SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[American Constitutional Army]

Yet again "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" there is no compromise or anything to change here it would be unlawful no matter what, and ironically your claim that the blind following of the law is to prevent anarchy, I promise you my man that what you want would cause a civil war.

Read Article V of the Constitution. Additionally, it is their choice to break the law. They face the consequences.

Yeah and Read "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is necessary for our freedom and we'll be damned if we loose this right or any other rights that we have.

[The Wasatch]

The belief that a gun makes you safer is a mad fantasy.

So is saying that the military and police are the only ones qualified to own firearms in a time where both the military and police are openly mocked for being too militarized and brutal on the civilian populace.

Which is why they would need better training and more engagement from and cooperation with the populace.

[Kernen]

So is saying that the military and police are the only ones qualified to own firearms in a time where both the military and police are openly mocked for being too militarized and brutal on the civilian populace.

Which is why they would need better training and more engagement from and cooperation with the populace.

Why on earth would rational people cooperate with the police?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The belief that a gun makes you safer is a mad fantasy.

So is saying that the military and police are the only ones qualified to own firearms in a time where both the military and police are openly mocked for being too militarized and brutal on the civilian populace.

The police are racist, and they kill unarmed black people!

Only the police and military should have guns.

Yep, makes no sense.

[American Constitutional Army]

So is saying that the military and police are the only ones qualified to own firearms in a time where both the military and police are openly mocked for being too militarized and brutal on the civilian populace.

Which is why they would need better training and more engagement from and cooperation with the populace.

You heard it here boys and girls more regulation atop of regulation and then more regulation.

[The Sons of Freedom]

If they’re decent members of society, why would they intentionally kill other decent members of society?

Exactly. So why would they need a firearm?

Uhhh....they would need said firearms to defend family, property and perhaps to use against a tyrannical government should one arise. Its pretty obvious why the people need to be armed.

[The Wasatch]

Which is why they would need better training and more engagement from and cooperation with the populace.

Why on earth would rational people cooperate with the police?

If rational people and the police cooperated more, the police and populace would feel more connected, so the police would treat people more fairly, and the people would not make the police's job as difficult.

[Galloism]

So it’s more moral for him to walk away and let circumstances fall where they may?

No, but it is not moral for him to kill. The most moral thing would be to nonviolently but safely intervene or more intelligently to contact those tasked with enforcing the law.

An interesting perspective, where it’s more moral for him to passively allow more risk to the life of an innocent rather than intervene.

I’m glad more people don’t feel that way.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

You would have good men do nothing in the face of evil. That’s monstrous.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Which is why they would need better training and more engagement from and cooperation with the populace.

You heard it here boys and girls more regulation atop of regulation and then more regulation.

The police do need better training alongside an armed populace to make sure they don't overstep their bounds.

[Galloism]

Because a moral person acts morally regardless of legality.

Yes, I do.

I admonish criminals who commit wrong acts.

But each person has there own view of morality. Say I view slavery as right (I don't,) am I justified in keeping a slave because it is not against my moral code? The law is the only way to guarantee that everything encapsulated in society functions.

Of course, by that reasoning, you would also have been wrong to help the Underground Railroad, despite the fact history views them as heroes acting in hard circumstances.

[The Wasatch]

So is saying that the military and police are the only ones qualified to own firearms in a time where both the military and police are openly mocked for being too militarized and brutal on the civilian populace.

The police are racist, and they kill unarmed black people!

Only the police and military should have guns.

Yep, makes no sense.

I don't believe that the police are any more racist than the general populace, and should receive further training to overcome the bias that we all have. With better training and less guns among the populace, the police would not shoot civilians.

[Ors Might]

The belief that a gun makes you safer is a mad fantasy.

Am I safer against a muscular assailant armed with a knife if I am unarmed?

I do want an answer to this, friend. If my owning a gun endangers me, then surely I should be safer in this scenario than if I had a gun to protect myself from my assailant?

[The Wasatch]

Which is why they would need better training and more engagement from and cooperation with the populace.

You heard it here boys and girls more regulation atop of regulation and then more regulation.

And you act as though regulation is bad?

[American Constitutional Army]

Yep, makes no sense.

I don't believe that the police are any more racist than the general populace, and should receive further training to overcome the bias that we all have. With better training and less guns among the populace, the police would not shoot civilians.

Right because most Chicago street gangs buy their guns from Bass Pro shop.

[American Constitutional Army]

You heard it here boys and girls more regulation atop of regulation and then more regulation.

And you act as though regulation is bad?

Yeah it is when it becomes a pain in the ass.

