It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm just curious why should we restrict someone's freedoms because what you think they own is stupid, and/or unsafe, dangerous?
originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator
I'm just curious why should we restrict someone's freedoms because what you think they own is stupid, and/or unsafe, dangerous?
I'm going to guess you won't answer my question because you cannot. It's a tough one, in my mind insoluble, because the question cuts to the heart of the debate between freedom on the one hand and safety on the other.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dfnj2015
Stinger missiles and tactical nuclear weapons?
really?
and you wish people to take you seriously?
no thanks
there is a difference between "liberal scum" and "liberal dumb"
originally posted by: Kurokage
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kurokage
Gun owners is the new 'black'.
Gun control IS institutionalised DISCRIMINATION.
So gun owners are going to be enslaved for several generations, beaten, hung, raped and treated like dirt??
Its a question asking where the line should be drawn. Why be demeaning with your reply. Its a valid question
my post was not intended to be demeaning sorry if it was taken as such the poster referenced "liberal scum", the reference to tactical nuclear weapons was imo dumb the jump from ar-15 to tactical nuclear weapons is ridiculous calling out that ridiculousness is not demeaning
originally posted by: JBurns
"No"
"We will just continue to make them at home, at CNC shops, purchasing them online (tax free?) or buying them from other owners who will not register them or follow any such blatantly illegal infringement of 2A."
Firearms simply aren't up for discussion, sorry Beta..Beto.
originally posted by: MisterSpock
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator
-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.
My apologies.
If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?
That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.
The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.
Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?
ETA: Just looking for a yes or no answer on that one.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96
Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96
Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?
where can I get a stinger missile or tactical nuke? Please offer a link. I'd like both.