Sure- as long as the “right to a free press” only includes stuff printed on an 18th century handpress. No computers- nothing on-line no Photographs, no modern newspapers… 
Careful. Next thing you know you’ll be one of those “the Constitution is a living document” people, and Antonin Scalia will come and take away your framed Authentic Conservative certificate. 
Presumably, after he prys it from your cold, dead hand.
That was the kid whose mother left him in a crack house with an illegal gun that was kept under a mattress. It’s very disingenuous to suggest that story is typical of lawful firearms owners.
Then you did not understand the so-called assault weapons ban, which would be far more accurately described as the ‘scary lookin gun ban.’
I believe that the Second Amendment covers man-portable, non-area weapons. It does not cover crew-served or area weapons which are typically considered to be ordnance, not firearms.
No way. Too much evidence from cities like Chicago and DC that indicate registration leads to de facto bans by just refusing to allow people to register.
Bad law that is impossible to enforce unless you give authorites carte-blanche to search any gun owner’s home at any time.
Firearms safety should be taught by parents and through voluntary enrollment in corses.
NICS is fine by me.
Opposed to. There is no good reason to deny me the ability to take home a purchase I made lawfully today, and no reason to believe a waiting period would do anything but deprive me of my goods
If you can buy it at a store, you should be able to buy it at a gun show. If you can sell it as a private owner outside a gun show, you should be able to sell it as a private owner inside one.
And a Remington 700 is potentially FAR more destructive than an M-16, IMO. It’s got a longer range with better accuracy and uses a much more powerful caliber. What’s your point? We don’t have stricter licensing standards to buy a Corvette than a Chevette, either, and a car is not a Constitutional right.
Who said anything about ‘typical’? It’s little disingenous to say that that is what I was suggesting. Are you suggesting that legally purchased firearms are NEVER involved in accidental shootings? Of course not, that would foolish.
BTW, I have owned several firearms in the past, and I’m a pretty good shot.
No, but I think you should supply all the facts at hand, otherwise it rather inaccurately portrays this kid as having found a lawfully owned firearm and shooting someone else.
I never said that lawful gun owners don’t ever have negligent shootings. This, however, was not an example of one of them.
Mine certainly does vary. To take an absolute position that the protection of property does not justify the use of force is to take a vow of poverty – it’s an open invitation for anyone stronger than you to take your stuff at will.
(Obviously, delegating the matter to the police doesn’t address the issue – the police do not limit themselves to convincing thieves of the error of their ways through the application of sweet reason).
Exactly, Steve. Elucidator’s position that he would not use force to protect his material possessions is impossible to actually practice in the real world. If what he is saying were true, then he wouldn’t have any stuff left.
What a complete load of shit. I wouldn’t kill anyone to protect property either, but I can still lock my doors and bring my car keys inside with me. There is also a statistically low chance that anyone will try to take my property and those who only want property are unlikely to enter homes with people in them.
I practice elucidator’s philosophy in the real world and I still have all my stuff. Why is that?
Nice “culture of life,” by the way. A TV is more important than a human life. How deeply thoughtful and spiritual, not to mention consistent.
That’s what I’m saying. I don’t beleive it to be possible. You cannot actually practice a philosophy of not using force to protect possessions and have any possessions left.
Every day your possessions are protected through the threat of force by the military, by the police, and by yourself. Your philosophy is a fantasy.
Or, you could prove me wrong. Where is it that you live? I can show up tomorrow with a moving truck and clear out your possessions to sell on Ebay. If you try and stop me then a struggle would ensue, this is against your philosophy of non-violence. If you simply lock the door I could kick it in. If you call the cops then you are simply farming out the threat of force to others but you remain responsible for it’s use, and this would violate your insane philosophy.
Who said anything about not using force? We’re only talking about deadly force. I wouldn’t kill you but I’d have no qulams about kicking your ass and calling the cops.
So some of you would not use any force to stop someone from stealing from you or robbing you? Hmmmm. What’s your address?
I think some of you may just be full of shit. If anyone robbed or burglarized me, I would stop them (and I have stopped them). It’s surprising how after a few severe beatings, word spread and the burglaries stopped completely. My house became sort of a “no fly” zone for the crooks and they looked elsewhere.
No, we said we wouldn’t KILL someone to stop them from taking property. We didn’t say we wouldn’t use non-deadly force.
Elucidator is clearly talking about violence in general. He claims that he would use force to protect himself or his family, but not his stuff. That’s what we are discussing. Do try and keep up, will you?
But, even if you want to limit it to only deadly force: How do you know that kicking my ass wouldn’t result in my death? How do you know that calling the cops won’t result in my death? It might be unlikely, but it is a possibility that could be avoided simply by letting me take your stuff.
Of course, I wouldn’t want to kill somebody to protect my stuff. I’d warn them first. Depending on the situation, I’d much rather hold them at gunpoint and wait for the cops to show. I’d also rather give them an ass kicking than kill them. But, deadly force is an option on the menu for someone who tries and steal what is mine. Even by calling the police or holding a suspect at bay with a gun is only effective because of the threat of deadly force that goes along with it.
He is saying that he would not use even non-deadly force. Then you came along and said that “I practice elucidator’s philosophy”. I guess now you are saying that you don’t?
Don’t blame us that you have a reading comprehension problem.
Admittedly, that’s a bit of a grey area. On the plus side, a sincere ass-kicking profers the opportunity for atonement, and sincerely demonstrates the urgency of the moral issues involved.
As well, men who kick ass in defense of the homestead have traditionally be accorded a definite boost in the esteem of their womenfolk. This can be handy when negotiating the conditions of your servitude.
For the record, here’s what 'lucy said in his intial post on this subject:
I have bolded what I believe to be the pertinent word. In a subsequent post, it is true that my state’s esteemed newcomer from Texas did indeed use the word “violence” which is rather more broad but in light of his first post, I thought an implication of specifically deadly force was still operant within 'lucy’s overall thesis.
Out of this you derive:
If further proof were necessary that Cognitive Dissonance is reaching epidemic proportions…
For the record, precisely so. Doggy Knees got it exactly. Maybe it might be best if you don’t read my stuff? It seems to confuse you, and, really, that’s too much effort for such a meager benefit.
So, when you said “defensive violence” you actually meant “deadly force”. Interesting. Perhaps you should focus less on that forced cleverness in wording you are so fond of and more on actually saying what it is you mean.