[Kernen]

Why on earth would rational people cooperate with the police?

If rational people and the police cooperated more, the police and populace would feel more connected, so the police would treat people more fairly, and the people would not make the police's job as difficult.

The police are an active threat to your individual liberties. The rational choice for all individuals is to cooperate only to the extent required by law and make the police whistle for it.

[The Sons of Freedom]

Yep, makes no sense.

I don't believe that the police are any more racist than the general populace, and should receive further training to overcome the bias that we all have. With better training and less guns among the populace, the police would not shoot civilians.

The State shouldn't be training anyone to overcome anything, that is a violation of freedom in itself.

That is called social-engineering.

[The Wasatch]

Am I safer against a muscular assailant armed with a knife if I am unarmed?

I do want an answer to this, friend. If my owning a gun endangers me, then surely I should be safer in this scenario than if I had a gun to protect myself from my assailant?

Would it not be more dangerous if the assailant had legal access to a gun? Plus, are you sure you have the nerve and skill to shoot someone at close range? What would you do afterwards? Also, in what circumstances would this occur? This is far to vague.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Yep, makes no sense.

I don't believe that the police are any more racist than the general populace, and should receive further training to overcome the bias that we all have. With better training and less guns among the populace, the police would not shoot civilians.

Guns aren't the only weapon a person can have, and a state or person in authority who wants to abuse their authority would shoot anyway. Unarmed protesters in China weren't spared from bullets.

[Kernen]

I do want an answer to this, friend. If my owning a gun endangers me, then surely I should be safer in this scenario than if I had a gun to protect myself from my assailant?

Would it not be more dangerous if the assailant had legal access to a gun? Plus, are you sure you have the nerve and skill to shoot someone at close range? What would you do afterwards? Also, in what circumstances would this occur? This is far to vague.

People are often mugged at knifepoint.

[American Constitutional Army]

I do want an answer to this, friend. If my owning a gun endangers me, then surely I should be safer in this scenario than if I had a gun to protect myself from my assailant?

Would it not be more dangerous if the assailant had legal access to a gun? Plus, are you sure you have the nerve and skill to shoot someone at close range? What would you do afterwards? Also, in what circumstances would this occur? This is far to vague.

Because Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's number 1 customers are gang members from Chicago and LA.

[The Wasatch]

No, but it is not moral for him to kill. The most moral thing would be to nonviolently but safely intervene or more intelligently to contact those tasked with enforcing the law.

An interesting perspective, where it’s more moral for him to passively allow more risk to the life of an innocent rather than intervene.

I’m glad more people don’t feel that way.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

You would have good men do nothing in the face of evil. That’s monstrous.

No. What is monstrous is arming those who are a great threat to society. I never said I wouldn't act. I just said I wouldn't shoot them. There are more ways to intervene than killing someone.

[The Wasatch]

I don't believe that the police are any more racist than the general populace, and should receive further training to overcome the bias that we all have. With better training and less guns among the populace, the police would not shoot civilians.

Guns aren't the only weapon a person can have, and a state or person in authority who wants to abuse their authority would shoot anyway. Unarmed protesters in China weren't spared from bullets.

Which is why the police need better training and both the populace and the police need to stop viewing each other as separate. The police and military are on the same side as all Americans.

[Ors Might]

I do want an answer to this, friend. If my owning a gun endangers me, then surely I should be safer in this scenario than if I had a gun to protect myself from my assailant?

Would it not be more dangerous if the assailant had legal access to a gun? Plus, are you sure you have the nerve and skill to shoot someone at close range? What would you do afterwards? Also, in what circumstances would this occur? This is far to vague.

I doubt my five four, scrawny ass would be in that much more relative danger. What, am I supposed to fight this guy off with my bare hands?

At close enough range, skill wouldn’t be that much of an issue. I have been taught how to use a gun with at least some accuracy. Besides which, the idea is to get tour assailant to back the fuck off. I would rather not end their life if it can be avoided.

I would call the police, most likely, and inform them that I have shot someone in self-defense. As for the circumstances, there are a few alleys in the city I live in. It’s not infeasible that I could be corned in one with no way out.

[Kernen]

An interesting perspective, where it’s more moral for him to passively allow more risk to the life of an innocent rather than intervene.

I’m glad more people don’t feel that way.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

You would have good men do nothing in the face of evil. That’s monstrous.

No. What is monstrous is arming those who are a great threat to society. I never said I wouldn't act. I just said I wouldn't shoot them. There are more ways to intervene than killing someone.

Something frangible is usually the most efficient.