Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Laws that keep us safe from ourselves, are unconstitutional.
True..... as much as we would like for people to have common sense, many don't and because people will do things anyways we can't protect them through laws and infringe on the responsible ones liberties
The Obama Administration through the Justice Department has given the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” In effect: those who are convicted of crimes involving alcohol and/or substance abusers will have their right to bear arms revoked.
Did you read the article and/or understand it? Because nowhere did it state that your right to bear arms would be impacted in these instances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
If I'm supporting you, I own you until you get tired of it.
So the bank owns me because I pay a mortgage? Awright, debtor's prisons, here we come!
True..... as much as we would like for people to have common sense, many don't and because people will do things anyways we can't protect them through laws and infringe on the responsible ones liberties
How many people smoke pot or snort coke, even though it is illegal?
How many people own guns, that are convicted felons?
How many people smoke pot or snort coke, even though it is illegal?
How many people own guns, that are convicted felons?
Kinda, ironic, isn't it!
Exactly
The more laws there are of these kinds, the more they are pushed to the underground creating a black market..... nobody seems to remeber alcohol prohibition unfortunately
So the bank owns me because I pay a mortgage? Awright, debtor's prisons, here we come!
I'm sure you're joking with that analogy, but in case you weren't....the difference is: You were lent the money to buy something of worth to the bank - your house. Not to mention the fact that at the time you signed the papers, I'm pretty certain you showed proof to the bank that you were capable, and were in fact supporting yourself.
Someone on welfare is NOT apparently capable of supporting themselves, at least at that moment in time, and therefore is procuring what amounts to a signature loan from the government....only this loan doesn't have to paid back. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider ensuring that this bounty...coming from taxpayer monies....isn't being pi$$ed away on a drug or alcohol habit.
Wouldn't you say?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
