![]() |
Quote:
|
You all know that I am just a big dumb Canuck, but I have to agree with Ducimus.:salute:
I voted no before I read the first post. |
"Better Dead then Red", Darn, right.
Much better to live in bastions of freedom like Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan, Venezuela... Think about the poor repressed masses in Japan, UK, Poland... btw, what part of the constitution garantees the right to 30 round mags? Up here in the frozen north, we manage to hunt just fine with 5 round mags, its called "reloading"...:ping: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ership.svg.png |
V for vendetta
|
Rights?
You want the right to have your kids take classes in free-fire zones.
You want the right to bury your children. You want the right to stay indoors at night because the streets are kill zones. You want the right to fire at a bad guy (presumed), to miss, and to kill some innocent person. You want the right to have your wife, kids, girlfriends, and mommy caught in a crossfire between folks who disagree. You want a right to keep loaded guns and kids in the same house. You want to watch your neighbors who are also armed. You want big guns, hollow point ammo, big mags, and hospitals so full they can't take in your son or daughter when they need help. You want criminals let loose early because the jails are overflowing. You want the right to shoot first at anyone who looks or acts in any way that makes you feel unsafe. :hmm2: |
Quote:
So, what part of "infringe" don't you understand? It means to violate or encroach upon. Any limitation violates the meaning of "infringe". Quote:
You try to make a case for needing one gun or another, but you put yourself right into the trap of trying to limit what the word "infringe" means. You want to have it both ways. A basic natural right has nothing to do with what you, I, or Diane Feinstein think we need. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I never thought I'd say this, but that little rant makes Yubba look like a scholar. |
Quote:
|
Not American, but if I was I'd go with 'no', Imo trading liberty for security is morally wrong, you dont punish the vast majority for the crimes of a small minority And I am not aware of any examples that provides evidence of it ever actually being successful.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have several guns in my house with kids, not loaded, cept one. My son is 15, very good with guns, he's allowed to take his and go hunting/target shooting when he pleases. My wife is a great marksman, woman...lol. We're not worried about shooting each other in a criminal comes in, we'll have him in triangulated fire. However, I'd rather be shot by a family member trying to stop a criminal, than to stand there with my hands in my pockets why they rape or kill my family. Speaking of prisons, I saw a GOP congressman that made me sick. With budget cuts he was talking about what we needed to do to cut cost in the prison system because too many offenders were being released. He wanted to get rid of soft drinks, any junk food, cable, books, etc. Like Steve said, legalize pot and you'll have plenty room for the real crooks. Course, he was against doing that. |
Is about trading freedom to "feel" safer or actually be safer.
Those are two very different things practised in reality. You can carry gun to actually feel safer but not really be or police may patrolling your neigberhood just for the same reason. |
And the opposite is true. You can "feel" safer by banning all guns, until some big young punk decides he wants your money, or your body. Then how safe are you?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In a related note, my last boss/engineer's wife is a concealed carry holder. She always had a pistol on her. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.