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.
When it comes to Australia, those on the pro side of gun control often argue that tyranny has not happened yet......but take a look at this: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/traffic...Ak-QN3odJ-kyKo
While it is all for safety, is a country that uses an iron glove against its citizens not a tyranny? Do they do it because they know the citizens can't fight back?
Tyranny can always happen. If the salves were armed, do you think they would have been slaves? Or at least without a fight? What entity not only allowed, but supported slavery despite the Constitution? That is right, the government.
When it comes to Australia, those on the pro side of gun control often argue that tyranny has not happened yet......but take a look at this: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/traffic...Ak-QN3odJ-kyKo
While it is all for safety, is a country that uses an iron glove against its citizens not a tyranny? Do they do it because they know the citizens can't fight back?
This is unclear. An armed citizenry would have prevented hands-free laws? Or - what?
Looks like that law was passed and on the books in 2009 the Australia had guns. Seems to be no relation in this area and personally I do find that cell phone use of any kind in a car is distracting. ..
When it comes to Australia, those on the pro side of gun control often argue that tyranny has not happened yet......but take a look at this: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/traffic...Ak-QN3odJ-kyKo
While it is all for safety, is a country that uses an iron glove against its citizens not a tyranny? Do they do it because they know the citizens can't fight back?
There are more guns in Australia today, that when the gun restriction went into effect.
Britain, Venezuela, Cuba, China, would be a better example of taking the guns, leading to tyranny.
And the 65 million who didn’t don’t count? More don’t want what you want, it’s a demonstrative fact.
What you “believe” liberals will do counts for nothing.
You and the "65 million" can go start your own country.
We've had the 2nd amendment here since day one....and we like it that way.
This is unclear. An armed citizenry would have prevented hands-free laws? Or - what?
I would focus on the right to live and let live. And the right to try, unfettered, to live a moral life.
That's why property rights are absolute.
If you break into my home and attack me I should have the right to any means necessary to defend myself. If you and a million other people decide to do so the principle remains in place: I should have the right to any means necessary to defend myself. Win, lose, or draw...the principle is the important part.
Means are always greater than ends.
Also to note, if you break into my house and attack me I also have the following rights:
1. To allow you to end my life.
2. To try to talk you out of the attack.
3. To shove a banana up my ass.
4. To take my own life.
And so on and so forth.
You see, the principle of freedom is the principle to freely choose...there are no wrong choices.
Provided of course (and you should have seen this coming) that I don't initiate force on others or their property (which is redundant because property is intertwined with life).
Justifying a right by its "success" (which is subjective anyway...maybe I like bananas up my ass) in application doesn't make it a right. It makes it a privilege to be decided by an involuntary 3rd party who by default then owns you because it now has a higher claim on your life than you do.
This is unclear. An armed citizenry would have prevented hands-free laws? Or - what?
Here we have a government who is slapping down 4 demerits where it only takes one more to lose one's licence for 3 years.
Why does the government wear such an iron glove? Is it for safety or is it to have a reason to restrict the public as much as they can? If the latter, would they be so heavy handed if they knew the public could fight back?
Looking at it another way, why do they distrust the public so much that they have to be so heavy handed? If they distrust the public this much..............why should the public trust them?
When the gov't takes away the guns, can they be oppressive in other ways?
When the govt takes away the guns, is there any way they CAN'T be oppressive?
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.
