NY sheriff encourages carrying firearms
2 hours north of NYC, this county sheriff advises that
the good guys carry their guns. . Is This Wise? -- j
.
the good guys carry their guns. . Is This Wise? -- j
.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I never even considered the "victims's mentality" in this.
"All the reasons which make the initiation of force an evil, make the retaliatory use of force an imperative."
Putin has it right; Obama doesn't.
.
¶
The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.
If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.
The Virtue of Selfishness
“The Nature of Government,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 108
.
Like a kid whose mommy and daddy provide everything for them so they never have to think... or work... for themselves.
Does THAT make sense to you? Does to me!
But I know people who would just stand there like a deer in the headlights. If they carried anything the bad guys would just take it away. They're better off without, at least until they go through some kind of awakening.
Jan
our "pitchforks" removed -- our guns. -- j
.
permits as a more dangerous element than terrorists ... it seems. -- j
.
.
folks are dangerous;;; I love them!!! -- j
.
permit myself, and keep running into the fact that having one
tells the world that I own a gun and might be mugged to get it.
if push comes to shove, concealed-carry without a permit
could be the rule rather than the exception. -- j
.
Well, may the Force be with you.
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#33rd
It brings money to the folks who legislate those rules into existence. Nothing more.
.
Obama is a dictator pure and simple...but he has no right to even discuss the subject beyond that of the military application.
I'd like to see a show of hands and cites and sources concerning the state level and then see how that might be affected by the same law that affected the same sex marriage ruling - the full faith and credit clause.
We already know that 'unlike Nixon' Obama IS a crook. I said that tongue in both cheeks at once.
What about the 50 governors?
I would argue that without the plural it refers to the entire political body rather than the 13 ratifying states.
I draw your attention to Article 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This clearly shows a reference to "the states" and clearly means the individual states.
So, I think historical reality may lean in the direction of giving the right to bear arms to the people and not to the states.
The States Rights granted went only as far as the citizens of each state granted rights to the Sates or states and that did not include necessary an automatic extension to the Federal government. The rest was and is tnone of the governments business.
The Federal and the State Governments too as far As I know never the power to giver rights to the people. It's the other way around. Rights Not Specifically Granted do not exist. No matter how much fascist swine like Obama and his immediate predecessors and would be successors wish differently. That includes the military swearing allegiance to the President or the country as a whole instead of to and limited to the Constitution.
It didn't lean that way at all simply because they had no right to grant rights. The whole line of thinking is false on it's face and useful only to the left wing fascists we're not stuck with for a while.
For sure the military knows it...whether they follow their oath of office or not is another question. But if not they are personally liable for the consequences.
The whole discussion is moot while the Constitution itself is in question and not being held as the center of national politics by the leftists, Rinos to Progressives inclusive. It's just a discussion of history....until that question and it is a question at this point is underway.
So. Cut the extraneous BS and get to the real question. What law of the land is currently and legally in force? Patriot Act or Constitution? Executive Orders or Constitution? Which will law enforcement and even more important the military support? No question which one DOHS is supporting and it isn't the Constitution.
to be a crook. . but they all bear watching! -- j
.
I have a permit and a pocket pistol tucked in a holster that looks kinda like a wallet.
I have moved my actual wallet from my right pocket to my left.
Surprise!
.
Tennessee, where I live. . might do that. . throw 'em off. -- j
.
Only problem is lethality. The advantage to lethal is no one to prevent a different story.
.
.
.
connection is right on! -- j
.
back in '67 when a friend was graduating from high school --
just a year after I did. . wonderful people, wonderful country,
and I felt totally at home there. . it was a great week!!! -- j
.
Neither of these statements reflect reality, so if you can carry, you should do so.
Jan
Choices and responsibilities.
.