“The only thing that stops a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun.”
EVERYONE assumes they are the Good Guy…even the “Bad Guys” themselves! That’s why they feel justified in going out and start shooting…to punish, pre-emptively/prophylactically stopping a threat, or going down in a blaze of glory as an inspirational/symbolic act of…whatever “virtuous” agenda they’re trying to push.
Robbing someone at gunpoint is just “work” to them.
Discuss.
“…Shall Not Be Infringed.” ?
Lets suppose we have a responsible gun store owner…one who actually discerns the capacity of his prospective customers…observes several individuals who are plainly visually impaired, mentally/psychologically challenged, and one known to be a violent criminal.
Individuals who “shouldn’t” have access to firearms.
Would refusing to sell to these individuals be “infringing the right to bear arms”, or must he sell to a disaster waiting to happen?
Without any evidence to back up this claim, I"m inclined to believe it’s false. I suspect some criminals are fairly self-aware and know that they’re shitty people.
No, and I’ve heard of gun shops refusing to make a sale they felt uncomfortable with.
Sure, true for some, but certainly not all. I’m with you in suspecting some criminals are self-aware enough to know that what they’re doing is wrong, but also suspect there are other self-aware criminals who consider their own actions superior to or outside of the law, and still others who are not sufficiently self-aware and who think that what they’re doing is only right.
The Second Amendment only applies to governments, not private businesses, so no, a business that refuses to sell cannot be in breach of the Second Amendment.
This issue is made more difficult by trying to clarify the rules, instead of easier as might be expected.
The outcome is the issue, not the clarity or consistency of the law. Currently in the US, the outcome is a vast number of violent deaths, violent crimes, threats, and widespread fear.
Analyze and change the laws with the purpose of improving the outcome, not to maximize their internal theoretical consistency.
This is dumb. Noone who robs people for a living is arguably a good guy with a gun.
The prohibition from infringing on rights is not directed at the general population, it is directed at the government. I can say no guns in the house and I would not be violating the 2nd amendment.
But there are other prohibitions that prevent the general population from refusing to serve certain, suspect classes. If you are a gun shop owner, you cannot refuse to sell guns to black people.
Were the bundy’s the good guys or the bad guys with the gun when they initiated an armed standoff with federal agents in order to continue to steal from the community?
How often is it said on these forums that, if you disagree with the police’s lawful orders, that you should still follow them, and take your day in court? Did they follow this advice?
Yeah, cop thinks he sees you reach towards your waist, and he blows you away and it’s your fault, even if you didn’t do anything at all.’
But, if you ignore law enforcement’s orders and threaten to kill them, then you are a hero of the right.
I’ll take it that you feel that they were the good guys with the guns, then, as you have gone to great lengths to avoid answering a very simple question.
One post is “great lengths” in your eyes? That’s weird.
As for the Bundys, I have mixed feelings on the topic. Ideally, people would not resort to violence, or threats of violence to achieve their political goals. It’s the course I’d recommend. OTOH, a jury of their peers have largely excused the actions of the Bundys and their supporters.
I would hesitate to apply the “good guys” label to them