Man With Concealed Carry Gun May Have Stopped Oregon Shooter

Comments

Glock27's picture
Glock27, posted on December 21, 2012

No liberal anti-gunner wants to hear about all the good legal firearms do, how many lives are saved. I can't understand why they want guns gone. They have to no the gov is going to burn them also. Who exactly do they believe they are kidding?

Suverans2's picture
Suverans2, posted on December 22, 2012

You can't understand why they want guns gone? If you were a predator, either private or state, would you prefer your intended victims be [a] armed , or, [b] unarmed?

Suverans2's picture
Suverans2, posted on December 24, 2012

This question bears repeating, IMO. If you were a predator, either private or state, which would you prefer, [1] armed 'would-be-victims', or, [2] unarmed 'would-be-victims'?

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The last thing people in a "free state" need is a "standing army", they need to voluntarily participate in a "well regulated militia", if they wish to remain in a "free state".

Militia. THE BODY OF CITIZENS IN A STATE, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM REGULAR TROOPS OR A STANDING ARMY. State v. Dawson, 272 N.C.535, 159 D/R/2D 794, 796 (Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 993 [Emphasis added]

Any "body", public or private, capable of securing your natural rights to you is capable of taking your natural rights from you. But, can you imagine trying to force "a well-regulated body of fully armed citizens" to take away their own natural rights, to take away their own freedom? Therein lies the difference between a "standing army" and a "well regulated militia".

"...he [your ruler(s)] shall not multiply horses [chariots, i.e. war machines] to himself, nor cause the people to turn back to Egypt [mitsrayim, i.e. double-straits, i.e. bondage]..."

So, if we find ourselves in "dire straits", we can't, with honesty, say we weren't warned, can we?

Suverans2's picture
Suverans2, posted on December 25, 2012

Not ONE person "liked" that comment? Here's my opinion as to why that is?

FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY are flip-sides of the same coin; if we are not, INDIVIDUALLY, willing to take responsibility for our own freedom, (and that of our brothers and sisters), we cannot, for long, have freedom[1]. As Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I am constantly, and everywhere, reminded of this line from The Matrix.

"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And MANY OF THEM ARE SO...HOPELESSLY DEPENDENT ON THE SYSTEM THAT THEY WILL FIGHT TO PROTECT IT."

Eat, drink, and be merry....
___________________________________

[1] The common sense maxim of law governing this is, "Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem. Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. Co. Litt. 65." ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

 

 Reprint Rights