Everyone should revisit the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and today's unending threat of gun confiscation.

Aside from the actual participants and their own personal disputes between each other, it was an event where law enforcement was attempting to disarm civilians in a town that was essentially a gun-free zone.  The civilians allegedly refused to disarm and the rest became history.

Especially in a time where gun-free zones are a fact of life, many who do not believe gun confiscation is possible should think again.

Just remember who won that fight.

Everyone should revisit the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and today's unending threat of gun confiscation.

Aside from the actual participants and their own personal disputes between each other, it was an event where law enforcement was attempting to disarm civilians   a well-known criminal gang called the Cowboys in a town that was essentially a gun-free zone.  The civilians   outlaws allegedly refused to disarm and the rest became history. instead DREW THEIR FIREARMS on the lawmen.

Especially in a time where gun-free zones are a fact of life, many who do not believe gun confiscation is possible should think again.

So, in your mind, confiscation includes asking people to follow a local ordinance to not bring guns inside town limits? 

If you do have a gun, you're asked to leave it with law enforcement and GET THEM BACK when you leave.  That's not "confiscation".  That's a cloak room.   It's a system that allows you to be armed to and from the town, while being able to follow the ordinance, too.

This is no different than leaving your gun locked securely in your car when attending a movie or eating out where carry is not allowed.  Nothing is "confiscated", and to state otherwise is a lie.

Courthouses (in free states) that don't allow CC in the courtrooms often have lockers where visitors store their firearms.  Only the security guards have access to them.  It's not confiscation.  It's a convenience for the visitor -- rather than having you go put your gun in the car or remember to leave it at home.

So, in your mind, confiscation includes asking people to follow a local ordinance to not bring guns inside town limits? 

If you do have a gun, you're asked to leave it with law enforcement and GET THEM BACK when you leave.  That's not "confiscation".  That's a cloak room.   It's a system that allows you to be armed to and from the town, while being able to follow the ordinance, too.

This is no different than leaving your gun locked securely in your car when attending a movie or eating out where carry is not allowed.  Nothing is "confiscated", and to state otherwise is a lie.

Courthouses (in free states) that don't allow CC in the courtrooms often have lockers where visitors store their firearms.  Only the security guards have access to them.  It's not confiscation.  It's a convenience for the visitor -- rather than having you go put your gun in the car or remember to leave it at home.

First, my post was not to debate who was on the "right" side.  All of those characters involved, except for maybe Virgil Earp were not entirely pure.

Second, the concept of gun-free zones is ridiculous and your finding instances where it is a justified ordinance by the US government to be disarmed is preposterous.   

Third, with everything witnessed by gun owners at the hand of the US government to restrict gun ownership in the America, it is even more amazing that you still speak positive at worse, neutral at best of the US government at this point on this issue.   

My God; I can literally see you being the guy at a gun-free zone trying to explain to open / concealed gun owners on the logic of such ordinance nonsense as well as to surrender their right to carry in the name of the US government .   

Just remember who won that fight.

Exactly.

Interesting to note that Doc Holiday was never a man to serve a badge and yet, he participated in that fight with his boys wearing black.

Spooky yeah.   

First, my post was not to debate who was on the "right" side.  All of those characters involved, except for maybe Virgil Earp were not entirely pure.

Second, the concept of gun-free zones is ridiculous and your finding instances where it is a justified ordinance by the US government to be disarmed is preposterous.   

Third, with everything witnessed by gun owners at the hand of the US government to restrict gun ownership in the America, it is even more amazing that you still speak positive at worse, neutral at best of the US government at this point on this issue.   

My God; I can literally see you being the guy at a gun-free zone trying to explain to open / concealed gun owners on the logic of such ordinance nonsense as well as to surrender their right to carry in the name of the US government .   

Your analysis is one-sided and dishonest (as usual?).

I never once advocated for gun-free zones.  I do advocate for following the laws in a given jurisdiction.  Don't like the laws?  Change them or find a better jurisdiction.  We live in a country where you don't get to dictate your beliefs and desires onto the public.  You do, however, have the power to effect change within the system.  If you aren't willing to try, then that's your failing.

And your use of "literally" is also woefully incorrect and inaccurate, as there is no possible way you can see that happening in any context.  You can't see something that is not, and will not be, happening. 

If you believe you can see it, you might need to refill your Rx.   

Exactly.

Interesting to note that Doc Holiday was never a man to serve a badge and yet, he participated in that fight with his boys wearing black.

Spooky yeah.   

Where did you get the "boys wearing black" factoid?

I'm guessing the movies.

