You keep talking about that monopoly on force, but you've yet to explain what that's supposed to mean. Are everyday people supposed to be allowed to go out and hunt down criminals Punisher-style? Is anyone supposed to be allowed to shoot other people to death for any crime no matter how insignificant? Do you not believe that law enforcement should be up to...well, law enforcement? What is this "violence" that you think everyday citizens should be allowed to partake in?
I'm in the middle - I don't want either side having complete control. Well, after we get SCOTUS fixed for a while...
"He's an idiot and a clown." This thread is a riot, and very revealing. "My interaction with the military .........." How's that, watching movies with blowhard?
This could happen. Of course I would control my dog, but you never know what other dogs would do. I wonder how the open carry thugs would react?
"These Louisiana statutory sections provide the state's animal control and dangerous dog laws. A dog becomes dangerous when (1) unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner of the dog; (2) any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing an injury; or (3) any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner of the dog. It is unlawful for any person to own a dangerous dog without properly restraining or confining the dog. Any citizen or officer may kill any dangerous or vicious dog, and no citizen or officer shall be liable for damages or to prosecution by reason of killing any dangerous or vicious dog. The section also provides laws on licensing, vaccination, and prohibitions on dogs running at large." " ยง 102.14. Unlawful ownership of dangerous dog. A. For the purposes of this Section "dangerous dog" means: (1) Any dog which when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner of the dog; or (2) Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing an injury; or (3) Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner of the dog. B. It is unlawful for any person to own a dangerous dog without properly restraining or confining the dog. https://www.animallaw.info/statute/la-dangerous-louisiana-dangerous-dog-dog-bite-laws
Well, you just never know how dogs will react to strangers carrying long things that could be a big stick in their neighborhood.
In this specific context, the phrase refers to the federal government being the only side of the equation to have access to firearms and other weapons, thus leaving private citizens devoid of the most effective tools for self defense, on the basis that they can be used to harm others. Such a situation leaves private individuals without a means of effectively protecting themselves, and returning to a feudal-type system where those who are physically strongest dominate those that are weaker than themselves through force, thus implementing the philosophy of might makes right. This nonsense arises from the inability, or unwillingness, to understand that self defense is not vigilantism, nor is it taking the law into their own hands. It is about stopping a threat before one is victimized in an unacceptable manner. It is about ensuring that the rights of the victim are not violated by one who has decided that they will not abide by the rules of society. If they should die as a result in that unwillingness, that is immaterial.
...and you are able to prove definitively that, for instance, Sweden is in such a state, considering the country's rather strict gun control? A person dying is immaterial? On that we'll have to disagree. The thing which you don't seem to have taken into consideration is the fact that the number of people using firearms in committing crimes is far greater than the number of people using firearms to defend themselves against crimes. It does sound to me like you are assuming that any gun control would for some reason only remove firearms from the second group but let all in the first group keep theirs. The fact of the matter is that the need for firearms as a measure of self defense is highly overstated by you.
That is what is being referred to regarding a threat against others. Unless your location is residence is in one of the five states where the open carrying of firearms is legally prohibited, nothing will ultimately happen should someone actually do such. Law enforcement may show up and question the individuals, or they may simply inform the caller that the open carrying of firearms is legal. Unless you intend to knowingly and deliberately exaggerate the situation in a manner that may get someone killed, nothing is going to happen with law enforcement. If such a course of action is indeed chosen, you will be arrested and charged for filing a false report, and as an accessory to murder. It will be yourself that will lose in such a situation. The only way anything may actually happen, would be if you decide to engage in an act that would constitute murder in the eyes of the law. In which case you will still lose the situation. And now a veiled threat of committing assault with a deadly weapon.
Well there you go. I don't have a picture of my dog on my computer, but this is what I have. An American Indian dog. Three guesses what his name is, and the first two don't count.
What does that have to do with anything? I believe you may have misread his meaning, then. We know that gun control, if not actually enforced, doesn't keep criminals from getting guns. Straw purchases are felonies, yet those convicted get probation. Trying to buy a gun at a gunshop as a felon is a felony, yet 34k felons each year attempt to do so. In 2010, we convicted ten such felons. Dropping felony gun charges as a plea bargain offers no disincentive to commit gun crimes, yet cities like Chicago continue to do so. http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/ These are all gun crimes that are absolutely enforceable but aren't. When you talk about adding a UBC, without registration, it cannot be enforced. When you combine cannot and will not, what possible disincentive for criminal activity? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. How does one measure the need for firearms for self defense?
