Defensive Carry banner

21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,501 Posts
Interesting video. I don't agree with everything he said but I like the fact that he was able to speak his mind at what looks like some sort of liberal arts fair. He is right in that guns make peace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
That was a nice speech and all...but it kinda ignores the whole gun control message. Even the most extreme communists support the military having firearms. Firearms are completely illegal to civilians in places like North Korea...but they are perfectly happy with the military being heavily armed. He also made only half of a major point...he said that failed states are particularly dangerous because they don't see firearms as instruments of peace. That is half true; the thugs that get the guns in these formerly gun-controlled states see the firearms as instruments of power, and the civilians that would use firearms for keeping or restoring the peace didn't have them before, nor do they have them now. For that matter, most of the "failed states" wouldn't have been so bold as to cause uprisings in the first place if they had to worry about an armed populous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,853 Posts
Thought provoking video no doubt. His deep seated ideals seem honorable.
My first impression though"sales pitch" . The words "international law" always give me pause. When I hear those words I think of the UN. The massive world government that is by nature a direct threat to our sovereignty, liberty, which of course includes our individual God Given rights.
I see it as the final end around play on what's left of
freedom.
Don't see it? Just take a look at what our president signed in regard to international gun control. Its not just him either. Our judicial branch has been highly entangled in UN mandates. One recent example would be the Gibson guitar case. Environmental law ripe for abuse.
If you see our own massive, ever expanding government as a threat to individual liberties, Hold on to your panties, you ain't seen nothing yet!!!!!.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
I suppose I'll be the voice of dissent.

Speaking of the gun purely as a tool of destruction, cherishing the fact that it makes people uncomfortable because guns are not a part of his peoples' lives, correlating the lack of guns and fear of them with a peaceful society. Praising the state monopoly on the use of force. The assumption that the constitutionally-governed government is the be all, end all of creating nonviolent societies. Assuming that one way we can do away with the one use of force that we here know to equalize a 70 year old woman and a 20 year old gangbanger, the 100 lb woman and the 200 lb rapist, the lone black man and the group of racial bigots.

Sorry. I'm not buying what he's selling.
I agree with you. In the beginning, I felt good about his talk and when he brought up statistics and how firearms have reduced violence in the world since their introduction, I was thinking how this applies to the dramatic reduction of crime as concealed carry laws have expanded in the U.S. But then he began praising a state monopoly on violence. He says it several times. State monopoly = only the government. It means he believes that only the government should have the right to use violence - that only the government should have guns. It means that he - as an agent of his government - has the right to be armed, but not you, the average citizen.

I wish guns and violence were unnecessary and strongly believe that their use should be a last resort. But I also believe that individual citizens have the right to use those tools to protect themselves and their families from those who would harm them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
What set our nation apart [in the beginning], the 2nd amendment's main function was to allow us the ability to fight off a potential tyrannical government.
The founders understood our rights were given to us by God and our humanity. The right to protect ourselves should never be restricted
Law enforcement can't always be there when we need them.
What I got from the speech was that he thinks we should be dependent on the state to protect us.
I do appreciate our law enforcement officers and what they do but there may not be time to wait for them to arrive.

Unfortunately we live in a time when the criminals have more rights than the victims...or the police for that matter.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top