Quote (selected): The problem comes from "I think" since that always seems to lead to "there should be a law".
I'm curious where, in my post, you found something like that. (I note that personally, I'm all in favor of thinking. 
)
That would be:
Quote from: Captdad17 on May 02, 2016, 05:45:26 AM
<climbs on soapbox>
I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon.
You'll note that those two quotes were from
two different people....which was my point. You quoted me, and said, in response to MY saying "I think," that thinking "always seems to lead to there should be a law."
And in my case, where I said "I think" directly, which you quoted, it didn't. Matter of fact, my "I think" directly went into "there
shouldn't be a law."
Except for the word "don't", I saw "I ... think".
....except I didn't say anything about how there should be a law. Quite the opposite.
Hence my comment about how I believe that thinking is a good thing, and that thinking (and stating one's thoughts) doesn't automatically mean limiting other people's thoughts and rights. It is certainly true that some people's train of thought goes:
I don't like this --> other people shouldn't do it --> it should be wrong for other people to do it --> we should make a law so other people can't do this.
But many other people who think and state their thoughts, disagree with the above. If we don't think about things, and we don't discuss them, then the people who DO think it should be up to them to limit other people will continue, and no one will stop them.
I am still bothered by how our right to self-defense has been turned into a privilege by Nebraska Legislation. Somehow, a few people have again determined that they may potentially solve an issue by creation of law. We know law-abiding citizens are not a problem and are the only ones that will follow worthless laws. Making people file forms, produce documents, take classes, pay fines, file fingerprints with the State Patrol...is not a right.
I agree.
Instead, we mull over semantics of what and how constitutes self-defense and who is what sort of animal in predator vs. prey and ignore that in a State with a Constitution that guarantees the right to use firearms also strips that right with conceal carry laws.
Actually, I think we can do all of those things at the same time---because effective self-defense means understanding violence, criminals, and the law, too. It is possible to have discussions of many things regarding rights and self-defense, and just because we have one doesn't mean we have forgotten about the other.
Even a cursory search of the NFOA forums will shows that discussions of our rights occur frequently, in the midst of all the other topics.
And that those laws only strip right from those compelled to follow those laws. As I recall, those persons that choose to ignore basic right and law are the reason the rest of us realize the need for self-defense.
Agreed.
I still believe thinking is a good thing. And discussing what we think, and what it means, is a good thing. In my opinion, if we DON'T, then the people who substitute what they believe for thinking ("I believe this, therefore you shouldn't be able to do this") will take over.
