vote your conscience not your wallet

[DeletedUser40495]

Inevitable? Hardly.

This isn’t a perfect world. It is inevitable that there will be plenty more crazy people who decide to resort to violence for whatever reason - wish this wasn’t the case, but unfortunately it is.

A handgun for home defense (not to be carried in public) and rifles for hunting are fine by me.

Well why not in public (as long as it’s concealed obviously)? The people who intend to cause violence will have guns in public anyway, they certainly don’t care about breaking the law. Legal concealed carry would only protect those innocent citizens that wish to protect themselves.

There is no moral or logical justification for a private citizen to have legal access to semi-automatic weapons or accessories, such as high capacity magazines or bump stocks, that have no purpose but to facilitate killing more people faster.

I agree with this 100%. No need for the public to have legal access to military grade weapons, when handguns are really all that is necessary for self defense. Anything more is obviously unnecessary (and dangerous honestly).

 

[DeletedUser]

Well why not in public (as long as it’s concealed obviously)?

Because it increases the danger rather than lessening it. If you're attacked individually you're not going to be given warning, so the concealed firearm becomes more than useless. Odds are it ends up in the hands of the criminal rather than helping you. In the case of a public attack like the mass shootings we've been having, it will only make matters much, much worse if concealed weapons are pulled out. Only those close to the original shots will have any idea which person with a gun is the bad guy, and when the police show up they will also have no way of telling who is the shooter and who are the John Wayne wannabes. This is not the lawless old west, although a few more years of weapons proliferation and it will be.

This isn’t a perfect world. It is inevitable that there will be plenty more crazy people who decide to resort to violence for whatever reason - wish this wasn’t the case, but unfortunately it is.

Sure there will always be crazy people who resort to violence, but it is not inevitable that you will run into them. Plenty of people live their entire lives without running into someone trying to do them harm.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Because it increases the danger rather than lessening it. If you're attacked individually you're not going to be given warning, so the concealed firearm becomes more than useless. Odds are it ends up in the hands of the criminal rather than helping you. In the case of a public attack like the mass shootings we've been having, it will only make matters much, much worse if concealed weapons are pulled out. Only those close to the original shots will have any idea which person with a gun is the bad guy, and when the police show up they will also have no way of telling who is the shooter and who are the John Wayne wannabes. This is not the lawless old west, although a few more years of weapons proliferation and it will be.

Sure there will always be crazy people who resort to violence, but it is not inevitable that you will run into them. Plenty of people live their entire lives without running into someone trying to do them harm.

Head in the sand if you must, but 2 days after the El Paso shooting, a 20 year old man with a rifle was stopped by an off duty fireman who was concealed carrying in Springfield, MO as the armed man was attempting to enter the local Walmart. The fireman held the suspect at gunpoint until the local police arrived and took the suspect into custody. That's what concealed carry can do and why both concealed and open carry should not only be allowed, but encouraged.

Why did the El Paso shooter pick the Walmart, because Walmart was a gun free zone. He even said as much in his manifesto.

Despite your refusal to acknowledge it, or to even do the research to know, the reason we have the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with anything you're arguing about. It's not about hunting, it's not about self defense, it's about being able to take arms against your own Government should the need arise. That's also why we need to have access to semi automatic weapons. If nothing else, the Govt. should have to think twice.

Japan was once asked why they never attempted to invade. The reply was that they were fully aware that "there is a gun behind every blade of grass." An armed populace keeps us safe from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

The fact that the Gov't is the one that wants to disarm us, should tell you something. But it tells YOU nothing, thankfully, there's enough of the rest of us alert and aware and willing to to stand between you and them. You're welcome. From my cold dead hands.

 

[DeletedUser40495]

Because it increases the danger rather than lessening it. If you're attacked individually you're not going to be given warning, so the concealed firearm becomes more than useless. Odds are it ends up in the hands of the criminal rather than helping you.

