Time To Get Rid of Concealed Carry Bans?

[nontheist]

Assault rifle bans? Give me a break, ban it because it "looks" all scary and tactical. It's just a semi-automatic rifle dressed up to look like it's fully automatic counterpart. Call it an AK47 or some other scary name all you want, it's no more dangerous than the semi-automatic Remingtons and Winchesters strapped to the backs of hunters all over the country. If you want to be taken seriously, don't begin with such a laughable position.

Actually its not near as powerful as most hunting rifles, if he came in with 308, 30-06, 7mm mag, etc, etc the fatality rate would be much higher than 12 they would leave exit wombs the size of fists or larger. Irony is people that talk anti-gun know very little about it, same with anti-hunters.

 

[beenthere]

Actually its not near as powerful as most hunting rifles, if he came in with 308, 30-06, 7mm mag, etc, etc the fatality rate would be much higher than 12 they would leave exit wombs the size of fists or larger. Irony is people that talk anti-gun know very little about it, same with anti-hunters.

Damn, could you imagine having your wife or girlfriend left with a fist sized womb!

 

[Rob Roy]

How do you know there are 200 million unregistered guns out there? and again NoDrama, you are looking for absolutes - I was asked how I as a government would begin to confiscate firearms and I explained it. My method wouldn't collect every single weapon. Now I also said that the laws for posession of a weapon and those surrounding such posession would have to be made more stringent as well. Posesson of a firearm - 5 years manditory. Discharge anotherr 2. Posession on a publc throughfare another 1, posession on Federal land another 2. And like that.

You seem to overlook that enforcing the laws that you would make would involve using force. Confiscating something that doesn't belong to you is an act of theft, ie an act of aggression. Government theft is the same thing as if the robber down the street disarmed you, no?

Initiating acts of aggression IS the use of force. The fact the aggression was initiated by somebody wearing badges under the color of law doesn't change what takes place.

Murder is murder, even when the government does it. Theft is theft even when the government does it.

I think your disconnect is your endorsement of legality and the thought that it somehow grants immunity. Self empowered "officials" have attempted to change the meanings of words, I recommend you consider the action. If you or I can't do it to without causing harm to somebody why would we want "officials" to be able to ?

 

[blindbaby]

the liberal news media, true to form, ALLWAYS reports any accidents, or crimes with guns, with abandon. in turn, their buddies, the left, start calling for us to give up our guns. this is not for our good, but to take away our wepons, so they can move on our other rights, as fledgling communists they are. how many times, do they ever report lives being saved, etc, by someone who saved the day, with quik judgment, and quiker draw!?? NONE!! its not their agenda!! the agenda, is to get our guns aways from us, so they can do whatever they want to us. also, virtually 100% of those who want our guns, are so called "democrates"- u know., the party that USED TO BE for the working class, now for the welfare class. which goes hand in hand with socialism. vote em all out this novemver.

 

[canndo]

You seem to overlook that enforcing the laws that you would make would involve using force. Confiscating something that doesn't belong to you is an act of theft, ie an act of aggression. Government theft is the same thing as if the robber down the street disarmed you, no?

Initiating acts of aggression IS the use of force. The fact the aggression was initiated by somebody wearing badges under the color of law doesn't change what takes place.

Murder is murder, even when the government does it. Theft is theft even when the government does it.

I think your disconnect is your endorsement of legality and the thought that it somehow grants immunity. Self empowered "officials" have attempted to change the meanings of words, I recommend you consider the action. If you or I can't do it to without causing harm to somebody why would we want "officials" to be able to ?

Firstly, murder is the illegal taking of a human life, so the state may or may not be guilty of murder if it kills an individual. Execution is not murder.


Now certainly, in the case where weapons are not voluntarily surrendered, there will be a use of force in placing someone in jail for failure to comply. By your example all taxation is theft and that is not the case. 5 people agree beforehand to contribute 5 dollars each to a pool from which all beer is paid for. One of the members refuses to pay his 5 dollars and the other 4 hold him down and extract those 5 dollars from his wallet - is that theft?

 

[canndo]

the liberal news media, true to form, ALLWAYS reports any accidents, or crimes with guns, with abandon. in turn, their buddies, the left, start calling for us to give up our guns. this is not for our good, but to take away our wepons, so they can move on our other rights, as fledgling communists they are. how many times, do they ever report lives being saved, etc, by someone who saved the day, with quik judgment, and quiker draw!?? NONE!! its not their agenda!! the agenda, is to get our guns aways from us, so they can do whatever they want to us. also, virtually 100% of those who want our guns, are so called "democrates"- u know., the party that USED TO BE for the working class, now for the welfare class. which goes hand in hand with socialism. vote em all out this novemver.

Liberals want to take our guns away so then can have their way with us. Not really, they want to take your guns because they believe the process will result in a safer society - they are likely wrong but this does not prove in any way that they want your freedoms removed from you.

