Loving the lefty tolerance

It's in my family, it's what I believe is right (if you take the guns from the law-abiding citizens, the criminals will still have them), it's for safety.
 
I fish, but I've never hunted. I could do it if I need to (I'm a decent shot), but my current firearms are no long-distance rifles.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no 'security of a free state' premise at all?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I'm ok with not being able to own a machine gun, but I am never ok with the public being completely disarmed in the face of a heavily armed government.

What will be, will be....I'll just wait before i rally the militia.
 
Tektite said:
Yes and no. I'm ok with not being able to own a machine gun, but I am never ok with the public being completely disarmed in the face of a heavily armed government.

What will be, will be....I'll just wait before i rally the militia.
Click to expand...

that seems rational.

I'm not sure you'll fit in here!
 
Tektite said:
Yes and no. I'm ok with not being able to own a machine gun, but I am never ok with the public being completely disarmed in the face of a heavily armed government.

What will be, will be....I'll just wait before i rally the militia.
Click to expand...

but owning a machine gun is perfectly legal......as long as it was taxed and registered before a certain date, so how is it constitutional to make it impossible to own one if it was manufactured after a certain date, but not before that date?
 
See: emissions rules for older vehicles. It's actually a measure to meet you a part of the way, imo. We have plenty of guns in the US now, but if more automatic were to enter the market, more violent criminals would have access to them.

Why isn't it legal to own a nuke?
 
Tektite said:
Hmmm.

Well I took "no arrests" to mean something very different than "intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers". Where I'm from, forcing physical confrontations leads to charges being made. Call me crazy.

Regardless, there were broad generalizations made about 'lefties', and a less-than-polite response when I asked (in what I meant to be a polite way) for a more moderate source.

Soooo, Smarter....noted...

Damocles...is it evident that they were two distinctly separate protest groups? Does "rightmichigan" seem like a good source for at least semi-neutral news about purported 'lefties'?

Regardless, it should have been evident that I do not condone the disruption of the Churchgoers religious doings/rituals/etc in their own church.
Click to expand...
What is evident is the word "another" points to the fact that it was a separate group of people than the ones inside. Whether they were a different group doesn't change that they were not the same people.
 
Tektite said:
See: emissions rules for older vehicles. It's actually a measure to meet you a part of the way, imo. We have plenty of guns in the US now, but if more automatic were to enter the market, more violent criminals would have access to them.
Click to expand...
I could agree with this argument if there was something in the bill of rights about owning and driving a pre-emission automobile, however, I also have an issue with people misinterpreting 'shall not be infringed'.

Tektite said:
Why isn't it legal to own a nuke?
Click to expand...

A nuke isn't a military members 'arm', it's a strategic device. Let's not get too much further in to the strawman argument. You and I both know what is meant by 'arms' in the second amendment.
 
So if there were a group of police inside, and there was another group of police outside, would they be deemed separate?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I could agree with this argument if there was something in the bill of rights about owning and driving a pre-emission automobile, however, I also have an issue with people misinterpreting 'shall not be infringed'.



A nuke isn't a military members 'arm', it's a strategic device. Let's not get too much further in to the strawman argument. You and I both know what is meant by 'arms' in the second amendment.
Click to expand...

First off, sorry i didn't quote in the last reply....It was for Damocles (obviously, I reckon)

Smarter, I actually am a bit ignorant on the wording. Where do 'arms' end, so-to-speak? (honest question)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top