Mandatory Gun Ownership?

[babe]

If I was forced to have a gun in my home my wife would have shot me 10 times over.

This is truly a sobering thought. Every man should consider the dangers. Of course, the progressive solution would be "just one more law". . . . maybe giving men a special exemption called the "babe law" or something where anyone who has to stand up to a woman in some foreseeable future can get a license called the "chicken license", and be temporarily exempt from his responsibility for mutually beneficial community action for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. but hey, freedom is what it is. Nobody has any freedom they won't lay their life on the line for. Not even husbands. nah, the "Protection of Cowards Under Imminent Danger +ct" falls under the Darwinian survival of the fittest law.

 

[babe]

I see alot of these issues as seperate and have differing opinions depending ont he issue.

As one of the more perceptive diagnosticians, I realize this will happen, statistically speaking, about 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the time.

In the field of neurological diversity the odds of any two brains being the same is near zero.

Welcome to freedom, my friend. We don't have to have law to require coherent thinking.

Just try to see the common thread between all the things Nanny Statists do, OK?

 

[Dr. Jones]

truly a sobering thought. Every man should consider the dangers.

the progressive solution would be "just one more law". . . . maybe giving men a special exemption called the "babe law" or something where anyone who has to stand up to a woman in some foreseeable future can get a license called the "chicken license".

but hey, freedom is what it is. Nobody has any freedom they won't lay their life on the line for. Not even husbands.

nah, the "Protection of Cowards Act" falls under the Darwinian survival of the fittest law.

I use to be .. but am no longer in favor of that law.

 

[babe]

This is truly a sobering thought. Every man should consider the dangers. Of course, the progressive solution would be "just one more law". . . . maybe giving men a special exemption called the "babe law" or something where anyone who has to stand up to a woman in some foreseeable future can get a license called the "chicken license", and be temporarily exempt from his responsibility for mutually beneficial community action for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. but hey, freedom is what it is. Nobody has any freedom they won't lay their life on the line for. Not even husbands. nah, the "Protection of Cowards Under Imminent Danger ct" falls under the Darwinian survival of the fittest law.

%0+%0+hey, there's that p*virus again. . . ..%0+%0+

 

[Stoked]

As one of the more perceptive diagnosticians, I realize this will happen, statistically speaking, about 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the time.

In the field of neurological diversity the odds of any two brains being the same is near zero.

Welcome to freedom, my friend. We don't have to have law to require coherent thinking.

Just try to see the common thread between all the things Nanny Statists do, OK?

I think there is a certain level of responsibility that citizens need to take on. However i see gross abuses of that all over the place. I agree on canceling the draft and registration for it. I do see the need for some taxes.

 

[babe]

seeing the need for "some taxes" doesn't necessarily mean income tax or property tax. Our founders had a smarter tax, which created economic opportunity by shielding US citizens from cartel economic power, through tariffs. Does it really matter if we pay collectively two trillion dollars in taxes or two trillion dollars more for imported goods?

a high tariff protects American jobs, protects American wages, and stimulates creation of more productive businesses. . . . ..

Federal customs agents can collect the tariffs efficiently at the ports. Everybody would pay their fair share, no loopholes or deductions. You see something in the store and you decide if you want it enough to pay the price. . . .

 

[Stoked]

seeing the need for "some taxes" doesn't necessarily mean income tax or property tax. Our founders had a smarter tax, which created economic opportunity by shielding US citizens from cartel economic power, through tariffs. Does it really matter if we pay collectively two trillion dollars in taxes or two trillion dollars more for imported goods?

a high tariff protects American jobs, protects American wages, and stimulates creation of more productive businesses. . . . ..

Federal customs agents can collect the tariffs efficiently at the ports. Everybody would pay their fair share, no loopholes or deductions. You see something in the store and you decide if you want it enough to pay the price. . . .

I worded it as "some taxes" purposely. As to how the money is collected I leave that debate to those more versed on the subject.

 

[babe]

I worded it as "some taxes" purposely. As to how the money is collected I leave that debate to those more versed on the subject.

yah, man, it hurts to be me sometimes. I yanked three posts off my postcount runup in this thread because I was just ashamed to leave that crap in here.

I respect the experienced wisdom behind the original tax scheme and military strategy in the Constitution, which was suitable for funding a limited government whose primary function was to present a sufficiently solid front for the colonies. . . . designed to counter the power of offshore cartels over our economy, and cost-effectively defend our liberty. . . . from Feudalist marine colonial powers and from ourselves.

Now we should perhaps adjust our strategy to defend our government from onshore international fascists and offshore banks. . . . and from the feudal peasant horde fixated on living off the dole.

but to get back to the OP, in the context of a populace mesmerized by our present media cartels, the idea of an armed populace defending their liberty is transformed to the spectre of a mob ransacking the palace of individual liberty. . . . .

stupid people who wouldn't know freedom from leige servility wouldn't know who to shoot to defend "liberty".