Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Dave Workman on Firearms Rights and Responsibilities - Feb. 13

  1. #1
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239

    Dave Workman on Firearms Rights and Responsibilities - Feb. 13

    http://armeddefense.org/events?event...e=EventDetails


    Notable firearms rights advocate and accomplished author Dave Workman presents to ADTA!

    ADTA Monthly Membership Meeting
    Thursday, February 13, 2014, 7pm
    Brooklake Church
    629 S 356th St
    Federal Way, WA

    FREE PRESENTATION
    Open to ADTA members, friends, family, and the public.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Dave has provided firearm owners with a good voice. I respect him, although I don't always agree with him. This is one of those times.

    Responsibilities? My responsibilities to my fellow men is to honor my contracts and not harm them. Otherwise, "responsibility" sounds suspiciously like an "obligation" thunk up by someone else who wants to control me rather than persuade me.

    Except not initiating violence against others, and not endangering them by violating The Four Rules, what other gun-owner responsibility could one have?
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-09-2014 at 04:13 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Dave has provided firearm owners with a good voice. I respect him, although I don't always agree with him. This is one of those times.

    Responsibilities? My responsibilities to my fellow men is to honor my contracts and not harm them. Otherwise, "responsibility" sounds suspiciously like an "obligation" thunk up by someone else who wants to control me rather than persuade me.

    Except not initiating violence against others, and not endangering them by violating The Four Rules, what other gun-owner responsibility could one have?
    You haven't even heard what he has to say! What about the responsibilities that the state requires of gun owners? Chapter 9.41 of the RCW is full of "responsibilities".

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    You haven't even heard what he has to say! What about the responsibilities that the state requires of gun owners? Chapter 9.41 of the RCW is full of "responsibilities".
    Those are NOT responsibilities, they are OBLIGATIONS and REQUIREMENTS set by the state to enable one the enjoyment of 2A.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 02-13-2014 at 09:36 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Infringements to exercise a right.

    The positive law of the state is meaningless except we follow it not to feel the violent coercive effect of not.

    I am not obligated to do nothing to exercise a right. How can anyone else set requirements to for someone else to exercise a right?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    They are resposibilities. Im not saying I agree with all of them or that they obligate someone to exercise their right to bear arms. Im saying that like it or not, if you choose to have a firearm in your possesion, you are reponsible for knowing and following all of the federal/state/local, laws/reguations/rules regarding firearms. Being responsible for following those rules, by definition, makes them resposibilities.

  7. #7
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Did anyone go? Puppy chewed thru a plastic baby gate, and got into cold medicine, so I got to spend my evening in the puppy E.R.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Why in a free country are there a myriad of government rules we the free people are responsible to look up and follow?

    How about getting back to common law/natural law roots?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why in a free country are there a myriad of government rules we the free people are responsible to look up and follow?

    How about getting back to common law/natural law roots?
    Can't, because there is no money or power to be gained by the elite when "free" people are free.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Can't, because there is no money or power to be gained by the elite when "free" people are free.
    So true and why they work to disarm us mundanes as well and sell us on the propaganda of the necessity of the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    They are resposibilities. Im not saying I agree with all of them or that they obligate someone to exercise their right to bear arms. Im saying that like it or not, if you choose to have a firearm in your possesion, you are reponsible for knowing and following all of the federal/state/local, laws/reguations/rules regarding firearms. Being responsible for following those rules, by definition, makes them resposibilities.
    No it doesn't. They're just assertions foisted on others in order to control them.

    Being "held responsible" is far, far different from being responsible. Simply put, responsibility is being the source of causation. The state is demanding I cause or not cause certain things to occur. And, if I do not comply, they will twist responsibility into blame: "He should have done such-and-such, but he didn't, and now its all his fault! Punish him!"

    Phfffft!!

    As soon as I hear someone say or write, "...has a responsibility to..." I am instantly on the alert. Too often the assertion is just a pathetic attempt at control.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-15-2014 at 11:49 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No it doesn't. They're just assertions foisted on others in order to control them.

    Being "held responsible" is far, far different from being responsible. Simply put, responsibility is being the source of causation. The state is demanding I cause or not cause certain things to occur. And, if I do not comply, they will twist responsibility into blame: "He should have done such-and-such, but he didn't, and now its all his fault! Punish him!"

    Phfffft!!

    As soon as I hear someone say or write, "...has a responsibility to..." I am instantly on the alert. Too often the assertion is just a pathetic attempt at control.
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •