Subjective
In Illinois, there’s a bill to make ethical and moral considerations a requirement for handgun ownership. How does one decide that?
9 Responses to “Subjective”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“….moral and ethical considerations for hangun ownership?”
Oh, you mean like everyone has the God-given right to acquire, keep and carry the means to defend their own person and others who are in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death? Hey, that’s good morality! That should be the primary consideration.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Maybe they’ve got a blacklist of professions: politician, used car salesman, journalist….
(Flame on!)
February 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?”
BTW, if the answer is “yes”, you deny the application and have the applicant arrested. Felons are forbidden to own firearms.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Mike M. Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?”
BTW, if the answer is “yes”, you deny the application and have the applicant arrested. Felons are forbidden to own firearms.
That would definately cover the “morals and ethics”, lack of.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Its pretty simple. If you’ve donated to the campaigns of the local sheriff or mayor, you get to own a handgun. If you haven’t, and/or are of the wrong race, sex, income group, have a mole on your left cheek, or are otherwise in some way undesirable to the people issuing the license, you’re screwed.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Just think of it! A Chicago with absolutely no armed policemen. Daley with unarmed bodywatchers, well they couldn’t guard him anymore, could they?
Moral and ethical considerations, think are not what they will claim to think they are. Of course, in all fairness to them, I must add that I have an advantage, I actually know what those words mean. As do most of us here.
Never vote or support your understanding of an issue when it is someone else’s interpretation that will be used to administer it. Better to disallow that power to anyone than to grant it with a disagreement of the meaning of the terms. In fact, this particular power should be granted no one, anyway.
Behavior should be our basis for judgment. If you know not enough of the behavior of the would be prohibited person, you don’t know enough to prohibit him an action. Risky? Uh huh, freedom always is.
But it is never as risky as granting power to a protector, for they become masters and will hold you in contempt and treat you accordingly.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
“How does one decide that?”
Markie Marxist sez: “Against the would-be gun owner, of course.”
February 20th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
It would be unethical of you to own a gun while I’m morally opposed to you owning it.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:01 am
You just have to have the same ethics and morals as the issuing authority. You know, the one that says only police and politicians can have firearms.