• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

straps

see4

see4

Well-Known Member
LadyZandra said:
Paranoid much??

I know the constitution BY HEART.. and read quite well and in great volumes thank you--
never assume that because someone doesn't share YOUR beliefes on something that they are beneath you or ignorant...
it only increases the belief by others that you are the one that is trying to hide their ignorance by attacking those who who are in any way differnt from you.. as you seem to do quite a bit here... no matter what the subject...?
Click to expand...
Just curious. Not trying to nit-pick here, but how does one "read quite well and in great volumes"? Do you mean you read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica in a manner so efficient you retain maximum information at all times? Not trying to be a dick, just not sure what you mean.
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
LadyZandra said:
Paranoid much??

I know the constitution BY HEART.. and read quite well and in great volumes thank you--
never assume that because someone doesn't share YOUR beliefes on something that they are beneath you or ignorant...
it only increases the belief by others that you are the one that is trying to hide their ignorance by attacking those who who are in any way differnt from you.. as you seem to do quite a bit here... no matter what the subject...?
Click to expand...
The Nazis had banned the citizens from owning guns but if the jews had had guns how many rounds do you think a jew in Nazi Germany would have needed? 5? 10? what's the number?
How about under Stalin? How many rounds would you have needed if Stalins men were trying to round you up?
Would you rather have one less than you needed or one more than you needed?
The second amendment isn't about deer hunting.
It also says "shall not be infringed." no if's ands or buts, no back ground checks, permits or restrictions
 
Orithil

Orithil

Well-Known Member
beardo said:
The Nazis had banned the citizens from owning guns but if the jews had had guns how many rounds do you think a jew in Nazi Germany would have needed? 5? 10? what's the number?
How about under Stalin? How many rounds would you have needed if Stalins men were trying to round you up?
Would you rather have one less than you needed or one more than you needed?
The second amendment isn't about deer hunting.
It also says "shall not be infringed." no if's ands or buts, no back ground checks, permits or restrictions
Click to expand...
I think we could do with some modern-day perspective though, I mean...I know I wouldn't want me owning a howitzer or a .50 cal. machine gun. I'm down with some restrictions and I'm down with violent felons having their right to own a gun pulled..but I get what you're saying and mostly agree.

We have to stop letting the Government rationalize taking away our liberties, especially in the name of "safety". I mean hell, they did basically the same thing with this unconstitutional cannabis prohibition, they have no right to tell me what I can and con't consume of my own free will, but they do it anyway...because back in the day someone let them and we haven't bitch-slapped them back in line yet.
 
kinetic

kinetic

Well-Known Member
The nazi's didn't ban guns, they required registration. Only "citizens that were trustworthy" were allowed to have them. Just to be clear.
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
Orithil said:
I think we could do with some modern-day perspective though, I mean...I know I wouldn't want me owning a howitzer or a .50 cal. machine gun. I'm down with some restrictions and I'm down with violent felons having their right to own a gun pulled..but I get what you're saying and mostly agree.

We have to stop letting the Government rationalize taking away our liberties, especially in the name of "safety". I mean hell, they did basically the same thing with this unconstitutional cannabis prohibition, they have no right to tell me what I can and con't consume of my own free will, but they do it anyway...because back in the day someone let them and we haven't bitch-slapped them back in line yet.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your belief in restrictions.
If you think you shouldn't have something then don't have it, that is very sound judgement.
I agree with most of your post and your thought process, but I am against armed men coercing others to disarm under threats of violence or by use of force.
Do you want a guy with a gun telling you what you can and can not do?
Do you think a "violent felon" with bad intentions cares what a "law"says? Or do you think that such a law would disarm a law abiding citizen and deny rights to this person leaving them unarmed in a society in which others are armed, making the person a potential victim because of his choice to comply with the "law"
 
LadyZandra

LadyZandra

Active Member
@ see4 ...I have read several different sets of Encyclopedias (The Zoological set, the Homeowners set, and the Set for Homesteaders- Britanica is boring ) But I read 2-3 books a week- often on Gardening, Cannabis, Biographies, History, and yes- some "just for fun"... besides-- I am an OLDER person-- if you are an obsessive reader like me, that means a SHITLOAD of books over the years- especially if you count all the textbooks from College (which I kept and have re-read some of).... I don't restrict my reading to magazines, online, or the newspaper... or to one-side of the sociopolitical spectrum... I TRY to see both sides... but it IS difficult to try to relate to people who almost WANT to alienate people from their point of view.

What armed men coming to our homes to take our guns????

Using this type of "they are coming to get you" propaganda is meant to inflict panic in those who believe everything they hear in order for them to blindly follow and increase the numbers on that side of this and ANY argument... too many sheeples.
 
Orithil

Orithil

Well-Known Member
beardo said:
I disagree with your belief in restrictions.
If you think you shouldn't have something then don't have it, that is very sound judgement.
I agree with most of your post and your thought process, but I am against armed men coercing others to disarm under threats of violence or by use of force.
Do you want a guy with a gun telling you what you can and can not do?
Do you think a "violent felon" with bad intentions cares what a "law"says? Or do you think that such a law would disarm a law abiding citizen and deny rights to this person leaving them unarmed in a society in which others are armed, making the person a potential victim because of his choice to comply with the "law"
Click to expand...
You make good points, and I suppose the restrictions I'm okay with are, in fact, just what I am personally willing to not have. If you are not okay with them then I wish you all the best in having them lifted, as I feel that anyone willing to kill someone else is most likely going to find a way to do it regardless of what any law says. I mean, if they're going to kill someone they're pretty committed already.
 
kinetic

kinetic

Well-Known Member
GreatwhiteNorth said:
If you follow the (extensive) requirements, you can own those too. :cool:
Click to expand...
An Antique license and a machining course will take people further than they really need. Then again, those require more work than just going to the local gun shop and buying something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top