Hypothetical....uh ok

[jbombelli]

Dude! You are admitting how bad some people are and you still think it is OK to ARM them? Why would you possibly give more destructive capacity to someone who would not think twice about using it AND has proven it before with a string of felonies? I am a die-hard, libertarian, constitutionalist but your arguement makes no sense in the least. These people have the right to defend themselves but that does not mean you have to give them greater destructive capability!

Because I believe in RIGHTS. NOT PRIVILEGES subject to revocation by the government.

You're not a libertarian or die-hard constitutionalist at all. You just think you are.


It comes down to this one thing: That's the price of a free society, and I'm willing to pay it in order to ensure it, because I believe in it.

I'll convict them for shooting someone without a good reason, I'll convict them for robbery, I'll convict them for discharging a firearm within city limits, I'll convict them of reckless endangerment, or whatever the hell. But I won't hold carrying the gun against them, because I carry a gun too.

 

[MrSmitty]

To me, "narc" is some one who has a vested interest, and decides to" rat" someone out, to keep themselves out of trouble. I don't think that applies to me, but I have decided, that even though he is a felon, I am going to remain silent. My personal belief is that if you refuse to live by society's rules, then you give up the rights that we strive to maintain, and live by!

 

[Mad Brew]

To me, "narc" is some one who has a vested interest, and decides to" rat" someone out, to keep themselves out of trouble. I don't think that applies to me, but I have decided, that even though he is a felon, I am going to remain silent. My personal belief is that if you refuse to live by society's rules, then you give up the rights that we strive to maintain, and live by!

I wouldn't consider you a narc, and I agree, that at some point (basically when you severely limit the rights of others) there is a line that is crossed where a person no longer gets to retain any rights. Be vigilant and make the call when you feel it's necessary.

 

[IndyAK]

Dude! You are admitting how bad some people are and you still think it is OK to ARM them? Why would you possibly give more destructive capacity to someone who would not think twice about using it AND has proven it before with a string of felonies? I am a die-hard, libertarian, constitutionalist but your arguement makes no sense in the least. These people have the right to defend themselves but that does not mean you have to give them greater destructive capability!

A die hard Libertarian would not be arguing that the 2A doesn't count for certain Citizens. A Libertarian would be arguing the intent of the founding fathers was that all US Citizens are free and guaranteed the rights explicitly stated in the Constitution. And that the government has no rights except those told in the Constitution.

 

[greyhound47]

A die hard Libertarian would not be arguing that the 2A doesn't count for certain Citizens. A Libertarian would be arguing the intent of the founding fathers was that all US Citizens are free and guaranteed the rights explicitly stated in the Constitution. And that the government has no rights except those told in the Constitution.

Sorry, you're right. I am a libertairian with a brain.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Sorry, you're right. I am a libertairian with a brain.

SO a free man may not necessarily actually be free even though he is free?

 

[Fargo]

A registered sex offender protecting his family. That's possible, I suppose.


I would call the police, let them sort it out. I have a family to protect too.


Any doubts are going to be resolved on behalf of my loved ones.

This, especially since he is a sex offender.

If you are a sex offender and are stupid enough to go around bragging about having a gun, you deserve everything you have coming to you.

Joe