I understand the difficulties. But if you have to use your firearm and you don’t have it with you, you are in much worse trouble. And if you have a good suppressor, you may be able to use your firearm without attracting as much attention. Also, I think you may wish to review “the government” as a phrase referring to something that is established to secure rights deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. I don’t think you can ever persuade me that any such thing exists in any of those locations where “the government” threatens people who keep and bear arms. May I proffer the word “tyranny” to substitute for “the government”? Might suit.
I agree with your point - there is no such thing as legitimate government or government by consent.
But I don't think calling it the tyranny helps, it might actually create some confusion. People might mistake my criticism to be about a specific tyrant (e.g. the current tyrant-in-chief) when my criticism is of ALL government.
We’ll allow it. We also would accept “badged bandits” and “highway robbers.”
Augustine once wrote, “When that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, 'What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.” Later tradition named the pirate “Diomedes,” but the provenance of this naming is sus af
you can just do things
every location is good for concealed carry if you keep your mouth shut and your carry concealed
just sayin’
True, but if you happen to have to use your firearm in self-defense you definitely face much more danger from the government in some places.
I understand the difficulties. But if you have to use your firearm and you don’t have it with you, you are in much worse trouble. And if you have a good suppressor, you may be able to use your firearm without attracting as much attention. Also, I think you may wish to review “the government” as a phrase referring to something that is established to secure rights deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. I don’t think you can ever persuade me that any such thing exists in any of those locations where “the government” threatens people who keep and bear arms. May I proffer the word “tyranny” to substitute for “the government”? Might suit.
True. Rock and a hard place, for sure.
I agree with your point - there is no such thing as legitimate government or government by consent.
But I don't think calling it the tyranny helps, it might actually create some confusion. People might mistake my criticism to be about a specific tyrant (e.g. the current tyrant-in-chief) when my criticism is of ALL government.
ah, ‘kay
how’s about “the state” or “the local bad actors with badges”?
wouldn’t want people to get confused -grin-
I referred to cops as road pirates yesterday when talking to my kids. They were asking why there was a cop stopping a driver on the side of the road.
{looks at judges in manner of Alex Trebek}
We’ll allow it. We also would accept “badged bandits” and “highway robbers.”
Augustine once wrote, “When that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, 'What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.” Later tradition named the pirate “Diomedes,” but the provenance of this naming is sus af