Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Things like this annoy me. I was tempted to make the title of the thread different, but to me the issue is larger than any one man (or politician) and so is beyond the scope of being a mere election or two-party politics issue (since both parties seem equally guilty), as this is a systemic problem in countries worldwide, and there is no shortage of this problem here in the United States. Hence, the title of the thread I borrow from a famous line in Orwell's novel, Animal Farm.
I find this situation one of these unfortunate quandaries that is thrust upon citizens by the powers that be, and such a quandary would not exist if I had my way. In this case, it is not the fact that a person wants to possess and carry a gun which is so much the problem, so much as it is an issue of how public servants are walking poster children for granting (or attempting to do so, or simply desiring to do so) themselves legal privilege to do that which the peon lower-class peasantry (a.k.a. "citizens," though "peasants" is really a better word when faced with the reality that we truly do have a two-tiered society where public servants grant themselves legal privileges not afforded to the serfs they govern over) cannot legally do.
Now, I don't know what Perry really wants to do.... and whether the article is just a bunch of speculative claims or not, but just for sake of argument, lets say he really does want to pursue one or more of the options in the article so he can try to weasel out of having to obey with the preexisting law that may bars him (as it does all the other peasants class of citizenry - but not many public servants, because as stated, they have graciously granted themselves enhanced legal privileges not afforded to the rest of the serfs who they rule over with an iron fist) from carrying his firearm around town when he is 'out and about.' I might perhaps object to what he proposes to do (though I could understand why he might feel the need to resort to such a method, as his hand is being forced on the issue since the preexisting law was not put in place by him, so he did not create the problem to begin with).
In my opinion, if Perry wants to carry his gun about town, something apparently denied to the serf underclass, he should perhaps go about it one of two ways:
(1) Either he should do what I would call the morally right thing and flagrantly break the law as a form of social protest, thus putting himself on equal legal footing with the rest of the serf underclass.
(2) Else, he can take that Executive Order that he is being advised by the supposed experts as a legal avenue to pursue, which grants himself legal privilege to carry a firearm not afforded to the citizenry underclass, and write it such that it applies equally to the serf underclass. Unfortunately, legal equality rarely seems to be a concern for many public servants, their "lip service" lies not withstanding, where they pretend they are. Whether such an EO would even withstand legal scrutiny is beside the point. Politicians want legal privilege, is the substance of my objection.
Things like this annoy me. I was tempted to make the title of the thread different, but to me the issue is larger than any one man (or politician), as this is a systemic problem in countries worldwide, and there is no shortage of this problem here in the United States. Hence, the title of the thread I borrow from a famous line in Orwell's novel, Animal Farm.
I find this situation one of these unfortunate quandaries that I find is thrust upon citizens by the powers that be, and such a quandary would not exist if I had my way. In this case, it is not the fact that a person wants to possess and carry a gun which is so much the problem, so much as it is an issue of how public servants are walking poster children for granting (or attempting to do so, or simply desiring to do so) themselves legal privilege to do that which the peon lower-class peasantry (a.k.a. "citizens," though "peasants" is really a better word when faced with the reality that we truly do have a two-tiered society where public servants grant themselves legal privileges not afforded to the serfs they govern over).
Now, I don't know what Perry really wants to do.... and whether the article is just a bunch of speculative claims or not, but just for sake of argument, lets say he really does want to pursue one or more of the options in the article so he can try to weasel out of having to obey with the preexisting law that may bars him (as it does all the other peasants class of citizenry - but not many public servants, because as stated, they have graciously granted themselves enhanced legal privileges not afforded to the rest of the serfs who they rule over with an iron fist) from carrying his firearm around town when he is 'out and about.' I have a problem with what he proposes to do.
In my opinion, if Perry wants to carry his gun about town, something apparently denied to the serf underclass, he should perhaps go about it one of two ways:
(1) Either he should do what I would call the morally right thing and flagrantly break the law as a form of social protest, thus putting himself on equal legal footing (including legal jeopardy) with the rest of the serf underclass.
(2) Else, he can take that Executive Order that he is being advised by the supposed experts an avenue to pursue, which grants himself legal privilege to own a firearm not afforded to the citizenry underclass, and write it such that it applies equally to the serf underclass. Unfortunately, legal equality rarely seems to be a concern for many public servants, their "lip service" lies not withstanding, where they pretend they are. Whether such an EO would even withstand legal scrutiny is beside the point. Politicians want legal privilege, is the substance of my objection.
As a resident of TX, the state lead by Gov. Perry I can legally carry a gun with me... I'm not seeing the problem here.
When Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry goes for a jog in Texas, the governor doesn't just throw on a pair of gym shorts and tennis shoes before dashing out the door. He also packs a concealed .380 Ruger loaded with deadly hollow-point bullets, fully equipped with a laser-sight for precise killing.
Unless of course he made an effort to change that law and give the people of DC the same rights as other citizens.
I could definitely go for that. I don't get it though, the article is all hypothetical, nothing about Perry's actual intentions unless I missed something.
I could definitely go for that. I don't get it though, the article is all hypothetical, nothing about Perry's actual intentions unless I missed something.
What do you expect from an article like this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
