Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThird paragraph...
Normally I'm not much of a joiner, but here's an organization I think I could really get behind:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/28/gun-owners-without-borders/
"Gun Owners Without Borders supports an inalienable right of people to resist any attempts to exterminate them, regardless of the source or justification for the attempted extermination."
So you agree with the idea of a guy about to be arrested and most likely put to death because he decided to, I dunno, kill a load of school kids, shooting at the police who are trying to arrest him? You view that as his inalienable right?
Come on, stop trolling.
Originally posted by agrysonIncidentally, the concept of "rights" is a bit messed up anyway. More a case of interlocking duties IMO.
Third paragraph...
"Gun Owners Without Borders supports an inalienable right of people to resist any attempts to exterminate them, regardless of the source or justification for the attempted extermination."
So you agree with the idea of a guy about to be arrested and most likely put to death because he decided to, I dunno, kill a load of school kids, s ...[text shortened]... o are trying to arrest him? You view that as his inalienable right?
Come on, stop trolling.
Originally posted by lepomisYeah..............
That would be fine, if they don't already own one. They should be able to defend themselves against whoever is after them. It shouldn't matter if they are against their government or with their government.
I'm going to back away from this thread........
Slowly.
Sorry, but it's not doing much to dispel the notion of Yanks as gun toting nuts....
Originally posted by lepomisMaybe, I just saw it as a very sincere "call to arms" if you will. Since it's a nutty idea, and my interpretation was that this site was trying to reduce the nutty factor, I was inferring that I don't think it's doing its job. If however I'm misinterpreting a facetious link as a serious statement of belief in the right to bear arms as being a universal human one, then carry on and I should lighten up a bit.
I don't think anyone was trying to dispel it.
Originally posted by agrysonOh sure, it's a little tongue-in-cheek....... a little 🙂
Maybe, I just saw it as a very sincere "call to arms" if you will. Since it's a nutty idea, and my interpretation was that this site was trying to reduce the nutty factor, I was inferring that I don't think it's doing its job. If however I'm misinterpreting a facetious link as a serious statement of belief in the right to bear arms as being a universal human one, then carry on and I should lighten up a bit.