|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NC: Debating guns and 'Gorgias' at Duke
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Our Platonic dialogue began with me taking a pro-Second Amendment stance, in response to my partner-in-debate’s decisively anti-gun viewpoint.
My opponent declared that only non-automatic weapons, for the sole purpose of defending oneself from his or her neighbors, need be permitted—raising the contention
that no person would need to own semi-automatic weaponry to protect oneself against other civilians if such caliber weapons were banned. He also claimed that the U.S. government could not possibly become a tyranny, eliminating the need for arms that could rival the military’s. |
Comment by:
dasing
(10/16/2017)
|
The 'partner in debate' is an idiot!!!!! |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|