Although I see your point, concealed carry does save lives. The benefits of at least being armed in some way far outweigh the risk of an incident like you described happening. And also, for the most part, if criminals do manage to steal concealed weapons from their victims, it will probably not make them any more dangerous. Most likely they would already have been carrying a gun if they intended to attack someone or break the law in any other way.

In the case of a public attack like the mass shootings we've been having, it will only make matters much, much worse if concealed weapons are pulled out. Only those close to the original shots will have any idea which person with a gun is the bad guy, and when the police show up they will also have no way of telling who is the shooter and who are the John Wayne wannabes.

I agree that this is possible, but not with proper training for the people who are concealed carrying. If the people who have concealed weapons handle the situation correctly, it will not be any more chaotic than it already is. (ex. They help people evacuate instead of recklessly chasing the shooter) If the police show up, it shouldn’t be too difficult to tell who the shooter is. Even if they have to ask some eyewitnesses, it’s not a difficult situation to sort out.

Sure there will always be crazy people who resort to violence, but it is not inevitable that you will run into them. Plenty of people live their entire lives without running into someone trying to do them harm.

Very true, but enough people do run into these life threatening situations. It only makes sense to give citizens a fair chance to defend themselves for the sake of the people who will need that some day.

 

[Freshmeboy]

First of all Razor, there is no gun control of the populace without taking guns out of the hands of the police and militia (National Guard). The very definition of a police state is an unarmed populace with an armed police force to enforce the laws. I would never trample on any person's 2nd amendment rights except on my private property. (I don't allow people to enter my properties with firearms, hunting or otherwise and that includes the county sheriff or local police....yes, I can tell the police to leave their firearms at the gate unless they have a warrant otherwise they will be trespassed)
I am neither a fool nor a liberal demanding gun control but a realist that sees more gun crime and deaths in open carry states than in those that don't allow it...and gun crime with automatic weapons is and has been the root of the gun control issue..Britain has solved this issue by enacting draconian laws for gun crime but guns or not, the evil deeds of men will always be with us....

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Good for you...but irrelevant. My point was that the popular theme in this country is that we owe our freedoms to the military, and the military is part of the government. So if we owe our freedoms to the military/government, then your comment about government standing between us and our freedoms is just wrong.

The fact you are so easily swayed by populist hogwash is equally irrelevant.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Which is one of the reasons the government exists to protect our freedom.

What freedoms and how can the government protect your freedoms?

The Bill of Rights is not a permission slip from the government to allow you to exercise your rights. Your rights don’t come from the government and the Bill of Rights in our Constitution was specifically designed to limit the government’s ability to infringe on those rights.

 

[DeletedUser40495]

What freedoms and how can the government protect your freedoms?

The freedom to live safely and well. Without government there would be anarchy, and only the strongest people could survive. We would honestly be like animals. Would that be freedom?

The Bill of Rights is not a permission slip from the government to allow you to exercise your rights.

Correct. It is what the government has the responsibility to defend for us.

Your rights don’t come from the government

Never said they did, I said that the government exists to PROTECT those natural born rights we have as civilized humans.

the Bill of Rights in our Constitution was specifically designed to limit the government’s ability to infringe on those rights.

Then how can you think that the government exists to deny us freedom if they follow the Bill of Rights, which as you say was created to limit the government’s control (and protect our rights)?

 

[DeletedUser36572]

...

Then how can you think that the government exists to deny us freedom if they follow the Bill of Rights, which as you say was created to limit the government’s control (and protect our rights)?

To govern is to limit or control, and does not establish freedom.

If you want to talk about the government defending you and your precious freedoms, I suppose you are referring to the 100k American citizens President Roosevelt put in interment camps.

The government protected their freedom by making them prisoners ...

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Head in the sand if you must, but 2 days after the El Paso shooting, a 20 year old man with a rifle was stopped by an off duty fireman who was concealed carrying in Springfield, MO as the armed man was attempting to enter the local Walmart. The fireman held the suspect at gunpoint until the local police arrived and took the suspect into custody. That's what concealed carry can do and why both concealed and open carry should not only be allowed, but encouraged.

