ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,934
- Likes
- 23,559
No, you don't get it. You are failing to comprehend
/thread.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
No, you don't get it. You are failing to comprehend
So it is the state that prevents you from gunning people down? Not things like a moral compass or the fear of retribution?
Another friend of the failed analogy I see?Let's say a cop discovers an illegal immigrant. He was caught driving with no license. He wasn't harming anyone. Should the cop give him a free pass and just tell him it's not a good idea to be in the country illegally?
Can you cite the excessive cleavage law as well as the law against staring at same?
Thanks
Hint: it can harm someone if a passerby sees it and steals it.
This statement is straight out of the anti2a playbook, don't fall into the trap. They want you to think a gun is a privilege, does bad spelling by a poster make all posters look bad?
LEOs don't need a law that specificCan you cite the excessive cleavage law as well as the law against staring at same?
Thanks
Hint: it can harm someone if a passerby sees it and steals it.
An interesting, if not paradoxical, belief system.
From your statement, I read: Man can't be trusted to govern himself. It will result in anarchy. Man, therefore needs government.
What comprises Government? The very anarchistic Man that can't be trusted. :headscratch
Man can not be trusted to govern himself. This is news to you? How do you suppose life would be with no laws out there?
If there was no Victim how can there be a crime? Guns despite what liberals think will not go and kill anyone on their own. The gun regardless if it was loaded or not was in a locked car which technically should be considered locked storage, why MA is to dumb to realize this is beyond me. Should he get his LTC back absa-freakin-lutly. And could a society and exist without a government, of course they could, and here is why the vast majority of people can get along with each other the ones that wish to harm and commit real crimes would be singled out and taken care of. People would self police themselves. People aren't stupid we dont need the government to tell us whats right and wrong.
Man can not be trusted to govern himself. This is news to you? How do you suppose life would be with no laws out there?
Can you cite the excessive cleavage law as well as the law against staring at same?
Thanks
Hint: it can harm someone if a passerby sees it and steals it.
The bleating in this thread is deafening.
Man can not be trusted to govern himself. This is news to you? How do you suppose life would be with no laws out there?
Man can not be trusted to govern himself. This is news to you? How do you suppose life would be with no laws out there?
oh, i thought most people don't go around burning houses because its immoral. It has nothing to do with the law, but what you think is right and wrong. Would you like your house burnt down? No, so don't burn other peoples houses. Seems simple enough, no law needed. there should also be a fear of the property owner hunting you down.
You should just go ahead and give your definition of freedom first. My definition of freedom is, the ability to do as you like as long as it does not harm anybody else or damage other people's property.
Man can not be trusted to govern himself. This is news to you? How do you suppose life would be with no laws out there?
[
immoral? Should free men be subjected to your definition of morality? Do you pay your property taxes? It is your property- right? What will happen if you don't pay them? Would that harm anyone? Would the fact that your city would foreclose on your own property if you don't pay them coincide with your version of a free man?
Yes, yes it would... The other people paying the taxes of the town to pay for the services you either voted for or allowed to succeed in their vote.immoral? Should free men be subjected to your definition of morality? Do you pay your property taxes? It is your property- right? What will happen if you don't pay them? Would that harm anyone?
[
immoral? Should free men be subjected to your definition of morality? Do you pay your property taxes? It is your property- right? What will happen if you don't pay them? Would that harm anyone? Would the fact that your city would foreclose on your own property if you don't pay them coincide with your version of a free man?
Exactly.
Yes?
I would not use force against another except for self defense or in defense of a family member so I suppose that one is a "yes".
No, you don't get it. You are failing to comprehend the reasoning behind it. I am justifying when someone loses their rights. And you are not. You fail to answer my questions.
This is not about personal satisfaction. You are starting to get personal in this discussion, which turns on your emotions and turns off your brain. This is about you understanding the following:
I disagree with laws that punish people for doing no harm upon someone else. I do understand that one does not have to hurt someone to violate a law. But that doesn't mean that I blindly get behind them and support them as you seem to do.
This is dangerous to retaining your freedoms. If you take every law as "the law of the land" and as permanent without questioning them and their effect on your freedoms, then you are signing over your freedom as a individual.
I don't see myself as a piece of property like that. I see you have no further interest in this one:
Ah but he has harmed someone, you me and the rest of the country by using resources he has not paid for but that you and I have paid for. It doesn't have to be physical harm, it can be economic.
you're a sheep and you need to be herded around and to always have someone to issue you directives, commands, orders, and to be told how to live
no shit, we need statist valtrex.
ironically enough your post is #357 which is exactly what would take the pain away in a hurry.
i am seriously about to throw up my lunch reading the blind statist bullshit being posted in here.
This has turned into one of the better debates I have seen in awhile on here. Even if I don't agree with all of what Rick Roma has said so far, he has made some solid arguments, in particular post #412. BTW, this has nothing to do with my views on the guy in the OP, as I do feel he should be able to get his LTC back based on the details we were given.