OT Ramblings, Musings and other OT Stuff -- WARNING -- OT

How do you use a gun to protect yourself from a tyrannical government?

Ask the colonists who founded this country. Our forefathers, in order to avoid another tyranny such as that of King George, thought it was safer for the citizenry to be armed. For one thing, you could call up a militia just by ringing a bell in the town square. The only reason for more gun laws is to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. Criminals get guns regardless of the laws and they are as easy to get as a suntan. What you end up with, then is just the government and criminals owning guns and the citizenry unarmed and unable to protect themselves. Here's a Dallas statistic from the mid 80's. 1 officer for every 450 people. Guess what, there isn't enough police for the populace and there certainly wasn't back then.

Now if someone wants to mention how in Great Britain, citizens do not own guns, it might help to remember that we broke away from Great Britain back in the 18th century.

The original mindset of the Constitution was to provide the greatest amount of freedom. It is better to have the choice to carry a gun than to not have the choice. FWIW, I don't care to own guns myself but I fully support the rights of others to do so.

Should we ban them too?

 
What kills more than both combined is the idea that someone might light a cigarette. The world will end if someone smokes.[]

honestly i feel safer in a smokey bar than i do living right down the road from a plastics factory. the government hasn't come out to stop them from making plastic yet, but i still live here, because i choose to. this country is supposed to be all about choice, how weird it would be if it actually was.

ETA: freedom of choice is a dumb law anyway, it is impossible to abide. one persons choice will always contradict anothers. no wonder our politicians are so full of empty promises...thats what this country was founded on [8|]

Now if someone wants to mention how in Great Britain, citizens do not own guns, it might help to remember that we broke away from Great Britain back in the 18th century.

In the same breath they might mention how almost every adult male in Switzerland owns an automatic weapon, a true "assault" weapon.  Yet somehow they don't kill each other with the fervor that Americans do.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

More children die in backyard swimming pools than by gunshot.  Should we ban them too?

No, but there are laws that require people to have fencing around them, as a protection.

i feel like going off topic.
psalms 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.


that silly god forgot to tell them again, the earth is round and never stops moving.

ORIGINAL: saveastray2day

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

More children die in backyard swimming pools than by gunshot.  Should we ban them too?

No, but there are laws that require people to have fencing around them, as a protection.

Good point.

FWIW, I have never said that banning guns is what is needed.  What is wrong with registering them?  And what is wrong with writing a licence to aquire and own them?  It protects the owners as well.  But moreso if you don't intend to use it for anything illegal, why should you even care?  What could it possibly do to hurt you?  Except take away some of your precious freedom.  Suck it up and realize that it is the abuse of this freedom that has created the need for law in the first place. 

I don't however agree with not being able to pass guns down to your children.  A friend of mine has a great collection of old guns but because of that clause, they will be melted down when he dies.

Hey Billy I thought you were gonna tell me why wearing a helmet can not raise your chances for survival in a motorcycle accident?  I'm waiting...

Hey Billy I thought you were gonna tell me why wearing a helmet can not raise your chances for survival in a motorcycle accident? I'm waiting...

ME TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![8|]

He lost his train of thought after his skull bounced off the pavement???

Living in America does give us the Freedom of Choice - whether it be to own a gun or not, eat meat or not, be a Catholic or Baptist etc, live in California or Texas etc etc etc. But just because we don't agree with another person's choice, that doesn't mean we have the right to have a law passed making it illegal.

My rights end where your rights begin, and yes that is a two way street. But that doesn't mean that there should be laws passed to erode my rights because you disagree with them. Tolerance. Temperance. We need more of this for each other and the differences in our beliefs.

We need to learn how to respect other people's decisions and how to live together without having the government legislate our every move. You can't legislate away stupidity, but it seems they are trying. Law abiding citizens are going to be backed into corners and jumping through hoops just to be able to enjoy their 'freedom of choice' while those who don't care about breaking the laws in the first place will be enjoying the real freedom of not caring that their stupidity has ruined life for the rest of us.

the government does not own bars, private parties do. therefor i do not feel they have the right to decide whether smoking is permitted or not.

they (the government) dont own my house either, but i am still limited as to what i can legally do there.

ORIGINAL: miranadobe

He lost his train of thought after his skull bounced off the pavement???

HeHe, you should have worn your helmet Billy!

But just because we don't agree with another person's choice, that doesn't mean we have the right to have a law passed making it illegal.

how can you say that? what if a person chooses to be a child molester? dont we have a right to have a law against that? or driving while intoxicated? or abusing your spouse? etc.

there are a whole host of laws limiting what you can and cannot do (thereby limiting you freedom of choice), and they are very legitimate laws.

Some laws are stupid.  Some laws are necessary.  Any law which is designed to protect the average citizen from harm suffered at the hands of others is an important part of maintaining some kind of civil order. 
 
However, laws that are designed to protect the average citizen from THEMSELVES is much more of a grey area.  People without the common sense to act in a reasonable manner are going to act how they want regardless of laws to the contrary.  People with that common sense are going to act in a reasonable manner regardless of laws that support the way they feel anyway.  Personally, I never think "I am going to prevent myself from driving drunk because that's the legal thing to do".  I don't drive drunk because it's the SMART thing to do.  Nobody hell bent on killing someone is going to stop and thing "wait, this is illegal"...you can't legislate against human impulse and emotion.  Either a person is going to commit a crime or they're not.  But the decision to do one or the other is not governed by what the lawmakers say - it's decided by that individual's concience - or lack thereof - and their emotions, their circumstances and ultimately, whether the risk is worth the reward. 
 
Kate