Open Carry, Funding Likely Police Issues Next Session

[TheDan]

Every law restricts someone's rights.

...and that's why I'm a scofflaw

 

[monkeywrench7]

Every law restricts someone's rights.

Precisely, but as the name "Gun Talk" suggests, gun rights is what we're primarily addressing here. Gun carry laws only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves or others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

Precisely, but as the name "Gun Talk" suggests, gun rights is what we're primarily addressing here. Gun carry laws only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves or others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point is only replying to the poster that said politicians should be fined for passing laws that inhibit rights. ALL LAWS inhibit rights. Thats why they are laws.

 

[Recoil45]

Do people really have right to murder others?

 

[zincwarrior]

Do people really have right to murder others?

You're putting in laws taking away my freedoms!

 

[Younggun]

Every law restricts someone's rights.

Not true.

You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of another so laws specifically addressing such infringements are not a violation of anyone's rights.

This are the only laws we should have. Most laws deal with "pre crime". They make people criminals before any rights are actually violated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

Not true.

You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of another so laws specifically addressing such infringements are not a violation of anyone's rights.

This are the only laws we should have. Most laws deal with "pre crime". They make people criminals before any rights are actually violated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is an interesting argument to have, but we're going to have to agree to disagree, unless you want to start a new thread, yes? I don't want to vere the topic too OT (unless its an excuse for another dog meme).

Lookout meme coming right for US!

To the topic, any actual intel on whats being pushed next session?

 

[NavyVet1959]

Not true.

You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of another so laws specifically addressing such infringements are not a violation of anyone's rights.

This are the only laws we should have. Most laws deal with "pre crime". They make people criminals before any rights are actually violated.

For example, you can worship a religion that believes in human sacrifice, but you just are not allowed to actually do the human sacrifices.

Originally, laws were for punishing those after they performed unacceptable actions (and hopefully deterring others from performing those same actions). It has slowly devolved into punishing those who even *think* about unacceptable actions. George Orwell was right in 1984, he was just a bit off on the date.

I believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute. I believe that the Founding Fathers intended for all free men to be able to own/bear any and all arms. Yeah, that even includes the bat-excrement crazy ones and the ex-felons. We can't restrict a natural born right, but we can punish them if they abuse that right. I don't care if the ex-felon uses and ax or a gun to murder someone -- he should get the same punishment either way. Punish the ACTION, not the TOOL used to enable the action.

 

[Younggun]

This is an interesting argument to have, but we're going to have to agree to disagree, unless you want to start a new thread, yes? I don't want to vere the topic too OT (unless its an excuse for another dog meme).

Lookout meme coming right for US!

To the topic, any actual intel on whats being pushed next session?

You're a daisy if you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

I believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute. I believe that the Founding Fathers intended for all free men to be able to own/bear any and all arms. Yeah, that even includes the bat-excrement crazy ones and the ex-felons. We can't restrict a natural born right, but we can punish them if they abuse that right. I don't care if the ex-felon uses and ax or a gun to murder someone -- he should get the same punishment either way. Punish the ACTION, not the TOOL used to enable the action.

Slaves couldn't own fire arms. . .

 

[NavyVet1959]

Slaves couldn't own fire arms. . .

Did you notice the key word in my post?

"free"

Slaves were not *free*... People currently incarcerated are not *free*...

Now, having said that, slaves did have access to other tools that could be deadly.

I suspect that if they had fought for their freedom instead of the way it *given* to them, we would have an entirely different situation in this country right now.

 

[zincwarrior]

180,000 did fight. I do believe thats more than the Army of Virginia and the Army of the Tennessee combined.

 

[satx78247]

zincwarrior,

Actually you are DEAD WRONG. - Period documents indicate that MANY slaves had firearms & hunted for the owner's family, other slaves & their own family.

At the beginning of TWBTS, it was "subsistence hunters", who were mostly slaves, NA & "the poorest whites", who were the CSA's most feared snipers.
(CSA service records show that MANY slaves were manumitted by their owners so that they could take the Oath of Enlistment. - Slaves could NOT be enlisted, as they were not free to "swear an oath".)

ADDENDA: ONE of the self-serving & often KNOWING LIES told about TWBTS is that "no slaves served in the CSA military". = That's called a "LIE BY OMMISSION", as most of the South-HATING bigots know perfectly well that the Black soldiers, sailors & marines of the CSA were FREE MEN , who CHOSE to fight for Dixie FREEDOM.
(For most men who served the CSA, the WBTS was "about" INDEPENDENCE for their State, just as the motivation of most of the the rebels of 1776 was mainly about INDEPENDENCE from English rule.)

Fyi, the PACSA was about 25% persons who were referred to in service records as: "other than white people". - That "uncomfortable" FACT is something that the DYs, the leftists & the South-HATERS want to ignore, as it makes their theory that TWBTS that slavery was NOT "the only cause", "mainly over slavery" or even "one of the major causes" of the WBTS & it makes them look DISHONEST, terminally IGNORANT, STUPID or all 3.
(My G-G-GF's service record is stamped: INDIAN.)

yours, satx

 

[seeker_two]

It was his choice to open carry a rifle exercise his right to assemble at a protest. It was a very poor decision for a number of reasons. He leaned a valuable lesson.

Fixed it for you.....

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Police don't get to make laws, just enforce them. If they don't like OC they need to suck it up and drive on.

Also, they should be appropriately trained and funded. That was already a problem even before OC. Maybe if they fired some of the lawyers and beuracrats they could make the police budget work better.

 

[satx78247]

Mexican_Hippie,

As a member of The House of Lords said in the 19th century: It is a sad thing to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.

yours, satx

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Mexican_Hippie,

As a member of The House of Lords said in the 19th century: It is a sad thing to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.

yours, satx

Love it. I need to get that printed on a T-shirt!

 

[TheDan]

Another quote from him that is still quite relevant is, "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

He would look great on a t-shirt

G.K. Chesterton

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Ha ha good stuff

 

[zincwarrior]

edit wrong thread