Defend this gun-carrying Black man!

Doug1943

Platinum Member
Jan 3, 2016
1,243
616
928
Baltimore is a city controlled by Democrats, so of course you expect many miscarriages of justice there, softness on criminals, etc.

But this takes the cake!

Actually, principled Leftists ought to unite with us Rightists in defense of this man:

 
Baltimore is a city controlled by Democrats, so of course you expect many miscarriages of justice there, softness on criminals, etc.

But this takes the cake!

Actually, principled Leftists ought to unite with us Rightists in defense of this man:

WA is currently considering a law that would make a firearm class mandatory to purchase a weapon. I was trained by the USMC and carried and used weapons in defense of the country and that punk ass Jay Inslee and the commie democrat legislature thinks I need more training? Screw them. I'll pack up everything I own and move to ID if they make this stupid shit law.
 
WA is currently considering a law that would make a firearm class mandatory to purchase a weapon. I was trained by the USMC and carried and used weapons in defense of the country and that punk ass Jay Inslee and the commie democrat legislature thinks I need more training? Screw them. I'll pack up everything I own and move to ID if they make this stupid shit law.
Yep. I think Washington (and the whole Left Coast, with the exception of the Eastern counties) is a lost cause. Patriots living in such Blue States should emigrate to a Red State. [ My nephew, a good man, lives near Priest Lake, a beautiful area. (He let my wife's English grandchildren fire his AR15 when we visited him a few years ago ... I took photographs of them with it, and they love to use these photos to shock their friends at home, where handguns are strictly forbidden and long arms are available only with a police permit, and there are no AR15s or similar. He'd be able to give you some good advice about where to live, jobs, etc.)

Although I should say I'm not against compulsory firearms safety classes for anyone wanting to own one -- a couple of hours should do it, 'this is the end the bullet comes out of, here's how it's fired, here's how it can be accidentally discharged, and here are some scary videos of what happens when a human being gets hit with a round ... maybe a couple of more hours on how to deal with a home invasion, how to deal with a rioting mob approaching you [fire low at first and walk the rounds up into them ... unless you're using tracers, rounds over their heads will not even be noticed... or so others who seem to know what they're talking about have counselled]

Obviously, people like you who've been on the firing ranges where the targets shoot back should be exempt from such requirements. (And maybe even so should people like me who've had the training, courtesy of Uncle Sam, without targets that return fire.)
 
Last edited:
Okay. A partial victory. Not as good as being allowed to walk free, maybe with an official thank-you, but at least the Left didn't get their way entirely.

I have been told many times that even when you disagree with a law, you should have to abide by it.
 
I have been told many times that even when you disagree with a law, you should have to abide by it.
As a general rule, that's usually true. For two reasons: the consequences of breaking it, whether or not it's a just rule; and then, more broadly, upholding the general consensus that keeps a society of diverse, often conflicting, interests together -- we agree to obey rules passed by the representatives who get elected, as an alternative to continual civil war.

But ... like everything else, you have to use your common sense. You might ask yourself, in this particular situation I'm in, would most people think it's okay, this one time, not to obey the law, in order to uphold the general welfare that the law was passed to uphold.

Let's take a stronger case than this man's, who saw someone being pistol-whipped. Rather, suppose he saw a woman being dragged into a car, or being raped, and the only way to stop the rapist was to shoot him with his handgun, illegal in that state?

Wouldn't you do it?
 
I live about 50 miles from the ID border and my daughter lives in CDA. I like the entire panhandle from the border to CDA.
I believe ANY veteran of the US military should be exempt from this cockamamie shit.
Hey, I'll see you and raise you: I believe that being able to vote should be restricted to people who have successfully completed their military service.
 
As a general rule, that's usually true. For two reasons: the consequences of breaking it, whether or not it's a just rule; and then, more broadly, upholding the general consensus that keeps a society of diverse, often conflicting, interests together -- we agree to obey rules passed by the representatives who get elected, as an alternative to continual civil war.

But ... like everything else, you have to use your common sense. You might ask yourself, in this particular situation I'm in, would most people think it's okay, this one time, not to obey the law, in order to uphold the general welfare that the law was passed to uphold.

Let's take a stronger case than this man's, who saw someone being pistol-whipped. Rather, suppose he saw a woman being dragged into a car, or being raped, and the only way to stop the rapist was to shoot him with his handgun, illegal in that state?

Wouldn't you do it?

I don't believe in gun laws except for where individuals have had their rights removed through due process so yeah......
 
I don't believe in gun laws except for where individuals have had their rights removed through due process so yeah......
Well, it's an interesting topic, on which there is much more heat than light shed, by both sides.

"The right to keep and bear arms...". People argue over whether this should apply just to muzzle-loading black powder muskets vs AR15s. But we should start by talking about the full range of 'arms' today. How about a 30 mm cannon, the kind that the A10 was bullt around? How about Claymore mines (if those are still around)? How about nuclear weapons?

The reality is, the Founders intent for the 2A was that the people should be as well-armed as the government. But today, that's not possible to very many individuals -- maybe Bill Gates and Elon Musk and George Soros together could purchase plans for an A-bomb from the Pakistani's, although the Iranians have probably already gotten there first. But not the rest of us.

Which is why patriots who have not done their military service yet should be in the State Guard, if there is one, or in the National Guard ... provided they have not yet completed their military service.

And in any case, should be organized into Community Defense Teams, with the usual specialist sections (Engineering, Comms, Medical, Logistics, etc)

And remember that "The struggle is not WITH the Army, but FOR the Army," as the serious Leninists of old knew.
 
WA is currently considering a law that would make a firearm class mandatory to purchase a weapon. I was trained by the USMC and carried and used weapons in defense of the country and that punk ass Jay Inslee and the commie democrat legislature thinks I need more training? Screw them. I'll pack up everything I own and move to ID if they make this stupid shit law.
Why don't they just identity the crazies and take their guns? The courts take way to long.
 

Forum List

Back
Top