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
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009
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="Werewolf" data-source="post: 1972316" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>I don't doubt your interpretation of the Heller ruling at all G2G - in fact I think it's spot on.</p><p></p><p>And that is truly, truly scary. Sensibilities. Ooooooh it's scary. Ban it for the children. </p><p></p><p>If sensibilites is a reason to prohibit somthing then states could legislate just about anything out of existence.</p><p></p><p>Porn is protected by the 1st from being banned due to sensibilities but guns aren't protected by the 2nd for the same reason? The diffence is that guns kill, the antis will say. But then so does porn and when's the last time porn was used to defend and save a life. Yet the right to create porn is protected and the right to carry guns is not because it might offend someone who sees it. What the heck is wrong with that picture.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand a guy walking around in a park minding his own business and maybe seeking some attention or making a statement or even just plain being a jackass is an unredeemable douche and his actions are so downright irresponsible that whether or not he is exercising a right becomes irrelevant because "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should". And - he is excoriated by the very community that should be rallying to his defense.</p><p></p><p>People! We're all different and what's good for some isn't for others and vice versa. In a free society you deal with both the good and bad that that dichotomy creates or you don't live in a free society. </p><p></p><p>As others have said and Voltaire is attributed to have penned, "I disaprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". The same applies to actions. You may not like what the guy did but he had every right to do it and his actions should be defended based on his right to do it.</p><p></p><p>Either that or just eliminate the right.</p><p></p><p>Which is where we're probably headed anyway and no one seems to really care as long as it isn't their ox that's being gored.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 1972316, member: 239"] I don't doubt your interpretation of the Heller ruling at all G2G - in fact I think it's spot on. And that is truly, truly scary. Sensibilities. Ooooooh it's scary. Ban it for the children. If sensibilites is a reason to prohibit somthing then states could legislate just about anything out of existence. Porn is protected by the 1st from being banned due to sensibilities but guns aren't protected by the 2nd for the same reason? The diffence is that guns kill, the antis will say. But then so does porn and when's the last time porn was used to defend and save a life. Yet the right to create porn is protected and the right to carry guns is not because it might offend someone who sees it. What the heck is wrong with that picture. On the other hand a guy walking around in a park minding his own business and maybe seeking some attention or making a statement or even just plain being a jackass is an unredeemable douche and his actions are so downright irresponsible that whether or not he is exercising a right becomes irrelevant because "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should". And - he is excoriated by the very community that should be rallying to his defense. People! We're all different and what's good for some isn't for others and vice versa. In a free society you deal with both the good and bad that that dichotomy creates or you don't live in a free society. As others have said and Voltaire is attributed to have penned, "I disaprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". The same applies to actions. You may not like what the guy did but he had every right to do it and his actions should be defended based on his right to do it. Either that or just eliminate the right. Which is where we're probably headed anyway and no one seems to really care as long as it isn't their ox that's being gored. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom