bmtpbm
New member
When debating what laws we should have, I often hear these statements:
"The Constitution says this . . . "
"It only applies to a well regulated militia."
"We must protect the general public, through training and permits . . . just like driving school or hunters safety."
"With rights come responsibility."
I always go back to the inalienable right for an individual to protect his or her life. The core belief.
I'm sure no one would argue that I have the right to put up my arms if someone is started throwing punches at me for no apparent reason. What makes firearms so concerning is the power. Power is not good or bad, but neutral. It's really about who has the power and how it's used.
I believe what concerns people, is that proper engagement actions and state of mind needs to be discussed before someone enters into a situation with a firearm. Permitting thus forces the discussion and debate with the person about to carry with experts. It also is an opportunity to discuss best practices and studies that were done . . . perhaps even examples.
However, I go back to the inalienable right. The courts have ruled that calling 911 or having a police officer near does not guaranty safety, because there is no duty to protect you. So how can the government be authorized to punish me for not having permission to carry a firearm, yet have no duty to protect me individually? Is the governments basis that the masses are more important than me as a single person?
Hi Doug . . . I liked your thoughts too. Debate and conflict is not good or bad . . . it is neutral; just like the power to take a thread off topic and get it locked. I only mean to discuss issues starting from a premise and influencing with logical supporting ideas of the premise. I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum and do not mean to harm the firearm movement. I believe exposing ideas help, otherwise people tend to just chant slogans back and forth.
"The Constitution says this . . . "
"It only applies to a well regulated militia."
"We must protect the general public, through training and permits . . . just like driving school or hunters safety."
"With rights come responsibility."
I always go back to the inalienable right for an individual to protect his or her life. The core belief.
I'm sure no one would argue that I have the right to put up my arms if someone is started throwing punches at me for no apparent reason. What makes firearms so concerning is the power. Power is not good or bad, but neutral. It's really about who has the power and how it's used.
I believe what concerns people, is that proper engagement actions and state of mind needs to be discussed before someone enters into a situation with a firearm. Permitting thus forces the discussion and debate with the person about to carry with experts. It also is an opportunity to discuss best practices and studies that were done . . . perhaps even examples.
However, I go back to the inalienable right. The courts have ruled that calling 911 or having a police officer near does not guaranty safety, because there is no duty to protect you. So how can the government be authorized to punish me for not having permission to carry a firearm, yet have no duty to protect me individually? Is the governments basis that the masses are more important than me as a single person?
Hi Doug . . . I liked your thoughts too. Debate and conflict is not good or bad . . . it is neutral; just like the power to take a thread off topic and get it locked. I only mean to discuss issues starting from a premise and influencing with logical supporting ideas of the premise. I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum and do not mean to harm the firearm movement. I believe exposing ideas help, otherwise people tend to just chant slogans back and forth.