While I agree with you 100% in principle, I also think that by virtue of the 2nd, which clearly states in no uncertain terms that the right og the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, means the fed has an active responsibility to prevent gun restrictions. Allowing them to play word games, like calling it a restriction not so infringement is on us and our predecessors and should have been dealt with by whatever means was required. Similarly, not stopping infringing states is dereliction of their responsibility.
Principles are one thing; reality, unfortunately, another
Again, that is on us. Unfortunately too many are choosing to not correct it.
No argument here
From you, I'm not surprised. Too many people still believe in the most dangerous superstition, that of (governmental) authority. It's not surprising as they've been programmed with this belief from their formative years and it can be very difficult to get past the cognitive dissonance. Once you do, however, you realize it isn't any more real than the Easter Bunny. It also makes the infringements much harder to swallow.
Spot on, Chief
U DA MAN!!!!!! Exactly!!! I have a low 4 digit CWP with them being given now in the 300K+ range. You may not believe this, but it pisses me off everytime I have looked at it since 1976. Why did I have to cow-tow to a political system and donate money and liquor to get to be able to do what I was given at birth by our constitution. The Feds sure won't roll over and give up control over anything they can make money off of. There will be pages of conditions if these rats get hold of this.
In response I would ask this question, how many does it take for it to be more than a nut case just going off?
Amen
The main reason I keep my concealed carry permit....just to expedite purchasing a handgun when in a store and it saves me having to keep go buying permits.
In a few weeks I ha e to go on a work trip to The People’s Republic of Baltimore.
I think the tone of the piece was set by this: "This is the handgun counter at Van's Sporting Goods outside Jackson, Mississippi, a state with the fourth highest gun fatality rate in the country and some of the weakest gun laws."
That wouldn't fit with pushing their "Y'all-kaida" narrative about southern redneck gun nuts.
I would not submit to them, no, but your also missing the point: I don't recognize their claim of authority and if they're going to try to ruin my life because they think they have that right I will defend myself with my very life if need be. But I will not submit.
You obviously haven't been paying attention.
Would you define an officer who sees your prohibited weapon and acts to detain you a thug?
Yes. I would. The state has no business prohibiting a weapon in the first place. Furthermore, I would refuse to be imprisoned over the issue. If you want to go around threatening people with violence if they don't submit to your rule, don't be surprised if sometimes the response is a refusal to submit.
