Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Very true. Isolationist policies of old will serve no good today.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why don't conservatives apply their logic about guns to other areas of public life?
- Thread starter Buddha Dharma
- Start date
Why ask why, if you don't want to hear some reasoning?
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
I reviewed your reasons @Mister Emu with all due respect. I don't think they really establish the gun issue as being a special exception from other social issues. You attempted to show guns deserve special consideration. Presumably concerning what I asked in the OP: that people are going to do it any way.
I'm asking if you think that is a valid argument for any issue.
Militias have to be able to form at will regardless of what the federal government wants, they may actually have to protect us from the government on occasion. For that to happen, gun ownership has to occur. In most cases, people form them to aid in emergency situations and protect communities versus looters/rioters and actually work with law enforcement and military to provide protection. The Baltimore and Ferguson riots directly come to mind, but I have no doubt there were others. Media just loves to downplay this because this would establish their immediate value.
A lot of crime and violence was avoided purely by this added volunteer manpower, of that I have no doubt. My view of governments role probably doesn't match the mainstream, I was just describing it for clarity. It's probably more libertarian than anything, but w/e. The governments customer isn't the population, but a bunch of corporate fat cats in our system. That's the fundamental problem.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
There isn't any legal precedent for such an argument. That was also a slight swerve from answering my actual question. The second amendment is clear that government is a factor in the rights it gives citizens. The militias were organized to defend state governments. There is no idea that one can rebel against the government just because.
Which again, the second doesn't argue we have unrestricted rights to guns.
These premises don't make any sense, you cannot have militias without weapons and free access to them. The militias by their purpose are to defend against all threats domestic or foreign, should the need arise. They have nothing to do with the military or desires of the government, and secondly the government has no authority of whether they can form on purpose. If for some reason the government refuses to protect citizens, it gives us the right to protect ourselves.
The "State" isn't a nebulous context, it loosely means property and people whom reside in the United States, but it is possible the government acts against them. If the federal government works against the "State", the "State" can organize against it.
There is also no legal precedent against such an interpretation, and per the US Constitution any right you are not specifically denied, you have.
Last edited:
Well, the other solution is we post snipers every 300m like other countries do. By comparison, a good wall is an ideal solution.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
what "other countries"? Name 3?
To achieve what?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What other countries?
Maybe a good solution to let drug cartels charge high-rate premiums for a safe and easy way for those looking to come to America.
Shhhhh!
Don't let Trump hear you say that.
He hasn't invaded anyone yet.....but he might.
For real, what do you think is a solution?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Comprehensive immigration reform that streamlines the process of becoming citizen, heavily penalizes employers who hire illegal immigrants, and also killing off incentives for drug cartels to be doing business in America.
Of course not. The fact that weapons are used by criminals directly against innocents and legal weapons can be used to defend against said criminals doesn't in any way suggest that weapon ownership is a different sort of issue than drug possession or abortion.
As my first statement suggests, I think it is a valid argument when are where the benefits of legal ownership have a tie to illegal possession or use.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, the 16 billion wall (or however much it is lately), can be easily circumvented by a $40 pawnshop aluminum extension ladder....
... or even a rope and a hook.
If all goes as planned, circumvention won't be that easy.
Trump's border wall won't be a "physical wall," Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke said this week
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Classic back-pedaling?
In what way?
By whom?
tytlyf
Not Religious
By Trump of course. He was lying about a wall before the election. Opposition to the wall mentioned the identical things he's already backpedalling on. The border is secure and we don't have 'open borders' like RW performance artists love barking about. Of course RW media lies to their audience saying "democrats are for open borders, republicans are not." Hogwash.
But it works on some people. Propaganda is powerful.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
The trump'Em promised a giant physical wall in his many-many speeches. But any physical barrier can be circumvented by cheap rope-and-a-hook, or a group with shovels and time. Or a ladder.
To go on after the fact that it won't be a physical structure? Is back-pedaling.
As is his "promise" to make Mexico pay for it.
But that's his modus operandi, isn't it? Say one thing one day, then walk it back the next.
I knew the promise of a wall meant a mix of physical, sensory & automated barriers.
Those who took "wall" literally didn't give the matter enuf thought.
Mexicans paying for it? Did anyone believe that?
And yes, all barriers can be circumvented, but this doesn't mean we should have none.
It's about better managing a problem than we have, ie, greatly reducing illegal crossings.
Perfection is for preachers & mathematicians, not the real world.