Concealed-weapon owner shoots hatchet-wielding attacker in Wash. 7-Eleven

bearkat42 said:

Some people, no. POTUS, yes. The nature of the position requires it.

Click to expand...

In other words you do believe some people have more rights than others and have some kind of right to rule over them ?

Rob Roy said:

In other words you do believe some people have more rights than others and have some kind of right to rule over them ?

Click to expand...

If you are going to have a President then yes, I believe that he/she deserves special protection. Just don't ask me to protect them.

Rob Roy said:

Under what you are suggesting, the redefinition would be changing the meaning of "gun rights" to "gun privileges" .

A right and a government granted privilege are two different things.

"Pot legalization" is proceeding in much the same way. Taxed and regulated is much different than simply decriminalized and government staying the fuck out of it.

Click to expand...

Yeah i think i agree. I dont agree with the gov staying out of it. When there is no agreement about limits and controls shit always runs amok. There is no exception that i can think of. Without regs the greediest and least honorable folks push the limits of shit for narrow greed or an other malignant reason. The gov is a necessary evil I think.

Really i dont give it too much thought. I see zero issues with tough regs and banning certain weapons. Those regs would not impact me, a gun respecting American, at all

bearkat42 said:

If you are going to have a President then yes, I believe that he/she deserves special protection. Just don't ask me to protect them.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the people ruling over other individuals without the express consent of those individuals are the ones threatening force...with guns. Would you agree with that ?

since this thread was started, there have been 328 deaths by firearm in the united states alone.