Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blue Devil

Your Liberty and Safety - Automobile Seat-belts, Vicious Dogs, and Self Defense Weapons - They are Treated Differently by the Government - Should They Be, or Not, and How/Why?

Recommended Posts

- Your Liberty and Safety - Automobile Seat-belts, Vicious Dogs, and Self-Defense Weapons -

They are Treated Differently by the Government - Should They Be, or Not, and How/Why?

 

 

All Three(3) of these Safety Devices are treated differently by the Government.

 

Automobile Seat-belts - Are required by law, and mandatory for all occupants in a moving vehicle.

Vicious Dogs - Of any kind require only a local license, and some sort of rudimentary temporary restraining system (leash) in public.

Self-Defense Weapons - Are either outright prohibited (both on the State and Federal level), or, heavily regulated, requiring a myriad of Laws, Licenses, Exclusions, and Conditions for both type and use.

 

Should they be, or not?

 

And How/Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2020 at 4:15 PM, IkeBana said:

 

I've made my argument.  Debating the Second Amendment has been a waste of time for 50 years.  It's been bastardized into a scourge of democratized gun carnage.  That's my argument.

 

Some think gun rights are worth a classroom full if six year old lives.  I don't.  

 

And the question in the thread topic is specious right wing claptrap.  The three things have nothing to do with each other.

 

I spent time in law enforcement, as did my grandfather, who taught me about guns, shooting, and personal security.

 

Gun rights has exactly nothing to do with a "classroom full of six year old lives."  If people got past gun control and political correctness and did proper security measures, those kids wouldn't be at risk.  To equate a classroom full of six year old lives with a "scourge of democratized gun carnage" is pure fallacy, and shows a lack of understanding of the facts of the situation IMHO.

 

As for my own perspective, I'm alive today because I had a firearm and knew how to use it.  I have an inalienable right of self-defense and self-determination.  More fundamentally, I have a right to life, which means I have a right to defend my life, which means I have a right to own and possess the most effective tools with which to conduct that defense.  Seeking to strip me of the means to defend my life is nothing less than an attack upon my right to life itself; at least that's how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

I spent time in law enforcement, as did my grandfather, who taught me about guns, shooting, and personal security.

 

Gun rights has exactly nothing to do with a "classroom full of six year old lives."  If people got past gun control and political correctness and did proper security measures, those kids wouldn't be at risk.  To equate a classroom full of six year old lives with a "scourge of democratized gun carnage" is pure fallacy, and shows a lack of understanding of the facts of the situation IMHO.

 

As for my own perspective, I'm alive today because I had a firearm and knew how to use it.  I have an inalienable right of self-defense and self-determination.  More fundamentally, I have a right to life, which means I have a right to defend my life, which means I have a right to own and possess the most effective tools with which to conduct that defense.  Seeking to strip me of the means to defend my life is nothing less than an attack upon my right to life itself; at least that's how I see it.

Obviously this country's sickening history of democratized gun carnage is not a problem for you.

 

PS - I am probably more adept with a rifle than you or anybody else in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IkeBana said:

Obviously this country's sickening history of democratized gun carnage is not a problem for you.

 

PS - I am probably more adept with a rifle than you or anybody else in this forum.

 

Using the word "adept"? ...probable means you are not.

 

The record of Democrat National Socialism gun carnage - against its own people - validates both the Founders and their Constitutional wisdom.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IkeBana said:

Obviously this country's sickening history of democratized gun carnage is not a problem for you.

 

Since that "history" doesn't have any basis in fact, instead being nothing but over-emotionalized hyperbole and propaganda, then my only problem with it is how some people falsely push it to further authoritarian and unconstitutional governmental agendas.

 

9 hours ago, IkeBana said:

PS - I am probably more adept with a rifle than you or anybody else in this forum.

 

I doubt it.

 

Shooting is a perishable skill.  Based on what I've seen of your postings, I suspect you most likely haven't seriously trained with a rifle - any rifle - since your military service.  Sadly, I know too many military veterans and police officers who were highly skilled at one time, but who have neglected their training because they assume that just because they were "adept" at one time that they would remain so regardless of their commitment to maintaining their old proficiencies.  

 

When I was in law enforcement there was an Academy classmate of mine who just barely edged me out for the "Top Gun" trophy - i.e. the best qualifying score with firearms.  Afterwards, I would invite him on occasion to join me in training days at the range, and he would generally sneer something about how his Academy scores proved he was a "natural" and thus didn't need to practice.   I finally stopped even trying to invite him to join me.  Over time, his quarterly qualification scores steadily grew worse, until he was barely able to qualify at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spartan said:

 

Since that "history" doesn't have any basis in fact, instead being nothing but over-emotionalized hyperbole and propaganda, then my only problem with it is how some people falsely push it to further authoritarian and unconstitutional governmental agendas.

Feh.  Spewers of "fake news" presuming to lecture anybody on hyperbole and propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 2:13 PM, IkeBana said:

Feh.  Spewers of "fake news" presuming to lecture anybody on hyperbole and propaganda.

 

This IS supposed to be a "clean" debate room, Ike.  Insults and non-answers are not valid responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...