Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: question about firearms laws  (Read 11514 times)

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #45 on: November 11, 2007, 09:00:19 am »

The debate is not whether it exists... but the power from which it sprung. It exists in sovereign documents only.
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #46 on: November 11, 2007, 09:15:39 am »

This is one case where I think a limit to our right to self-defense is rightly limited.  There has to be some logical limitation to the definition of 'arms.'

Life on this planet would quickly cease to exist if everyone carried around a suitcase nuke.

I do think, however, that the people should be equally armed compared to their government.  The solution is not to allow each person to carry a nuke, but instead to keep them away from our government.

While I would tend to agree that it might be a little uncomfortable for you if your next door neighbor had a "nuke"...
There is NO way to prevent or restrict the manufacture and/or possession ultimately, except to murder other sovereign planetary inhabitants if they manufacture and/or possess "nukes"...or, for that matter...anything that we feel "uncomfortable" with them manufacturing and/or possessing...

This is the mentality of some who beat the war drum...
They say "we must keep others from having certain weapons that could be used both defensively...and offensively...

You stated that people should be equally armed compared to their government...but I disagree...
We The People should ALWAYS be armed to a much greater extent than our "public servants"...those given the "privilege" of serving We The People...

Instead, we somehow attempt to give the "authority" or "jurisdiction" to others...and have those others rob,steal,rape,kidnap,torture,murder, and commit genocide in a twisted attempt to force our "will" upon other sovereign planetary inhabitants...

Obviously this is NEVER "legitimate"...
It boils down to "gangs with guns"...

We can trace this aggression/force/fraud back through all of recorded history...
It didn't start yesterday...and it's not going to end tomorrow...

The global power elite have maintained their control over most of the planet for centuries...
They are NOT going to give that up...willingly...ever...

Since most of us are physically "occupying" the portion of this planet called "The United States of America" I will use a recent example...

The war of northern aggression showed that, even 150 years ago, those occupying this part of the planet could be divided and conquered in relatively short order...

Brothers killed brothers, fathers killed sons, and sons killed fathers...

Willing pawns of the global power elite...

And the struggle continues...

I wish I was wrong, but I truly believe when the artillery starts rolling through the streets of this country...

Brothers, fathers, and sons will turn upon each other again...

And the bloodbath will make the war of northern aggression look like a Sunday Social...

Well, at least we've still got baseball, apple pie, and chevrolet...

Enjoy!

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #47 on: November 11, 2007, 11:18:28 am »

War of Northern Aggression? LOL.
Is there such a thing as a non-aggressive war?

I believe the argument for those using this term would be to return to the Articles of Confederation, unfortunately they do not contain the Bill of Rights. Or maybe prior to that with each State being a true Republic without an umbrella document.

The last being vastly acceptable to both Canada and Mexico... as there is some annexed real estate they would like returned.
Logged

CA_Libertarian

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
  • FSP Member 2007
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #48 on: November 11, 2007, 02:12:53 pm »

This is one case where I think a limit to our right to self-defense is rightly limited.  There has to be some logical limitation to the definition of 'arms.'

Life on this planet would quickly cease to exist if everyone carried around a suitcase nuke.

I do think, however, that the people should be equally armed compared to their government.  The solution is not to allow each person to carry a nuke, but instead to keep them away from our government.

While I would tend to agree that it might be a little uncomfortable for you if your next door neighbor had a "nuke"...
There is NO way to prevent or restrict the manufacture and/or possession ultimately, except to murder other sovereign planetary inhabitants if they manufacture and/or possess "nukes"...or, for that matter...anything that we feel "uncomfortable" with them manufacturing and/or possessing...

There is no way to use WMDs without harming innocent bystanders.  This means that any 'defensive' use would result in an act of aggression.  There is also very little one can do if they are a victim of someone with a WMD.  Body armor won't stop you from being vaporized by a nuke.  Therefore, WMDs have no value for self defense.

If someone is attempting to acquire a WMD, I view that as the equivalent of them shooting a gun randomly in a crowded mall.  They may not hit anybody, but there is such high potential for injury/death to another person that it is proper to use force to stop that person.  If one's actions will logically only lead to injury/death of innocent bystanders, it is just to stop them.
Logged
www.pledgebank.com/Next1000

The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
~Thomas Paine (1737–1809)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up