Kath wrote:Scott implemented a program when he first got into office. It required welfare recipients to submit to a drug test. Sounds good on the surface, but he hired his wife's company as the exclusive provider of said drug test.
Yeah, he saved the taxpayers something like -$2 Billion with that slick move.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Our self defense law does not make a distinction between citizens and government. It is ultimate. Your right to self defense is absolute. You may defend yourself against the government just as ardently as you may against any stranger.
I mean this is interesting to me...
I don't often stop to consider this part of gun control.
It seems contrary to the idea of a state that for a state to function local militias should be armed to resist that state.
But still how is having completely liberal access to every sort of weapon conducive to local militias.
Every individual doesn't have to have a right to firearms for local militias to be effective... there can still be some prerequisites to firearm ownership for local militias to function can't there...
This is a puzzle to me... the ding dong who committed this school shooting wasn't going to be an asset to any militia.
Deep down tho, I still thirst to kill you and eat you. Ultra Chimp can't help it.. - Smitty
Okeefenokee wrote:
The difference in self defense laws?
Here's ours,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Our self defense law does not make a distinction between citizens and government. It is ultimate. Your right to self defense is absolute. You may defend yourself against the government just as ardently as you may against any stranger.
Yet it is illegal to resist arrest or kill a cop if they're entering your home with a warrant.
You're citing the right of ownership of guns, whereas I am talking about things like "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand your Ground". In essence, when you have a right to kill someone versus the right to ownership of the killing tool. Norwegians or Swedes may have the right to own alot of hunting rifles, but if their laws don't allow them to use said hunting rifles to kill a person trespassing on their land or someone entering their home, then gun ownership in Norway or Sweden is not linked to being more safe from intentional homocide.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Our self defense law does not make a distinction between citizens and government. It is ultimate. Your right to self defense is absolute. You may defend yourself against the government just as ardently as you may against any stranger.
I mean this is interesting to me...
I don't often stop to consider this part of gun control.
It seems contrary to the idea of a state that for a state to function local militias should be armed to resist that state.
But still how is having completely liberal access to every sort of weapon conducive to local militias.
Every individual doesn't have to have a right to firearms for local militias to be effective... there can still be some prerequisites to firearm ownership for local militias to function can't there...
This is a puzzle to me... the ding dong who committed this school shooting wasn't going to be an asset to any militia.
All real Americans detest the very idea of a standing domestic army; and the Federalists were willing to throw up some window-dressing on such an obvious concept to get a deal done; hence the 2nd A (and the 3rd; and others, but I digress). Not rocket science.
Fife wrote:All real Americans detest the very idea of a standing domestic army; and the Federalists were willing to throw up some window-dressing on such an obvious concept to get a deal done; hence the 2nd A (and the 3rd; and others, but I digress). Not rocket science.
So to negotiate with the local warlords the state allowed constitutional access to weapons...
But your point is, in part, that this was not a real concession to warlords... just window dressing to seal the deal...
Deep down tho, I still thirst to kill you and eat you. Ultra Chimp can't help it.. - Smitty
Speaker to Animals wrote:No. A disarmed people cannot self-govern. It's a ridiculous notion. Think it through.
Uhh...
Ok, I thought it through.
With parliamentary representation and rule of law... I see no reason why a disarmed people shouldn't be able to govern.
As soon as the rule of law is forfeit - those disarmed people pick up pitchforks and raid the Bastille.... as it ever was.
Needing them remain stand armed to the teeth at all times, just in case... is kinda ridiculous... think about it.
You didn't think it through. The reality is that you get the government that you get. What exactly are you going to do if they take away your parliament??
