Doug Carlton

and so it goes.

There is no answer to the evil that humans will visit upon each other. Pretending that disarming victims will accomplish this as an "answer" is disingenuous, unethical and immoral. So to answer your underlying political question, YES, more guns in the hands of trained people who are willing to defend themselves and other innocents is indeed the answer to the immediate direct threat of violent crime. An armed victim that is skilled in returning violence in kind makes the whole enterprise impractical. But that won't happen, most would rather abdicate that responsibility as well and pretend they own everyone else by making silly laws that require everyone to be equally miserable and dependent upon another entity by which their allegiance is required. I want no part of that, you are welcome to join in and gain skill.

let's see him defend passes in the NFL, then I can comment.

Not naive enough to believe I can hold back the dawn.

The answer to the questions is "YES", a gun in the hands of a disturbed person emboldens them. So would any other implement of harm but a firearm is the best means available to, and is designed to kill humans with debilitating wounds and horrific injury. Even more reason to be armed and personally responsible for your own safety. Cutting off your own ***** in hopes of eliminating rape is counter-productive.

what if they win and write the new constitution? if they claim authority over you to enforce their perspective is it authentic? do you see the problem?

belief in this is why this thread is 1,835 pages and growing...

what if they win and write the new constitution? if they claim authority over you to enforce their perspective is it authentic? do you see the problem?

This is true for both wings of the Federal political bird. Everytime. I guess complaining is easier than facing the truth.

THIS we can agree on.

just planting seeds brother

Limits? Enforced by whom? Civic Belief #1: The Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny. Civic Belief #2: The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds. If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen? Could we be engaging in the wrong debate?

The President of the United States, his chief of staff, the Attorney General, and even some members of Congress are actively defending the abduction of children. Not as an emergency measure for kids in immediate danger, but as policy for the purpose of punishing parents who cross an imaginary line on the ground without politicians’ permission. This is immoral and unethical. But rather than using morality and ethics to guide them, BOTH sides will use these children as political weapons. I offer this thread as reason and evidence. If you are not willing to concede that the State is violence and uses violence indiscriminately as a means of coercion, conversations about its' thoughtful replacement are unproductive. This disingenuous circle-jerk propels itself gaining inertia with little or no resistance that truth would illuminate.

This is the issue - well said.

F the Saints. F them. F Aaron Rodgers too, but we've OWNED his whining a$$ so moving on... Sapp and Booger used to come out on our field and kick over pylons and act the fool but the Bucs are a shadow of that intimidating team so...(Deion Jones is OUR Derrick Brooks...just sayin') F Can't Newton, he's a poser and a poor sport, F him F Tom Brady and the Patriots because my life is incomplete until we beat them so badly that Brady starts whining to the refs like Rodgers does when we are spanking his hiney and he can no longer think of any original comebacks to Alford's "Your Momma" comments...F them