100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Any questions? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes,is that Kim Jung Il the dead father or his son. Kim Jung Il jr.? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Korea's pygmy -in- chief,
Kim Jung Un, had someone executed with an anti aircraft gun. That, was pretty awesome! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i have lots of questions
but none to do with this |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Korea's pygmy -in- chief, Kim Jung Un, had someone executed with an anti aircraft gun. That, was pretty awesome! I guess that means he's pro gun too. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i have lots of questions but none to do with this I don't know about questions but, Vote for basha and all your wildest dreams will come true |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes,is that Kim Jung Il the dead father or his son. Kim Jung Il jr.? Is there a difference?.... 
lol... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes,is that Kim Jung Il the dead father or his son. Kim Jung Il jr.? Is there a difference?....
lol...
Yes, ones dead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes,is that Kim Jung Il the dead father or his son. Kim Jung Il jr.? Is there a difference?....
lol...
Yes, ones dead. Hopefully, they'll soon have a family reunion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think presenting it as
people who think you should be able to own guns
kind of makes arms not a right so much as just a commodity. Might as well change "guns" to "cars" or "cigarettes" or "pot" or "corn dogs" or "slaves." IMO it's not about "should be able to own" so much as "believe government even contemplating the thought of trying to infringe upon, keep you from, or take away, your bearing of arms is egregious." IMO that is a huge problem anymore. People don't inherently see bearing arms as a right, like breathing or life. It's just an object, or tool, just a gun, a tiny little thing, a device for murder. So who cares if they just take away that one little object? You don't have a right to drive..why should you have a right to shoot? Personally, I think anything that offers resistance to a governments application of power can be considered an "arm." Firearms being just one representation of a larger concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think presenting it as people who think you should be able to own guns
kind of makes arms not a right so much as just a commodity. Might as well change "guns" to "cars" or "cigarettes" or "pot" or "corn dogs" or "slaves." IMO it's not about "should be able to own" so much as "believe government even contemplating the thought of trying to infringe upon, keep you from, or take away, your bearing of arms is egregious." IMO that is a huge problem anymore. People don't inherently see bearing arms as a right, like breathing or life. It's just an object, or tool, just a gun, a tiny little thing, a device for murder. So who cares if they just take away that one little object? You don't have a right to drive..why should you have a right to shoot? Personally, I think anything that offers resistance to a governments application of power can be considered an "arm." Firearms being just one representation of a larger concept. actually all americans have the right to "travel" in a motor vehicle. driving is for commercial vehicles that are making profit from driving, look it up. americans are free to "travel" in a car with no license. its all a sham by government to make you pay them the lousy couple dollars for a license. im pretty sure the supreme court ruled on this more than once, that you dont need a license if you are "traveling" in a motor vehicle. only if you are "driving" (profiting from commercial use of a vehicle) are you required to have a license. traveling is a right, and being a right you dont need a license to use a right. tell that to the cops and judges and they will still fine you or throw your @$$ in jail for it, even though im almost positive the supreme court has ruled more than once that you dont need a license if you are not profiting from driving your vehicle. same thing with firearms, firearms are a right. just the idea of a background check affirms that government can deny you your right, which is forbidden by the constitution. government can not deny you a right, but they do anyway and get away with it because majority of people allow them to. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 06/25/15 11:59 AM
|
|
I think presenting it as people who think you should be able to own guns
kind of makes arms not a right so much as just a commodity. Might as well change "guns" to "cars" or "cigarettes" or "pot" or "corn dogs" or "slaves." IMO it's not about "should be able to own" so much as "believe government even contemplating the thought of trying to infringe upon, keep you from, or take away, your bearing of arms is egregious." IMO that is a huge problem anymore. People don't inherently see bearing arms as a right, like breathing or life. It's just an object, or tool, just a gun, a tiny little thing, a device for murder. So who cares if they just take away that one little object? You don't have a right to drive..why should you have a right to shoot? Personally, I think anything that offers resistance to a governments application of power can be considered an "arm." Firearms being just one representation of a larger concept. we are born with breath and life,, we arent born with guns in our hands bad analogy it is a TOOL,,its a tool that is used for MILITARY(ie militia) purposes and defense and hunting,, but it is a tool, for sale, with requirements,,, personallly, my opinion is that tools used to take life should never be just a 'right',, but a privilege, given only with GREAT responsibility over their usage and maintenance,,, but the founding fathers have spoken and noone has yet amended their words on that matter,,, as far as driving, it is an interesting claim that it is a right, (I havent verified or denied it, I have seen pieces claiming both sides ) but that comes down to culture,,,to me,, what were the founding fathers 'driving' exactly if we were still in horse and buggies, that would make sense as a 'right',, but inthe speed demon wagons we now drive,, and the NUMBER of them sharing roads,,, not so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think presenting it as people who think you should be able to own guns
kind of makes arms not a right so much as just a commodity. Might as well change "guns" to "cars" or "cigarettes" or "pot" or "corn dogs" or "slaves." IMO it's not about "should be able to own" so much as "believe government even contemplating the thought of trying to infringe upon, keep you from, or take away, your bearing of arms is egregious." IMO that is a huge problem anymore. People don't inherently see bearing arms as a right, like breathing or life. It's just an object, or tool, just a gun, a tiny little thing, a device for murder. So who cares if they just take away that one little object? You don't have a right to drive..why should you have a right to shoot? Personally, I think anything that offers resistance to a governments application of power can be considered an "arm." Firearms being just one representation of a larger concept. we arent born with guns in our hands I was. 
