Personally, I have the opinion that prohibitionists should not pursue firearm ownership if that is their wish, but they do not have the right to dictate to the people at large whether they can Keep and Bear. It is no one's business but my own what I have in my place of residence and that is also covered by unlawful/unreasonable search and seizure. I don't get in anyone else's business and that should speak to those bent on getting into mine. This problem is not going to go away and will always be surrounded by those who would like more control of what everyone else is doing, which I believe also infringes on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. On that basis, those who are anti-firearms are violating my civil rights by doing everything in their power to outlaw personal firearms possession in this country. The way I see it, this is a pretty simple case of fear driving a group of people to attempt to violate at least three basic rights given to all citizens in The Bill of Rights. To all you gun-criminalizers I say you need to read the Constitution the next time you attempt to trample it underfoot in an effort to force your selfish, hysterical, and elitist agenda on others who are content with being citizens of the greatest nation on the face of this planet.
I enjoy the rights afforded me that others on this earth are denied. The biggest difference this country and its government possess compared to the rest of this world is the freedom that the Constitution and Bill of Rights grants every single, solitary person who is a law abiding citizen. Every time I hear the anti-firearms arguments about murder rates, and all the other statistical tripe they peddle I am shocked at the falsehoods and propaganda that they present as fact in support of their postion. For instance, a much smaller number of murders in the United Kingdom are committed with guns compared to the U.S.. This is true, but in the U.K. firearms ownership is prohibited, and their population is the most watched by surveillance cameras in the world. The U.K. population is also much smaller in number than the U.S., a key fact that gets left out of this lie presented as truth. Why do the antis have to lie and be devious in their acts? The reason is fairly simple, they have taken a portion of the Josef Goebbles strategy and put it to work to support their agenda, (to paraphrase the propagand minister, it's not the lie that is important, but if you tell it enough times people will believe it is true.).
Some may think this is extreme, but I have seen this mechanism employed in political scenarios, and if you do your research you will find this to be true. I do not say that anti-firearms factions are not entitled to their opinion, but when they attempt to legislate the Constitution into a state of impotence, we are no longer talking about freedom of expression; at that point it becomes oppression of one group by another the moment one side tries to outlaw the rights of another.
I think we should respect the rights of all others in this country, but I don't think there is much reciprocity coming from the other side of the fence. The assumption that one's beliefs and opinions are more valid and to be judged superior to another's beliefs and opinions is at the very least arrogant, and at the very worst a form of enslaving others. When I can enforce my desires over another's rights I am no longer arguing for safety, security or against crime, I am merely demonstrating my aristocratic will to control another.
That's my view.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I have the opinion that prohibitionists should not pursue firearm ownership if that is their wish, but they do not have the right to dictate to the people at large whether they can Keep and Bear. It is no one's business but my own what I have in my place of residence and that is also covered by unlawful/unreasonable search and seizure. I don't get in anyone else's business and that should speak to those bent on getting into mine. This problem is not going to go away and will always be surrounded by those who would like more control of what everyone else is doing, which I believe also infringes on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. On that basis, those who are anti-firearms are violating my civil rights by doing everything in their power to outlaw personal firearms possession in this country. The way I see it, this is a pretty simple case of fear driving a group of people to attempt to violate at least three basic rights given to all citizens in The Bill of Rights. To all you gun-criminalizers I say you need to read the Constitution the next time you attempt to trample it underfoot in an effort to force your selfish, hysterical, and elitist agenda on others who are content with being citizens of the greatest nation on the face of this planet. I enjoy the rights afforded me that others on this earth are denied. The biggest difference this country and its government possess compared to the rest of this world is the freedom that the Constitution and Bill of Rights grants every single, solitary person who is a law abiding citizen. Every time I hear the anti-firearms arguments about murder rates, and all the other statistical tripe they peddle I am shocked at the falsehoods and propaganda that they present as fact in support of their postion. For instance, a much smaller number of murders in the United Kingdom are committed with guns compared to the U.S.. This is true, but in the U.K. firearms ownership is prohibited, and their population is the most watched by surveillance cameras in the world. The U.K. population is also much smaller in number than the U.S., a key fact that gets left out of this lie presented as truth. Why do the antis have to lie and be devious in their acts? The reason is fairly simple, they have taken a portion of the Josef Goebbles strategy and put it to work to support their agenda, (to paraphrase the propagand minister, it's not the lie that is important, but if you tell it enough times people will believe it is true.). Some may think this is extreme, but I have seen this mechanism employed in political scenarios, and if you do your research you will find this to be true. I do not say that anti-firearms factions are not entitled to their opinion, but when they attempt to legislate the Constitution into a state of impotence, we are no longer talking about freedom of expression; at that point it becomes oppression of one group by another the moment one side tries to outlaw the rights of another. I think we should respect the rights of all others in this country, but I don't think there is much reciprocity coming from the other side of the fence. The assumption that one's beliefs and opinions are more valid and to be judged superior to another's beliefs and opinions is at the very least arrogant, and at the very worst a form of enslaving others. When I can enforce my desires over another's rights I am no longer arguing for safety, security or against crime, I am merely demonstrating my aristocratic will to control another. That's my view.