vote your conscience not your wallet

cton2.forge

Active Member
You would not be in less danger if you were unarmed (unless your major concern is that you would shoot yourself before the armed perpetrator could).
DUDE - I've known people like this!

Funny story, I got stuck with a bunch of Navy personnel in Afghanistan for a year and being the silly grunt I was I got tasked to run a weapons range every so often (which, as it turned out, was not altogether that helpful). Long story short I've never seen so many negligent discharges in my life. I DO NOT FEEL SAFE AROUND NAVY PEOPLE. Good people, just scary when they have guns!
 

cton2.forge

Active Member
So that is why I said that a good government exists to defend freedom. I never said that they don’t place restrictions on us, but those restrictions are necessary to defend the freedom of EVERYONE.

Hmmm.

"That Government is best which governs least"
- Thoreau

Minimalism. Stay out of my stuff!
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
You're right, but that's for a separate discussion.
The title is vote with your conscience not your wallet. If we can’t discuss what makes our conscience tick (morals and beliefs) then it’s a misleading title

Hmmm.

"That Government is best which governs least"
- Thoreau

Minimalism. Stay out of my stuff!
sounds nice in theory. Though a lot of laws exist because of things going wrong and needing arbitration of some kind
 

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
True. But just because 22prentwil says something doesn't make it so either. Or Stephen Longshanks. Or Cton. And tones of self-assured righteousness.... Well we'll stop there. I'll take Emerson or Thoreau over some maniac on our forums....
Well, nobody can change your beliefs, but it’s hard to imagine that you can look at countries with a lack of government (understanding what goes on there) and believe that that’s the best option.

But if you want to believe past quotes over present day evidence, well go ahead.

But you haven’t yet given any evidence to support your point besides the quotes of past anarchists.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
DUDE - I've known people like this!

Funny story, I got stuck with a bunch of Navy personnel in Afghanistan for a year and being the silly grunt I was I got tasked to run a weapons range every so often (which, as it turned out, was not altogether that helpful). Long story short I've never seen so many negligent discharges in my life. I DO NOT FEEL SAFE AROUND NAVY PEOPLE. Good people, just scary when they have guns!
I spent 7 years in the military and have a lifetime CAC permit (free for some veterans in my state). I also have a range membership at the local long and tactical range.

I understand your sentiments completely.

But ... To what extent would you be prepared to relinquish your rights in order to account for the actions of others?

I went as far as getting a NICS number and all the required permits. I have had situational training and conditioning (regularly). There are times I don’t let friends and neighbors carry on my own property.

It would be easy for me to turn my head and say nothing when the goverment starts messing with the rights of gun owners, because I know they will never make it impossible for someone like me to own firearms. I can pass whatever requirements they want to use. I can afford whatever costs they want to impose in order to restrict a gun owner’s liberty to carry whatever they want. They will never give up their rights (security) the same as they will freely restrict the liberties of others.

I commented in thread because I simply recognized government limits freedom and liberty.

So why do I care ... Because I am not everyone’s mama, and don’t intend to grant the Federal Government the power to be your mama because some dumbass does stupid things.

I stopped trying to fix the world more than a decade ago ... The military taught me adaptation and innovation will always win the race. It is generally the degree to which we agree to restrict ourselves, that will eventually defeat us.
 
Last edited:

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
I don't see how it does. Please explain how you think it does.
It's pretty clear, but I'll help you out. For her own security, she takes away the freedoms of her friends and neighbors. The very thing she is arguing should never be done. And it's actually even worse than that. The friends and neighbors have zero representation in the decision, whereas with the government it is people elected by us making the decisions, so we do have representation. (Even though it doesn't work out as well as it should.)
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
Just a moment Mr. Longshanks. There is a vast difference between constitutional rights on public property versus private property. I, too, do not allow neighbors, hunters , the police, county sheriffs or anybody else the right to carry firearms on my property without my consent or a warrant if it is indeed justified. The reason is simple. It's my land and my rights as the owner trump yours as a citizen. You have the right to free speech too. But not on my property. The right to move freely across the country. But not on my property.
I respect your rights-all of them- as a citizen but only when you stand on public property or your own home. The founders made it so that every man's home, no matter how small, is his castle and it is inviolate without cause. I struggle with defending my rights from the powers that be and I spend too much time educating locals who deem their second amendment rights superior to my rights of ownership.
It's an ugly battle that has caused bad blood between some of my neighbors and myself, and its unfortunate that those who would demand their rights the loudest would try to deprive me of mine....
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
There is a vast difference between constitutional rights on public property versus private property.
I don't disagree with that, but @BlackSand the Sly's point is that there is never a justification for restricting someone's rights/freedoms in the name of security, so her acknowledgement that she ignores her own point when it comes to her own security refutes that.
 

cton2.forge

Active Member
Well, nobody can change your beliefs, but it’s hard to imagine that you can look at countries with a lack of government (understanding what goes on there) and believe that that’s the best option.

But if you want to believe past quotes over present day evidence, well go ahead.

But you haven’t yet given any evidence to support your point besides the quotes of past anarchists.
I know you like to read between the lines and only see what you want to see. I'm not talking anarchy at all. Or a complete lack of any oversight whatsoever. THAT government (that sort of means that there is one) is best which governs least (which means they are doing something not a complete lack of action).

Lemme break it down for you - over-regulation by governments is counter-productive to progress and can be very detrimental to most members of society (see Communist Russia, fascist governments etc).

I barely understand taxes. Before you go running off at the mouth, the Internal Revenue Code is over 7,500 pages long. There are currently over 20,000 laws regarding firearms. From 2000 to 2007 Congress created 452 new crimes bring the total number of Federal crimes to 4,450. The sad truth is no one knows just how many laws there are. Estimates put the number between 15,000 and upwards of 50,000.

What in the heck? If you can name 1,000 laws, kudos to you. If you can't, maybe it means our current system is overworked and underwhelming.

"It is currently estimated that the average American commits at least a dozen felonies a day"
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
THAT government (that sort of means that there is one) is best which governs least (which means they are doing something not a complete lack of action).
Once again, this is merely an opinion, not a fact. Quotes from famous people may be fun, but they don't mean anything without real world data to back them up.