Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. But in a democracy, if one citizen has a right to drive a car, so does another -- unless some expedient proscription or prohibition exists.We don't have a right to drive a car...Assuming we have a "right" to drive a car, don't we pay a price to do that, too?Cost!? Kiss my ass!!! Paying for your rights now? Fuck that shit!
It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.Its not a social necessity...The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....
(On public roads of course...)You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. But in a democracy, if one citizen has a right to drive a car, so does another -- unless some expedient proscription or prohibition exists.We don't have a right to drive a car...Assuming we have a "right" to drive a car, don't we pay a price to do that, too?Cost!? Kiss my ass!!! Paying for your rights now? Fuck that shit!
If you disagree, please explain in detail.
No. It isn't...It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.Its not a social necessity...The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....
The only necessity/responsibility lies with the carrier...It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.Its not a social necessity...The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....
Funny how those scenarios never seem to happen no matter how often you guys say they will.......didnt happen in Dallas, or at the Giffords shooting both far higher stress situations.....and your scenario didn't happen then......
What scenarios?
Assuming we have a "right" to drive a car, don't we pay a price to do that, too?Cost!? Kiss my ass!!! Paying for your rights now? Fuck that shit!
It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.Its not a social necessity...The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....
Is there an epidemic of folks, carrying guns under their shirts, accidentally shooting people?It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.Its not a social necessity...The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....
What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....
What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....
Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.
What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....
Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.
What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....
Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.
What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....
Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.
Unless it's because the drug deal went bad.
Correct, as I said, a licensed carrier cannot use a firearm in the commission of a crime.
Unless it's because the drug deal went bad.
Correct, as I said, a licensed carrier cannot use a firearm in the commission of a crime.
So an unlicensed carrier can use a firearm in the commission of a crime?
So an unlicensed carrier can use a firearm in the commission of a crime?
So an unlicensed carrier can use a firearm in the commission of a crime?
I really have no idea what your point is here. Nobody can use a firearm in the commission of a crime and you should know that.
It actually makes no sense at all....the idea that somehow you feel empowered to even think about my rights is terrifying....The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....
He is a lefty....he is lucky to be able to dress and feed himself.....
