amlevin
Regular Member
Ha! Maybe would depend on paper thickness and print size too. :lol:
Don't forget the "metallic content" of the ink too.
Ha! Maybe would depend on paper thickness and print size too. :lol:
As cute as this is, I hope you all one day remember that "two wrongs do not make a right".
As cute as this is, I hope you all one day remember that "two wrongs do not make a right".
I agree. If I am thinking the same thing as you, the government shouldn't mandate anything to a free society.
I mean what's next mandating we publish opinions in the local paper to exercise our free speech.
I agree. If I am thinking the same thing as you, the government shouldn't mandate anything to a free society.
I mean what's next mandating we publish opinions in the local paper to exercise our free speech.
If people don't like the law, they can, as was discussed in the Federalist papers, move.
So, you force things on people who are citizens as well as you, and if they don't like it they should just move?
I think some folks need to step outside yourselves for a minute. This law would affect none of us since we all own guns. So it's real easy for us to say, "sure", because it isn't just another law we need to comply with. We're already in compliance.
But there are people who have rationally decided not to own a firearm for various reasons. What about folks who may not trust their temper or mental stability? Need they adjudicate themselves mentally unstable so as to avoid compliance with this law? Is it really sensible to create this situation?
Justifications aside -- how would any of you feel if the government forced you to buy something you never owned and saw no need for?
And what is the point of forcing people who don't want guns to buy them? What does that accomplish?
On the subject of Obamacare, here is an example of what Madison thought should happen, from the Federalist Papers #46: "On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter."
You really want to force people who detest firearms, would never use them, be more of a danger to themselves and others because of their ignorance to possess them?
I am all for people arming themselves, doing for themselves but I am against mandating you must do anything. A volunteer army is the only proper army. Like has been brought out it would be better to give tax incentives.
C'mon do you really wanna go ADDING anything to the current tax code that is measured not in pages but in POUNDS?
Adding to the criminal code is better, then?
Let's not forget that even SD isn't taking this law seriously, it is drafted to show the ridiculousness of the Federal healthcare bill.
Yeah, but that stuff always bugs me. Look at how many people are defending this law on its own merits, not merely as an amusing way of making a point.
Them Founders sure didn't like periods did they? Was there a national shortage or something? Printers charge extra for 'em maybe? Yeesh