User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Author talks about his book on the history of gun rights in America.

  1. #11
    Points: 118,592, Level: 83
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 1,058
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album pictures50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    Cotton1's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    24388
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Mid-South
    Posts
    33,072
    Points
    118,592
    Level
    83
    Thanks Given
    27,021
    Thanked 24,396x in 15,966 Posts
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    I did not know that. They're pretty rare. I don't have one, and almost never come across one. They look cumbersome as heck.
    Here you go..http://gadgetynews.com/self-defense-...rower-hottest-
    I'm yo.
    This my brother yo
    We yo yo

  2. #12
    Original Ranter
    Points: 856,745, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496108
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,093
    Points
    856,745
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    152,933
    Thanked 147,118x in 94,140 Posts
    Mentioned
    2547 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    I'm just the messenger simply noting there is a new power of academia now in the arena -- first, actually, I've seen. And who would these people be "who would prevent anti-Constitutional action against guns".

    Are you ready to take it to the streets?
    Rumor has it that I am armed and dangerous.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Lummy (04-20-2019)

  4. #13
    Points: 74,124, Level: 66
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 1,326
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314892
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,515
    Points
    74,124
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,700
    Thanked 21,009x in 12,235 Posts
    Mentioned
    414 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I get the impression that a couple of members took my earlier post the wrong way.

    Yes, Cap, I'm aware that many citizens are, themselves, armed, and in that sense are an impediment to the idea of universal confiscation. But if you read what I wrote, I called the predominately pro-lawful firearms possession view of police forces and the military the "single greatest impediment" to such an action - not the only one. Were most cops of the opinion that private citizens shouldn't be armed, it would make any violent resistance on the part of the citizenry extremely problematic. Armed violence against police attempting to enforce the law would be met with an overwhelming response on the part of the police. In simplest terms, you draw down on a police officer, regardless of how much justification you believe you have for doing so, and every other cop in the world is your enemy. The only way, realistically, to avoid that scenario is not to send the police out trying to enforce such laws in the first place.

    Peter, you wrote that we should consider:

    people who would prevent anti-Constitutional action against guns
    I'm not sure whether you meant the voters, in this instance, or the politicians themselves...but in either case, you're right, of course, and that gets back to my point, above, about nipping the problem in the bud by preventing politicians from putting cops (and perhaps even soldiers, in some extreme cases, posse comitatus notwithstanding) in the position of attempting to enforce an extremely unpopular and ultimately unenforceable law. The politicians, themselves, of course, are not going to be hitting the streets trying to round up those firearms that they've outlawed - rather they are dependent on the forces of law enforcement. And as we have seen in recent days, that is a factor in the equation that they cannot necessarily depend upon.
    "The first thing you want to do after being shot is make sure you are not shot again." - Ace Atkins

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak."
    - Larry McMurtry



  5. #14
    Original Ranter
    Points: 856,745, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496108
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,093
    Points
    856,745
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    152,933
    Thanked 147,118x in 94,140 Posts
    Mentioned
    2547 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    I get the impression that a couple of members took my earlier post the wrong way.

    Yes, Cap, I'm aware that many citizens are, themselves, armed, and in that sense are an impediment to the idea of universal confiscation. But if you read what I wrote, I called the predominately pro-lawful firearms possession view of police forces and the military the "single greatest impediment" to such an action - not the only one. Were most cops of the opinion that private citizens shouldn't be armed, it would make any violent resistance on the part of the citizenry extremely problematic. Armed violence against police attempting to enforce the law would be met with an overwhelming response on the part of the police. In simplest terms, you draw down on a police officer, regardless of how much justification you believe you have for doing so, and every other cop in the world is your enemy. The only way, realistically, to avoid that scenario is not to send the police out trying to enforce such laws in the first place.

    Peter, you wrote that we should consider:



    I'm not sure whether you meant the voters, in this instance, or the politicians themselves...but in either case, you're right, of course, and that gets back to my point, above, about nipping the problem in the bud by preventing politicians from putting cops (and perhaps even soldiers, in some extreme cases, posse comitatus notwithstanding) in the position of attempting to enforce an extremely unpopular and ultimately unenforceable law. The politicians, themselves, of course, are not going to be hitting the streets trying to round up those firearms that they've outlawed - rather they are dependent on the forces of law enforcement. And as we have seen in recent days, that is a factor in the equation that they cannot necessarily depend upon.
    The people will retain their arms despite what law enforcement decides.

    At least so far as the military goes, I have good word that SOCOM is on our side.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts