Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
ABC News: Firearm Confiscation Orders Part of Solution to Mass Public Attacks
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3052888" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>I'd distinguish both, particularly the civil war (which really ought to be called the second revolution--the south wasn't trying to take control of the existing government, it was trying to separate from it), from the topic of mass confiscation. In a revolution, you have loyalists and rebels, the latter of whom have declared themselves to no longer be of the existing (parent) nation. That's psychologically different from firing on people whom you acknowledge to still be your countrymen.</p><p></p><p>As to the proposal, I don't think most would have any problem with it, as it would be (nominally) carried out pursuant to due process of law against individuals specifically determined to be a threat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3052888, member: 13624"] I'd distinguish both, particularly the civil war (which really ought to be called the second revolution--the south wasn't trying to take control of the existing government, it was trying to separate from it), from the topic of mass confiscation. In a revolution, you have loyalists and rebels, the latter of whom have declared themselves to no longer be of the existing (parent) nation. That's psychologically different from firing on people whom you acknowledge to still be your countrymen. As to the proposal, I don't think most would have any problem with it, as it would be (nominally) carried out pursuant to due process of law against individuals specifically determined to be a threat. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
ABC News: Firearm Confiscation Orders Part of Solution to Mass Public Attacks
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom