Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Required by Law

Nope, it shouldn't be mandated. [Watch]

[Via Ed M]
Posted by David Codrea at 2/08/2011 12:06:00 PM

2 comments:

Carl Bussjaeger said...

Actually, Wick agrees with you. He's just trying to make a point about unconstitutional "requirements" to buy any damned thing.

2/08/2011 12:41 PM
jon said...

i see the point. but.

if SD passed the law, and i lived there but didn't want to own a pistol, i would ignore the law.

of course i do own a pistol and do want to own one and don't live in SD but that's besides the point: there are progressives who are there and who share this thought, albeit for different reasons.

so the problem with making this point by legislation is that no progressive is going to think any further. they're not going to think, "gee, if it went the other way, people would.. flaunt the law just like i would! and they'd still own guns!"

and they're definitely not going to go even one more step and think, "and if they flaunt a law banning pistols, they might as well flaunt all the laws banning everything! gosh!"

it was not for nothing that cooper called those types "rabbit people." nonetheless, if you make your point persuasively in writing without the threat of a draconian statist measure to back it up, you just might kick-start some tiny crystal of reason and logic, long lain dormant, to start oscillating in their wind-swept minds.

but if you do no more than tell them that nanny t. state has decided on their behalf, then there's nothing for them to think critically about in presenting their opposition, which won't be based on much more than emotion to begin with. they come pre-programmed to let the state decide, and if we take advantage of it we're no better than they are.

2/08/2011 12:49 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)