Originally Posted by micro_builder

His reasoning seems to be the same as a person buying a fire extinguisher because they realize there is some chance that a fire could happen. Better safe than sorry is not the same as living in fear. IMO.

Apparently wearing a seatbelt is also living in fear .... Or wearing a helmet for that matter. Heck if risk mitigation is living in fear .... Then why are all the progressives so hellbent for getting free condoms and birth control pills? YOLO!

The ammusment parks are full of people living in fear, you never seen so many safety devices and speed limits.

Originally Posted by Norman Adlam

No offence taken - although I don't know why you seem to have problems with people being sympathetic.

Your words seem to say to different things ("I'm not afraid" and "I wish to be armed in case very bad things happen") which leaves one confused.

(It's rather like saying that you are "in fear" might lose your man card, or summat.. )

I suspect you'll just say that it's being 'prepared' - which also doesn't make sense. No-one prepares in such a way unless one is fearful of something bad happening.

Look, it's your life etc - I was just asking questions to try to figure out how it hangs together. I'm just interested / nosy.

The parts in bold should not 'leave one confused.' A person does not need to experience 'fear' to desire to prepare for possibilities.

Originally Posted by n00b-E

The laws are fine, enforcement is a joke.

How unsanitary! You took the words right out of my mouth!


Typical liberal logic is on display here.... the laws we have are not properly enforced, so let's pass some more laws that will do nothing to solve the problem, and will only place more burden on the law-abiding citizen.

Originally Posted by Bill Harris

Maybe the problem is a patchwork of local and state laws. Perhaps the solution would be a single set of unified national firearms laws. Heaven forbid, but that is a direction it's headed.

--Bill

I rarely agree with you Bill, but your comment, IMHO, actually has some merit. The patchwork of laws you mention seemed to work pretty well 40, 50, 60 plus years ago. But nowadays our society is so mobile that uniform laws (and uniform enforcement) seems kinda reasonable, or at least worth discussing.

We already have a single set of unified firearms laws... it says that a citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Constitutional amendments are not laws.

Originally Posted by Bill Harris

Constitutional amendments are not laws.

Back to disagreeing. But in this case it's not a disagreement. You are simply wrong. To wit:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Originally Posted by LVsoaring

I rarely agree with you Bill, but your comment, IMHO, actually has some merit. The patchwork of laws you mention seemed to work pretty well 40, 50, 60 plus years ago. But nowadays our society is so mobile that uniform laws (and uniform enforcement) seems kinda reasonable, or at least worth discussing.

Yes, I think this is why so much is unenforcable-- there is such a Gordian knot of loopholes that even the most agressive, law-an-order magistrate or District Attorney has to tread lightly (or not really stomp). Not good for morale when a miscreant walks on a technicality.

--Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Harris

Yes, I think this is why so much is unenforcable-- there is such a Gordian knot of loopholes that even the most agressive, law-an-order magistrate or District Attorney has to tread lightly (or not really stomp). Not good for morale when a miscreant walks on a technicality.

--Bill

Gordian knot..... had to look that up. Yes, we're back to agreeing. Good post.

Back to disagreeing. But in this case it's not a disagreement. You are simply wrong. To wit:

Well-- semantics. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, but not laws or regulations. It is the basis for all law, but not a law.

I agree with you, but tend to be picky on details.

--Bill

call it semantics if you wish.... when it says "shall be the supreme law of the land", it doesn't seem to have much wiggle room for loose interpretation.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Looking forward to more comments tomorrow.

Originally Posted by LVsoaring

call it semantics if you wish.... when it says "shall be the supreme law of the land", it doesn't seem to have much wiggle room for loose interpretation.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Looking forward to more comments tomorrow.

He's a progressive .... Everything in his opinion is open to lose interpretation.

Originally Posted by n00b-E

The laws are fine, enforcement is a joke.

This.

Originally Posted by LVsoaring

call it semantics if you wish.... when it says "shall be the supreme law of the land", it doesn't seem to have much wiggle room for loose interpretation.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Looking forward to more comments tomorrow.

Well, yes. We could go back and forth all day, but in the end, it works and work long after we're gone...

Originally Posted by logan5

You might want to consider your wife's safety as well .... The UK has a higher rate of rape per 100000 than here in the US .... At least here we can chose to do something about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Well, it hasn't happened - or come anywhere near the vaguest possibility from what I know - in 63 years logan5!

How much 'preparation' do you think I might need to take?