The Cowboys gang actually wore red sashes.  Red = Evil

I never once advocated for gun-free zones.  I do advocate for following the laws in a given jurisdiction.  Don't like the laws?  Change them or find a better jurisdiction.  We live in a country where you don't get to dictate your beliefs and desires onto the public.  You do, however, have the power to effect change within the system.  If you aren't willing to try, then that's your failing.

And your use of "literally" is also woefully incorrect and inaccurate, as there is no possible way you can see that happening in any context.  You can't see something that is not, and will not be, happening. 

I am totally against any gun-free zones.  Are you?

Your initial response to my post kind of gave that impression.

Really though, I can see you in a line at a place where guns are not allowed and you are either telling the open/concealed carry gun owner in front/back of you to not carry in that place and even get into a debate on such ordinances like how you shared above.

I surely hope you would not snitch on that guy.

I am totally against any gun-free zones.  Are you?

Your initial response to my post kind of gave that impression.

Really though, I can see you in a line at a place where guns are not allowed and you are either telling the open/concealed carry gun owner in front/back of you to not carry in that place and even get into a debate on such ordinances like how you shared above.

I surely hope you would not snitch on that guy.

I'm not an absolutist.  There are situations where guns are problematic.  Rock concerts come to mind.  Places where any large group is drinking and potentially partaking of cannabis would be a bad environment for lethal force in the hands of "civilians".  Any situation in which good judgement is impaired would be a viable rule of thumb.

Again, you can't see me doing anything.  You don't know me -- at all.

Now I have to go watch Tombstone again. I guess it has been long enough.

Now I have to go watch Tombstone again. I guess it has been long enough.

There's an ordinance that all gun owners must have an annual refresher, either Tombstone or My Darling Clementine.

If there isn't, there should be!   

I'm not an absolutist.  There are situations where guns are problematic.  Rock concerts come to mind.  Places where any large group is drinking and potentially partaking of cannabis would be a bad environment for lethal force in the hands of "civilians".  Any situation in which good judgement is impaired would be a viable rule of thumb.

No one is advocating in breaking laws; but the right to "Bear Arms" is a God given right, as explained by the Founding Fathers.  Hence, it is an absolute right to all human beings on Earth.

Such explanation like your's given above is something I would expect from the so-called sensible gun lawmakers.   

No one is advocating in breaking laws; but the right to "Bear Arms" is a God given right, as explained by the Founding Fathers.  Hence, it is an absolute right to all human beings on Earth.

Such explanation like your's given above is something I would expect from the so-called sensible gun lawmakers.   

There are no "absolute rights."

There is a right to life, but we murder millions of humans in the womb every year.  We put murderers and rapists to death.  We justify self defense using lethal force if threatened in kind.

There is a right to free speech/expression, yet certain types of speech are not protected, e.g. threats of violence.

There is a right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, yet property is seized under asset forfeiture laws every day without a crime being charged.

There is a right to keep and bear arms -- unless you are a felon, drug addict, domestic abuser, alcoholic, non-resident alien, etc.

No rights are "absolute."  To state they are is completely ignorant or dishonest.

There are no "absolute rights."

There is a right to life, but we murder millions of humans in the womb every year.  We put murderers and rapists to death.  We justify self defense using lethal force if threatened in kind.

There is a right to free speech/expression, yet certain types of speech are not protected, e.g. threats of violence.

There is a right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, yet property is seized under asset forfeiture laws every day without a crime being charged.

There is a right to keep and bear arms -- unless you are a felon, drug addict, domestic abuser, alcoholic, non-resident alien, etc.

No rights are "absolute."  To state they are is completely ignorant or dishonest.

Wow.

Such an unapologetic face-slapping response to those who believe in Freedom.   

Your sly support for the powers that be and the tyranny they enforce is truly mind-blowing.   

There are no "absolute rights."

There is a right to life, but we murder millions of humans in the womb every year.  We put murderers and rapists to death.  We justify self defense using lethal force if threatened in kind.

There is a right to free speech/expression, yet certain types of speech are not protected, e.g. threats of violence.

There is a right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, yet property is seized under asset forfeiture laws every day without a crime being charged.

There is a right to keep and bear arms -- unless you are a felon, drug addict, domestic abuser, alcoholic, non-resident alien, etc.

No rights are "absolute."  To state they are is completely ignorant or dishonest.

I’m gonna have to disagree with you here flap. What are rights of not absolute? The examples you listed as contradictions do not really support your argument. They are simply violations against our rights. Although I agree with you that abortion is murder unfortunately most people don’t consider them humans to begin with. Killing in self defense is protecting your own right to life. You have not violated anyone’s right to life when defending yourself because you have a right to your own life.

