Is the nation of Sweden in the united states? Is it bordered by the nation of Mexico? Is its government known for being especially corrupt when it comes to rule of law? Has it demonstrated outright hostility towards its citizenry? Correct. A criminal individual being killed as a result of their decision to violate the rights of others for their own private gain, is purely immaterial. They made their decision, they must deal with the consequences of their actions. Such has indeed been taken into consideration. However it must be noted that such ultimately changes nothing whatsoever. Those who are committing these crimes, are overwhelming those who cannot legally possess firearms under any circumstances. And yet despite such facts, they continue to possess them regardless. It is not merely assumed. Rather it has been confirmed as being a matter of fact. It is routinely confirmed as being fact tens to hundreds of thousands of times every single year. It is routinely confirmed every single time a law-abiding citizen is denied a permit to own or carry a firearm bcause they have not met the state mandate of good cause, while such laws simultaneously do nothing to prevent the illegal acquisition of firearms by those who should not only not have them, but not even be out of prison. By what measure is the need determined to be overstated? What is the basis for such a claim?
>>The Libertarian Enterprise Working to fulfill the promise of the American Revolution since 1995 http://www.ncc-1776.org<< http://www.lneilsmith.org/index.html I remember a hippy telling me in 1969, after I asked her what she did, that she was working for the revolution. I asked her, what revolution? Clearly the new hippies are equally naïve, but lean to the right instead of the left.
What "revolution" are you talking about? His blog was about using a politician's stance on gun rights as an indicator of how he(or she) views your Constitutional rights. How did you get "revolution" out of that?
What if I told you that between my brother and myself we had over half a million dollars worth of firearms. Would you believe me?
Well, quite simply that the argument of self defense is not valid if firearms are more commonly used to commit crimes. I do believe that the pragmatic position is to seek to implement such laws that reduce the number of crimes to a greater degree than they reduce the possibility of self defense. Then it sounds like you need more gun control, not less. I did think it went without saying that I think that gun control laws should be enforced. Logically by the proportion of cases of use of firearms that constitutes self defense.
I did not expect your argument to be that the US is simply more crappy than Sweden, but I must say I'm sort of flattered. Which means that stricter gun control is needed. It is not merely assumed. Rather it has been confirmed as being a matter of fact. It is routinely confirmed as being fact tens to hundreds of thousands of times every single year. It is routinely confirmed every single time a law-abiding citizen is denied a permit to own or carry a firearm bcause they have not met the state mandate of good cause, while such laws simultaneously do nothing to prevent the illegal acquisition of firearms by those who should not only not have them, but not even be out of prison.[/quote] See above. Well, by the measure of the number of actual cases of use of firearms to defend the life and health of oneself or one's family, compared to the number of times firearms are used in committing crimes.
I really can't believe that you truly believe your first sentence. Owning firearms is a protected right, as is their use in self defense. The fact that some number of the residents here in the US choose to commit crimes with guns in no way invalidates the law abiding citizen's to ownership or self defense. All my post indicates is a need for actual enforcement. Until that's in place, we don't know what else is needed. In another thread you stated that the ratio was unimportant, and now you seem to declare that the right to self defense is actually dependent upon that ratio. It's not dependent upon anything but the existence of men and women who would do you harm.
It is a myth that the united states is a developed, first world nation. By all accounts it is not. Rather it is a third world nation full of rampant corruption and disrespect for the rule of law at all levels. How exactly does it being pointed out that laws are not being enforced, translate into the notion that more laws are needed as a result? Even if the use of a firearm to further the commission of a crime does not result in any actual injuries on the part of those that are victims of the criminal act? Pray tell what sort of laws could be implemented, that are not already in place, to reduce the number of rapes, carjackings, home invasions, kidnappings, or random assaults where a firearm is simply not used? Each and every one of these incidents would result in the defensive use of a firearm being legally justified. And yet they are not. What then? What course of action is taken when laws are not enforced, and merely sit around gathering dust?
Well, if that is indeed the case, and I have seen no information that would actually prove you wrong on that point, then I agree that the implementation of strict gun control would be misguided.
He's no idea what "a third world nation full of rampant corruption and disrespect for the rule of law at all levels" means. Tell him to go live in Guatemala, or El Salvador, for a couple of years to find out what no respect "for the rule of law at all levels" really means.
Sorry -- I assume most people know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence Only the state has legitimacy and capacity in the use of force. This means you not only have no means for the use of force, but cannot do so legally. I'm sure you now see how your questions are not germane to the issue.
If, as you imply, you release an enraged or vicious animal with the intent to harm someone, the animal can be shot in self-defense and you can be charged with assault, attempt to assault or possible even attempted murder. Hard to imagine how you do not know this.
No, I don't think so. I think that would be the last time any open carry thugs showed up in my neighborhood.
Why do you think you would not be charged with and likely convicted of assault, attempted assault and/or attempted murder? Why would people no longer open carry because you assaulted someone with a dog?
Absolutely. Someone very wise once observed: "Every single idea proposed by the left's ruling elite has one common goal; to grow government dependence."
And those who are engaged in the act of open carry are private citizens. So it must be asked what is hoped to be gained from knowingly sacrificing your dog for your political cause? Those who commit sexual assault do not believe that they will suffer any consequences for their actions either. Again with petty insults, referring to those exercising their constitutional rights as being thugs. If anything, your course of action would simply encourage more individuals to legally carry firearms, as it would prove that dangerous threats are everywhere.
There are no open carry thugs in my neighborhood. I'm not in jail, nor will I ever be. Looks like I'm winning.
Why do you think you would not be charged with and likely convicted of assault, attempted assault and/or attempted murder after assault them with your dog? Why would people no longer open carry because you assaulted someone with a dog?