Speak for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think presenting it as people who think you should be able to own guns
kind of makes arms not a right so much as just a commodity. Might as well change "guns" to "cars" or "cigarettes" or "pot" or "corn dogs" or "slaves." IMO it's not about "should be able to own" so much as "believe government even contemplating the thought of trying to infringe upon, keep you from, or take away, your bearing of arms is egregious." IMO that is a huge problem anymore. People don't inherently see bearing arms as a right, like breathing or life. It's just an object, or tool, just a gun, a tiny little thing, a device for murder. So who cares if they just take away that one little object? You don't have a right to drive..why should you have a right to shoot? Personally, I think anything that offers resistance to a governments application of power can be considered an "arm." Firearms being just one representation of a larger concept. we are born with breath and life,, we arent born with guns in our hands bad analogy it is a TOOL,,its a tool that is used for MILITARY(ie militia) purposes and defense and hunting,, but it is a tool, for sale, with requirements,,, personallly, my opinion is that tools used to take life should never be just a 'right',, but a privilege, given only with GREAT responsibility over their usage and maintenance,,, but the founding fathers have spoken and noone has yet amended their words on that matter,,, as far as driving, it is an interesting claim that it is a right, (I havent verified or denied it, I have seen pieces claiming both sides ) but that comes down to culture,,,to me,, what were the founding fathers 'driving' exactly if we were still in horse and buggies, that would make sense as a 'right',, but inthe speed demon wagons we now drive,, and the NUMBER of them sharing roads,,, not so much. im pretty sure if you look at your DMV's own regulations, they will define it for you. "driving" is listed as using your vehicle for profit. like truck "driver", taxi "driver". government cannot deny a person their right to travel freely, but our corrupt system does anyway because think about it, since when does government follow the law? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would I give a crap who wants me to have a gun or not? I'll decide for myself, thank you. Nothing wrong with that sentiment.....I just dont want someone else deciding if I should own a firearm or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that they should alcohol and hand gun night at baseball games.
First one shot wins an autographed baseball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think presenting it as people who think you should be able to own guns
kind of makes arms not a right so much as just a commodity. Might as well change "guns" to "cars" or "cigarettes" or "pot" or "corn dogs" or "slaves." IMO it's not about "should be able to own" so much as "believe government even contemplating the thought of trying to infringe upon, keep you from, or take away, your bearing of arms is egregious." IMO that is a huge problem anymore. People don't inherently see bearing arms as a right, like breathing or life. It's just an object, or tool, just a gun, a tiny little thing, a device for murder. So who cares if they just take away that one little object? You don't have a right to drive..why should you have a right to shoot? Personally, I think anything that offers resistance to a governments application of power can be considered an "arm." Firearms being just one representation of a larger concept. we are born with breath and life,, we arent born with guns in our hands bad analogy it is a TOOL,,its a tool that is used for MILITARY(ie militia) purposes and defense and hunting,, but it is a tool, for sale, with requirements,,, personallly, my opinion is that tools used to take life should never be just a 'right',, but a privilege, given only with GREAT responsibility over their usage and maintenance,,, but the founding fathers have spoken and noone has yet amended their words on that matter,,, as far as driving, it is an interesting claim that it is a right, (I havent verified or denied it, I have seen pieces claiming both sides ) but that comes down to culture,,,to me,, what were the founding fathers 'driving' exactly if we were still in horse and buggies, that would make sense as a 'right',, but inthe speed demon wagons we now drive,, and the NUMBER of them sharing roads,,, not so much. im pretty sure if you look at your DMV's own regulations, they will define it for you. "driving" is listed as using your vehicle for profit. like truck "driver", taxi "driver". government cannot deny a person their right to travel freely, but our corrupt system does anyway because think about it, since when does government follow the law? yeah,,,,,,nope cant find that ANYWHERE in DMV for Nevada,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
