-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
No Carry Permit
- Thread starter MaconGuns
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,872
- Reaction score
- 73,884
You should be able to use whatever you want to incapacitate a burglar.
You should be able to have a mine field in your front lawn.
You should be able to use a grenade launcher. If you kill a 'random person' you should be charged with murder.
If you have the space to not infringe on anyone's else rights, touch off that dynamite on July 4th!
You can drive 80 or 180 on your own property or that of another that will allow you to, just not on a public road. Same way I can't shoot my gun at a public park (even though that one is actually a right).
Freedom really isn't that difficult once you get over the fear of your neighbor having the same freedom.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2013
- Messages
- 27,370
- Reaction score
- 107,213
The far left refused to acknowledge a need for firearms and decides to rely on others to protect them.
The far right refuses to acknowledge the need to laws and how laws "help" keep some form normality.
They refuse to meet in the middle. The Right wants a Tank to hunt a herd of deer and the left wants drones patrolling the neighborhood. It was my attempt at showing how far each side can and does go overboard.
Laws are made in an attempt to keep people reasonable. Why have a speed limit? Most don't follow it but most do keep pretty close to the posted limit. Would you want people going through school zones doing 70 in a dump truck or would you rather have the driver be afraid of a large fine or jail time. Once the kid is hamburger its to late. I'm not a huge fan of government or most laws BUT I see a reason if the laws are made with COMMON SENSE and the safety of people. The problem is we differ on what we think will make people safe.
Meeting in the middle is better than having one side control everything.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,872
- Reaction score
- 73,884
OK, in for "common sense".
Could you help out this "far right" uncompromising nut job understand how speeding relates to an amendment designed to keep a tyrannical government from coming to power.
(And FYI - I've never met a single person that wants to "hunt a herd of deer with a tank." Now hogs on the other hand...... but I digress.)
IN for hawgs . But if deer were the only option in this scenario.....OK, in for "common sense".
Could you help out this "far right" uncompromising nut job understand how speeding relates to an amendment designed to keep a tyrannical government from coming to power.
(And FYI - I've never met a single person that wants to "hunt a herd of deer with a tank." Now hogs on the other hand...... but I digress.)
OK, in for "common sense".
Could you help out this "far right" uncompromising nut job understand how speeding relates to an amendment designed to keep a tyrannical government from coming to power.
(And FYI - I've never met a single person that wants to "hunt a herd of deer with a tank." Now hogs on the other hand...... but I digress.)
Wording. You have the right to bear arms. Is a nuclear bomb an arm? Can I use it to BBQ every deer in the zone. If I am hunting deer with a tank and you say no, thats an infringement. If you say I cant own a nuclear device thats infringement. If you limit my household to what I can store in it regardless if there is a fire and the explosion would take out 5 houses near me, thats an infringement. Speed limits other than the need bring in revenue are put in place to keep a level of normality. Personally I dislike laws telling me what I can own. I do however see why they are there. You of course can ignore speed limits if you dont mind paying the price if you get caught.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,872
- Reaction score
- 73,884
You really don't understand the 2A, at all. Why in the world do you keep bring up hunting? Or speeding? What EXACTLY do they have to do with curtailing a tyrannical government. I don't know how to ask it any clearer than that.
Yes, you should have the right to own a tank or nuclear bomb and any other weapon the military owns. Do you not want me to own one because you are 'scared' of what I might do? So you want the federal government, to protect you, from me? Is that correct? Think about that for a moment....
Do you really think that a government backed by billions with stealth bombers and a vast amount of personal cant take out well armed posse causing issues? Do you think we should own Surface to Air missiles. The government protects us daily if we like it or not. Thats what the armed forces are for and the police that take notes after stuff happens. I think there should be a mix of both. Cops cant and shouldnt follow you everywhere. If you think its ok for anyone to own and transport items that could possible kill millions then Ive no idea why you would be ok with grounding of planes to prevent thousands of deaths from the spreading of a virus. Dont get me wrong, we are on the fringes of martial law and with the stimulus cash the fringes of socialism. But not everything that goes against what you want is a bad thing. While guns may protect us from bad guys I do not seeing owning one preventing a hostile government from dethroning us. Its a lot different than it was when it was musket to musket. Not saying there wont be bloodshed but it wont be easy or pretty. If the Government wasnt in place, we would all be speaking a different language
