I would shoot you with a rubber band and run away, hoping you'd chase me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Printable View
I would shoot you with a rubber band and run away, hoping you'd chase me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
It seems this argument has strayed from "more gun control/less gun control", to what sounds like "everybody needs a gun/nobody should have a gun".
I have not proposed that everybody needs a gun, I've been making the argument that everybody should have the right to own one if they so choose to. And that the goverment cannot revoke that right.
It is not a privilege, it is a right.
The government trying to confiscate legal weapons is an act of illegal hostility and is grounds for a person to legally defend themselves, if they so choose.
Why the **** would anybody want a gun? "lol ima go shootin teh birds"Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
:D Can we be like squirrels in the spring?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigabitch
Not in Texas, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Why would anybody wanna wear a condom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Frasbee, your argument assumes I might be offended that the government took people's guns away. I am not - not in the least.
Most people who are hurt with firearms are law abiding citizens or their children. Therefore, they shouldn't have them, and again, I disagree that people have a right to have them.
So if you think people shouldn't have a right to firearms, how would you suggest people would have a privilege to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I've presented my argument over and over, with little response from you or Durden in almost complete disregard for the viability of my argument commenting "no that's silly, people shouldn't have guns"
Sorry, I don't understand your question. Can you re-phrase it?
Because it prevents you from being stuck with the responsibility of a child, among other reasons. I still look better in a suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
If you think people shouldn't have a right to firearms, how would you suggest people would have a privilege to it? Or how would one qualify to own a firearm?Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Exactly, it's a precaution.Quote:
Because it prevents you from being stuck with the responsibility of a child, among other reasons.
Just like a gun is. 'Cept guns can be a fun leisure activity with one's friends.
Just as condom can be used during a "fun leisure activity" with one's "friends".
Let's put it this way. Careful reading of the constitution allows for private ownership of firearms CONDITIONAL upon belonging to a militia (which nowadays would be akin to law enforcement or military).
I don't think having guns is a right at all, and I don't think that people who do not belong to either law enforcement or the military ought to have guns, unless they live in an area where animals are a threat or if they hunt for food, and then, only rifles, no handguns.
I think the reason people are allowed to have guns is because the politicians are owned by the gun lobby, or at least enough of them are that we will never get them off the street.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I understand how you came to the interpretation.
But it is written in such a vague way that my argument that individuals should also have the right to arms is equally viable.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
This is one of the definitions accroding to dictionary.com as to what a militia is. And modern militias do exist.
Yes, but they are widely considered nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You're completely off-track. Don't make me break apart that bolded and italicized quote for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee
This proved nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee
Go ahead Vashbitch, break it apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I was insinuating by that militia definition that a there are militias outside of what Vash is referring to (being the modern US federal military).