|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 1, 2013, 06:34 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 2007
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 941
|
Why does Morgan need to wear a $1000+ suit when a $200 or $300 suit from Men's Warehouse or S&K will work just as well?
|
February 2, 2013, 12:35 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 353
|
I'd refer him to this article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmin...about-america/
__________________
Frank-- Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member |
February 2, 2013, 02:21 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2000
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posts: 346
|
There is a very good article addressing this by David Mamet at the Daily Beast. Essentially, he says that defining "need" is not any business of the government, and that any attempt to do so leads to repression and violation of rights.
Carried to its logical extreme, legislation of "needs" leads to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." We don't want to go there.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you have not prepared properly. |
February 2, 2013, 04:46 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,518
|
I shoot with a guy who's a former cop, and who now runs a shooting school. He wrote a great piece that focused on the "resisting tyranny" aspect of the argument, and when confronted with the "assault weapons are only for killing", his unapologetic response is, "Exactly, and that's why we need them!"
Another shooting buddy is a liberal high school teacher, and he is much less likely to be preaching to the choir when discussing gun control with friends and co-workers. He warns that the resisting-tyranny argument holds no water with libs, as they think of the government as a benevolent nanny, so why would anyone oppose it? His pragmatic argument is based more on the lack of justification for the government's restricting the ownership of something that has almost no impact on pursuit of life, liberty and happiness of anyone, whether they own the object or not. Ask a lib if they'd spend cubic millions of dollars enforcing enforcing any law that addresses an object that is almost never used in crime? What reasonable response can they offer? |
February 2, 2013, 07:57 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Quote:
Don't try that with people who can think. Won't work. But with the second group you can have a rational discussion. |
|
February 2, 2013, 07:59 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Quote:
Don't try that with people who can think. Won't work. But with the second group you can have a rational discussion. |
|
February 2, 2013, 08:01 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Nighty - nighty for the dreaded liberal/conservative debate.
One can find liberals who agree with the defense against tyranny and conservatives who find it ridiculous. Thus, we are closed.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|