would just reiterate my final (and 'wrong') position. No arrest...no charges...but I have no problem with the state revoking his concealed carry rights. Actions have consequence.
But this isn't true is it? Proponents of gun control do not exempt Muslims from such proposals no matter how much conservatives wish them to.
Your reply to my post was a hoot. It relies on your fantasies that democratic countries with gun control will suddenly be turned into tyrannies by those governments that just can't help themselves but do anything else.
...and that when this happens in the USA the people being armed will defeat the standing army, navy and air force in the manner prescribed by the Founding Fathers.
Is this in a parallel universe? Do you have a date when all this tyranny will prevail in those unAmerican lands where all the dragons live?
What would stop the government from becoming tyrannical if the people are not adequately armed? Their word? The founder's documents?
THe terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing a pretty good job against our military.
Gun control is a precursor to tyranny.
those who impose gun control are often the people most in need of being shot by honest citizens
What would stop the government from becoming tyrannical if the people are not adequately armed? Their word? The founder's documents?
Just how are an armed citizenry supposed to withstand the might of the world's mightiest superpower ( a concept that the Founding Fathers would have struggled to imagine)?
was this not the EXACT situation they fought against to win their independence. jefferson always said we'd have to do it again someday, never said it would be easy though.
The super power was far away.
Still if the NRA and its friends really believe that guns are for fighting the US Army, Air Force and Navy, why don't they say so?
I'm also a little confused. It seems now that the Iraqi insurgents are just armed citizens fighting a tyrannical government and that Americans should prepare to do just the same. Not terrorists anymore, apparently. Role models in fact.
I wish people would clearly say this too.
Then everyone would know where they are.
well the hope is that people enlisted in our military wouldn't be coerced into firing on americans. the problem is the private mercinary army is now larger than the enlisted army, so hopefully when it comes time, the army, navy, airforce are on our side.
and i agree with you about the iraqis, i don't think we'd do much different if another country tried to occupy us or build military bases on our land. or would we?
Elections. As they do.
That's when people vote. And kick out a government they don't like.
Any country that abolished the right of the people to keep and bear arms and became tyrannical will suffice.Of course you could give me all the examples of liberal democracies where the government has become tyrannical against an unarmed population and abolished elections. Start with the advanced liberal democracies in Western Europe since 1945.
I would imagine, given your certainty as to how governments just cannot help themselves when faced with an unarmed population, that you can point to the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, abolished elections and started to abuse their people.
Obviously I never learned about this at school because I was educated in Britain. Clearly the government here, faced with all us un-armed numpties, abolished elections and pretended to hold them regularly just to fool us. The fact of our de facto tyranny was hidden from us by an education system which was forced to do its government's bidding and pretend that we still had the right to kick out any government we didn't like.
There were people at my university who claimed this sort of thing and told us that we were just naieve dupes of a tyrannical government only giving us the illusion of freedom. We called these paranoid delinquents communists and all thought they were crazy. Still I am sure that you james can now point out where we were going wrong all the time.
If only we'd had guns, then we would really know freedom. If only we were American and not the sub-human sub caste that we furners really are. If only... hand on heart looking mystically into the sky...
Thanks for being so clear. It is interesting that constitutional arguments for gun control depend on such extremist and marginal positions.
i don't think it's a marginal position at all. when the supreme court knocked down the dc gun ban i was against it. the reason being that i'm for communities deciding the best way to protect themselves. gun control is a question of how people decide to protect themselves. some, mostly in urban populations, feel safer relying on the local police force for protection. others, in prodominantly rural areas, feel safer protecting themselves. i wouldn't assume that i should tell any other city or state how to accomplish that goal.
What good would voting do if the government becomes tyrannical? If they are tyrannical then obviously your ballet becomes something they wipe their ass off with.
Any country that abolished the right of the people to keep and bear arms and became tyrannical will suffice.
You think if tyranny doesn't happen over night then it is not going to happen at all? You and your fellow countrymen are practically unarmed, the government has no reason to fear any of you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?