100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Sheriff Arpaio Calls For Citizens To Arm Themselves | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
soooo,, how many mass shootings have happened WITHOUT an armed citizen? Plenty of examples here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/ http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/ http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88 Some articles may repeat the occurrences of another article but ............ Yes, armed citizens can and do stop mass killings. They just don't have the numbers of dead to make major headlines. right, rarely I will play out the scenario amongst americans madman a walks in and starts shooting,, few people actually SEE the intial shots fired,, legally armed citizens pop up with their guns out desiring to shoot the madman,, but,, WHICH armed person was the INITIAL gun man? so I shoot the first person I see shooting, who happens to be shooting at the shooter,, or I see several people with guns and wait til any of them fire to fire, but perhaps I catch the one who is shooting at the shooter?,,, ,,see how this isnt as SIMPLE, when EVERYONE is armed,,? Figuring out the ORIGINAL perpetrator when the first shots arent witnessed? It's sure not hard to tell YOU have never been in such a situation! For one, any RESPONSIBLY armed and aware citizen knows a situation before they take action. Until the point you HAVE the knowledge of the situation your actions are ALWAYS those of defense, NOT offense! and how would we ensure the 'responsibly' part? let alone assume what they 'know',,? Because of laws and requirements already in place for carry permits, registration, and ownership Anyone not practicing them would be the ones liberals want to support by victimizing the legal carriers like the laws and requirements in place for having a car and drivers license? though thats better than nothing, it sure doesnt seem to alleviate all the idiots who continue being idiots after that one day they receive a document or two,, Unlike driving a car, there's rarely a 2nd chance when you screw up under a firearm violation besides,Driving a Car isn't enumerated as a Right in the Constitution!  I really wonder why the Liberals continually bring up that lame smelly Red Herring? itactually not a red herring at all , those are irrelevant tangents unlike here, where an assertion was made that laws and requirements in general can be trusted to ensure that people behave safely and responsibly laws and requirements became the topic,, for which guns and vehicles are common examples,,, So more laws and restrictions will help actually, proactive measures (investment in policies and resources to prevent crimes), COUPLED with a balance of reactive measures (prosecution of criminals) its all about balance, ,, we do plenty to PUNISH people for their transgressions but not enough to address some of the things that may motivate or encourage those transgressions to occur you better learn about Jurisprudence and Rights,NOT Privileges,RIGHTS!! How come hundreds of Gunlaws haven't made you safer? Maybe a Law disallowing Criminals to own Weapons might do the trick!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the real shite hits the fan what are laws, or even police to enforce them, going to do for you?
I'll keep my guns and ammo even if I may have to hide them. If that makes me a criminal, so be it! What I fear is not some terrorist with a gun or two. I'm as prepared as I can be for that..... barring some idiot intervention. What I fear, and prep for, you can do a google search to find out. Google: "Grid Down USA Oli Fischer" and tell me how ready you are! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, let me ask yuo this since you believe the government has no authority over personal "rights"... 1. who wrote the constitution? 2. who wrote the amendments to the constitution? 3. who continues to decide what the constitution means and what is "garunteed" under personal rights? 4. Who decides what amendments to pass today, and which ones do not get amended? 5. What happens when the government decides to strip the second amendment from the constitution or simply rewrite it? For anyone who actually doesn't know (and sadly that's 95% of our children in today's country), the answer to the first four questions is the same: Our government. To respond to my final question, what will happen when...? There will be Civil War again; you and I both know this. But what you seem to be delusional about is the fact that when all is said and done,the Government is the one who decides what rights you have when the day is said and done. You may fight it when they take one away, but that doesn't mean it was not taken away. nor does it mean that you are not violating the law if you do what they claim is no longer a right. When we refused to pay taxes to the British prior to the Revolutionary War, we broke British law. When we fired upon British soldiers and authority figures, we became treasons. Just because you do not agree with it, just because you do not like it, does not mean the law is not valid. You had best hope that it never comes to a show of force, because you WILL hang at the end of it as will many thousands of other Americans who fight the govenrment for their rights.  Yes, one of the reasons for the constitution is limitation of the government. HOWEVER, with that said, the constitution itself has written in it, the very means in which our current government may change it. Any idea how many times this has happened? Look at all the amendmants; each one is literally a change to the original constitution, either an addition, a limitation or even a removal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Bill Of Rights Enumerates them,NOT bestowing them!"
Close, but still wrong. The bill of rights states what the constitution recognizes as individual rights. As soon as an amendment is made declaring something to no longer be a right, guess what? It is no longer recognized as a right by our constitution. Case in point: prohibition. Prior to prohibition it was recognized that once you achieved a certain age, you had the right to drink if you so choose. HOWEVER, along came a spider, that after sat down beside her, and made an amendment to the constitution that prohibit consumption of all alcohol by all citizens regardless of age, status, or whatever. Then, after so long, a different spider came along and amended the constitution again, reinstating the recognition of an adults right to drink (under normal circumstances). THUS, as I have said from the beginning, it is the government that decides which rights an individual person does or does not have come the end of the day ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Wed 01/06/16 12:32 AM
|
|
"The Bill Of Rights Enumerates them,NOT bestowing them!" Close, but still wrong. The bill of rights states what the constitution recognizes as individual rights. As soon as an amendment is made declaring something to no longer be a right, guess what? It is no longer recognized as a right by our constitution. Case in point: prohibition. Prior to prohibition it was recognized that once you achieved a certain age, you had the right to drink if you so choose. HOWEVER, along came a spider, that after sat down beside her, and made an amendment to the constitution that prohibit consumption of all alcohol by all citizens regardless of age, status, or whatever. Then, after so long, a different spider came along and amended the constitution again, reinstating the recognition of an adults right to drink (under normal circumstances). THUS, as I have said from the beginning, it is the government that decides which rights an individual person does or does not have come the end of the day ;-)  You're in need of some serious reading! Start with what the Founders had to say about Rights! |
|
|
|
|
