Time To Get Rid of Concealed Carry Bans?
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
Never do, you speak "caucasion" bro? LOL
Would the liberals have an option to own green guns?
budlover13
King Tut
They already do. Polymer frames (think recycling), federally-approved non-tox rounds (no lead), recycling of casings, etc.
andar
Well-Known Member
?
But the truth is simply legalizing marijuana for medical use doesn’t go far enough. Legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana for recreational use, as we currently do with tobacco and alcohol, is a conservative Republican position — or at least it ought to be.
Republicans in general and conservatives in particular like to talk about keeping the government out of the lives of law-abiding, consenting adults. But somehow when there is something they don’t like, or find morally objectionable, they want the government to ban it outright. There is something troubling and hypocritical about that.
We tried prohibition of alcohol in this country and it failed miserably, with the end-game being the creation of a vast criminal enterprise, and rampant violence and corruption. The ban didn’t stop people from purchasing and consuming alcohol — it only pushed it underground, thus creating nice profits for those who were willing to bribe the most politicians and use the most violence to control the production and distribution.
http://www.parcbench.com/2011/03/12/legalizing-marijuana-is-a-conservative-republican-position/
But the truth is simply legalizing marijuana for medical use doesn’t go far enough. Legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana for recreational use, as we currently do with tobacco and alcohol, is a conservative Republican position — or at least it ought to be.
Republicans in general and conservatives in particular like to talk about keeping the government out of the lives of law-abiding, consenting adults. But somehow when there is something they don’t like, or find morally objectionable, they want the government to ban it outright. There is something troubling and hypocritical about that.
We tried prohibition of alcohol in this country and it failed miserably, with the end-game being the creation of a vast criminal enterprise, and rampant violence and corruption. The ban didn’t stop people from purchasing and consuming alcohol — it only pushed it underground, thus creating nice profits for those who were willing to bribe the most politicians and use the most violence to control the production and distribution.
http://www.parcbench.com/2011/03/12/legalizing-marijuana-is-a-conservative-republican-position/
InCognition
Active Member
The funny thing is the anti-gun ignoramus's logic or lack there of, would be the part where they say "well that concealed carry gun used in a theater would of have caused a lot of innocent casualties".
NEWS FLASH: Everyone is about to get blown the fuck away anyways, so you might as well potentially risk some lives to save a whole lot more.
Who gives a fuck about a few extra stray bullets from a pistol, when there are hundreds of them flying out of a high-powered rifled. At least the guy with the concealed carry is trying to do good.
NEWS FLASH: Everyone is about to get blown the fuck away anyways, so you might as well potentially risk some lives to save a whole lot more.
Who gives a fuck about a few extra stray bullets from a pistol, when there are hundreds of them flying out of a high-powered rifled. At least the guy with the concealed carry is trying to do good.
InCognition
Active Member
Sounds like a good idea until all the least-deserving, inner-city, loony-bins who abuse the fuck out of the health care system to begin with, start shooting each other... then we can all chip in and pay for it.
budlover13
King Tut
Not if we require the training. Then they are just eliminating a problem safely and efficiently
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
The lie wasn't what she is, the lie is of course that she exists at all. I don't buy for a second that a 16yr old Internet troll is married. Kids thrown off RIU for being under 18 aren't married, they're liars.
budlover13
King Tut
Actually, asian would suffice. When i was doing my leo thing in the early 90's, there were many races when speaking of classifying someone by ethnicity. The one that caused the most entertainment was that Mexicans, Hispanics, Latinos, Americans of Mexican descent, etc were considered "Caucasian" on most forms. Most people falling into those categories were not too happy when they found out either lol.
budlover13
King Tut
While i can TOTALLY understand where your heart is speaking from, IF you and i ever found ourselves together in that situation, i would GREATLY appreciate if you would cover my back for any unexpected threats while i engage the primary target.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Hey arent you the guy that bemoans the fact I call out racists
Is there anything in that statement that is a racist stereotype?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think you are confused, here's why....
At the beginning of your scenario above is the very real threat of force for "noncompliance" then later in your scenario the government guns come out....the threat is carried out.
You are saying two things at once and presumably BELIEVING in two things at once. You seem to have some cognitive dissonance going on.
One thing you say is that you (or your designated agents) would NOT use force, then you describe a scenario that can ONLY end in force if a peaceful person decides to protect their natural right to defend themselves or own possessions.
Government IS force. Your endorsement of them and the scenario you describe is your approval of the INITIATION of force. If somebody INITATES force against a peaceful person, does the peaceful person have a right to defend themself?
I would not pay your fines but neither would I initiate aggression, do I have the right to defend myself if YOUR chosen agents aggress against me? Do rights of self defense somehow magically expire if the nanny state is the aggressor? How does that happen?
canndo
Well-Known Member
No, you seem to interpret my statements as having a threat of force (I presume physical force). The threat for noncompliance is a fine. What you are saying is akin to claiming that a home owner's association's fine for hanging laundry outside is a threat of "force". There is nothing about government guns coming out anywhere in my statement.
Now, I see you playing out this romantic notion of the harried citizen opening his upstairs window and warning LEOS that he intends to protect his home and property. My scenario is nothing like that. How does a "peaceful person" protect himself from a lien? with a firearm? No one shows up at the door demanding surrender of materials, they simply siphon money from your bank account. Now unless that person goes to the bank with a weapon there is nothing he can do to "protect" himself.
This again, is the gun owners most cherished dream, their breaking out their weapons stash in order to protect themselves from the bad old government's "agents", thus being instant American Heros.
Those folk haven't stopped to think that we are no longer living in 1892. Almost all money passes through official channels. A bank can be instructed to place holds upon your accounts. Now you can no longer pay private parties for services, food, housing and gas. No one is "agressing against you", you are sitting in your home, no one is approaching at all. Now you will have to make a choice, surrender your weapons or lose everything else, and no one comes to your door at all.
I know the right wants it to look differently but the fact is that "agents" going door to door to collect weapons - in the millions, is inefficient when the owners can be induced to surrender their firearms all by themselves.
You can pay any private party you want to without ever using a bank.
You can get a loan for any amount of money without ever using a bank.
Now how does your scenario work out? People going door to door, which could never happen, there would be so much blood in the streets.
So how it works out is that the people keep their guns no matter what government says or does.
I own over 200 firearms, my most cherished dream is to shoot a 15+ point whitetail, the last thing I would ever want is a war with my local police.
I LOL at your conclusion that all gun owners have a fantasy about fighting their own government, You obviously are very afraid of guns, VERY AFRAID to make a statement like that.
canndo
Well-Known Member
You are looking for absolutes. Sure, some people will manage to keep their guns by going underground but most will not. Most people work for a living at a job that pays its taxes and complies with the law. when those folks are told that your wages are garnished then that is exactly what will happen. When ever I explain all this, most people don't believe, but ask anyone who has been in the middle of child support issues and they will fully agree. Don't surrender your weapon? lose your driver's license. Dont surrender your weapons? lose your ability to cross interstate lines, lose your passport, lose your other business licsences. The point is to give gun owners a simple choice.
Ummm great plan, but how will the government KNOW YOU HAVE A FIREARM??????????????????????????????????
canndo
Well-Known Member
That is what gun registration is for.