![]() |
Quote:
Nearmiss, are you talking about previous US governments here? If so which ones would you describe as being 'tyrannical'? Seriously, are you sure that word is justified? I categorise tyrants or tyrannical regimes as Pol Pot or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. It should really be used for murderous regimes - I don't see anything in present day USA that could justify that word. "America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now." Again. What are they doing that can justify that term? |
@ Hood, lol. Fantastic m8!! We who are about to be milked salute you!:grin:
|
Quote:
(This next question might seem crazy, but parts of it have already been touched upon in this thread) Should people be able to own anti-tank missiles, or SAMs? Is there a limit? If so who decides where that limit is? How do we interpret just where God intended that limit to be drawn? (very genuinely, I'm not trying to be facetious here. Just I don't know that is is spelt out anywhere). If there is absolutely NO limit then are we prepared to allow people access to small nuclear devices? If we don't are we infringing their freedom? Because, after all, nukes dont kill people, people do. ;) -------------------------------------------------------------------- To answer my own question - I'd say the reasonable place to draw the line would be fully automatic military style rifles |
Quote:
No offence but the Tyrranical goverment they had in mind is a throwback to when the British ruled, the USA is all about democracy now, I just find it slightly nonsensical to be so vehmently pro-democracy and pursue it's expansion like it's the most wonderfull thing but keep a gun behind your back in case it all goes wrong. the Vietnam war was lost, it became communist and the free world didn't implode when it happened, maybe Jane had a point. I don't believe all guns should be banned, there is good reason for some for hunting and pest control. |
Quote:
It amazes me that you can imagine the entire gun owning fraternity of the US rising up as a well organised counter-government force. You'd be reduced to small pockets of resistance blown out of existence either by the military or by the pro-government gun owning private militia. @ Stern Perhaps my cynical humour passed you by. Some cattle are ungulates. To make it easier I should have said that I voted but my political views are irrelevant save for on this one issue. @ Arthur ;) Hood |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:) Hood |
Quote:
Lets go back a millennium. Your Lord had the the right to - collect taxes - use your working power whatever hed felt it was needed to(only if you were extremely lucky he would deduct it from your dues) - you needed HIS approval to marry, he also had the right to F*** your wife in the first wedding night Also, no one was allowed to bear arms. Why? Because hungry and po'd farmers pose a threat, simple as that. Only if he called you as a soldier, usually unpaid and where you get your meals from was your prob, you were supposed to have arms -at your own expense of course. Every tyrant regime in the past 1000 year banned arms! Quote:
|
Quote:
If I lived in a 3rd world country trust me...I'd have an S-300 and some Russian tanks. Why? Because they're willing to sell them and I want to buy them. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.