@parados,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
Quote:NO guns were in use during the events of 9/11/1
nor the big event of Aug. 6th, 1945.
So your argument is we should allow more box cutters on planes.
[????]
We realize that David. You make no sense.
parados wrote:Box cutters were used on 9/11. After that box cutters were banned on planes.
Do you agree or disagree that banning weapons make us safer?
I DISAGREE. Legally dis-arming the public
creates an
un-safe condition. Only criminals wud have guns.
Only the innocent potential future victims
wud be stupid enuf to comply with such a ban, not criminals.
One 's life depends on violating it.
(
If all of the passengers had been well-armed on 9/11/1,
then it'd have been IMPOSSIBLE for the Moslems to hi jack those planes.
Thay DEPENDED upon gun control to have DISARMED their victims first.)
Less important bans were violated, with contempt, on a long-term basis
such as the ban on alcohol in the 1920s and the ban on marijuana now.
I don t use illegal drugs because I don t want them, but I love and admire
the robust American spirit of
SPITTING in the face of government's
USURPATION of power,
its
rape of the 1Oth Amendment,
that results in the fiction that government has jurisdiction
to decide what the citizens have a right to ingest. Even the King
of England did not allege that he had such authority. Implicitly,
it was acknowledged that government had no such authority
when the 18th Amendment was enacted Prohibiting alcohol.
After that, jurisdiction qua drugs was
FAKED,
without an amendment of the Constitution.
The foundation of the War on Drugs is a
hoax.
So also is the fony claim of any jurisdiction to subvert
a citizen 's right to freedom of self-defense.
As the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals put it
in
Moore v. Madigan the place where the citizen
has a right to defend himself is the place where he is attacked.
Applying "equal protection of the laws" impartially,
that includes every citizen of any age who might need to defend himself.
Perhaps Mr. Parados remembers the USSC case of
Browder v. Gayle
which held that denial of equal protection of the laws for even
a few moments of seating on a public bus was Constitutionally
INTOLERABLE
qua equal protection of the laws.
What does that tell us about government
discrimination
qua the right to effectively
defend your LIFE from predatory violence??
Tell us, Mr. Parados: in your opinion, what wud Rosa Parks deem
MORE IMPORTANT?? The right to defend herself from being
torn apart by animals (or criminal violence?) or a few moments
of seating on a public bus????
Do u believe that young people have
NO RIGHT to defend their lives??
Thay must wait until thay reach voting age to have a right to defend their lives???
I guess that in your opinion, 7 year old Noah Yates (because of his youth)
had no right to grab a weapon to prevent himself from being dragged
to his death in a bath tub??? Too young to
LEGALLY fight back with a gun,
if he cud snatch one up from somewhere or anywhere?
Is that what the 2nd Amendment says, Mr. Parados, in its age limitation??
Answering your question, sir, as explicitly as I can:
I believe that American citizens shud wear their seatbelts and their guns, for better safety.
David
