piercedan

I instantly like you.

I like the more traditional M-16 look. Looks like an A2 upper with the old school triangle hand guards. Gives me some nostalgia. Sweet weapon!

Now you are getting to the meat of the argument. If my family's survival depended on it, yes. If it was just going to be an inconvenience, but nobody would be at risk, probably not. Odds are, if I was to be witnessing the theft, I would be able to stop it without killing them. If it is a survival situation, then the rules of the game have changed. WROL? Yes, they are going to drop. I'd have me some regulating to do.

Yes, we need a pic. Congrats on your first AR build!

A buddy sent this to me. I thought it was sad from a liberty standpoint but funny. http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-destroying-police-cameras-in-maryland-2012-9

Good man.

To carry that further, what if the limit was $500? You see someone stealing something that you estimate to be worth $$600, but come to find out it was selling now for $450. Are you justified because you thought the value was greater? Good people do bad things sometimes. Sometimes a person can reason something out and make a bad decision. Their logic can lead them astray. For example, their family could be hungry and to get some money, the guy could go up to walmart and steal a load of battery cores in order to sell and make some cash to feed his family. Yes, the guy probably has made some bad life decisions to get him there, but honestly, would killing him be okay? Over batteries? Life is the most precious thing we as humans have. I think that there should be a greater consideration to taking that life away from someone other than seeing them steal something.

Yea, but you are accusing people of having common sense. :0) I think taking the time to make a value judgment before killing someone is flawed. What would the dollar value be? To some people the cutoff would be a $100 toy they bought their kid, others it would be a vehicle. What about ten bucks? Would it be okay to shoot someone because they stole $10?

Yea, got carried away. I meant to say I would restrain them. :0)

Opportunity Capability Intent Three preconditions for the use of deadly force. You military guys will recognize this.

I definitely understand your reasoning. The thought of busting my a-- to earn my way and provide for my family only to have some lowlife take it away enrages me. If we were in a different situation, as in food being scarce and jeopardizing my families survival, I would have a different opinion. Being that I can just go buy more stuff, I don't think I would end someones life over a material object. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to say "here you go". I'll beat an a-- if I have to, but then the cops will take him away. Besides the fact that theft is NOT an authorized use of force scenario.

Theft of property is bad. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. But to take the life of another person is a monumental decision. In my opinion, simple theft is not a justification for killing. Stuff is replaceable and ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is life, because in the end, that is all you truly have. If you take someone's life, you take away their ability to be reformed, to change their ways, seek forgiveness, and become useful and productive members of society. Stealing is selfish, lazy, and cowardice. Killing someone over a truck is stupid. That's what police, courts, and insurance are for.

If a Libertarian is against drugs, he doesn't do drugs. If a Republican/Democrat is against drugs, he wants all drugs banned for everyone. If a Libertarian homosexual doesn't support gay marriage, he doesn't marry his/her same sex. If a Republican/Democrat is against gay marriage, he wants same sex marriages banned for everyone. If a Libertarian is against expensive and bankrupt social programs (Obamacare/Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security), there is little he can do. If a Republican/Democrat supports social programs, he forces everyone to participate through taxation and penalties.

Maybe he was just trolling.

What is their reasoning behind it? Safety?

To use the ammunition analogy, it would be like limiting bulk purchases and only allowing 20 count boxes. That way, each box gets a 10 cent tax stamp instead of 200 count getting a stamp. Instead of 10 cents, they get $1.00.

That helps illustrate what I believe is the true purpose here. They are not limiting how much you buy, they are charging more because you have to come back for another cup sooner. It is about money in my opinion.

This doesn't really strike me as anything to do with obesity. More so selling more drinks because you get less per cup.

That is hilarious!

Interesting. The message sure isn't sugar coated, but probably short enough to actually get read.

You are right. If your water doesn't run and your toilets don't flush, and if you're starving, the look of your house is irrelevant.

Not this time, but I have a feeling sometime in the future he'll make the list.

Shot it off?! I got a friend who put one through his couch and out the back door while cleaning.

That's really nice. I like the hand guards, they are different than I've seen before.