B
Balto1
Guest
I love guns make me feel very masculine like real man
Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into 'law'. Lawsuit ensues
- Status
C
Cathoholic
Guest
There were so many things wrong here I didn’t know where to start.
So I didn’t.
For everybody else.
Here is a book worth reading. It is available online for free if you cannot afford it.
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Govern...rder+Since+1900&qid=1609030372&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Govern...rder+Since+1900&qid=1609030372&s=books&sr=1-1
.
Also the state did not “invent” the “right”.
States cannot invent “rights”
Last edited:
Then you have a very ignorant view of the purpose of firearms.
B
Balto1
Guest
Guns make me look cool and feel tough this is why I need to buy so many
C
Cathoholic
Guest
How about the women who are defending themselves against an “ex” who is breaking his restraining order for the umpty ninth time but this time he starts knocking her around MORE than usual telling her, he is not only going to kill her, but her children (who are watching in horror) too?
And the cops always get there AFTER the beatings despite hurrying.
Do you think this makes her feel “feminine” too?
Is it just possible this issue is beyond you and your “feelings”?
.
This speaks for itself.
Last edited:
Then your ignorance of the purpose of firearms is eclipsed only by a rather immature view of what makes an adult.
Last edited:
B
Balto1
Guest
I’m not saying anything about anything I just said guns make me feel manly which is why I buy so many.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Last edited:
This is most certainly true.
EDIT: I encourage you to see an NRA firearms trainer to help you develop a more mature and intelligent view of arms ownership.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good to know during our last few days on CAF we can finally have a civil discussion here. Thanks for all your thoughts and making things interesting. We have more in common than you may realize.
Finally? I know we’ve sparred, but I’ve always considered you civil and respectful.
And thanks to you as well.
It is often the case that online discussions lack the broad understandings that face to face conversations do. I have no doubt that we have more in common than our online discussion reveals.
At the very least, I have enjoyed our conversations and hold you the way you preset them in high respect
C
Cathoholic
Guest
From 2018 (The scenario I posted above may be hypothetical but there are many realities that are pretty close too) . . . .
Police: Ex-Boyfriend Kicks in Door, Takes Bullet to Chest from Mother of Five World News
But this doesn’t matter to some politicians in America or elsewhere . . . . .
Toronto mayor calls for total disarmament after mass shooting World News
.
But this doesn’t matter to some politicians in America or elsewhere . . . . .
Last edited:
C
ConcernedAmerican
Guest
Last time I checked we don’t have a bill of needs.
In a free country, people can buy as much of a legal good as they can afford regardless of need.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Not necessarily the case. Even for food, supermarkets set a limit on the number of items that are permitted to be purchased. This limitation is that much more necessary for deadly weapons such as guns. Freedom of rights always entails a degree of responsibility on the part of the individual and the government.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Except there is nothing “irresponsible” about a gal choosing to buy guns for herself.
It is her choice as to what she lawfully buys.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Buying one or two guns is fine, but buying a large number of guns sounds a bit irresponsible to me, perhaps reflecting a psychological problem. If such a buyer is mentally or emotionally unstable due to an abnormal fear of being harmed, perhaps they should not be purchasing guns in the first place. Guns are not toys, and they should not be purchased by emotionally troubled people, no matter how law-abiding they are. Regardless, the current legislation limits the purchase of guns; it does not ban it.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
But I have no issue with you thinking that.
But it is a different matter when someone hijacks Government to FORCE this upon others who DON’T think like that.
It is incremental gun abolition against free people.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
The latter seems to be the fear of gun advocates. The fear of government overreach has its valid reasons based on past experience, but it can also be driven by irrational beliefs.
What are your feelings about government’s mandating the wearing of seat-belts? Should drivers and passengers have an option not to wear them? How about cell phone use while driving? My point is that government has been telling us what to do and not do for many years. In most cases, we may complain at first but then we adapt.
What are your feelings about government’s mandating the wearing of seat-belts? Should drivers and passengers have an option not to wear them? How about cell phone use while driving? My point is that government has been telling us what to do and not do for many years. In most cases, we may complain at first but then we adapt.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
But these are good law-abiding citizens as you said.
WHY assume the worst from these good hard-working honest law-abiding" citizens who are free?
And violate the Constitution in the process saying this idea helps the country
(when it has a built-in mechanism to HURT the country via whittling away at the country’s Constitution).
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I am not a Constitutional expert or scholar, but it seems to me that none of our rights–whether of speech, the press, assembly, religion, or the right to bear arms–was intended by the Founding Fathers to be absolute with no limitations. In a free society, individual rights must be counterbalanced by the welfare of the society. Certainly the rights of the individual must not be deprived by government, but neither should one be allowed totally free access to the point of being detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the general public.
Last edited:
- Status