Not everything is about guns, but historically guns have played a pretty big role. I'd like to know what is so delusional about the poster above. The battles of Lexington and Concord did happen when the British attempted to confiscate the local powder magazine.
There had been problems and protests before, but this was what literally touched off the powderkeg.
C'mon, man. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was insignificant compared to all the other reasons that led up to the revolution. Why do you have to support such exaggerated and distorted nonsense?
Because, Mike, this was more than just a straw that broke the camel's back. Up til this point, people could protest and send petitions to the King and Parlaiment. When there was an attempt on their guns, things came to a head then and there, because had they lost their powder, they would have lost the opportunity to fight for their freedom.
Similar attempts were made on other community magazines and brought similar ire. Had the British not attempted to take the gunpowder, peaceful talks would have gone on longer and may have borne fruit.
T., that sounds like revisionist nonsense to me. I honestly cannot remember ever hearing about the gun confiscation part in school. I remember "no taxation without representation," but the gun rights angle, I'm afraid not.
Could someone explain how the tyranny of armed thugs which rule our cities is in any way preferable to State-sponsored tyranny? We argue for gun control, not the widespread adoption of Juche ideology.
About the only way that it's preferable is that they don't have the ability to destroy as many lives since they're less organized and forced to operate in the shadows.
We don't want that tyranny in the cities either. That's why we wanted Otis McDonald to be able to legally own a gun and why we'd like him to be able to carry it if he chooses to do so.
We still have problems with crime here in Tennessee, but since more people are legally armed, including in the inner city areas, we don't have the rampant lawlessness of many big cities.
E.N. or Ian--said the same, in any case--how typical of your side. Anyone who disagrees with you must be in need of being medicated.
The tyranny of thugs in our large cities is precisely the creation of control freaks. The control freaks have ruined the schools; they've made legal gun ownership and carry difficult wherever possible; they've driven away business and welcomed corruption.
Stop trying to control everything if you want to see improvement.
You're wrong again. That was all over the news at the time. We discussed it at length here - the violation of leaving a 12-year-old home alone with a gun and the fact that she fired through the door. By chance, it all ended well, but you should be embarrassed to even bring it up. It's a terrible example of gun rights and safe gun management.
"Delusional Gun-rights Fanatics Think Everything is About Guns"
Wrong. Gun-rights advocates are liberty fanatics. And guns are the liberty litmus test.
A citizen is free to do anything they want and own anything they want as long as they don't harm another citizen or infringe on another citizen's rights.
An armed citizen does not harm any other citizens nor do they infringe on the rights of any other citizens. On the other hand, gun control infringes on the right of citizens who wish to be armed.
It is quite simple. Armed citizens wish to be left alone. Gun control proponents wish to bully armed citizens. It should be obvious why armed citizens are pushing back against bullying.
Not everything is about guns, but historically guns have played a pretty big role. I'd like to know what is so delusional about the poster above. The battles of Lexington and Concord did happen when the British attempted to confiscate the local powder magazine.
ReplyDeleteThere had been problems and protests before, but this was what literally touched off the powderkeg.
C'mon, man. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was insignificant compared to all the other reasons that led up to the revolution. Why do you have to support such exaggerated and distorted nonsense?
DeleteBecause, Mike, this was more than just a straw that broke the camel's back. Up til this point, people could protest and send petitions to the King and Parlaiment. When there was an attempt on their guns, things came to a head then and there, because had they lost their powder, they would have lost the opportunity to fight for their freedom.
DeleteSimilar attempts were made on other community magazines and brought similar ire. Had the British not attempted to take the gunpowder, peaceful talks would have gone on longer and may have borne fruit.
Where is the exaggeration or distortion?
T., that sounds like revisionist nonsense to me. I honestly cannot remember ever hearing about the gun confiscation part in school. I remember "no taxation without representation," but the gun rights angle, I'm afraid not.
DeleteMikeb, I've shown you before that I have many interests. So far as I can tell, yours are guns and some questionable choices in music.
ReplyDeleteguns and some questionable choices in music.
DeleteL M A O !!!!!!
orlin sellers
Yeah, that's pretty funny.
DeleteThanks for sharing that, but was there a connection?
ReplyDeleteIt's an example of where things could go if we tolerate too much government control.
ReplyDeleteCould someone explain how the tyranny of armed thugs which rule our cities is in any way preferable to State-sponsored tyranny? We argue for gun control, not the widespread adoption of Juche ideology.
ReplyDeleteGreg needs to take his medication.
Ian,
ReplyDeleteAbout the only way that it's preferable is that they don't have the ability to destroy as many lives since they're less organized and forced to operate in the shadows.
We don't want that tyranny in the cities either. That's why we wanted Otis McDonald to be able to legally own a gun and why we'd like him to be able to carry it if he chooses to do so.
We still have problems with crime here in Tennessee, but since more people are legally armed, including in the inner city areas, we don't have the rampant lawlessness of many big cities.
E.N. or Ian--said the same, in any case--how typical of your side. Anyone who disagrees with you must be in need of being medicated.
ReplyDeleteThe tyranny of thugs in our large cities is precisely the creation of control freaks. The control freaks have ruined the schools; they've made legal gun ownership and carry difficult wherever possible; they've driven away business and welcomed corruption.
Stop trying to control everything if you want to see improvement.
Here's a story you missed Mike B. http://www.kten.com/story/19848350/12-year-old-shoots-home-intruder
ReplyDeleteWe won't see this story on the MSM.
You're wrong again. That was all over the news at the time. We discussed it at length here - the violation of leaving a 12-year-old home alone with a gun and the fact that she fired through the door. By chance, it all ended well, but you should be embarrassed to even bring it up. It's a terrible example of gun rights and safe gun management.
Delete"Delusional Gun-rights Fanatics Think Everything is About Guns"
ReplyDeleteWrong. Gun-rights advocates are liberty fanatics. And guns are the liberty litmus test.
A citizen is free to do anything they want and own anything they want as long as they don't harm another citizen or infringe on another citizen's rights.
An armed citizen does not harm any other citizens nor do they infringe on the rights of any other citizens. On the other hand, gun control infringes on the right of citizens who wish to be armed.
It is quite simple. Armed citizens wish to be left alone. Gun control proponents wish to bully armed citizens. It should be obvious why armed citizens are pushing back against bullying.
"An armed citizen does not harm any other citizens nor do they infringe on the rights of any other citizens."
DeleteYou mean, never? Not one single time has that happened?