Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Carry Rights front page headline

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    On the front page of their Sunday October 11 edition, the Indianapolis Star headline screams: "SHOULD THESE MEN BE ALLOWED TO CARRY A GUN?". What say you?

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...S14/910110365/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Two retorts: Which part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood? And; "If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony', as has been done in the cases of domestic violence and veterans victimized by diagnoses."

    In another but similar thread my mention of the Continuum Fallacy seemed to redound. The application of it to even cases such as mentioned in this newsrag is still aborning, maybe y'all can run with it.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

  3. #3
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    I too have a hard time with the word "allowed". On the one hand I would never want a murderer, rapist, armed robbery nor any other "armed felon" to be given back the right to self preservation/determination. On the other hand as Doug aforementioned, knock down the determination of felony, and soon if we jaywalk we'll be felons. Having read the article, I firmly believe that the fella that held his wife captive 4 days and the other that held the gun to his girlfriends head already commited felonies. One felony kidnapping, the other assault with a deadly weapon. Now I'm not a lawyer nor a judge but I know a bit about the law. And I know the UCMJ by heart, which also reflected large amounts of civil law +++ some things not in civil law. But,, I also know WHAT part of "Shall not be infringed" I understand.
    Get a grip Doug, you want either of those two fella's I mentioned NEAR your wife or daughter?? I don't.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    And there lies the difference between the law founded on principles and a law based in the concerns of a man - the rule of men.

    Maybe the difficulty lies in understanding just what is 'principle'? A functional definition that I find useful is, principle is that which is not compromised. If it was easy then everyone would do it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    The link doesn't do justice to the layout of the front page:

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    As you can see, the design of the headline and the photos of the BGs is intended to do one thing: scare law abiding citizens and further the association of guns = bad. The article essentially is critical of the state police for not enforcing our permit laws provision requiring "good character and reputation".

    How would you like your government deciding if you fit the bill?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Section32 wrote:
    The link doesn't do justice to the layout of the front page:
    3 black guys and one token light-skinned guy (who I can't tell the race of, Caucasian or Hispanic).

    HAHAHA could they be any more obviously racist, just like the racist-created victim disarmament laws they love so dearly?



Posting Permissions

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