Why did the El Paso shooter pick the Walmart, because Walmart was a gun free zone. He even said as much in his manifesto.

Despite your refusal to acknowledge it, or to even do the research to know, the reason we have the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with anything you're arguing about. It's not about hunting, it's not about self defense, it's about being able to take arms against your own Government should the need arise. That's also why we need to have access to semi automatic weapons. If nothing else, the Govt. should have to think twice.

Japan was once asked why they never attempted to invade. The reply was that they were fully aware that "there is a gun behind every blade of grass." An armed populace keeps us safe from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

The fact that the Gov't is the one that wants to disarm us, should tell you something. But it tells YOU nothing, thankfully, there's enough of the rest of us alert and aware and willing to to stand between you and them. You're welcome. From my cold dead hands.

It’s more funny when they run around with their hair on fire screaming about a white supremacist in the White House and Nazis in Washington ... Then turn around and start talking about disarming the public.

If the boogeymen takes over the goverment like those nit-wits are so scared of, who the heck do they think will fight to take the country back?

 

[DeletedUser40495]

To govern is to limit or control, and does not establish freedom.

Never once did I say that the government established freedom - I said that the government DEFENDS freedom. Stop implying that I said things I never said.

If you want to talk about the government defending you and your precious freedoms, I suppose you are referring to the 100k American citizens President Roosevelt put in interment camps.

The government protected their freedom by making them prisoners ...

Well we all make mistakes don’t we?

I’m not here to talk about how the government is actually doing (or has done in the past). I have simply said what the PURPOSE of the government is.

If you want to talk about mistakes the government has made, that’s a whole different debate, I am only referencing why the government exists

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Never once did I say that the government established freedom - I said that the government DEFENDS freedom. Stop implying that I said things I never said.


Well we all make mistakes don’t we?

I’m not here to talk about how the government is actually doing (or has done in the past). I have simply said what the PURPOSE of the government is.

If you want to talk about mistakes the government has made, that’s a whole different debate, I am only referencing why the government exists

The purpose of government is to govern, and to govern is to limit freedoms. Goverment exists in order to control the conditions of society.

If you would like suggest that freedom consists of asking someone else what you can do and then doing what you are told ... Well, it’s possible government could help you with your freedom.

 

[DeletedUser40495]

The purpose of government is to govern and to govern is to limit freedoms.

It’s not.

Here is the definition from Merriam Webster:

Govern:
a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority overespecially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in
The country was governed by a king.
b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy

It means to have authority, and having authority does not necessarily mean taking away freedom. Some people with authority may choose to take freedom away, but you can’t assume that everyone in authority is this way.


I’m not saying that some governments don’t limit freedoms, but the purpose of a good government (which I believe ours is), is to protect the freedom of its citizens.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

It’s not.

Here is the definition from Merriam Webster:

Govern:
a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority overespecially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in
The country was governed by a king.
b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy

It means to have authority, and having authority does not necessarily mean taking away freedom. Some people with authority may choose to take freedom away, but you can’t assume that everyone in authority is this way.


I’m not saying that some governments don’t limit freedoms, but the purpose of a good government (which I believe ours is), is to protect the freedom of its citizens.

To have authority over something creates a hiarchy that promotes structure ... Not freedom or liberty.

Freedom and liberty consist in the absence of restraints not the establishment of controls.

Furthermore, I am not against people governing themselves and their own activities. The Constitution has a 10th Amendment that allows the states, counties, local constabularies or the people to govern themselves as they see fit.

 

[DeletedUser40495]

To have authority over something creates a hiarchy that promotes structure ... Not freedom or liberty

Structure is needed to defend freedom. Laws are certainly needed to prevent individuals from taking away the freedom of others - and there needs to be authority to enforce those laws.

Freedom and liberty consist in the absence of restraints not the establishment of controls.

No that is anarchy. And anarchy takes away freedom from everyone and only gives it to the strongest.

