This is how you do a protest

StoneByStone said:
Owning a gun shouldn't be considered a right. I'm fine with people who pass a background check owning certain types of guns, but I don't think owning a gun should be on the same level as free speech.
Click to expand...

why? do you think government is more fitting to use guns than the people? tell me, how do people maintain the right to free speech if they can't keep that right with armed force against a government that wants to shut them up?
 
StoneByStone said:
Owning a gun shouldn't be considered a right. I'm fine with people who pass a background check owning certain types of guns, but I don't think owning a gun should be on the same level as free speech.
Click to expand...

"certain types"??? What types are they? Why?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
why? do you think government is more fitting to use guns than the people? tell me, how do people maintain the right to free speech if they can't keep that right with armed force against a government that wants to shut them up?
Click to expand...

With checks and balances as well as democratic elections. For all the fear-mongering that more gun control will lead to less free speech, that hasn't happened in any of the Western countries. That's because owning guns does not have anything to do with maintaining free speech.
 
StoneByStone said:
Owning a gun shouldn't be considered a right. I'm fine with people who pass a background check owning certain types of guns, but I don't think owning a gun should be on the same level as free speech.
Click to expand...

Then you should build a time machine, go back in time, and see if they'll change the Constitution to what you believe. I suspect they'll laugh you back to the present.
 
StoneByStone said:
Owning a gun shouldn't be considered a right. I'm fine with people who pass a background check owning certain types of guns, but I don't think owning a gun should be on the same level as free speech.
Click to expand...

Well, unless you can pass an Amendment to repeal the 2nd, it is a right. Yes, rights do have limits, but because it is a constitutional right, said limits tend to be narrow.
 
Woko Haram said:
In most cases, you're not allowed to carry a loaded gun in public. It's generally limited to people working in security there. They do have a significant cultural history of hunting, so presumably, you could walk around with a hunting rifle, but only on the way to a hunt.

This explains some of the details of how it's handled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns
Click to expand...

Meanwhile in America, Bring Your Gun to Work Laws not only allow people to carry loaded guns in public in America, but employers are also required to allow employers to carry loaded guns to work. Imagine trying to fire the creepy guy, when you know he is armed. I think Republicans are hoping that if they can threaten enough employers into not firing them, they will get employment.

In Switzerland, military guns are for national defense, and NEVER for personal defense. They do not carry guns in public unless it is in some way for national defense.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
why? do you think government is more fitting to use guns than the people? tell me, how do people maintain the right to free speech if they can't keep that right with armed force against a government that wants to shut them up?
Click to expand...

The government that wants to subjugate its people with guns ends up distributing the guns to the people. That used to not be the truth. Weapons used to be so expensive that you could and would only arm a small number of the people. Those few "knights" could subjugate the rest. Of course even then knights regularly rebelled in different Barons Wars, but at least you could mostly keep the peasants under control.

Since the storming of the Bastille made clear, no revolution can be prevented through gun control. A government either does not have the weapons to protect itself, or it distributes the weapons to people who can overthrow it. Either way, gun control does not prevent revolutions.
 
StoneByStone said:
With checks and balances as well as democratic elections. For all the fear-mongering that more gun control will lead to less free speech, that hasn't happened in any of the Western countries. That's because owning guns does not have anything to do with maintaining free speech.
Click to expand...

why don't you take a look at virginia and the law that they are getting ready to pass about making it illegal to criticize sitting government officials.............
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well, read and enjoy.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...e-criticizing-state-leaders-criminal-offense/

and no, guns won't stop it from passing, but armed people can stop the law from being enforced
Click to expand...

This is saying that threats, harassment, and intimidation would be illegal. This is actually already illegal against private citizens, making it illegal against elected officials too is not so crazy.
I'm all for free speech, but even free speech has some restrictions. Defamation of character is illegal. Threats of violence are illegal. Walking around an airport telling people you saw a bomb, when you did not, is illegal.

No, an armed people will not stop the law from being enforced. If a cop comes to arrest you because you broke the law, and you shoot that cop, they'll send enough cops with enough guns to take you away while people chant "blue lives matter."
 
StoneByStone said:
This is saying that threats, harassment, and intimidation would be illegal. This is actually already illegal against private citizens, making it illegal against elected officials too is not so crazy.
I'm all for free speech, but even free speech has some restrictions. Defamation of character is illegal. Threats of violence are illegal. Walking around an airport telling people you saw a bomb, when you did not, is illegal.

No, an armed people will not stop the law from being enforced. If a cop comes to arrest you because you broke the law, and you shoot that cop, they'll send enough cops with enough guns to take you away while people chant "blue lives matter."
Click to expand...

so you enjoy being a slave..............that's all you had to say. also, those laws of threats, harassment, and intimidation against elected officials was already illegal as well. the only reason for this legislation is to expand the illegalities to criticisms.

and yes, you are indeed a slave
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you enjoy being a slave..............that's all you had to say. also, those laws of threats, harassment, and intimidation against elected officials was already illegal as well. the only reason for this legislation is to expand the illegalities to criticisms.

and yes, you are indeed a slave
Click to expand...

Virginians will still be allowed to criticize politicians and policies. I don't know if slaves were allowed to do that.
 
Walt said:
Meanwhile in America, Bring Your Gun to Work Laws not only allow people to carry loaded guns in public in America, but employers are also required to allow employers to carry loaded guns to work. Imagine trying to fire the creepy guy, when you know he is armed. I think Republicans are hoping that if they can threaten enough employers into not firing them, they will get employment.
Click to expand...

In the past, liberals complained that conservatives were trying to make it easier to fire people with things like right to work laws. Now, you're saying they're trying to make it harder to fire people. If you're going to use fallacious arguments, at least keep the logic consistent.

Walt said:
In Switzerland, military guns are for national defense, and NEVER for personal defense. They do not carry guns in public unless it is in some way for national defense.
Click to expand...

Define "military gun." The majority of designs for weapons used in personal defense started out being used by the military.
 
Woko Haram said:
Define "military gun." The majority of designs for weapons used in personal defense started out being used by the military.
Click to expand...

In this case, guns owned by the Swiss military would be military guns. Off the top of my head, I do not know which rifle the Swiss Army uses, but I am sure it would be very similar to the M-16. I doubt too many people would call it a personal defense weapon, or would consider it normal to carry it outside of the military.

I do know that it is illegal to use Swiss Army rifles for personal defense. The Swiss are quite particular about their military rifles being used solely for defense of the nation.
 
Walt said:
Meanwhile in America, Bring Your Gun to Work Laws not only allow people to carry loaded guns in public in America, but employers are also required to allow employers to carry loaded guns to work. Imagine trying to fire the creepy guy, when you know he is armed. I think Republicans are hoping that if they can threaten enough employers into not firing them, they will get employment.

In Switzerland, military guns are for national defense, and NEVER for personal defense. They do not carry guns in public unless it is in some way for national defense.
Click to expand...

It's sounds to me like you have two options. Either move to Switzerland where you like the way they do things or get off your ass and personally try to take away the guns you think people shouldn't own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top