I suspect it has much more to do with the cost associated with owning one.Originally Posted by BabyPeterzz
I suspect it has much more to do with the cost associated with owning one.
€¥€
No, broken. Not one thing done in Philadelphia was more threatening than carrying around a rifle on your back.
So, what's your argument against everyone being able to own flamethrowers? Or, are you saying that we should allow everyone to own and use flamethrowers?
Depends on the goal, doesn't it?
I see farmers using "flame throwers" every fall, as part of their regular ditch maintenance program. They have trucks with propane tanks, and a fairly serviceable hose so they can do both sides of the ditch. I see no reason to worry about them, and probably even the fire department isn't worried. Usually they are "manned" by teenagers or someone who just got their learners permit, or are driving on the farm with the allowance at least locally that no license is required to operate farm equipment.
They are different from the military version of "flame throwers" which use that nasty sticky gel called napalm, and can blow a fireball a hundred feet.
That is pure opinion.
A couple guys in hate insignia, with weapons, yes not as deadly as a rifle, shouting slurs v. a guy with a rifle on his back not doing anything to anyone? Yea I am more threatened by the guys using slurs, in hate insignia holding weapons.
Well the goal of someone limiting my access to firearms is to infringe on my rights.
THis. If it was financially feasable to own tanks then more people would. Same with 50 cal humvees, RPGs,...
well, I have pure opinions too.
Anyone showing up near a voting place with bare hands and saying stuff about how you better vote. . . or else. . . is trying to intimidate voters bully style. I guess if OB doesn't see that it might mean he's a bully himself. Not being used to actually listening to opposing viewpoints, and jumping all over everyone who disagrees could be called intimidating too. Some people can be intimidating by their demeanor or body language, and most of the time I can just move on and do my business. . . but I don't think congregating at the doors to the voting place and confronting voters with threats or any kind of weapon is "peaceable assembly". It is actually an attempt to coerce others, and obstruct their right to vote their own conscience. I don't think that should ever be tolerated.
Or justified, excused, or minimized. Shame on you One Brow. You're not someone who really supports human rights.
Ridiculous.
The suggested regulations and background checks aren't infringements upon your freedom.
Some peeps here need to stop doing everything and anything to bash the President and freshen up on Democratic thought. A good starter would be reading about the "Social Contract Theory." Because... Right now, it seems like the pro gun/anti-government (except for gay marriage, stem cell research, alcoholic consumption, and abortion. For these issues the government needs to intervene) in this folks are calling for outright Anarchy.
Corbin sucks.
In Utah, it is easier to obtain a semi-auto and endless amounts of ammo than it is to get a beer.
This shouldn't be.
I welcome opposing arguments to this.
Corbin sucks.
I agree. We should remove the comedic alcohol restrictions in this state.
Well they aren't very useful weapons in the commission of your typical crime.
I've often said that gun restrictions in places like NY and DC are like alcohol restrictions in Utah. They're made by people who aren't familiar with the object being regulated and that they regard as evil and unnecessary.
Isn't it funny how a state which calls for less intervention and smaller government is such a gross offender of overbearing gov intervention and huge gov?
Our alcoholic laws are ridiculous and just a month or two ago a choir in herriman had to cancel singing "all shook up" by Elvis because it was too risqué. Amazing
Corbin sucks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote