hey guys - come up for air
Posted on 03/18/2002 4:18:27 PM PST by 45Auto
Edited on 07/09/2004 12:50:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Jim March is a self-described "gun nut," frustrated because the Contra Costa County Sheriff's office won't give him a concealed-weapons permit.
The towering redhead from Pittsburg has taken his beef with the sheriff over the permit to federal court, saying county Sheriff Warren Rupf and a few police chiefs in 2000 violated his constitutional rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at trivalleyherald.com ...
Yes, but not the batteries. ;^)
It seems to me that a nuke in private hands would be seen like a capital ship in private hands, namely as a pirate threat.
Privateers operated under the license and aegis of a State; privately owned nukes would come under the same constraints.
Aaarrr! There she be, my jolly boys!
If I say yes, then you are hysteric.
If I say no, then you say I'm a hypocrite.
I've said before that this is a question asked by fools who are not truly interested in freedom or the RKBA.
"Unlearned and foolish questions avoid..."
If one has the means to build and/or own a nuke, then neither you nor I will probably ever know about it until he uses it. Those that have the means to have one also have the means to remain undetected.
Between you and me, I don't give a damn what you own as long as you don't use it improperly.
You mentioned many posts ago that you were once a Libertarian primarily because you smoked dope. Now you transfer YOUR motivations for being a Libertarian onto others. You are not any different than the gun grabbing mommies who want to ban guns because THEY don't trust themselves with them.
Either you support maximum freedom for the most people or you don't.
hey guys - come up for air
And I don't, nor did the founders. Or they would have created an anarchy.
Just don't tell anyone I told you.
Which party do you think gets the largest contributions from international criminal drug syndicates?
Be honest, and consider the 'interests' involved.
Admit that your RINO's and, indeed, other 'Pubbies and Demonrats, are much more likely than Libertarians to be funded by criminal interests.
And let's see if we can't keep on topic a little better in future.
And what the H*ll is with this quoting CJ now??? Are you losing it?
What restrictions did the founders place on citizens?
We have opposing views on government. You seem to think that it is something to enjoy and embrace. If a little is good, then more must be better, as people NEED to be governed.
I, otoh, view government as a necessary evil that must be kept in check and tolerated. Stalin never stated that the government that governs least governs best, did he?
I guess someone decided not to take sides and simply slapped both.
I'd rather that TA not get busted but get warned to lay off the personal attacks, fabrications, unsubstantiated generalizations, AND that he stay on topic. This wasn't supposed to be a libertarian thread at all.
It's getting pretty old for people who should know better to rely on the old 'libertarians are dopers' routine. They usually do that to avoid the issue at hand. They cannot name names on FR because nearly all FR Libertians condemn drug abuse.
TA likes to get provocative, then when he gets his head handed to him he runs off whimpering playing the victim. All too often he'd be better off just staying on the porch.
I agree. However, it appears as though TA was simply trying to get them to admit that there are thoes types in the party. Perhaps not a lot, but they are there, all the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.