Your opinion that there should be no restraints would be changed very quickly if all laws were removed and you were at the mercy of individuals more physically strong than yourself.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Structure is needed to defend freedom. Laws are certainly needed to prevent individuals from taking away the freedom of others - and there needs to be authority to enforce those laws.


No that is anarchy. And anarchy takes away freedom from everyone and only gives it to the strongest.

Your opinion that there should be no restraints would be changed very quickly if all laws were removed and you were at the mercy of individuals more physically strong than yourself.

Sorry ... Freedom exists in the absence of restrictions, and not the application of restraints.

If you would like to further express to what degree you are prepared to relinquish your freedoms in order to gain security, feel free to carry on.

It’s not necessary though, I have not challenged your desire to be ruled under the guise of protection ... As you mentioned, that has been going since long before this country was founded.

 

[DeletedUser40495]

Sorry ... Freedom exists in the absence of restrictions, and not the application of restraints.

A complete absence of all restrictions is anarchy. Don’t pretend you want that. I doubt you would if you truly knew what it would be like.

If you would like to further express to what degree you are prepared to relinquish your freedoms in order to gain security, feel free to carry on.

I am not saying I want my freedom restricted, here in America everyone has freedom, why would I want that taken away? The only things you are not allowed to do in this country are things that take away the freedom of others. This is completely necessary to defend freedom - as I said if people could do whatever they want, freedom would be taken away completely and replaced by anarchy. And anarchy is NOT freedom, except maybe for the 1% of people who would have a weapon stockpile in that situation to defend themselves and steal other’s resources.


So I am quite confused as to what you want. Do you want anarchy? If you only desire to have more of a say in this government, etc., that is a whole different topic though.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

A complete absence of all restrictions is anarchy. Don’t pretend you want that. I doubt you would if you truly knew what it would be like.


I am not saying I want my freedom restricted, here in America everyone has freedom, why would I want that taken away? The only things you are not allowed to do in this country are things that take away the freedom of others. This is completely necessary to defend freedom - as I said if people could do whatever they want, freedom would be taken away completely and replaced by anarchy. And anarchy is NOT freedom, except maybe for the 1% of people who would have a weapon stockpile in that situation to defend themselves and steal other’s resources.


So I am quite confused as to what you want. Do you want anarchy? If you only desire to have more of a say in this government, etc., that is a whole different topic though.

You are confused because you care to argue with the obvious.

You cannot distinguish what I want, because I don’t want anything from you. I don’t need your permission to act freely. I don’t need your agreement to assist my neighbors.

I don’t need to leverage the votes and opinions of people in this country that live their lives far away from me to achieve my goals.

The topic of the thread was voting your conscience ... And I simply suggested your conscience may be better served keeping politics and the federal government as far away from your daily lives as possible.

Do what you can, where you are, with what you have ...

 

[DeletedUser40495]

You are confused because you care to argue with the obvious.

Arguing with the obvious? How is saying that our government protects our freedom arguing with the obvious?

The topic of the thread was voting your conscience ... And I simply suggested your conscience may be better served keeping politics and the federal government as far away from your daily lives as possible.

I wasn’t arguing this... I was arguing what you said about the government only existing to limit our freedom.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Only those close to the original shots will have any idea which person with a gun is the bad guy, and when the police show up they will also have no way of telling who is the shooter and who are the John Wayne wannabes.

I agree that this is possible, but not with proper training for the people who are concealed carrying. If the people who have concealed weapons handle the situation correctly, it will not be any more chaotic than it already is. (ex. They help people evacuate instead of recklessly chasing the shooter) If the police show up, it shouldn’t be too difficult to tell who the shooter is. Even if they have to ask some eyewitnesses, it’s not a difficult situation to sort out.

https://hooversun.com/news/man-killed-by-hoover-police-officer-was-shot-3-times-from-be1203/

Learn more about EJ Bradford Jr, and tell me you still think a well trained person couldn’t be harmed by concealed carry.