Yep, I live in a southern border state. Long ago I had lost my two magazines for my .45 Colt and didn’t think much of it.
No, I have a gun to protect my property for the reason @Billtx49 stated few posts up.
No. Can’t say I have ever thought about being robbed by a “redneck” because I don’t venture to areas with “rednecks.” Being struck by lightning is a bigger concern of mine, statistically.
This is the problem. Crime isn’t “random assault.” There is motive. As I said earlier, middle/upper class white dudes don’t occupy the same area as gangbangers from Chicago’s Southside. You quite literally have to go out of your way to end up in that situation. My friend you have a vivid imagination.
Rooftop Koreans beg to differ. Gun culture keeps people accountable for their actions.
This argument is pure fantasy. Humans got to where they are because they were able to use something other than rocks and sticks, otherwise we'd just be dumb monkeys picking lice off of each other.
That is a laughable argument. The government doesn’t give a fvck about your guns. They have drones, a military, and can screw you via cyberspace or financially if they so choose.
Humans aren’t meant to be equal. That is socialism. We are a tournament species. The strongest and smartest prevail.
The same government that lost vietnam and afghanistan? The same government along with Russia and others who can't even get Syria tied down? Those governments?
I think Benjamin Franklin is spot on and its even more relevant what he said back then than ever.
What freedom are people in which location giving up?
If i want to discuss countries that did well I would bring up Absolute Monarchs like the British,French,Spanish,Ottoman and Russian Empires. Giving people too much freedom is what led to their downfall.
Usually when someone says "there should be a law..."
The problem with the above statement is that you made it up on the spot. Those empires collapsed for reasons completely unrelated to giving people rights.
You bring up a very interesting point that I spent time thinking about.
All right... that's too nebulous for me to say anything about though either in general or in specific.
There was a video I saw months ago of people in NYC chasing someone out of a grocery store because the person was not wearing a mask. I can't find the video because youtube sensors everything political and the search function on bitchute is horrible.
Another example is during the height of the Floyd protests in some of the major cities where there were some in that crowd that demanded to defund the police. Granted big city police can have corrupt administrations here in the USA, but to undermine policing to a high degree is an attack on enforcing both individual rights and possibly tyranny to some extent as well
I have personally not worn a mask this entire time, ironically despite that i support mask wearing if it restricts the spread of illness. I just didnt bother to get one. But from the perspective of the mob, you could say that person was endangering or disrespecting the others, kind of like bringing a sick child to daycare. Whether that justifies chasing them out of the store or not is another question, but that's the motivation.
Masks do not prevent the transmission of the disease, despite what the legacy institutions say. Objectively the person without the mask did not pose a threat to the mob. However there is something to be said about the fact that one cannot expect people to be omniscient; they trusted these institutions for information because they can't be bothered to research or think for themselves. Because of their ignorance and the ongoing perceived threat, they felt the need to enforce a measure that they thought would protect them.
This is where I would get into political philosophy. The first point I make here is that politics, in its correct form is an application of ethics. This is the legislative function. The executive branch, such as the police, exist to enforce the law. There are situations where I have observed police professionally enforcing the law as it is written, however the law is not ethical in the objective sense; it was not a policing problem but a legislative one.
The only reason for which is not mandatory to dress in pink and share our own resources in all the western block its cause there are enough armed americans to prevent the american government to do so and demands the same to the european colonies.
Libertarians do not believe in no taxation and no police. That's anarchism.
Bad news for you lol
www.forbes.com
