• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arizona Star - Businesses warm up to public gun carry, offer discounts to gun carriers

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

I will try one more time, DUDE, and then I will stop.

Liberty increased under the new laws. Therefore, by the very definition of the word, the law is becoming more liberal. I am not arguing whether or not it should be law or unwritten rights. I am discussing the meaning of the word only.

B: The grass is not green.

A: The grass is green.

B: But, the cow has spots.

A: The grass is still green.

B: Dude, the cow has spots!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

eye95 wrote:
I will try one more time, DUDE, and then I will stop.

Liberty increased under the new laws. Therefore, by the very definition of the word, the law is becoming more liberal. I am not arguing whether or not it should be law or unwritten rights. I am discussing the meaning of the word only.

B: The grass is not green.

A: The grass is green.

B: But, the cow has spots.

A: The grass is still green.

B: Dude, the cow has spots!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
You were educated in statist government schools, no doubt (as was tha author). You begin with the premise that the state 'allows', No... the state restricts or disallows. Think of it this way... what is not illegal... is legal... and therefore may be done w/o permission as a natural action.The STATE does not allow me to do anything... but it will restrict or deny by authority granted the state by the electorate.
 

crisisweasel

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Pima County, Arizona, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
I think he is saying that self-defense being the basis of the RKBA is a myth.  He contends that the basis is protection from tyranny.

I see the foundation as being varying manifestations of self-defense:

-- Defense of self against predatory animals

-- Defense of self against predatory people

-- Defense of self and community against foreign invaders

-- Defense of self and community against domestic tyrants

To me, it is all self-defense.

This is the way I look at it too. Defense of self against tyranny is just a permutation of the right of self-defense.

Enumerated as such in the Second Amendment because in the context of a foundational document, this is what they were thinking about, but it no way exclusive of, or superceding, the larger point, which is the defense of one's life, or the right to one's life.

Again, a right which exists prior to and supercedes any written document.

I wonder if you could go back and talk to those guys what they'd say about defense from criminals. I have always assumed that they would consider a thing "obvious."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

S.R.

I did no such thing. You cannot have a civil intellectual debate, so you resort to insulting someone with whom you think you disagree. (You don't.) This convo is not worth wasting time on.

Moving on.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

crisisweasel wrote:
eye95 wrote:
I think he is saying that self-defense being the basis of the RKBA is a myth. He contends that the basis is protection from tyranny.

I see the foundation as being varying manifestations of self-defense:

-- Defense of self against predatory animals

-- Defense of self against predatory people

-- Defense of self and community against foreign invaders

-- Defense of self and community against domestic tyrants

To me, it is all self-defense.

This is the way I look at it too. Defense of self against tyranny is just a permutation of the right of self-defense.

Enumerated as such in the Second Amendment because in the context of a foundational document, this is what they were thinking about, but it no way exclusive of, or superceding, the larger point, which is the defense of one's life, or the right to one's life.

Again, a right which exists prior to and supercedes any written document.

I wonder if you could go back and talk to those guys what they'd say about defense from criminals. I have always assumed that they would consider a thing "obvious."
The only reason that they wouldn't say, "Duh!" is because the expression did not exist then. :D
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

eye95 wrote:
S.R.

I did no such thing. You cannot have a civil intellectual debate, so you resort to insulting someone with whom you think you disagree. (You don't.) This convo is not worth wasting time on.

Moving on.
Good... Keep yourself in Alabama by permission.
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
imported post

eye95 wrote:
I think he is saying that self-defense being the basis of the RKBA is a myth. He contends that the basis is protection from tyranny.

I see the foundation as being varying manifestations of self-defense:

-- Defense of self against predatory animals

-- Defense of self against predatory people

-- Defense of self and community against foreign invaders

-- Defense of self and community against domestic tyrants

To me, it is all self-defense.

Ah. I see that you GET it. Mark doesn't.Mark tries to argue that the TRUE purpose of the right to bear arms is to remind the government who's in charge.I've seen him argue that carrying to"PROTECT" yourselfhas NOTHING todo with the 2nd Amendment.

So, for him,the concept of self defense is a myth.He carries to intimidate and make a statement,NOT for self defense.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:
You were educated in statist government schools, no doubt (as was tha author). You begin with the premise that the state 'allows', No... the state restricts or disallows. Think of it this way... what is not illegal... is legal... and therefore may be done w/o permission as a natural action.The STATE does not allow me to do anything... but it will restrict or deny by authority granted the state by the electorate.
Try this: what was illegal, now isn't. The state did restrict and disallow; now it doesn't (or at least not as much, because there are still people and places that are off limits.)

That's the very definition of liberalizing a law.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Sonora Rebel wrote:
You were educated in statist government schools, no doubt (as was tha author). You begin with the premise that the state 'allows', No... the state restricts or disallows. Think of it this way... what is not illegal... is legal... and therefore may be done w/o permission as a natural action.The STATE does not allow me to do anything... but it will restrict or deny by authority granted the state by the electorate.
Try this: what was illegal, now isn't. The state did restrict and disallow; now it doesn't (or at least not as much, because there are still people and places that are off limits.)

That's the very definition of liberalizing a law.
I'll buy that.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Sonora Rebel wrote:
You were educated in statist government schools, no doubt (as was tha author). You begin with the premise that the state 'allows', No... the state restricts or disallows. Think of it this way... what is not illegal... is legal... and therefore may be done w/o permission as a natural action.The STATE does not allow me to do anything... but it will restrict or deny by authority granted the state by the electorate.
Try this: what was illegal, now isn't. The state did restrict and disallow; now it doesn't (or at least not as much, because there are still people and places that are off limits.)

That's the very definition of liberalizing a law.
Precisely.

However, I am surprised that you have not been dismissed out-of-hand as having attended a statist school.
 

ogroup

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
40
Location
, ,
imported post

Now all we need is not to see NO FIREARMS SIGN everywhere. I never seen so many here in AZ. Yes you can carry a firearm but where do you carry it to.
 

GWbiker

Guest
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
958
Location
USA
imported post

ogroup wrote:
Now all we need is not to see NO FIREARMS SIGN everywhere. I never seen so many here in AZ. Yes you can carry a firearm but where do you carry it to.

Don't know where you've been but in Tucson, but quite a few restaurants and businesses are NOT posted.

Then there is Open Carry elsewhere.
 

ogroup

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
40
Location
, ,
imported post

Don't need to...it seem you get upset over other views here. Are you the police of the board?
I don't readily suffer juvenile fools such as you. Your type is never satisfied. I have little patience with whiners.
I am no fool, but you seem nottolike other peoples views...so you are the one that is not satified with any views on this board. So I have little patiences for you. Really your are boring me with your BS
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

ogroup wrote:
Don't need to...it seem you get upset over other views here. Are you the police of the board?
I don't readily suffer juvenile fools such as you. Your type is never satisfied. I have little patience with whiners.
I am no fool, but you seem nottolike other peoples views...so you are the one that is not satified with any views on this board. So I have little patiences for you. Really your are boring me with your BS
Speak English much? You sure can't write it.
 

GWbiker

Guest
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
958
Location
USA
imported post

ogroup wrote:
Don't need to...it seem you get upset over other views here. Are you the police of the board?
I don't readily suffer juvenile fools such as you. Your type is never satisfied. I have little patience with whiners.
 I am no fool, but you seem not to like other peoples views...so you are the one that is not satified with any views on this board. So I have little patiences for you. Really your are boring me with your BS

 

Great, then leave. Stay in your own yard.

And close the back gate on the way out...:cuss:
 
Top