tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511955047151145854.post8893116801859209122..comments2024-02-07T00:13:08.642-08:00Comments on Not One More Gun Law: "Compromise": I Don't Think It Means What You Think It MeansCharlie Foxtrothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15585447523050711767noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511955047151145854.post-15152487500580029472016-08-25T14:09:50.762-07:002016-08-25T14:09:50.762-07:00Here, here!
I heartily agree.
The Intolerable Ac...Here, here!<br /><br />I heartily agree.<br /><br />The Intolerable Acts were part of the stew that came to a boil in the colonies. I hope they do not forget what the lesson was when gun confiscation was tried by the King back then.Braden Lynchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511955047151145854.post-79051034367361046812016-08-24T16:49:20.223-07:002016-08-24T16:49:20.223-07:00Oh, I'm with you on 2A restoration. (Also, don...Oh, I'm with you on 2A restoration. (Also, don't forget about evil judges and idiotic politicians. ;) ) I'd love to see several, if not most or all, of the existing gun laws repealed. I'd love to deal with the anti-gun crowd using <strong>their</strong> definition of "compromise" - we'll let them keep <em>some</em> of the laws instead of repealing <em>all</em> of them ... <em>for now</em>. (We'll be back for the rest later.)<br /><br />But, specifically addressing Jenn's (and by extension, Bearing Arms') definition of "compromise".... Using ["War on Guns" blogger] David Codrea's words, to "enforce existing Intolerable Acts" is not, and should never be considered, a "compromise" on gun laws. Rather, it is and always has been an unconstitutional and Intolerable Act.Archerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09378629103793458871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511955047151145854.post-41023908581126678912016-08-24T09:11:10.895-07:002016-08-24T09:11:10.895-07:00Thank you, I mostly agree. I would go further.
Ac...Thank you, I mostly agree. I would go further.<br /><br />Actually the issue is that we are not required to compromise on a God-given right of self defense as recognized (not granted) in the Second Amendment.<br /><br />They have NO moral authority to dictate to any of us how we choose to defend ourselves so long as the justification for lethal force is there. If I used my bow or a knife or an elbow that causes the sad demise of an assailant, it is immaterial so long as use of lethal force was justified.<br /><br />So, no more compromises. We need to be talking about the restoration of our Second Amendment rights that have been stolen by evil politicians and idiotic judges.Braden Lynchnoreply@blogger.com