While this is true to the extent it’s practically a tautology, I don’t think it means what you think it means based on the rest of your statement.
Case in point, I’m a gun owner. I (partially) justify my gun ownership as a deterrent to tyranny. However, while I can envision an eventuality under which violent revolution would be necessary, I can’t honestly say I think such a thing is even vanishingly likely in my lifetime–and if it does happen, I’m far more likely to be on the side of the average anti-gun type as the prospect of right-wing/theocratic tyranny is to my mind obviously more likely than some kind of socialist or progressive tyranny.
Since it was a strip club, I assume they were arguing over who had the right to tip a particular dancer. With the recent precedent that denial of a $150 favor justifies homicide, it seems absurd that Hernandez could be charged, given the likely prices in the strip club. Is it all about some technicality? It wasn’t Texas or it wasn’t night-time?
In any event, the incident just increases our faith in the Second Amendment. It’s really Bradley’s fault that he wasn’t carrying a gun with which to stand his ground.
If you have to ask then you never had my fourth-grade Grammar teacher, who was also my Arithmetic, History, Religion, Reading, and Etiquette nun. Contractions are not used in polite company. They are, shall we say, low. Just as calling each other by familiar forms of our names was inappropriate, even on the playground. My mother agreed, and even today I feel a bit uncomfortable being called “Mike.”
I just went to a tactical shooting class and the guys running it were talking about gun confiscations and how we should all donate to the NRA because it is the only thing keeping THE SHEEP from taking away all guns.
Nothing further to add, but I just wanted to share my brush with Gun-Nut Stupidity.
As opposed to target shooting, I guess. Mostly it was a self defense class that suggested where to shoot people to stop them quickly and on control of quick shots.
It was a little meh, actually. But I did get to shoot a bunch of pistols.
My apologies. I thought you were saying that we would devolve into the Brazil scenario of ubiquitous zip g if we imposed too much gun regulation.
Sure they will. Haven’t you seen Wolverines? Or for a more recent example, Afghanistan and Iraq? And lets be honest. There will be military units that back the rebels, it wont be that one sided.
Well, they aren’t advocating it, they just want the ability to do it if it comes to that.
The revolutionary war was the violent overthrow of government as well.
And yet the gun grabbers vilify and persecute gun owners. Their arguments frequently devolve to calling gun owners names.
Between the nut that wants to keep his guns and the nut that wants to take them away, are you sure the gun nuts are the more dangerous?
My local gun range had a party a while back and they had a bunch of guns set up at different stalls and for a fixed price, you could fire a magazine through almost every gun they had for rent. From the S&W 500 and 460 to the NAA 22mag. They sold a bunch of pistols that day as people realized that they prefer some other gun to the one they already own.
The paradox of being a reasonable gun-rights advocate is that your hobbies somewhat often can put you in proximity to people within one government-mind-control ray of shooting up the place.
That might be true, although I think Germany-style laws would probably be ultimately more politically feasible (and generally preferable, in my opinion).
Its the price of living in a society. Sometimes people vilify you for wanting to preserve a right. Some people do it with guns rights, other do it with abortion rights.
Well, both side have access to firearms. Considering the demography of who uses guns inc rime, I think its fair to say that disarming the otherwise eligible populace will have a negligible effect on gun violence (not counting suicides).
If the founding fathers felt that way, we’d still be part of England.
Mexico might be a better analogy for what would happen here than the UK. The Uk already had very low gun ownership in the population including the criminal class. Disarming the citizenry there did very little to reduce gun violence. Mexico on the other hand had an armed criminal class and disarming the citizenry turned them into victims. If you want UK type results from a ban you have to have a UK type situation prior to the ban.
I went on a bit of a buying binge that week.
I have been moving away from glocks lately. The lack of an external safety is a disadvantage for me. I prefer single action double action with an external safety, and a magazine safety.
Yes, there are those who vilify people who wish to preserver their right to their own lives, and to be safe from unreasonable dangers to it, from those who mistakenly call their fetish a “right”.
Great, let’s get started creating one. Glad to hear you’re with us.
There’s a couple of concepts here kinda hard to wrap my head around. One is the parallel between a woman’s right to control over her very own body as compared with someones right to own and bear a particular form of object.
The other is that “gun grabber” is a perfectly acceptable label to pin on anyone who doesn’t utterly accept the DA program, and “gun nut” is a vilification.
The direct comparison between England and Mexico I will pass by quickly. Perhaps when I am no longer gaping in stunned astonishment. Ordinarily, I might ask something like “Are you fucking serious?!!” but I’m fairy sure that’s superfluous.
