Yea, nice underhanded insult. You can just say what you really mean.
Who’s context? Yours? Since when is your context any reason to deny someone else their rights? Why do cops get these magical rights to carry guns while another citizen does not?
Cops routinely violate the rights of citizens. You can choose to relinquish your personal liberties to a police state if you wish, I will never do so.
You already have. Tried to buy an RPG launcher lately?
Oh sure all the time. Another brilliant response
You do understand that you don’t have a right to bring a gun into Kroger, yes? All that retard in Charlottesville accomplished was getting himself banned from the property.
You do understand that you are completely wrong about that, yes? A quote from the op’s link: "They restrained the man to ask him questions, but released him after they confirmed he is not a convicted felon, owned the gun legally and it was not concealed.
Police say he was cooperative and did nothing illegal."
I’m sure that it varies from state to state, but in my state, each business gets to decide if firearms are allowed on their premises.
Obviously. And since this guy was not arrested I think we can assume the store he was in had no prohibitions against firearms in the store.
In other words, you’ve got nothing.
Liberals believe that once guns are outlawed that police officers will no longer need guns.
Actually CNC and Waterjet technology works better for this and has far outpaced 3D printing in terms of the ability to make gun parts. You are correct that people will make them, but we don’t need new technology to do it. It already exists and is actually cheap enough for the average person to buy.
Suffice it to say that however people get guns, they will. The need doesn’t go away just because somebody passes a law saying the need is unjustified.
Sure I do. I know of no advocates of a freely armed citizenry (including myself) advocating access to military shoulder fired artillery. All we want is the liberty guaranteed by the constitution to protect ourselves.
This means weapons common in general society: Handguns, semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
I think by “random person” you mean American citizen having committed no crime and holding the right to do so.
And you defeat your own point about the lack of context by admitting that people intent on doing harm can do so without impediment. THAT is one context where law abiding citizens “bent” on defending themselves and their neighbors “need” to have a gun handy.
Actually, you aren’t usually arrested because a business has a policy preventing gun possession on their premises. They can only ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are trespassing. Businesses have to post the restriction and you are supposed to abide by it, but violation of their posting is not even a misdemeanor in most cases.
This, of course, excludes public buildings, airports, court houses, etc where open or conceal carrying is illegal. Private businesses are not covered by these restrictions.
Don’t fool yourself. Liberals fervently pray for the day when only the cops and military do have guns. And the rest of us will bend over in grateful servitude to their socialist god.
I get what you’re saying and I’m not trying to be argumentative, but this isn’t really theoretical. In countries where this has already happened they do disarm their police. The gist of what you’re eluding to is still there, but they use various administrative mechanisms to enforce their agenda. Basically, they put compliance before working, earning, buying, driving, and whatever essential activity they deem appropriate to link.
Sure, the police state still exists, but the illusion of an “enlightened” society where their police carry only sticks is very important to them. Of course, in some cases, like in the U.K. criminals still have guns and those who don’t just use grenades. True story.
In some REALLY liberal countries, the crooks have laser guns and the coppers have to wear jammies and diapers and carry around a big rattle for protection. True story.
You may be right, but color me skeptical
All the more reason why I refuse to be disarmed. The cops can carry all the pepper spray and sticks they wish to.
I will stick with my shotgun.
That’s silly. WE are the big source of guns in the Americas. Reducing guns here in America would reduce their availability over much of the world. Nor are the cops likely to be “ambushed for guns” any more than that happens in other countries.
If “by magic the guns already out there vanish”, what happens is that gun availability over North and South America crashes because its biggest supplier is gone. Quality of life in the whole region increases as gun deaths decrease.
Because that’s what the law in some places - most places actually - says. Even in America the Supreme Court could easily re-interpret the Second Amendment to be far more restrictive than the ridiculously permissive way it does now. They won’t of course, but there’s no “magical rights” keeping them from doing so.
Don’t be silly. If a “police state” wanted to take your gun or kill you, they’d take your gun or kill you and your owning a gun wouldn’t help you in the slightest.
And in a real police state the vast majority of Second Amercement fans would be fighting for it, not against it anyway. They’d be lining up to join the death squads so they could kick in the doors of suspected liberals and homosexuals or anyone with browner skin than them and murder them all in the name of “freedom”. “Second Amendment solutions” in action.
That’s as big a fantasy as the Prohibitionists’ confident prediction that banning alcohol would solve myriads of social problems.
Take a look at the thriving illegal gun shops in the Philippines.
You think the western hemisphere would be gun free if only it weren’t for us gun-nut Yankees? Take a look at Brazil:
.
Speaking as someone who lives in the UK and follows the news fairly closely, what the fuck are you talking about?
Can I just sacrifice them to an angry mob?