MilitantDogOwner Posted May 6, 2013 Author Share Posted May 6, 2013 ....foreign invasion..... If only we had a standing force of trained and experienced people, armed and equipment to fend off invading foreign forces..... (sigh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 No disrespect to you cousin. What right was he fighting for? My right not to live under a Communist regime perhaps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Is the question too difficult for you? Yes, please dumb it down into words I can understand, because right now I haven't got the slightest idea what relevance it has. To obtain a licence, first you have to pass a written test, meet minimum health standards and then after a certain level of instruction (depending on the drivers capabilities) a practical test will take place. You can only pass this test by display a certain level of road knowledge, driving skill and safety awareness. In some countries its a licence for life and in some countries you have to resit your exam. Now apply the same logic to a firearm, a fundamentally more dangerous device than a car...... Edit to add: I also find it strange that you have to have liability insurance for a car, yet you don't for a firearm.... Driving a car is a privilege, the 2A is an irrevocable Right. Big difference. What part of well regulated militia applies to someone walking around town with an AR15 strapped to their back? What part of " the Right of the people" don't you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 ....foreign invasion..... If only we had a standing force of trained and experienced people, armed and equipment to fend off invading foreign forces..... (sigh) I bet a smart ass Channel Islander said something similar on 29th June 1940. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Seems to me the smart people want to evolve...... The gun nuts want to live in the past. Obama could very well be the Jefferson of the future. When you listen to some gun nuts you do get the impression they want to live in Wild West, when justice was attached to the hip and had 6 bullets in it. Yup MDO And I bet those people are the same splinless cowards who are to scared to go to a local pub in case they meet a "local character". I am not a coward. I go everywhere without a gun. And I go to a lot of places. They are also the same spineless cowards who like to talk all big and tough when they are packing, yet the thought of going to Iraq or Afghanistan makes them piss their pants. Actually the pro 2A guys, the partiots etc are the guys who fought for their rights in war. My cousin for one is a Vietnam vet, so much for spineless cowards you prick. ah.. your cousin. So your a genetic hero..... Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Driving a car is a privilege, the 2A is an irrevocable Right. Big difference. I'm not really wanting to get drawn into this internet bun fight but two things: 1) The Bill of Rights is only applicable to the USA, so people on this thread aren't comparing apples with apples; and 2) It is revocable as the Bill of Rights can be amended, whether there is the will or desire to do is another matter. 1) Correct, but we're talking about the USA. 2) Correct, but that's up to them not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 1) The Bill of Rights is only applicable to the USA, I disagree with that. I consider the Bill of Rights to be describing the inalienable, natural and universal rights of man (and woman). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Ruger.....do you have any connection with the Ruger arms company? Or Sturm Ruger or whatever it is called. Does your cousin work there?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 1) The Bill of Rights is only applicable to the USA, I disagree with that. I consider the Bill of Rights to be describing the inalienable, natural rights of man (and woman). Runneymead predates that. Indeed, it was the precourser. But yeah..... nothing has changed in that has it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Actually the pro 2A guys, the partiots etc are the guys who fought for their rights in war. My cousin for one is a Vietnam vet, so much for spineless cowards you prick. Are all pro 2nd amendment guys veterans? Or are the vast majority wannabes? Moron. No, I thought it would be obvious to you that a hell of a lot of them are though. Why didn't you express this utter contempt for American gun owners when you were surrounded by them at a range not so long ago?. Did you call them spineless cowards to their face?. Keyboard warrior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 1) The Bill of Rights is only applicable to the USA, I disagree with that. I consider the Bill of Rights to be describing the inalienable, natural and universal rights of man (and woman). You can disagree with whatever you like, I'll stick to the truth. There may be some principles contained within the Bill of Rights that I agree with but as I'm not an American the Bill of Rights carries no weight with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Ruger.....do you have any connection with the Ruger arms company? Or Sturm Ruger or whatever it is called. Does your cousin work there?' Close connections but not in that respect no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 6, 2013 Author Share Posted May 6, 2013 What part of " the Right of the people" don't you understand. "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" I read it differently. But the way you read it...free guns for everyone!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 1) The Bill of Rights is only applicable to the USA, I disagree with that. I consider the Bill of Rights to be describing the inalienable, natural rights of man (and woman). Runnymede pre-dates that. Indeed, it was the precursor. Correct. The 1689 English Bill of Rights also preceded the US Bill of Rights. Obama is in breach of all three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 1) The Bill of Rights is only applicable to the USA, I disagree with that. I consider the Bill of Rights to be describing the inalienable, natural and universal rights of man (and woman). You can disagree with whatever you like, I'll stick to the truth. There may be some principles contained within the Bill of Rights that I agree with but as I'm not an American the Bill of Rights carries no weight with me. What does your nationality have to do with your rights??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.