I’ve lived in New York City from babyhood until I was 23, and periodically afterwards. I’ve walked its “mean streets” and never felt that I had to have a hog’s leg strapped to my thigh to get through the day - or night without fearing assault.
Maybe because the people there are in fact law abiding?
If I am law abiding, what the heck to YOU care about what I own and what I don’t? WHat kind of a busybody keeps poking their nose into their neighbors business to see what little secrets they are keeping. If I am a law abiding, it is none of your concern what I do with my own things.
True. Even the economic issue was only part of it. The key was how the, relatively tiny, taxes were imposed and the arrogant insistence by George III to teach us upstart colonists a lesson. The Revolutionary War could have been avoided.
Up to the point they pulled the trigger, they were law-abiding by definition. Sorry.
Well, ya, then there is that little nugget.
Right. So you mean you want to prevent people from breaking the law? Is Minority Report on your list of “must watch movies”?
Agree. As it was elsewhere in the “colonies.” Why no War of Canadian (or Aussie or Kiwi, etc.) Independence?
Because what I do with my money is my business and no one else’s…as long as I am not violating the rights of anyone else.
Same reason no one uses the word SUPER POWER when talking of Canada or Australia.
So, why do you need a gun then? What is that says I must possess something that can kill another human being, just because I can?
The U.S. was not a “superpower” until after WWII. And, what does that have to do with wars of independence?
Because Australia and Canada relied on its status as a Commonwealth Realm for its defense?
I would ask you this:
I agree.Same argument could be made for patronizing whorehouses.
In the 19th century? Until the start of WWII? And what does any of that have to do with wars of independence from a “tyrannical” Great Britain?Because Australia and Canada relied on its status as a Commonwealth Realm for its defense?
The question is moot. You can kill another person with just about anything. The problem is not the object, but the motive of the individual. Unless you want to implement thought control to make sure that no-one ever THINKS about hurting another person ever, then your nanny-state solutions will never work. And if you are indeed Catholic, you should know that evil exists in the world and will not go away until Christ returns. If you want to be a pacifist, feel free. Stop imposing yourself on everyone else.
I have no desire to control the lives of other people, but guns kill and I can’t understand why anyone would want to even be associated with possessing an item that has the potential to kill others - and besides gun crime is higher in the US than other countries which control firearms so gun owenership clearly has an impact on crime.
Yes - if he doesn’t need to arm himself. Why do you need a gun to guarantee your freedom.
Your understanding of my motives are completely irrelevant to the discussion. As long as I am not violating the rights of anyone else, what business is it of yours to try to use the government to control what I do with my money, what I own, and what I do with the things I own?