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.
This is a big problem, many people who own guns think they will act like dirty Harry and stand cool and collected while shooting and killing any criminal that comes their way thus making them the hero they always wanted to be. And now this wannabe hero is dead because of it.
Most people who own guns avoid using them if at all possible.
The thing is, the gun nuts say they should bear arms to guard against state/government tyranny.
Then I say: Cool, we can use our guns against the tyrannical treasonous administration headed by Trump.
Gun nuts:
.
I know you are a leftist, but my goodness, you sound mentally unhinged.
Trump nor Obama are/were eviscerating the Constitution, neither were Bush or Clinton before them. Thus none of them represented a tyrannical government.
Any of the 4 or those potus's before, might have done something unconstitutional, but the mechanisms within the framework of our republic kept much of it in check.
The so called "gun nuts" are typically patriotic citizens who understand why the FF's knew that subversion and destruction could come from within.
Thus the 2nd Amendment was the only thing to help protect against it.
However it was never envisioned that political/ideological differences (within the framework of our constitutional republic), would constitute armed citizens need to overthrow a political opponent.
Only an attempt to destroy the Constitution and take away our freedoms would constitute a tyrannical government. God willing that day will never come.
But if it does, only an armed citizenry could restore the aforementioned.
As the title of the series says, it focuses on reprinting actual cases of good guys/gals with guns, thwarting the bad guys/gals.
We already have plenty of reporting of accidental, criminal and irresponsible actions. That is essentially true with the MSM because it helps to further their anti-gun false narratives.
For example if teenage criminal gang member/s (not enrolled in a local school) have a shootout near said school, the headline might read "children shooting each other in school".
The NRA has many programs for safety, proper gun usage, and training of citizens & LEO's alike to help prevent such things.
The Eddie Eagle program taught in schools is but one such program designed to help children to not touch guns and what to do if they come upon one;
But to proclaim a president you may not care for politically, as constituting a tyrannical government to justify an armed insurrection against them, is pretty unhinged in my view.
I know you are a leftist, but my goodness, you sound mentally unhinged.
Trump nor Obama are/were eviscerating the Constitution, neither were Bush or Clinton before them. Thus none of them represented a tyrannical government.
Any of the 4 or those potus's before, might have done something unconstitutional, but the mechanisms within the framework of our republic kept much of it in check.
The so called "gun nuts" are typically patriotic citizens who understand why the FF's knew that subversion and destruction could come from within.
Thus the 2nd Amendment was the only thing to help protect against it.
However it was never envisioned that political/ideological differences (within the framework of our constitutional republic), would constitute armed citizens need to overthrow a political opponent. Only an attempt to destroy the Constitution and take away our freedoms would constitute a tyrannical government. God willing that day will never come.
But if it does, only an armed citizenry could restore the aforementioned.
What your post said is complete hogwash, it's not based on any facts. You throwing out the destruction of the Constitution as some kind of barometer is classic moving the goal post. The destruction Constitution is NEVER part of the consideration for a tyrannical government.
I have included the Supreme Court's decision on Heller vs DC below, if you can find me where the SC said tyrannical means the destruction of the Constitution, you get a prize.
In fact, Justice Scalia wrote that the right to bear arm predates the Constitution. So it is not at all possible that the Constitution's destruction would be part of the consideration.
Since Scalia's opinions is too long, I'll quote the Federalist's explanation of the SC decision.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority and quoted Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which recognizes “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” Scalia insisted that the Second Amendment acknowledges rights that predate the Constitution, such as the right of revolution.
When you say "it was never envisioned that political/ideological differences (within the framework of our constitutional republic), would constitute armed citizens need to overthrow a political opponent"....
You can see how wrong you were right?
The overthrowing of a government due to politics/ideological differences IS EXACTLY the basis for the rights to bear arms. As explained by Scalia.
I concealed carry to protect myself and things or people I care about. I don't carry to protect some company I don't care about from getting robbed. If that company doesnt want to be robbed, they can provide their own security, if people there want to defend themselves that's their right, if the don't it's not my responsibility to defend them.
This ^ will get ignored as well as the very reply I'm writing right now.
In statist world you have both teams arguing over "good guys vs bad guys with guns" when in freedom world the emphasis is on the principles:
1. You own yourself.
2. Property rights are absolute.
3. You have the right to act or not act when another party violates the non-aggression principle against not only an innocent party but also yourself.
If a bad guy walking down the street comes across another man (as I watch from a park bench), produces a weapon and demands the innocent's wallet I have the right to defend the innocent as well as the right to not get involved.
If I was "required" to act that would indeed be slavery. I know 99% of the population is fine with slavery but I'm not.
If the bad guy walks up to me as I sit on that bench, produces a gun, and demands my wallet I have the right to fight back or not. Even if that means he blows my head off it's my right to decide (see tenet #1 above).
Red needs to drop this "good guy with a gun" narrative. It's subversive. Then again, Red is full of closet Marxists so that makes sense.
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.