The right to freedom of speech was never defined to protect ALL types of speech. But the fundamental idea of the 1st amendment is absolutely “absolute”. You have the right to express yourself or say anything as long as their is no call to action/ infringing on someone else’s right.

The 4th amendment is flawed from the beginning because of the work “unreasonable.” So I have no argument against that one. We’ve seen what “reasonable” or “unreasonable” can mean when it comes to the 2A.

Lastly and the most important is the right to bear arms. Those things you listed are absolutely infringements on the 2A and is NOT imo supportive of your argument. They are simply infringements that we have accepted to appease the anti gunners in the hopes that they’d leave us “good guys” alone.

To say that our rights are not “absolute” just fuels the fire of those who would like nothing more then to strip us of all our rights and make the constitution worthless.

I’m gonna have to disagree with you here flap. What are rights of not absolute? The examples you listed as contradictions do not really support your argument. They are simply violations against our rights. Although I agree with you that abortion is murder unfortunately most people don’t consider them humans to begin with. Killing in self defense is protecting your own right to life. You have not violated anyone’s right to life when defending yourself because you have a right to your own life.

The right to freedom of speech was never defined to protect ALL types of speech. But the fundamental idea of the 1st amendment is absolutely “absolute”. You have the right to express yourself or say anything as long as their is no call to action/ infringing on someone else’s right.

The 4th amendment is flawed from the beginning because of the work “unreasonable.” So I have no argument against that one. We’ve seen what “reasonable” or “unreasonable” can mean when it comes to the 2A.

Lastly and the most important is the right to bear arms. Those things you listed are absolutely infringements on the 2A and is NOT imo supportive of your argument. They are simply infringements that we have accepted to appease the anti gunners in the hopes that they’d leave us “good guys” alone.

To say that our rights are not “absolute” just fuels the fire of those who would like nothing more then to strip us of all our rights and make the constitution worthless.

I'd like to add my two cents.
Our rights are "inalienable"  Meaning man cannot deprive you of those rights.
Most all our conflicts are balancing my rights against your's.
Sometimes you lose that balance, but you never lose your rights.
For example Hawaii gun laws or the General "Lock down" we are presently
are exposed to.  It makes me into a disarmed, prisoner.

I still have those inalienable rights.  The question is, can I make or convince
other people to respect them?

Wow.

Such an unapologetic face-slapping response to those who believe in Freedom.   

Your sly support for the powers that be and the tyranny they enforce is truly mind-blowing.   

Your opinions are not fact.

I was unaware you've been selected (self-appointed?) as the spokesman for "those who believe in freedom."  That, from the person who thinks a monarchy represents freedom, and a Constitutional Democratic-Republic represents oppression.

 

I was unaware you've been selected (self-appointed?) as the spokesman for "those who believe in freedom."  That, from the person who thinks a monarchy represents freedom, and a Constitutional Democratic-Republic represents oppression.

First, this is a pro-2nd Amendment forum and from your views, it seems you believe in the 2nd Amendment, as long as it does not INFRINGE US GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS.

Second, oppression is not a function of what kind of government structure is chosen by a country, but dictated by the political and economic elites that rule that nation.

First, this is a pro-2nd Amendment forum and from your views, it seems you believe in the 2nd Amendment, as long as it does not INFRINGE US GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS.

Second, oppression is not a function of what kind of government structure is chosen by a country, but dictated by the political and economic elites that rule that nation.

Your opinions?  or just trolling?  Hard to discern any difference.

Some forms of gov't are oppressive by design, while others become oppressive due to corruption or ideological beliefs that are not inline with the fundamental values of the country's government. 

Germany existed long before it became a fascist state bent on genocide. 

Dictatorships are oppressive by definition.

Not all government forms are oppressive, but all forms that require oppression to exist are oppressive -- that includes absolute monarchies.

Your opinions?  or just trolling?  Hard to discern any difference.

Some forms of gov't are oppressive by design, while others become oppressive due to corruption or ideological beliefs that are not inline with the fundamental values of the country's government. 

Germany existed long before it became a fascist state bent on genocide. 

Dictatorships are oppressive by definition.

Not all government forms are oppressive, but all forms that require oppression to exist are oppressive -- that includes absolute monarchies.

Just like the constitutional monarchy in Great Britain that is America's most trusted ally, the Kingdom of Hawaii was modeled like theirs's, BUT with an American style constitution.

Do you find Great Britain's government oppressive?