Interesting Idea. Dont know if its a good or bad....

Yes but we are a minority with the power to overthrow the majority if we so desired. thtas the difference between a minoroty group who likes gay marriage and a minority group who owns artillery and anti tank rifles.:)

SW
 
So you'd actually go out and shoot people if they passed a law that let two dudes stick rings on each others' fingers and call each other "schnookums"?
 
Don't mean to speak for silicone, but I believe that what he meant was if people passed laws against gun owners(banning guns) then they/we have the "power"(guns) to actually do something about it. OTOH, gays who have laws against their beliefs can really only demonstrate for their cause. 2 seperate points he was making.
 
So if a judge makes a pro-2nd decision after a Columbine like disaster and the panel boots him in the heat of the moment as they have a different opinion about the militia, that OK? Or is only a mechanism for the conservative crotch control and tushy police to vent their rage over sex?
 
if people passed laws against gun owners(banning guns) then they/we have the "power"(guns) to actually do something about it. OTOH, gays who have laws against their beliefs can really only demonstrate for their cause.
Click to expand...

Lot of assumptions in these statements. You're assuming that gun owners would have the will to implement change through force of arms. You're also assuming that gays are unarmed and wouldn't have the will to use guns if they had them.

Personally, I don't think those are valid assumptions. Certainly, there are exceptions but, generally speaking, I don't think they'll hold up.
 
The interesting question, but perhaps a hijack, is what the person who advocates using force to protect his or her guns would also advocate using force for?

I never see the discussion get beyond - They ain't taking away my dang guns.

As some point out, quite a few 2nd Amend fighters, happily would impose state religions, limit free speech and have a fixation of controlling folks sex lives to preserve their marriage. Then they advocate armed rebellion such that they can impose these restricitons on folks if the courts don't.
 
1rst of all----I wasn't speaking of what should happen---I was interpreting what he meant by his statement.

Lot of assumptions in these statements. You're assuming that gun owners would have the will to implement change through force of arms. You're also assuming that gays are unarmed and wouldn't have the will to use guns if they had them.

Personally, I don't think those are valid assumptions. Certainly, there are exceptions but, generally speaking, I don't think they'll hold up
Click to expand...

Not assuming anything. You've seen what happens when the ATF or other agencies have gone into Waco for instance. Much different scenario when enforcing the law vs known gun/rifle owners. Never seen, with all the gay rights movements and judgements against gay rights where any kind of armed response occured. Seen protests and rallies, but that is it. Do gays own guns---of course. However each scenario is much, much different.
 
I say that it's 100% a bad idea.
Judges cannot function IAW the Constitution & law with such a threat looming over their heads. They'd be forced to go with popular but illegal decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top