 

[UncleBuck]

Actually its not near as powerful as most hunting rifles, if he came in with 308, 30-06, 7mm mag, etc, etc the fatality rate would be much higher than 12 they would leave exit wombs the size of fists or larger. Irony is people that talk anti-gun know very little about it, same with anti-hunters.

you're giving away your true age again, sock puppet.

don't worry, they'll teach you how to spell "wounds" in 10th grade remedial english next year, kiddo.

 

[Rob Roy]

Firstly, murder is the illegal taking of a human life, so the state may or may not be guilty of murder if it kills an individual. Execution is not murder.


Now certainly, in the case where weapons are not voluntarily surrendered, there will be a use of force in placing someone in jail for failure to comply. By your example all taxation is theft and that is not the case. 5 people agree beforehand to contribute 5 dollars each to a pool from which all beer is paid for. One of the members refuses to pay his 5 dollars and the other 4 hold him down and extract those 5 dollars from his wallet - is that theft?

6 people agree to make everybody in the room pay for beer. there are 7 people in the room though.... Person 7 says no thanks I'll opt out. the other 6 say tough shit, steal his money and piss on him....that's your government.

 

[Rob Roy]

Liberals want to take our guns away so then can have their way with us. Not really, they want to take your guns because they believe the process will result in a safer society - they are likely wrong but this does not prove in any way that they want your freedoms removed from you.

Prohibitionists want to take away your pot, because they beleive it will contribute to a "safer society", this doesn't in any way prove they want to take away your freedoms....no wait...oh shit.

 

[beardo]

Firstly, murder is the illegal taking of a human life, so the state may or may not be guilty of murder if it kills an individual. Execution is not murder.


Now certainly, in the case where weapons are not voluntarily surrendered, there will be a use of force in placing someone in jail for failure to comply. By your example all taxation is theft and that is not the case. 5 people agree beforehand to contribute 5 dollars each to a pool from which all beer is paid for. One of the members refuses to pay his 5 dollars and the other 4 hold him down and extract those 5 dollars from his wallet - is that theft?

So the Nazis never "murdered" anyone according to your logic
So if they pass a law making execution the penalty for XXX then they can execute whoever they want
Pass a law saying Guns are illegal and turn them in or the penalty is execution, followed by a law stating that you must pay $250,000 a year for insurance and the penalty for being uninsured is execution, or also using this substance or being of this race is illegal and the penalty is execution..

 

[canndo]

6 people agree to make everybody in the room pay for beer. there are 7 people in the room though.... Person 7 says no thanks I'll opt out. the other 6 say tough shit, steal his money and piss on him....that's your government.

No it isn't, as the only way number 7 can "opt out" is to actually leave the country and take all of his investments with him. So long as number 7 is here, he is drinking that beer.

 

[canndo]

Prohibitionists want to take away your pot, because they beleive it will contribute to a "safer society", this doesn't in any way prove they want to take away your freedoms....no wait...oh shit.

We are talking about guns here.

 

[beardo]

No it isn't, as the only way number 7 can "opt out" is to actually leave the country and take all of his investments with him. So long as number 7 is here, he is drinking that beer.

Tell that to the people of Libya

 

[canndo]

So the Nazis never "murdered" anyone according to your logic
So if they pass a law making execution the penalty for XXX then they can execute whoever they want
Pass a law saying Guns are illegal and turn them in or the penalty is execution, followed by a law stating that you must pay $250,000 a year for insurance and the penalty for being uninsured is execution, or also using this substance or being of this race is illegal and the penalty is execution..

None of this having anything at all to do with the conversation.

I stated the definition of murder, it is the illegal taking of a human life, now if we can determine the domain of "illegaly" then we can determine if it is murder. Is your killing another in self defense murder?

 

[beardo]

None of this having anything at all to do with the conversation.

I stated the definition of murder, it is the illegal taking of a human life, now if we can determine the domain of "illegaly" then we can determine if it is murder. Is your killing another in self defense murder?

You have just stated the purpose of the second amendment and the reason we should reinstitute and uphold the second amendment
The people need gun rights, their should be 100% gun rights
Every citizen should own a gun

 

[canndo]

Tell that to the people of Libya

Is libya paying U.S. income taxes?

 

[canndo]

You have just stated the purpose of the second amendment and the reason we should reinstitute and uphold the second amendment
The people need gun rights, their should be 100% gun rights
Every citizen should own a gun

Tell me where you stand on manditory health care.

 

[beardo]

Is libya paying U.S. income taxes?

Yes........

 

[beardo]

Tell me where you stand on manditory health care.

Do you mean slavery?
I'm against it.

 

[beardo]

None of this having anything at all to do with the conversation.

I stated the definition of murder, it is the illegal taking of a human life, now if we can determine the domain of "illegaly" then we can determine if it is murder. Is your killing another in self defense murder?

So if someone is trying to infringe upon your rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness should you not be able to defend yourself? What if that person is armed? Should not you be armed to defend your life from those who would threaten your lawful and god given rights?