No.
To quote Thomas Jefferson, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Yep ,
and we are going
to make absolutely ,
positively sure it is not .
I am not going to
relax one second .
That's an either/or question. If owning guns became illegal (and I don't think it will, or should for that matter) a person could not both own guns and remain a law abiding citizen.
There's no evidence Jefferson ever said that, but like many other things, it sounds like something he may have said. Jefferson Foundation Quote Check
right... but banning certain types of guns WILL HAVE unintended consequences and OPEN THE DOOR to dearming citizens completely.... live in NY.... ull see how screwed up things get...… then ban any and everything they want to...
I would continue on my path and rightly ignore unjust laws. I would feel obligated.
You said a mouthful right there my friend....
alllllll these laws and prohibitions are really starting to make certain folks(like me) take a hard line now... and the worst part about this is that most people don't see the effects of certain laws/prohibitions until it hits close to home... or they visit ny… it has to be about a month though until u reallllly start to see how restrictive it gets.
Hi. It is like the
I'm glad it ended well, but the potential for disaster is very high in that particular scenario. Good job supporting the fact that guns can be and are used to defend.
Yep, he could have easily been a statistic himself...lucky fella.
I would continue
on my path and
rightly ignore
unjust laws .
I would feel
obligated .
With enough laws ,
we can turn everyone
into a criminal . . .
Right ?
Not only that guns are often needed for self defense, but this is also a valid argument for two other high profile points:
One representation doesn't create the validity of any argument, nor does it have any significant effect on the statistical probability that any particular gun owned by any individual is far more likely to be used to kill or injure a person other than an intruder. What this does do however, is provide evidence that one of the major talking points on the liberal side is in fact false, guns can, and in this example do provide security and safety for owners. That popular narrative, that guns (particularly certain types of guns) have no redeeming qualities or legitimate uses outside of a military setting is patently untrue, and should be called into question whenever it is applied. This example shows exactly how such a weapon can be used effectively. The person felt threatened by the armed intruders, responded appropriately, and protected his own and his loved ones' lives.
The argument isn't that those under 21 don't need to defend themselves, it's whether or not a person under 21 can make sound decisions. This is hugely problematic for me from a logical perspective. If we as a society deem a person not old enough to make important decisions until age 21 (a position which is not inconsistent with psychological research incidentally), then we should not deem them eligible for military service either. Currently a person can voluntarily sign up to serve, or be required to do so (drafted), either of which arguably can require death or killing, at age 18. Either a person is an adult at 18, can presumably make good decisions, and we then extend to them all the rights and responsibilities of society, i.e. voting, alcohol, guns, driving, military service, tobacco, or they are not, cannot be trusted to make these decisions for themselves, and these milestones are put off until age 21. We can't have it both ways.
brilliant analysis Mr. Brown, as usual and very well stated. One thing I would say is 18 year olds in the services are under extreme supervision. Still how do you deny someone the privileges of citizenship then ask them to make the maximum sacrifice?
Agreed that they are under supervision once the decision (or demand) is made, but the decision itself requires no assistance or supervision at all.
