https://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/20...n-to-vote-on-mandatory-firearm-ownership?lite
These idiots are missing the entire point!
These idiots are missing the entire point!
Mandatory Gun Ownership?
- Thread starter Stoked
- Start date
In accordance with the 1st Amendment all citizens will be required to give a speech in the town square no less than once a month, and will be required to protest on the steps of city hall no less than once a month, and will be required to attend whatever religious services they chose no less than once a month, and to write a news article no less than once a month. If you do not properly exercise these freedoms you will be fined. If you continue not properly exercising your freedoms after being fined you will be jailed.
Now go be free, that's an order!
Now go be free, that's an order!
Perfect example. In their zeal to defend their freedom they are becoming exactly what they are fighting against.
I love symbolic ordinances like this. Aren't there better ways to make a statement supporting the second amendment?
Of course there are. Dozens of ways. In my opinion this weakens the 2nd amendment.
Yeah, it makes gun owners seem like "gun-nut-crazies".
For a second I thought you were talking about the article's writers. . . . true "idiots". . . .
In the context of the push to ban private arms to attain the stated UN objective of worldwide disarmament of civilian populations, this law would be at least as good as the requirement generally of registering to vote, or filing tax returns. What, you don't support freedom, or what?
I can laugh at the SNL church lady as good as you folks can, though, and aside from the intent to make a statement that private arms are supposed to be in citizens' hand in defending our country and our liberties, go ahead, laugh all you want. But then go to your city hall and ask them to make an ordinance proscribing police officers or troops acting under the color of any other law from removing guns from it's citizens, and training and equipping the city's police force on armed protection of the town's citizens against such abuse from outside.
Not only that but it flat out takes away the rights of others. Unacceptable.
Since the ordinance is recognized as being unenforceable, I see this as moot point in this case, although it certainly is a bad thing.
while technically you are right on that one point "unacceptable" to require gun ownership in the sense that freedom requires choice, I think you're missing the bigger point.
We tolerate the draft. .. . well, not me, but citizens generally. . . .and this is exactly that idea. . . .and just as unacceptable.
We require taxation on individuals to support our government too. unacceptable.
I pay property tax in Utah to support public indoctrination of the youth for Statist purposes...... unacceptable.
We require driver's ed and licenses, and age qualification for use of the public streets by citizens in their own private vehicles..... unacceptable.
we require insurance on vehicles, and licensing of vehicles. . . . unacceptable.
all of these are denying individual liberties and are unnecessary in the context of tort law and public expectations of responsible behavior where it affects others. Nanny statism.
I see alot of these issues as seperate and have differing opinions depending ont he issue.
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.
Last edited:
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 use to be .. but am no longer in favor of that law.
%0+%0+hey, there's that p*virus again. . . ..%0+%0+
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.
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. . . .
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.
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".