sigmtnman

I've been amazed at what some blind folks can do.  It would not surprise me if they could memorize where to place the gun and hold it to hit the targets well enough to pass.  May take a good bit of shooting, but not unreasonable to think they have the ability.  It also seems reasonable that if attacked they could get a gut shot with something concealed.

  Well, I can't determine how you will take things.  Nanny state is a descriptor of a government and I know you have used it before in reference to what you believe is an overreaching government.    It is interesting that you use a reply to me to go on a rant accusing posters of anti-government views and questioning their sincerity and integrity.  Especially after starting your reply whining about "someone attaching unflattering, even insulting labels to others".  No matter which of us, it's still funny.  I reckon our discussion is done in this thread.

Surely someone mentioned in the other two threads, but...  It could be a woman had it made.  Would make more sense to me with the dude batin' and all.

  Dang, I thought this was the thread-jack  thread. 

  No, you know me, I'm for a smaller .gov than you and that would include zero checkpoints, licenses for private purposes or permits.  I get that you are down with the nanny state that keeps you safe from bad things.  Wait till the majority decides guns are bad things.  Funny thing about rights is if you don't defend them equally, they fall together.

Oh, no I get all that.  I'm just a believer that victimless crimes allow the state to infringe on our rights, with good intentions and to keep us "safe and secure".  It's a slippery slope.    I'd rather something a bit more old school.  If you cause damage with your vehicle to another person, regardless of reason, you pay for the property replacement.  It would be eye for an eye for harm to another person after monetary compensation has been settled for property losses.  There really are no such things as accidents so the reason behind the "accident" is neither here nor there.    I dunno.  No matter if it is a random or announced, a checkpoint is a checkpoint.  Whether to see if I'm permitted to operate my machinery on a public thoroughfare or if you've been having sexual relations with sheep, it impedes our travel and is a violation of our God given rights.  Yes, DaveS, I'm whining about those again.      

If Bloomberg owned a gun, it would look like that.

  Those crimes have actual and identifiable victims.

  If there were a victim with actual damages it could be forced on them.

Hey bersaguy,  you can set your font size larger and/or zoom in to make everything larger with your browser settings.  It will help you out everywhere.

  It would be the same, if they were going around the countryside searching people, but he was referring to a contractual agreement between two private individuals.  You are allowed to give up your rights if you want and arguably that is what you would doif and when you bought a ticket to ride on one of the airlines assuming they require private security screening.       On another note, all of the laws and legal books deal with semantics.

  You have a God given right to bear the finger at the end of your "arm" too!

  He was kidding around.  Don't be such a stick in the mud.

  So nya :rofl:

    No, it's a valid comparison.  Both are with regards to rights granted to us by our Creator, codified by the Constitution and under attack by the government and the citizens who support the attack.   The only difference is that you are in support of restricting one right and not the other.  I can only imagine you justify it to yourself by insisting that them apples are really apples and oranges.

  It is difficult to question the validity or imagine the lack of long standing paradigms.  When you are accustomed to those paradigms it requires a change in frame of reference to see the them for what they are.

  If you understood, then you would not continue to post unrelated information. I'm not saying driving a vehicle on a public road is a right.  I'm saying that the freedom of movement is a right and that the mechanism of movement is neither here nor there for private transportation purposes.  Futhermore, the licensing and permitting of mechanisms of movement is a means of restricting and controlling the freedom of movement.   Looking through the wall of irrelevent words you posted, there is nothing about permitting or licensing of the mechanism of movement (horse and/or wagon). It appeared that the argument was that the state has the right to make people get licenses.  The license comes attached with a requirement to allow testing.  The people therefore must submit to testing to get a license to operate a mechanism of travel for private purposes. As far as your final argument, let's try something.  

  I don't think anyone is arguing that there are not frivolous laws enacted by government officials that fly in the face of our rights.  But to a further point, where does the law say they must register the horse and have a permit to operate the horse as a means of movement?

  The highways do not belong to the State, they are Public Thoroughfares and belong to every citizen. 

  That is good.    Cornbread makes everything taste better.  Kinda like the bacon of bread.  Nah, there aint nothing like bacon.

  Glad you found you a good one.  Both my sisters married yankees, and they're ok for the most part I reckon.  Except the way they eat on Holidays.  Took it a long time to train them on that.

Kubrick was a genius. :cheers:

  Never drank sodas, so I wouldn't put nothing in them either.  An 8oz coke on the other hand...  It's a wonderful thing.

    Just like you have no right to "operate a SCAR-17".    Are you going to tell me that they didn't think people had a right to ride their horses and draw their wagons down public thoroughfares without being unlawfully stoped and asked for papers giving them the right to "operate a horse" or "operate a horse(s)-drawn wagons"??

  I liked it just so I could unlike it.