Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by JColumbus, Nov 13, 2019.
Not sure I can answer a poll like that. The only one I can agree on is the second answer, but I often take my guns off my property, so that doesn't sound right either. You should have had an answer that states that the 2nd amendment explains my rights and that should be all I need.
I don't appreciate you using a photo of my grandmother, making a notion that my penis is small.
Thank you so much for the intellectual post. I absolutely agree with you on all counts. I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate, but not really, because (constitutionality decide) it's hard to look at your points and not say the same for being armed.
I would NOT be surprised if they said "well we tax payers have to pay cops to carry guns because citizens own guns. Now in order for me to be able to say "BULL SHIT", I have to also agree that that same principle goes for roads. Something like, "well the government would had built roads anyway", or "well you can't REALLY provide your fancy firearms for yourself". Most if not all people can not make pretty much all modern guns, themselves.
But I agree, and I think a big key in being "more" free with firearms and other rights, we need to push back on things like the license and registration of cars. We should take a stand and say "look, I paid into these roads, I bought a car, I can use it responsibly, and it's not up to the government to tell me I have to PAY A FINE/TAX in order for me to use the PUBLIC'S roads".
Again, I probably wouldn't go as far as to say there shouldn't be a speed limit, or you can go the wrong way on the other side, but being given permission to use the roads, PRINCIPLY because their argument is "cars are dangerous", is the same as being given permission to use my arms, because my arms are dangerous (not talking about these sticks on both sides of my body).
I don't know. A lot of folks in this thread so far are indicating this is a stupid discussion and I'm not making sense. I thought I had a good thought exercise and wanted to gain perspective and insight into what other people thought about it. So maybe I'm just making an insane argument... Maybe I'm being an "extremist" as far as freedom in America goes...
Thanks for the engagement.
Yea, but I was trying to keep this discussion away from the constitutionality of the whole thing. Hard, I know, if not impossible. I wanted to explore the idea that if we are inherently free, and we the people hold the power, then public roads that we pay to build should be available to use without permission. The bigger point being that the same argument that was used to require license and registration, regardless of the bill of rights, is the same one the left will use to ban and or require the same, for guns.
Simply that they are "dangerous". I was astonished to see that being the rationale behind the car part. I thought there were actual "reasons".
Because of this country's forefathers, we have those freedoms written into law. It's impossible to explain why we have such freedoms that other countries don't, without bringing the bill of rights into it.
I believe... the mental gymnastics required to even follow how someone might associate the two are beyond my level of intoxication.
I can provide my own means of acquisition through trade. So I can “provide it for myself”.
That said, I don’t think the comparison of firearms ownership to driving has much validity. It’s the discussion of what is/isn’t a right that I can enjoy. I think I’ve found a pretty good measuring stick (other may disagree) and testing my ideas helps to refine and simplify them. So instead of arguing why cars and guns are alike, I can argue how they differ in the basic sense.
I can argue why we follow a uniform standard for the use of public roads (that’s what’s really regulated, not the cars) and not for my firearms.
Not everyone agrees. I’ve been on the less popular end of the debate when it comes to businesses that restrict carry. But I feel like I can be principled in my conclusions without having to use a double standard to get the conclusion I want.
For roads, we all “agreed” to pay for them (via our elected officials) and we all agreed to the rules of use (via our elected officials). I don’t see where there is a violation of rights in that specific case.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough. If only I had your eloquence.
I register my car because it was required at point of sale......I don't register guns because i don't have any......